Should NYU faculty and their dependent children receive full tuition remission?
Some members of the university have reacted strongly to what they perceive as "anti-Muslim" rhetoric in a column published last Monday on Forbes.com by Tunku Varadarajan, a clinical professor of business at NYU's Stern School of Business.
Images
Varadarajan
Varadarajan wrote the column, titled "Going Muslim," in response to the Nov. 5 massacre at the Fort Hood military base in Texas. At Fort Hood, U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire, killing 13 people and wounding 28 others. Hasan, who is also an Army psychiatrist, is an American-born Muslim of Palestinian descent. He allegedly shouted "Allahu akbar" ("God is great") before he began shooting in the Soldier Readiness Center of Fort Hood.
In his column, Varadarajan characterizes Hasan's actions as "going Muslim," a phrase he likens to "going postal" (a slang term that has its origins in several cases from 1983 onward in which U.S. Postal Service workers shot and killed their colleagues). He wrote that by opening fire, Hasan defended his religion in "an act of messianic violence against his fellow Americans."
Varadarajan's column elicited a great deal of criticism. A group of NYU students sent a letter expressing their concerns to Stern dean Thomas Cooley, President John Sexton and Khalid Latif, the chaplain and director of NYU's Islamic Center. In their letter, they asked that Varadarajan's comments be repudiated.
Second-year Steinhardt graduate student Sulayman Ferguson was among the students who wrote the letter.
"It's singling out Muslims in a way that's pretty offensive," Ferguson said about the column. "You'd never say that about another group. You could never say someone's 'going Christian.' "
But Varadarajan believes much of the negative response is unwarranted. He said a number of his critics appear to have not read his piece "carefully."
"Many others are ideologically predisposed to reject my arguments, arguments which have been made by many other commentators on this subject," Varadarajan said. "My views are actually quite mainstream."
In his responses to the students' letters, Cooley wrote: "You need to think more about what this means since you don't seem to understand it." He said Stern would not rebuke Varadarajan's column because doing so would defy the notion of free speech.
Ferguson said he found Cooley's reply "very condescending." Cooley defended his response.
"As dean, my duty lies in defending the academic freedom of the faculty, as well as the rights of students, to their own freedom of expression," Cooley said. "This is true whether I agree with the ideas or not."
Ferguson and other students are skeptical of Cooley's explanation. In particular, Ferguson said he believes Cooley is reluctant to rebuke the column because he also writes a weekly column for Forbes. Cooley denied this allegation.
"It is the principle of academic freedom, not the fact that we are both columnists, that is important here," he said. "One thing that news organizations and universities have in common is that they both encourage the free exchange of ideas."
In a statement, Sexton said that although he found Varadarajan's column to be offensive and disagrees with it, he values civil discourse. Sexton said he will not impose a sanction against Varadarajan.
"Such an action would be antithetical to NYU's academic principles, and it will not happen," Sexton said. "It is the nature of a university to be home to opposing ideas and opposing views, even absurd and offensive ones."
But Stern senior Sahal Kango, a member of NYU's Islamic Center, said he and the rest of the Center value free speech, but believe Varadarajan's column went too far.
"We believe in academic freedom, but also that academic freedom enables students to grow, develop and contribute," Kango said. "How can we expect students to mature, to learn and to engage their identities if they feel unwelcome and unsafe?"
Varadarajan said that in light of the controversy stirred by his column, he is considering writing a follow-up article highlighting the nature of the response to his column.
Meanwhile, Ferguson said he hopes to continue the discussion of the column on and off campus.
He said: "I think the dialogue will continue for a while."
James
Nov 16, 2009
4:32 a.m.
I read the Professor's piece and found so much wrong with it.
He basically claimed the shooter at Fort Hood didn't integrate into America, and that's what "going Muslim" was supposed to signify, "dropping the camouflage of integration." He's not even right on this topic; Major Hassan was born in Virginia. English was his first language, he went to American schools. It's not an integration problem.
The rest of his article was denigrating Islam, and not even bothering to distinguish law-abiding Muslims from terrorists. That's what stirred up the complaints, and the Dean's email telling the Muslims they didn't know what free speech is only made people angrier and magnified the issue. The response email went onto DailyKos and it turned into a flood.
This idiot professor has cost NYU a lot of prestige. NYU now has campuses in 2 Muslim countries; Abu Dhabi and Singapore. Now NYU has had to go on record; John Sexton was offended by the comments, but Dean Cooley of Stern was not. NYU is going to lose funding from Muslim alumni and donors. Given all the press attention for NYU in the UAE newspaper The National, which just published about the controversy, do you think Muslim students will want to go here? That sort of rationale is what helped get Norman Finkelstein pushed off campus
Ali
Nov 16, 2009
12:58 p.m.
So James, is it all about the prestige and Saudi money train?
Or, is it about calling a pandemic of Islamic terrorist attacks exactly what it is?
What would you suggest we call the phonomenon of endless Muslim terrorist attacks?
I suppose people like you would twist it around and call it something like, "A reaction to colonialism", or, "a reaction to American Middle Eastern polocies", or, "a reaction to internationalism". or "a reaction to Israel's 'occupation'".
But, if so, then what should we call Islamist aggression in western China, or southern Russia, or sourthern Thailand where thousands of Buddhists have been killed by Islamist aggression?
And what would you have us call the three attacks in four days in Peshawar? "Just a little enternal difference of opinion"?
And what of the hundreds of suicide bombings between Shia and Sunnis and Kurds? Should we call that, "a minor household disagreement"?
Please help me out here, James, because I don't understand why we have to be so darn senstive and so darn "PC" when it comes to calling Muslims to be accountable for their brethern's never ending barbaric acts against humanity. Maybe some Muslim readers can tell us what we should call their never ending murderous actions against anyone and everyone.
Ali
Nov 16, 2009
10:45 a.m.
Sahal Kango said, "...she and the rest of the Center value free speech, but believe Varadarajan's column went too far."
Muslims and Muslim apologists cannot stand the truth for it shows Islam for what it is.
What is wrong with calling what Hasan did as "Going Muslim" when it is easy to find hundreds of examples of Muslims doing exactly this?
In the last five days in Peshawar, Pakistan Muslims have "gone Muslim" and in suicide attacks killed and murdered over a hundred innocent civilians. We read about Muslims doing this ALL the time, but to call it for what it is we're told is wrong.
I wonder if Sahal Kango believes the following examples of Muslims using our freedom of free speech is going too far. What is ironic, of course, is if Muslims chose to use free speech in their own countries they would all end up like Salman Rushdie and/or dead.
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2261.htm
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/muslim-at-islamic-community-of-greater-killeen-texas-i-honestly-have-no-pity-for-victims-of-the-fort.html
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/10/uk-muslim-protesters-threaten-geert-wilders-well-have-his-head.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qxjocm5fCc
Joamiq
Nov 16, 2009
8:52 p.m.
Ali, these are deliciously condescending, uninformed, and poorly reasoned remarks. If you really think that Fort Hood was a terrorist attack, then I suppose you'll admit that Klebold and Harris, Seung-Hui Cho, and all the white Americans who shoot up their workplaces every year are terrorists as well.
And no Muslim here at NYU has ever said that Varadarajan doesn't have the right to say what he said. He absolutely had the right. What the students here have been arguing, quite rightly, is that this academic institution cannot refuse to repudiate these remarks on the grounds that they constitute free speech. In academia, speech should only be protected if it serves an intellectual cause. Varadarajan's assertions about Islam and Muslims simply cannot be engaged intellectually, and thus cannot be accepted as part of the University's greater dialogue. There is nothing "stifling" about repudiating such remarks because by their declaratory, unsupported nature, they achieve nothing intellectually. They lead to no further inquiry and cannot be refuted because there is no substance to refute.
Ali
Nov 16, 2009
10:51 p.m.
Joamiq disingenoulsy writes, "There is nothing 'stifling' about repudiating such remarks because by their declaratory, unsupported nature, they achieve nothing intellectually. They lead to no further inquiry and cannot be refuted because there is no substance to refute."
If the good professor's remarks "lead to no further inquiry and cannot be refuted because there is no substance to refute" does that mean we're communicating back and forth about nothing? Sounds very Zen to me. Joamiq you're not a Buddhist are you?
Joamiq then disingenuously writes, "Varadarajan's assertions about Islam and Muslims simply cannot be engaged intellectually, and thus cannot be accepted as part of the University's greater dialogue." And Joamiq called my comments "deliciously condescending".
Joamiq insinuates the Muslim terrorist Nidal Hasan has more in common with Eric Klebold than with Mohammed Atta the famous pilot who tried flying an American Airline plane through the World Trade Towers but only got about half way through.
What Joamiq is disingenuously trying to do is confuse us, but we're not as dumb as Joamiq seems to think.
We all know Nidal Hasan went "Muslim" on us, whereas Eric Klebold simply went "postal" on us. Klebold did not shout out "Allah Akbar as he mowed down his supsects. Klebold simply needed large doses of meds, whereas, Hasan and Muslims like him need large doses of de-programming from a huge religious organization which inculcates its followers with a supremacist mindset instilling in them the belief system that non-Muslims are inferior and should be forcibly converted or even killed if they stand in Islam's way.
Joaqim, your feigned naivety does not fool me, nor Professor Varadarjan. You see he and I actually read the news, watch the news and listen to the news, and that is all it takes to realize that Islam breeds terrorists like rabbits breed bunnies. "Going Muslim" is not only accurate it is perversely funny too. If you don't like the apt saying then I suggest you sit on the floor, cross your legs, breath deeply and chant your favorite Zen chant. That should clear your mind and soul of your misconceptions and anger over Professor Zaradarajan's accurate remarks. It might also take your mind off the once magnificent Banyam Buddha statues of Afghanistan that some Muslims destroyed when they "went Muslim" on us.
chelsea
Nov 16, 2009
5:20 p.m.
Ali - thank you! I completely agree with you saying "We read about Muslims doing this ALL the time, but to call it for what it is we're told is wrong. " Especially at NYU, where the PC police are always on watch, I honestly laugh out loud at some people's refusal to acknowledge what's blatantly going on for fear of "stereotyping" a group of people (heaven forbid it may be accurate!).
Strongly recommend reading Infidel by Aayan Hirsi Ali, a life changing biography from a Muslim woman who isn't afraid to take a stand for what's really happening here.
The book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Infidel-Life-Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali/dp/074329503X
Youtube Video of Aayan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6Wrhivp7eQ
Ali
Nov 16, 2009
10:19 p.m.
Aayan is a remarkably and courageous woman! Like many ex-Muslims who speak honestly about the horros they lived through as Muslims she, too, requires a secuity detail.
nk83
Nov 17, 2009
12:35 p.m.
As a convert to Islam I felt the need to comment here. I understand and can identify with the perceptions from non-muslims given that I lived that life and have family and friends who I have frank discussions with on a daily basis. That being said, the one thing I realized when I finally started looking into the religion is that in many parts of the world "Islam" has been corrupted and strayed from the original teachings. It has been hijacked by masoginistics, warlords, and extremists. That image that is seen in the media and by too many innocent people in this world is not Islam and will never be Islam. I think NYU's Islamic Center tries to correct these negative stereotypes everyday and does a farly good job of it but even as a convert I struggle with the reality of our world today. There is a clear and distinct line between culture and religion and many who suffer today at the hands of "Islamicists" are suffering because of how their culture has taught them to identify with Islam, not vice versa. Every act of terrorism is wrong and I think all rationale Muslims feel this way. I just ask everyone to try to decipher the line between culture and religion because you owe it to yourselves to try and understand the difference.
Ali
Nov 17, 2009
9:57 p.m.
nk83,
You really are new to Islam. It shows. You don't seem to understand it.
NK83 writes, "Islam has been corrupted and strayed from the original teachings. It has been hijacked by masoginistics (sic), warlords, and extremists."
No doubt. Pretty much every single Muslim country is ruled by a mysoginistic warlord and extremist. NK83 seems to believe this is an anomaly. If so, I'd suggest it's an awful big anomaly that two dozen Islamic countries are all ruled by "misunderstanders" of their own religion.
It just amazes me how many miuderstanders of Islam there are. There was that Hasan fella who killed and wounded dozens at Ft. Hood. Even though he was a devout Muslim we are told he misunderstood his religion.
And then there is that Ahmadinejad fella who we are told is an extremist. No question he is a devout extremist who was raised studying the Koran, but an extremist who does not understand his own religion.
Then we have that warlord in Sudan. You know, the guy who was welcomed with open arms at the Arab League summit in Qatar last summer. Why would all those Arab leaders embrace someone who is carrying out one of the worst genocides witnessed in a generation?
Sheez, do all devout Muslims misunderstand their own religion? Talk about anamolies!
As an American I'm beginning to think the only people who "understand" Islam are those nasty, mean-spirited Islamophobes. They seem to understand that Mohammed really was a mysoginistic, extremist warlord. Heck it says this clearly in the Koran and Hadiths. Don't Muslims read these books?
Why do all these extremist Muslim fanatics keep surprising all the "moderate" Muslims? And, for that matter, why do all the "moderate" Muslims support Hamas over a progressive, democratic country like Israel? Are these "moderate" Muslims rooting for the next Afghanistan, or Somalia in what is now the only beacon of light in the Middle East? Are these the same "moderate" Muslims that would welcome and embrace the genocidal leader of Sudan if given the chance?
nk83
Nov 18, 2009
3:04 p.m.
Hey Ali maybe its you who doesn't understand???
grotesque
Nov 18, 2009
3:11 p.m.
tunku’s main objective is to vilify Muslims by smearing their belief system to prove his point. Nevertheless, to give this tunku a taste of his own venom, then we can reference Kedar Joshi’ (ex-Hindu) argument in the “The Satanic Verses of Bhagavad-gita” as bases for establishing that Hinduism is terrorism and concludes that: “the message of Bhagavad-gita is to fight, if necessary with violent means, for the protection of the religion, say Hinduism; to annihilate those whose beliefs and practices are other than Hinduism, which would include atheists, free thinkers, other religious people like Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. That is why Hinduism is terrorism. (For more info please consult my article 'The Satanic Verses of Bhagavad-gita'.)”.
Can we use this argument and the atrocities/massacres Hindu terrorist have committed against Christians and Muslims, to conclude the same about Hinduism? If we do, then we have “gone tunku” too!
Equally perplexing and that (Vardarajan) used to write for the Wall Street Journal. In 2005, its editorial page described American Muslims as “role models both as Americans and as Muslims” (”Stars, Stripes, Crescent,” August 24, 2005).
This bigot thinks we are a bunch of idiots easily programmed to hate and engage in wars with muslim. Then he’ll find us another villain to hate.
Ali
Nov 18, 2009
9:05 p.m.
Grotesque,
I'm having difficulty remembering. Must be a senior moment. I'm sure you can help.
I can't recall the last time a Hindu beheaded someone while shouting out "Bhagavad-gita Akbar"! Could you remind me.
I'm having an equally hard time remembering when a Hindu stormed a Russian grammar school resulting in over one hundred children deaths. Could you remind me.
And for the life of me I simply cannot remember the last time a Hindu blew up a disco in Bali klling over two hundred. I'm sure you have that information at your fingertips and will tell us all about it.
And, while we're at it, tell me about a recent Hindu genocide like the Muslim genocides in Sudan, or the one in Armenia where Muslims forced men, women and children to walk, and walk and walk and walk until they died. Muslims did that, or something else along those lines until over 1,000,000 Armenian Christians were dead.
You get my drift. I'm old and senile and cannot remember anything you're talking about. Hindu terrorists is as foreign to me as Menonite terrorists, but I know it is all my fault, for you would never lie to me. Please let me know of the specific examples you are referring to so that next time it comes up I won't appear so uninformed.
Until then, "Bhagavad-gita Akbar"!!!
CS
Nov 18, 2009
11:09 p.m.
Ali, there clearly is no point in arguing with you, because you are determined to use the actions of the small extremist minority of those who practice Islam to castigate an entire race.
"Maybe some Muslim readers can tell us what we should call their never ending murderous actions against anyone and everyone."
Keeping in mind that it is (oddly) a college news site that you've chosen to spam, do you mean to insinuate that most NYU Muslim college students are responsible for the actions all Muslim extremists? Have they committed murder simply by identifying with the same faith?
Have Muslims committed atrocities? Absolutely, we all understand that. But what about the Christian extremists who blow up abortion clinics? who commit hate crimes against gay people? What about the Christian extremists known as the Ku Klux Klan? Better yet, what about the Christian fundamentalists from the 19th century who defended slavery, racism, and sexism by citing the Bible?
Does this make me hate Christians? Of course not. But that's probably because I'm not naïve enough to define an entire religious group on the basis of its atrocities—if I did that, well...I guess that just leaves Atheism. By your logic, all the Christian college students at NYU should be accounting for thousands of KKK lynchings that have taken place in the last two centuries.
What's so troubling about you, Ali, is not just that you spew hatred under the guise of American free speech, but that you actually believe you're doing the world a great service by spamming a college news site with your ignorance.
Xinjiang
Nov 18, 2009
11:42 p.m.
"No doubt. Pretty much every single Muslim country is ruled by a mysoginistic warlord and extremist."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megawati_Sukarnoputri
Look at her Burqa! Look at all of those men whipping her!
Wait, what? She ruled the ENTIRE country? Wait, that's impossible!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey
I don't know that a government that is AVOWEDLY secular is exactly extremist Muslim! It might be that you're completely wrong.
How did you even find WSN anyway? Do you even attend the school? Did you google "Muslim" and "university" and was angry that it didn't say "sucks" next to it?
Xinjiang
Nov 18, 2009
11:56 p.m.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4727215.ece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7214053.stm
"Between 1 January and 30 July 2000, more than fifty-seven attacks on Christians were reported. The acts of violence include arson of churches, forcible conversion of Christians to Hinduism, distribution of threatening literature, burning of Bibles, murder of Christian priests and destruction of Christian schools, colleges, and cemeteries."
"In September 14, 2008, the Hindu fundamentalist organizations Bajrang Dal directed a wave of attacks against Christian churches, convents and prayer halls in the Indian city of Mangalore."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians#Hindu_Persecution_of_Christians_in_India
The Armenian Genocide was over a hundred years ago, I'm not really sure that counts as "recent."
But, sure:
"There were widespread riots during the Partition of British India in 1947, with attacks on Muslim minorities by Hindu and Sikh mobs and vice versa. In order to facilitate the creation of new states along religious lines population exchanges between India and Pakistan were implemented, at the expense of significant human suffering in the process. A large number of people (more than a million by some estimates) died in the accompanying violence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims#cite_note-110
You can stop at any time now
to ali
Nov 19, 2009
12:53 a.m.
Listen Ali, if that is really your name(or if you are just trying to gain more legitimacy by taking a Muslim name). At one point in history, during the middle ages(crusades, Inquisition, 30 years war) and even until the early 1900s Christians were committing daily acts of terrorism in the name of Christianity(Czar Nicholas II and many Russian Orthodox Christians would massacre Russian Jews in the name of Christianity as recent as 100 years ago every Easter through Blood libel) accusing Jews of drinking Christian children's blood and the killing of Jesus). Now this no longer goes on, because of reformation and secularization of society without throwing out of Christianity completely, the same can happen in Muslim countries, and even happens in Turkey today. Unfortunately, people like you would like to completely discredit Islam, in hope the whole world will unite against it which will never ever happen.
Islam does have some violent tendencies but if you look at the Koran the peaceful and coexistent verses outnumber the "violent" and "intolerant" verses. If you say the peaceful verses have been abrogated, well according to most Muslims less than a dozen verses in the Koran have been abrogated and there are dozens upon dozens of verses in the Koran that call for peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims.
Seeing how overwhelmingly majority of muslims are non-violent and coexist with non-Muslims, they are following those peaceful verses and hopefully in the future more will follow these verses and not take the 'violent' ones literally like most Jews today take the stoning to death of those who break the Sabbath literally.
To Ali
Nov 19, 2009
1:17 a.m.
The muslim scholar Atiyyah Saqr says:
A question arises: is taking up arms the only means to spread Islam? Fighting originally had two main objectives: the first one was to ward off an actual or an anticipated aggression, and the second one was to clear the hurdles in the path of Da`wah (call for Islam). The battles of Badr, Uhud, Al-Khandaq and others are examples of staving off actual aggression and some of them were fought in order to aid the oppressed. Almighty Allah says: (But if they seek your help in religion, it is your duty to help them…) (Al-Anfal 8: 72). The conquest of Makkah was undertaken for the purpose of staving off an expected aggression after the Quraish had violated its covenant with the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in Al-Hudaybyah; this was also the case of the expedition of Tabuk and other expeditions. It also cleared the obstacles placed in the path of Islam by enabling the Muslims to leave Madinah and spread the call to Islam all over the world because Islam is a universal message. Since Jihad was legalized in Islam and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said that he was sent by Allah to wage war against disbelief and that his sustenance was “tied” to his spear, as related by Ahmad on the authority of Ibn `Umar, then we have to understand that Islam advocated acquiring the highest degree of power, and the reason for this is that Islam, at that time, was a newly rising power and was expected to be “attacked” by the already existing powers to prevent it from competing with them over power – a conflict that is common to all ages.
Therefore, the new entity had to be defended in order to prove its strength and deliver its message. If Islam were a local temporary call, taking up arms would be just for the purpose of defense, but Islam is a universal call that had to reach the whole world. However, the only means at that time was traveling, which was, and still is fraught with dangers; so taking up arms was necessary to prevent the enemies from standing in the path of the Islamic call.
While arms were necessary to remove the hurdles in the past, their sole mission NOW is to defend Islam against those who want to harm it and harm those who embrace it. As for spreading Islam, there are several means that spare people the trouble of traveling, such as newspapers, books, the Internet and other means that have known no boarders, although they may be controlled to some extent. However, radio stations have become of such power and prevalence that they can reach people while being at home or even in bed, and they can neither be prevented by any authority, nor held back by any door or border.
THUS THE VERSE OF OFFENSIVE JIHAD APPLY TO THE PAST MUCH LIKE THE VIOLENT VERSE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ARE JUST HISTORY
Ali
Nov 19, 2009
11:07 a.m.
Ali to Ali...come in please. This is Houston. Do you copy?
Words are words. Sticks and stones can break my bones...
It's wonderful to spin yarns about "what if", "if only", "in another life or time" and suchlike, but what I care about more than fairy tales is the here and now.
Everyone tells me Islam means peace, and Islam is compassionate and tolerant. And my mommy told me the tooth fairy was coming too.
Here are just a handful of examples of Islam's peacefulness in action:
1) 19 Muslims flew planes into the WTC.
2) Muslims murdered hundreds of thousands and displaced millions in Darfur. The president of Sudan says this is done in in Islam's name. In any case thousands of Muslim jihadists do the dirty deed.
3) The Arab League invites and warmly embraces the president of Sudan to their most recent summit in Qatar.
4) Muslims take over and are responsible for the killing of over a hundred school children in Beslan, Russia. They do it in the name of Islam.
5) Hamas calls for the elimination (genocide) of all Jews in the Middle East. They say it is their Islamic duty to do so.
6) The ruler of Somalia has forced Sharia law there. Meanwhile fear, anarchy and repression is what rules the day.
7) The Taliban turn a soccor field in Kabul into a place to watch executions --mostly women-- as they follow their understanding of Sharia law. Not a soccor ball to be found.
8) There is not one single non-Muslim citizen in all of Saudi Arabia. Another country where Sharia law is the law of the land. Meanwhile Saudi Arabia accuses Israel of practicing apartheid.
9) The president of Iran says there are no homosexuals in Iran. Meanwhile it is not unusal for homosexuals --when they are discovered-- to be hung.
10) Coincidentally, Iran is also ruled by Sharia law, and president Ahmadinejad is calling for the genocide of Israel. Is this kosher under Sharia law?
11) 1,000,000 Muslims were killed during the Iraq/Iran war. Allah Akbar!
12) 400,000 Palestinians were forced out of Kuwait in one week after Arafat placed his support behind Saddam Hussein in the '91 Kuwait war. (Google this if you do not believe it.)
13) Almost 1,000,000 Jews were forced to flee Muslim countries after Israel was created. These refugees were forced to leave their property and wealth behind. These refugees were welcomed and integrated into countires like Israel, France, America and elsewhere. We do not hear about these refugees, but never stop hearing about the Palestinian refugees. Why is that?
14) 4,000 Buddhists have been killed in southern Thailand by Muslims who cry out "Allah Akbar" as they force their way northward up the Malya peninsula.
15) The ancient Christian Coptic and Chaldean communities are being systematically destroyed in Egpyt and Iraq. Islam means peace.
I love words. But actions speak louder than words, no?
Andrew
Nov 19, 2009
2:12 p.m.
Ali, you are an endless source of entertainment.
We don't hear too much about Hindu terrorism because it occurs in areas the media doesn't cover, like Sri Lanka, India, and Tamil. Yes, 9/11 happened, but how many people were involved in that or knew? Maybe 100 tops, all of whom were living next to each other in a cave? And there are over a billion Muslims.
Also, most Palestinian terrorist organizations like the PLO were founded by Christians or Communist secularists. Terrorism isn't an exclusively Islamic phenomenon.
Whenever a Christian kills a Jew, it should be called going Polish right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_violence_in_Poland,_1944%E2%80%931946#Kielce_pogrom. Great job Catholics, killing 2,000 Jewish Holocaust survivors returning home. If you think a country like Poland is any less anti-Semitic than Iran you're mistaken. There's about the same number of Jews living in Iran as Poland for a reason.
Why do you think Dylan Klebold or Seung-Hui Cho just needed meds (which they were already on) and Maj. Hassan didn't?
Again, Ali, what are you doing on this site? I've concluded you are a real person since your walls of text are so impressive and consistently insane and condescending. What is it about nyunews that attracted you to it?
I think this youtube video will settle my debate with you once and for all, and prove that Islam is a religion of peace: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
The_Mentalist
Nov 19, 2009
2:17 p.m.
Respectfully, Ali and his irk are so blinded and narrow-minded that the only way the feel good about themselves is to condescend and scapegoat the most vulnerable. Such people have identity crisis of their own. They have no life and cant see other people living their pious lives because their own lives are filthy and unclean.
It seems the Hindu professor himself has trouble with his own identity and like to take it on other people because he is being treated nothing more than a roach crawling in America.
And such people ignore "Civilized Violence" which has killed far more human flesh and blood than outlined in their copied and pasted rants. Too bad that terrorists do not have high tech missiles and bombs raining from billion dollar F-16s and killing machines... those barbarians !
Ali
Nov 19, 2009
3:24 p.m.
In one of Andrew's comments he wrote that he does PR work for Hamas. PR work? In Andrew's hands that must mean taking a shred of truth and turning it into something false, and then repeating it ad nausem until we come to think it's true. Hey! Wait a minute. Isn't that what Goebbels did for the Nazis? Good work Andrew. You and Goebbels are like two peas...
Andrew, you have done me in. You have won the day. Yes. Yes. YES! The Tamil Tigers are far worse than those handful of Muslims who "Go Muslim" on us.
You're 100% right. We don't know much about the Tamil Tigers -even though you've convinced us they're far worse than Al Qaeda and the Taliban (and the hundred other Muslim extremists group who "Go Muslim" on us)-- because the Tamil Tigers are stealthy like little Tiger cubs, or even like little kittens whose mewing is barely audible.
Now I understand. Now I see the light. And, the light, is shining on a liar with no scruples named Andrew. Thanks for clarifying things as only a PR guy like you can do LOL.
CS
Nov 19, 2009
6:54 p.m.
Ali, I'll say so again: your refusal to draw a distinction between Muslims and Muslim extremists would be like refusing to draw a distinction between Christians and Christians who belong / belonged to the Ku Klux Klan.
I'll also add that it's pretty laughable to see you assaulting the character of other people on this site, when, in addition to being a hate-mongering lunatic, you consider spamming a college news site to be a worthwhile use of your time. Not only are you deluded in respect to your views on Muslims, but you delude yourself into believing that what you're saying and where you're saying are actually doing the world some good.
This is the most you can accomplish with your time, Ali? Inflammatory remarks in the comments section of the Washington Square News?
to Ali
Nov 19, 2009
3:28 p.m.
Most of the incidents you have listed have to do with politics not religion. Do you really think Islam encourages killing of other muslims(like what the Taliban is doing now and what the Sudanese govt. is doing)? There is Koranic a verse that says a muslim who kills a muslim intentionally will go to hell forever. Moreover, the Iran/Iraq war had nothing to do with religion, you even had a socialist secular Baathist govt. of Sadaam Hussien launch a war against Iran for a small peice of land. Also the war in Sudan has to do with a simple civil war between people who want a independent Darfur and the Sudanese govt.
Also, you didn't address any of my points. The argument that Islam wants to takeover the world according to most Muslim scholars doesn't apply anymore and this shows that slowly like Christian Europe, which at one time was filled with Christian acts of terrorism, but now is peaceful, will one day be the same for the Muslim world. We need more muslim preachers talking about the peaceful verse of the Koran and calling for reconciliation between muslims as well non-muslims.
Unlike you who doesn't look for a solution and only likes demonizing 1/4 of the population of the world, I am looking for a solution, that doesn't involve more war and genocide.
Ali
Nov 20, 2009
1:21 p.m.
Ali to Ali to Ali,
You write that most of my points "have to do with politics not religion". Why don't you tell us where politics end and religions starts in Islam? Or if you would rather please tell us where religion starts and politics end in Islam.
Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."
By this he meant politics and religion are separate and this is how we do it in the west.
Of course In Islam there is no separation of church in state which is why in every Islamic country some form of Sharia law is present. Of course in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan and Somalia the entire countries are ruled by Sharia law, which is comforting to know since everyone in the world wants to retire to Sudan or Saudi Arabia.
Eli
Nov 20, 2009
1:26 p.m.
"Of course In Islam there is no separation of church in state which is why in every Islamic country some form of Sharia law is present."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Turkey
"The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular and social state governed by the rule of law; bearing in mind the concepts of public peace, national solidarity and justice; respecting human rights; loyal to the nationalism of Atatürk, and based on the fundamental tenets set forth in the Preamble."
Try again
Ali
Nov 20, 2009
2:35 p.m.
Ali to Ali,
You write, "Unlike you (me) who doesn't look for a solution..."
This is absolutely not true. I strongly believe we need to work toward a solution. I also believe that to do this we cannot pretend the problem is not exactly what it is. You see, this is what Neville Chamberlin failed to do before WWII started. Neville dlusionally thought Hitler was a reasonable man. A man we could work with. WInston Churchill argued the other side of this debate and sadly was ignored.
Pretending or believing in fariy tales is not working toward a solution. Looking straight on, and without pretense or delusion at the problem is the only way to mover forward in a reasoned, constructive direction.
Pretending "Going Muslim" is an affront to Muslims is not a starting point. "Going Muslim" sadly is the problem. Be it in Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan Iran, Libya, Nigeria, Somalia and elsewhere Muslims are "going Muslim" every minute of the day. To pretend this is because they "misunderstand their own religion" does not work anymore. Not when they quote from their holy books --their religion-- to justify their actions.
In closing I want to reiterate that I want to solve the problem as badly as anyone. That's why I take the time I have to comment here. It's just that I try to be honest about the problem while others (Andrew the PR man for Hamas) try to lie, deflect, obfuscate the root cause. The problem is Islam. This is not pretty to write or say, but there it is. There is not an Islamic country in the world where repression and fear do not rule the day. There is no prettying this up no matter how hard Andrew and his ilk try to do so.
leave a comment
Comments from unregistered users will appear once they are approved. Log in to have your comment show up immediately.