This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
Identity based politics leads to crime
Published on November 7, 2009 By Bahu Virupaksha In Current Events

The horrific incident at Fort Hood, Texas, should come as a wake up call to all those in the American academia who promote identity based politics:Gays, lesbians, minority, sexual preference, etc etc. Now the Muslim identity is becoming increasingly problematic in the USA and I believe that years and years of promoting identity politics has left the country without the means of even admitting to itself that the islamic identity clashes head long with that of a secular nation state. The US media is already concluding that Major Hassan's crime does in no way reflect upon the patriotism of the Muslim-American population. May be so. My point is that the growing alienation of the Muslims from the mainstream of western collective life is contibuting to the sense of unease and the killings in Fort Hood stems from that feeling of unease.

Let me at the very out set condemn in the strongest possible manner the violence against the  armymen and women at Fort Hood. My point is not to justify the crime but to say why it happened. Major Nidal by all accounts was being radicalised and his peers at Walter Reed had drawn attention to a presentation he made in which he seems to have justified suicide bombings. If thiswas indeed the case why did the Army not pay any attention. The practice of identity based sensitivity forced the authorities to turn a blind eye to the increasing radicalisation of one of their own. In a conflict between secular law and identity based fith based customs the Army must enforce the secular law and in the name of minority rights it cannot permit the radicalisation of its members.

Major Nidal seem,s to have been harassed for his muslim beliefs and humiliated for praticing his religion. By the same token, if an armyman or woman is humiliated the authorities concerned must make a full and complete inquiry and set right the fraying human relations. This is absolutely essential in a heterogenous army.

Finally, it would be a good idea not to deploy Muslims in the Army to serve in Irq and Afghanistan as they would have to fight fellow muslims. Secularists may not understand this, but practicing Muslims put faith above politics and the State.


Comments (Page 5)
6 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 
on Nov 13, 2009

Maybe you should just pick up and read the hadith (which I'm sure you googled it when I first mentioned it). NOTICE HOW I DIDN'T SAY THE QUR'AN.

How quaint! I didn't realize that "the" hadith was a single document. Oh wait, it isn't!

There are several hadiths, some of which are only considered by the Shia, some by the Sunni and so forth. So, please, clarify for me which hadith(s) you are talking about.

In regards to personal connections, I was using that as my empirical basis for stating that, of the muslims I know personally, who come from all over the planet, they have all fitted in fine with the multi-cultural community that I live in here in Canada. Ergo, I find no fault with their religion.

on Nov 13, 2009

Sirat Rasul Allah 576-579 "allah and his servant overwhelmed the cowards.  allah honored us and made islam victorious.  We were glorified and destroyed them all.  allah humiliated them in the worship of the satan. By what muhammod recites from the qur'an and by our swift horses, I liked the punishment the non-believers received. Killing them all was sweeter than drink.  We galloped among them panting for more spoil.  With one loud voiced army, muhammod's forces advanced....."

Surah (that's from the qur'an since you have so many friends that are muslim I'm sure you know that) 9:29 'Fight those who believe not in allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by allah and his messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth even if they are of the people of the Book (referring to the Bible), untile they pay the jizya (that's a tax) with willingness submissionn, and feel themselves subdued.'

Surah 4:89 ' They but wish that you should reject the faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing as they are: But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of allah from what is forbidden.  But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them; and take no friends or helpers from their ranks.

Surah 8:39 'Fight them until there is no more persecutions and islam is for allah.'

Sirat Rasul Allah 587 'Our onslaught will not be a weak affair.  We will fight as long as we live.  We will fight until all have turned to islam.  We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of allah and islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace'

Al-Bukhari 4:386 'Our prophet, the messenger of our lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship allah alone, or you pay the jizyah (a tax); and our prophet has informed us that our lord says: 'whoever amongst us is killed as a martyr there's shall be Paradise to lead such a luxurious life......'

Surah 8:15-16  'O you who believe!  When you meet the unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them.  If any do turn his back to them on such a day - unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own) - he draws on himself the wrath of allah, and his abode is hell0 an evil refuge!'

Tabari 9:69 'We were the first to respond to the call of the prophet.  We are allah's helpers and the viziers of his messenger.  We fight people until they believe in allah.  He who believes in allah and his messenger has protected his life and possessions from us.  As for the unbelievers, we will fight them forever in the will of allah.  Killing them is but a small matter to us.'

Sirat Rasul Allah 208 'When allah gave permisison to muhammod to fight, the second al-aqaba contained conditions involving war which were not in the first al-aqaba.  Now we bound ourselves to fight against all mankind for allah and muhammad.  The promised reward in paradise for faithful service.  We pledged ourselves to fight in complete obedience to muhammad no matter how bad the circumstances.'

If you want I could go on. As you can see I just didn't stick with the qu'ran.  When you look at the life of muhammad you get a clearier picture. Obviously though, you're versed in all of this considering you have friends who are muslims.

What can a person gain by reading the texts that islam calls to be holy.  I'm sure that you've thoroughly have read them and have come to your conclusion.

The terrorist faction in islam may not be shared by most muslims but it can't be denied as being a part of islam and is prevalent in countries that have an islamic theocracy. Islamic fundamnetalists can not be ignored or denied.  Certainly it is true that not ALL muslims are terrorists.  The majority of terrorists are muslim as you can see from this text.  That was one of the reasons Ashraf, who was a jewish poet, who mocked muhammad was killed.  Sirat Rasul Allah 368 ' We carried his head back to muhammad during the night, saluted the prphet as he stood praying, and cast Ashraf's head before his feet.  The prophet praised allah that the poet had been slain, and complimented us on the good work we had done in allah's will.  Our attack upon allah's enemy has cast terror among the jews, and there was no jew in Medina who did not fear for his life.'

Again, what do I know, I've just studied their holy texts for 8+ years.

 

 

on Nov 13, 2009

Here's the most bizarrely funny 'analysis' I've come across yet.  The shitpile just gets deeper each day, as more nutjobs cower in fear of the 'backlash'.

on Nov 14, 2009

tHE REACTION HAS RANGED FROM THE PHILOSOPHICAL TO THE BIZZARE. WHEN I BLAME IDENTITY POLITICS FOR THE CRIME I AM SAYING THAT THE VALORISATION OF IDENTITY OVER OTHER ASPECTS OF AN INDIVIDUALS'S PERSONALITY BECOME THE RESOURCE THAT CAN AND IS USED TO MOTIVATE PEOPLE TO DO THINGS THAT THEY WOULD OTHERWISE NOT DO. ALSO IDENTITY POLITICS, BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF INDIVIDUAL SELF EXPRESSION, ONLY ENCOURAGES EXTREMIST IDEOLOGIES BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO RESTRAINT. NOW EVEN TIMOTHY McVEIGH WAS, I BELIEVE A PRODUCT OF IDENTIRY POLITICS EXECPT THAT HE WAS INFLUENCED MORE BY SURVIVILIST CULTS THAN ISLAM.

on Nov 14, 2009

I'd venture to say that McVeigh was influenced more by anger & hatred over Waco than anything else.

on Nov 14, 2009

Bahu, caps typing is really annoying to read - and it does not emphasize your argument at all. You raise an interesting issue, one that has kept people busy in the past - the struggle between culture and personal identity. It's hardly a new topic, though. You can trace it in litereature centuries back, one prominent example from the 20ies is Zora Neale Hurston's "Their eyes were watching god". You could find it in chicano literature in the US, I am sure there are many other examples that I am not aware of. It's a bit easy to blame a policy, don't you think?

on Nov 14, 2009

Hi the_peoples_party;

What can a person gain by reading the texts that islam calls to be holy. I'm sure that you've thoroughly have read them and have come to your conclusion.

As you didn't address in my earlier posting, please elaborate on which sects of Islam believe these hadiths? The reason I ask, is, as I'm sure you're familiar, different sects of Islam condone different hadiths. The Shia and Sunni certainly don't agree on the same ones. Furthermore, certain groups, like the Wahabi (an artificial religion actually created with the help of the British) have utterly barbaric and backwards customs yet I do not consider someone who is a Wahabi to be indicative of all Islam, anymore so than I would consider anyone who is a polygamist off-shoot from the mormon church to be indicative of all Christians.

But, let's not split hairs. If you want to talk about holy texts indicating a problem with a religion, then Christianity and Judaism have a big ol' bullseye thanks to books like Leviticus.

Have you read Leviticus in the bible?

Quick recap;

God kill's Aaron's sons on the spot simply because they brought the wrong incense to the altar.

Slavery is openly condoned, although it explicitly defines that Jews can only take slaves that are non-Jewish.

All kinds of offenses are defined which MUST result in the death penalty:

9: For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

- all the "shall be put to death" statements go on and are quite interesting, but include such oldies but goldies as incest, bestiality and so forth. Oh, let's not forget homosexuality-

13: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

And, just to throw into the mix, one of my favs:

27: A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

So, if you're a wizard, watch out!!!

Anywho, as you're a studied scholar I'm sure I don't need to go on. Suffice it to say, that just as you have used the above hadiths to "prove" that Islam is a barbaric religion, I too would then like to present the book of Leviticus as proof that Christianity and Judaism is also equally barbaric, what with the multiple forms of capital punishment, multiple offenses which include eating particular types of seafood and so forth.

Oh yeah, and one last thing. At the end of Leviticus, God makes it very clear that if you don't follow all the rules he sets down:

"31: And I will make your cities waste, and bring your sanctuaries unto desolation, and I will not smell the savour of your sweet odours.
32: And I will bring the land into desolation: and your enemies which dwell therein shall be astonished at it.
33: And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste.
34: Then shall the land enjoy her sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye be in your enemies' land; even then shall the land rest, and enjoy her sabbaths. "

Oh, yeah, there was a bunch of stuff before that where he also stipulated that offenders would have to resort to cannibalism and suffer

"wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your highways shall be desolate."

So, the peoples party, if Islam is truly such a threat then so is Christianity and Judaism, and we should all work together to abolish all three!!!!

 

on Nov 14, 2009

Quick recap;

You come from a Christian background and therefor perhaps don't know...

The Tanakh, what the Christians call the Old Testament, is only half the Jewish holy book. The other half was transmitted orally and written down from 200 CE. The three books of the Tanakh are called Torah (Instruction), Nevi'im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings). The other half, the fourth book, is called the Talmud (Study).

Most of the below are explained further in the Talmud and ancient Israel never carried out any of the death penalties (because the oral tradition forbade it).

Also note that the Hebrew for "shall" doesn't exist. There are only two tenses in Hebrew, perfect and imperfect. What is translated as "shall xxx" is really an imperfect and could also be translated as "may xxx" or "will xxx".

 

God kill's Aaron's sons on the spot simply because they brought the wrong incense to the altar.

No problem. G-d is allowed to kill people. This is not a guideline for us to follow but an explanation of a death.

 

Slavery is openly condoned, although it explicitly defines that Jews can only take slaves that are non-Jewish.

Slavery is also limited and regulated. Slaves are entitled to days off and have to be released after a certain number of years. It is also not condoned, but merely dealt with.

Slavery existed, Jewish law regulated it. That was a big improvement. At no point does the Bible insist on slavery being legal. It merely says that if it is, it has to be practiced in certain ways. Note that that laws was updated later. It only applied over 3000 years ago.

 

All kinds of offenses are defined which MUST result in the death penalty:

9: For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. 

Again, "will die", not "shall die".

The oral tradition made the distinction very clear.

 


10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Don't know what the Hebrew text says there, but this is again something that rarely happened because enforcing it would contradict the oral law.

 

- all the "shall be put to death" statements go on and are quite interesting, but include such oldies but goldies as incest, bestiality and so forth. Oh, let's not forget homosexuality-

Yes, those statements go on and on, and the "shall" issue remains.

(This applies to some statements in the Quran as well. Arabic also only has two tenses, perfect and imperfect.)

 

13: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

You won't find many Jewish communities who practice that.

 

And, just to throw into the mix, one of my favs:

27: A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

So, if you're a wizard, watch out!!!

I don't see that as a problem. Harry Potter is not real. And "wizards" back then were not what you imagine today.

 

Anywho, as you're a studied scholar I'm sure I don't need to go on. Suffice it to say, that just as you have used the above hadiths to "prove" that Islam is a barbaric religion, I too would then like to present the book of Leviticus as proof that Christianity and Judaism is also equally barbaric, what with the multiple forms of capital punishment, multiple offenses which include eating particular types of seafood and so forth.

I think his point was that there are Muslims who actually follow those hadiths, not that the mere existence of the words proves that much.

We have gay members in our congregations. If there were a movement to execute them I would have noticed. I do the security at the door.

And yes, certain types of seafood are forbidden for Jews. And I believe that I will die when I eat them, eventually. But I will also die if I don't. Religious and traditional Jews follow religious laws out of love for the Creator and because it binds Jews together, not out of fear of divine or human-administrated punishment.

 

Oh yeah, and one last thing. At the end of Leviticus, God makes it very clear that if you don't follow all the rules he sets down:

"31: And I will make your cities waste, and bring your sanctuaries unto desolation, and I will not smell the savour of your sweet odours. 
32: And I will bring the land into desolation: and your enemies which dwell therein shall be astonished at it. 
33: And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste. 
34: Then shall the land enjoy her sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye be in your enemies' land; even then shall the land rest, and enjoy her sabbaths. "

And I am sure He will if we go too far.

I grew up in a city that went too far and was made waste. Of course G-d didn't have to do it Himself...

 

Oh, yeah, there was a bunch of stuff before that where he also stipulated that offenders would have to resort to cannibalism and suffer

"wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your highways shall be desolate."

So, the peoples party, if Islam is truly such a threat then so is Christianity and Judaism, and we should all work together to abolish all three!!!!

I am all for it. Let's violently oppose any community that actually thinks these laws have to be enforced by us (and not G-d alone).

But I am already doing that, am I not?

 

 

on Nov 15, 2009

What do you mean, Harry Potter is not real?!

I couldn't resist.

Your most current debate does not really have to do anything with Hasan.

I don't know if there is a solution to the problem of defining ones identity if the choice is either or. Evidently, Hasan decided that he was not an American but rather a fundamentalist muslim, and that his religious identity trumps the constitution and everything else. But that general problem of who you are and what defines a person is not restricted to religion, as I tried to point out (edit: Their eyes were watching god was published in 1937). This book does not really parallel this case, but the problem is not so different. Zora Neale Hurston was even strongly criticized by her contemporary black writers that her character wasn't black enough because she dared to write a book about gender issues rather than ethnicity. It's a book about a woman who happens to be black and not  the other way around. 

What does that have to do with anything about the debate regarding the nature of Islam and Hasan? On the surface, nothing.But this whole debate comes down to the question, was he an american muslim or a muslim who had an american passport - and that question is transferable to many other issues. It would be more productive to look for answers and solutions to negate the huge devide between the two that evidently exists instead of debating wether Islam is violent or not and who has more knowledge and friends to prove their statement.

on Nov 15, 2009

Evidently, Hasan decided that he was not an American but rather a fundamentalist muslim, and that his religious identity trumps the constitution and everything else. 

You mean his evil identity,

There is nothing "religious" about murdering unarmed people.

 

on Nov 15, 2009

Duh Leauki. There are numerous examples throughout history to show that religion has been used as carte blanche to murder unarmed people. If those actions were true to religion or not doesn't really change the facts for me - because it had been sanctioned in the name of religion at the time and the people committing those acts had believed it. Right now I am thinking about the crusades (an obvious example) and more specifically against the Katharer/Albigenser in South France.

 

Allegedly, Hasan derived his identity from however precieved religious faith and that had more importance for him than say, being an US army office and all that goes with that.

on Nov 15, 2009

"What can a person gain by reading the texts that islam calls to be holy. I'm sure that you've thoroughly have read them and have come to your conclusion.

As you didn't address in my earlier posting, please elaborate on which sects of Islam believe these hadiths? The reason I ask, is, as I'm sure you're familiar, different sects of Islam condone different hadiths. The Shia and Sunni certainly don't agree on the same ones."

Leauki
I think his point was that there are Muslims who actually follow those hadiths, not that the mere existence of the words proves that much.

 

Yes, that's what I meant Leauki! You can go to any to the hadiths and read them.  You see how Muhammad behaved.  You see how your suppose to live like Muhammad.

 

Artysim


Have you read Leviticus in the bible?

Slavery is openly condoned, although it explicitly defines that Jews can only take slaves that are non-Jewish.

 

 

Leviticus, what's that? Sorry couldn't resist.  Most of Leauki's points are well and I just wanted to highlight on this one.  People in today's society we have this superiority complex when it comes to people from the past.  I've notice people living today think that we are intellectual elist society because we have airplanes, nuclear bombs, we can talk on mobile phones (aka cell phones), and we have something called the internet (thank you Al Gore).  People also feel that our society is much more civil than those ancient barbaric societys. 

We bring society up to our time thinking some how we are so superior and great compared to them.  This annoys me because first of all of our technology is based off of past technology.  Second, there are somethings that these 'ancient barbaric' people did that we can't do/replicate.  An example of this is a roman/greek era metal spears.  The craftmanship is so much more beyond anything we can replicate.  We've tried to replicate them and we can make them but not at the quality that they made these metal spears. 

Now with the whole slavery thing as Leauki stated:

Slavery is also limited and regulated. Slaves are entitled to days off and have to be released after a certain number of years. It is also not condoned, but merely dealt with.

Slavery existed, Jewish law regulated it. That was a big improvement. At no point does the Bible insist on slavery being legal. It merely says that if it is, it has to be practiced in certain ways. Note that that laws was updated later. It only applied over 3000 years ago.[/quote]

G-D constantly was telling the Isralites to be kind to their slaves for they too were once slaves.  If you go to any of the surrounding countries and compare how the Isralities treated their slaves and how the surrounding nations treated their slaves the Israelites treated their slaves way better.  Particularly setting them free after so many years.

Most of the things that G-D had the Israelites do the surrounding nations did not do.  During that time period, what the Israelites were doing was radically different than the surrounding nations.  That was the purpose to be light to all nations.

All the verses that you pointed were DIRECTED TO THE ISRAELITES and HOW THEY WERE TO ACT.

There is no comparison between that and the point that we have been discussing for they are two different things.

 

[quote who="Artysim" reply="67" id="2443480"]Hi the_peoples_party;


What can a person gain by reading the texts that islam calls to be holy. I'm sure that you've thoroughly have read them and have come to your conclusion.
As you didn't address in my earlier posting, please elaborate on which sects of Islam believe these hadiths? The reason I ask, is, as I'm sure you're familiar, different sects of Islam condone different hadiths. The Shia and Sunni certainly don't agree on the same ones. Furthermore, certain groups, like the Wahabi (an artificial religion actually created with the help of the British) have utterly barbaric and backwards customs yet I do not consider someone who is a Wahabi to be indicative of all Islam, anymore so than I would consider anyone who is a polygamist off-shoot from the mormon church to be indicative of all Christians.

.

If you talk to most Christians that read their scriptures on a regular bases they do not consider mormons christians, but that is neither here nor there.

 

on Nov 15, 2009

I tried to get my quotes out of your quotes but its not working.  I even deleted the area that said such and such person quote and it insists that its still there.

I gave up and just bolded my quotes.

Its currently has gone fubar.

My sincere apologies for the reading monstrosity that I have created. 

Utemia, my point to the discussion was you need to get the root cause.  The root cause is in their holy texts for some of these show how Muhammad lived.

I do understand what you are saying but that's just an underlining issue that is caused by the root issue.  Again, that is why I've state what their holy text has said and not saying well my friend Afzal says this and he does this.

on Nov 15, 2009

Duh Leauki. There are numerous examples throughout history to show that religion has been used as carte blanche to murder unarmed people

And you are adding to that by referring to evil as "religion".

 

on Nov 15, 2009

The Shia and Sunni certainly don't agree on the same ones. Furthermore, certain groups, like the Wahabi (an artificial religion actually created with the help of the British) have utterly barbaric and backwards customs yet I do not consider someone who is a Wahabi to be indicative of all Islam, anymore so than I would consider anyone who is a polygamist off-shoot from the mormon church to be indicative of all Christians.

You are right that Wahabi'ism is artificial. But what do the British have to do with it? Muhammed Ibn Abd Al-Wahab never had any contact with the British, did he?

 

6 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6