Inzi Post-Bob: An Interview

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.........

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.

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``.

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.

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: 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.

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?

Touché. :)

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.

#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.

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`. :)

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........

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).

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.

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: # 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!!