20 shooting victims in California active shooter situation -

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.al-islam.org/articles/adopti ... mmad-rizvi

Some interesting information on how adoption "works" in Islam.

Supposedly, an adoptive child is not considered a "real" child, and an adoptive child cannot become mahram to the adoptive family, unless the adoption occurred when the child was under age 2 (which the infant is) AND the adoptive mother has nursed the baby for a day and a night.

Now, Saira has a 2-yr-old herself, so she may be able (and willing) to nurse her 6-month-old niece, causing the baby to become mahram to Saira's family (so the baby will not have to don the hijab in the presence of Saira's husband and son as soon as she turns age 9). IF, however, Saira cannot or will not nurse the child, then the kid WILL remain non-mahram to her uncle and cousin, and will have to don the hijab at age 9.

Secondly, and more interestingly, it appears that the Koran specifically forbids against referring to the child as the son (or daughter) of the adoptive father, but insists that the child be referred to by the name of his (or her) biological father. So the girl will not be Rafia Farhan Khan (assuming her given name is Rafia), but she will continue to be Rafia Rizwan Farooq. Rafia bint Rizwan, not Rafia bint Farhan.

Essentially, under Islamic law, relationships are established through "uterine connections". An adoptive child can become mahram to the adoptive family, but never become a true and full-fledged member of the adoptive family. S/he will remain an outsider orphan (regardless of mahram status) that the adoptive family is "taking under their wing".

So, the adoption by the uncle and the aunt will serve no real purpose -- the child will *not* gain "new parents" nor will she be considered a daughter by the "adoptive" family. All the process would accomplish is to just keep the kid in the family, as an orphan !

AND, then, of course Saira, aided by the likes of Hussam Ayloush, might tell her niece that it was really the fault of the United States that her parents committed such a horrific crime, poisoning the child's mind and ruining any chances of a sane and stable future for the kid.

I hope that the judge considers all of this information and adopts that kid out. Her well being is more important than the family's wants (or Hussam Ayloush's desires). The kid needs a stable home with new PARENTS, preferably non-Muslim ones. If adopted by a Muslim family, even if the adoptive mother nurses the child, the girl will NOT grow up as one of their own, but rather as a glorified, mahram orphan. It's their (Islamic) law !

Surely no one (with a heart) will deny the infant the right to a set of new, sane and stable parents ? No reasonable soul will want the child to be an orphan for life for no fault of hers ?

Case now made for adoption into a non-Muslim household. Defense rests.

You must have missed (or ignored) my earlier response...seem a bit cranky these days? is everything ok?
Priority of adoption goes in the direction of immediate family followed by community and then a family considered suitable based on other factors such as financial stability etc...

The kids is being adopted by immediate family is in keeping with adoption laws. If immediate family is not there then community (i.e. muslim community) would take priority. In the second criteria of community I used the illustration of a little blonde baby up for adoption having a zero chance of getting adopted by an African American family as the child is classified as culturally "white" (even though we aren't supposed to be doing this sort of thing in our post-PC world) and would only be given to nice middle class white folks for adoption or foster care.

So in the context of the child's rights, you'll have to fix adoption laws first....

This is not a saying I am familiar with. What does it mean?




Non of this eyrolling or hyperbole does anything to deny the fact that there are many non-Muslim people who get worked up about their religious emotions to the extent that they do extreme violence to others.

From any position not deeply identified with one of these cultures, the phenomenon is the same.

I think there may be a rational basis for noting that certain features of Islam make Muslims particularly vulnerable to this. I suspect, based on my limited study of political Islam, Salafism and Islamic history, that certain aspects of both the core text and the historical tradition do make it particularly easy for Muslims to adopt a radicalized, militant identity and support or participate in extreme political violence. I don't think that's Islamophobia on my part, but a genuine effect of core elements of the faith. But that's a difficult conversation to have and not one that can be engaged in with the kind of overheated rhetoric that marks most such discussion.

I also don't think that acknowledging that there is a problem with radical militant Islam somehow justifies Islamophobic actions or speech or discriminatory practice. Any response to the particular threat posed by the radicalizing, violent tendency in Islam must be just.

Appeals to organized injustice and discriminatory treatment cannot be justified. Recognizing intrinsic problems in particular versions of Islam (e.g. Wahabism) does not somehow transmute unjust laws and illegal actions into just and legal ones. Islam represents a lesser threat to the foundational ideas of the United States than a willingness to abandon our own principles and ethics because it seems expedient in the face of an immediate threat. The end does not justify the means.

BTW, there is plenty of extremist Hindu sentiment around here, though the focus is usually on India, not local politics. Most of the time when I personally run into nasty behavior from Hindu people around here, it is simple racism: skin prejudice.

If I ignored your post, then it's because that I don't believe I should be discussing *anything* with someone from an alleged "first rate" University who believes that Pakistan is in the Middle East.



You are now an expert in California laws and the "system", eh ? I just explained why - logically - it does not make sense to allow Saira to adopt the child. If their Islamic law would not allow them to treat the girl as anything better than a mahram orphan (the best case scenario, ironically), then Muslim families should not be considered for this (or any) adoption in California (not my place to talk about what other states and countries - except India - should be doing).

Yes, child's rights always come first, which is why I hope (and believe) that judges that sit in our (California) family courts are a lot more rational, reasonable and more inclined to prioritize the well-being of children over everything else. I also don't think our California law would give priority to "kin first", if there is strong reason to believe (and there is in bint Rizwan's case) that placing a child with its immediate kin, or with those who share the kin's racial or cultural background, could harm the child's well-being in the long term.

I understand that Australia is different. That white is might and white is always right --- in Australia --- but thank God our California is not Australia (at least for the most part).

Eye-rolling hyperbole ? Really ? Guess that's a nice way to ignore facts - refer to it as hyperbole.

And, I talked about numbers. Sheer numbers. Are you actually saying that there can be a comparison between the extent, scale and nature of Hindu "extremism" and Islamic extremism ? Give details and info about acts of Hindu extremism -- and it had better not be "data" lifted from a Southern Baptist missionary outfit ranting about the Sangh Parivar's "ghar vapasi" programmes.




Turn the other cheek to threats of terror and imminent carnage ? Would that be the "just" thing to do ? What else would be a "just" response to violent threats and acts of terror ?




I honestly don't understand a word of this, so pardon me if I ignore this Islamophilic, misanthropic spiel.




Where is "here" ? And "nasty behaviour from Hindu people" ? How do you know that these are "Hindu" people ? Are you looking for dots on women's forehead ? Or going by names ? Assuming that all South Asians are Hindu ? What ?

And, while in your Islamophilia, you are going to GREAT extent to try to paint Hindu extremists as just as bad as Muslims extremists in both scale and scope of their "operations", your attempts are still an EPIC fail but monumental testimony to your Hindu-phobia. Even the most extremist Hindu organizations have DONE NOTHING (however questionable) outside of India, and any acts of violence are usually reactionary in nature -- as in, the other party aren't innocent wee lambs, either.

As I said before, Hindus are not into "conversions", initiating violence against Kufars, and not eager to take the sword of Rama into mlechha territories. Bharatha Kandam is more than enough territory for them.


And regarding "skin colour discrimination" -- that's a new one, especially given that there are VERY dark Hindus AND VERY light Hindus, and every shade in between, even in immediately families (mine would be a prime example of the familial variation in colour, except that I am no longer Hindu and am not raising my kids as Hindus). But had I remained so, who would I have been discriminating against ? My siblings ? Some of my cousins ? One of my own children ?

But whatever you say, it's always so eye-opening to learn (especially from anti-hindu rhetoric) about just how awful one's kin is !

PS : Many people with "Hindu" sounding names aren't really "Hindu" at all -- a lot of Christians continue giving their kids Hindu-sounding names even in this day and age, especially cultural names that have NOTHING to do with religion (but which non-Indians may assume are "Hindu" names). Case in point - me. My given name is classically Hindu, and I am anything but (despite my fondness for some of their mythology and great love for some of their poetry).

Do you think you might ever learn to discuss such things with resorting to personal attacks?
I imagined that it might be interesting to have a discussion about these topics, but with this kind of response, it doesn't seem possible.

I was not personally attacking you. I just fail to see how the RSS, the Sangh Parivar, the BJP, Narendra Modi, Devendra Fadnavis, caste system, Sanatana Dharma, etc etc etc belong in this thread or in a thread about Ben Carson's beliefs on the pyramids. This thread is about Islamic terrorists who shot up the very people who threw them a baby shower just a few short months ago. What on Earth would you bring Hindus and purported Hindu racism into this thread for ?

Hey, I am not an RSS apologist but I am not going to sit by and see them compared to Daesh, when the scale and scope of RSS operations is NOTHING as terrifying or as global as Daesh. At the heart of Santana Dharma is the principle of "Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava" and "Sarve Janah Sukhino Bhavantu". But even Santana Dharma whose core philosophies are anti-violence, and love for all fellow living beings, cannot get along with Islam. And let me tell you -- that's not the fault of Santana Dharma.

Furthermore, it's not the RSS Sainiks storming holiday parties and shooting up innocent citizens, and -- even more damning -- the very people who've shown them nothing but kindness.

Saying all this does not mean that I am attacking you personally. I am just tired of hearing people attack Santana Dharma and comparing it with Islam, when there is NOT an iota of comparison to be made between the two. SD and Islam are as different from each other as chalk is from cheese and SD-adherents are not your run-of-the-mill violent jihadis ready to murder 1000000000 innocents in the name of their "religion" and "Rama". When the common (wo)man hears the word "terrorist", I am willing to wager that the image they conjure up is not one of a man in saffron worshiping a God with an elephant head.

Every religion has members capable of violence.

Many of the worldwide religions have violence/wars in their history, even those whose founders specifically taught against/forbade violence or self defense.

Most religion-based wars were (or perceived) as self-defense; many were actually politically/culturally-based aggression.

But here and now, today, a baby girl is homeless, fourteen people are dead, countless people are mourning, and we are all wondering just where were those two planning to plant all of those pipe bombs found in their garage.......

Because all of those explosives were not intended for that Christmas party.

In addition, police divers have been searching a lake for something, no one knows what, that these two may have thrown in.

My haunch is that they had planned something far worse, and intended to cause large-scale carnage, but acted prematurely. Rizwan got into an argument with a Jewish co-worker at the party, stormed out in a rage, and returned with his wife to attack the party. My suspicion is that the spat he had with his Jewish colleague probably saved a lot of lives. Had the party gone without incident, Rizwan and his wife would probably not have changed their plans, and "jumped the gun" (so to speak). They would likely have quietly continued with their original (and monstrous) plans, and caused a lot of destruction (eventually).

It was probably a good thing that they lost their cool and acted in haste, although the loss of 14 innocent lives is still difficult to digest.

I'm sorry to be difficult about this, but you were.


Is there a way to rephrase the central ideas here without making them personal?

Might it be possible to talk about problematic aspects of Islam and Hinduism, or religious faith in general, without falsely attributing positive or negative attitudes toward specific religions to me?

You have been doing this throughout this thread to many participants and you should try to stop.

The reason these things are being discussed in this thread is that you and others advocated special restrictions on and surveillance of certain US citizens and residents on the basis of their religion, something that is not just illegal but contrary to the founding principles of the nation.

Despite your defamatory characterizations of me and my ideas, I actually agree with you that Islam has features that make it more dangerous than most other religions (though Christianity shares many of those features and also has a proven track record as a framework for violent extremism) -- but no effort to cope with that danger will be effective unless it distinguishes between the violent, extreme versions of the religion and the many non-violent versions of the religion. If the law enforcement and intelligence services are to address that effectively and legally, they are going to need to focus very narrowly on the specific aspects of radical Islamic ideology and behavior that make it dangerous, not on "Muslims" in general.

In focusing on behaviors and patterns of belief that promote violence without singling out Islam, security services will also be developing tools to protect the nation against the ongoing threat from extremist forms of Christianity and any other faith that follow those patterns. To do this without infringing on First Amendment rights is essential, though difficult. Achieving this difficult task would result in lawful, just approaches to mitigate the threat of religious extremism.

What won't work is accusing all Muslims of being terrorists or abandoning the rule of law in order to get the ones "we all know" are probably terrorists.

It looks like they recovered something useful from the lake and are finding interesting connections by tracking down people connected to Marquez. Also, the Russian brides are Chechen. In itself, this detail proves nothing, but there are plenty of violent Islamist Chechen extremists and they have perpetrated some of the most horrific terrorist attacks such as the Beslan school massacre and Dubrovka theater massacre in Moscow.

Well, considering that I've been called a "bigot" and accused of "actionable bigotry" (whatever that is), the attribution of attitudes goes and works both ways.




I had since clarified my stance on the issue that profiling individuals based on either their stated religious beliefs or apparent racial or ethic background would not work. I advocated for restrictions and surveillance of individuals based on their behaviours, especially those that make their friends / relatives / coworkers / neighbours uncomfortable and / or deeply suspicious. This is neither illegal nor contrary to the founding principles of America, and such policing might have actually have prevented the San Bernadino tragedy had the neighbours reported their suspicion and not been dissuaded from doing so, solely out of fear of being labelled "racist bigots".



Opinions - or "hyperbole" as you characterized them - are not defamatory, especially given that I was slandered on this very thread multiple times as a "bigot".



The billionaire riyal question : how do we know who is, and who is not, susceptible to radical Islam ideology ? It appears that Tashfeen's extended family followed Sufism, which by all accounts, is one of the more "peaceful" version of Islam. Would you expect her to have become radicalized, considering that her family followed Sufism ? No ? However, her immediate family become "extremely conservative" after migrating to Saudi Arabia, and her father's relatives have talked about their shock in the father's personality and outlook, post immigration. Therefore, how will law enforcement selectively and legally focus on "behaviours" that make one more prone to radicalization ? Where will they start their surveillance ? If it starts with the local Muslim population, then that is labelled as being contrary to the country's founding principles ! So, this comes across as a well-nigh impossible task to carry out (legally).



The entire family -- in my opinion -- is quite likely radicalized. Marquez admits to plotting an attack as far back as 2011 with Rizwan, but acknowledges that the pair gave up on those plans when law enforcement arrested several individuals in the area for possible terror plots.

Frankly, I don't believe a single thing that the members of that family say. They were all probably well aware of Tashfeen's background, the mother at least knew that her son was up to no good (I don't buy the BS that Rafia never visited the ground floor of the town home or the garage). The family also likely perpetrated fraud against Uncle Sam in the visa matter of Marquez's Chechen "wife".

Regarding your request that we talk about problematic aspects of Hinduism, unfortunately, this is not the proper forum for that discussion, because Hindu extremism - when it occurs - is limited to subcontinent. and is very reactionary in nature. I am very critical of the RSS and voice my complaints quite vocally when they (RSS) are the subject of any discussion, but they are neither terrorists nor are they on a mission to spread Hindu nationalism or Santana Dharma outside of the subcontinent. How many RSS families do you know of, in America ? (which was my initial problem with your question if I wanted the orphan placed with an RSS family).

And unless you mess with them, the RSS leaves you alone and minds its own business. So I don't see the point of discussing them in a thread on Islamic terrorism.

Under the premise of the Westminster legal system that underlies both Australian and American law, the judge has to be impartial toward people who have not been charged with any crimes. "Allegations" of being security risks is not justification to not award custody. Your comment that a person's race or culture could be a legal reason to withhold custody is bizarre if they are next of kin?



I drove through areas of California with large ghettos of either predominantly Latin, African American and even Asian communities. They didn't seem very safe or prosperous and the people living there looked miserable.
We don't have such ghettos in Australia as they promote separate/fragmented communities. Your views of Australia are out of date by 50 years. I imagine you live in a nice leafy gated community safe from the multicultural paradise you are pretending to be proud of.

I really do not know California's legal position here......if all of the orphaned baby girl's relatives are considered suspicious, will she be available for adoption to anyone, or must she be adopted by only a Muslim family?

Under both Federal and CA law, cultural factors are very much taken into consideration. Unless SoCal's Saddleback Church gets to her first (they have a bit of a...reputation, based on mission statements & past actions for targeting non-Xian children for their adoption agencies so they can be adopted by Xian families). In all seriousness, though, the state agencies are *supposed* to try to place her with a family of the same general appearance (my interpretation), culture and traditions as her parents. Minus the radicalization, I would assume.

No, it doesn't work that way. You can't make a personal attack on me because someone else called you names. Two wrongs don't make a right and you can't lump everyone who disagrees into a homogenous "them."


Again, it doesn't work that way. You label me falsely and that's wrong. That others may have labeled you falsely has nothing to do with it.



That is indeed the question. Given the fact that there are around 2 million Muslim adults in the United States, it would be a colossal waste of time to try to monitor and analyze all of them closley. The security services need to use some intelligent discretion in selecting probable threats for surveillance. Just saying "it's difficult, so we have to watch them all" is not a plan for success.

One approach is to look at the psychology of radicalization so that profiles of radicalizing individuals can be drawn up. Such work is being done:
http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewc ... ontext=jss

Another approach is to develop human intelligence networks within the Muslim community and encourage community counter-radicalization efforts. I am sure both strategies are being pursued, though the FBI has an unfortunate history of bigotry that has probably reduced their potential effectiveness in some areas.

I am certain that people are working on this problem and will come up with much more effective and practical strategies than "investigate all Muslims."

"I drove through areas of California with large ghettos of either predominantly Latin, African American and even Asian communities. They didn't seem very safe or prosperous and the people living there looked miserable.
We don't have such ghettos in Australia as they promote separate/fragmented communities."

This is wonderful. I was beginning to think the indigenous peoples of Australia would be forced into ghettos forever, considering what I would call centuries of abuse. How did you accomplish this miracle? How were you able to integrate the neighborhoods over existing neighbor's objections (I assume you meant ALL neighborhoods and not just the impoverished ones)? How have you made all the nice white upscale neighborhoods available to the poor indigenous?

In this country legal asylum seekers are NOT put in ghettos, but integrated into other populations. But unlike people in many other countries, no one is forced to remain and often choose to live in self made ghettos where others speak their language.

The predominantly Latino neighborhoods in the Central Valley are composed primarily of undocumented self-immigrants and they live together by choice; estimates are between 12 and 20 million individuals. Hell man the entire population of Australia is only about 23 million. Why don't you go look at an upscale Asian community in some of these areas. There is a huge Asian community in the San Jose area that puts many other upscale areas to shame.

Now about your information on your terrific treatment of your indigenous peoples, which I expect you'll be more familiar with: ??????