a graveyard for human rights? the ummah
Another long comment so best responded in a post.
This comment is from: Author : Thcoder (IP: 202.56.7.174 , 202.56.7.174)
@ Thcoder, I have responded in between your text for convenience.
@littleindian,
i am sorry, could not manage time to read the whole post. have read a part. yeah, I am a muslim too. I never support such terrorism. I am not a big practicing Muslim. So don’t know much inside things. thats surely my badluck. like you, I am also looking for the meaning of fundamentalism.
Before I reply to your comment, may I point out that you have confirmed you do not know “much inside things”. I assume you refer to your knowledge or reading of the texts in Quran. So it is possible that many points you have raised is not necessarily correct.
i think that person’s comment about fundamentalism is not wrong. see it: LINK
Believing in fundamental things does not mean that it can’t be changed. A core theory of medicine, mathematics can be changed. yes, in islam it can’t be changed because Al Quaran and Al Hadiths can’t be changed. But yes, they can be re-interpreted.
If the core of science and knowledge can be questioned and changed, I question why the core theory of Islam CANNOT be changed?
Islam is a religion that is believed to be the words of God revealed to a SINGLE individual 1400 years ago said. Unlike, say the Bible which is a record of events that happened in public, there are no witnesses, nor evidence that any such revelation did happen. But Islam is a religion that does not allow any individual to QUESTION.
Islam calls for the universal Ummah, for all to be ruled under the Shariya Law.
Rousseau said,
Every law the people has not ratified in person is null and void — is, in fact, not a law.
Why should I be forced to live under the Shariya Law if as a non-believer I will never have the right to question it?
That goes against the rights of every individual human being.
To me any such religion that denies me my individual rights, because I have no evidence to believe in it other than the word in a text written years ago; I cannot consider such a religion to be of peace, but of INTOLERANCE.
The many things of Islam highly depend on interpretation of Quaran and Hadith. A believe that has be believed by millions of people may changed after a new interpretation of the Al Quaran and Hadith. The terrorists that are killing people, I strongly believe, are due to misinterpretation of Islam -> Al Quran and Hadith.
The terrorists who they are the faction of muslims that have correctly interpreted Islam and are killing in the name of Islam.
It cannot be disputed, Islam has text in its Holy book that can be interpreted in such extreme ways that allow killings as we saw in Mumbai. As long as their are texts in Quran, that CAN BE represented as a directive to kill non-believers, then to claim mis-representation is itself a mis-representation of Quran.
“Islam is a religion of peace? Only when there are no non-believers left.”
When we discuss, I think we should discuss fairly without going for an quick conclusion. Can you name any religion that advises to break the peace? See, you are an Indian. Each year, many Hindus kills many Muslims, burn their houses. Is it the core theory of Hindu religion? I don’t believe. All religion came for peach and happiness on the earth. But a part of mis-believers always go out of the circle and spoil the peace. Thats a common problem and it should be faced unitedly rather than blaming each other.
Yes. Islam.
A religion that does advice to break the peace – preach religious intolerance.
Before you bring Hindu killings here, explain why,
- Why were the school textbooks in Pakistan “Islamicised” in the 80’s? – To promote intolerance.
- Why are Hindus being killed and raped and ethnically cleansed by muslims in Bangladesh? ? Because of intolerance based on religion.
- Why is it, in nearly all inter-religion conflicts past and present, one side is islam?
The denominator? Islam’s intolerance of all other religions.
As long as such conflicts, such terrorism continues in name of Islam it cannot be called a religion of peace.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is also a fundamental ideology that accepts every humans’ individual rights. The indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights has been confirmed by the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action:
“ All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and related. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis ”—Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, World Conference on Human Rights, 1993
Yet muslims are unable to accept it? Why?
Why the need for the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam of 1990?
A declaration that does not guarantee EQUAL RIGHTS, but merely EQUAL DIGNITY. And does not give a guarantee of FREEDOM OF RELIGION?
And it places the responsibility for defending those rights, NOT on the United Nations, but upon the entire Ummah. An Ummah that only represents a fraction of the world’s community – NOT UNIVERSAL. Then how can Islam be a religion of peace, if it cannot accept other religions to be equal?
To face together and not blame each other?
It is Pakistan that has refused to deal with terrorism arising from her soil for 60 years. The blame of the Mumbai killing is SOLELY on Pakistan. Pakistan can try and point blame back to India, the world will no longer fall for it.
The circle of killings
How far in back in history do you dare to go back to find how this circle of killing started? I can take you back to the 10th century – the invasions of Ghaznis and Ghoris spreading intolerance and hatred – killing in the name of Islam.
The intensity of hatred towards muslim grew – for every hindu killed, every temple desecrated for every day of the 700 years of Islamic atrocities on Hindus. If muslims are prepared to kill in name of Islam, they have to be prepared to be killed in return. You cannot play the eternal victims and fool the world for ever.
Why don’t you think, who is the most beneficiary if India-Pakistan war takes place? Who is patronizing the terrorism? Where these terrorists get the modern ammunitions? Why USA can’t capture Bin Laden in spite of having world’s best technologies? Isn’t it a great joke that a man in hill tracks is much clever than USA->CIA->Pentagon and their beyond space technologies?
Good try bringing up the laughable ‘international conspiracy’ theory.
Who is patronizing this terrorism? It is a nation called PAKISTAN.
A nation and its lying doubletalking ex-President that has fooled the Americans for 7 years they were fighting ‘terrorism’ – while all along they have been protecting the terrorists themselves. And took $10 billion off the united suckers of america and diverted the money to his own homegrown terrorists.
The rhetorics following 9/11
Musharraf’s Address to People of Pakistan on 19 September 2001
I must tell them that I and my government are much more worried about Afghanistan and Taliban. I have done everything for Afghanistan and Taliban when the entire world is against them. I have met about twenty to twenty five world leaders and talked to each of them in favor of the Taliban.
I have informed Mullah Umar about the gravity of the situation. We are trying our best to come out of this critical situation without any damage to Afghanistan and Taliban. This is my earnest endeavor and with the blessings of Allah I will continue to seek such a way out.
“Pakistan comes first, everything else comes later”
If Pakistan is truly with the world to fight against the terrorists on their west front, why refuse to let NATO assault troops to use their territory to attck their common enemy.
Indo-Pakistan War?!!
There will not be a Indo-Pakistan war till it is of benefit to Pakistan ALONE. As vociferously confirmed by Musharraf, “Pakistan comes first, everything else comes later”.
Who was to benefit from the Kargil War? Pakistan, a nation obsessed for 60 years to take over the whole of Kashmir. Musharraf’s grandiose promise to fly the Pakistani flag atop the Srinagar Assembly.
If there is a war now, it will ONLY be Pakistan’s effort to hide its involvement with the ‘terrorists’. The military and the ISI. Zardari made a mistake by agreeing to send the ISI chief to India, not knowing how deeply involved the ISI is with the ‘terrorism’ they are claiming to fight against.
good luck. i will try to return later and read the post.
Luck indeed. Lucky that I am in a part of the world where I can exercise my rights to freedom of independent thoughts and my freedom to expression to write this. In an Islamic nation I would be dead for voicing my thoughts.
@ Thcoder, you have to try better to try and contradict my articles. I do not fall for empty propaganda.
