How to Defeat Hamas -- Face Up to the Truth

DanielintheLionsDen :

You are not new, intolerant to Islam, wishing bad days but there were many like you from the beginning of this great true religion.

On the contrary of some Islam is well understood now than never before in history and a large number of people specially in US are embracing Islam.

Spark1

Your arguments are intellectually unsophistocated. How can I argue with your simple-minded plattitudes and cliches?

I see Islam as intolerant; a burden for the world to bear, until some future time, when its intolerant grip on people has become somewhat more relaxed.

Dr. Chopra finally hints toward a solution that has some outside chance of being successful. Third-parties must invest in the solution not just with talk, but with hard currency.

Offer both sides the Carrot that they (should) want... Israel - a relatively stable palestinian neighbor, who does not attack or allow its citizens to martyr themselves. Palestinian Authority - A chance at an economy and a stable state. How?

1. Israel stops its war/operation (whatever you wish to call it)
2. In exchange, Hamas and Fatah agree to stop rocket firings, and suicide bombings.
3. The parties sit down to negotiate what changes need to be made to the 1949 Treaty Boundaries. (This will be difficult, but probably easiest starting point).
4. If Hamas/Fatah can reign in and stop the rocket fire and suicide bombings for 6 months, major 3rd party infrastructure investment begins.
5. This infrastructure would have to include a commercial port on the Med Sea, a legitimate airport (probably in Gaza), and some form of secure transport between West Bank and Gaza, that is not controlled by Israel.
6. Investment in some form of industry for Palestinians would be needed (preferably not the development of military armament....)
7. Both parties agree to share Jerusalem, or neither may use for their seat of Government, and if need be, third party investment to move the structures of government.
8. A permanent peacekeeping force of 10's of Thousands (from 1st world nations, with 1st world military technology, to discourage, as best as possible any intrusions).

There is no likely Kumbaya meeting between these parties. Will Israel actually accept a viable Palestinian State? Will Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah actually allow the peaceable existence of Israel if the Palestinian people are provided the tools to create a real society? Those are the more difficult questions.

DanielintheLionsDen :

You wrote;

"If you believe in God, you cannot believe that any person "set" on this earth, within the "setting" of their birth can be any more or less favored by God, merely by the "accident" of their birth. And therefore, to assert and assume the superiority of one religious truth over another is absurd and that there must be something more than such a silly way of looking at things".

In the eyes of God all men are equal.They are free to chose their way. Either they believe in One God or the are Non-believers. It is not merely by accident that that one becomes favoured before God and the other is condemned but it is by choice of his free wil and when he chooses to be a non-believer then;
The inevitable consequence of this revolt and denial of reality is a failure in the ultimate ideals of life. such a rebel will never find the thread of real knowledge and vision; for the knowledge that fails to reveal its own creator can reveal no truth. Such a man’s intellect and reason always run astray; for reason which errs in knowing its own creator cannot illumine the paths of life. Such a man will meet with failures in all the affairs of his life. His morality, his civic and social life, his struggle for livelihood and his family life, in short, his entire living, will be upset. He will spread confusion and disorder on the earth. He will without the least compunction, shed blood, violate other men’s rights, be cruel to them, and create disorder and destruction in the world. His perverted thoughts and ambitions, his blurred vision and disturbed scale of values, and his evil-spelling activities would make life bitter for him and for all around him. Such a man would destroy the calm and poise of life on earth.

DanielintheLionsDen :

You commented:
Why is sex, in general, so bad? Why are religious people so hung up on sex? Why is sex their stumbling point?

Sex is never seen as an act of shame is religion and never not to be bad. Rather religious persons are more sexy and they restrained from "illegal" sex so they have more temptation.
It is not just sexual matters over which the religion rules but also other day to day affairs too.
There are ways to have good and long-lasting sexual life full with love if one the sincere to his partner and remain straight faithful and sincere. The birth of children makes the bondage more strong.
There is always decent ways and restraints, one cannot make sex with his friends wife or lie down with the father of four in the next house neighborhood.
Tomorrow may be you find a group of people who will ask you in the name of civil rights to allow them to register marriages between mother and son or father or daughter, now at present if you think this is disgusting - why?
A life is like rivers which flows within its banks and brings prosperity, but if over flows, create devastation of great magnitude.

DanielintheLionsDen :

Sir, your comments raised many issues. I will try to answer them one by one.

What distinguishes a traditional religious conviction from bigotry?

A man is free to choose the way he want to lead his life and religion is tolerant to it.
As far as Islam is concerned there is no compulsion in religion.
Religious convictions do not remain only based on traditional knowledge, a stage comes in everyone’s life when his wisdom asks him answers and justifications of his beliefs founded by cultural or traditional heritage as you have said.
If he is person of lesser knowledge, of which one is again well aware, he refer his query to the one who is more knowledgeable.
Religious convictions are surely different from bigotry. 1.There is no compulsions in adopting a particular religion.2. You can keep your religion or convictions.
However because a religious person is sure that what he believes is based upon the commandments from the all-knowledgeable - the God so he do struggle to keep the society decent and peaceful this do not mean that he is intolerant.
What you do privately is a personal matter and it is between you and your God. But when you come with an evil idea and want to spread it in the society then definitely you will face the opposition from those who are as enlightened as you think you might and at the same time have no doubt that what they want to preserve is the truth.

What distinguishes a traditional religious conviction from bigotry?

I suppose that a “religious conviction” is a person’s belief and is good, and “bigotry” is just being mean-spirited and is bad. I suppose we shouldn’t tell a person that his religious belief is wrong because it is everyone’s God-given right to choose their own religious convictions. Why then, should we tell a bigot that his belief is wrong, because he picked it, and he can just as easily unpick it?

But how do we choose our beliefs, and how do we acquire our prejudices? Do we really choose them freely? Do we really “pick” our beliefs?

Mostly, we do not; and we can change them, only with great difficulty. It is just as difficult for a bigot to cast off his bigoted beliefs as it is for a religious person to cast off his traditional beliefs; yet, I would expect them both to try.

How free are we when we “freely” chose our beliefs?

An intelligent person is freer to choose than a less intelligent person. Someone with greater knowledge is freer to choose than someone of lesser knowledge. But for the most part, we all take what is handed to us, and that is how we freely choose. The beliefs that are handed to us can be changed, modified, or even cast off, upon reasonable analysis, subject to critical thinking. But how many people do that? Not an awful lot.

However, I expect people to try, even if they don’t want to. Bigotry is bigotry, whether it is couched in religious terms or not. In saying all of these things, I am not necessarily wanting to impose my own beliefs on other people who believe differently than I. I just wish there was a way to help people see what they cannot see, and become aware of things unknown to them, and to comprehend that which may seem incomprehensible.

In case I am being too obtuse, I am trying to say that I do not respect religions, religious beliefs, or religious people that promote anti-gay doctrines. And if their feelings get hurt, and they get huffy about their freedom of religion, well I suppose then, there is nothing I can do about that.

Spark1

Why is sex, in general, so bad? Why are religious people so hung up on sex? Why is sex their stumbling point?

If religious people are frigid and sexually cold, can they ever know love? Can they empathize with others that do? Could they ever empathize with gay people who may be in love?
Do they love their own children with the same depth of feeling that "unfrigid" people do?

I do not think so. From the example that many relgiious people set, many of them seem emotionally flat, blank, or damaged with regards to real human contact and love. Alot of this traces to sexual repression.

These are all my speculations on the interior motivations of homophobic people, since they will not or cannot say themselves, what is the cause of their ill-will and bad feelings against gay people.

Spark1

Peace is not really a happy kingdom with a wise ruler; peace is really an equilibrium of tensions and a synchronization of rhythms, which includes and accounts for all that is good and bad in the world and in the human heart.

It is easier for me to find a place in the world for gay people than it is to find a place for people like you.

Spark1

You have done you preaching to me; now I will preach to you:

Many religious people are cloistered and sheltered and can think only in the extremely narrow confines of their own personal religious heritage, be it from their own families, or from the culture in which they are raised. The Muslim and the Christian, stand up to each other as if peering into a mirror, and hold up their sacred scriptures, and pray to a god which appears in the mirror image of each, and bow down to their prophet or savior, which appears as the mirror image of each, and go to their houses of worship, and pay respect to their clergy, each an image of the other, yet neither comprehending their own reflections, like an ape who looks in a mirror, but does not recognize his own image.

Yes, that is what I believe!

People do not seem to realize where they come from, nor where their religious belief comes from. They do not seem to realize that their religious heritage is provided to them by the previous generation, that what they may inherit at any given time in history, and at any given location upon the earth, is merely a setting, where the formation of an inner will comes into being, and operates to motivate their personalities, and that this setting is very different from place to place and from epoch to epoch, and is based on many, many things that have only a virtual existence, or said another way, have no existence at all, other than as markers, and interpretive categorizations within our own minds.

If you believe in God, you cannot believe that any person "set" on this earth, within the "setting" of their birth can be any more or less favored by God, merely by the "accident" of their birth. And therefore, to assert and assume the superiority of one religious truth over another is absurd and that there must be something more than such a silly way of looking at things.

I do not believe that all religious truths are the same, and I do not believe that "many paths lead to the summit of the mountain." I believe that all of the "operational" or "proximate" experiences of human beings are coarse and unreliable when it comes to knowledge and knowing, and that there is an aesthetic of knowledge which some people seek, but which they may only occasionally glimpse but never fully realize, and that there is the contrasting hum-drum surface experience of everyday things, which we all come to know not very well, but "well enough," which includes church, and Bible-study, and different kinds of religious rituals and practices, and yes, even praying to an unknowable God which is, yet somehow, imagined, in order to regard as the object of thought and contemplation, this hum-drum world of ours which we do not know well, with its multiplication of reflected images, through the eyes of millions, that make such complicated and cacophonous variations to everything that we perceive.

DanielintheLionsDen

You jolted me with your furious sentiments regarding my comments about the gays.
Perhaps we fail to understand each other as our perceptions vibe at a different frequency.
We do not percieve religion in a same way.
Faith is a foundation for thoughts which do not depends upon philosophy or logic. It is believing and a way of living day to day life.
God created this universe which follows His laws.
(such as law of gravity, laws of motion etc)
Man only discover them, in the same manner God graciously guided His best creation, the man, regarding what is good and what is bad for him.
I ardently hope you will ponder over this matter.
There are thousand and one observations which can lead you to a Creator but you have no evidence to become a non-believer.
Blind lust cannot be justified as its end result is always horrible.
It is in the best interest of all that I oppose gay marriage and overt sexual expressions.

Spark1

Like your Christian brethren, you cannot even make a simple reference to your religious beliefs without trashing and slandering gay people. Crazy religigious fundamentalists need religion to justify their bigotry against their fellow man.

You demand respect, but you steadfastly refuse to extend it to others. Why would a bigot like you deserve any respect form anyone? You do not!

Gay people are not bad; being gay is not a defect nor an abomination. In fact, being gay is less abnormal than being a religious fanatic. I noticed that Chopra said that it is one of the burdens and one of the responsibilites of society to tolerate the intolerant. You are one of the intolerant, and therefore a burden for everyone else to bear.

That is all you are: everybody else's burden.

Deepak Chopra

Is'nt it surprising that before neo-con bush admin conspiracy against the muslims, there was not a single litrary journalist who could point out that Islam is to be blamed for terrorism.

As a matter of fact world is experiencing resurgence of religions and Islam is not an execption.
1. You can see resurgence of hindu extremism, finding new discovered life by exploding atomic bombs, clearly aiming at threatening its small neighbours, as china is a much bigger power to handle by the hindus.(for which US is pushing them)

2.The Jews are following more vigoriously their faith which tells them, the land is theirs so they can eliminate the palestanians by force.

3.And the neo-cons of bush admin who religiously thought is right to prepare grounds for the coming massiah by hitting the muslims.

The truth is, every where, in India, in kashmir or afghanistan,in Gaza or palestine the muslims are being victimised and killed by state terrorism carried,because of religious convictions.

Chopra says:

"But Islam massively holds out for an anti-future, and it can back up its medieval delusions with oil riches and suicide martyrs.

Your whole article is written to convey the only message that is contained in the above sentence. Very rightly someone has pointed out in his comment that it is very cleaverly written post.

You are utterly wrong, Islam is protecting the future of humanity by keeping up the ethics, morals and human virtues which are so dear for the humanity.
You want overt sexual intercourse on the roadside, then abortions, gay marriages,and exchange of wives for a night in your elites,
while Islam seeks decent behaviour for the sake of virtious society - Is this anti-future.

The Jews and the Hindus are enslaving the human beings by robing the comman man through bank mortgages and compound intrests and heavy income taxes while Islam in against economical expliotation of the poor and is againt the present expliotive economic system and income tax
Islam recommend only 2.5% on accomulated wealth.
Is this anti-future?

You talk of oil riches. Money of these oil riches are kept in the western banks that's why west protect the regimes in oil rich states and never wanted democracy in those countries.
In strict monitoring, allegations of this money used by the extemists is malicious and intentional dis-honesty on the part of the writer.

My question to chopra is: If someone enter his home, rob is wealth, kill his children, rape his wife and put fire to his home. what you will do?
Surely you will go to powerful authorities. And if they denies you justice repeatedly?
Then you will do the same what hamas is doing in Gaza.

Islam is followed by one billion people,you cannot finish them even if you wish so. But you can solve the issues by doing Justice in disputes,such as in Gaza and Kashmir.

Deepak Chopra wrote:

"Poor Muslim countries have little ability to cure the endemic poverty and ignorance that is the seedbed of terrorism. ..... No one can extirpate extremism from without"

Deepak, many non-Muslim countries are poor. Nepal is a poor country by India's standards. Do we frequently hear of Nepalese terrorists infesting India ? Poverty is not an excuse for committing terrorism of any kind. Also, terrorists don't come from impoverished backgrounds. 9/11 terrorists were from affluent middle class families. The Glasgow suicide bomber, Kafeel Ahmed, doing PhD in computational fluid dynamics (CFD) was from a family of well-to-do medical professionals in Bangalore like your noble self.

But, you are right when you opine that Muslims themselves have to stand up against terrorism. But, Muslims won't. Because that would be a slap a face on radical version of Islam that Hamas has espoused. At the end of the sady what do you propose ? That Israelis just sit down and start meditation while Hamas sends its katusha rockets into Israel killing everybody.

You know what Deepak ? Maybe you should, as a Hindu, read the Bhagavad Gita once more. It says that submitting before threat is a sin. It is a sin to bow down before your tormentor. I think Israel, contrary to what leftist peaceniks say, just get in Gaza and destroy Hamas till it sends shivers down the spines of these Jew-hating Muslims.

So what are the Jews supposed to do? Everywhere they've gone they've been discriminated against. In ancient times they were expelled from Jerusalem and Rome and scattered far and wide (as far as India). In modern times they were persecuted in Europe and discriminated against in the United States. Jews in Iran are subject to Sharia law and must worship in private. So why shouldn't they have a place they can call home and make their own rules? And why shouldn't that place be Jerusalem from which they expelled in the first place?

Every time I hear someone talk about the "ancient homeland of the Jewish people" I want to scream. What do these fools think of all of the other invasions and displacements that have taken place in the world since the Hebrews were (mostly) driven from their "homeland"? Do they endorse the return of all of the North American and South American continents to the native inhabitants, who were massacred and dispossessed far more recently than the Hebrews were expelled from their "homeland"? Must the descendants of the Saxons, Angles, and Normans be expelled from the British Isles so that the land can be returned to the Celts? Should France and Germany be likewise cleansed? Everyone knows that the Turks are not native to Turkey, right? Any rational person can see where this is going. Neither the Jews, nor the Palestinians are going anywhere anytime soon, so some sort of compromise must be reached. However, to say that the Jews have a "right" to Israel as their "ancient homeland" is to elevate their needs and desires over those of all other peoples of the world. There is no such thing as a "chosen people" anywhere in the world, and the sooner fanatics of all stripes accept this, the better off humanity as a whole will be

Israel has every right to defend itself, but Americans must recognize there are Jewish fanatics fanning the flames of this war, too. Jewish fanatics want to reclaim the land of King David, and for 30 years have been building villages and cities on confiscated Palestinian land in the West Bank and Golan Heights. The settlements squander the Geneva Conventions. "THE OCCUPYING POWER SHALL NOT DEPORT OR TRANSFER PARTS OF ITS OWN POPULATION INTO THE TERRITORIES IT OCCUPIES." The Israeli government aided the squatters when they created road blocks throughout the West Bank, essentially blocking free travel for Palestinians throughout the area. Americans must realize that Israel is breaking a major component of the Geneva Convention, and peace will be impossible until Israel tells the Jewish fanatics they must leave their settlements. Israel will be completely justified to wage total war against Hamas, but only when they recognize the settlements are a war crime under the Geneva Conventions regardless of the legalistic argument that Palestine is a legitimate country.

Deepak writes: " The West created Israel by fiat in 1948 without consulting the Arabs."

Huh ? In 1918, the League of Nations granted Palestinian Jews all land west of the Jordan river, the eastern part (80% of total) was granted to the Palestinian Arabs.

In 1948, after the British gave the eastern 80% to the Arabs, the United Nations decided to split the remaining 20% into Jewish and Arab sections.

After violently rejecting this division, Arab states attacked and were defeated by the Jews who formed a multi-ethnic democratic state in their tiny sliver. The fact is the British opposed a Jewish State and supported the Arab side in that early war.. supplying no less than 3000 trunks and 300 armored vehicles to Egypt.

Israel was born by a war of independence from British rule and a five state Arab attack NOT by Western guilt or decision-makers.

Israel remarkably is restored to the original lands Jews ruled over 2000 years ago. Palestinians Arabs only became a distinct Arab people after 1967 despite all myths of Nakba and the European Left.

Welllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll said. It is the first time I have endorsed such an article in its totality. I hope you build on this and write a book. You understand the situation and you are not biased. Well said. Thank you Mr. Chopra. Quite unexpected.

Mr Chopra:
Your claim that the West created Israel in 1948 without consulting the Arabs is misleading and biased. Modern-day Israel, including the West Bank, is the historic Jewish homeland where Jews have lived for thousands of years. The West proposed the partition of the British Mandate into majority-Jewish Palestine and majority-Arab Transjordan. The Arabs were happy to accept the latter but not the later. So Palestine was partitioned again into Jewish and Arab areas. The Arabs (including so-called moderates) have never considered any peace plan that involves a Jewish state.

I can't help but notice that in all the vitriolic comments against Chopra's commentary, no one has addressed his point about the Muslim Arab world not acting at all to alleviate the privation of the Palestinians they so eagerly support in "martyrdom." I guess that's because they can't respond since it's true.

It really proves how little Muslims value human life that they sacrifice it so willingly to a losing cause. Israel has lost a handful of soldiers in this conflict, compared to hundreds of Palestinians. Hamas fighters deliberatly use schools, hospitals, and heavy-density residential areas so they can cry to the world about the deaths of women and children, but if they cared about those deaths they wouldn't enmesh themselves so thoroughly with civilians. Hamas and their supporters have no interest in the Palestinians from a human rights perspective. They just love the power this conflict confers on them.

Mr. Chopra's balanced comments have predictably annoyed extremists on both sides, as the comments show. Perhaps clarification of an unstated premise in his discussion will help; one which is best summarized by paraphrasing something Mark Twain said about the French: "They're human beings, and that's about the worst thing you can say about anybody." In this case, the "they" is both Arabs and Israelis, Muslims and Jews. Because of how we evolved, human nature has a strong streak of xenophobia and violence. The institutions of civilized societies were created to manage this nature and push it toward its more positive potentialities (which are also impressive).

The problem with political extremists is by and large not their accusations about their enemies' brutality: these are almost always true; their problem is usually a refusal to see that their own side is just as guilty of atrocities as the other. Another applicable quote, this time from a bumper sticker: "Caution! I Drive Just Like You Do." This is certainly true of the Israelis and the Palestinians (and seems to be true of some of the commenters above).

The Palestinian/Israeli conflict is a case where the combatants are highly traumatized peoples who have had their primitive aggressive instincts triggered. Many Israelis are descendants of Holocaust survivors; many Gazans were herded into this ghetto to live lives of squalor after their land was confiscated. At the same time, the restraint of civilized institutions has never been applied properly: unconditional US backing for Israel and a failure of Muslims to stand up against extremists have led to the most grotesque cruelties, which would be considered intolerable anywhere else. That Israel has been guilty of more of these than the Palestinians reflects only their greater power, not a lower moral standing.

So what is to be done? If Israelis and Palestinians have lost the ability to think rationally about their own best interests -- which they appear to have done -- then there is no alternative but for the international community to step in and impose a solution, militarily if necessary, economically if that doesn't work, or by consent of the parties if at all possible. We owe that to the combatants as civilized people. You don't let a schizophrenic jump off a building; we shouldn't let the Israelis and Palestinians go on savaging each other.

Mr Chopra's commentary is about the most intelligent I have read on this topic. It is intesting to read the rather rabid and violent responses to Mr. Chopra's reasoned clarity and guidance for those truly seeking peace, from the deeply deluded faithful who seems to revel in hate and conflict.

So, the guru of pop psychobabble is now pontificating about the Middle East.Some readers seem to swallow his spiel just like the adherents
nodding their heads in his TV programs.

Israel exists. Israel's demand that Hamas recognize it is bogus. The world's demand that Hamas recognizes Israel and the imprisonment of those who deny the holocaust in some countries has elevated Israel to a status above God. What a travesty the kowtowing of the world displays when it comes to Israel.

Jews who align themselves with Israel cannot see past today. Each day the world sees the carnage being directed towards Palestine by Israel a hatred starts to develop. The world is gleefully witnessing the denial of medicine, food and the slaughter of Palestinian women and children.

What did the Palestinians do to the world to receive such punishment? Why does the world hate Muslims? Why does the world love mesmerizingly the Israelis? Why are we allowing the starvation and slaughter of women and children?

The emergence of the likes of Hamas and anti-jewish hatred dating back to the time of Islam's founder tell us the inconvenient reality:

Conquest model, NOT religion model of Islam is the way to go!

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=85447cc0-5bc0-4b50-bd31-7718a136d661

I was a little shocked to see the Shah of Iran described as modernizing and Western facing. True in some respects, but there's nothing modern about a dictator into torturing his political opponents. He should be known as the long term dictator who insulted the religious sensibilities of his people and led to an even worse and longer term hardline theocratic dictatorship.
And people should be aware that all this, The Shah's dictatorship and the mullah's dictatorship and terrorism, was caused by the US, which wantonly overthrew a moderate democratically elected gov't in Iran in 1953 because they nationalized their oil industry. Truman didn't believe in this kind of garbage, but Eisenhower and the Repubs got in in 1953 and we starting shoving our weight around. One of the worst mistakes in American history.

I see...Chopra has now become the all-knowing political sage as well. He seems to conveniently omitted the overriding truth that Israel is the Ancient Homeland of the Jewish People, so Islam simply wants back what it stole in the first place. If this fact becomes the Paradigm, what then results from your logic stream, Doctor Chopra.

What needs to happen is that the Palestinian people must give up their martyrizing ways and devotion to their "cause", whatever that is, and make peace with Israel. Israel will make peace with them and the Palestinians can get on with a peaceful and productive existence, instead of sacrificing their lives and sanity so that the rest of Islam can beat themselves on the chest like a bunch of Gorillas and scream about Israel. THAT is what this is all about. It is called a "Backward Society".

Chopra thinks "Making Hamas into a unique demon is pure propaganda". If Chopra keeps this up the zionists will prevent you from writing in washington post. Hey Chopra how about apartheid israel ethnic cleansing of palestinian kids in Gaza UN schools? any comments, be careful now, zionists are watching.

Mr. Deepak Chopra says:

"But Islam massively holds out for an anti-future, and it can back up its medieval delusions with oil riches and suicide martyrs".

Your whole article is written to convey the only message that is contained in the above sentence. Very rightly someone has pointed out in his comment that it is very cleverly written post.

You are utterly wrong, Islam is protecting the future of humanity by keeping up the ethics, morals and human virtues which are so dear to the humanity.
You want overt sexual intercourse on the roadside, then abortions, gay marriages, and exchange of wives for a night in your elites,
while Islam seeks decent behaviour for the sake of virtuous society - Is this anti-future.

The Jews and the Hindus are enslaving the human beings by robbing the common man through bank mortgages and compound interests and heavy income taxes while Islam in against economical exploitation of the poor and is against the present exploitive economic system and income tax
Islam recommend only 2.5% on accumulated wealth.
Is this anti-future?

You talk of oil riches. Money of these oil riches are kept in the western banks that's why west protect the regimes in oil rich states and never wanted democracy in those countries.
In strict monitoring, allegations of this money used by the extremists is malicious and intentional dishonesty on the part of the writer.

My question to Chopra is: If someone enter his home, rob is wealth, kill his children, rape his wife and put fire to his home. what you will do?
Surely you will go to powerful authorities. And if they denies you justice repeatedly?
Then you will do the same what Hamas is doing in Gaza.

Islam is followed by one billion people, you cannot finish them even if you wish so. But you can solve the issues by doing Justice in disputes, in Gaza or Kashmir.

Mr.DeePak Chopra says:

"But Islam massively holds out for an anti-future, and it can back up its medieval delusions with oil riches and suicide martyrs.

Your whole article is written to convey the only message that is contained in the above sentence. Very rightly someone has pointed out in his comment that it is very cleaverly written post.

You are utterly wrong, Islam is protecting the future of humanity by keeping up the ethics, morals and human virtues which are so dear for the humanity.
You want overt sexual intercourse on the roadside, then abortions, gay marriages,and exchange of wives for a night in your elites,
while Islam seeks decent behaviour for the sake of virtious society - Is this anti-future.

The Jews and the Hindus are enslaving the human beings by robing the comman man through bank mortgages and compound intrests and heavy income taxes while Islam in against economical expliotation of the poor and is againt the present expliotive economic system and income tax
Islam recommend only 2.5% on accomulated wealth.
Is this anti-future?

You talk of oil riches. Money of these oil riches are kept in the western banks that's why west protect the regimes in oil rich states and never wanted democracy in those countries.
In strict monitoring, allegations of this money used by the extemists is malicious and intentional dis-honesty on the part of the writer.

My question to chopra is: If someone enter his home, rob is wealth, kill his children, rape his wife and put fire to his home. what you will do?
Surely you will go to powerful authorities. And if they denies you justice repeatedly?
Then you will do the same what hamas is doing in Gaza.

Islam is followed by one billion people,you cannot finish them even if you wish so. But you can solve the issues by doing Justice in disputes,such as in Gaza or Kashmir.

Mayhap Muslims do not want to westernize as per U.S. dictates. Perhaps “free”-trade, Britney Spears, the U.S. Constitution, and many other things western are in direct opposition to their beliefs. Perhaps the people of Islam do not much appreciate the U.S. installed, and safeguarded, Arab puppet governments who sell out their own people for the sake of riches.

Perhaps the impoverished Muslim masses are the only children of God left on this planet.

Aye, perhaps . . .

Peace

An interesting article.

I would like to hear Mr. Chopra comment further on two issues.

First, regarding the statement:
"It's a sobering development in our own society that the religious right was able for almost thirty years to leverage its intolerance into power -- and a deep shame that so-called moderate Republicans enabled them.".
Why the past tense? The religious right remains a powerful force in American culture and politics.
How do we reduce the political influence of intolerant religious extremists in our own house?

Second, I agree with your comments regarding the central role of poverty and desparation in perpetuating Muslim extremism. What then is our excuse in America? Clearly religious extremism is not solely depending on poverty. Is it simply the desire for power and control that fuels our current culture of fundamentalist-driven 'manifest destiny', or something else?

Thanks in advance for any replies.......s_d

Choppra dont mislead the readers by deflecting the real issue and bashing just Islam which seems to by your prime job.
This is a quote from pamela's recent article from on faith.

In 2006 head of the Hamas political wing, Khalid Mish'al, wrote in The Guardian:

"Our message to the Israelis is this: we do not fight you because you belong to a certain faith or culture. Jews have lived in the Muslim world for 13 centuries in peace and harmony; they are in our religion "the people of the book" who have a covenant from God and His Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him) to be respected and protected. Our conflict with you is not religious but political. We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us - our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people.
"We shall never recognise the right of any power to rob us of our land and deny us our national rights. We shall never recognise the legitimacy of a Zionist state created on our soil in order to atone for somebody else's sins or solve somebody else's problem. But if you are willing to accept the principle of a long-term truce, we are prepared to negotiate the terms. Hamas is extending a hand of peace to those who are truly interested in a peace based on justice."

The is JUSTICE to the weak and oppressed and not Islam which by the way is most moderate religion which you can ever dream of.

I strongly disagree with the writers observation about Islam. It is the most young religion and is not corrupt as hinduism.
It is sad to note that some persons sell their pen and mind for the sake of livlihood and survival.
The writer is said to author 50 books I doubt the quality of his work. One book is enough if it benifits the people.

Brilliantly stated and argued!

I think this is a wonderfully clever essay, with an original point of view, that is new to me.

Professor William O. Beeman argues that Hamas is not nearly so closely linked to Iran as the Establishment Media suggests:

Hamas is Not Iran's Puppet

By William O. Beeman, Professor and Chair of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Minnesota and past-president of the Middle East Section of the American Anthropological Association

Dec 31, 2008

The conflict between Israel and Hamas is not a proxy war between Israel and Iran. This is a myth that has grown up during the Bush administration, and is now widely promulgated with little or no support.

....Why then does the myth of Iranian military support persist? One reason is that it has been a long-standing American foreign policy belief that resistance movements cannot exist without state support. Before Iran was targeted as the source for support, Libya was the U.S. bogeyman. It is instructive to look at rhetoric against Libya from the 1980s and see that exactly the same accusations that were leveled at Libya then are being hurled at Iran today.

Full piece here:

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=98ccd19a09a28cdc2e38b3a961125dee&from=rss

.