Friday
Nov 21st
| Let us talk about the holocaust |
|
|
|
| Written by Kazi Mahmood | |
| Monday, 18 August 2008 | |
|
Fredrick Tobin, who has been jailed on the charges of questioning the holocaust, has said that the holocaust is supported by three claims: the claim that Germany under Hitler’s control systematically killed Jews, the claim of gas chambers, and the claim that 6 million Jews were killed. He said that none of these are true. In 1945 after Nazi Germany was defeated by the allied forces a trial was ordered to punish the German generals, officers and those known to have cooperated with Nazi Germany and the third Reich of Adolf Hitler. The trial of Nuremberg as it is known in history was also to help the Jewish community get back at the Germans for what is called the ‘Holocaust’. Text books tells us that 6 million Jews died as a result of the holocaust and that they all died in concentration camps and after torture, miseries and all kinds of punitive treatments given to them. They were men, women and children said to have been killed by the Germans under Hitler’s rule. There are however many other historians and university professors as well as Germans themselves and at times Jews who find it important to question the holocaust and the use of the holocaust by the Jewish community to gain sympathy 60 years after the events. And this is where problems start for those wrongly said to be in denial of the holocaust. The critics are not necessarily in denial as they feel they have the right to question history on the exactitude of events. However, the people who question the holocaust are denied their rights and freedom to do so in what seems to be a total embargo on any forms of criticism of the holocaust. This limits the freedom of the people who lives in regimes and countries that claims high and loud to be the defenders of the freedoms and liberties of the people. There seem to be total freedom for these people to criticize others, criticize Islam in particular but they are NOT allowed to criticize the Jews, Judaism and the Holocaust and their freedoms – so cherished and adored like a goddess – suddenly finds its limitations: Holocaust is off limit! The limitations of the people who are supposed to be free in their countries in the West – which includes America, the EU and Australasia – does not end with the strict limitations imposed on them with regards to the holocaust. They are also not able to criticize Israel and its continued use or abuse of the events 60 years ago to promote Judaism and Israel as a legal entity. Besides the limitations imposed on them, the ‘free’ thinkers of the western world faces jail term and even more if they persist in presenting to the world a different view of what the holocaust is all about. The political conspiracy of the West to protect the Jewish community and their use of the holocaust to protect themselves from their own crimes against the Palestinians is more than obvious. Those who feel it right to question the very motives of the use of the holocaust to preserve Israel and protect it of all its crimes against humanity in Palestine and the occupied territories are condemned severely by the ‘freedom’ lovers in America, Europe and Australia or New Zealand. The so called freedom of speech in the west is supposed to allow people to think freely and to act freely too according to their beliefs but the big question is why can’t they protest or question the holocaust. They can however question the deaths of 2 million Iraqis (corrected from 12 millions which was a typing error) – killed by the US and the EU and the UN – thanks to their sanctions against the tiny Arab country. They are however allowed to criticize Islam and the Muslims for whatever good or bad they represent and they are to get away if they call Muslim names or draw pictures, cartoons of Muslims and their Prophets and the companions of the Prophet. They are also given gold medals if necessary or big pay checques if they do write books against Muslims and against Islam. Yet if they do the same against the Jews and the holocaust, they are jailed, they stripped of their honorability and they are banned from writing on the holocaust ever again if they do not want to lose even their nationality! They become outcast and they are kicked out of their realm by a set of laws that exist within the EU and in the US if they write or criticize the holocaust. But they are protected by another set of laws that allows them to criticize Islam. What is it with the holocaust that they cannot think against it or present a different view – which is the basis of freedoms – of the holocaust? There must be something secretive about it in order for the west, the champion of freedoms, to be afraid about that it imposes such tough fines and jail sentences against writers, thinkers and even artists who are against the ‘protective’ custody given to holocaust. Whether the Jews and the West want to protect Israel because of the 6 million killed (that is what they say) during the said holocaust is another story but why do they not allow people to speak freely on what they think the holocaust means to them? Strange it is for the West to impose such black outs on a subject that was supposed to be an open book for anyone to review. If the holocaust was supposed to be viewed without contest then it surely mean it did not happen the way it is declared it happened and that probably not as many Jews died out of holocaust and gas chambers as they claim had happened! In the name of press freedom and freedom of speech and of anything else you may think of, the right must be given to everyone to decide if they believe or not in the holocaust! Fredrick Tobin, who has been jailed on the charges of questioning the holocaust, has said that the holocaust is supported by three claims: the claim that Germany under Hitler’s control systematically killed Jews, the claim of gas chambers, and the claim that 6 million Jews were killed. He said that none of these are true. According to his beliefs, Auschwitz was a transfer center where Jews were led out of Europe to establish themselves in Palestine. The Austrian born historian also said it would have taken a much longer time for the Germans to kill 6 million Jews in 4 years during WWII. Regarding the claimed 6 million Jews killed at the time of World War II, he has said that this is a mythical number. He said one time Jewish historians claimed that four million were killed, then this number decreased by 1 to 1 and a half million. Now they announce that the number of Jews who were killed in the Second World War to be 500,000. But, they continue to propagate that 6 million were killed. Another professor Robert Faurisson, 76, who has two citizenships in England and in France, was a professor at Leon University in France. But, in 1989 France forced him to end his teaching career due to his beliefs about the holocaust and the genocide that happened to the Jews. He did not agree that Germans were killing Jews by millions and this landed him in big trouble. To read more about the two professors mentioned here, go to: Holocaust Questioned!
Comments (94)
  written by Reza, August 26, 2008
Holocaust is one thing and Freedom of Expression's limitation is something else. I mention this because talking about a historical issue needs historians and scholars with tremendous study to find out the reality.
So I wish to focus on the core of this post as I found it to be "Why do western countries ban questioning Holocaust by law and serious punishments?" and "Isn't it against freedom of expression?" In fact it is a part of a more important question that "What are the limitations of freedom of expression?" Holocaust in this case is a perfect example of those limitations. Actually there are so many other limits for freedom of expression and the most famous one is Hate Speech. Questioning Holocaust has been categorized as expression of hate against Jewish people. I think legislations against Hate Speech is truly necessary for society integrity. If you have a diverse society you can't let Hate Speech to be part of freedom of expression. Another example of this in my opinion is what we already talked about on Kazi's other post about offensive books about Islam. But is questioning a historical event that happened more than 60 years ago something can be called Hate Speech? May be and may be not. It really needs a vast study on current society to find out what are the circumstances. But as far as I'm concerned it shouldn't be out of question just because some people think its hateful. Unfortunately there are also so many other genocides in history of mankind, if we couldn't ask or talk about them so how our historical knowledge grow? (Take nuclear attack Japan for example) How we would find the real story of them that I really believe is the first step to prevent anything like that happen again. There is also another point in the post that western countries banned this issue and so it's a prove of their hypocrisy and that freedom of expression is useless because it is used for just particular goals. First of all, number of countries that banned this Holocaust questioning under Hate Speech cover is just 13, so they can't represent all western countries but more important they can't be the only sample of Democracy. There are so many there are so many other countries that rejected such legislation in the name of freedom of expression. Also in some countries they removed the ban after couple of years. In fact this is the power of democracy that will heal itself and during the time improve itself to satisfy majority of society. And so I really believe that one day this law will be changed by those people following the truth and those to find out the real story about this or any other issue. Any way thats just my personal point of view and I will be happy to read more and learn about it. May I suggest to focus on the main subject and not to bring unrelated (I mean directly) issues. Thanks,  written by Kazi Mahmood, August 26, 2008
Salam
Thanks for your willingness to debate here. I believe the limitations imposed on the holocaust and diverted smartly towards 'hate' speech is a ruse by the lawmakers in some countries to deliberately mis-use democracy and draw it to favor their views. This is one huge loophole - which should be called failure - in the democratic system .Today we do not really have democracies, we have controlled systems where 'emotions' runs the regimes more than the rule of law. The actions of the lawmakers to vote hate crime as a law is similar to the US voting the patriot act or Mauritius voting the Public order act in its harshest form in the 1970's. It is also equal to Malaysia's Internal Security Act (ISA). All these laws and regulations helps measures democracy and allows it to be cut according to the needs of the moment. That is not at all the democratic spirit or demands. It is foul play and it disavows the constitutions of the EU, USA and Asian nations too to limit democracy to a controlled system where the rulers are always right and the masses wrong. Whereby in a democracy, it must be vox populi vox dei! Come back to holocaust, it is banned in 13 nations - like u reported here - for the sake of 'protecting' the Jews and from questioning. It does not make democracy look better even though most of Europe did not adopt such rules. These are the limitations that will hamper democracies from flourishing in the near future and this is a trend that will not be reversed by any solutions the west will apply. Thanks  written by asma, August 26, 2008
Reza said that "Holocaust is one thing and Freedom of Expression's limitation is something else". But my point is that talking on any issue or discussiion on any issue are same thing. How can you ban Dialogue. if western countries give freedom of their people to express anything (even insult other religion) then no matters what the topic is? if the topic could be "Jewel of Madina" then the topic must be "Holocaust"....
2ndly holocaust not a hate speech, but if it is hate speech for a jewesh then Rushdie, sherry and all others's stuff also hate speech for Islam. then how come it "democracy" or "freedom of expressions"? written by Kazi Mahmood, August 26, 2008
Yes that is exactly what i mean. We cannot dissociate democracy and freedom of expression hence we cannot dissociate holocaust as a cause from freedom of speech as an effect. They are, as Asma puts it well, blanc bonnet, bonnet blanc - like birds of the same feathers! They are inseparable.
Reza said he believe there must be anti-hate crime laws in a multicultural society, I would accept that if it was a two way traffic. The world is a multicultural society, global in many instances and inseparable indeed. It is impossible then to adopt a policy that protects Jewish from being blamed for Holocaust while Islam is made the joke of the rest of the world! That is totally unacceptable. written by Reza, August 27, 2008
Dear Asma,
By that phrase I clearly mean that Holocaust (or any other controversial historical event) is one matter, and talking about limitations of freedom of expression is totally another subject. In this case it means, I can't talk about holocaust itself cause I don't have necessary related knowledge and study in this subject. But questioning Holocaust is directly a challenge for freedom of expression. So to be transparent, you and me are talking about same thing but with different words. In my opinion the one important point most muslims don't notice is that in a democracy people will define the government and laws, not vice versa. (to be honest I should say mostly) So when you talk about western countries or their governments you talk about people. There is no shortcut to achieve what we want about equal rights on freedom of expression. It takes time, and great effort and support from those people we can convince. Is it unacceptable to ban something like questioning and researching about Holocaust but letting other kind of hate speech being express? Sure it is and let me go more forward, even if one day questioning those 13 countries change their laws on that issue yet insulting Islam or any other religion must be confirmed as a hate speech. Imagine one day in france they reach the point that they don't need that punishment for those want to talk about holocaust, so will you agree that because you set a equation based on that then insulting Islam isn't hare speech anymore? Sure we can't accept that. So I think instead of making such equations we should focus on the core issue. The limitations of freedom of expression. There are already so many limitations enforced by law, so why we couldn't claim our right in tat frame too? The limitations in my opinion must be defined by law not by anger or time to time emotions. And because law is something totally dependent on people's vote in a democracy , we can make or change by having enough people in our side. There is no on/off key here to easily change the situation. For instance you can take a look and so many other issues that people changed during the time. written by asma, August 27, 2008
no i am not in a favor to set a law (which become rule and legalize to sick mind people to insulting ISlam) and as such there is no equations but when these type of cheap acts come out, western people call it "freedom of expressions" and they never explained what are the limitations?
Bush had said that this is the "freedom of expressions so the muslims keep patience and avoid to take it personal" when on the publishing of Satanci verses, muslims started protest. according to your point of view, if the limitations are set on the hate speech and western countries realizes that talking about holocaust is hate speech (cause to talk on it their relations will spoil with jews) then they should also realize that talking about ISlam (in insulting way) is also hate speech (their relations can effect with muslims also and Arab Muslim countries can also brign their religion in limitations of hate speech by stop supplying of oil). according to me, these words like "hate speech, freedom of expressions etc, are drama for making innocent muslims fool (like u) and as such there is no reallity in it. western people actually knows that muslims ruler and leaders are not supporting their people so they create propoganda but i believe on God, he is with us and muslim ladies by the grace of God will give birth to a true muslim Mujahid (like Salahuddin Ayubi, Mehmood Ghaznavi, Baberus, and so many others).. written by Kazi Mahmood, August 27, 2008
Salamz all
Disputing the holocaust is not a hate crime. No one has to gain by creating hate when disputing the facts that happened during the WW2. If that was the case, then what about the Christians wiping out the Muslims from Spain after 800 yrs of Muslim rule of that country? Is it hate crime to raise this issue? Its a historic one just like the holocaust. What the Jews are doing to the Palestinians is yet another form of holocaust. We have to defend the Palestinians against this type of mass extermination and attempt at the elimination of the Palestinian people. it is not a hate crime at all to do so. Hence if the 13 odd nations that bans debates on holocaust were to remove such ban, it should be welcomed since it will allow a safe and sane debate on the issue of holocaust against Jews. Now as for Reza's question that if such was the case - removing the holocaust debate as hate crime - would also affect Islam as others would continue discriminate and attack Islam, I think we should be fair here. If holocaust is not a hate crime anymore, attacking Islam is not a hate crime too then. Does that remove the Muslims the right to criticize and to act against those who attacks Islam? Not at all. On the contrary, it opens the debate further by giving more weapons to the Muslims to attack the originators of the attacks against Islam, that is the Zionists. The target will become clearer and more accessible for criticism and for actions by the Muslims. Thanks Asma for your clear points and you too Reza but I am concerned by your refusal to discuss about the holocaust itself! Yours truly Kazi written by Reza, August 27, 2008
Dear Asma,
You talk about "western countries" like they are a rigid unified party. The reality is they are very complex society base on their people (beside their race , religion or genre) vote. At least this is what they are suppose to be, but as we all know there is nothing perfect in real world so they have problems too. About freedom of expression, there are already so many limitations by law (that you should not forgot it comes from people votes) As far as I understand the only answer you have ready for any problem in conflict with other cultures and society is Jihad, Kill and Burn. It's real seems that if you had enough power you would already make such reactions. There are more than 5 billion people in the world that don't believe Islam, what do you want to do?! Gain everybody respect by killing every one against Islam?! I really can't understand you. Could you tell me how Bush can be a good representative for Democracy, but if a muslim leader does something wrong you will say it is not related to Islam? (which is true) I'm talking about a concept that already brought us so much benefits. If it makes me look like "fool" to you, ok let it be! I prefer to stick on something that has been proven during time to be useful and in favor of democracy instead of falling to violence to just satisfy some extreme believes. By the way Asma, may I ask you where do you live that you can't see democratic improvements during the time? written by Reza, August 27, 2008
Dear Kaza,
The only fear I have when I talk about an issue is my knowledge. When I find my self uneducated on a subject it makes sense to avoid challenging it and just make question to learn, same goes about Holocaust. I know that something horrible happened but with what dimension and how? I really don't have that kind of study. But clearly I think scholars should be able to make questions and go after truth of historical events. About this part of your comment: "Hence if the 13 odd nations that bans debates on holocaust were to remove such ban, it should be welcomed since it will allow a safe and sane debate on the issue of holocaust against Jews. " As you should know for example Denmark is one of those countries that already rejected any ban or punishment for questioning Holocaust (in any form) in favor of Freedom of Expression, so if I understand your point, muslims must admit that questioning Islam's fundamental is fair in Denmark? (or in any of all other countries that don't have such ban) But I think hate speech, that will cause social problems throughout society should be banned base on society's judgment that comes from people's vote. Any way it's just my personal opinion. Thanks for your time written by Reza, August 27, 2008
Dear Kazi Mahmood, again I'm really sorry for misspelling your name.
I apologize and I promise to never do that mistake again. I just typed quickly and again became ashamed of that mistake. written by Kazi Mahmood, August 28, 2008
In all fairness Reza, I do not see any problems if people criticize me or Muslims for their perceived faults. In a normal social state of affairs, we are supposed to accept criticism but we are also expected to return such criticism with our own observance and criticism. Fair game.
However, the point is why holocaust becomes a hate crime when it is only about disputing facts. Facts are to be disputed if they are blurry and non-supportive of the reality. An investigation should be launched on what really happened during the holocaust, which is being used by the Jewish people as a shield to justify their illegal occupation of Jerusalem and of Palestine. If that becomes a hate crime, then criticizing Islam too must become a hate crime. Fair game! But the game is not fair. They - non-Muslims - are not playing fair at all. That is the point of discussion. Why allow them to play unfairly and to accuse us of things we do not do while they walk away freely from all their crimes, obvious crimes indeed! written by asma, August 28, 2008
dear Reza,
you are in favor of democracy instead of falling to violence to just satisfy some extreme believes. i think Holocaust (which is banned) and "jewel of Madina"(supporting all) enough to prove the democracy of western countries.. the remaining issues highlighted by you "extreme believes" and "violence".... who is extremist and who is showing violence? Muslims or Western countries? in kashmir muslims showing violence and extremism? in Iraq whats happening? who is showing violence and who is extremist? whats happeining in Palestine (why west supporting illegal state, Israil?) the same case is in Afghanistan (taking name of Usama, Nato forces are bombing there from the last 8 years, what do you think no innocent has died there?) please tell me who is extremist? and who is showing violence? for knowing improvement of western's democracy these kind of operations are enough, coz its all representing their democracy very well.then it does nt matter where i live? By the way Reza, may I ask you where do you live that you can't see this end of cruelty in muslim countries and still stick to fraud of democracy? written by Reza, August 28, 2008
Kazi, let me ask a sort question before I continue with your comment, So you think practice of publishing those cartoons in Denmark can be accepted because in Denmark you can criticize almost everything , including holocaust?
Dear Asma, pick one islamic country that's is most close to your idea of Islamic government model, and then pick a country with most democratic model. then I will show you in every issue how democracy works far more better than any other system. written by Reza, August 28, 2008
Asma, I just forget to mention again that, you must not forget you can't judge democracy only by Bush administrations, same as west can't judge islam just by a muslim reaction.
written by asma, August 28, 2008
listen Mr. Reza, rules, policies, laws, (democracy) are made for implementations. you are only arguing on these terms, infact terms are available but there are no implementations on it (then it does nt makes any difference that what democracy is?)... or in other words u can say these limiations, rules and this & that made for only muslims.... especially innocent (aganin i m giving urs example)....
written by Kazi Mahmood, August 28, 2008
First of all Reza, you spoke of France, not Denmark in your early post. Anyways, my personal view is that if Danes want to publish in their newspapers, some cartoons - for local viewing that is - of other people's heroes in funny tasteless ways, be it. But the problem is the cartoons were made heroes of western freedom and were brought to the attention of the Muslim world for that matter. This demanded action by the Muslims and actions there was. Danish democracy failed Denmark, it did not fail Islam.
On the other hand, my interpretation of the cartoons are that they were intended to offend Muslims and the Danes expected violent reactions too, which they got. Now they are paying an economic price. Boycotts. I was informed very recently, last week in fact, that Denmark lost billions in trade with the Muslim world due to its stance on Cartoons. Now the Danes are saying they will stop producing for Muslims but will produce for Europe as an alternative. The Muslims too has alternatives, buy non-Danish products. You see the chronology? Using freedom of expression as a claim to ridicule Islam and the Prophet led to the Danes losing money and they are deeply affected by that. They are expected to loose no less than EU40 billion by end of the year. Not a good price to pay for 'excessive' freedoms and for deliberately causing hatred against Islam! Is it not? Yet back to the main issue. The cartoons did not justify anything but hatred by the west for Islam and Muslims. They are using democracy as the excuse to attack us in a subtle manner. We reject these attacks. Why? We are not attacking their culture, their ways of living or their beliefs. Why do they have to attack us then? Point made: I do not mind the cartoons as long as they are Danish consumed. After all, they do not represent the Prophet at all yet they are condemnable since the Danes said this is Islam's prophet painted as a terrorist. Simple. written by Kazi Mahmood, August 28, 2008
About democracy, the debate today in Asia is about democracy and Islam. Is democracy a better system than others? I would beg to differ and I would say democracy is all together a flawed system. The Islamic system is better by many means since it allows for clear and succinct discussions on issues and does not put the people's problems in the hands of those who cannot solve them - the MP's, Senators and Congressmen.
In the Islamic principle, a problem is tackled by the head of cities and villages and is discussed during the Khutbah by all the people who are present in the Khutbah. Yes we do not see this happening today but it was practiced in Afghanistan during the Taliban rule. it is being discarded today by the new Afghan administration which is a puppet show of the US. But there is tough resistance from the people that the Taliban has now control of lands that are only 10 km away from Kabul. So much for American democracy that it has to build huge walls of shame to divide Baghdad into 3 specific regions. The green zone, the Sunni zone and the Shia zone. Yes WALLS like the wall of Berlin is keeping Americans safe from Mujahideen attacks in Iraq today! What democracy has done to Iraq is worth nothing when you consider the number of lives lost! There is no country on earth that can claim to be a true democratic nation altogether due to the amount of fraud, corruption and biased policies that are being practiced and this from the UK to the USA, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Yemen, Jordan or Denmark you name it man! written by asma, August 28, 2008
Dear Reza,
as u mentioned i should not judge "western countries" by Bush Govt... fine... what about UNO? which unites all western countries (muslim countries also but western are active) ... what is the role of UNO in muslim countries (palestine, kashmir, afghanistan, Iraq ) as i highlighted above? why do u think that only western people are humans we muslims are not? why u think that the rules must be create by them and should be implement by muslims? why do u think that if a muslim kill ( like these low mentality writers) it counts cruelty and the blood is being shed of innocent (even women and children) in muslim countries is democracy? is it ur justice mr. Reza? is it ur democracy? written by Reza, August 28, 2008
Honestly I really like having discussion to learn and tell my opinions too, but when we go through any issue after just couple of comments suddenly I have to face something that I really don't how to describe.
Dear Asma said: "why do u think that only western people are humans we muslims are not? why u think that the rules must be create by them and should be implement by muslims? why do u think that if a muslim kill ( like these low mentality writers) it counts cruelty and the blood is being shed of innocent (even women and children) in muslim countries is democracy? " What should I say now?! When I said that I think "only western people are humans we muslims are not"?! When and where I said anything that can be interpreted by any way to that?! I really shocked. How you can accuse me that I think that "rules must be create by them and should be implement by muslims"?! For your information, NO, killing people isn't my democracy! In fact I don't own democracy! Democracy means people bring their vote to make rules. Is it hard to imagine? I kindly asked you, put every good system you like that exist in a real world in comparison with a democratic country of your choice and then see for yourself how democracy is far more better to other systems. I didn't say that they are perfect or ideally good. THERE IS NO UTOPIA IN A REAL WORLD. Really you think talibany system is a good sample of how to manage a society? written by Kazi Mahmood, August 28, 2008
Dear Reza, I see you have a little mis-undestanding of other people's texts here. Asma did not mean to say that you said all these stuffs. She was pressing her point with examples that I am sure were not meant to make you think you said such stuffs. We all do that. You do that too when you want to stress on some points.
I suggest you relax and do not take it personal here. You have good points they are being debated and you must get to understand the reason why some people would press their points with example such as those given by Asma. Thanks written by Kazi Mahmood, August 28, 2008
What is the Taliban system? If you go on youtube.com and search for Yvonne Ripley, you will be surprised at what this young revert to Islam would say about the Taliban. She cracks all the lies about the grouping and you would also be surprised to know that the Taliban was neither running a brothel in Afghanistan nor were they killing innocents.
Hence, the Taliban style is much better than what we are now left with in occupied-colonised Afghanistan. written by asma, August 29, 2008
i just answered your sentence "Asma, I just forget to mention again that, you must not forget you can't judge democracy only by Bush administrations" by giving the example of their institutions and highlighted UNO.
where i did say these are your words? i only tried to tell you that their all institutions are same not only a Bush Govt. hope u will understand... written by Reza, August 29, 2008
I wrote this after watching couple of her videos.
In my opinion the whole point she tries to make and her defends of Taliban is nothing but hypocrisy. First of all we should notice that there is nothing perfect in the real world, as same there is nothing completely imperfect. There is no absolute black or white. So could Taliban has some good adjectives? sure it could. But do we have a better choice? I think yes we have, and that better choice is Democracy, not by a little but by a far more greater margin. She defends a system that bans capturing picture by any mean, in front of a camera?! She defends Taliban then she gives herself to choose her hijab?! Is that kind of hijab she wears is same as that Afghan women had to wear during Taliban regime?! She engoys her knowledg and describe herself as a joutnalist and then defends Talibani regime that bans girls from going to school? She talks about a doctor that examined her during the time she was captured, would she explain where that doctor studied? Taliban medicine school? no! Germany! Ok, those are just some examples of what she never understand and doesn't bother herself to think about. But seriously beyond those jokes, the point she didn't get is that in a Talibani regime she can't standup and talk about everything she likes! She can't choose to wear or not wear which kind of hijab to wear. She simply avoid those fundamentally wrong rules of taliban and yes she mentions some good points like respects she received from them. What was the other believers and non-believers rights under a talibani regime? Being alive? Do they let others to publish and practice their own belief? Sorry but it's just unacceptable to live in a democracy,, use all tools it provides (by all fault that also has) and then talking about how taliban is a good system. I remember one time talibani soldiers attacked a football stadium that 2 teams was playing a friend;y match at the time. Their reason was un-islamic practice because players wore short pants. My point is, they don't ask anybody what we should do for example in a situation like this, they just rush in and attack because they don't believe in others choice. This could be happen during prophet era because he was directly from god and innocent (I mean masoom) but who else can claim that has such power and innocent?! Without those two, connection with god and innocent, who can claim that knows more than everybody else and has the ultimate answer for any problem? No, one. If you agree with this, then you have to accept its circumstances. A regime like taliban may has some good acts but because of lack of understanding the foundations it will soon become a disaster. take a look at other islamic countries that at their really days there were full of good intentions and willingness to be a perfect islamic followers, but because of lack of understanding those 2 important fundamentals they now are just other example of dictatorships that not even their people don't like them but also they act exactly against islam. By the way I don't believe that we can make a fantasy world in our mind and always talk about it, it must be feasible in a real world. It's easy to pick bad things happen by the name of democracy (as same by the name of god) and then connect them to the whole meaning by ignoring the more good things it brought to us. We should avoid that. written by asma, August 29, 2008
my dear brothers, Reza and Kazi,
i have read the book "in the hands of taliban" by "Yoane Ridle" (a british lady generalist caught by talibs and spend 11 days in their imprisonment, become muslim, she announced all the facts in a conference regarding talibs and expressed all the facts which was enough to brief talibanization) Moreover, she said talibs take me just like of their sister. she observed actual Islam there and now she is Mariam not Youanne Ridle..... i have read the columns about the "Afia Siddiqi" caught by Americans (ur so called democratics), she remained 5 years in their hands, now you all knows what is her condition? her 3 childeren are in America's custody... she is so injured that cant speak even.... why America arrested her in 2003 and still hiding her? instead of keeping her with respect (like talibs) they tortured her and raped her in groups. keeping in view of both the ladies, i would like to live with talibs instead of cheap americans. its better for a respectable woman to accept a Parda (talibs keep their women in parda like their women hiding their hands also) instead of presenting herself for rape.... written by Kazi Mahmood, August 29, 2008
Salamz
You are not being fair Reza. You probably watched part of the videos or all but accusing Mariam or Ridley of hypocrisy is far too much and I cannot accept that! She is a new Muslim and our bad attitude by condemning her outright is wrong. That is not how Muslims should greet other Muslims. You point out the weaknesses of the Taliban forgetting that the Taliban is a group of students only and not Ustaz or Leading scholars. They did well in many ways and the stadium incident u mention is one incident picked out of many good others. Unfair of you. Democrats too have their weaknesses (one pointed out to you by Asma about the raping of Afia Siddiqui) and you are too willing to obliterate all the ills created by democracy to try submerge what weaknesses there are in applying Islamic principles. You must do better than these criticism to make a point here. written by Reza, August 29, 2008
Dear Kazi, I accept that I used wrong word. What I mean actually was, "using something when simultaneously rejecting it's principals in favor of something absolutely opposite"
To be honest, it was my mistake. I don't mean she lies, not at all. I mean she defends something without noticing all aspect of that. I'm sorry for that misuse of wrong word. But in principles yet I would like to mention that Democracy in my opinion is better because it has power to change for favor of something better. I'm sure you can find so many samples of that. I'm not prejudice, and I'm not blind of its weakness and problems. But I also can see its good side too. I never think we have answers to all problems but I think we can use democracy as a base and as a power tool to improve society. written by asma, August 29, 2008
Dear Reza,
Yuane Ridle is not a writer( like sherry) not writing a novel (false story), she is a generalist and she faced talibs (not in dreams, in real). if you read her book u will find she highlighted talibs's demerits also but that was not the end of cruelty (facing afia siddiqi). so it clear your concept "First of all we should notice that there is nothing perfect in the real world, as same there is nothing completely imperfect". we (kazi and me) also are trying to convince you that nothing is perfect (talibs) but talibs's system is better than "western's self created Democracy (drama)". written by Kazi Mahmood, August 29, 2008
Do not forget that the Code Napoleon that came in existence under Napolean the First - Bonaparte he is - was a stripped down version of the Holy Quraan's canon laws. Napoleon had in fact urged France to accept the Quraan as its constitution but the obvious refusal by the extremists in his time forced him, with the help of his Persian friend, write a stripped down version of the laws in the Quraan that lead to the Code Napoleon of today.
This gives credence to Islam. Now do not come and tell me Napoleon was a bad man or a dictator etc. Am not going to debate personalities. I am debating on democracy and Islam and I gave a solid view why I think Islam is much better than the democratic circus. Napoleon himself had chosen Islam's Quraan. It is ok Reza that you choose democracy at all cost. I choose Islamic institutions instead. I am not alone, the numbers are growing worldwide and it will continue to grow. That does not make us 'Talibanists" au contraire. It make us part of the resurgent Political Islam system of which this Webzine here is a proud promoter! written by asma, August 29, 2008
Dear Reza,
islam is the best system (introduces by God). How can a human bring a better system of that... it means you are challenging God (he sent his last messenger for all of us and he left God's message in the shape of Quran) now there is no need ofany amendments of any improvements (democracy) in this system... you have explained that democracy is votes of people ( if people are in favor of stop Nimaz, Quran, fasting etc, should we do it?) but i believe in a system created by God not peoples... that is only Islam written by Kazi Mahmood, August 29, 2008
Thanks Asma for your support. East or West, Islam is Best said some Ayatollah.
By all means, the Islamic system of governance and justice has been distorted by the...'democratic' and 'free press'. It is up to us Muslims to bring the system back to the folds. I am doing my part, Asma is doing her's and Allah bless we will succeed. written by Reza, August 29, 2008
You know at some points you two also agree when you talk about numbers and grow of muslims support. Isn't that mean democracy?
You misunderstood me if you think that I'm in favor of all things we know as "western cultures". I think you have a image of democracy that totally has been distorted. (also may be I have some kind of that also about taliban) But to back on issue, I think we should focus on important fundamentals: How you want to force a society to accept Quran as constitution? Who has the right to interpret Quran? Because we all know that the only one who could tell us the truth was the prophet. but we want to make a society now. What we would do about different ingredients of our society? I believe that when we talk about democracy we also are talking about islam. Islam in my mind is democracy. like any other democracy from god. If you have muslims they will choose islamic rules. Asma asked: " if people are in favor of stop Nimaz, Quran, fasting etc, should we do it?" Isn't the whole core of this question out of real world? Are those people muslim or not?! if they are muslim why you can think of a majority that will choose anything against their faith?! What Asma says clearly will ended in something like her last phrase "but i believe in a system created by God not peoples... that is only Islam" ear Asma that system that is surely created by god and already is in work is a REAL WORLD. When a system wants to make all those necessary structures for a country full of different people and cultures and believes how you want to make it work base on Islam? Let's think like what Kazi mentioned about Boneapart. Let's think three of us are in charge for making a government in a country (just put all others beside for a moment) So we use Quran as the base of our constitution, is it ok? So tell me how you could do that? ok, now by any way you answered to this question, you made it. Now how you want others to accept it? ok after this you have a constitution that has been accepted by people. (just don't forget to answer the questions. I pass now just I want to go further) So we now need to make civi laws to manage day to day life in the country. ok? So how you would make it? If you mention people for getting any of these answers , that's democracy! Forget those not-happening stories some extremists try other believe to reach their goal. What is the meaning of "what if people want to kill each other?" or "what if people vote to rape each other?" Those kind of scenarios are out of question! isn't it clear?! If majority of people want to kill each other so aren't they crazy non-muslims! that scenario will happen only by zombies in a hollywood movie! We should be careful about what we think and the way we want to prove it. Let say a Talibani system is excellent. for a minute let assume that. So think that France , a christian dominant country, is governed by taliban system. ok? Could you tell me how a muslim or any other belief can live in such system!? For me it's obvious that Democracy is the only way, at least right now. And to me it seems that you equalize Democracy to for example, rape, or alcohol drinking or sex or... NO! that's not true, democracy is a tool not the result. if people don't believe GOD those practices will be common more, if they believe in god those practices won;t be there by their choice. And finally, yet I can't find any reason for Miss Ridely to defend taliban when she is exactly what taliban don't accept. I can accept she says, Taliban isn't as cruel as what western media and press showed. it is reasonable. There are also so many others that aren't the way media shows western people. like the way war in Iraq goes on or other major problems. But it doesn't mean that they are good example of what a islamic country should be. NOT AT ALL. written by Kazi Mahmood, August 29, 2008
Reza, there is need for a better example here. Islamic systems are to be used in Muslim nations not in France. Though I understand your point but it is not possible to base our debate on the imagination that France would apply Islamic laws. They do not want Christian laws altogether.
Your question is however well understood because you talk about a multicultural society and Islamic laws. Yes it is not possible to impose Islamic laws in a multicultural society. However in Afghanistan, it is obvious that such laws are applicable, not the democratic extremity that we see today. Pakistan too will head towards the Islamic system if given a chance, the same will apply to many Muslim majority nations, including Indonesia where pressure is on to adopt more Islamic standards. Malaysia is at cross roads and if the current government work out a plan with the Islamic party, it may ruin the chances of a democrat to take power and Islamic laws may become a reality altogether in Malaysia. By the way, you are wrong in your assessment on my understanding of democracy. I am too old to be mistaken on democracy. In my country of origin, I advise the Muslims - a minority - to accept democracy and to live with it and take advantage of it. But if I was in Afghanistan, I would not advise anyone to choose democracy as Islam would be the best principle. I maintain that democracy is corroded, polluted and is heading no where. It has very little solutions against poverty, nothing in democracy stops the rich gets richer and the poor, poorer. On this very site here we have stories on how much poverty has crept in the US alone this after centuries of democracy! No hope, no solutions and no salvation for the poor in the US, a democratic demagogically run state. I have seen democracy at work in too many places that I have decided that Islam is the best, at all cost and by all means. I am not born when the rain fell yesterday bro Reza. written by asma, August 29, 2008
Reza,
i still stickt to my point, islam is best. you asked what should do if a region has non-believers of Islam. islam tells us the "right of non muslims" in which they can perform their religious, social and all other activities. Even Islam not allowed to pressuries them to accept islam. Islam orders muslims (if they are rulers of that area) to protect their lives and respects.... so there is no need of democracy.... now plz answer my question: accroding to you democracy is that votes of the people, then why God sent Muhammad (PBUH) towards Arabs, if they are unites to worship idols and their all fundamentals? why God destroy their democracy by introduces Islam? written by Reza, August 29, 2008
Dear Kazi, you didn't try my raw example and didn't answer how make that imaginary country. (also Asma didn't) may be because you thought it's not good enough.
Ok, let's talk about Indonesia for example, would you mind to tell us who wants to apply more and more islamic rules into laws? (I think you will agree that Iraq and Afghanistan have not a normal situation because of long time of occupation and war and their government don't represent their people choice) so, who is it? GOD? Prophet? or muslim people? If muslim so it's a democracy, no matter what you call it, as far as it's people choice so it's a democracy. Also please notice that when I took france as example I don't mind religion, cause as far as I understand we all already accepted that we talk about an islamic acceptable solution. Asma, as far as I know no one can be sure why GOD did something or didn't something else. We and all those scholars just try to understand islam by Quran and what they have from that era but no one can be sure. You can ask every Imam and you will find so many different answers on every issue. Moreover I believe Islam is democracy, at least its what I can see in history. But in addition to that there was prophet with 2 important basics, one his direct connection to allah and second his innocent. So if you believe those two then you can't question what he done. Thirdly, why you call that system before islam democracy?! Is that how you know people's vote? You define democracy as same as JAHELIAT? couple of aristocrat slave owners that has everything in hand and did everything they want in the name of many gods they had and treating peoples like their properties/! is it how you know democracy? No my sister, go ask every scholar you like, what we had that time was ARISTOCRACY. a dark blind kind of aristocracy. Beside that, you think GOD was unable to gave enough power and life to prophet to conquer the world at that time? Why you ask this question vice versa? shouldn't you ask yourself if GOD wanted to destroy all other systems couldn't it happen by prophet? I think the answer is clear, yes GOD could and can, but may be we can't find the real reason as we are not connected to almighty god directly as prophet. And Islam that time was a democracy. Didn't prophet tried to publish god's words among people and convert them to islam? was it hard for him to force other people? Ask yourself why he suffered all those suffering to publish islam by people choice? People choose to be muslim not forced, is it true or not? The only time they attak others was when they had been threaten by others like qoraish. is it true or not? So I think islam is clearly a democracy and there wasn't force to it as same it shouldn't be forced today too. It's as simple as this, imagine US army left afghanistan, now you want to make a government and constitution and laws. Can you simply go there and tell afghan people , look we all accepted that islam is the only answer, so let rule the country base on islam, only islam and just islam! Of course they will tell you we want that, so how?! How you can bring this idea to reality? Asking questions like "what if people vote for drinking wine?" is really out of question ! how on earth afghan people would vote for that! And if the majority of afghan vote for that so where is their islam?! Let me become clear on this, if you think people are stupid out of mind entities that will fall for any lie every now and then, so ok go and force them and try to frighten them to obey your version of islam, and I'm sure it won't be successful as it never been. But if you think people, like you and me and Kazi, are able to think and decide base on their beliefs so islam is democracy and democracy for a islamic country will directly goes to islam. World has never ever had any other experience beyond that. The only one can interpret Quran surely and clearly was prophet. No one else can say islam is what I say, like taliban says. That's why we have so many different branches in islam and that's why we should try to find an optimum solution not a ultimate solution. Yet I really interested to see how you want to explain any other way to a better society. Simply tell me step by step the basic and fundamentals of what you think will result an islamic constitution and law and law without involving people's choice and vote. (that means democracy) written by Kazi Mahmood, August 29, 2008
Reza said: Asking questions like "what if people vote for drinking wine?" is really out of question ! how on earth afghan people would vote for that! And if the majority of afghan vote for that so where is their islam?! (unquote)
Interesting discourse Reza. Yet the simple fact remains that Islam is not a democratic system by itself. It is a system that engulf a form of democracy, a form of socialism and a form of communist stringent system. Islam is a way of life, democracy is not. It makes a huge difference overall. To go back to your quote, it is already been imposed on Afghans to booze and kill without having the chance to 'decide' in a democratic process. This is how democracy is working in the world today and it is undeniable. Democracy cannot survive without the gun powder from Washington or the treachery from the ballot boxes. Democracy is supported by capitalism, which strives on the democratic process to keep the rich, richer and poor, poorer. Islam does not accept capitalism but strives for meritocracy and an equal distribution of wealth, which is abhorred by democracies which are fueled by capitalism. capitalism is corruption in the making, Islam abhors corrupt practices. Hence there are huge differences between Islam and democracies. I repeat it. In Afghanistan and in many other countries, democracy is imposed on the people and it does not represent the people's choices. If democracy does not ends with voting hence Reza is right but if it involves other processes than voting, then Reza is wrong! written by Reza, August 30, 2008
Dear Kazi, just a short comment cause I think I clearly made my point in my previous comments.
If you read my comment you see that I specifically mentioned Iraq and Afghanistan. they are occupied lands so it's not strange that you can't find complete people influence. I think what you mentioned in your last comment is again what I said. Take pakistan for example, again you will see that there was a dictatorship regime against people. this list can goes on. You say Islam isn't a democratic compatible philosophy, and I clearly expressed that I think it's not only wrong but Islam is a democratic system. In absence of prophet muslims have not those 2 important base of innocent and direct connection to God. So they can not react to the issues and set the laws like what was at prophet time. Does democracy has problems? of course it does. not because itself but because lack of knowledge and judgment among its followers. Same as islam. Islam doesn't have problem, its followers have. Even in a country with majority of muslims you can see clearly that without democracy what would happen. There are so many examples alive already before our eyes! Yet I'm waiting to see how you can make such system you prefer. Could you step by step tell me how without people's choice you can do it? written by Kazi Mahmood, August 30, 2008
Democracy cannot hijack people’s choices and claim it is a democratic process. Democracy is not the universal system here; it is Islam that is universal as proclaimed by Rasulullah and this cannot be denied.
If I decide to do something in my life, that does not mean I am a democrat or I am using the only sacrosanct democracy. I am a Muslim, I decide to go to haj and it is ‘Islamic’ right to do so and this has nothing to do with democracy. Since in a communist country – China nowadays or Cuba and North Korea – as a Muslim I am still able to go to Haj. There is nothing democratic with China, Cuba or North Korea as they are communist nations. One cannot come and canonize democracy as the motor that decides people’s choices the same that one cannot claim it is Shaitaan that caused a person to do such and such bad things! Islam says for that matter that a Muslim should not blame Shaitaan for a Muslims’ sins! I cannot congratulate democracy for my personal or the collective decisions of Muslims in a Muslim community headed by a Mullah or an Ayatollah or a Kiyai in Indonesia for example since it is the ‘Islamic’ decision that counts. Such is the freedom of the individual in an Islamic system, undeniable and unquestionable. I will never accept arguments that say democracy is universal or the choices made by people are ‘democratic’. I think the humans are far freer when their decisions are not attached to systems and that is not democratic too. That is the freedom of choice and in democracies (some of them) there is freedom of choice but that does not mean freedom of choice is exclusively and uniquely democratic. In Islam, in Communism, in Socialism and in Hinduism, in Christianity you name it, there is a process and if freedom of choice is abided to by individuals or communities, what does it has to do with democracy? It is their Communist, socialist, Hindu or Christian choices! written by asma, August 30, 2008
democracy, which i can understand from you is the people's choice.... means u keep the ways or give options to others but the choice is their right..right? i agree and i m arguing with you that Islam has its own limits and boundings which is necessary to follow. what will happen with them?
sharab is available but u cant give choice to your kids to drink it or not? cause its haram in islam... so there are alot of examples like this... my point is again that the system produced by God is best. u cant make better than this. written by asma, August 30, 2008
Dear kazi,
just read ur commensts regarding the title, i agree with you. Reza is not answering my Question: how could a human make a better system (democracy) than God's religion (ISlam) he is insisting that Islam is itself democracy but how? ISlam has limitations and its own laws, set by God. if Quraan stop us from a thing how could we do it by getting the votes of people in majority? Reza's words that democary is the choice of people. But yes choosing of Islam (or any religion) or not is democracy but when u choose islam and enter it then u have to follow its restrctions, limitaions, boundaires. Reza hope its clear now. written by Reza, August 30, 2008
Dear friends,
How you would those rules in practice? isn't it what we are discussing? HOW? You magically find a person that knows everything about Islam? that person was prophet, he is not among us any more. What we have is Quran, and sira and hadis (you name it) who will be sure to undrestand them correctly and make rules base on them? The way you go, in a real world, will end with a group of Islamic scholars with power to force others obey THEIR SPECIFIC VERSION OF ISLAM. at the same time they can;t be sure that their version is what should be or prophet wanted to be! You can;t find any country living by that approach. you can't make anything like that without innocent and connection to god like what prophet had. That's the reason we have to find an optimum way, there will not be an absolute way or solution at all. How I can show this when you ignore all different muslim branches on their own ways? The only things muslims have in common that should be the fundamental of their society is GOD , Prophet and Quran. If you think people are KIDS then it's totally different. who is mature enough to decide? Can't you see on every issue , different muslim branches have different reactions? Is it possible to force one group obey others willings? Asma says the system made by god is best. Didn't we accepted that already?! That system we call it islam how can become a real world solution by constitution and laws? You tell me, how? I asked you more than enough. Give me simple steps of the way. Be sure it's impossible as it was before and it will be after this. The only one can be sure about his interpretation of islam is a god's prophet and no one else. That's why we have so many different branches in islam (that we don;t have when prophet was alive) isn;t it clear? written by asma, August 30, 2008
Reza,
accroding to you, democracy is the votes of people or their choice. so the people of the time of Jahaliat were unites in worship idols. they were cruel but they set their laws by their voting. so it was democracy then why God sent Muhammad (PBUH). again question is this. if democracy is best for all of us then why God sent their messenger time to time for telling us do this and dnt do this? especially why God give us a book (in which he tells us about what to do or what not). why God not ask us these things are with you (sharab, pig, other haram things), do voting and eat. why not he allowed us to do sex freely? (non-muslims are free for it) why not he allowed us to drink sharab? (there is no restrictions for non-muslims) why not he allowed us to eat pig? (western eat and nothing happen to them). i am working lady getting a attractive salary and no restrictions from my family but avoid all these things, just for the sake of God and coz Islam not allowed me . You want to say that i should start these things (i want to do) coz of democracy? (my choice) written by asma, August 30, 2008
Reza,
choice comes when u have options but if you have'nt it how u can chooose? In ISlam i tell you there are 5 ways to do anything: 1. Farz ( have to do at every cost like prayer, if u r sick then also u have to say prayer but u can perform it by sitting or lying) 2. sunnat (which is ur choice, if u do its better if not do no harm, like beard) 3. Mustahib ( in which u r free) 4. Mubah (dislike in islam but allowed in some cases, like divorse) 5. HARAM (which is not possible at any cost) now you can see the thing which are you talkin about, in the light of these options, nobody is allowed to mix these concept or merge these concepts with each other. written by Kazi Mahmood, August 30, 2008
Salaam
Reza, your argument is that we do not have Rasulullah and the Sahabat2 to implement what Allah sent us, that is Islam and the Quraan. That is a flawed vision. It does not mean that without Rasul the Quraan becomes redundant or Islam is not practical. Given that Afghanistan is at war it does not mean that Islam cannot be practiced there. It is being practiced in large parts of North West Frontier Provinces in Pakistan and Waziristan, in Pakistan too. The Islamic principle, Islamic politics and Islamic economy is well and alive in these places and in many more pockets of Islam across the world. We do not need the Rasul to be alive to implement Islam and to carry out his vision and mission, we need people who believe in the infallibility of Islam to fend off the democrats who want to impose their will and to carry the flag of Islam to success. How to do that? Revolt if necessary like in Afghanistan and Waziristan and Iraq used to be after 2003 and is still until now by large. Revolution is part of a process that will lead to the re-establishment of Islam as a political and economic system and it will happen. Not necessarily violent revolt or military or armed ones but a silent people's revolution that will wipe out the pseudo 'liberators' hiding behind democracy to cheat the Muslims of their faith and of the most universal tool, Islam! Ameen written by Reza, August 30, 2008
It's become a close loop.
Why you think all muslims can follow what you know as islam I don't know, but it seems that you have a good reason to believe it. I already answered your question, Asma. Also I told you how Islam is a democracy. About Prophet time I also described how it was a democratic way comparing to a dark aristocratic system they had. What you can't imagine is a country with different believes and different version of islam that you can;t find any explanation why Islam at the time of prophet was A SINGLE VERION religion and now it has so many different branches. You keep saying Islam is best, and I didn't say it's not! What you totally ignore is all other branches beyond your believe. I really can't understand why you ignore those fact. Ok, you mentioned sunat, haram, mubah,... Imagine you want to manage a country like Iraq. ok? with islam and just islam and without democracy. ok? i'm with you let's do it. ok? So , how you will define those mubah, haram or musthibs? tell me! it's as simple as that! Tell me who has the right to tell what is mubah what is haram,... (for a moment let's think in iraq we have just muslims, cause if there is non-muslims then you are already in a big trouble with your solution!) written by Kazi Mahmood, August 30, 2008
Reza, its agreed already that in a multicultural society, the people may decide to accept democracy, communism or even dictatorships. There is no absolute answer to your persistence that democracy is the only solution in such situations. I do not see why you keep a stiff line on this issue. There is no way that only democracy can solve the issue the way you pose them. We have many systems alive and any one of them could be the answer, not necessarily democracy. In many countries, it is dictatorship that is the answer and others, democracy and some communism. The people of dictatorships did not chose a dictator or the communist nations did not choose by vox populi a communist regime. They were imposed mostly. Hence there are many ways the equation you are posing here can be solved! This is about multicultural societies and this also in the event the society is very divided and Muslims are very minority. If Muslims are majority, it is not improbable that Islamic principles be used to solve the issues.
As for your question about haram and etc, it is clear we have the Ulema in Islam that decides on these instances and it is clear the ALL Muslims are aware of the haram and halal thingy. If there is need to impose it, there is not necessarily the need for the people to vote or decide on these, as there are surely Ministers and Ministries that caters for such impositions. written by Reza, August 31, 2008
I see democracy the only answer that can keep safe a society from dictatorship.
If you don't mind to live under dictatorship, so you don't need democracy until the time you feel how that dictatorship put everything including society and yourself in danger to be alive. Ulema, also have so many different idea on so many different issue. actually that's why we have many of them instead of just one. Do you accept that shiite Ulama decide what is good and what is bad? How about other branches? Think practical instead f ideal and you will see that it's impossible to have such a system muslims had in prophet era. Because prophet had Esmat and Vahy. 2 important power that no one had any more. Without them no one can be sure , as they aren;t, about anything. Do all ulema in different branches of islam have same position on every issue? They don't. even in same branch they don't think same. It's as obvious as that. Finally I must thank you for your time and effort and I wish you great success in your way. written by Kazi Mahmood, August 31, 2008
Reza, thanks for your points. However let me say that your arguments also apply to democracy. There is no unique democratic system. There are many proponents of democracy that thinks not alike other proponents of democracy hence back to your assertions. If in democracies, the diversity of opinions is the beauty of the system, in Islam the diversity of school of thoughts and the diversity of opinions are altogether the elements that beautifies Political Islam.
What is wrong with a Shia ulema? Nothing basically and as long as it is good to follow a Shia fatwa, it is fine with most Muslims. That does not dislodge the fact that Islam is flexible altogether. It is not true to state that without the powers of Rasulullah, the Muslim world is not able to do anything. The powers that Rasulullah have (notice I do not say had) are still in our hearts and our minds and these powers will not disappear with the bombs from the White House. They are always resurgent and always there to protect Islam hence this kills your views that without Rasul and his powers, we are doomed! I ask you frankly, do all democrats think the same or act the same? No do not they! Since a Serbian democrat and a Malay democrat will say other races are not to be given the same treatment as their races. It is obvious that you do not want to give a chance to Islam and do not want to defragment you brain from too much pro-American and pro-democratic brainwashing. written by Reza, August 31, 2008
I can't understand how this good idea can become practical, and what you mentioned doesn't help in this regard.
written by asma, September 01, 2008
i really can't understand why are you arguing with a one leg? your argue is baseless coz on one hand u said democratic is best and still deniying the Islamic laws and on the other hand by sticking on democracy u avoiding holocaust. what do you want? you are just imposing your view on us.
but ok i accept that democracy is the vote of people. and i want to move at this forum with democracy. now you have to agree with our views coz u have urself said that votes are democracy and there are 3 voters over here (u me and kazi) and 2 are in favor of debate on holocaust. so by the votes or democracy (by your system) it proves that holocaust is not a hate speech but democracy and everybody should talk about it. agree?  written by musharrafsupporters, September 01, 2008
I think it is becoming fashionable among Muslims to deny the holocaust. The reason why many Muslims are now almost immediately willing to believe almost anything which denies the holocaust is not because they have seriously researched the matter. On the contrary, it is an anger reaction. I think Kazi Mahmood suffers from the same problem.
First, let me state that those who either completely deny the holocaust or deny it substantially, or aim to argue one way or another that far, far less than 6 million Jews were killed (perhaps a few thousand at most), are basically going against 1400 years of Islamic scholarship. This point has been made effectively by Imam Hamza Yusuf here: http://www.hahmed.com/blog/2007/06/28/holocaust-denial-undermines-islam-by-shaykh-hamza-yusuf/ Briefly, we are denying the methodology adopted by Muslim scholars if we argue in favor of the above types of positions. Muslim Scholars accepted reports which were multiply attested and reported over a large geographical area. They considered the chains of transmission of reports. Multiple transmission was accepted and not denied. In the case of the holocaust, we have precisely this; multiple multiple and so many multiple reports. Thousands and thousands of Jews (and non-Jews) survive till this day to relate the story of how their loved ones, family and friends were killed by the Nazis in gas chambers and camps. Certainly, some of the details may well be questioned, but the facts themselves cannot be denied: the holocaust DID occur and many many MILLIONS were killed; precisely/exactly how many we don't now, but millions died cannot be denied. For Muslims to deny the so many thousands of multiply attested first hand reports of the fact of the holocaust is to rubbish away 1400 years of Islamic teachings, traditions and scholarship. If we are willing to deny all these first hand reports, then there is no need to accept the authenticity of any mutawatir hadith! cont... written by musharrafsupporters, September 01, 2008
The conference on the holocaust hosted by Iran was an embarassement for Muslims throughout the globe. We cry why so many dislike us, well, its about time we admit that at least some of us KEEP ON DOING SILLY THINGS!
With this in mind, let me respond to a few claims: Kazi Mahmood wrote: "There are however many other historians and university professors as well as Germans themselves and at times Jews who find it important to question the holocaust and the use of the holocaust by the Jewish community to gain sympathy 60 years after the events." Let us not exagerrate. There are a very FEW historians and professors who are so skecptical regarding the holocaust. There are a FEW Germans who deny it. The vast majority, the concensus, does not deny its occurence, though debates rage over matter of peripheral details. Now, the "use" of the holocaust by some Jews to gain sympathy is another matter. You can offer a critique of this "use" without the need to deny the event itself or without the urge to significantly reduce its scale. Kazi Mahmood wrote: "However, the people who question the holocaust are denied their rights and freedom to do so in what seems to be a total embargo on any forms of criticism of the holocaust." Once again, an exagerration. Details continue to be openly debated by scholars. We cannot know exactly how many were killed in the holocaust. The figure could be six million, slightly above or slightly below it. Ultimately we cannot ascertain the exact figure and historians have discussed this issue openly. All we can be very certain about is that millions and millions were killed, both Jews and the gypsies. There is no "embargo" of criticism of matters of details, but denying the entire event wholesale or making a massive effort at reducing its significance is an entirely different matter and quite unethical/immoral. Kazi Mahmood wrote: "There seem to be total freedom for these people to criticize others, criticize Islam in particular but they are NOT allowed to criticize the Jews, Judaism and the Holocaust and their freedoms – so cherished and adored like a goddess – suddenly finds its limitations: Holocaust is off limit!" You have either never lived in the West or you have lived here for a little while only and so are unfamiliar with the writings in Judaism. But if, IF, you happened to have been born and bred in the West, then you must be a highly ignorant person for making such a statement. My interest of study is comparative religion. In my private library I have TONNES of books critical of Judaism, the Bible and Jewish history. Go to amazon and do a search, you will find plenty of them. You will easily find books highly polemical of Judaism, Bible and the Jews as well as books which as critical in a scholarly manner. You will also find a lot of material where we have scholars debating details of the holocaust...It is not "off limits". But, as I pointed out above, denial of the entire event itself is another matter altogether. According to our Islamic standards, the holocaust is an event which we MUST accept as it is based on multiply attested reports, spread over a wide geographical area, so that it would be Islamically foolish to deny their authenticity. cont... written by musharrafsupporters, September 01, 2008
Kazi Mahmood wrote:
"They are also not able to criticize Israel and its continued use or abuse of the events 60 years ago to promote Judaism and Israel as a legal entity." This is blatant disinformation. Israel IS criticised. Granted, most remain biased in favour of Israel, but there is no "law" which states that criticising Israel is "off limits." If you criticise Israel, then that is fine. Supporters of Israel, for sure, will be upset with that, but the law gives you the freedom to criticise Israel. Noam Chomsky is one famous Western critic of Israel. There are PLENTY more of them. And what do you mean by "promotion" of Judaism? Many in favour of Israel are atheists, for whom the Jewish Bible is not the word of God. Nonetheless, even MOST believing Jews who defend Israel do not necessarily go out of their way to "promote" Judaism. But yes, SOME do. We should be careful not to present simplistic comments based on gross generalizations, including disinformation. Kazi Mahmood wrote: "The so called freedom of speech in the west is supposed to allow people to think freely and to act freely too according to their beliefs but the big question is why can’t they protest or question the holocaust. They can however question the deaths of 12 million Iraqis – killed by the US and the EU and the UN – thanks to their sanctions against the tiny Arab country." First, denial of the latter (death of 12 million Iraqis) does not in anyway justify the denial of the former (holocaust). Two wrongs don't make a right. If someone does something wrong, then Muslims are not obligated to follow their example! Second, you have made a false analogy. You are comparing an event the occurence of which is almost universally accepted and historically proven (holocaust) with a set of claims which are dubious and debatable and over which there is no concensus, even among Muslims (the event of 12 million Iraqis killed through sanctions). What is your reference? Iraq's population is under 30 million. Are we to believe that 12 million out of under 30 million died? I think it is probable that over a million Iraqis were killed as a result of the barbaric sanctions, even 2 million, but 12 million? Even the majority of those who despise the US would not agree upon the 12 million figure. Our problem is this: the types of arguments which are used to deny outright the occurrence of the holocaust, or to significantly reduce it (so that no more than a million or a few hundred thousand died), can be EVEN MORE EASILY applied not only to deny the killings of the Iraqis but basically ANY event of history! These are all the points I wanted to make. I hope some people here give respect to the Islamic tradition of report verification and stop going on and on denying the occurence of the holocaust in anger. written by Kazi Mahmood, September 01, 2008
First of all, welcome for the visit on our site. Secondly, Musharaf is dead meat. Thirdly, let me congratulate you for replying with some good points but also earmark you for being angry and unstable. Why? a/ You cannot just deny all what I wrote here in the article, b/ You also cannot impose your views as if they are the only right ones c/ Nobody here said Holocaust did not happen and I have the absolute right to question its fact |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
The next question is why in Western democracies, there is the problem of not allowing people to debate the holocaust? If they are so fond of freedoms, why ban and jail people who dispute the holocaust? Is this what democracy is about, that is banning people and jailing them for questioning historical facts?
Bring it on!