Bush 'planted fake news stories

[Muslim First]

.

Bush 'planted fake news stories on American TV'
.

[accountability]

brother muslim first:

Please enlighten me, I have been going through different posts. What I found was intriguing and baffling for me, While I found, that you and anajmi are living in america, but are very critical of its core values. It is one thing to criticize the administration, which you included, has every right to do. But what confuses me is, your ideal place to live is not america. But you are still living there.

While on one hand you want to enjoy the freedom that it entails by living in america, and you are wary of recent american treatment of muslims, but on the other hand, you fail to realize, that muslims in general have not adopted this land wholeheartedly. By every notion they tend to prove, that they have no affection for the country they live in.

Fogive me for generalizing the muslims, there may be examples of vice versa.

It is a fact, that muslims are freer in america than in any arab country, specially the so called cradle of Islam Saudi arabia, they are free to practice their version of islam as and when they desire.

Imagine in Saudi Arabia, a matam procession by shia, not thinkable. Or Sunni rituals in Iran, not thinkable. But in america, Both sunnis and shias are living, and practicing their versions of Islam.

They are both protected by freedom of religion act.

So I would say, if muslims in america wants america or americans to see them favourably, then they should also prsent themselves as patriots and compatriots. Their dissent should be for the benefits of america and to improve the system.

As they have adopted this as their new country, they should cede their previous loyalties and be faithful to their new country.

In a free society, free movement is also guaranteed. If they think, this is not and will not be the land of their choice, then they are free to leave or should leave.

[anajmi]

accty,

There are so many things I want to say, but I know I would be wasting my time. Even this much I am saying because you mentioned my name.

[Muslim First]

.
Br. AC

AS

Let me tell you up front that America is best place to practice your religion, what ever it may be or what ever flavor it has. I am doing just that.

I am living in America running my own business and do not have much do with where I came from except Charity.

Nobody is critical of core values of America. Who would not want freedom of religion and speech? I am taking advantage of it. I also know that being Muslim I cannot completely use my right to speak freely.

What gave you impression that I belong in India? Please elaborate.

SA is Islamic country and is birthplace of Islam. Maatam is a Shia practice and is not part of Islam. Show me one Ayah of Qur’an or Sunnah of Prophet supporting Maatam. If there is none then Islamic country may prohibit it.

Sunni rituals?

Please elaborate. Is praying Namaaz Sunni way, a ritual? I do not think it is Prohibited in Iran. Is Tarawih a ritual? I do not think it is prohibited in Iran. So what Sunni ritual prohibited in Iran?

I will wait for your feed back and then comment.

Wasalaam
.

[Muslim First]

.
Br. AC

Please read this.

This is the reason why a Muslim in USA can not be too free to speak.

The Agent Who Might Have Saved Hamid Hayat

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fuj/latimes46.htm

Wasalaam
.

[accountability]

Brother Muslim first: Matam is not an islamic ritual either, fair justice would take, if it is not prohibited, then it is permitted. if matam is not against islam, then banning it means curtailing the religious freedom.

Exactly, Traavih namaz is not allowed in iran. again it is not against islam, but banning it means curtailment of religious freedom.

I went through my previous post, i could not find, where did I mention, that you came from India, actually I even do not know, if you are a born or naturilized or just a resident of united states citizenry.

I was just giving you, my impression that may be wrongly assumed.

If you refute this, I shall take your words for it.

Regarding the freedom of speech for muslims, I agree that because of some percieved and some generated fear by electronic media for their petty intrest, some muslims may not feel comfortable to speak out.

muslims on the other hand were reluctant to offer full co operation to fight the threats, that were posed to their country.

If we talk about perception, we can also find fault on both sides, muslims were complascent and american media became vigilantee.

Iraq war is a stupid mistake. But we should not take it as a war against islam. It is an open secret that Iraq war started with only one thing in mind that is oil. there was not any religious consideration to that.

My country did not participate in a war, that was not sanctioned by United nations. But american public got carried away by right wing media like fox and cnn etc.

but generally american people are resilient, we can see home grown movements agaist war and its rhetoric, like cindy sheehan etc. big rallies against war.

Now people like bin laden and co, they exploited this situation, made it sound like a war against islam, which it was not.

Having said that, Saddam hussain and Iraqi people had and have no contribution to muslim welfare. In kashmir and palestine, saddam and iraqi people were on opposite side. saddam's change of heart occured only after gulf war 1 for palestine, but beside that he was a stupid dictator, who even did not deserve to be the low ranking section officer in any administration, but a ruler of a country.

There is no examples of a country's unity on the basis of religion. If religion was a cohesive force, there would not be 40 christian countries and 30 muslim countries. some of the countries are so small, that their ruler can gaze the end of their empire from the balcony of their palaces.

Pakistan and Israel are exceptions. both came into being on the basis of religious divide. Pakistan lost its one half just after 23 years in the shape of bangla desh, the rest is full of regional and sectarian differences. If Islam is the binding force, then why there are so many differences among these ethnic entities.

Israel is amalgamation of world jewry. The only critera for being an israelite right now is, to be a jew. any jew from any part of the world is a citizen of israel by virtue of religion. In israel's case, religion is made to be a binding force. (please try to understand when i say, it is made to be a binding force, israelites historically are a tribe, they have a tendency to belong to that tribe, their geographical sepration did not cause them to loose their affliation to their tribe. As a tribe they have similar religion that is judaism. Actually in their case their tribal affiliations is prime and binding and religious consideration is secondry).

Religions including Islam, are not the cohesive force, they are rather a criterea for ethical and moral values.

Almost all the countries in world are largely populated by immigrants, even the ones who claim the teritorial rights were and are migrants to that land. Human migration started since times unknown.

But when migrants settled down, they chose that land to their motherland. They started defending it and owning it. That was not due to any religious obligation, but rather a sense of belonging.

America is no exception to history. All human phenomenon applies to american society as well as others. The irish scottish colonization of america started in 17th century. Thouhg religiously, both the communities differed, irish were catholics, but they settled together, and started building society, then they had civil war, that was northern traders and southern cotton growers's conflict of intrest.

After that americans became a unified society on the basis an egalitarian agenda they built a secular democratic country.

[accountability]

Please read "not prohibited in islam"

[accountability]

please read "unislamic" instead of "islamic"