The Urdu-Speaking Inheritance

This speech deeply touched my heart. Senator Faruqi perfectly encapsulates the sublime nature of our Urdu-speaking inheritance; defiant, liberal, just and aristocratic.

76 thoughts on “The Urdu-Speaking Inheritance”

  1. I love the part where she speaks Urdu 🙂

    The “stolen land” remark may not go down too well with White Australians though.

  2. It is ironical. ‘Urdu’ comes from ‘ordu’ – Turkish for camp of soldiers . These camps were consequences of stealing land and sovereignty from established ethnicity , kingdoms and other people – whether it was Russia or India or in-between. In other words Urdu is the languages of those who stole lands from other people. For her to shed tears for ‘stolen lands’ of Australian aborigines in the language of land robbers is a bit rich .

    Of course, those Australian senators don’t have to clue to historical ironies.

    1. Urdu is a native Indian language.

      In medieval times, it was perfectly normal for people to go in search of new kingdoms to rule. This is qualitatively different from European colonialism.

      Your reflexive biases are showing again.

      1. The soldiers speak Turki, the heavenly maidens speak Farsi, the Messenger (PBUH) of God speaks Arabi and those who fight as the Turks, as good in bed as Persians and as in touch with Allah almighty as Arabs speak Urdu.

        Pakistan = Urdustan

  3. Basically the sub-text of her speech is meant for white Australians. She is saying elliptically that after all Australian continent was the stolen land for the current inhabitant – or a substantial majority of them. So, they should not be too fussy about who immigrates there. That is why she starts with pumping up the guilt feelings. Of course USA/Canada/Latin America have identical stories to Australia. – in fact the the historical records of land stealing and genocide of local population was even more extensive and more extensively documented. But she or other Urdu speakers dare not say such things in the US Senate in urdu. Guilt does not ‘sell’ that much in the New World.

  4. I was just thinking of funny scenario(considering we are also talking about genetic studies on other posts) what would happen if a dravidan give a similar speech in Indian Parliament. “India is nation built on stolen land, built on the colonization and invasion of Dravidian land”

    It would be really interesting 😛

    1. India is nation built on stolen land, built on the colonization and invasion of Dravidian land

      No such theft or colonization is documented. The recent genetic evidence gives as much credence to a Dravidian colonization of the AASI-inhabited peninsular India as it does to an AIT. And there are no known colonizations or invasions undertaken by north Indians against south Indians (broadly classified), with the one possible exception of the Mauryas (restricting ourselves to pre-Islamic India, that is).

      Southern and northern rules did fight each other (Chalukyas against Guptas, etc.), but they all regarded themselves as part of one Hindu civilization. There’s no evidence that those skirmishes had any racial feeling backing them.

      Southern Brahmins were indeed once immigrants from the north, but there’s no reason to assume they were the vanguard of any invasion; they went most likely by invitation.

      1. If Southern brahmins were immigrants in south India why do they appear from earlier historical and literary records as a respected part of the same society. If they were immigrating, they did so as part of the larger language movement of Dravidian speakers towards south.
        This does not contradict recorded movement of brahmins to south India later say 7th century onwards.
        Basically India social and linguistic history before 3500 Before Present is a haze and you can read anything into it.
        Razib has cleverly avoided adjectives like Aryan or Dravidian in his genetic studies. This stark contradistinction is the red flag to Hindutva bulls. Rightly so.

        1. Why are certain Jatis called “Dravidian”. This word did not exist before the 1800s. Rather all these Jatis were regarded as Arya. Arya has many different lineages. Niyoga (where married woman will have progeny with a great saint who isn’t their husband) has long been used among Arya people to improve and ensure the quality of genes in famous Jatis.

      2. “The recent genetic evidence gives as much credence to a Dravidian colonization of the AASI-inhabited peninsular India as it does to an AIT”

        Well is it? I have hardly come across any article which discuses that. Most of the folks who write for major publication(majority of them S-Indians/ non Indians) are talking about how Harrapans were Dravidians. I have yet to see any S-Indian (N-Indian/Hindu right doesn’t count) contradict that.

  5. I liked the speech overall, but I did think the “stolen land” thing was a bit much. European settlement in Australia did involve the dispossession of the Aborigines, just as the settlement of the US involved decimating the Native American population. But that was all part of colonialism. I personally would not have hammered the point home so hard.

      1. She has an absolute right to say what she wants. I don’t feel the “stolen land” point was really necessary, but that’s just me.

  6. Muslims trying to guilt everyone in the west with social justice tropes while also trying to shut everyone up from speaking about medieval barbarism of Islam, creates a nice warm feeling in everyone.

      1. I am not talking specifically about her, I am talking about her types. Muslims in the west has made a tight alliance with Social Justice brigade because that is the only group that unhesitantly tries to protect Islam from all criticism. That alliance means these Muslims have to support LGBTQ and those groups. But they do it from group right point not individual rights. Muslims and Social Justice people remain in hardcore opposition to individual liberty. They are the very anti-thesis of liberalism.

        And I personally think that these support for LGBTQ is much more flimsier than what it looks. When you are weak, you make lots of alliances. What you really do when you are strong, speaks more clearly about yourself.

        1. Shafiq, in many cases they don’t really support LBGTQ (such as Linda Sarsour). Senator Faruqi, I suspect does support LBGTQ. One test is whether they are willing to publicly explain their theological basis for a such a position in terms of their interpretation of the holy Koran and Sahih Bukhari. Many muslims do precisely this. In India, the US and Canada.

          This clip is too short to elaborate on Senator Faruqi’s position. Does she publicly recognize that she is as guilty as any other Australian for the treatment of Aboriginals?

          I have many questions regarding the Aboriginal nations. What was their interaction with Pacific Islands and Asia before the Europeans arrived. There were many great eastern sea faring civilizations who must have sailed to Australia. When did the various Aboriginal nations sail to Australia. What is the history of conflict between the Aboriginal nations.

          The population of Australia appeared to be small before Europeans arrived. Why was this? How much of Australia was relatively de-populated?

        1. It’s OK to call Islam “barbaric”? Lovely! Tell me, which other religions am I allowed to call “barbaric”? Or is this kind of language only to be used for Islam?

  7. Zack did she explain why she interprets the Sahih Bukhari differently than traditional Sunni jurisprudence scholars on the question of abortion? If so, how? Doing this is what enables abortion for hundreds of millions of muslim woman around the world.

    1. She is not an Islamic scholar and is not obligated to explain “Sahih Bukhari”. She is a Senator from the left-wing Green Party.

      1. In any other religion other than Islam; it is completely appropriate to make a case for why a pro choice position is consistent with one’s faith.

        Why isn’t it appropriate to ask Senator Faruqi how she reflected on abortion and came upon her pro choice views? And how she was finds her pro choice position consistent with Islamic scripture?

        What are Senator Faruqi’s views on abortion outside of Australia. For example does she believe that Australia should criticize other countries who disagree with her pro choice positions on human rights grounds? [The US State department, and major international human rights organizations promote pro choice policy in foreign countries on human rights grounds.]

        For example many traditional Christians say that they believe abortion is immoral for “THEM” but choose not to impose their religious views on others. I am not saying that this is Senator Faruqi’s views. Perhaps her views are different.

        In general claiming not to be a scholar in one’s religion is the height of intellectual cowardice; which is why people who pull this nonsense off are castigated in every religion other than Islam.

        1. Senator Faruqi is not obligated to explain her religion to you or to anyone else. Perhaps her views on abortion have to do with her political ideology (as she says she is a feminist) and not so much with Islam. You have no idea whether she is even a practicing Muslim.

          Matters of Islamic theology are best left to experts in the field, meaning Islamic scholars. Contrary to your understanding, most normal Muslims don’t run around quoting “Sahih Bukhari” at the drop of a hat. We are a bit busy living our lives.

          Your obsession with Islamic theology is a bit unhealthy and I am honestly bored by you now.

          1. We are free to ask Senator Faruqi. And she is free to respond as she chooses. If she can make a muslim case for being pro choice, it might make a big difference in the muslim world. I would be very curious to hear it.

            Eastern philosophy is ambiguous on abortion.

            “Matters of Islamic theology are best left to experts in the field, meaning Islamic scholars.” What is it with the argument from authority? No serious academic scholar should accept argument from authority. Any village idiot can read translations of the entire Koran, six hadiths, Sira and other Islamic scripture. And they can create their own authentic theology parampara school. Anyone with a partial brain can make their own case from Islamic scriptures that they have read. Of course their views are likely to evolve from their dialogue with far more knowledgeable Islamic scholars. And that is great. But everyone has the right to interpret Islamic scripture as they choose.

            We need to stop giving excuses to other human beings to operate below their potential. Every human being is potentially very wise, very powerful and sovereign (in the east every human is divine). What is wrong with expecting our fellow humans to be extraordinary and to offer deep philosophical observations and perspectives.

            In any case we are not talking about lay people but a sitting Australian Senator. Shouldn’t every aspect of her life be held to a very high intellectual, human, character and spiritual standard? She has chosen Kshatriya Dharma.

          2. Islamic theology is to be interpreted by those who have studied Islamic law. “Village idiots” are not capable of creating their own “theology parampara school”. That is not how Islam works. The Word of God is a serious matter and not to be left to “idiots”.

            I don’t know why you brought up “eastern philosophy”. That is not the subject. Islam is. Please learn to stick to the topic.

            Go ahead and ask Senator Faruqi whatever you want but she is not obligated to give you an argument from Islam.

            You can have the last word. I am really not interested in any form of further engagement with you.

  8. Can Senator Faruqi persuade her left of center caucasion supporters to back liberal muslims, minority muslims, atheist muslims and reform muslims? If she can, then may Allah bless her!!!

    1. “Atheist Muslim” is an oxymoron. Atheists don’t believe in any god. By definition, a Muslim has to believe in Allah and in His prophet. There is no way to square this circle.

      Words have meanings and it would be best if you don’t try to stretch them to the point that it becomes nonsensical.

      1. There are many atheist Christians. Many of Jordan Peterson’s fans call themselves atheist Christians. The ranks of atheist Jews are legion.

        Of course eastern faiths have long had large vibrant atheist streams that are deeply revered and respected. In Asia people often do pujas and worship great atheistic saints who passed away long ago.

        Atheist muslims are authentic muslims too. Full stop.

        1. Clearly you don’t understand the definition of the word “Atheist”. There is a difference between people of Muslim descent (they can be atheist or whatever else) and actual believing Muslims. Those who cannot sincerely affirm their belief in Allah and His messenger are not Muslim.

          Words do not mean what you want them to mean. Full stop.

          1. Not true. “Those who cannot sincerely affirm their belief in Allah and His messenger are not Muslim.” has never been the case, when the penalty for leaving Islam is death. And when forced conversion of non-Dhimmis was common, and theologically justified. External belief and internal belief have always been differentiated, and “there is no compulsion in religion” has been interpreted as a statement about “internal belief” – you better adopt Islam and behave accordingly, but what you actually believe is between you and Allah (no compulsion there). i.e. it is perfectly possible to be an atheist Muslim today in one of the many countries where leaving Islam publicly would lead to negative consequences (including death), from the state and/or society. That is probably not what AnAn was saying, but that is a different story.

          2. It is possible to be nominally Muslim. There are a lot of people who don’t really believe in Islam but cannot come out and say it.

            But being Muslim by definition means being able to affirm the kalima. If you do not believe in the existence of god (which is the dictionary definition of atheism), it is not possible to sincerely be a Muslim.

            Anan is using confusing terminology when what he really seems to be talking about is atheists of Muslim descent.

  9. Did some quick research on Aboriginals. Some geneticists are open to the possibility that Aboriginals might be the oldest group of humans outside of Africa. They might have sailed to Australia from Africa 50 to 70 thousand years ago.

    For thousands of years there appears to have been trade between Australia and Asia/Africa. The Chinese knew about Australia. My guess is that the Cholas did as well. However for reasons that are not known the population of Australia appears to have been very small in recent millennia. Why was it so small?

    Of course it is possible that Australian civilization did not survive the last or a previous ice age and that civilization restarted mostly from scratch. But even if this is true; why didn’t the population grow between 9700 BC and 1768 AD? It also appears that most of Australia was uninhabited and that Aboriginals had limited trade and contact with each other except by ship.

    Lots of unanswered questions.

    1. One Tamil guy told me that their and Aboriginal genetic structure is identical (or very similar). Some assert that they came from Asia 60000 y ago. Before the white settlement there were about 500 Aboriginal tribes and languages. They had their territories (known to them) and they should ask for permission to enter others’ territory. English did similar racist policies as in US and many Aborigines died of infected blankets, for examples, and many other similar English inventions. They were also dying from alcohol (did not have natural resistance) and even trivial European diseases, such as cough. They were not recognised as humans until 1975 when they got documents and passports. After the 1st WW many their children were taken (so called – stolen generations) and given to rich white families, who adopted them and give them schooling. The idea was (thinking that it was the best for them) to assimilate them. Some of these children got high education even in Oxford and Cambridge.

      In last few decades the politics changed and there are many positive actions (open places at universities, open workplaces in government institutions, scholarships, sports, etc.). They were recognised as traditional owners of the land and every convention at the beginning recognise the traditional owners, past and present, even there is no any present. Many languages were lost but there are attempts to regenerate these languages. Still, many of Aborigines live in deserts as nomads because they are linked with land, alcohol and unhealthy eating is still the problem. Many live on government support. Urban and educated Aborigines still maintain the spirit of ancestors and unofficially ask for permission the members of other tribe when visit other town out of their ‘territory’. There are many Aborigines from mixed relationships from the past who are white and very different from those from deserts.

      1. Can Razib comment? What is the DNA connection between Tamilians and Aboriginals?

        Some Aboriginals had sea contact with Asia and therefore were more likely to have immunity from European diseases. Are you referring to the spread of diseases to Aboriginal tribes that didn’t have contact with sea lanes?

        Why was the population of Aboriginal tribes in Australia so low in the 1700s? Had there been natural disasters? Health pandemics? Conflict?

        Have there been advanced civilizations in Australia in the past that died out? [There appear to be many such extinct advanced civilizations in Africa, Europe, Asia, North America and South America.]

        Please share more about Aboriginals and please e-mail me 🙂

        1. Mark Stoneking of Max Planck institute did a detailed study of australian aboriginal DNA; they split the aboriginal genetic history two-ways:

          36,000 years ago, they split off from Papuan highlander

          4,230 years ago (141 generations) an admixture with Indian DNA was identified; now 11% of the aboriginal DNA is attribute to (presumably) AASI (this is my guess; this can be AASI+INPE als0)

          a bizarre story about dingo also follows, but let us set it aside.

          In contrast to this theory, a later work by Latrobe university looked at C in aborigine and refuted the intermixing model and said that the common ancestor is more than 47K years old. No gene flow from India to Australia is evident in the more detailed study.

          1. Very interesting. Can I ask for future reference that the number of generations be mentioned for various historic DNA events. Is it standard to assume 30 years per generation in DNA studies?

            The most recent research then suggests that Aboriginal DNA has not significantly mixed with non Australian DNA for 47 K years?

            How many years ago and generations ago did AASI branch off from Africa? Are they the oldest DNA branch to travel to East Asia and South Asia?

          2. “Is it standard to assume 30 years per generation in DNA studies?”
            “The most recent research then suggests that Aboriginal DNA has not significantly mixed with non Australian DNA for 47 K years?”
            that is what the Latrobe study suggested. I will await a comment from Razib when gets back from his night of partying on whether the Leipzig or Latrobe study will be the final word on this.
            “How many years ago and generations ago did AASI branch off from Africa? Are they the oldest DNA branch to travel to East Asia and South Asia?”
            Narasimhan et al is the latest word on this, but they say ” divergence of this group from other eastern Eurasians occurred very early, that the division between the ancestors of the Papuans, Onge, and AASI was even polytomic”

            Polytomic means they basically separated very quickly without discernible structure.

            Polytomy is a hassle in understanding,
            even Razib says ” the polytomy at the base of the eastern Eurasian human family tree, where all the major lineages diverge rapidly from each other, makes me wonder about gene flow vs. admixture. It seems possible that the polytomy may mask a phylogenetic tree topology which had gradually bifurcating nodes, if periodically a single daughter population replaced all its sister lineages in a local geographic zone.”

          3. no one believes the stoneking pub and later work did not support it.

            the current consensus does seem to be that australian aboriginals are one of the few people who have 50,000 year continuity. wouldn’t be surprised if overturned.

            the separation of AASI from other east eurasian groups is 50K. from west eurasians is 60K. from basal eurasians > 60K. from africans is 80 K. please note that beyond 50K there are no AASI. just various non-african groups.

        2. As I said it was about 500 Aboriginal tribes which had (and still have) their names. They can be extremely different. Some are very, very skinny, tall and athletic. Others are very fat, short and with very different faces physiognomy. There also all features in between. Some are very athletic, fast and good at playing local sports which require speed and endurance. It seems to me that they may have different ancestries, but I haven’t studied their genetics. But common for them is a strong linkage to the land. Some ‘nations’ lived in places where now big cities (Sydney, Melbourne) are, they prospered more because they are closer to the finances and live as urban people and professionals. Some live on faraway north-west coastline outside of urban places. Others live in the middle of uninhabited Australia almost as thousands years ago.

    2. Similar to Australian Aborigines (and American ‘Indians’), European Aborigines had comparable destiny. Serbs are European Aborigines and millions were killed, assimilated and religiously divided. There were so many genocides in history, mostly inspired by Catholic Church. One of the first genocides was against Serbs-Etruscans who were one of the founders of Rome and considered as founders of Western civilisation. Romans exterminated them and destroyed all their texts, only few remained. Only a small portion of the nation, which Herodotus in 500BC considered the biggest in the world after Indians, survived, preserving their original Serbian name, language and alphabet which are several thousands of years old.

  10. ” That is not how Islam works. The Word of God is a serious matter and not to be left to “idiots”.”

    Who says that is not how Islam works? Many of Islam’s greatest theologians have made an Islamic case for freedom of art and thought. Please see the wise Shaykh Shabbir Ally:
    Muslims are free to read Islamic scripture and interpret them their own way.

    “The Word of God is a serious matter” . . . Very true. Are you referring to the holy Koran? I am not saying that the holy Koran should be edited by humans. But rather that the “Word of God” can be interpreted by muslims and nonmuslims alike freely as per their own conscience.

    Religion, spirituality, philosophy, art, secularism, science are all extensions of the same thing and interchangeable. We all can have our whole of system understanding. Nothing is free from questioning; God included. [This is eastern philosophy and consistent with the three Abrahamic faiths.]

    1. People who do not understand classical Arabic have no business pontificating about Islam. People specialize in Islamic Law after a lot of study.

      “Eastern philosophy” is not the subject.

      Feel free to have the last word. I am honestly becoming very tired of you.

  11. I agree with Kabir . atheist muslim is a oxymoron, it like calling someone celebrating ganpati atheist hindu

    1. Exactly. You either believe in Allah and His Prophet or you don’t believe in any god. It’s impossible to believe both at the same time.

      Someone who doesn’t believe in the Holy Trinity cannot be said to be a Christian.

        1. Religious belief has very little to do with knowledge. That’s why it is called faith.

          There are certain doctrines that one has to agree with to be a member of a faith. In Islam, it is belief in Allah and in the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). In Christianity, it is belief in Jesus Christ as your savior and in the Holy Trinity.

          You can’t disagree with the fundamental doctrines and still claim to belong to the faith. At least not in Abrahamic religions.

          1. “Religious belief has very little to do with knowledge. That’s why it is called faith.” I don’t agree with this. Eastern faiths do not require blind faith. Rather religion is a jump into the unknown; what we know not. Religion is a jump into loving everything and searching for the truth wherever it lies.

            This is why for me religion and science are different aspects of the same thing . . . searching for the truth.

            There are many atheist Christians and atheist Jews. Why alone among all religions is Islam the only religion without a large vibrant atheist community that authentically muslim? [Hint, I don’t think Islam is different from other faiths.] I met a universalist Sufi yesterday who views Islam his own unique way. This Sufi had been invited to sing for a mostly caucasion Hindu crowd.

          2. Ah yes “loving everything”–that’s just what we were missing!
            Anan bot: ” postmodern”, “islamist”, ” loving everything”, “one heart one soul”. Now someone just needs to write the code for this.
            Hate to break it to you, but Islam at least is not about ” loving everything”. There are clear doctrines that muslims need to believe in.

            As for “atheist Christians and Jews”, go back and look at the dictionary definition of ” atheism”. It is possible to be an atheist of Christian or Jewish descent but not possible to simultaneously believe that Christ is your savior and that god does not exist.

  12. Nobody, absolutely nobody in the world ever 100% believed in Islam. If you believe completely in Islam and you were sure that your slightest sin will bring millions of years of burning, you will not do anything in life except just do sijdah to Allah until you die. Everybody know what it feels like to get burned for a few seconds. They have some inkling what it will be like to feel that sensation throught the body for millions of years.

    Isn’t Islam the perfect and complete way of life for private and public society for all eternity. Islam is perfect and complete. Does he think secularism is better than Islamic state? How come a Muslim does not want Shariah and Islamic state if that is true, perfect and complete? Isn’t he is a non-believer?

    Muslims and all other believers are all players of Pascal’s wager. They have a feeling of varying degree that this all may not be true but the fate is too horrible to contemplate if was true. So they go one with their lives with varying degree of piety and wagering somehow they will come out on the top in the end.

  13. “Someone who doesn’t believe in the Holy Trinity cannot be said to be a Christian.”
    Tell that to Jordan Peterson. Peterson is very proud of his many atheistic Christian fans.


    saurav, there are many atheistic deeply revered Hindu schools and spiritual masters. Shankaracharya and his Guru’s Guru Gaudapada were often called atheists. Gaudapada’s book (Māṇḍukya Kārikā, also known as Gaudapada Karika). The fourth section of Gaudapada Karika (Alatasanti) in particular is often described as atheist. Thousands of pages can be written about many atheistic traditions within eastern philosophy.

    There are many atheistic interpretations of Ganapati. I can try to find something I wrote about this which is now misplaced but to massively oversimplify:
    1) Ganapatis is a reference to Muladhara chakra or a part of the human brain and nervous sytem. When someone absorbes into this part of the brain and nervous system a scientifically obervable experience takes place that some call Ganapati.
    2) Ganapati is a reference to part of the human subconcious or human conciousness
    3) Ganapati is a reference to wisdom and human experience evoked by specific narrative stories.
    4) Ganapati is a reference to some types of sound brain therapy that affect physical health, mental health and intelligence
    5) Ganapati means lord of the Ganas. Ganas in some traditions might refer to non homo sapiens or ETs


    Kabir, part of the issue is that Islamist Jihadis claim that leaving Islam is subject to capital punishment. Therefore it is very important that muslims have the right to be authentic real muslims while being atheistic; or their lives are in danger. Another part of the issue is that all human beings (muslim and nonmuslim) have the right to interpret Islamic scripture as they choose including our very own Brown Pundit Murshid Razib Khan.

    “People who do not understand classical Arabic have no business pontificating about Islam. People specialize in Islamic Law after a lot of study.” This is classist. I believe in Educare or that human beings have great wisdom locked inside them. The purpose of education is to draw out wisdom that is already intrinsically present. It is true that a deep understanding of classic Arabic is extremely useful in interpreting Islamic scripture. However human beings are potentially very wise and very powerful. Human beings can interpret Islamic scriptures their own way (even if incompletely and inaccurately) without a deep understanding of classical Arabic. It is very important for all scholars, theologians and philosophers to be humble in their study and interpretations.

    I was watching an interview by Kenneth Langone in which he said that all successful people he had met had two qualities in common:
    a) smarts
    b) humility
    I agree completely. I would add that smarts causes humility. The more we know the more we know about what we do not know. This is why our perception of what we know drops the more we know.

    1. Please stop. I have no interest in “debating” with you. You are not an authority on Islam.

      Address your comments to someone else. I have no more patience for nonsense.

  14. I may say about muslims/Muslims in Yugoslavia. As I said earlier some Serbs converted to Islam during Turkish occupation to save their lives (and very few, their privileges). Their language, way of life were the same as Christians. Many families were divided between two religions. Muslims considered themselves as Serbs (nationality) who belong to Islamic (Mohamedian) faith. After the 2nd WW, communists had policy (continued until today by global deep state) to destroy Serbian nation and they divided previous unitary Yugoslavia and split Serbian national corpus into several autonomous provinces without ethnical borders. They invented a new nation for Serb-muslims (so as Macedonians, Montenegrins, etc) and they became a new nation – Muslims with capital M. They created a republic Bosnia and Herzegovina, with three nations (Serbs, Croats and Muslims) without absolute majority. Some members of Muslim nation were practising muslims, some were communists atheists, some non-communists atheists.

    In 90es, some Muslims (e.g. one of 3 Bosnian co-presidents – Alija Izetbegovic, who earlier declared himself as a Serb) radicalised and intended to transmute Bosnia into an Islamic state with sharia law, etc. They intended to expel Christians from Bosnia or to convert them. They started war which was supported by US (EU was initially against but blamed Serbs for war and sided with Muslims). The idea was that US support muslims in Bosnia to compensate (in eyes of muslim world) their anti-muslim politics in Palestine and other places. Considering that, islam and Islamic state were unpopular in Europe and US (all these beheading footages), Bosnian Muslims decided couple decades ago to change their name in Bosniacs, which would be more acceptable for the western public and media campaigns.
    Well, there are now Bosniacs, many radicalised muslims who came from the Middle East as future jihad warriors when time comes, moderate practicing local muslims, a small number of secular muslims who practice muslim holydays and customs but do not go to the mosque.

    Even, now separated in two entities, Serbian Republic and Muslim-Croat Federation, people of all faiths often live together in mixed suburbs, go together for coffees, drink alcohol in pubs (majority of muslims do not eat pork), mixed marriages still exist but less than before the war. S.Arabia invested heavily in vehabia movement in Bosnia, the ‘green transversal’ from Bosnia to Indonesia is still on agenda. Radicalised muslim do not recognise nationalities, they recognise only the faith and they are trying to unify all muslims into one caliphate.

    1. Just small addition re Albanian-muslims in Serbia. This group (they call themselves Scipetars and the state – Scipnia) is without any history and culture. They lived in Azerbaijan area until 730AC when they were expelled to S.Arabia. Some came to (then) muslim part of Sicily and by coincidence (led by Byzantine general) in 1043AC stepped first time on the soil of today’s Albania which was for thousands of years, Serbia. They asked to stay as shepherds, Serbian noblemen gave them permission (what a catastrophic mistake) and their position was regulated by law. They did this for 400 years until Turkish occupation when they declared themselves as Turks and muslims.

      For several hundreds of years they terrorised Serbian Christians who were escaping from Kosovo. Most of Albanians (this name was given by others and does not mean anything in their language) are declaratively muslims (a few Christians) but they are always ready convert as new masters come (they would like to be Americans now). They have no any culture at all (for example, in Kosovo which is 90km in radius, there are 2000 Serbian churches, monasteries, monuments and none Albanian). This is only remaining group in Europe which is still not civilised.

    2. Very interesting. To what degree are liberal muslim Bosnians and Kosovar Albanians and Albanians targeted for interpreting Islam with love and light? What can be done to protect their freedom of art and thought?

      I have noticed that soft Islamism has grown in influence in Albania, Kosovo and Bosnia over the past generation. Very sad. 🙁

      1. I am not sure what do you mean under soft Islamism. Muslims in former Yugoslavia (Bosnia and Kosovo) are often instrumentilised in US politics depending what they need in a given moment. They are usually supported and Serbs satanised in media to compensate US anti-muslim politics in other regions. They say to the muslim world – see, we are principled, we are not anti-muslim, we protect endangered muslims in Serbia. Actually, they are anti-Orthodox even more because they think about Serbs as small Russians. Before the war, there was pretty secular environment, people of all faiths (except catholics) practised their faiths as private matters. It was the case with muslims (and Musllims), too. Yugoslavia was as any other western country.

        After radicalisation, the situation changed. US presents (to justify their deeds to own public opinion) muslims in Yugoslavia as soft Islamist, Euro-like religion (same as protestants, etc) but in reality, the most of ISIS fighters came from Kosovo and Bosnia. They call them ‘white Al kaida’ and they are more recruited for projects in Europe because they cannot be immediately recognised at airports as Middle-Easterners. Now, from Syria, for e.g., they are coming back home with war skills and experience to wait for the next gig. It is known that US, CIA and Israel organised and provided logistics for ISIS. US will be using returnee ‘sleepers ’ in line with their global politics when time comes.

        1. Soft Islamism means those muslims who believe in gradually taking over global society over the long run through mostly civil society means.

          The conspiracy theory you mentioned is widely believed in much of the muslim world that is anti Daesh/Al Qaeda/Taliban. And widely believed in much of the nonmuslim world too (which tends to not like Islamist Jihadism).

          This has continuously caused problems. International advisors to the Iraqi Army have often been told very similar things by the Iraqi Army soldiers they are assisting. International advisors and trainers have frequently been told similar things by brave Afghan National Army soldiers.

          But whatever pro Islamist Jihadi sentiment existed in the Obama administration is much weaker now. The nonmuslim world still backs muslim extremists against reasonable muslims; but the extent of this is decreasing. President Trump doesn’t think think this way–albeit his understanding of the world is less sophisticated than we would like.

          The UK might elect Corbyn in her next election as PM. If so, he might be pro Jihadi Islamist against reasonable muslims. A possible future PM of Canada Jagmeet Singh might be rabidly anti Indian and excessively close to the Pakistani deep State. But I don’t think he as a Sikh would support Islamists against reasonable muslims. Any such strategy would be devastating for Sikhs around the world.

          Many caucasion Europeans who weren’t Bosnian or Albanian have joined Islamist organizations. Including many alumni from elite European colleges. But on that too some I trust think the tide is turning.

          The $3.375 million settlement paid to Maajid Nawaz (an important leader of the global Ummah) demonstrates that the post modernists around the world are rethinking their strategy of backing Islamists against reasonable good muslims.

          1. Anan’s two enemies together: “Postmodernists” and “Islamists”. How exciting! And a dig at Corbyn is just a bonus…

            I really wish the powers that be at BP would not give you a platform to spew this level of stupidity.

  15. Jeremy Corbyn has long had a history of backing Islamists against non Islamist muslims. And not just of the Sunni extremist variety. At times Corbyn has backed Hezbollah against Amal, Sunni Arabs, Christians, Druze and the Lebanese government. Somehow Corbyn managed this while simultaneously being friendly with Sheikh Ahmad al-Assir, leader of Lebanon’s extremist Salafis.

    For home gamers, Hezbollah and Salafis (especially Sheikh Ahmad al-Assir) HATE each other and viciously fight each other. Corbyn however managed to befriend the both of them. Can’t think of any other global figure who managed that feat.

    Sheikh Ahmad al-Assir is incredibly dangerous and has been sentenced to death. He is part of the conspiracy to conquer and rule the world over the long term.

    Jeremy Corbyn use to support the Iraqi resistance (AKA Al Qaeda or Daesh) against the sole legitimate legal government of Iraq and her beloved Iraqi Army, albeit he has now u-turned on this under public and international pressure. Jeremy Corbyn has in the past been an apologist for Deep State, the Gulf establishment and their Taliban proxies. Although he is distancing himself from his past positions on this.

    In the east there is a saying; tell me your company and I will tell you who you are. Well these are Jeremy Corbyn’s company.

    Jeremy Corbyn might be the most dangerous politician to ever seriously contest office in a democratic country. He is post modernist trying to control a major global nuclear weapon power. [By contrast Bernie is a lovable idealistic liberal and not a post modernist.]

    You can see the articles I have written about the UK’s official policies that back extremist muslims against reasonable UK muslims. The English people should be ashamed of themselves. But here too the tide is slowly changing. Non muslim English people are slowly starting to back Quillium and Maajid–who represent the English muslim mainstream.

    1. Ooh! A “postmodernist” and an “antisemite”! He is anti-Zionist as most people are who become familiar with Israel’s atrocities against the Palestinian people.

      You are no one to define “reasonable” Muslims. Get over yourself.

      At this point, some computer science techie could write a bot which comments for you. Just put in some combination of “postmodern” and “Islamist”. No human intelligence required. Boring!

  16. Corbyn has long been a visceral anti semite. And to save himself he is trying to adopt IHRA:

    Ash Sarkar might be right that this would reduce freedom of speech. If so, I oppose it as Ash Sarkar does.

    Ash Sarkar (coming from a great Bengali muslim family that played a large role in India) is a self described communist. But she seems far more authentic, genuine, intelligent and less diabolical than Corbyn. If Labor wants a post modernist leader, they should select Ash Sarkar. A huge improvement from the shady Corbyn. She has the potential to be on of England’s most influential political leaders.

    If she supports freedom of art and thought, she would be a huge improvement from most post modernists. My hope would be that she will eventually accept that most humans are potentially very wise, powerful and sovereign (or divine). She is still young and might evolve in that direction. If she does, then may Allah Bhavagan bless her!

    Here is an excellent Jewish perspective on Corbyn the anti semite:

  17. Maajid describes the triple threat that muslims around the world face:
    1) Islamist Jihadis
    2) Regressive Left [I call them post modernists since they don’t deserve to called “left”]
    3) Identitarian ethnocentric sectarian right

    This is the triple threat all people in the world face. We must simultaneously face all three.

    1. Who died and made this Maajid person the authority? Why should one take either you or him seriously?

      You have an unhealthy obsession with “postmodernists” and “Islamists”. Its getting very boring now.

    2. I may agree with the most you have said. I would like to see soft Islamists who practice tolerance and democracy with their specificities. This is not the case in Bosnia and Kosovo and never will be. Why? Because, there is a navel of geostrategic positions. There are also Vatican factor which pushes toward the east to conquer Russia one day. Two local faiths, Catholics and muslims, are very aggressive in Yugoslavia, sponsored and well financed from outside. There are in a coalition against Serbs and there is already so much bad history (mostly Croats killed 1.5 million Serbs in 2ndWW, i.e. more than 15%).

      I respect Muslim governments and movements which protect their national interests, improving people’s standard and citizens’ liberties without interfering or trying to expand in other countries. I hope that this type of Islam will prevail but it is primarily up to the Muslim thinkers to publically condemn ISIS like practices. I know that a huge courage is required for this.

      And the last, Korbyn or whoever, it is not wise to trust English. No one simply should not believe them anytime, anything at all.

      1. Majid Nawaz straddles British Muslim and British liberal talk circuits. In any talk (and in fact more) intersecting these two , his presence would be noted. If you are uninterested in either, then he won’t be that known. He is so courageous and liberal that one site awarded him ‘Islamophobe of the year’ title. He talked Tommy Robinson into leaving EDL.

    1. “One of the Ummah’s greatest leaders”– In your opinion. You are no one to decide anything for the “Ummah”.

  18. I love me some Maajid Nawaz. He is widely considered to be part of the Intellectual Dark Web on top of all the other ways he is a global leader.

    Most American and Canadian muslims seem to know and back Maajid. When Maajid visits the USA and Canada he frequently reminds cheering crowds that he doesn’t have the support of a clear majority of the UK muslims and European muslims the way he has the support of a majority of Canadian and American muslims. Maajid’s profile around the world rose a lot because he defied and defeated the Southern Poverty Law Center. Maajid is very much in the mainstream of Indian muslims.

    A question if I might. How many UK muslims haven’t heard of Maajid?

Comments are closed.

Brown Pundits