Cyberterrorism and Islam
"There are some governments in the world who encourage Muslim fundamentalism and that poses a grave cyberthreat to us."
For a minute, I lost what the professor said after this sentence. For a minute, I was imagining Osama and his henchmen hacking into servers from Tora Bora mountains in Afghanistan. For a minute, I did not know if the professor was referring to white collared people being trained to 'do shit'; as they refer to it in America. Whatever he meant, I felt the urge to interrupt and correct his notion and not let the ignorant class be fed on inaccurate conclusions.
I spoke about India having the second largest number of Muslims in the world but none of them (except some Kashmiris) have been associated with al Qaeda. The slide spoke of Egypt, Algeria and Saudi Arabia. I think the prof got it wrong here. I told him that these countries were part of the more progressive Muslim nations and pointing them out as those spreading cyber terrorism would be inappropriate without mentioning others who do more of the same. He also spoke about Mubarak (of Egypt) being oppressive and that in these countries the governments were unpopular. Without realising, the professor had moved from cyberterrorism to politics. And here is where I stumped him (as I would like to believe); " Sir, how would you justify Musharraf in Pakistan, based on the arguments you present?"
I saw the iris growing short. He shot back," Oh, you are from India and you are preoccupied with Pakistan."
Well, maybe. But what about the point. He made some general points on how these Muslim nations are realising that getting the internet down would hurt American interests. But I am still not convinced.
"Sir, the term Muslim fundamentalism is being used too loosely in this class and I object to that."
I did not wish to argue with him on politics since I dont understand it in its entirity. But I dont agree with him on sweeping generalisations on Muslims and their countries in general. And I probably will not unless something dramatic takes place. Its not the truth. And making such statements in class is definitely not a part of the greater solution.
For a minute, I lost what the professor said after this sentence. For a minute, I was imagining Osama and his henchmen hacking into servers from Tora Bora mountains in Afghanistan. For a minute, I did not know if the professor was referring to white collared people being trained to 'do shit'; as they refer to it in America. Whatever he meant, I felt the urge to interrupt and correct his notion and not let the ignorant class be fed on inaccurate conclusions.
I spoke about India having the second largest number of Muslims in the world but none of them (except some Kashmiris) have been associated with al Qaeda. The slide spoke of Egypt, Algeria and Saudi Arabia. I think the prof got it wrong here. I told him that these countries were part of the more progressive Muslim nations and pointing them out as those spreading cyber terrorism would be inappropriate without mentioning others who do more of the same. He also spoke about Mubarak (of Egypt) being oppressive and that in these countries the governments were unpopular. Without realising, the professor had moved from cyberterrorism to politics. And here is where I stumped him (as I would like to believe); " Sir, how would you justify Musharraf in Pakistan, based on the arguments you present?"
I saw the iris growing short. He shot back," Oh, you are from India and you are preoccupied with Pakistan."
Well, maybe. But what about the point. He made some general points on how these Muslim nations are realising that getting the internet down would hurt American interests. But I am still not convinced.
"Sir, the term Muslim fundamentalism is being used too loosely in this class and I object to that."
I did not wish to argue with him on politics since I dont understand it in its entirity. But I dont agree with him on sweeping generalisations on Muslims and their countries in general. And I probably will not unless something dramatic takes place. Its not the truth. And making such statements in class is definitely not a part of the greater solution.
posted by Ujjwal at 9/12/2006 08:39:00 PM
3 Comments:
the usual ujjwal saying out loud what he believes in. keep up the spirit!!!
-- Suchintya
hey,
the opening line of the blog forces me to believe the prof was correct!!!
Islamic fundamentalism's push for Sharia and an Islamic State has come into conflict with conceptions of the secular, democratic state, such as the internationally supported Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This conflict centers on following issues:
* rejection of the priority of universal rights and civil law upon religious group rights and religious law, and more specifically
* rejection of the equality of men and women (i.e. they are unequal in specific aspects like how they think and act but are still equal overall)
* rejection of the separation of "church" and state;
* rejection some of religious rights, such as the right of Muslims to leave the religion, while the right to be a non-Muslim in Muslim lands is still allowed.
As a result of this sharp conflict, many doubt whether fundamentalist Islam is compatible with modern liberal democratic states.
As with adherents of other fundamentalist movements, Islamic fundamentalists hold that the problems of the world stem from secular influences. Further, the path to peace and justice lies in a return to the original message of Islam, combined with a scrupulous rejection of all Bid'ah ("innovation") and perceived anti-Islamic traditions
so fundamentalism is something to watch out for or else it can be dangerous..
harsh vardhan khaitan
Good for you!!!
And stick the Statue of Liberty up his backside the next time round.
Being American or West European is no license to voice strong opinions in learning forums.
Any religious propaganda (for or against) is outside the perview of constructive education.
Post a Comment
<< Home