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.

It`s funny and the writer has a point

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?

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.

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?

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

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?