In response to :

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/7683

Why We Critique Only Islam!

Frequently we are facing one common accusation from the Islamists, semi-Islamists and even from the moderate (ignorant) Muslims-which is "why only critiquing Islam" and why not critiquing also other religions?

Before I attempt an answer to the hypothetical comparison questions you asked, I want to say something first. I consider myself a moderate Muslim. I believe that Islam the way it is practiced now is not the real Islam. Furthermore I believe that Islam needs some sort of reform, even if it is just going back to the original roots of it, instead of a development forward.

But I would also like to note that I resent the tone of this essay, for example why do moderate Muslims have to be ignorant, brainwashed hypocrites? And I didn't see a comparison either for no other religion was mentioned only Islam was bashed.

I have tried to answer all questions, only 2 remain, and given more time I think I can even answer the remaining 2, but here is my answer for starters.

And I apologise if I have been repetitive considering Mr. Mainul Ahsan's post.

1. My question is that, why do not we hear about terrorists or radicals of any other religions? Why do not we hear these kind of ear-soothing colorful adjectives about those millions of atheists, agnostics or even Homosexual guys? Why it is always attached with the peaceful (?) ISLAM?

Perhaps because you do not want to hear them with any other connection other than Islam. If you do a search on the net (just as an example) for militant Hindus, religious fanatics, fanatic Zionists or even fanatic Christians, you will find numerous websites attaching these names to others, names such as militants and zealots and other nice adjectives. Can you honestly tell me that organisations such as the Klux Klux Clan, a number of Neo Nazis, White Suprematists, IRA, ETA etc. are any less fanatic than those "muslim" terrorists? Labels are a matter of perspective. Somebody's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

But this is besides the point. I just wanted to show you that there are others who are called by these same adjectives you are using and who do not follow Islam. Just as an example, you might want to look at some of these websites which is just a very small collection of different groups labelled in the same way (kept short so as not to bore the rest and chosen a wide variety but there are a thousand others) :

http://indianterrorism.mybravenet.com/reaping%20what%20you%20sow.htm
http://www.mcjonline.com/news/news3586.htm
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/002/26.24.html
http://www.jewishmediaresources.com/article/75/
http://home.epix.net/~jlferri/sturges.html
http://gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/world/112700wo.htm
http://www.cstnews.com/Code/WhyMedia.html
http://crime.about.com/library/weekly/aa100900a.htm

2. In this, I have many questions: How many Ummatic organizations for Hindu, Christian or Jews can we find? Why no such organization is needed by any other religions? Why only the people of Muslim origin need such Ummatic organization? What iMainulpAhsan'sof such organization?

What about the reactionary and fundamentalist RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh?

What about the Vishwa Hindu Parishad? colorful labeled as the militant Hindu fanatic party in India?

what about : http://www.sfjcf.org/

3. Jihadi organization - Can we find such organization in other religions? If not, then why?
Your definition of the word 'Jihad' is not a correct one, but I will get into that in the other question (question 8) since I hate to be repetitive. But even if we take your definition of it that is, namely a strive or a war to end a foreign occupation, wouldn't it be the same thing then what ETA or IRA or the Basque's are doing? Trying to separate their portion of the land from another rule?

The professed objective of the IRA is to get rid of British rule in Northern Ireland. To my knowledge, they have neither claimed that their objective is to establish a Christian or Catholic rule in Northern Ireland nor have they used Christian or Catholic theology to justify or support their terrorist actions. Therefore, the IRA is better termed 'Irish terrorists' and not 'Christian terrorists'. The objective of the LTTE is merely to establish a homeland for the Tamils in Sri Lanka. Again their ideology may have elements of Tamil superiority, but to my knowledge they have neither professed that there objective is a Hindu state in Sri Lanka, nor have they used Hinduism in any form to justify their actions to the outside world. They are therefore referred to either as 'Sri Lankan Tamil Terrorists' or just 'Tamil terrorists, even though the Tamil citizens of India, who do not agree with their ideology or approach, may not like the second appellation. It also does not imply that all Sri Lankan Tamils or all Irish are terrorists.

4. Can we find any country ruled by Bible, Old Testament or Ghita today? Can we find just one Republic for Christian, Jewish, Hindus or Buddhas? If the answer is no, then please tell us why no?

Simply because all other religions are only religions, whereas Islam is also a way of life. No other religion forms a base for laws.

In addition to that, Nepal is a Hindu Kingdom, Sikkim and Bhutan are Buddhist kingdoms. The Catholic Church in the Philippines has a more than strong influence on everything.

5. My questions are: why could not these two human beings belonging Hindu, Jew or Christian? Why can't we incriminate any other religion for the similar cause?

What about Gujarat? What about Karnataka? Hindutva? the Godhra story? the Temple of the Tooth? Ayodhya? What about this News Item : Jan. 25 - Hindu suicide bombers killed themselves and a dozen others at Sri Lanka's holiest Buddhist shrine, the Temple of the Tooth, which supposedly houses one of Buddha's teeth. The attack was part of a 15-year war between Hindus and Buddhists which has killed 51,000 people on the island south of India.

What about this : http://www.genocideinindia.org/photogallery.html
What about East Timor http://atrott.freeservers.com/esep99.htm
What about Oklahoma http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/may95/oklahoma.html

What about the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), the John Birch Society? the National Liberation Front of Tripura? The Aryan Nations? Are all those Muslims too? Last I heard they hadn't converted yet to Islam yet!

6. Honor killing - My questions here are-please tell me why Muslims only perform this heinous act? Why this act is totally absent in any other religions?

This is YOUR statement. There are others who do as well, perhaps you would like to take a look at this website

http://www.theage.com.au/news/2001/02/01/FFXALYSVLIC.html

and remember that in the Balkans, along with the Caucasus region, Sicily, and Corsica, are the areas where "blood feud" as well as honour killings still hold greatest sway today. (In the past, the institution was also prominent in Scotland -- and in the U.S. region of Appalachia)

http://www.gendercide.org/case_honour.html

Didn't the tradition of Sati originate from burning the women so they do not get raped by conquering armies?

Furthermore, the practice of honour killings has nothing to do with Islam or the Koran. The prophet Mohammed called for an end to it. It is based on tribal law and NOT on Islam. I challenge you to find anything in the Koran or Hadith that promotes it.

7. My question here is-why any other religionists do not need to do all these hypocrisies like Islamists are doing today?

Didn't Musharraf apologise in Bangladesh? Didn't the Pope apologise to the Jews for the church turning a blind eye during the Nazi reign? Didn't he also apologise for the inquisition? The crusades? The conquests of America and Latin America? Or did I imagine all these apologies?

8. My question is-why Jihad belongs to only Islam?

This word has been in frequent use in the Western press over the past several years, explained directly or subtilely, to mean holy war. As a matter of fact the term "holy war" was coined in Europe during the Crusades, meaning the war against Muslims. It does not have a counterpart in Islamic glossary, and Jihad is certainly not its translation. The word Jihad means striving. In its primary sense it is an inner thing, within the self, to rid it from debased actions or inclinations, and exercise constancy and perseverance in achieving a higher moral standard. Jihad is not a declaration of war against other religions and certainly not against Christians and Jews as some media and political circles want it to be perceived. Islam does not fight other religions. Christians and Jews are considered as fellow inheritors of The Abrahamic traditions by Muslims, worshipping the same God and following the tradition of Abraham.

And according to Islamic teachings, it is UNHOLY to instigate or start war; however, some wars are inevitable and justifiable.

02:190
YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
PICKTHAL: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
SHAKIR: And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.

9. Suicide-bombing - My questions here are-why there was no suicide bomber evolved out of those Christian-born Palestinians? Why it is the only Muslims committing this horrendous act of suicide bombing?

Actually you are mistaken here yet again. Every faith, political idea and nation in history has motivated men and women who willingly give up their lives in the belief that by doing so, whether in bombings or in other forms of combat, they will change the course of history; or at least win an advantage for their cause. Tamils are not Muslims, but blow themselves up in their war on the government of Sri Lanka. Japanese kamikaze pilots in the second world war were not Muslims.

And that leads me to my second point: I do not believe that the ideology of Osama bin Laden and those closest to him, such as the Egyptian and Algerian "Islamic Groups" has any more to do with Islam or Islamic civilisation than Pearl Harbour had to do with Buddhism. Or than I.R.A. bombs in Britain and Protestants heaving bricks at school children in Belfast have anything to do with the Reformation.

10. Mosque-Islamic center connections: My questions here are-if Islam and Mosque has nothing to do with terrorists then why they could not be belonged to some other religious center such as Hindu Temple, Jewish Temple, Buddhist temple or Christian church? Or why they could not be even the members of some atheists/agnostic/homosexual clubs?

What about the Sikh terrorists. Didn't they also get trained in some sort of madrassas in Pakistan?

Allow me to quote from a website : In recent history the only other groups that can arguably be classed as religion based were the 'Sikh terrorists' trained in or based in Pakistan. Sikhism and its greater glory was the professed ideology of many groups, which terrorised the population of Punjab even though they indiscriminately killed both Sikh and Hindu civilians. Thus they are referred to as either 'Sikh terrorists' or 'Khalistani terrorists.' By analogy, the use of the term 'Islamic terrorists,' or in the case of Pakistan based anti-India terrorist groups 'Pakistani Jehadis' does not appear to be inappropriate.

11. My questions are: Why they (terrorists) could not be from some moderate or not so good Muslim group? Why always terrorist have to be one of those most devout pukka Muslims? What possibly is the obvious indication here? Isn't it true that any true followers (real Muslim who follows Quran and hadiths) of Islam could be a terrorist?

No, moderate Muslims can not be terrorists and you are abusing the term devout here. We have all read and heard the stories of those suicide pilots hanging out in strip bars and getting drunk, which have emerged in the aftermath of September 11. They do not fit at all with any image of Islamic piety. Nor does the hideousness of September 11 fit with "official" Muslim theology, which cautions soldiers "in the way of Allah" to fight their enemies face to face, without harming non-combatants, women, or children. And most Muslims, not only in America and Britain, but in the world, are clearly law-abiding citizens of their countries. There is a strain in Islam that is not really very old at all, it came into being less than two centuries ago. It is violent, intolerant, and fanatical beyond measure. It is the most extreme form of Islamic fundamentalism, and it is called Wahhabism, its followers Wahhabis. Not all Muslims are suicide bombers, but all Muslim suicide bombers are Wahabis. Wahhabis do not even permit the name of the Prophet Muhammad to be inscribed in mosques. Above all, they hate the spiritual side of Islam. Ibn Abdul Wahhab, the founder of this totalitarian Islamism, originated in the part of Arabia known as Nejd, where Riyadh is today, and which the Prophet himself notably warned would be a source of corruption and confusion. From the beginning of Wahhab's dispensation, in the late 18th century, his cult was associated with the mass murder of all who opposed it. I don't think that anybody muslim or otherwise can generalise Wahabism to be Islam. Bin Laden is a Wahhabi. So are the suicide bombers in Israel. So are his Egyptian allies, who stabbed foreign tourists to death at Luxor not too many years ago. So are the Algerian Islamist terrorists whose contribution to the purification of the world consisted of murdering people for such sins as running a movie projector or reading secular newspapers. So are the Taliban-style guerrillas in Kashmir who murder Hindus.

12. Converts: My questions are why it is only those Muslim converts turn into terrorists or Taliban (American Taliban, Shoe-bomber and dirty bomber suspect-they all are converted Muslims)? Why any other converts (Hindu or Christian) could not be a Taliban or terrorist?

The Christian converts went to fight in Bosnia. They go and fight in Sudan. Russian and Greek orthodox Christians went and fought on the side of the Serbs in Kosovo.

13. My question here is why those rioting-immigrants could not be from any other religions?

But there were other group and minority riots not just muslims rioting. You have the Irish Immigrant Riots in 1863. A sequence of disturbances between white police officers and youths, predominantly black, occurred in London and Birmingham in the summer and autumn of 1985. You have the Korean Americans rioting in LA in 1992. You have the Bradford Riots in England in 2001 which was actually started by Hindus

(http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/UK/07/09/riot.timeline/)

And lots of others.

14. Dress code and food restriction: My questions here are why the converts of no other religions need to change their own national dress code or food habits? Why Islam is so different?

The Jews have a food restriction as well. They are forbidden to eat crust animals from the sea, they are forbidden to mix milk and meat, they are only allowed to eat kosher food. Most devout catholics practice an unwritten dress code when going to church. The women cover their heads and hair and the men wear long trousers instead of shorts. Hindu's wear the sindoor and bindi. And they are vegetarian. Is that not so?

15. Coercive imposition: Islam is the only religion in which peoples are being forced/coerced to observe Islamic daily rituals. In any Islamic paradise-like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Talibani Afghanistan, or any other Islamic Arab countries-Islamic police (Muttawalli) force general citizens to observe daily rituals very strictly. Anybody who fails to obey is punished by beating severely or even by imprisonment. Even in the moderate Muslim countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia etc. Clergies, general public or the elders will repeatedly remind or even force people to join the daily five time prayers/rituals of Islam. Anybody who do not join or refuse to join will be cursed, looked down or insulted by the seniors.

The only thing I can say to that is that this is wrong because the Koran says :

[2.256] There is no compulsion in religion;

But are the Hindus not very traditional and hidebound? Don't the rituals HAVE to be performed in a certain way otherwise the person who will get socially ostracised, specially in the villages? The Christians not attending church in many places are ostracised if they don't attend church services or have abortions, like in Ireland, Scotland and generally in the small villages in the southern parts like for example south USA, Spain, Greece, Italy etc.

The Tibetan monks have quite a coercive mechanism. A British explorer mentioned that "the Buddhist theocracy has got the Tibetan laity under its control".

17. Brotherhood in Islam: My question here is why no other religious group has such separatist brotherhood system?

But there are. You have the Jesuits, Opus Dei, the Freemasons, the Maltesers, the Templers, etc.

17. Islam and poverty: Poverty and Islam goes side by side. My question here is why it has to be always like that?

Is it realy only the muslim countries that are poor? Is that not a completely biased generalisation on your part?

If you read the UNICEF report on child labour (which is one of the strongest indicators of poverty, after all who would send out their children to work) you would find that children as young as 5 years old go to work in Brazil. Same goes for El Salvador, Ghana, Haiti. Have these countries turned into muslim countries lately?

Go to http://www.undp.org/hdr2001/indicator/indic_25_1_1.html and look for the poorest countries in the world. The bottom 10 or even 20 are not Islamic Countries.


18. My question here is: do we hear about Christian, Hindu or Jewish democracy?

See my answer to question 4.

20. September 11, Episode: My questions are: do we get to see this kind of madness amongst any other religions? If not then why?

But this kind of madness is there in other religions as well. Just see the answer to question 5. Wasn't the Holocaust even worse than September 11 with between 3 to 6 million dead? And I am not going to mention the Inquisition etc because I already mentioned some other "mad" events in question 7.

Finally I would suggest a more thorough research before making allegations that can easily be refuted given time and references. Furthermore for an article to have the desired impact it should be written as objectively as possible omitting all personal biases and emotions, something which i have unfortunately failed to do because I just cannot stand basing a religoin just for the heck of it.

I apologise for my lengthy post.

yasmin