Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Islamic Extremism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Case Study:
    Genocide in Bangladesh, 1971

    Summary

    The mass killings in Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) in 1971 vie with the annihilation of the Soviet POWs, the holocaust against the Jews, and the genocide in Rwanda as the most concentrated act of genocide in the twentieth century. In an attempt to crush forces seeking independence for East Pakistan, the West Pakistani military regime unleashed a systematic campaign of mass murder which aimed at killing millions of Bengalis, and likely succeeded in doing so.

    The background

    East and West Pakistan were forged in the cauldron of independence for the Indian sub-continent, ruled for two hundred years by the British. Despite the attempts of Mahatma Gandhi and others to prevent division along religious and ethnic lines, the departing British and various Indian politicians pressed for the creation of two states, one Hindu-dominated (India), the other Muslim-dominated (Pakistan). The partition of India in 1947 was one of the great tragedies of the century. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed in sectarian violence and military clashes, as Hindus fled to India and Muslims to Pakistan -- though large minorities remained in each country.

    The arrangement proved highly unstable, leading to three major wars between India and Pakistan, and very nearly a fourth fullscale conflict in 1998-99. (Kashmir, divided by a ceasefire line after the first war in 1947, became one of the world's most intractable trouble-spots.) Not the least of the difficulties was the fact that the new state of Pakistan consisted of two "wings," divided by hundreds of miles of Indian territory and a gulf of ethnic identification. Over the decades, particularly after Pakistani democracy was stifled by a military dictatorship (1958), the relationship between East and West became progressively more corrupt and neo-colonial in character, and opposition to West Pakistani domination grew among the Bengali population.

    Sheikh Mujibur Rahman

    Catastrophic floods struck Bangladesh in August 1970, and the regime was widely seen as having botched (or ignored) its relief duties. The disaster gave further impetus to the Awami League, led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. The League demanded regional autonomy for East Pakistan, and an end to military rule. In national elections held in December, the League won an overwhelming victory across Bengali territory.

    On February 22, 1971 the generals in West Pakistan took a decision to crush the Awami League and its supporters. It was recognized from the first that a campaign of genocide would be necessary to eradicate the threat: "Kill three million of them," said President Yahya Khan at the February conference, "and the rest will eat out of our hands." (Robert Payne, Massacre [1972], p. 50.) On March 25 the genocide was launched. The university in Dacca was attacked and students exterminated in their hundreds. Death squads roamed the streets of Dacca, killing some 7,000 people in a single night. It was only the beginning. "Within a week, half the population of Dacca had fled, and at least 30,000 people had been killed. Chittagong, too, had lost half its population. All over East Pakistan people were taking flight, and it was estimated that in April some thirty million people [!] were wandering helplessly across East Pakistan to escape the grasp of the military." (Payne, Massacre, p. 48.) Ten million refugees fled to India, overwhelming that country's resources and spurring the eventual Indian military intervention. (The population of Bangladesh/East Pakistan at the outbreak of the genocide was about 75 million.)

    On April 10, the surviving leadership of the Awami League declared Bangladesh independent. The Mukhta Bahini (liberation forces) were mobilized to confront the West Pakistani army. They did so with increasing skill and effectiveness, utilizing their knowledge of the terrain and ability to blend with the civilian population in classic guerrilla fashion. By the end of the war, the tide had turned, and vast areas of Bangladesh had been liberated by the popular resistance.

    The gendercide against Bengali men

    The war against the Bengali population proceeded in classic gendercidal fashion. According to Anthony Mascarenhas, "There is no doubt whatsoever about the targets of the genocide":
    They were: (1) The Bengali militarymen of the East Bengal Regiment, the East Pakistan Rifles, police and para-military Ansars and Mujahids. (2) The Hindus -- "We are only killing the men; the women and children go free. We are soldiers not cowards to kill them ..." I was to hear in Comilla [site of a major military base] [Comments R.J. Rummel: "One would think that murdering an unarmed man was a heroic act" (Death By Government, p. 323)] (3) The Awami Leaguers -- all office bearers and volunteers down to the lowest link in the chain of command. (4) The students -- college and university boys and some of the more militant girls. (5) Bengali intellectuals such as professors and teachers whenever damned by the army as "militant." (Anthony Mascarenhas, The Rape of Bangla Desh [Delhi: Vikas Publications, 1972(?)], pp. 116-17.)

    Mascarenhas's summary makes clear the linkages between gender and social class (the "intellectuals," "professors," "teachers," "office bearers," and -- obviously -- "militarymen" can all be expected to be overwhelmingly if not exclusively male, although in many cases their families died or fell victim to other atrocities alongside them). In this respect, the Bangladesh events can be classed as a combined gendercide and elitocide, with both strategies overwhelmingly targeting males for the most annihilatory excesses.

    Bengali man and boys massacred
    by the West Pakistani regime.

    Younger men and adolescent boys, of whatever social class, were equally targets. According to Rounaq Jahan, "All through the liberation war, able-bodied young men were suspected of being actual or potential freedom fighters. Thousands were arrested, tortured, and killed. Eventually cities and towns became bereft of young males who either took refuge in India or joined the liberation war." Especially "during the first phase" of the genocide, he writes, "young able-bodied males were the victims of indiscriminate killings." ("Genocide in Bangladesh," in Totten et al., Century of Genocide, p. 298.) R.J. Rummel likewise writes that "the Pakistan army [sought] out those especially likely to join the resistance -- young boys. Sweeps were conducted of young men who were never seen again. Bodies of youths would be found in fields, floating down rivers, or near army camps. As can be imagined, this terrorized all young men and their families within reach of the army. Most between the ages of fifteen and twenty-five began to flee from one village to another and toward India. Many of those reluctant to leave their homes were forced to flee by mothers and sisters concerned for their safety." (Death By Government, p. 329.) Rummel describes (p. 323) a chilling gendercidal ritual, reminiscent of Nazi procedure towards Jewish males: "In what became province-wide acts of genocide, Hindus were sought out and killed on the spot. As a matter of course, soldiers would check males for the obligated circumcision among Moslems. If circumcised, they might live; if not, sure death."

    Robert Payne describes scenes of systematic mass slaughter around Dacca that, while not explicitly "gendered" in his account, bear every hallmark of classic gender-selective roundups and gendercidal slaughters of non-combatant men:
    In the dead region surrounding Dacca, the military authorities conducted experiments in mass extermination in places unlikely to be seen by journalists. At Hariharpara, a once thriving village on the banks of the Buriganga River near Dacca, they found the three elements necessary for killing people in large numbers: a prison in which to hold the victims, a place for executing the prisoners, and a method for disposing of the bodies. The prison was a large riverside warehouse, or godown, belonging to the Pakistan National Oil Company, the place of execution was the river edge, or the shallows near the shore, and the bodies were disposed of by the simple means of permitting them to float downstream. The killing took place night after night. Usually the prisoners were roped together and made to wade out into the river. They were in batches of six or eight, and in the light of a powerful electric arc lamp, they were easy targets, black against the silvery water. The executioners stood on the pier, shooting down at the compact bunches of prisoners wading in the water. There were screams in the hot night air, and then silence. The prisoners fell on their sides and their bodies lapped against the shore. Then a new bunch of prisoners was brought out, and the process was repeated. In the morning the village boatmen hauled the bodies into midstream and the ropes binding the bodies were cut so that each body drifted separately downstream. (Payne, Massacre [Macmillan, 1973], p. 55.)

    Strikingly similar and equally hellish scenes are described in the case-studies of genocide in Armenia and the Nanjing Massacre of 1937.

    Atrocities against Bengali women

    As was also the case in Armenia and Nanjing, Bengali women were targeted for gender-selective atrocities and abuses, notably gang sexual assault and rape/murder, from the earliest days of the Pakistani genocide. Indeed, despite (and in part because of) the overwhelming targeting of males for mass murder, it is for the systematic brutalization of women that the "Rape of Bangladesh" is best known to western observers.

    In her ground-breaking book, Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, Susan Brownmiller likened the 1971 events in Bangladesh to the Japanese rapes in Nanjing and German rapes in Russia during World War II. "... 200,000, 300,000 or possibly 400,000 women (three sets of statistics have been variously quoted) were raped. Eighty percent of the raped women were Moslems, reflecting the population of Bangladesh, but Hindu and Christian women were not exempt. ... Hit-and-run rape of large numbers of Bengali women was brutally simple in terms of logistics as the Pakistani regulars swept through and occupied the tiny, populous land ..." (p. 81).

    Typical was the description offered by reporter Aubrey Menen of one such assault, which targeted a recently-married woman:
    Two [Pakistani soldiers] went into the room that had been built for the bridal couple. The others stayed behind with the family, one of them covering them with his gun. They heard a barked order, and the bridegroom's voice protesting. Then there was silence until the bride screamed. Then there was silence again, except for some muffled cries that soon subsided. In a few minutes one of the soldiers came out, his uniform in disarray. He grinned to his companions. Another soldier took his place in the extra room. And so on, until all the six had raped the belle of the village. Then all six left, hurriedly. The father found his daughter lying on the string cot unconscious and bleeding. Her husband was crouched on the floor, kneeling over his vomit. (Quoted in Brownmiller, Against Our Will, p. 82.)

    "Rape in Bangladesh had hardly been restricted to beauty," Brownmiller writes. "Girls of eight and grandmothers of seventy-five had been sexually assaulted ... Pakistani soldiers had not only violated Bengali women on the spot; they abducted tens of hundreds and held them by force in their military barracks for nightly use." Some women may have been raped as many as eighty times in a night (Brownmiller, p. 83). How many died from this atrocious treatment, and how many more women were murdered as part of the generalized campaign of destruction and slaughter, can only be guessed at (see below).

    Despite government efforts at amelioration, the torment and persecution of the survivors continued long after Bangladesh had won its independence:
    Rape, abduction and forcible prostitution during the nine-month war proved to be only the first round of humiliation for the Bengali women. Prime Minister Mujibur Rahman's declaration that victims of rape were national heroines was the opening shot of an ill-starred campaign to reintegrate them into society -- by smoothing the way for a return to their husbands or by finding bridegrooms for the unmarried [or widowed] ones from among his Mukti Bahini freedom fighters. Imaginative in concept for a country in which female chastity and purdah isolation are cardinal principles, the "marry them off" campaign never got off the ground. Few prospective bridegrooms stepped forward, and those who did made it plain that they expected the government, as father figure, to present them with handsome dowries. (Brownmiller, Against Our Will, p. 84.)

    How many died?

    The number of dead in Bangladesh in 1971 was almost certainly well into seven figures. It was one of the worst genocides of the World War II era, outstripping Rwanda (800,000 killed) and probably surpassing even Indonesia (1 million to 1.5 million killed in 1965-66). As R.J. Rummel writes,
    The human death toll over only 267 days was incredible. Just to give for five out of the eighteen districts some incomplete statistics published in Bangladesh newspapers or by an Inquiry Committee, the Pakistani army killed 100,000 Bengalis in Dacca, 150,000 in Khulna, 75,000 in Jessore, 95,000 in Comilla, and 100,000 in Chittagong. For eighteen districts the total is 1,247,000 killed. This was an incomplete toll, and to this day no one really knows the final toll. Some estimates of the democide [Rummel's "death by government"] are much lower -- one is of 300,000 dead -- but most range from 1 million to 3 million. ... The Pakistani army and allied paramilitary groups killed about one out of every sixty-one people in Pakistan overall; one out of every twenty-five Bengalis, Hindus, and others in East Pakistan. If the rate of killing for all of Pakistan is annualized over the years the Yahya martial law regime was in power (March 1969 to December 1971), then this one regime was more lethal than that of the Soviet Union, China under the communists, or Japan under the military (even through World War II). (Rummel, Death By Government, p. 331.)

    The proportion of men versus women murdered is impossible to ascertain, but a speculation might be attempted. If we take the highest estimates for both women raped and Bengalis killed (400,000 and 3 million, respectively); if we accept that half as many women were killed as were raped; and if we double that number for murdered children of both sexes (total: 600,000), we are still left with a death-toll that is 80 percent adult male (2.4 million out of 3 million). Any such disproportion, which is almost certainly on the low side, would qualify Bangladesh as one of the worst gendercides against men in the last half-millennium.

    Who was responsible?

    "For month after month in all the regions of East Pakistan the massacres went on," writes Robert Payne. "They were not the small casual killings of young officers who wanted to demonstrate their efficiency, but organized massacres conducted by sophisticated staff officers, who knew exactly what they were doing. Muslim soldiers, sent out to kill Muslim peasants, went about their work mechanically and efficiently, until killing defenseless people became a habit like smoking cigarettes or drinking wine. ... Not since Hitler invaded Russia had there been so vast a massacre." (Payne, Massacre, p. 29.)

    There is no doubt that the mass killing in Bangladesh was among the most carefully and centrally planned of modern genocides. A cabal of five Pakistani generals orchestrated the events: President Yahya Khan, General Tikka Khan, chief of staff General Pirzada, security chief General Umar Khan, and intelligence chief General Akbar Khan. The U.S. government, long supportive of military rule in Pakistan, supplied some \\$3.8 million in military equipment to the dictatorship after the onset of the genocide, "and after a government spokesman told Congress that all shipments to Yahya Khan's regime had ceased." (Payne, Massacre, p. 102.)

    The genocide and gendercidal atrocities were also perpetrated by lower-ranking officers and ordinary soldiers. These "willing executioners" were fuelled by an abiding anti-Bengali racism, especially against the Hindu minority. "Bengalis were often compared with monkeys and chickens. Said Pakistan General Niazi, 'It was a low lying land of low lying people.' The Hindus among the Bengalis were as Jews to the Nazis: scum and vermin that [should] best be exterminated. As to the Moslem Bengalis, they were to live only on the sufferance of the soldiers: any infraction, any suspicion cast on them, any need for reprisal, could mean their death. And the soldiers were free to kill at will. The journalist Dan Coggin quoted one Punjabi captain as telling him, 'We can kill anyone for anything. We are accountable to no one.' This is the arrogance of Power." (Rummel, Death By Government, p. 335.)

    The aftermath

    On December 3, India under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, seeking to return the millions of Bengali refugees and seize an opportunity to weaken its perennial military rival, finally launched a fullscale intervention to crush West Pakistani forces and secure Bangladeshi independence. The Pakistani army, demoralized by long months of guerrilla warfare, quickly collapsed. On December 16, after a final genocidal outburst, the Pakistani regime agreed to an unconditional surrender. Awami leader Sheikh Mujib was released from detention and returned to a hero's welcome in Dacca on January 10, 1972, establishing Bangladesh's first independent parliament.

    In a brutal bloodletting following the expulsion of the Pakistani army, perhaps 150,000 people were murdered by the vengeful victors. (Rummel, Death By Government, p. 334.) The trend is far too common in such post-genocidal circumstances (see the case-studies of Rwanda, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, and the Soviet POWs). Such largescale reprisal killings also tend to have a gendercidal character, which may have been the case in Bangladesh: Jahan writes that during the reprisal stage, "another group of Bengali men in the rural areas -- those who were coerced or bribed to collaborate with the Pakistanis -- fell victims to the attacks of Bengali freedom fighters." ("Genocide in Bangladesh," p. 298; emphasis added.)

    None of the generals involved in the genocide has ever been brought to trial, and all remain at large in Pakistan and other countries. Several movements have arisen to try to bring them before an international tribunal (see Bangladesh links for further information).

    Political and military upheaval did not end with Bangladeshi independence. Rummel notes that "the massive bloodletting by all parties in Bangladesh affected its politics for the following decades. The country has experienced military coup after military coup, some of them bloody." (Death By Government, p. 334.)
    http://www.gendercide.org/case_bangladesh.html
    Is this how the concept of one Moslem Nation (ummah) fails?

    Therefore, extremism in any form will fail?

    The religious preachers may want to shackle the human mind, but the human mind rebels against shackledom This is an example.

    Or were they being Bengalis were influenced by another Bengali, Rabindranath Tagore (a Nobel Laureate)'s poem:

    Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high
    Where knowledge is free
    Where the world has not been broken up into fragments
    By narrow domestic walls
    Where words come out from the depth of truth
    Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection
    Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way
    Into the dreary desert sand of dead habit
    Where the mind is led forward by thee
    Into ever-widening thought and action
    Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake
    BTW, the Bangladesh National Anthem is also by this gentleman. Interestingly, he is a 'technical' Hindu (Brahmo Samaj) and Bangladesh is an Islamic Republic!
    Last edited by Ray; 16 Oct 04,, 20:13.


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

    Comment


    • Good Muslim, bad Muslim, not Muslim
      Razi Azmi


      According to a news report, a book of condolence for Kenneth Bigley, the British hostage who was beheaded in Iraq by the Tawhid wal Jihad led by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, has been stolen from the main mosque in Birmingham, Britain’s second largest city with a very large Pakistani population. Along with the condolence book, a photograph of the slain 62-year-old engineer, candles and some sympathy cards were also taken. Earlier this year, a book of condolence for victims of the Madrid train bombings was stolen from the same mosque. Mohammed Naseem, chairman of the mosque, referred to the thieves as “sick people”, hastening to add that “we don’t know who’s done it and I can’t put a motive on it”.

      Unless Mr Naseem likes to leave open the possibility that Christians and Jews conspired to have the condolence books stolen so as to put the blame on innocent Muslims, it shouldn’t be too hard to guess who did it and with what motive. My humble guess is that those who stole the condolence books are young Muslims, most probably in their late teens or twenties, who have grown up attending congregational prayers in the very mosque of which Mr Naseem is now chairman. As such, at an impressionable age, they were exposed to the fiery and eloquent sermons of the mosque imam heaping scorn on the “decadent West” and showering contempt on Christians, Jews and kafirs, blaming them for the Muslims’ “global misery” and preaching confrontation and jihad for liberation.

      In their homes, too, these young men would have been fed a similar diet of contempt for the society in which they live, by their parents, uncles, aunts and their friends. The numbers of the young men who are willing to steal, kill and die for the cause may be small, but they live, operate and flourish in a vast pool of sympathetic and catalytic opinion steadfastly held by their elders
      .

      For reasons of political expediency, “good Muslims” like Mr Naseem now casually refer to these young men saturated with disdain for non-Muslims as “bad Muslims”. The definition of Muslim has now been stretched to such an extent to suit convenience that one wonders what it means. On the one hand, our language is laced with inclusive references to the ever-growing Ummah and the ‘Muslim world’, and on the other, Muslims are instantly labelled “bad Muslims” or “not Muslims” at the slightest shock or embarrassment. For instance, whenever a roadside bomb or a suicide bombing results in the deaths of innocent civilians, particularly but not necessarily Muslims, one is told that the perpetrators are “not Muslims”, the argument being that “no Muslim can do this”. This logic conveniently exonerates the Ummah and obviates any need for introspection or self-critique.

      Speaking the same language of strife and friction, the fanatics refer to the Muslim leaders friendly to the West as infidels. One such “infidel” or “bad Muslim”, Egypt’s Minister of Religious Endowments Mahmoud Hamdi Zaqzouq, recently declared that the Muslim call to prayer from Cairo’s 4,000 mosques is out of control and hence in dire need of reform. “There are loudspeakers that shake the world”, the minister protested. “Everyone hears them. Everyday I receive bitter complaints from people about the loudspeakers, but when I ask them to register official complaints, they say they fear others will accuse them of being infidels.”

      Yes, Minister, something is fundamentally wrong with the world of Muslims, more than you are willing to concede. At the root of this is their worldview, which divides nations into believers and infidels, Muslims and non-Muslims, the chosen and the misguided, the blessed and the accursed, the virtuous and the decadent.

      This worldview is acquired in schools and in homes. Instead of inculcating in our children and youth a sense of inter-religious harmony, tolerance and respect, our textbooks teach contempt for others and preach holy war. According to a much-discussed SDPI report on the subject, in Pakistani textbooks the word Hindu rarely appears in a sentence without being preceded by such adjectives as “conniving” or “manipulative”. Class VIII students may be excused for believing that there is a separate world called “the Muslim world”, for their social studies book has chapters titled “Mountains of the Muslim world” and “Seas of the Muslim world”. Muhammad bin Qasim, who died over a thousand years before Pakistan was created, is declared in our textbooks to be “the first Pakistani citizen” by virtue of the fact that he was the first Arab-Muslim invader of “Hindu India”.

      Our ideological mentors in Saudi Arabia are doing even better. They state explicitly and directly what we suggest indirectly and by implication. A lesson for six-year-olds reads: “All religions other than Islam are false”. A note for teachers says they should “ensure” they explain this point. The book forms part of the kingdom’s revised curriculum - supposedly cleaned up after complaints from the West. One textbook had urged teenagers not to befriend Christians or Jews: “Emulation of the infidels leads to loving them, glorifying them and raising their status in the eyes of the Muslim, and that is forbidden”. Small wonder that 15 of the 19 hijackers of 9/11 were Saudis. One can imagine the lessons being imparted in the thousands of madrassas that dot our land!


      Albert Einstein said that “the only thing that interferes with my learning is my education”. Muslims have become incapable of learning in the broader and nobler sense, learning tolerance and respect for others whose beliefs are different from their own, because they are educated to believe that those who do not conform to their faith are deviants at best and infidels at worst, condemned to perdition by God.

      A well-known Western journalist Paul McGeough, visiting Abu Musab Al Zarqawi’s hometown in Jordan, found that the inhabitants take pride in Al Zarqawi. A man outside the mosque told McGeough that “we pray for him, because he is one of us”. In other words, these “good Muslims” are praying for another who has made them proud by his actions - striking fear in the hearts of “Christians and Jews” by his unprecedented butchery.

      After all, Al Zarqawi is only giving vent to the venom instilled through the very textbooks that were supposed to make him a “good Muslim”, which is how he is still regarded by others who have grown up reading the same lessons. It is an irony that those who conceived and wrote these books now disown the products of their teachings as “bad Muslims” or “not Muslims”. Whether they do so sincerely or out of political expediency is a moot point. It seems that some pupils who learn their lessons too well may become an embarrassment for their masters
      !



      The author, a former academic with a doctorate in modern history, is now a freelance writer and columnist
      _____________________

      Comment


      • For reasons of political expediency, “good Muslims” like Mr Naseem now casually refer to these young men saturated with disdain for non-Muslims as “bad Muslims”. The definition of Muslim has now been stretched to such an extent to suit convenience that one wonders what it means. On the one hand, our language is laced with inclusive references to the ever-growing Ummah and the ‘Muslim world’, and on the other, Muslims are instantly labelled “bad Muslims” or “not Muslims” at the slightest shock or embarrassment.
        Just the issue that I was mentioning throughout.

        These rabid segment (who are doing the maximum harm and who are most visible) being dismissed by the good Moslems as non Moslem does not convince.

        Now that it is in print, I reckon what I was saying becomes credbile.


        "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

        I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

        HAKUNA MATATA

        Comment


        • It really goes to the notion of the responsibility of the majority -- see, either they are apthetic or else they have become entirely too comfortable in their cognitive dissonance -- BTW Dr. Isstiaq Ahmed has a excellent piece about the cognitve dissoance a significant number of Muslims experience when discussing such issues.
          _____________________

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Asim Aquil
            Naaaah, thats not what anyone's telling you to do. We're saying why WE are doing it. Not why you should do it. You see Religion is synonymous with Faith, and with Belief. We believe in God. You can disbelieve in God. We cannot prove that there aren't 36 Gods, but we can CHOOSE not to believe that there are 36 gods.

            It is NOT your solemn duty to prove it. You either believe it or you don't.

            Why we believe it? Well there are pretty convincing arguments. Haha, we go back thousands of years, when the Pharoad Demanded Prophet Musa (or Moses) show him some magic, since that'll be proof of his Prophethood. He turned his staff into a snake! :). Prophet Muhammad didn't show his people any such magic, though, not to my recollection.

            Other incidents:

            The Red Sea splitting up.

            Noah's Ark. Pretty incredible for him to be building that kind of a ship knowing of an imminent storm that'd destroy the land completely huh? No Satelites, no weather report services.

            Zam Zam water. The well that never dries up. The water's only 5 ft in height if you go down the well or lower. But Millions of Gallons of water are pulled out of it each year. It's as old as the time of Prophet Ibrahim (or Abraham). No pipes no nothing. The water comes out from directly below the well, according to one theory. But an endless supply, where as all the other wells around it are all dry? Even the one's that are close to the Red Sea and this one's 75Km away.

            The tree found in Australia I think that looks like a man in rukoo (a half bow that muslims do during their prayers, facing directly to the Ka'abah in Mecca. Well you might say the tree just looks like that like all the funny cactus's that've been found, but this tree pointed EXACTLY towards the Ka'abah.(now I'm talking about recent times).

            how about this:



            That's how you spell Allah in Arabic.

            wait I just remembered one of Prophet Muhammad. He was once asked by the Quraish tribe of Mecca to show them some proof of Prophethood. He asked them what do you want to see. They said, break up the moon. He prayed for it, and pointed towards the moon and it splitted into two pieces, and then reattached. Of course then he was wanted for witchcraft.....

            See all this is NOT proof. It's reasoning. You can choose to believe or choose not to. Remember its a faith, not the text of an engineering manual. I do not deny it being mystic, but I do not accept it. I believe sooner or later we'll have answers to it all. And it'll all fit in.

            It's like if my wife goes out. How do I know for SURE she wasn't out banging 10 guys? I just have faith in her, as how our relationship has gone till now.


            Dear Asim, Using "miracles" mentioned in texts such as the Bible or the Quraan do nothing to reinforce faith in any "God" but only in the creative minds of those who wrote these texts. Also, responding to your having faith in your wife, a better way to really find out if she was "banging 10 guys" would be to hire a private detective who could tell you for sure.

            Praxus i completeley submit to your logic. If only there were more people like us out there, the world would be a much better place. Organized religion has been the leading cause for destruction on our planet.

            Comment


            • One wonders if organised religion is responsible for the chaos.

              Could it not be because those trying to interpret the wording of the organised relgion to suit their purpose who are creating the chaos?

              A Devil, I believe, can quote the scripture for his purpose.


              "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

              I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

              HAKUNA MATATA

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Asim
                ...Prophet Muhammad didn't show his people any such magic, though, not to my recollection.
                Asim :

                The prophet generally declined to do magic, but there were a few occasions where his prophethood was questioned....

                Like the time with his uncle...
                The prophets uncle loved him dearly and helped him in his times of need, BUT HIS UNCLE WAS ATHEIST. He never believed in islam. So one day in front of a few people he told the prophet that he didn't believe in him because he was a magician, but he will convert if the prophet performed a miracle, but a miracle that he wants.

                He then asked the prophet if he could split the moon. And the prophet did. However, his uncle still remained atheist, but the people who had lost faith in islam at the time who were close to his uncle apparently regained it.

                There were other miracles mentioned like the time when they were in the desert and had not drunk water for a long time. the prophet apparently put his two fingers close together and read and ayat from the Quraan, and the story goes that water issued forth from a light that appeared between his two index fingers.

                Obviously I wasn't there myself, so I don't know if these and other stories are correct, or just fallacies of a false religion., but I also am a believer in Islam. I like the religion. :)
                "It is a little knowledge of science that makes you an Atheist, and it is an in-depth study of science that makes you a believer in God Almighty". [Sir Francis]

                Comment


                • Originally posted by tarek
                  It really goes to the notion of the responsibility of the majority -- see, either they are apthetic or else they have become entirely too comfortable in their cognitive dissonance -- BTW Dr. Isstiaq Ahmed has a excellent piece about the cognitve dissoance a significant number of Muslims experience when discussing such issues.
                  On the Kenneth Bigley issue, I'm not saying he should have died or something, but the terrorists werent demanding headscarves for France or something, but were demanding the release of Female prisoners. I know I wouldnt want my mother or sister in any jail after seeing what the Americans have done to the male prisoners.

                  All they demanded was the release of female prisoners.
                  "It is a little knowledge of science that makes you an Atheist, and it is an in-depth study of science that makes you a believer in God Almighty". [Sir Francis]

                  Comment


                  • Can our muslim friends explain to us why muslims are fighting non-muslims all over the world?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Ray
                      Could it not be because those trying to interpret the wording of the organised relgion to suit their purpose who are creating the chaos?
                      I believe it's largely that.
                      Insanity is doing the same thing over and over
                      and expecting a different result.
                      Albert Einstein.

                      Comment


                      • The Moslems are fighting non Moslem because of a fear psychosis generated after the crackdown wef 9/11.

                        They are also fighting amongst themselves because of the sectarian divide.

                        The educated element and those not highly indoctrinated in religiousity amongst them are watching helplessly on the sideline.


                        "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                        I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                        HAKUNA MATATA

                        Comment


                        • Nisaar

                          "All they demanded was the release of female prisoners."

                          In other words it OK, it's "Islamic" to take hostages and make "demands"??? Is that what you want us to believe ???

                          Now since US servicemen have taken the fall for what, it is clear to me, is the responsibility of Intllligence types and certainly of Mr. Rumsfeld (buck stops here) can we presume what your mother and sister would be safer in the hands of those who behead their hostages on camera??

                          I wonder if you realize that if we begin to treat the idea that one can take hostages and make demands, even if that demand is just for cheese and ketchup, that we might as well give up any hope that civilized and civil society may emerge by our adherence to the IDEA of a society of laws and behaviour in concord with those laws.
                          _____________________

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by tarek
                            I wonder if you realize that if we begin to treat the idea that one can take hostages and make demands, even if that demand is just for cheese and ketchup, that we might as well give up any hope that civilized and civil society may emerge by our adherence to the IDEA of a society of laws and behaviour in concord with those laws.
                            This is why Canada has a firm policy on kidnapping - never deal with kidnappers - it will enourage more because others see that it works.

                            As for the beheadings, on video, to boot, barbaric is too light a word.
                            Insanity is doing the same thing over and over
                            and expecting a different result.
                            Albert Einstein.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X