Monday, August 20, 2007

More in the world of Indian Muslims

I wrote earlier of Taslima Nasreen, the ex-Muslim feminist (soon to be wife of PM ;-)), who faces an indictment in India for 'insulting Islam.' I also wrote of the violence against her in Hyderabad. Now it seems she has a 'fresh fatwa' against her life. She was given a month to leave Kolkhata, or she will be killed. This is how much the jihadis believe in freedom of speech.

And yet not all the news from India's Islamic community is bad. Witness a recent delegation of Indian imams to Israel, and what the leader had to say:

The time for violence has come to an end, and the era of peace and dialogue between Muslims and Jews has begun - that was the message delivered by Maulana Jameel Ahmed Ilyasi, secretary-general of the All-India Association of Imams and Mosques, during an interview with Ynetnews.

Ilaysi's organization represents half a million imams, who are the main religious leaders of India's 200 million Muslims.

In an extraordinary visit to Israel, organized by the American Jewish Committee's (AJC) India office, Ilaysi arrived as part of a delegation of Indian Muslim leaders and journalists.

Asked to address Hamas's call for jihad to destroy Israel, Ilaysi said, "I believe in peace and this is the message I take. I don't believe in anything that destroys another country."

The religious leader also said the time had come for Pakistan to establish official relations with Israel. "This is the right thing to do," he added.

These are honestly the words of peace, and I find them to be remarkable. I know PM thinks it is all bluster, but I have to disagree with him. The question, however, is whether this imam is long for the world, and how many Indian Muslims agree with him.

Perhaps Indian Muslims can lead the world as an example of what it truly means to show Islam can be a religion of peace?

10 comments:

Adil said...

No, I believe the Imam is lying. There is remarkably little in what he says that differs from the usual crop of Islamists. The idea that Israel should continue to exist is not a new one - that is to say, so long as it holds out the very real prospect of becoming another outpost of dhimmis. And this guy knows very well that Israel has come closest in a long time now to being in a state of servitude to its enemies. To the world of Islam, two clear and present issues stand out.

1 - Israel simply happens to be psychologically weak right now, politically speaking, and probably won't respond as efficiently to an Iranian attack, should one be forthcoming.

2 - The Iranian resurgence of late has forced Sunni attention to the problem of the "near enemy", and away from the "far enemy" for the time being.

This Imam has thoughtfully forged out an opportunistic path in all this mess: the latter problem can be held at bay by exploiting the former. I think he wants to shore up support against Shiite aspirations for nuclear possession by ensuring as much as possible that only a Sunni brand of Islam legal validation in Israel. As he himself demonstrates, his own attitude towards Shari'ah is not exactly ambivalent: "I was pleasantly surprised to know that Sharia (Islamic law) code is being supported by the Israeli government, whereas in India only local Muslims implement it. That is unique".

I bet he was surprised. That's why he went there.

In so doing, this will kill two birds with one stone:

a) it increases the chance that Iran will receive a commensurate response at the high point of war, continuing to ensure global Sunni dominance overall, and;

b) puts into place a long term strategy for Shari'ah to be even more firmly rooted in Israel, and thus having a potentially calamitous destabilising effect on the country itself.

By reprising the usual canards that Islam is a religion of peace ("Islam never says you should fight with another person. This concept is wrong," he said"), he is looking to Israel to do the dirty work for him. Because Israel is politically weak, it is vulnerable, and that has given an opening to Muslims, both Sunni and Shia, to use it as a proxy war machine in their civil war against each other. This Sunni just wants to get the prize first.

Peres and Olmert, I have to say, are complete morons, and seem to fall for this crap every single time. Well, they are in luck, sad to say: they will get more and more of the same as time goes on. The Imam's appeal to Jews and Muslims being part of the family of Abraham seems, at first glance, to be one that is looking for common ground. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Islamic conception of the Muslim role in the hierarchy in the Abrahamic family is utterly different to that of Judaism's: Muslims have been, and always will be, superior to all others.

The Imam, and people like him, are counting on people to be stupid about all this.

Israel badly needs to get its clarity and resolve back up and running again. It already has a splendid reason to neutralise Iran. Falling into hand of Sunnis is not a good one at all.

PM said...

thanks for publishing my marriage invitation, but i haven't asked the bride yet..

dwave said...

"that is to say, so long as it holds out the very real prospect of becoming another outpost of dhimmis"

Could you explain why and how you Israel being on a way of becoming a dhimmi state?
About the iranian threat: There is litte Israel could do. It is a small place. There is a lot of upheaval right now in the military. Units that have been disbanded years ago are being re-grouped and re-deployed. There were several civil defense exercises. Actually, the largest since many years.

It is perspicuous that these things are not widely reported by the BBC.

Another thing that was only reported on a side-note was is the visit of the mentioned Indian Imam. It was hardly something newsworthy in Israel. I saw only a small report in the english-speaking online-edition of Yedioth Acharonot. Maybe there will be something in the weekend-editions. They usually have more of these freak stories.
Kind regards.

Eitan Ha'ahzari said...

adil: I don't agree. Whether the imam's words were a reflection of Indian Muslim policy or not is irrelevant. I think the guy was just trying to make a peaceful statement as well as to evoke some kind of dialogue between adherents of Islam and Judaism.

I'm not one to wholeheartedly buy into Muslim rhetoric as Red Tulips will testify, but I think we should wait before making snap judgements of anyone as long as they are not involved(whether directly or not) with terrorism and calls for genocide.

ratherdashing said...

Asked to address Hamas's call for jihad to destroy Israel, Ilaysi said, "I believe in peace and this is the message I take. I don't believe in anything that destroys another country."

Are we missing something here? It looks to me like the leader of India's "half a million imams" has just acknowledged the existence of Israel as a nation. How about reporting on that? Then we can place wagers on how long it takes him to backtrack on the comment.

PM said...

Adil is absolutely right here...

@Eitan Ha'ahzari

certainly you missed the role of Deobandi Indian Muslims(the group which Ilyasi repersent) in Global Jihad.

I don't have to really explain the role of Deobandis in bringing up radicalizing Hassan al Banna (founder of Muslim brotherhood) and Amin al husseini... if you are not aware of it, then query yourself about Jamal al afghani's (a deobandi also involved in indian 1857 mutiny, which had later given birth to deoband's darul uloom madarssa... thus they got the name deobandi) role in radicalizing or about Amin al husseinis indian visit in 1923.

>> I don't believe in anything that destroys another country...

or better say, they don't want that the monster they had build (Ikhwan / brotherhood) should now swallow them...

Deobandis were the main peoples behind crafting Saudi Arabia...(look for John Philby, a British Neo Nazi politicians from BPP (still active in attacking jews in britain)... and a Deobandi Muslim convert..)

further a smart person can himself understand.. what are they up to...

is it really a peace mission from deobandis, after creating monsters like LeT, JeM, Taliban and Muslim brotherhood.... or is it a need to destroy the monster they had build for their greedy deeds to fulfill dominance of wahabi Islamic....

the elephants teethes are different for showing and different for eating.. and if you need to talk about Indian Muslims, then do consider that Al Wahhab (founder of whabbi Islam ) was himself radicalized by an Indian Muslim, Mohammad Hayan al sindi (a missionary from Aurangzeb)...the Ideology he brought further was the same, which had killed millions of Hindus and sikhs under Aurangzeb rule...

Sorry, but you can't expect good deeds from a devil... especially when he is still speaking of evil like sharia....

dwave said...

PM, I know you researched this very well. But don't jump to early conclusions just because yu have found yet another source of Jihadist philosophie. The sources and origins of Wahhabism, in fact, vary.
And don't disregard the fact that even with globalization of Jihad, the very core of this religious movement remained tribalistic. In this context you could read the imam's comments as a statement against Islam and the Muslim Broterhbood.

Eitan Ha'ahzari said...

adil: I just took a look at ur profile and realizing you're an ex-Muslim, I consider my point regarding the imam's rhetoric moot. You know plenty about Islam; I know virtually nothing. You have an inner perspective; I don't.

pm: Here too, I will take back what I've stated. You have a lot more historial background knowledge on the subject at hand; I must admit I have none. I was just making my own "snap judgement" of the post. That's about all...

PM said...

@dwave

this is the point, how can you believe Wahhabis ... if they speak anything against those.. who are aligning themselves with Iranian Shias...

if they might have said, that they too want to change there sick religion sharia laws.. to stand with modern society... then its different, but they said the opposite... advertising for Sharia, a totally different law system with a hierarchically rights based on religious identity...

so Muslims men is most worthy..
Christian life cost 2/3 life of Muslim..
Hindu life costs 1/3 life of Muslim...
Women life cost 1/2 (wrt life of men from crossponding religion)..
I m not sure for cost of Jewish life... can you please tell me ;)

Eitan Ha'ahzari said...

Red Tulips,

I've made a decision to return to the U.S. It may come as a bit of a shock to those who know me well. I'm a hard-core Zionist and will always be. There are several considerations I have to take into account though and I will let you know about these privately.

Take care for now.