Bangladesh: 50 hurt as Islamic hardliners attack Ahmadiyyas

Among the nearly 1000 recipients of Nobel Prizes in science (Physics, Chemistry, Medicine), only one appears to have gone to a "Muslim" -- Abdus Salam. Trained partly at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge, and dying in Oxford (to which he had retired), Abdus Salam shared the prize with Sheldon Glashow and Steven Weinberg.

He was the first Muslim to win a Nobel Prize. The handful of subsequent Muslim winners is instructive. Naguib Mahfouz won the Nobel for Literature for his Nile-long tales of Cairo; clearly literary merit was less involved than the desire to give the award to an Arabic-language writer, and almost all of them are so tendentiously political, that Mahfouz was a reasonable choice. That prize did not rescue him from the fury of a Muslim Brother who tried to stab him to death for something he had written 30 years before that was insufficiently Islamic.

Then there was Arafat, another Cairene, who was given the prize for his agreeing to sign the Oslo Accords, whereby Arafat made off with a few billion dollars (still being looked for high and low), and also had great fun, as he told Muslim audiences, signing his very own Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya (would those stupid Infidels never learn?). Still another was Shirin Ebadi, wrongly presented as fighter for justice, when in fact she combines work on behalf of mistreated women and children in the Islamic Republic of Iran with shilling for Islam itself (the source, in the end, of that mistreatment). Ebadi's atrocious Nobel Prize speech (with its anti-American and anti-Israel statements), and the care with which she abides by strict, do-not-lay-anything-at-the-feet-of-Islam rules, expressed in her constant nonsense about how that very mistreatment that disturbs her "has nothing to do with Islam" but is "a cultural thing" (but that culture is suffed with, pervaded with, is the product of -- Islam). She is a hollow heroine.

One presumes that Abdus Salam deserved his 1/3 of the 1979 prize. But his entire career depended upon access to Western education. And while he wrote on the "Wisdom of Islam" (just the kind of thing to win a Templeton Prize) he was both claimed, in Pakistan, as a "Muslim" and yet belonged, as ah Ahmadiyya, to a sect regarded by many Muslims in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and elsewhere as not a real Muslim at all. It was a case of claiming not him, but rather his Nobel, for Islam, and then not discussing if just possibly, the reason he was the only Muslim Nobel-winner in science muight have something to do with, precisely, the relatively greater mental freedom that Adhamiddya Islam may offer its adherents, compared to that available to those in orhtodox Islam.

Meanwhile, the Greatest Pakistani Scientist of All Time, the Great Model of How to Behave, the Man Who is Untouchable, is not Abdus Salam. Not at all. It is Dr. A. Q. Khan. And we all know what his great achievements have been, and not only in Pakistan.

Among the nearly 1000 recipients of Nobel Prizes in science (Physics, Chemistry, Medicine), only one appears to have gone to a "Muslim" -- Abdus Salam. Trained partly at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge, and dying in Oxford (to which he had retired), Abdus Salam shared the prize with Sheldon Glashow and Steven Weinberg.

He was the first Muslim to win a Nobel Prize. The handful of subsequent Muslim winners is instructive. Naguib Mahfouz won the Nobel for Literature for his Nile-long tales of Cairo; clearly literary merit was less involved than the desire to give the award to an Arabic-language writer, and almost all of them are so tendentiously political, that Mahfouz was a reasonable choice. That prize did not rescue him from the fury of a Muslim Brother who tried to stab him to death for something he had written 30 years before that was insufficiently Islamic.

Then there was Arafat, another Cairene, who was given the prize for his agreeing to sign the Oslo Accords, whereby Arafat made off with a few billion dollars (still being looked for high and low), and also had great fun, as he told Muslim audiences, signing his very own Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya (would those stupid Infidels never learn?). Still another was Shirin Ebadi, wrongly presented as fighter for justice, when in fact she combines work on behalf of mistreated women and children in the Islamic Republic of Iran with shilling for Islam itself (the source, in the end, of that mistreatment). Ebadi's atrocious Nobel Prize speech (with its anti-American and anti-Israel statements), and the care with which she abides by strict, do-not-lay-anything-at-the-feet-of-Islam rules, expressed in her constant nonsense about how that very mistreatment that disturbs her "has nothing to do with Islam" but is "a cultural thing" (but that culture is suffed with, pervaded with, is the product of -- Islam). She is a hollow heroine.

One presumes that Abdus Salam deserved his 1/3 of the 1979 prize. But his entire career depended upon access to Western education. And while he wrote on the "Wisdom of Islam" (just the kind of thing to win a Templeton Prize) he was both claimed, in Pakistan, as a "Muslim" and yet belonged, as ah Ahmadiyya, to a sect regarded by many Muslims in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and elsewhere as not a real Muslim at all. It was a case of claiming not him, but rather his Nobel, for Islam, and then not discussing if just possibly, the reason he was the only Muslim Nobel-winner in science muight have something to do with, precisely, the relatively greater mental freedom that Adhamiddya Islam may offer its adherents, compared to that available to those in orhtodox Islam.

Meanwhile, the Greatest Pakistani Scientist of All Time, the Great Model of How to Behave, the Man Who is Untouchable, is not Abdus Salam. Not at all. It is Dr. A. Q. Khan. And we all know what his great achievements have been, and not only in Pakistan.

Well sure. First the jihad comes to displace, convert, murder, or marginalize the infidels (see Suadn, Nigeria, Israel, Lebanon, Malaysia, and the Philippines.) Once the infidels are gone or cowered into silence then the sectarian battles start (see Iraq, Pakistan, and--now--Bangladesh.) Then when only one sect of Islam reigns supreme, the war against the "unclean" women begins (see Afghanistan, Iran, and Suadi Arabia.) At this point there is usually a lot of Jihadis just sitting around with nothing to do, so they start sending fighters and money to other countries to fight the jihads there (As Saudi and Iran.)

Hugh:

I note that Abdus Salam shared his prize with two Jewish scientists, Jews representing about 20% of the world's Nobel Laureates although they constitute significantly less than 1% of the world's population.

I understand that there are about 8 or 9 Muslim Nobel Laureates, when you include Albert Camus, who converted. Notably among them, Anwar Sadat who shared the honor (for peace) with Menachim Begin in 1978.

But what does a Nobel Prize for Peace mean these days anyway. The most recent winner, Wangari Maathai was quoted believes that AIDS was deliberately introduced into Africa by evil Europeans, doesn't she? And wasn't Rigoberto Menchu, revealed as something of a fraud and poser, and then there's Kofi Annan and the UN!

If not Moslem, then what Religion are Ahmadiyyas?

....a signboard posted on the local Ahmadiyya complex. It reads 'A place of worship for the Ahmadiyya Community, Sundarban Bazar' and it advises Muslims not to mistake the place as a mosque.

I have an idea. A signboard outside every mosque saying The place of association of the Islamofascists of wherever, not to be mistaken for a house of God.

"Albert Camus, who converted..."
--from a posting above.

This cannot be true. Islam goes against every fiber of Camus's being. It can only be based on one of those rumors about "famous people who have converted to Islam" that Muslim websites love to dwell on, as a way of bucking up morale (if all they get is John Walker Lindh, David Hicks, Richard Reid, Jose Padilla, and suchlike, then it becomes a little embarrassing). Similar stories (also false) have been circulated about Jacques Cousteau.

In decades past, a handful of non-cranks converted to Islam because they sought "peace" and "community" and blahblahblah. For some yoga may have done the job better -- such odd-balls as the choreographer Bejart, with his private Islam, comes to mind. But mostly those converts have beein either the slightly-off or completely loony, St. John Philby or Leopold Weiss or Roger Garaudy, who find their "peace" in the Total Explanation of the Universe that is Islam.

Camus was unlikely to have needed a Total Regulation of the Universe. Besides, he had grown up in Algeria and knew more or less the effect of Islam on the human brain. He was attractive to women, and much more intelligent than that toad-faced suctorialist whose name is often linked to his, especially in American high-school French courses. What's-his-name, you know the one I mean, the one who appared to have no difficulties moral or otherwise during the Occupation, and in the 1950s and 1960s turned out to be the real family idiot of France, his books being nauseatingly full of nothingness. But he did write one unforgettable line: "Je m'appelle Fred." This had an enormous literary influence -- think of that sentence in "La vie sexuelle de Catherine M.": "il s'appelait Fred." If Sartre were alive today he'd be one more Fool-for-Islam, engaged up to his neck in some "dialogue" with Tariq Ramadan.

But Camus? He was a real deux-riviste, from Oran, and would not have been tempted.

Hugh-

Camus, unless he converted DURING the fatal car crash in which he was a passenger (his death caused by the lousy driving of Michel Gallimard, the nephew of his publisher*), appears to have remained a lifelong skeptic and profound searcher for moral, 'non-religious' responsibility in an Indifferent Universe.

"Islam" would have struck him as one of the most Absurd rationalizations ever devised to prop up the human ego and yet another example of the historically familiar human urge for Comfort against a Violent Cosmos of Endless Mystery.

Interesting that just because he was from a French Algerian family (a "Muslim" country), and wrote a novel about a guy killing a Muslim ("The Stranger"), he is now being turned onto a posthumus Muslim.

Anything to get their hands on another Nobel Prize...

**********************************************

*He died a few days later from injuries.

Some Muslim guy I've been speaking to tells me that the Koran is full of scientific revelation. Yes, yes, I know this is BS, but can anybody please help me with a short list of scientific absordities in the Koran, and the relevent verse numbers, or is there a site that succintly sums it up? I would like to pass this information on to my Jihadist buddy. Hugh's "the nearly 1000 recipients of Nobel Prizes in science (Physics, Chemistry, Medicine), only one appears to have gone to a "Muslim"" is real gold nugget. I told him yesterday (the Muz, not Hugh) I would give him $50 for every useful invention he could name, created by a Muslim in the last 500 years.

Thanks

Timbo:

I think you'll find what you are looking for in the archives at faithfreedom.org (Ali Sina has written more than a few articles on these ridiculous claims with his usual wit)and, for certain, you'll find material at apostatesofislam.com.

Be forwarned with Hugh's summation of Nobel prizewinners, though. There may be 8 or 9 Muslims (Anwar Sadat for one) on the list. More rankling to your Muslim sparring partner would be to point out that about 20% of the Nobels have gone to Jews (including two Israeli scientists, last year) which ain't too shabby for a religious group that account for way less than 1% of the world's pop, and about half of them for medicine and the hard sciences (vs. literature and peace prizes)

Timbo:

Better than apostatesofislam, which has a few articles poking fun at scientific revelations of the Quoran (including a claim that semen is generated by the spine), try http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/index.htm (their source)

My first reaction to this was to think whether CAIR will comment on this outrageous case of anti-Muslim discrimination. My second was to Google 'Ahmadiyyas' to find out how they differ from regular Muslims.

Here's the link to the first hit from Google:

http://www.islamic-knowledge.com/Shias.htm and here's what brought the hit:

Ahmadiyya Qadiani Movement - Refutations - Top

Ahmadiyyat / Qadianism / Lahorism Exposed
- irshad.org - information and refutations
- a full page of links refuting the Qadianis
- includes articles in many languages

Anti-Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam - alhafeez.org
- All the deviant beliefs of Qadianis exposed
- In 1988 Mirza Tahir Ahmad Qadiani, Head of the Ahmadiyya Movement and Grandson of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, issued a challenge of Mubahila, in which he labeled the entire Muslim Ummah as Disbelievers and Liars. Syed Abdul Hafeez took up the challenge and set up Anti Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam. It is an awareness campaign to educate Muslims and non-Muslims about the true nature of this creed and bring to the light the true personality of its founder and his heretical beliefs, as depicted in his writings.

Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani - islamland.org
- fallacy of his prophecies

Qadianis - Ahmadiyyah - islamicweb.com
- the list of links includes links in French / Malay / Dutch / Bahasa

Qadianism - A Critical Study - geocities site
- explains the fallacy of the beliefs of Qadianis, as well as the historical background of the emergence of this sect

The Ahmadiyya Qadiani Movement - ummah.net
- how it differs from Islam

What is Qadianism - irshad.org - links to many articles

So, Google's first hit is to information to refute Amadiyyas.