Inzi Post-Bob: An Interview

precisely what does their religious connection have anything to do with their cricket-playing??
I dont see the England team following any religious beliefs and they play lousy cricket!

RIP Bob Woolmer.

How very conclusive of you, zeemax. But the only problem is, this article had nothing to do with what you’re gloating about. Instead of being the effervescent Tableeghi apologist you’ve been, I think you mailing a wreath to the Sacred Heart Cathedral would have been a better idea. Mind you, I do respect your views, so kindly spare me the gung-ho cyber-jihadi muscle flexing.

LAHORE, Pakistan (AP) -- Muslims joined Christians in observing a minute of silence, as they lit candles and offered prayers in a memorial Sunday for Bob Woolmer, the Pakistani cricket coach found dead on March 18.

Some 200 people, including cricket players and officials, attended the service at the Sacred Heart Cathedral in the eastern city of Lahore, the home of Pakistani cricket.

So much for this idiotic article.

Re: # 160

Certainly: as Inzi, Yuhanna, etc., are degrading Islam by displaying their paganistic ritualism to promote their profession which is anti-Islamic like prostitution.

It`s funny and the writer has a point

Re: # 158
Don`t know. But is it relevant to this discussion?

Kaptain bahi nice idea
i think we must teach them lesson and tell them how much we love cricket ,so decide the venue and we need some volunteers some body-builders some phaddy baaz and ` mela` party ,and one thing pans will be served after this .
Chowk Sisters can join us aswell esp. ZahraJ ,Sadia Rizwan n Nembu baji
P.S:`
Vote against Inzi . Support KAPTAIN .


PapuPanwari biggest chamcha of Nfp.

Re: # 157

PewResearch

You raise the question:

``You don`t think that there was marriage before Islam in pagan Arabia? Ditto for every other religion.``

I raise a counter question:

Do you think there was no religion in Arabia before the advent of Mohammadan Islam?

Re: # 128 Bulleya

``...I hope you agree that marriage is a religious concept. Getting, ``married`` in no way affects one`s biological, intellectual, ethical faculties....``

Marriage if defined as `an interpersonal relationship with governmental, social, or religious recognition` precedes organized religion. Humans have had monogamous relationships for time immemorial with social sanction before there was organized religion. You don`t think that there was marriage before Islam in pagan Arabia? Ditto for every other religion.

The rest of your argument breaks down because it is built on a weak foundation.

If you get the time, check out this
book. It will explain to you chapter and verse how human behavior and physiology has biologically evolved to promote monogamous relationships. You won`t find any linkage to religion, and why monogamy is essential to human survival. You will learn that while men are naturally inclined to be polygamous, women have evolved pretty clever mechanisms to counter such behavior! There is no morality/religion in play here - pure survival of the species.

Nadeem lets out and vents out the anger yet again on Tableeghis. Why not grind Naseem Ashraf who came and exit the scene without a blotch?

Cricket, which was a gentlemanly sport having become a dirty show-biz profession mostly of the scum of the society, at least so far as the Pakies are concerned, why don`t they avoid at least to Talibanize it by showing repulsive faces with unkempt beards.

anil ji

As you know, on one hand institutions are absolutely necessary to make life possible and get any work done in any area. Institutions are our great enablers.

On the other hand, institutions can and regularly do lead to all kinds of troubles, as you mentioned.

So, we are back to relying on the ancient wisdom - that wisdom begins with the attainment of vivek - the ability to recognize distinctions across situations and offer appropriate responses to varying situations.

Unfortunately, these days it is hard to convince people that just because things look the same they are not necessarily the same, and that ignoring of distinctions helps nobody.

So good religion, bad religion - its all the same. All bad for (Indian) communists, all good for religionists the world over. How do we get people to the idea that religions could differ, and within every religion there could be good and bad (institutionalized) elements?

Re: # 131

Kaalchakra & Khurram:

An institution creates an advantage to generate values (good or bad) that otherwise cannot be accomplished. If it is to leverage education, then it is educational institution, and likewise it is to realize economic value or trade then it can be a corporation. Religion in my definition is a belief system. Something you cannot question, but must accept, however emotional or questionable it may be, unlike in other institutions. Now therefore, when religion is institutionalized it creates advantage to exploit questionable ethics and emotions, just as well it can promote good values of the religion. Separating such use from misuse is important.

It is my opinion that Islam today is being challenged to reform itself. I find that in Islam there are concepts, like Fatwa and Jihad, that can be used by a group of disgruntled to create ``institutes`` (or extreme words - killing machines) as if their acts have divine sanctions and all of their acts therefore, are justified. I am surprised why believers of Islam cannot see it, and see that it is doing more harm than good to their belief system - Islam.

Kaalchakra, the ferocity, intensity of suicide bomber is captured in the institution of suicide bombing. Many madarassas who teach such concepts are institutions. Hooded Jamia Hafsa girls in today`s news kidnapping the pimp in Islamabad looked no less fearful than KKK. These girls took law in their hands, in the name of Islamic injunction. This is a creation of another institution. Not all institutions need to be as large as Roman Catholic Church.

I can give you examples of institutions in other religions including Hinduism too. My thesis that it is very dangerous to institutionalize emotions and beliefs holds, unless you want to create mental asylums. Institutionalized religions are very dangerous, and have always been. They have served their purpose of expansion through deliverance of believers.

Referring to #41 by subhashjoshi...Unfortunately what he quoted is ABSOLUTELY wrong...In Quran Chapter 9, verse 11:(this is the general way of reading 9:11)
``But if they repent, perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât) and give Zakât, then they are your brethren in religion. (In this way) We explain the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) in detail for a people who know.``
But if you take it otherwise i.e., Chapter 11, verse 9 then its like:
``And if We give man a taste of Mercy from Us, and then withdraw it from him, verily! He is despairing, ungrateful.``
Source: http://muttaqun.com/quran/e/
NFP, your article left a bad taste in my mouth.

zeemax (re #150)

Ask your ullema, and not me. Or you could simply ask brother Urstruly here ...

When Quran contradicts ullema, they shift the discussion to ahadith. When ahadith are shown to contradict them, they cite consensus among scholars to support their views. It`s sorta like blind leading the blind.

Similarly, Quran vests no authority in anyone to declare another non-Muslim either (ahem, ahem). Do you still want to discuss Quran ... or have you had enough?

#148 by sattar2

... do enlighten us on “Islamic values” of stoning an adulterer to death ..

Please quote the ayat of Quran where it says this.

bulleya#141:

``The whole western system is based on the concept of individual rights of a person, i.e protecting the minority against the majority``

This is not my understanding. On the contrary, the whole system is a balancing of individual versus communal/societal rights which reflects a society`s preference at any particular time. I am not allowed to smoke marijuana today in Canada because the society does not want to cultivate a tolerance of that drug, even though my smoking it wont harm anyone. I am not even allowed to end my miserable life if I wanted to because the society does not want to encourage this behaviour. All this could change, as has happened in some other countries. This is the essence of the sovereignty of the people. BTW I do believe that Anglo-Saxon societies have tilted the balance too far in favour of individuals, but as long as the majority does not agree with me, all I can do is try to influence the majority why I think what I think and hopefully, over a period of time, a majority will start thinking in the same way.

``You are, infact, confusing two items. You are looking at secularism as a method of government.``

No, I do not think of secularism as a method of government. Democracy is. A democratic government can decide to have a non-secular laws, as is indeed the case of several Muslim countries, including Pakistan, which have democratically decided to let religion be the ultimate arbiter of their laws. Similarly, dictatorships can be secular as was the case in several communist dictatorships, Saddam`s Iraq and Turkey.

zeemax miaN,

While you are pointificating values versus attitudes … do enlighten us on “Islamic values” of stoning an adulterer to death and executing an apostate – cornerstones of your ullema’s shariah.

And your cousin Urstruly has a problem with pornography. What world are you guys living in ...?

Here is a link to NY times article that talked about ethics and religion?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?em&ex=1175227200&en=69a6eff56315d583&ei=5070

Re: # 143

Religion is little alien concept for the subcontinental simple folks. It is a tool for political, social and economic exploitation. For simple folks of the subcontinent way of life or Dharma is more dear. For them it means ...

Rain on dry land is an extraordinary thing, is it not? It washes the leaves clean, the earth is refreshed. And I think we all ought to wash our minds completely clean, as the trees are washed by the rain, because they are so heavily laden with the dust of many centuries, the dust of what we call knowledge, experience. If you and I would cleanse the mind every day, free it of yesterday`s reminiscences, each one of us would then have a fresh mind, a mind capable of dealing with the many problems of existence.

I wonder if you have ever stopped to observe the marvelous glow in the west as the sun sets, with the shy young moon just over the trees? Often at that hour the river is very calm, and then everything is reflected on its surface: the bridge, the train that goes over it, the tender moon, and presently, as it grows dark, the stars. It is all very beautiful. And to observe, to watch, to give your whole attention to something beautiful, your mind must be free of preoccupations, must it not? It must not be occupied with problems, with worries, with speculations. It is only when the mind is very quiet that you can really observe, for then the mind is sensitive to extraordinary beauty; and perhaps here is a clue to our problem of freedom.

How can one have this creative joy of living, be expansive in one`s feeling, wide in one`s thinking, and yet be precise, clear, and orderly in one`s life? I think most of us are not like that because we never feel anything intensely; we never give our hearts and minds to anything completely. I remember watching two red squirrels, with long bushy tails and lovely fur, chase each other up and down a tall tree for about ten minutes without stopping-just for the joy of living. But you and I cannot know that joy if we do not feel things deeply, if there is no passion in our lives-passion, not for doing good or bringing about some reform, but passion in the sense of feeling things very strongly; and we can have that vital passion only when there is a total revolution in our thinking, in our whole being.

Have you ever wondered why it is that as people grow older they seem to lose all joy in life? At present most of you who are young are fairly happy; you have your little problems, there are examinations to worry about, but in spite of these troubles there is in your life a certain joy, and is there not? There is a spontaneous, easy acceptance of life, a looking at things lightly and happily. And why is it that as we grow older we seem to lose that joyous intimation of something beyond, something of greater significance? Why do so many of us, as we grow into so-called maturity, become dull, insensitive to joy, to beauty, to the open skies and the marvelous earth?

... Jiddu Krishnamuthi

To keep the debate fair, I think it is important to highlight the ethical contardictions in religion also. Secularism came into existence, as a philosophical concept, specifically because of contradictions - mainly religious contradictions - which were becoming unmanageable, in the running of the state.

The concept of religion, obviously, has two contradictions:

- Which is the correct religion. Religions tend to consider themselves correct. Which would imply that they consider other religions to be incorrect. Since there is no religion that domiantes more than 50% of mankind, according to religious beliefs, a majority of the world is inccorect in its beliefs. Some like the Christian Right state that if one does not consider Jesus to be one`s savior, one is going to hell. Others like Islam, give more leeway and allow Poeple of the Book and all others to be considered correct:

``Those who believe (in the Qur`an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.`` (Verse 62: The Cow)

The above verse is the closest thing I have found, in any religion (though I am no expert on world religions), which encompasses all of humanity, and allows, ``everyone`` to be forgiven. If we assume that the word, ``Allah`` refers to God, in general, and not to an Islamic Allah. Does everyone believe in some concept of a Last Day. Kind of, I would say. Does everyone believe in righteousness. Yes.

However, Islam does critique idol-worshippers, on other occassions. Which obviously wouldn`t go down to well with 1.2 billion Hindus. So there are contradictions there also. As there probalby are, in other religions as well.

So what happens to the human rights of individuals who do not follow the majority religion, in a religious state?

2. Who has the right to interpret the religion. This is a problem in some religions and not in others. In Christianity, it is clearly defined who has this right. As it is in Hinduism (not sure?). But in Islam, it is not defined at all. By design, Islam does not define this. It allows every Muslim to interpret religion. If that is the case, then there are bound to be infinite interpretatins of a Shariah. Which one should be followed? Should the group with the majority or with the biggest guns be allowed to interpret Shariah. If Pakistan had a 95% Ahmedi population and 5% Sunni population, there is a good chance sattar2 would be on the offensive and Urstruly on the defensive, on who is a Muslim and who isn`t.

So, as the contradictions in the religious management of government (specifically in Western Christian states, where the theocracy became far too powerful in state) came to the forefront, secularism emerged. It lasted for a while, because it gave breathing space to religious minorities. However, now the philsophical contradictions in secularism, as a form of governance, are coming to the forefront. Instead of separating church from state, it actually watered down the church`s participation in state to a level where the common belief of all religions were allowed in state (opposition to gay marraige), while those that were uncommon were passed on to the personal sphere.

What then is the answer, when both Urstruly and Dost-mittar are totally convinced they are not discriminating against anyone, even though they diametrically opposite view........Neither of which, at least in my opinion, address the above-mentioned contradictions.........

Re: anil

What exactly is an institution?
Are all institutions bad, or only religious ones?

Re: dost-mittar #various

The problem is that you think of religion in a very narrow way. For you, it is just a set of supernatural beliefs and some rituals that a person may adopt for personal solace. In fact, religion is, ``what concerns one ultimately``. It is a person`s foundational world-view. No one can be without one. You must have a foundational world view which enables you to decide whether some action is whether some action is moral or not. That is your religion, even if it has no deities or rituals.
You can argue if one religion is better than another. But there is no doing without it.
Every decision a State makes is based on some foundational world-view. So there is no separating religion from state.
The real question is if the State is authoritarian or not.

#140 by bulleya

I agree. It is upto the secularists to respond to your central argument that ``Is it a subtle combination of the religious and/or personal ethics of the majority of the population? If yes, then that violates the philosophical basis of secularism.``

Dost-mittar #137: ``It is the consensual value system (a dynamic, not a static concept) of a society which is embedded in the constitution and legislation of a society.``

This is quite incorrect. The whole western system is based on the concept of individual rights of a person, i.e protecting the minority against the majority. As is the basis of secularism, mind you. This is why the courts routinely rule down laws which suit the majority view at the expense of a minority.

If we use your view, then it was perfectly moral to discriminate against blacks. Or against the Irish. Or against women. It would be alright to pass legislation that a black man and a white woman cannot get married, if the majority supported it.

You are, infact, confusing two items. You are looking at secularism as a method of government. When, infact, secularism is a philosophical concept, i.e. separation of church and state. It, thus, does not take into account any kind of legislation or any kind of majority view. To put it into governmental terms, secularism does not recognize the legislature, it only recognizes a judiciary.

Under secularism, the church has nothing to do with the state, on any issue, regardless of how the majority of the country feels. Even if every MP votes against something, it doesn`t matter under secularism, it is still un-secular. Personal ethical beliefs are neither here nor there, in secularism.

Your view, is, infact, exactly the opposite of what created the concept of secularism. It came into existent to ensure that the majority view was not allowed to dictate to the minority. It shifted the concept of legal and illegal from the majority view to whether the individual was doing anything that harmed another individual. A brother and sister having sex inside their house are not harming you. Are they? Are they harming you if they get married? Not really. They may harm your personal ethics. But are they harming you? If not, then your ethical and/or religious beliefs, about this issue, become irrelevant, under secularism. Infact secularism demands that they become irrelevant.

If a majority of Frenchmen, today, decided that blacks should become slaves again, should that be turned into law also? Should Quebec follow it?

As mentioned before, if you want to understand secularism, you need to stop looking at it as a convenient mechanism of running a government, and start looking at its philosophical basis. Secularism, philosophically, states that the church should be seperate from the state. It does not state that the church should be separate from the state, however, if the majority population legislates otherwise then church and state can be combined.

It is the later that has occured in the Western world, so far. Which is why there are so many contradictions in state laws all over the world (gay marriage is legal in european countries and not in usa. It is legal one day, illegal the next). The former, the prickly philosophical definition of secularism is now starting to challenge the pragmatic and convenient governance definition of secularism. If the states lean towards governace, as you are suggesting, then they will only be hypocritically secular. If they lean to the philosophical definition, then their societies will go through major social upheaval and readjustment of ethical values...........

zeemax #132: ``Interesting discussion. After successful induction of gay marriage into `values`, `human rights`, `freedom of choice` etc., this is next for the same arguments. And why not?``

Actually, this hits at the heart of the state and church debate. This is why I keep highlighting that there is bound to be a significant change in the philosophical interpretation of secularism. And secularists are having a very tough time adjusting to it.

What is the basis of ethics under secularism? At a personal level, it is religion, or one`s personal beliefs. But, what about at a state level? Who defines those ethics? Is it a subtle combination of the religious and/or personal ethics of the majority of the population? If yes, then that violates the philosophical basis of secularism.

The one common bond between personal and public life, under secularism, is marraige. As mentioned before, marriage is a 100% religious concept. Since it is accepted in every religion, it has become part of public policy. The state legislates on who can get married, how taxes, health care, benefits, child care, school districts et. will be affected by marraige. Marraige is the cornerstone of both personal and public life - not only in religious societies but also in secular states.

This is obviously a contradiction. A secular state should not even touch the concept of marraige. It cannot define the ethics behind it. How can secular ethics be applied on a religious concept? If however, it does try to legislate marraige, then it has to do so totally indiscriminately. If one has to be 18 to get married. Then that should be applied to all religions, all genders etc.

This breaks down when it comes to gender and relationship and number of partners. How can the state legislate on this (keep in mind, it shouldn`t be legislating, in any way on marraige, to begin with), without violating the personal rights of individuals. The brother/sister example points to this. As does cousins. Cousin marraige is the most popular form of marraige in the world. It is banned in 26(?) US states. Infact, the legislations on marriage are completely different in different parts of the USA. Some states interpret it through the Bible. Others do not.

Gay marriage is, thus, the watershed and the unknown frontier of the current secular setup. If you notice, in the USA its opposition calls it the, ``Protection of Marriage`` movement. I don`t think they are too worried about gay marriage. It is the floodgates that will open after the Supreme Court approves gay marriage. The next step will be polygamy, which the mormons practice, and according to secularism, should be legal (or at least, not illegal). Then will come cousin marriage throughout USA (by the way, it is legal in Canada and Europe).

After the above, will come marriage between siblings (by the way, this is acceptable in some cultures). If the state cannot define marriage, how can it declare this illegal. If it is going to define marriage, how can it allow cousins to get married, but not siblings. Why ethical reason can it come up with, if the two married partners are not harming anyone and doing everything in the privacy of their own home?

There is, infact, no ethical reason. The only reasoning given is that it is against culture or religion or that the chances of disease in the newborn increase. Not a convincing enough reason, as many things were culturally and religiously forbidden, but are now allowed under secularism. And many types of marriages can result in higher chances of disease in the second generation. What if the brother and sister and infertile?

This is the final frontier for secularism? How will secularists handle the hypocricy of supporting a separation of state and religion, but only upto their personal ethical boundaries? Are those pushing for Ahmedi rights in Pakistan, under secularism, ready to push for gay rights and gay marriage in Pakistan. There is a good chance there are more gays than Ahmedis in Pakistan. Are the Ahmedis, themselves, ready to push for gay rights and gay marriage in Pakistan?

Or are they going to draw their lines on secularism, i.e. I believe in secularism, but only upto a point. How is that any different than someone who supports the rights of Shias under secularism and not those of Ahmedis. It is, infact, discriminatory secularism.

The problem is that secularists are unwilling to touch the philosophical contradictions in thier beliefs (no pun intended). I watched a talk show where a gay man was arguing in favor of gay marriage, using secularism as an argument. The host asked him if he supported polygamy, under the same argument. He said No, but could not give a valid reason.

The legalization of gay marriage will open up another flood gate. Gay lifestyle, including marriage, by law, will have to be taught on equal terms as hetrosexual lifestyle in all publiclay funded schools. Just like one cannot teach kids that a black man and white woman cannot get into a relationship, similarly schools will have to teach that it is ok for boys to like boys and for them to get married. If it is the law, then it can be demanded by gays that this be taught as a normal lifestyle in all publicly funded schools. Elementary schools will have to teach that not only Jack and Jill go up the hill, but so did Jack and John, followed by Jill and Jane.

So far the only explanations for the opposition of the above that I have heard are those similar to Dost-mittar`s, i.e. it is alright for secularists to oppose gay marraige because it is against the ethical beliefs of a majority of citizens. And these ethical beliefs have nothing to do with religion. Qutie a weak argument, if you ask me. Since marriage is nothing but a religious concept. And because the whole purpose of the liberal secular state is to ensure that personal human rights of individuals are not controlled by the, ``ethical`` beliefs of the majority.

In another 25 to 50 years, Western secular societies will be changed places. They will either move towards far less religion in personal lives (like Europe) or far more (like USA). And the topic of ethics will become a totally different concept than it is today...........

#136 by sri

I was just reinforcing Urstruly`s point that values remain constant, while people`s attitude towards them may become to improvise as you go along :~)

malik99#130:

``Bush can unleash circumstances that result in the deaths of 700,000 people, yet he is sophisticated enough to not use rash words like ``crusade``. Osama however, who has allegedly killed only 3000 people, is unrefined in his use of media and habitually uses words like ``holy war``. Yet it is Osama and the religion he belongs to that gets the pouncing from enlightened folks like dost mittar.``

Sir, you are wrong here. I have ``pounced`` upon Bush and his cohorts from the day they started bombing Afghanistan back in 2001. Nor have I ever supported Sharon. As for Saddam, I think that Americans would dearly love to find ``their`` clone of Saddam in Iraq today.

bulleya#128:

I do not think that marriage is only a religious concept; people got married before Mohammad, Jesus, Buddha and Krishna and the marriage institution did not disappear in the atheist Soviet Union, China or Cuba. Religions have provided rituals and rules of marriage and the respective roles of husbands and wives and socieities, through cumulative choice, have imposed their own rules which may or may not conform to the rules given by religions.

``The basis of any legal system in the world (at least the secular world) is not the ethical beliefs of a majority of the people. It is the protection of the rights of an individual, i.e. if an individual or two are doing something that is not impacting anyone else, they cannot be discriminated against and have to be treated equally. ``

I disagree. It is the consensual value system (a dynamic, not a static concept) of a society which is embedded in the constitution and legislation of a society. I do agree that the Western values give great importance to the rights of the individuals but those rights are constrained everywhere even when they do not impact on anyone else. For instance, France decided to disallow turbans and hijabs in school because the society believes it goes against its value system, Canada allows both as the Canadian value system allows them, but that too could change as at least the people of one province, Quebec, seem to be veering towards the French view.

The real conundrum that a democratic society (secular or otherwise) faces is how to protect itself from a political party coming to power which does not agree with its values and imposes a system which cannot be changed, such as if Bible, Talmud or the Quran are accepted as providing the constitutional boundary of a society.

In the ultimate analysis, it is the people who make the decision. After all, there can be a change in people`s relgious allegiance, as has happened throughout history with the spread of Christianity and Islam. And since different religions have different value systems, including the rules of marriage, divorce, etc., a change in religion could also mean change in the rules of marriage. People who oppose Gay marriages will continue to do so even if they become permissible by religion, as they have by some Christian denominations.

#132 by Zeemax

Yikes!!!

Just wondering if that is the peoples ``dominant discourse`` in western countries.

Of course, desis are awesome self righteous people to do anything like that.

What is puzzling in all this is, inspite of their desis living in their own wealthy countries ( due to their rich self righteous rears ), they seem to jumping in joy at the first chance of boarding a Boeing or Airbus planes destined for debauchered western countries.

zeemax #132 that is bad. of course in pakistan we only have first cousins getting married. :-)

Nadeem nice work ...awesome man .....
and u`ve won a gift hamper with some Pans having katha and chunna
what u have to do chew those pans write intresting articles n spit pan others main gate .
keep posting intresting things and soon u get a sponsership by Papu Pan Shop courtesy of Bahi jan panshop.

Nadeem nice work ...awesome man .....
and u`ve won a gift hamper with some Pans having katha and chunna
what u have to do chew those pans write intresting articles n spit pan others main gate .
keep posting intresting things and soon u get a sponsership by Papu Pan Shop courtesy of Bahi jan panshop.

#118 by Urstruly,

Interesting discussion. After successful induction of gay marriage into `values`, `human rights`, `freedom of choice` etc., this is next for the same arguments. And why not?

A German brother and sister take their fight for the right to a sexual relationship to the country`s highest court.



Good luck :)

Bulleya and anil ji, even today, Islam does not have `institutions` like the Catholic Church, or a priestly class. Mullas surely are no institutions (particularly in the Sunni world and urban areas). And madrassas don`t determine and constrain public life in the manner we usually think of institutions.

So how do you see Islam becoming an institutional religion, or a large victim of institutionalization?

Dost Mittar writes: [On the other hand, Bush never used the word ``crusade`` after he was told of the negative connotation of that term in the Islamic word.]

Dost sahib, that just proves that Bush and the regime he represents are media savvy, whereas mullahs are not.

Bush can unleash circumstances that result in the deaths of 700,000 people, yet he is sophisticated enough to not use rash words like ``crusade``. Osama however, who has allegedly killed only 3000 people, is unrefined in his use of media and habitually uses words like ``holy war``. Yet it is Osama and the religion he belongs to that gets the pouncing from enlightened folks like dost mittar.

Ariel Sharon, that butcher who is responsible for the killings of thousands of Palestinians, was media savvy enough to use the word ``peace`` a few dozen times each time he made an appearance on media. Hamas on the other hand, which has killed far fewer israelies, is unrefined and uses extreme words in its language. And so it is Hamas that is branded as an extremist organization, while Sharon is called the “man of peace”.

Henry Kissinger, who was in the top decision making echelons of Washington power when US killed 2-3 million Vietnamese using every lethal means possible (agent orange etc), receives Noble peace prize. Yet Saddam Hussein, who even by the wildest estimates was guilty of far less, is labeled as ``butcher`` and is hanged.

So it is quite clear that the side that is doing the most killings are more media savvy also. As I have come to learn in life, it is not what you do, it is how you explain it that makes all the difference. Indeed, perception is much more potent a force than reality.

Anil #126: ``When that boundary is crossed into institutional religion even at personal level things like confusion and fear may set in to be exploited by people trying to create, build or maintain the institutions.``

I agree with this. This is one boat I am definitely on. I am totally against institutionalised religion. I am totally against religious bureacracy. In fact, I am totally against the Church (not to mean Christianity here, but institutionalized religious hierarchies).

Infact, one of the reasons for the decay of Islam is that it, as a religion which eliminated institutionalized religions as its founding concept, has, ironically, now become a large victim of it.

One of the items which has attracted me to Islam is that it does not recognize instituitonalized religions, hierarchies, scholars etc.

Dost-mittar #127: ``Why is it so hard for some people to recognise that secularism is nothing more than the state not using any laws based on religion and not distinguishing its citizens on the basis of their religious beliefs?``

Yes, this is exactly what secularism is. I am recognizing that. What I am highlighting is the fact that this is not practiced anywhere completely. And now that there is a movement towards practicing it completely, it is resulting in an uncomfortable situation for people who like secularism, but only upto where it does not break their personal, ``ethical`` boundaries.

Marraige sits at the center of the above debate. It is the basis of govt legislation and social setup in all societies. I hope you agree that marraige is a religious concept. Getting, ``married`` in no way affects one`s biological, intellectual, ethical faculties.

Now, since marriage is a religious concept, how can the govt. legislate on it? How is legislating on marraige any different than legislating on whether everyone should go to a mosque, temple or church? If the majority population thinks everyone should go to a church, should that be a law? If they majority population thinks only men and women should be in marraige, should that be a law?

One can, thus oppose gay marraige in their personal life, but how can they oppose it in public life, under secularism? The obviously cannot. The fact that people have been able to do so, through votes etc. is a clear indication that the church has been mixed with the state, due to the personal religious beliefs of people.

The basis of any legal system in the world (at least the secular world) is not the ethical beliefs of a majority of the people. It is the protection of the rights of an individual, i.e. if an individual or two are doing something that is not impacting anyone else, they cannot be discriminated against and have to be treated equally.

So, first and foremost, marraige - a religious concept - should never even be discussed in the public legal discourse. The state should have nothing to do with it in the public space. It should be indifferent to it. However, if it is hell-bent on legislating on it, then, in a secular society, it has to recognize all unions, of any type, as legal and equal. Between man and woman, man and man, man and five men, women and ten women, women and ten men, etc. Using the criteria that, marriage is personal business. Not public business. As long as all parties are consenting, in a secular society, the state should have no interference in it.

Infact, other than religion, name one thing that defines a union between man and man to be unethical? Under what basis is it unethical? If two men get married and are not bothering you, why is it unethical to you?

tahmed32#123:

I agree that Kant`s categorical imperative can serve as a moral compass for most purposes. [and a belated thanks for welcoming me back:)]

bulleya#125:

``The world is very grey. You and Urstruly and various others seem to have discovered your black and whites. I think it is because all of you have convinced yourself that there is no grey in your respective stances........``

Far from it. Being secular, in my opinion, has nothing to do with whether one sees things in black and white or otherwise. Why is it so hard for some people to recognise that secularism is nothing more than the state not using any laws based on religion and not distinguishing its citizens on the basis of their religious beliefs? To the extent that the societal values are influenced by the ethical values of the dominant religion, those values may be reflected in the societal laws also.

As I said earlier, there is no contradiction in opposing Gay marriages and being secular. You might be confusing between Canada`s Charter of Rights and the secular position. Yes, the Canadian courts have upheld Gay marriages as a fundamental right, but that is an interpretation of the Canadian constitution. The Canadian Prime Minister and most of the MPs that supported Gay Marriages are, in fact, quite religious people, the PM of that time being a practising Catholic. I believe that these marriages are illegal in most of the U.S, except in a few places like the Massachusetts. And despite the power of the Religious Right in the US, if the majority of Americans want to support Gay marriages, they too can go the Massachusetts way.

You may be right about religion; if the religion has prescribed everything in black and white, than a theological state would have fewer degrees of freedom in deciding what is right and what is wrong. But if a religion does not think of itself as immutable, then even religious people can change its values; for example the Church of England considered slavery to be okay two hundred years ago but is now thinking of giving reparation to the descendants of slaves.

Re: # 102

Kaalchakra:

My questions to Romair intend to show a boundary between personal religion and institutional religon. When that boundary is crossed into institutional religion even at personal level things like confusion and fear may set in to be exploited by people trying to create, build or maintain the institutions.

Dost-mittar #116: ``Here is a simple question for you: Which do you think came first - ethics or religion?``

This is a question you would need to answer before I. For the simple reason that you seem to have found the answers, while I am still searching for them. There is, however, an even more important question:

What is the basis of ethics? Why is something correct and something incorrect? Why do you think gay marraige is wrong? And if you do think it is wrong, what right do you have to enforce your views on others?

The whole purpose and basis behind secularism was to ensure that a majority was unable to enforce its religious (and its ethical views) onto minorities. This worked fine, as long as the minority kept quite. However, what happens if the minority speaks out? UK was a secular state, when it virtually banned the marriage of, ``Englishmen`` to native Indians in the late 1700s. The children of such marraige were considered second-rate by the govt. One could justify that also.

If one starts using the majority definition of ethics, as you are doing, then basically, you end up violating secularism. This is the contradiction I was talking about. This is the contradiction that the western socieities are coming to terms with. It is the slow unravelling of secularism, either towards religion or athiesm (or lets say less and less religion in personal life).

The above is the contradiction of secularism. While the contradiction of religion/shariah is that whose interpretation of sharia should one agree to (along with, which religion is the correct religion).

The world is very grey. You and Urstruly and various others seem to have discovered your black and whites. I think it is because all of you have convinced yourself that there is no grey in your respective stances........

Re #113 by bulleya on March 27, 2007 12:47pm PT
``There is, infact, nothing, ``unethical`` about gay marraige. It is only religiously unethical. Not socially unethical.........Hence people pushing secularism and opposing gay marriage etc. are the ones who are riding in two boats. Sooner or later, they will have to decide which boat to get into. ``

Are you as dumb and simple as you write? What you see is what you get? (WYSWYG)
Why do you simplify everything to your level of understanding and make a fool
of yourself? Why dont you ever think that there maybe more to this world
than your puny mind can grasp. About gay issue being socially ethical or
not you can easily see both the view points. Some peope would think of
traditional marriage as an institution providing stable, secure environment for the future
generationas and consider it sacrosanct and anything affecting it as socailly
unethical just like any other crime that can disrupt socail fabric. Are you too
into yourself that you can see beyond your nose?

Dost Mittar: I think what you are saying is that values are driven by social need. Thus, your example of the beef prohibition in hinduism being driven by the social need to maintain herds of cattle. Indeed, chinese religions are far more focussed on social relations (respect for elders and so forth) than infernal/blissful visions of the next world. Similarly, it is clear that things like physical courage are so highly valued in human society because of the need for security.

This brings me back to the point I keep repeating: the importance of seeing things the way they are (not the way we would like to believe they are) and of using one`s common sense. A moral (or normative) framework built on this solid foundation would then require only keeping in mind the following phrase: treat others as you would have them treat you (this phrase is of course stated more elegantly and completely in Immanuel Kant`s Categorical Imperitive, but I think this simpler phrase is good enough). To relate this to the Quran, having seen that this moral framework is in fact supported quite clearly in the Quran.

But as should be clear from this discussion - one need not be a muslim to apply this normative framework...and thus meet the high moral standards that urstruly expects of everyone. :-)

Urstruly: #111 While I realize you are a busy man, I hope you will pay your valuable attention to that measly little post I wrote suggesting you...horrors!!...look at the world through your own eyes, not rely on what other people tell you it is about.

So, again: How many atheists do you know? And how do you know of that their morals dont match your own high standards?

Also, there is that little matter of the catholic priests who were caught with their pants....I mean morals...down. And and then there was your own article salivating ...er...discussing...something about women`s foot, complete with a picture of a foot. I assume one would need to memorize Bokhari or the Bible in order to explain these strange things that our lying eyes show us and which run totally counter to what you so assuredly tell us in your post.

pathetic

Urstruly,

You’ve been hanging around losers too long.

Recently, on another board you are criticizing “western propaganda”. And here you are engaging in propaganda against Ahmadis. What goes around comes around. No?

I have often asked you to validate your wild claims against Ahmadis. Only once did you cite your source, which turned out to be people you had talked to!!!

Like I said, you have hanging around losers too long. And it has rubbed off on you … that’s all.

Urstruly:

Maybe neither of us seems to be paying attention to what the other is saying.

The point I was making was that the people had values long before religions, unless one takes the position that Hazrat Adam was the first prophet and he brought all these values with him. And if one does take the position that Hazrat Adam was the first prophet, then one has to accept the fact that, at that time the values included marrying one`s offspring and/or sibling, which changed over time.

The secular position would be that man evolved laws of social living as he evolved socially. Organized religions and their leaders mostly took the existing laws and gave them a religious seal of approval. Let me give an example from the subcontinent. Secular scholars believe that the inhabitants of the subcontinent were at one time great beef-eaters, so much so that the cattle-based agrarian economy was severly threatened as people foresaw an extinction of animals necessary for their economic survival. They than made it a taboo to kill cows and eat beef, which was later incorporated as a religious tenet of the people.

Re: # 116

I think you were not paying attention to what I wrote. I wrote that values are constant. They never change. What changes is our behavior as an individual and culture as a society. Value and culture are two different entities. When an individual or society deviates from a value; the value remains as it is, it is our behaviour towards that value that changes. For example, the ethical value of sodomy remains unchanged in Islam even if the whole Muslim society engages in that act.

On the other hand, an atheist society since have no moral values of their own, they take whatever their current cultural practices as their values. So in an atheist or secular society if today child pornography is frowned upon, tomorrow no one will even care. And in that society no one would ever give a second thought that they are actually doing something wrong. because everybody is doing that. It becaomes a new cultural practice.

Paracha - You are hilarious. Like always. Great one. A little overdone on some fronts but a good read. Timing is important and I guess I published mine at a time when there is a lot going on.

http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00007777&channel=university%20ave

Enjoy - MF

bulleya/urstruly:

Here is a simple question for you: Which do you think came first - ethics or religion?

Urstruly, I agree with you that values change in a society, which is the way it should be. A society can not shackle itself to any given set of values. Yes, it is possible that the society will go overboard in its evolution but it will soon discover the ill-effects of that change and will correct itself. I will illustrate it with an example that most of us will not like. Western societies went overboard in their peculiar version of multiculturalism in which the host society was supposed to bend backwards to accomodate the cultural needs and sensibilities of the immigrant without a similar commitment by the newcomer to conform to the value system of the host society. Now that the effects of these policies are coming home to roost, these societies have started to adjust. Yesterday, a new political party in Quebec scored tremendous gains in the provincial elections, mainly on its leaders campaign to preserve the essential characteristic of the Quebec society and against what its leader called undue accomodation.

``There is, infact, nothing, ``unethical`` about gay marraige. It is only religiously unethical. Not socially unethical.........Hence people pushing secularism and opposing gay marriage etc. are the ones who are riding in two boats. Sooner or later, they will have to decide which boat to get into.``

``U hav come a long way baby`` -- Omair miaN -- that is a great paragraph you wrote -- and I agree with you one 100%.

apparently an open free intellectually honest unshackled progressive Canada where apparently no subject is taboo for a civilized rational discussion -- has done a lot of good to you.

my worry is that you may lose this broad perspective and cool rationality that Canada has provided you with -- once you resettle once more in that land of blind believers of yours.

Re: # 113

I think your comments are fair as long as you are searching for the boat. But I must advise you not to keep your search for too long because you will lose no matter what side you chose. In case you chose the atheism you will miss out most of what Moghul Emperor Babar said ``Babar beh aish kosh keh alam dobara neest`` - meaning that try to have all the fun because this is the only life we have. On the oter hand if you miss out on the boat of Islam, it speciafically tells that this world is just a big examination hall, where man is tested on how he fulfills his responsibility. Sometimes he is tested by having all the material blessings that this world has to offer and sometimes he is tested thru all the misery and pain that this world has to offer. Everytime you stood fast you earn a credit point and everytime you compromised you earn a demerit point. Life is just too short to earn enough credit points. So for your own good, accelerate your search and make up your mind either way. In Iqbal`s words it does not matter which side you take:

Wafadari b`shart-e-ustawari asl-e-Iman hay
maray butkhanay main tou Ka`aba main garo barahman ko

(tr: being steadfast is the key to any belief; a steadfast brahaman who dies in a temple of idols desreves to be burried in Ka`aba)

Urstruly #110: ``You cannot ride on two boats simultaneously and hope to jump aboard the winning side at the last moment.``

I am not riding in two boats simultaneously. I am, infact, in neither boat. I am still searching for a boat. I have found people who push religion and/or secularism, exclusively, to be too biased towards their views. They are both unwilling to study any contradictions in their prejudicely held views.

If you note, on this site, the biggest preachers are those who are pushing a religious or secular agenda. It is impossible to debate anything with them, with an open mind. They are, both, convinced that they know the truth and thus are only busy preaching to others.

Your argument about the basis of ethics is actually quite correct. Though not totally. All ethics has to have a basis. Where does that basis come from? Uptil now, it has come from religion. It used to be religion in public and private life. Now it is religion in private life only, because religion in public life became too bigoted and divisive.

However, now the basis of ethics, through religion in private life are being challenged as well. The concept of marraige in the watershed debate on this issue. Marriage is totally a religious concept, yet it still forms the cornerstone of every secular society`s public policy! All laws, relating to society stem from this religious concept. Which is why I have always felt that there really is no true secular state in the world, since they all legislate on marraige.

This has led to a value system, which defines the boundaries of marraige. Even in secular societies these boundaries are not defined through a separation of church and state, but through personal religious views.

If the core value of secularism is that religious views hold no water in public life, then all kinds of marital unions should be legal. As long as two individuals living together, having sex, etc. are not bothering me, what business do I have to impose my religious or ethincal beliefs onto them. This is where the world is at the moment. I think the legalizing of gay marriage is going to have major impacts on the philosophical discussions around secularism.

I think secularism served as a good safe way to govern for a few centuries. It was (and still is) actually a watered down version of church in state. Not an outright separation. Everyone agreed to it, because they all agreed to the amount of religion they wanted in state. Marraige was desired in all religions, hence it became a part of the State. Gay marriage wa opposed in all religions, hence it became a part of the State. However, now the boundaries are being challenged, as more and more poeople are coming out of the closet.

Once people started coming out of the closet, secularism morphed into a strange system: it was ok to live with five women, but not to marry them (and then live with them), even if all were consenting. It was ok for two men to live together, but not to be married to each other (and then live together), even if both were consenting. Ironically, this turned secularism on its head. People were willing to set aside their Church in personal lives, and accept gay marriage and multiple partners. But they were not willing to allow the State to separate the Church from it, on these issues.......

There is, infact, nothing, ``unethical`` about gay marraige. It is only religiously unethical. Not socially unethical.........Hence people pushing secularism and opposing gay marriage etc. are the ones who are riding in two boats. Sooner or later, they will have to decide which boat to get into.

Re: # 110

And by the way, secularists do not give a shitt about Quadiani issues; they only push Quadiani agenda because in their mind it will weaken their nemesis religion i.e. Islam. Frankly, I have to to admit that their strategy is correct. British invented it but it is a completely differnt matter that it didn`t work out good as they hoped. As Quadianiyat is accepted as a version of Islam, the Islam ceases to exist; because two religions are anathema to each other. It is impossible to say that ``I am a Quadiani and a Muslim`` just as it is ridiculous to say that ``I am a monotheist and a polytheist`` or ``I am pregnant and not pregnant``. These three examples would also suffice to elaborate on how ridiculous it sounds when a secularists claims that Secularism is not Ladiniyat (atheism) or secularism is not anti-religion. Phew!!

Urstruly: You are too boxed in by mullah-talk to see the world with your own eyes. Have faith in your eyes and your mind - these were given to you by God. While mullah-talk is...justthat. You will then see a whole different kind of world than the one you see.

For starters, read some of the things you have written, and see how much of it is based on what you have seen for yourself and how much of it is mullah-talk.

E.g. How many atheists do you know? I would bet not one. And yet you talk with such confidence not just about atheists, but also their morals.

Apply this kind of thinking to the rest of your post - and then re-write the whole damn thing so it reflects what you actually know, and is not merely a repeat of what you heard from someone.

Re: # 109

``Gay marraige will never be supported in Pakistan, even by secularists who are pushing day and night for Ahmedi rights. Even Ahmedis, themselves, in Pakistan will not support gay marriage (or gays in general). ``

This is only partially true. There may not be a widespread support for the gay marriage yet and there won`t be in near future but the corrupt ruling class will enforce it throu the gun; as they have started targeting education and laws that have their basis in the religion. In the past 5-6 years it is a common observance that media has started portraying transexual and transvestite issue and personalities thru their entertainmant programs with an increasing intensity. Almost every play or an enetrtainment related program has at least one such character. In other words, the cultural invasion is being trojaned into the Pakistani society.

Pakistani secularists are no different than the secularists anywhere around the globe. I think you are thinking on the right lines on the issue of secularism vs. religion; but you do not have to to be apologetic on issues that directly effect you and your family directly. You cannot ride on two boats simultaneously and hope to jump aboard the winning side at the last moment.

Secularism itself is the manifestation of a religion called ``atheism``. As almost every religion has an ethical component and the a social/law component, so does the the atheism. If shria (law) is the social component of Islam, secularism is the social component of atheism. This is just as simple as that; why sugarcat?

It is the inherent character of ``atheism`` that it cannot have a value system. As a matter of fact any value can be questioned and discarded thru a series of ``whys`` in atheism. That is the reason atheism defines the current culturtral practices as values. A fifty years ago the cultural practice was to abhor sodomy and hence it was the value at that time; today it is not. Today cultural practices pretend to abhor a father sleeping with his daughter; two to three years down the raod it won`t be a value anymore as one of the recent case in Germany suggests. In other words, a secular or atheist society has no moral compass. The only reality is the present and future will take care of itself. As every action has consequences, the consequences for Secular society are quite obvious - destruction of family structure; a culture of arrogance; people have laws but no previleges etc.

Dost-mittar#105: ``There are many, many, non-religious people who oppose abortion and/or gay marriage. Secondly, once again, you are equating secularism with la-deeniyat;``

Abortion and gay marriage, specifically the later, are all interpreted from religion. There is nothing inherently ethical/unethical about them. The basis of any such ethics, itself emerges from religion. Marriage, itself, is nothing but a religious concept. Hence any opinion on it will be based on religion. For abortion, one could make some sort of an outside comment that it has a non-religious ethical aspect, also. But certainly not for marraige - gay or otherwise.

I am not equating secularims with la-deeniyaat. I am, merely, highlighting the philosophical contradictions which secularism is facing. It worked fine when people were ready to accept certain, ``ethical`` boundaries, which had been placed on society, which actually grew out of religion. However, now those ethical boundaries are being challenged. Gay marriage being one example.

The result is that the secularists are being forced to decide. Do they add more religion to public life or do they take more religion out of personal life. As I have side earlier, what kind of a God is only half correct, i.e He gets it correct in personal life but not in public life! Either there is a God or there isn`t one. The idea that there is One in personal life, but not One in private life is quite contradictory and is nothing more than a way to run a government and a country. It may work well there, but sooner or later its inherent contradictions will require it to evolve significantly, either towards religion (there is a God) or athiesm (there isn`t One).

USA is adding more and more religion to public life, through courts, legislature etc. While Europe (and Canada) are going in the later direction. Gay marriage being illegal in USA but legal in most of Europe and in much of Canada. This is only the tip of the iceberg, more and more religious issues are going to start coming to the forefront. Eventually these will have such huge impacts on everyone`s day to day personal lives that more and more people will have to decide which way they want to tilt.

I don`t think people who have some religion in their personal lives can ever fully separate the Church from the State. It will always be easier for a Christian to become the President of the USA than someone of any other religion, as most voters are Christians. Gay marraige will never be supported in Pakistan, even by secularists who are pushing day and night for Ahmedi rights. Even Ahmedis, themselves, in Pakistan will not support gay marriage (or gays in general).

Dost-mittar #105: ``They openly invoke Islam and jihad in their speeches.``

Bush regularly uses the God in his speeches. As do all US politiicians. Specifically Republicans. They cannot get elected if they do not use religion. Goin to make speeches at religious schools is a main political event. So much so that even John Kerry had to be photographed carrying a Bible. And John McCain has now had to start doing it, as well.......All these, including the speeches of Pakistani religious leaders are actually poltical moves. It is a way to gain popularity and get votes.

I think you are greatly underestimating the power of the religious right in US politics. Evengelicals, according to one estimate, are around 23% or so of the US voting population and the religious right is 40% or so. And the core belief of all these individuals is that if you don`t consider Jesus Christ to be your savior, you are going to hell.....

Now, in Europe (and to a great extent in Canada), God and religion is a taboo subject in politics, generally.......But certainly not in the USA.....I don`t think people realize and undersand the massive rise of the Religious Right of the USA in the post Reagan era......Had it not been for Bush and the Iraq defeat, this Right was going to fully dominate US politics for the coming decades.......It may still do so........

zeemax#106:

yes, I did mean those who know english but, as you know, the meaning of crusade is now not restricting to The Crusades [just as the meaning of jihad for us desis is not restricted to The Jihad].

Thanks for making me realise my `tuassab`. :)

#105 by dost-mittar

[I found that somewhat comical as only anglicised Muslims would know that English term].

DM, you appear to be sliding very fast. Now where did you get that? Do you mean `anglicised` Muslims or `Muslims who know the English language`? If it`s the latter, how many Muslims don`t know that it means `saleebi jangein`?

I hope your `tuassab` is not getting to you.

bulleya#101:

I have to disagree re. MMA. They openly invoke Islam and jihad in their speeches. One doesn`t have to go to Pakistan, they can be seen doing that in the news coverages provided by BBC and other news outlets. On the other hand, Bush never used the word ``crusade`` after he was told of the negative connotation of that term in the Islamic word. [I found that somewhat comical as only anglicised Muslims would know that English term].

``Secularism supports abortion and gay marriage......Religion does not.``

Abortion and gay marriage or ethical issues, not just religious. There are many, many, non-religious people who oppose abortion and/or gay marriage. Secondly, once again, you are equating secularism with la-deeniyat; people who believe in the separation of state from religion can be deeply religious. This is especially true, btw, of Indian secularism where the concept is interpreted more in the Hindu definition of ``equal respect of all faiths``.

Glad to know that your plans for Pakistan are working out. Do give me a call if you plan to be in Ottawa before leaving the country. I too have bought a small ``hibernacle`` in New Delhi and plan to spend my winters there from now on.

Touché. :)

nadeem,
this has to be among the most unimaginative pieces on chowk. forget the poor taste but it reads like something a 12 year old put together eagerly to show his creative writer uncle and then expect a lollypop for his brilliance. utter crud and i`m amazed how the quality at chowk has deteriorated over the years. no fan of the mullahs i`d like to point out that inzi didnt go to a madrasa so why perpetuate a stereotype. you`re quite the moron. sure your name really isnt billy bob from south dakota and you`re masquerading as nadeem paracha?

re: anil # 100

anil ji, inadvertently no doubt, on your part, and it goes without saying, you have only the best of intentions for everybody, but your advice may be unfair to romair.... :(

khair, the two of you have, supposedly, personal aquaintance, so I may be wrong.

Dost-mittar #98: ``Not at all. I am aware of the Evangelical beliefs but, as far as I know, none of the Repulican leaders has sought votes on the agenda of fulfilling that Biblical prophecy.``

This is correct. However, no one in MMA or most other religious party has ever sought votes on the agenda of fulfilling any Islamic, ``prophecies`` either.......All of them, seek votes on religious issues in the domestic arena, turning them into political issues......On foreign policy, they portray issues to be political, although the background motivation is, once again religious.......i.e free Palestine......the main motivation is that the Palestinians are Muslims......

I would once again encourage you to study the detials of the Evangelical and Religious Right movements in the USA......Read the books, follow the leaders, watch their videos.....This is the most powerful politically religious group in the world.....No group in the Islamic world can even have close to the international clout this group carries......

Until Bush messed everything up, this group had reached the stage where they were the deciding factor in who becomes the US president.......They had moved ahead of the NRA and AIPAC.....Even now, look at the way McCain is pandering to them, even though he despises them.........

The foreign policy of the USA has a huge influence of this group......And this group does decide its foreign policy through Biblical prophecies......Bush may not directly declare that, however, it is certainly a deciding factor in making foreign policy, as he has to keep this group happy.........It is no different than abortion, gay marriage, etc........All these are interpreted through the Bible........Secularism supports abortion and gay marriage......Religion does not.......The Middle East foreign policy of the USA also has Biblical prophecies in the background......

``There has been a radical change in the Quebec scene tonight. ADQ`s `Super` Mario will be in the driver`s seat in the new Quebec government.``

I am actually moving back to Pakistan in a few weeks........So I have not been following Canadian domestic politics too closely.....I have been somewhat disappointed by the first Pakistani MP, who turned out to be a lota..........Pakistani politics, at the moment, is far more interesting.........

Re: # 96

Romair:

I understand your question. All I answer is to me even a single death is too high a price to pay. Therefore, death can be a measure. Your question indicates that you measure destruction and severity in terms of deaths, whereas I do not.

My yardstick is more complex and measures destruction and severity more accurately in terms of factors that affect civilian society, like economic, social, education and development.

My thesis is that Institutionalized religions have been harmful and have always used religious thoughts and values to benefit for the few for deliverance of believers, accumulation of power and wealth. Horror and ghastly stories of corruption, misuse of power and wealth included in their history.

It so happens that Institutionalized Islam is right now under pressure and that upsets many people who in my mind should take responsibility and help preserve great values of Islamic thoughts, and not hesitate in discarding the indefensible.

Do you agree with me that Fatwa and Jihad are the concepts that are hurting Islam more than anything? If so, then what are you doing as a responsible follower of Islam? Why answer to Palestinian problem must be found from Islamic tenets, or in terms of Fatwa and Jihad?

Why would you not reject these, are you afraid someone will stop calling you Muslim? Even if someone does, then why must your religion should care for what others call you, as long as you are happy to call yourself Muslim.

I wonder why not the Tableegheezies hold this game of cricket as a satanic pastime (`Lehwo-lehb` in Quranic terms) as Dr. Israr often proclaimed. But perhaps they believed more in the famous Bollywood film dialogue ``Namaz meri farz he aur cricket mera pesha``.

bulleya#97:

``I truly hope you are joking!.........``

Not at all. I am aware of the Evangelical beliefs but, as far as I know, none of the Repulican leaders has sought votes on the agenda of fulfilling that Biblical prophecy. Whatever Bush might believe, he is seeking support in the name of fighting for Democracy and against Terror and not to hasten the second coming of Christ. The Christian Right also seeks vote to support its conservative agenda, e.g., against abortion, homosexual rights and family values, for which it can even get support from Muslims and other religious communities.

``I certainly agree with you that Islamic societies need to re-evaluate Islam and study it and re-interpret it......``

Hopefully, this starts with reinterpreting, if not abandoning altogether, the concept of immutability of the original message.

``However I detour off from what you, hamidm and anil etc. are saying, the moment either of you try to pass on the total blame of terrorism, violence etc. onto the Muslims and Islam etc......Specially when the blame is passed on exclusively.....``

...and when did I do that?

P.S: There has been a radical change in the Quebec scene tonight. ADQ`s `Super` Mario will be in the driver`s seat in the new Quebec government.

Dost-Mittar #92: ``And while the evangelicals are a force to reckon with in the US, very few of them invoke Biblical prophecies for the Middle East to support Bush.``

I truly hope you are joking!.........Please take some time and study the Evangelical and Religious Right movement in the USA.....Please study it in detail......When you do so, you may understand, why I keep highlighting that it is the actions of the US which are fueling this violence, and that the terrorism from the Arab side, will not die down until the violence from the US side dies down.......

I certainly agree with you that Islamic societies need to re-evaluate Islam and study it and re-interpret it......I spend a good % of my reading time, trying to do that.....However I detour off from what you, hamidm and anil etc. are saying, the moment either of you try to pass on the total blame of terrorism, violence etc. onto the Muslims and Islam etc......Specially when the blame is passed on exclusively.......I rely on statistics, i.e. who is killing more of whom.........who is occupying more of whom.......Not because I happen to be a Muslim, but because I happen to be a human being........and I belive in everyone`s human rights`.....Not just in the human rights of th citizens of successful states......

Following is from the UK Gaurdian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,820528,00.html

`` In a country where weekly church attendance is about 20 times the level it is in Britain (40% v 2%), the relationship between religion and politics in the US is intense. And there is little doubt that, last spring, when President Bush dithered and dallied over his Middle East policy before finally coming down on Israel`s side, he was influenced not by the overrated Jewish vote, but by the opinion of Christian ``religious conservatives`` - the self-description of between 15 and 18% of the electorate. When the president demanded that Israel withdraw its tanks from the West Bank in April, the White House allegedly received 100,000 angry emails from Christian conservatives.

What`s changed? Not the Book of Genesis......What has really changed is the emergence of the doctrine known as ``dispensationalism``, popularised in the novels of the Rev Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. LaHaye and Jenkins may not mean much to you or to the readers of the New York Times Book Review, but the ninth volume of their Left Behind series sold three million hardback copies in the US last year, eclipsing John Grisham.

Central to the theory - based on a reading of scripture Brown would prefer not to discuss - is the Rapture, the second coming of Christ, which will presage the end of the world. A happy ending depends on the conversion of the Jews. And that, to cut a long story very short, can only happen if the Jews are in possession of all the lands given to them by God. In other words, these Christians are supporting the Jews in order to abolish them.``

Within the context of the US/Israel/Arab/Jewish/Muslim violence/terrorism there are three, ``religious`` items that need to be discussed. Not just one. I am not stating that you should not discuss Islam and/or Muslims, what I am stating is that discuss the remaing two also, i.e.:

- The concept of a Return to the Holy Land of Israel, and its affects on the world`s geo-political situation, violence and terrorism (A jewish religious concept, which laid the foundation of the current violence)
- The concept of the Rapture and the Second Coming of the Christ and its affects on the world`s geo-politcal situatino and violence and terrorism (a concept which is currently the basis of US foreign policy in the region)

Let`s spread the debate to all issues, which is all I am suggesting. Rather than the Anil/hamidm view, which disregards the above two, and narrows in solely on Islam/Muslims. Lets call all spades to be spades. Let`s call OBL, Bush and Sharon all terrorists, since they are all linked at the hip in this global war........Let`s hang them all........And let`s do so without any biases towards any country or religion.........

Anil #94: You are mixing two things.........I think it is because you are taking the US view of everything......And the US view is about as out of date as the OBL view.......I had asked you a long time ago, whether Muslims are killing more people of other religions, or vice-versa.......I had listed every religion, knowing the statistics myself........However, you refused to answer the question, at that time.......I will ask you the question again.....Have Muslims, in the present day world, killed more Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc. than vice-versa........

If the statistics point to a Yes answer, then I am willing to consider your argument........However, if if the answer is No, i.e. more Muslims are getting killed, than vice-versa, then I would suggest you, at least, consider my argument..........

If we assume that the motivation of the Muslims doing the killing is religion, then what is the motivation of those who are killing the Muslims.....Specifically, since in nearly each and every case, it is the Muslims whose land and whose life were the original targets......

When I look at such things, I try to do so objectively, outside the domain of my own religion, nationality etc........If statistically speaking, more Muslims` land has been occupied and more Muslims have been killed, then your argument does nothing more than force the victim to accept the blame........That goes against human rights.....

Hence, I still stand by my original claim:.....There is terrorism amongst Mulsims......And those terrorists should be hanged........But what about terrorists like George Bush who has killed far more than those killed in the WTC attack......Are you even willing to consider Bush and cronies as terrorists..........I think most Arabs and Muslims consider them to be such......

If you aren`t, then I am afraid your argument will not resonate to any Muslim (moderate or otherwise).......It will be the pot calling the kettle black........If you are then, I would suggest, we try Bushs and the OBLs and solve the problem of violence in a comprehensive manner, without prejudice.........