Yasser Latif Hamdani March 28, 2007
#210 Posted by Urstruly on April 1, 2007 8:01:09 am
OPERATION LAL DEEN - The illegitimate occupational forces in Pakistan have decided to crush the voices of freedom and sovereignity of people of Pakistan by deadly force by April 4.
All people with living conscience must oppose this unconstitutional and extra judicial murder of citizens of Pakistan.
#211 Posted by subhashjoshi on April 1, 2007 8:16:52 am
Re: # 198 BJ
Hasn`t the little motley crowd of Lawyers with Typewriters declared the DIRECT ACTION DAY yet?
Hasn`t the little motley crowd of Lawyers with Typewriters declared the DIRECT ACTION DAY yet?
#212 Posted by KaalChakra on April 1, 2007 8:18:02 am
# 210 Religious students and their supporters might have (possibly) played their hand prematurely. In that case, sundry elitists and defenders of the status quo may be able to (temporarily?) neutralize these change agents without earning sufficient ire of the wider public....the silent majority may not (yet) be ready for the change Urstruly and Zee sahib envisage. Passage of and educational work for few more years might have helped (those who seek such transformation).
#213 Posted by subhashjoshi on April 1, 2007 8:27:25 am
Re: # 205 Salim
Yaar, bakaul NTSyed Saheb, circa 2021 this whole fcukin` world is going to become an Islamic Caliphate (Hahaha on silent). Is this Nizam-e-whatever the same racket?
Yaar, bakaul NTSyed Saheb, circa 2021 this whole fcukin` world is going to become an Islamic Caliphate (Hahaha on silent). Is this Nizam-e-whatever the same racket?
#214 Posted by arjun2 on April 1, 2007 8:35:28 am
#196 by masadi on April 1, 2007 5:17am PT
I came to Pakistan of my own volition and was ``laid off`` by a feudal who has set up a priviate MBA school with a non original name to train peons for the West.
So if you hadn`t been laid off, you`d be training peons for the west in a private school set up by a feudal...
begs the question: why did you apply to a peon training school in the first place(or did the school become a peon training school the minute they laid you off)...
I came to Pakistan of my own volition and was ``laid off`` by a feudal who has set up a priviate MBA school with a non original name to train peons for the West.
So if you hadn`t been laid off, you`d be training peons for the west in a private school set up by a feudal...
begs the question: why did you apply to a peon training school in the first place(or did the school become a peon training school the minute they laid you off)...
#215 Posted by arjun2 on April 1, 2007 8:38:33 am
pakis...you can cash in on the whole ninja chix affair...make a movie..teenage mutant ninja goats...TMNG you can call it...just look at the popularity of TMNT in the west...


#216 Posted by bjkumar on April 1, 2007 9:01:18 am
#215
I think TNMG should be called Teenage Mutant Ninja Girls.
Not goats!
The ``goats`` version may cause confusion with a beared mullah and lead to a commercial disaster at the box office!
The confusion would be fully understandable in the absence of any visible outward signs to indicate the gender.
#217 Posted by bulleya on April 1, 2007 9:07:15 am
anil#: ``Islam, as a non-muslim, I see has one great ability to create ``mini-institutions``, unfortunately all recently created institutions are by militant Islam, may be except for Edhi Foundation. Ahmednijad is a product of democracy (an institution) in Iran. Sooner or later the west will have to accept it. Islamic intellectuals should take a lead and form moderate institutions, instead wait for the pendulum to swing.``
You have covered quite a few topics here:
- Edhi Foundation is not a religious institution. Edhi looks like a maulvi, however, his foundation is a secular institution. It has nothing much to do with religion
- Islamic intellectual is not a valid concept. It is somewhat of an oxymoron. The more one studies Islam, the less of an, ``intellectual scholar`` one would tend to become. Islam forces Muslims to become common persons intellecutally, not be declare one`s self a scholar. Islam, by design, relies on the combined intellect of a large group of people, rather than on the effortst of singular, ``intellectuals.`` The Quran is smaller than most books on MS Windows. There isn`t much to study in it. It is very simple. One need not be an intellectual to understand it. Islam is designed for the common man, not for intellectuals. The fact that the system has been turned on its head, at the moment, is a great weakness of present-day Islam. It is, by design, a religion of the masses, intellecutally, not one of the elitists intellectually. The concepts of mullah, maulvi, fatwa allama etc. are actually, by design, all unIslamic.
You have covered quite a few topics here:
- Edhi Foundation is not a religious institution. Edhi looks like a maulvi, however, his foundation is a secular institution. It has nothing much to do with religion
- Islamic intellectual is not a valid concept. It is somewhat of an oxymoron. The more one studies Islam, the less of an, ``intellectual scholar`` one would tend to become. Islam forces Muslims to become common persons intellecutally, not be declare one`s self a scholar. Islam, by design, relies on the combined intellect of a large group of people, rather than on the effortst of singular, ``intellectuals.`` The Quran is smaller than most books on MS Windows. There isn`t much to study in it. It is very simple. One need not be an intellectual to understand it. Islam is designed for the common man, not for intellectuals. The fact that the system has been turned on its head, at the moment, is a great weakness of present-day Islam. It is, by design, a religion of the masses, intellecutally, not one of the elitists intellectually. The concepts of mullah, maulvi, fatwa allama etc. are actually, by design, all unIslamic.
#218 Posted by hamidm2 on April 1, 2007 9:08:57 am
Re: # 210
urstruly,
......... aap kay mun mein ghee shakar ! .. here is my dream :
urstruly,
......... aap kay mun mein ghee shakar ! .. here is my dream :
#219 Posted by Urstruly on April 1, 2007 9:18:32 am
Yeh Faqa-kash keh maut se darta nahiN zara
Rooh-e-Muhammad (pbuh) iss ke badan se nikal duo.
Why deniers of Sunnat & Hadith are so active these days:

#220 Posted by bulleya on April 1, 2007 9:21:01 am
anil #197: - Part 1: Militant Islam is sitting on the fence at the moment. Political Islam is certainly on the rise. There isn`t much any moderate Muslim can do about that. This is what I try to keep explaining. The reasons behind this rise is not in control of the moderate Muslims, as explained below:
The post-WW II end of colonialism/occupation had the largest affect on Muslims. More Muslim states emerged than any other (?). Muslims, as a whole, came out of hundred to two hundred years of colonization. One could argue that Hindus came out of 1000 years of occupation, but there were two differences:
a) Muslims had been occupied by Christians - a group, which the Muslims had historically fought against, for superpower rights of the world. Hindus had never been in such a conflict, with Christian for superpower rights. Only Jews and Muslims had.
b) Muslim were (are) divided into 55+ states, each coming out of colonialism separately. Hindus came out, through one major geographically contigouos major state (with an odd connected one or two minor ones). No, ``Hindu`` land remained occuppied.
The secular govts. of the new independent Muslim states became very elitist, and tilted towards the West for their personal benefits. They became dictatorships, which had no regard for the common man. Due to the very low literacy rates of the Muslims (far lower than any other religion) and a very corrupt elite, Muslim states became quite dysfunctional.
This problem was further compounded by the fact that oil was discovered in Muslim countries. This lead to further Western interventations in propping up the status quo of Muslim elites.
Eventually, in some of the more intellecually developed Muslim states - the non-Arab ones like Iran, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Turkey etc. - these staus quos were brought down to some extent. However, the total system was never completely broken.
The desire of the Muslim citizens to create a more equal society domestically led to a natural phenomemon - rising up against the elites. This rise was led by various different factions. Initially it was the left which was the strongest. Labour unions, communists etc. The liberal intelligensia etc. There was also religious forces, rising up. The fomer represented the urban educated class, while the later represented the poorer rural classes.
The Muslim ruling dictatorial elite - in many cases with the help of Western forces - was able to supress all these forces, militantly, other than the Islamic forces. The Islamic forces concept of, ``jihad,`` where death is simply an intermediate state, is pretty much impossible to supress in a militant conflict. Eventually these Islamic forces became the sole anti-govt. forces in many, if not most Muslim countries. The only exceptions were places like Pakistan, where the govt. never went after the Islamic opposition militantly, and gave it breathing room to operate, thereby not allowing it martyr status. But in countries like Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Egypt, Algeria etc. - the more pro Western liberal states - the Islamic forces faced govt. militancy and became martyrs and the primary anti-govt. forces.
NOTE: The supporting of corrupt elitist dictators (including the ones who weren`t corrupt but were still elitist - like Musharraf) was the first big mistake the West made in Muslim countries. Through this, the West received short term cheap oil and/or subordinate regimes in Muslim countries, however, it has obviously led to long term problems, in the form of a very anti-West population.
Eventually the political opposition in many Muslim countries became solely Islamic forces. These forces became militant, once the ruling govt. of the countries became militant against them. Thereby leading to domestic militant Islam. In some countries, where some sort of election were allowed, Islamic forces took over, i.e. Iran, Iraq, Turkey. In others, they will will take over if dictatorships end and elections are held - Egypt, Algeria etc. In a third group - which includes Pakistan - they are on the rise, but not strong enough to take over yet.
So far, none have been able to take over through domestic militancy, however, that point may not be too far ahead. They certainly are taking over through the ballot box, though.
This is not say that it is solely the West`s fault. It is only to highlight how all this impacts the West, and how the West has played its cards incorrectly, taking short term benefits for long term losses and conflicts. And, most of all, to highlight the forces behind militant Islam, and why moderate Muslims cannot do much about them. Many moderate Muslims have tried to convince the West of not supporting elitist dictatorial govts. in Muslim countries, but to no avail. They have tried, ``moderate`` oppostion in their own countries, but these same pro-West govt. have suppressed such opposition, thereby, leaving Islamic forces as the only surviving opposition. Egypt being a good example. Saudi Arabia will be another one. As are so many examples.
Part II later......on how foreign occupations of Muslim lands has further led to Islamic militancy........And why most countries would be wise to end these occupations, if they want militant Islam to die down........
The post-WW II end of colonialism/occupation had the largest affect on Muslims. More Muslim states emerged than any other (?). Muslims, as a whole, came out of hundred to two hundred years of colonization. One could argue that Hindus came out of 1000 years of occupation, but there were two differences:
a) Muslims had been occupied by Christians - a group, which the Muslims had historically fought against, for superpower rights of the world. Hindus had never been in such a conflict, with Christian for superpower rights. Only Jews and Muslims had.
b) Muslim were (are) divided into 55+ states, each coming out of colonialism separately. Hindus came out, through one major geographically contigouos major state (with an odd connected one or two minor ones). No, ``Hindu`` land remained occuppied.
The secular govts. of the new independent Muslim states became very elitist, and tilted towards the West for their personal benefits. They became dictatorships, which had no regard for the common man. Due to the very low literacy rates of the Muslims (far lower than any other religion) and a very corrupt elite, Muslim states became quite dysfunctional.
This problem was further compounded by the fact that oil was discovered in Muslim countries. This lead to further Western interventations in propping up the status quo of Muslim elites.
Eventually, in some of the more intellecually developed Muslim states - the non-Arab ones like Iran, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Turkey etc. - these staus quos were brought down to some extent. However, the total system was never completely broken.
The desire of the Muslim citizens to create a more equal society domestically led to a natural phenomemon - rising up against the elites. This rise was led by various different factions. Initially it was the left which was the strongest. Labour unions, communists etc. The liberal intelligensia etc. There was also religious forces, rising up. The fomer represented the urban educated class, while the later represented the poorer rural classes.
The Muslim ruling dictatorial elite - in many cases with the help of Western forces - was able to supress all these forces, militantly, other than the Islamic forces. The Islamic forces concept of, ``jihad,`` where death is simply an intermediate state, is pretty much impossible to supress in a militant conflict. Eventually these Islamic forces became the sole anti-govt. forces in many, if not most Muslim countries. The only exceptions were places like Pakistan, where the govt. never went after the Islamic opposition militantly, and gave it breathing room to operate, thereby not allowing it martyr status. But in countries like Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Egypt, Algeria etc. - the more pro Western liberal states - the Islamic forces faced govt. militancy and became martyrs and the primary anti-govt. forces.
NOTE: The supporting of corrupt elitist dictators (including the ones who weren`t corrupt but were still elitist - like Musharraf) was the first big mistake the West made in Muslim countries. Through this, the West received short term cheap oil and/or subordinate regimes in Muslim countries, however, it has obviously led to long term problems, in the form of a very anti-West population.
Eventually the political opposition in many Muslim countries became solely Islamic forces. These forces became militant, once the ruling govt. of the countries became militant against them. Thereby leading to domestic militant Islam. In some countries, where some sort of election were allowed, Islamic forces took over, i.e. Iran, Iraq, Turkey. In others, they will will take over if dictatorships end and elections are held - Egypt, Algeria etc. In a third group - which includes Pakistan - they are on the rise, but not strong enough to take over yet.
So far, none have been able to take over through domestic militancy, however, that point may not be too far ahead. They certainly are taking over through the ballot box, though.
This is not say that it is solely the West`s fault. It is only to highlight how all this impacts the West, and how the West has played its cards incorrectly, taking short term benefits for long term losses and conflicts. And, most of all, to highlight the forces behind militant Islam, and why moderate Muslims cannot do much about them. Many moderate Muslims have tried to convince the West of not supporting elitist dictatorial govts. in Muslim countries, but to no avail. They have tried, ``moderate`` oppostion in their own countries, but these same pro-West govt. have suppressed such opposition, thereby, leaving Islamic forces as the only surviving opposition. Egypt being a good example. Saudi Arabia will be another one. As are so many examples.
Part II later......on how foreign occupations of Muslim lands has further led to Islamic militancy........And why most countries would be wise to end these occupations, if they want militant Islam to die down........
#221 Posted by bjkumar on April 1, 2007 9:24:29 am
#196 Masadi
[Stay away from people who can look through your dimwit mentality, or you end up making a damn fool of yourself]
Sir, you are so undervalued around here – you, who minces no words!
You – who only minces your opponents!
Now, if only you could make the likes of the Hamidm2 and the Mantos and the Tauheeds see the light!
They would stop their fight and start immediate flight!
And they would address the legitimate needs of individuals such as you instead of pouring all that money into the pockets of the Towns!
Such clowns!
If only they could see what you can see!
Whatever it be!
If only they could see what you can see!
For sure, they would flee – those fleas!
#222 Posted by tahmed32 on April 1, 2007 9:30:55 am
Masadi: Dear Running Sore on the Rear End of the Flea That is Feasting on the Poop Left by the Dog of the Peon Whose Sole Job is to Bring Samosa and Chai for the Bald, Overweight College Clerk With Rotten Teeth who Steals From the Scholarship Fund At Government College Mian Channu Where the Roof Drips and the Teachers Show Their Unwashed Faces in College on the First of Every Month to Collect Their Salary.
I hope the above responds adequately to the your unsolicited insults addressed to me. :-)
I hope the above responds adequately to the your unsolicited insults addressed to me. :-)
#223 Posted by bjkumar on April 1, 2007 9:38:08 am
#222 Tauheed sahib
With all due respect, Mian Masadi did not direct his #196 to you therefore, your retort is rather harsh and may be unwarranted.
From a grammar point of view, you have used too many initial caps - but the level of detail in #222 is quite impressive!
#224 Posted by bjkumar on April 1, 2007 9:50:21 am
#90 Masadi
[It is not that the US has lost its faith in him, if they had he wouldn`t be in office right now, it is that they want to bring him back in line, the are merely warning him to align more precisely to their demands, and in my opinion the issue of Iran is at the center of this entire so-called crisis.]
Masadi sahib, what about those burqa-clad warriors - were those also snuck in by the Uncle Sam to further restrain the Mushy to retain firm alignment with the ``line``?
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- masadi: tahmed writes "if the... Mumbai Attacks: Shocking
- masadi: The US wants to... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- Goldfinger: Re: # 673 masadi... Mumbai Attacks: Shocking
- majumdar: Masadi sahib, Are you implying... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- tahmed32: Goldfinger: the question that... Mumbai Attacks: Shocking
- parthaab: Invariably, violence around the... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- parthaab: Invariably, violence around the... Proud to be an
- masadi: Kulharee writes "Yaar, you... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in








reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content