Surge in religious extremism must be blamed on West – Kremlin official

[Aepsilons]

with india providing refuge to some of the anti-socialist afghans like hamid karzai.

Lol. Are always so sympathetic to socialists?

 

[jamahir]

Lol. Are always so sympathetic to socialists?

always... i myself am socialist... i forward the "third universal theory" or "jamahiriya direct-democracy" political ideology developed in libyan jamahiriya in and after 1969.

most indian members prefer to insult me by calling me "commie".

 

[Aepsilons]

always... i myself am socialist... i forward the "third universal theory" or "jamahiriya direct-democracy" political ideology developed in libyan jamahiriya in and after 1969.

most indian members prefer to insult me by calling me "commie".

ha ha, well, you have a very interesting perspective and tho we disagree on some issues I always appreciated how you debate respectfully.

I always enjoy reading about another perspective so thanks .

 

[SQ8]

You have to agree that the West has caused a burst of modern pseudo-Muslim terrorism. The West sponsored and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

That they may have, but the issue in the Caucus was more centred around a much milder ideology and had more to do with the Soviet suppression of religion in the Central Asian states other than anything else. A trip in the early 90s right after the dissolution of the Union was an eye opener as to how Islam was targeted(along with other religion, ironic considering that Christmas was celebrated at state level) by the communists for targeted shutdown. Tactics included jail time, forceful consumption of alcohol.. rape.and so on... in addition to execution of religious leadership.
In response, Muslims adopted a unique preaching and continuation system of religion that included praying in closets, teaching the Quran in hidden cellars to children. and so on. However,such suppression was NOT confined to religion but also to other aspects of life in Chechnya.

So the antagonism is much older than the Mujahideen. However, where the problem ran rampant and went rather awry was the blind eye the west turned to the Saudi extremist ideals they were promoting.

 

[jamahir]

the blind eye the west turned to the Saudi extremist ideals they were promoting.

so the indian/south-asian tableeghi jamaat had nothing to do with later formation of the "hizb ut tahrir" in russia, central asia and china??

what about "hizb ut tahrir" in australia?? the west doesn't suppress the mullahs.

what about tableegh among the turks in western europe?? the west doesn't suppress the mullahs.

what about ikhwaan in north africa and syria??

 

[vostok]

That they may have, but the issue in the Caucus was more centred around a much milder ideology and had more to do with the Soviet suppression of religion in the Central Asian states other than anything else. A trip in the early 90s right after the dissolution of the Union was an eye opener as to how Islam was targeted(along with other religion, ironic considering that Christmas was celebrated at state level) by the communists for targeted shutdown. Tactics included jail time, forceful consumption of alcohol.. rape.and so on... in addition to execution of religious leadership.
In response, Muslims adopted a unique preaching and continuation system of religion that included praying in closets, teaching the Quran in hidden cellars to children. and so on. However,such suppression was NOT confined to religion but also to other aspects of life in Chechnya.

So the antagonism is much older than the Mujahideen. However, where the problem ran rampant and went rather awry was the blind eye the west turned to the Saudi extremist ideals they were promoting.

In Chechnya, there was no Muslim uprising, it was the intervention from the outside, carefully planned and sponsored from abroad (you know, who sponsored them). If someone raises a religious uprising - he should do it in Soviet times, but not after 1991. After 1991, it was pointless, because there were no opression any more.

 

[ravi kiran]

always... i myself am socialist... i forward the "third universal theory" or "jamahiriya direct-democracy" political ideology developed in libyan jamahiriya in and after 1969.

most indian members prefer to insult me by calling me "commie".

are you really indian??
what is your definition of socialism???

 

[jamahir]

are you really indian??
what is your definition of socialism???

well, i am from india... definition of socialism, i had replied with that to jf-thunder a few days back... i will find that and reply to you in "whatever" thread.

 

[ravi kiran]

well, i am from india... definition of socialism... i had replied with that to jf-thunder a few days back... i will find that and reply to you in "whatever" thread.

so you are from India but you are not Indian.

 

[jamahir]

so you are from India but you are not Indian.

i was born in india and live here, but i being a socialist do not accept the legitimacy of india as a political society... india in 1947 wasn't born through revolution ( ussr, for example ) or through freedom struggle against colonizers ( algeria, for example )... india was a creation of usa and britain who wanted a anti-socialist base against socialism in north asia and south-east asia... would bhagat singh have liked this india of now?? would iqbal and subhash bose have liked it?? would the founders of the "communist party of india" in 1921 have liked the india of now??

i find it undemocratic that india is forced upon various peoples, through military means.

 

[SQ8]

so the indian/south-asian tableeghi jamaat had nothing to do with later formation of the "hizb ut tahrir"??

what about "hizb ut tahrir" in australia?? the west doesn't suppress the mullahs.

what about tableegh among the turks in western europe?? the west doesn't suppress the mullahs.

what about ikhwaan in north africa and syria??

They had a lot to. There is a rather ostrich attitude in blaming all ills on the Najdi Salfists.. without realising that the Tableeghi Jamaat along with the Pakistani elements of Deoband have also had their fair share in pushing extremism in South Asia.

The Hizb is possibly one of the most dangerous organizations out there. It is essentially an Islamic State that has yet to take up arms and is much more rampant and equally rabid in its goals like the IS.

In Chechnya, there was no Muslim uprising, it was the intervention from the outside, carefully planned and sponsored from abroad (you know, who sponsored them). If someone raises a religious uprising - he should do it in Soviet times, but not after 1991. After 1991, it was pointless, because there were no opression any more.

Which is why the uprising was brewing since Soviet times.. so when the Soviet Union did dissolve.. just as with Afghanistan.. there was ample chance for outside forces to take advantage of it.

 

[jamahir]

They had a lot to. There is a rather ostrich attitude in blaming all ills on the Najdi Salfists.. without realising that the Tableeghi Jamaat along with the Pakistani elements of Deoband have also had their fair share in pushing extremism in South Asia.

true... the works of maudoodi, the indian leader of tableegh, were the inspiration for sayyid qutb, who in turn was the inspiration for later groups like lifg, fis, qaeda, jemah and shabaab... but as you said, the najdi faction gets all the blame.

actually, pakistan government should demand from india the extradition of zakir naik... i think you know who he is, yes??

The Hizb is possibly one of the most dangerous organizations out there. It is essentially an Islamic State that has yet to take up arms and is much more rampant and equally rabid in its goals like the IS.

and the funny thing is that in australia they can take out marches... but in syria or algeria they would be shot or arrested.

 

[ravi kiran]

i was born in india and live here, but i being a socialist do not accept the legitimacy of india as a political society... india in 1947 wasn't born through revolution ( ussr, for example ) or through freedom struggle against colonizers ( algeria, for example )... india was a creation of usa and britain who wanted a anti-socialist base against socialism in north asia and south-east asia... would bhagat singh have liked this india of now?? would iqbal and subhash bose have liked it?? would the founders of the "communist party of india" in 1921 have liked the india of now??

i find it undemocratic that india is forced upon various peoples, through military means.

who says india is forced on people through military means??
we got independence by fighting british. our people made great sacrifices to gain independence.
its true we have many problems which we have to face together as a one nation.
USA has nothing to do with independence of India. India is present here for thousands of years. we got colonized by british but we got independence through 150 years of freedom fight.

 

[jamahir]

who says india is forced on people through military means??
we got independence by fighting british. our people made great sacrifices to gain independence.
its true we have many problems which we have to face together as a one nation.
USA has nothing to do with independence of India. India is present here for thousands of years. we got colonized by british but we got independence through 150 years of freedom fight.

not my view... and we are off-topic... so please allow me till tomorrow for me to post you my view on socialism, in the "whatever" thread.

 

[SQ8]

true... the works of maudoodi, the indian leader of tableegh, were the inspiration for sayyid qutb, who in turn was the inspiration for later groups like lifg, fis, qaeda, jemah and shabaab... but as you said, the najdi faction gets all the blame.

actually, pakistan government should demand from india the extradition of zakir naik... i think you know who he is, yes??



and the funny thing is that in australia they can take out marches... but in syria or algeria they would be shot or arrested.

Maudoodi, IMHO was an ignorant person much like Muhammad Ibn Abd al Wahhab and Mirza Ghulam Qadiyani.. all three started out with good ideas and in the case of Mirza of Qadiyan had actual potential to bring about the next evolution in Muslim thought, but were too quick to dismiss established theological facts without providing much basis for their rejection. The result was that all three dismiss the rest of the Muslim community(and each other) as heretics.

Zakir Naik is another quasi Mufti in my opinion. If you are familiar with the age old hierarchy(from the days of the Baghdad Caliphate and its much more comprehensive knowledge and research base) of Islamic Scholars.. the Aalim were the proverbial PhD cum Judges of the order.. and the Mufti..which was a very low level title.. was nothing more than a Oath commissioner in terms of a Judicial system.

Sadly , today we have Muftis acting out the role of Aalims and everyone below them including those on the internet who just picked up the Quran three days ago becoming Muftis.