Why Islam cannot join the modern world
mohammad the pork muncher
Question: what kind of progress, technological advances, economic growth and
open dialogue can be possible in a society where every facet of the entire
culture is Islamicised?
Is this why not one Arab country is yet to produce anything even close to
something resembling prosperity, social functionality or liberal democracy?
The bottom line is that Islam cannot deal with modernity. Having never
experienced a "reformation" in centuries, it is intrinsically despotic and
totalitarian.
From the moment a Muslim wakes up, he has to start going through a process
of rigid procedures. First and foremost, he has to wash a certain way. He
even has to clean his nose in a specific manner, and he has to do repeat
this procedure three times. This is essential because Islam teaches that the
devil spends the night in the cavity of the nose.
A Muslim is not to touch any utensil unless he has washed his hands three
times. He is also not allowed to urinate in stagnant water.
When Muslims do "number two," they are forbidden to sit and are instructed
to adopt a squatting position while leaning heavy on the left foot.
Islam also instructs that, when you go "number one" or "number two," you
have to say a certain prayer each time. This is in line with the fact that
whenever a Muslim arrives, sits, or sleeps anywhere, he has to say a certain
prayer as well.
When taking a bath, Muslims are instructed to wash the lower part of the
body and the armpits first. Then they are allowed to wash the rest of their
bodies. But it always has to be the right side first and then the left.
After this, they have to immediately empty all the water and clean the bath
and refill it. Then they can clean off.
Muslims are instructed that they have to use their right side for all things
first. For instance, if you are putting on your sneakers, you have to put
your right foot into the right sneaker first. The same with taking them off.
The same goes with putting on a shirt and which arm goes where etc. When
entering a house, you have to enter with the right foot first.
When entering the bathroom, however, a Muslim has to enter with the left
foot first, and when coming out, with the right foot first.
The times of Prayer in Islam are rigidly enforced. Islam also mandates that
a Muslim has to disengage himself from all worldly occupations and resort to
his prayers, even when he is most busy.
Before prayers, the body has to be washed in a precise and orderly way
(right hand up to the wrist, then left hand, then right arm up to elbow,
then left arm, etc). The Muslim has to wipe his head with wet hands, and it
is absolutely necessary that this is done with the three fingers between the
little finger and the thumb of both hands being joined together.
When a husband and a wife make love, they have to go wash every time
afterwards. (Just imagine the life of a sexually active couple).
Every way in which Muslims interact with each other is also all cut out for
them. For instance, Muslims are instructed to greet each other in certain
ways. They have to say, "As-salamu alaikum" (peace be upon you). And in
return one says, "Wa alaikum us-salam" (upon you be peace).
In one sense, this is, of course, very beautiful. But the question remains:
what if someone wants to say something different for a change? Or what if
someone doesn't want to say anything at all?
When replying to a greeting, it is a big-time no-no to say, "God's peace be
upon you". This can only be said when saying goodbye. Also, if a couple of
people bump into each other, and one guy performs the greeting, no one else
is supposed to repeat the greeting. And when another guy replies to a
greeting, that is enough and no one else is supposed to reply. (Question:
what if two guys reply at the same time by mistake?).
Muslims are also not allowed to say hi to a Jew or a to a Christian first.
If they do, they are not supposed to take the greeting back. What's done is
done. They will be held to account for this later. If a Jew or a Christian
says "Salamun alaikum" to a Muslim, the Muslim must not respond the way he
must to a fellow Muslim ("Wa alaikum us-salam") and only say "alaika" in
return. (But what if a Muslim confuses a Jew for a fellow Muslim?)
Muslims are also not allowed to enter other people's house unless they ask
for permission up to three times. Permission has to be given for each time
before they enter, and, of course, they have to come in with the right foot
first. (Imagine what a Muslim party would be like).
A Muslim is never allowed to sleep in -- even if he is really tired. That's
because he is commanded to get up early to say his morning prayers.
Muslims do not even have the luxury of spontaneity or free will in their
sleep. They are even instructed to sleep in certain positions. They are not
allowed to sleep on their backs or on their stomachs or on their left sides.
They have to sleep on their right sides. It is mandatory, meanwhile, that
their heads point to the north. (I don't want to get into the details of my
personal sleeping habits, but let me just admit that, in terms of the way I
sleep, I would definitely go to hell in this religion - or at least get
publicly flogged every day).
In any case, this phenomenon of how Islam robs the potential for free will
in every ingredient of its believers' lives explains why, as Raphael Patai
has demonstrated in The Arab Mind, no motivation exists for Arabs to take
action for change or to evaluate critically their own circumstances. The
result is that Arabs do not end up feeling a sense of responsibility for
their own lives and, therefore, for their own failures. When a problem is
confronted in the Arab world, a hidden enemy is always imagined.
Consequently, the inability of Arab countries to create democracies, let
alone functional economic societies, is read by Arabs as a personal
humiliation that is caused by enemies - and not by the backwardness of
Islamic culture itself.
We begin to get an understanding, therefore, why the idea that problems can
be solved by individuals themselves, and that citizens must actually
participate in solving their own society's problems, is an idea that is
incomprehensible in the Islamic Arab world.
Arabs grow up believing that success in their societies is simply just
supposed to materialize, even if no one is actually taking any individual
initiative to bring it about. If problems develop (i.e. economic
backwardness, dictatorship etc.), they are believed to be caused by infidels
(i.e. the evil Americans).
Thus, it becomes obvious why Islam cannot join the modern world. In crushing
the potential for any free will in human beings, it must annihilate the very
essence of human liberty. In so doing, Islam spawns a backward and
self-destructive culture that forces an excruciating humiliation on its
people. These people, in turn, end up confusing their impotence and misery
with their hatred of the infidels who have succeeded in every aspect in
which Islamic civilization has pathetically failed.
AnonMoos
rudimentary level of hygiene in the days before indoor plumbing and
cheap widely-available soap -- and Jews have many similar ritual
purity traditions, which never seems to have held them back! If you
want an interesting and, ahem, more broadly-focused discussion, look
at http://www.meforum.org/article/734
--
المتبرجة خير
من الإرهابي
المنتحر
Murderers are not martyrs! http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/
Poo Kitty
RJ Hardy
"Poo Kitty" <litterbox_ed...@mmed.org> wrote in message
news:dk1fn1$arh$1...@domitilla.aioe.org...
Aussie Infidel
While on the subject of weird customs......Happy Halloween!
Aussie Infidel
The Pragmatist
in their religious ideology--that some thousand years ago, the clock
stopped. Islam is, indeed, inherently despotic and hostile to individual
conscience.'
I am convinced that this is the major reason why Judaiism has historically
been 180 degrees in the opposite direction. It *mandates* debate,
individual freedom of conscience, with NO religious hierarchy, and no
bullets to the head even if you denounce your born religion.
That so tiny a population should produce such overwhelming numbers of
intellectuals and creative people should be a model for the Islam world.
But I suspect envy has been the rule--the Jews represent everything Islam
has been incapable of achieving.
Even today, with the Global Epidemic of Islamic serial killing, there seems
to be no active voice from within Islam....no "fatwas" even issued against
the Islamic butchers who slaughter Muslims daily (forget about the
infidels). But they get awwwwwfully upset if a writer like Salman Rushdie
writes a book, and then rally the Muslims of the world to kill a famous
Muslim-born writer.
REPRESSION is inherent in Islam....it is the only religious ideology I have
come to hate--and I come from an extremely liberal background.
"Poo Kitty" <litterbox_ed...@mmed.org> wrote in message
news:dk1fn1$arh$1...@domitilla.aioe.org...
clitteigh
Fuck all organized religions! Greatest DIVIDERS of humankind! Then
again, they must be products of intelligent design. No?
Islam? A total joke! But christianity is no picnic. Adherents of
each of these "faiths" believe in things my 4-year-old would reject as
crap!
Hey, ya know what? Maybe, maybe, "god" visited the Pakistan earthquake
disaster on people
who espouse evil acts against other human beings! Same with the bombing
in India. How about Iran? Next? Syria? Should have been second in
line behind Afghanistan.
Maybe both Hindus and Muslims need to rethink and reform their cruel,
ignorant - but highly laughable - religious-based beliefs and, for
example, stop the violence toward and mistreatment of WOMEN! Hell, even
such a ridiculous religion as christianity stopped killing "witches"
many decades ago ... I believe. Maybe not ...
Maybe Hindu and Muslim men feel so weak, powerless, useless, and
(justifiably) lacking in self-worth that they feel compelled to resort
to killing their wives and daughters over foolish dowry issues!
Maybe these type of of "men" are really just frustrated girly-men,
cowards who can't function among fellow humans and gang up against
women - who are REALLY the stronger members of their sick societies!
Maybe Muslim and Hindu men need to
forget about 72 virgins in "heaven" and other baseless and silly fables
of their religions and start behaving - here on earth - with love and
compassion in their hearts!
Maybe then Hindu and Muslim societies can at last begin using the
brains and talents of their millions of downtrodden females, and
thereby upgrade their sad, male-dominated, religious-freaky
communities!
===============
"Indian Middle Class Grows, But Ugly Tradition Persists"
A young bride lived long enough to tell authorities that her husband
and in-laws had set her on fire for not meeting their dowry demands.
By John Lancaster
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, October 30, 2005; A01
NEW DELHI -- Charanpreet Kaur, 19, had been married less than nine
months when her husband and his family decided it was time for her to
go. Trapping her in the bathroom, her husband clamped his hand over her
mouth while his father doused her with kerosene, according to a police
document.
The father then lit a match, setting his daughter-in-law on fire. She
died five days later.
India's endless dowry wars had claimed another victim.
Notwithstanding the gold jewelry, color television set and other finery
that served as the price of admission to her husband's middle-class
Sikh household, Charanpreet's new relations were not satisfied with the
bounty and kept demanding more, according to Charanpreet's relatives
and the statement she gave investigators before she died.
"Even before this incident my father-in-law used to put pressure on me
to get more money," said the statement by the young woman, who was
three months pregnant.
Unusual only because Charanpreet lived long enough to point a finger at
her alleged attackers, who claimed the fire was accidental, the case
underscores the deeply entrenched nature of dowry -- and its grim
corollary, the murder of young brides whose families fail to ante up --
even in the face of rising levels of income and education linked to
India's fast-growing economy.
In particular, the death of the young newlywed -- a shy, deeply
religious schoolteacher's daughter whose husband had a college degree
and worked in computer graphics -- shows that the age-old practice
endures even, and perhaps especially, among the educated urban
middle-class.
Despite laws barring dowry, and decades of protests and public
awareness campaigns, a nationwide survey of 10,000 households by the
All-India Democratic Women's Association in 2002 found that the
practice was no longer confined to the Hindu upper castes, where it
originated, but had spread across a broad range of classes and
communities, including Muslims and Christians.
One consequence is the growing dearth of baby girls in India, where
many middle-class parents, fearing the high costs of dowry, have taken
to aborting female fetuses identified through ultrasound examinations.
The skewed sex ratio is most pronounced in relatively prosperous areas
such as New Delhi, the capital, where the 2001 census found 868 girls
for every 1,000 boys under age six. The figure for India as a whole is
933 girls for every 1,000 boys.
"I think it's in a way very shocking that social relations are not
changing in a fast-growing economy," said Ranjana Kumari, the director
of the Center for Social Research in New Delhi. "All this
modernization, liberalization, globalization -- all this modern economy
-- and the people are not changing. The mindset is so rigid."
There are some signs of progress. For example, the number of reported
dowry killings has dipped slightly, from 6,851 in 2001 to 6,285 in
2003, the most recent year for which statistics are available. And two
years ago, Indian news media made a heroine out of Nisha Sharma, a
21-year-old computer student who summoned police to her wedding when
the groom's family escalated their dowry demands at the last minute.
Matrimonial ads placed by parents of prospective brides occasionally
come with the caveat, "Dowry seekers need not apply."
By all accounts, however, dowry-giving remains the norm in Indian
marriages. The union of Charanpreet Kaur and Sarabjeet Singh was no
exception.
Born in 1985, Charanpreet grew up in the New Delhi neighborhood of Guru
Nanak Nagar, a maze of narrow paved alleys with small brick row houses.
Pungent with cooking smells and motorbike exhaust, the largely
middle-class neighborhood is dominated by migrants from the fertile
agricultural region known as the Punjab. Like Charanpreet and her
family, most are Sikhs, a religious minority known for its strong work
ethic and egalitarian values. Typically, Sikh men use the name Singh
and women take the name Kaur.
Until last year, Charanpreet lived with her parents in a tiny,
well-scrubbed ground-floor apartment with a closet-size kitchen, a
refrigerator in the hall and pictures of Sikh gurus on the walls. She
shared a bedroom with her 14-year-old brother, Amandeep. Her father,
Satwant, 47, earns his living as a private tutor to primary school
students; her mother, Paramjit, 42, teaches at a government primary
school.
A quiet young woman with wide-set eyes and a diffident manner,
Charanpreet graduated from high school two years ago and had enrolled
in a college correspondence course with the aim of following her
parents into teaching, relatives and neighbors said. With few close
friends, she preferred to spend her free time at home, where she
immersed herself in Sikh prayer books and sometimes watched the
Discovery Channel and Cartoon Network on a small color television.
Then, early last year, neighbors provided Charanpreet's parents with
the name of an eligible bachelor. The son of a retired army subedar ,
or junior commissioned officer, Sarabjeet Singh had earned a degree
from Delhi University, brought home $227 in rupees a month designing
catalogs at a computer-graphics company and lived nearby with his
parents, brother and sister-in-law.
During a meeting with Sarabjeet's parents at the local gurdwara , or
Sikh temple, Charanpreet's parents were so impressed by the young man's
credentials and the family's evident piety that they agreed on the
marriage then and there, without setting eyes on their future
son-in-law. "They told us our little girl would live like a princess in
that house," recalled Paramjit Kaur, a compact, expressive woman in a
satiny blue tunic.
Bearded and handsome beneath his turban, Sarabjeet Singh had a
polished, self-confident manner, and he apparently made a good
impression when, several months later, he met his wife for the first
time, at a ceremony where the two exchanged rings. "She was actually
very happy to find a man who didn't eat meat or drink alcohol," her
mother recalled.
Last November, in a ceremony performed by a barefoot priest, the two
were married at the gurdwara, where Charanpreet's parents hosted a
lavish vegetarian feast for 250 guests. Bride and groom posed for
photographs with garlands of rupee banknotes encircling their necks.
The wedding cost the bride's family about $9,100 in rupees, according
to Charanpreet's parents. The largest share went for a dowry that
included the color television, bed linens, kitchenware, fine fabrics
for suits and saris and gold jewelry for the groom, his parents and
other relatives. "The rich give diamonds," explained Paramjit Kaur, who
said the family offered the dowry on its own initiative. "We're middle
class, so we give gold."
But things went quickly awry. A month after joining her husband and his
extended family in their cramped three story house, Charanpreet
approached her parents with a request from her husband for $2,280 in
rupees, saying he wanted the money to start his own business. Although
her family did not have the money, they borrowed it from relatives
because "we thought it would help our daughter in the long run," said
Paramjit Kaur. Not long afterward, the family was surprised to learn
that the groom's family had spent the money on a Maruti car, according
to Charanpreet's uncle, Pravinder Singh.
The demands apparently continued. During occasional visits home,
Charanpreet hinted that she was unhappy in her new home and sometimes
"would ask if there was any money to spare," her mother said.
Charanpreet's parents were unable to provide more financial help and
could only counsel patience. "We'd keep telling her to adjust because
we thought she was just a young bride and was going through teething
troubles," her mother said.
The truth was far worse than anything the family had imagined.
On the morning of Aug. 19, Charanpreet returned from the bathroom to
find her husband, his parents, his brother and his brother's wife
waiting for her in her third-floor bedroom, she said in her statement.
Her sister-in-law, Harvinder Kaur, forced her into the bathroom,
followed by Charanpreet's husband and father-in-law, who "started
pouring kerosene oil all over from a plastic bottle." Her husband then
left the room, leaving her father in law to strike a match and set her
on fire. "I ran downstairs with my body on fire," the statement said.
Burned so badly that her plastic bangles had melted into her wrist,
Charanpreet lost consciousness and was taken to the hospital by her
husband and father-in-law, who apparently believed she was close to
death and would not be able to incriminate them, the young woman's
relatives said. But Charanpreet regained consciousness a few hours
later and gave her statement to a magistrate; her in-laws were arrested
the same day.
"The gods she used to pray to came to her help," her mother said of her
daughter's ability to describe what had happened to her. "Even though
she was such a shy girl, she was able to give the police such a clear
and detailed statement. She found the strength then, and the last words
she gave to the magistrate were, 'These people should be punished.' "
Ombir Bishnoi, an assistant police commissioner, said all four suspects
had confessed to the killing. The family's lawyer, Baldev Raj, disputed
the validity of the confessions and described the fire as an accident,
without giving further details. The four are currently in New Delhi's
central jail awaiting formal murder charges.
Special correspondent Muneeza Naqvi contributed to this report
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/29/AR200510290=
0729.html