Daughters of Hajar

Hey chowkwallas, why is Echoboom censored?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Iron, yeah, if Chowk mirrored real life, one would certainly become a believer in eternal cycles. :)

Chowk staff, how long must we wait for you to get rid of those stupid filters? :(

Echo dada, that political unity of Muslims against non-Muslims is assured by much higher powers. Please don`t worry overmuch about it. LOL

what? has there been a decision to reach dau hazaar?

Clifty, once you have stayed long enuf on chowk you will become a believer in
(a) eternal life
(b) eternal cycles of life
(c) karmic cycles
etc etc

1000 interacts is small.

(a)You have seen all points of views repeated here in these 1000 interacts.

(b)Wait for a week, and see the replay with a similar set of characters, but perhaps different nics.

(c)Wait for another lenght of time, and see the same happen.

now (b) and (c) get repeated again and again. Youwill soon start beliving in Buddhism its it notion of rebirth and life-cycles.

Welcome to Chowk. Hope you can take everything in, and assimilate what you need to and discard the rest.

#1018 by Naqshbandi on June 17, 2007 9:18am PT

wahabimax,

Haha .. :)

1. i listened to that lal masjid mullah shouting. why should i be scared? btw what is his stature as an alim? where did he get his ijazahs from~? who are his teachers?

I doubt he has any teachers. But you seem to have plenty of teachers (as well as websites) to `explain` Islam to you. Qura`an is not enough?

2. i accept that any muslim who insults the prophet, or find fault in him, is a kafir. btw you have said things on chowk about huzoor paak which if shown to a sunni alim could possibly get you a fatwa of kufr. eg. `he is just an ordinary man`.

My contention of `he was just an ordinary man` seems to have been misunderstood. I meant he was a mere mortal of flesh & blood like everyone else, but that doesn`t preclude him from being an `extraordinary` person. How can you differ with that?

3. the last time i checked hamidm wasn`t living in an islamic country and islam orders us to respect the laws of the land we are in.

So as long as hamidm is not living in an Islamic country, it is not ok to carry out the death sentence, but it is ok if he sets foot in an Islamic country. Is that what you mean?

#1020 by Naqshbandi

...the answer is that an islamic state will happen when Allah wills--I believe when Imam Mahdi alayhisalam comes.

This is so typical of sufis. Just yesterday a sufi-type Ishtiaq something was being interviewed on Business Plus channel. He was one of the accused in the Pindi conspiracy case and was court-martialed and stripped of his army rank of Major. He said`` Islam kehta hai namaz parho, roza rakho, aur jo koi karta hai karney do ... `` Haha !!!

I.e till Imam Mehdi arrives to actually implement Qura`anic injunctions, Muslims need to just `Namaz parho, roza rakho .. aur jo koi karta hai karney do ... ` Wah Bhai Wah ..

At this time, I am really offended by filtering of echo`s posts. He represents a certain point of view on this site. We can agree or disagree with that and I totally disagree with him but he is an honest and decent poster despite his attempted new additions to both urdu and english languages.

He is himself a little in the category of munafiqoon but I don`t mind his other formations.

I demand that Chowk staff raise his index level and ensure that his posts are not filtered out.

Btw, what is going on this thread? Is there any thing worth reading here?

Btw, echo why not get a new nic like echo_boom_boom?

Reproduced under is the article that the AH editors of CHOWK censored as they have censored many of my previous articles. These idiot editors on Chowk of which the major one is Mohammad Gill (the writer of pseudo-plagiarized BS), have mastered, like the US media of, drowning relevant discussion by either outright censorship of bombardment with BS. Read the article under and judge for yourselves whether it should have been published or not:

FACTIONALISM, SOCIAL MOVEMENT STRUCUTRE AND SOCIAL CHANGE by M. Asadi

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: # 1043kaalchakra

we have already discussed the points you have made to cliffs in #1041. well... i dont know much about Masadi but i think he has misunderstood your position.

re: philosopher # 1042

Hopefully, it might also help clarify the point made earlier to cliffs: that although people are the same, and for all intents and purposes, look and feel (and in narrow areas, even think) the same, because of their different religions backgrounds, in key matters, they become `differently rational.`

#1042 is a great post. In as much as one rejects Hinduism, one can clearly see the point philosopher is making. But we would be very hard put to find another `Hindu` who would accept Philosopher`s quest to be a philosopher as really valid so long as he maintains full faith in the Quran as the God`s word, let alone the Quran as containing the mankind`s ultimate truth.

This is the difference we have to recognize, and bridge, because dreaming it away won`t work.

Re: # 1036 Regard bhai

[how can you be a philosopher while at the same time plug for any religion]

I have read your couple of posts that you have honored us with. So far you sound to me a decent person [very unlike hamidm].so its a great honor for me to reply your post. sir; being a humble and an ordinary student of philosophy i tell you a problem with philosophy.

If a person is not a doctor he would never claim claim to be one.but there is a damn big problem with philosophy everybody considers himself a philosopher after reading a few books of the `pseudo works` of the great philosophers[the work that has nothing to do with there overall philosophical position].This is the biggest and most common fallacy around. Laymen think that philosophers are usually atheists or the philosopher who, unfortunately, doesn’t seem to be atheist has necessarily been doing `` jhak baazi`` and they [the rational lot] have to create awareness in those philosophers. This is as ridiculous a generalization as it sounds.

I don`t go into philosophical technicalities on this site.for the simple reason that none of the interacters here is a student of philosophy in the technical sense.It might be surprising to you that there is hardly any ``FIRST RANK`` philosopher who has been atheist for his entire life.A philosopher could be `skeptic` or `agnostic` but never can be an atheist. because to claim that there can be no God is nothing but a blind faith[(you might raise a question here that what it would be called if we positively assert the existence of God. It is relevant question and we will discuss it latter but I have called it blind faith as a counter argument]. even the agnosticim and skepticism of philosopher is quite different from the way laymen perceive these terminologies.

The agnosticism and skepticism of philosophers (ironically) is the prerequisite of religious philosophy (surprised? if you are you are understanding it.10/10]

Lets move forward.Skepticism in philosophy has various dimensions. A philosopher can be both skeptic and believer at the same time or it might be his `skepticsim` which would ultimately lead him to believe in God. Funny,isnt it? For example `immanual Kant` is `skeptical` about the certain aspects of knowledge but he is a believer.same is the case with descarte, hume etc. Russelian[of Bertrand Russell] is also a different knid of skepticism from what non..technical minds think it to be. It depends on the ``nature`` of their philosophical pursuits. An ordinary man would think that Iqbal and bertrand Russell can not be true at the same time. This kind of thinking stems from the complete ignorance of philosophical systems. Iqbal and Russell work within two completely different epistemological frameworks which are not by any means mutualy exclusive. They can both be relevent at the same time. Bertrand Russell`s real philosophical work is hell lot of different than the one common man read in the pseudo work of Russell and feel himslef to be ``even greater philosopher than bertarnd Russell after finishing the books like ``why i am not christian`` ``A free man`s worship`` etc. These books are nothing more than garbage in the serious philosophical circles. It has nothing to do his original philosophical position[which is impossible to discuss here]. He starts his philosophical pursuits with a question raised in his first book on philosophy ``problems of philosophy`` that; `` is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it?`` after 36 years in his last book on philosophy ``HUMAN KNOWLEDGE....its scope and limitation`` [and the last line of this book] he says`` All Human Knowledge is uncertain, INEXACT and partial and to this doctrine we havent found any limitation whatever``.

Now this is ultimate kind of skepticism. It shows the failuire of epistemology and science in solving the ULTIMATE problems of Knowledge and answering the questions which have been raised by some of the greatest minds of all times.

The religious{especialy Quranic} epistemology already claims the inadequecy of these epistemological dimension and picks the thread from here and develops its own system.[but this is not our topic now.i am just trying to answer your question]

Now i tell you the names of the philosopher who were either believers or ``skeptic`` in the sense i have mentioned above.
Plato,Socrates,ok lets leave these greek and medievel philosophers. Lets see the modren philosophers.
Descarte,David Hume,Jhon Lock,Leibnize,Immanual Kant,Hegel(believers) wittgenstien in his latter part of his life[believer] Bertrand Russell ``sceptical about the validity of all knowledge`` Karl popper ``skeptic`` in pakistani philosophers, C.A Qadir, in latter part of his life[believer][former chairman of international philosophical congress hmmm,who???? yes its not hamidm, prof khawja Ghulam sadiq(believer)] Dr abdul khaliq , Qaiser shehzad, Dr naeem ahmed, M.M sharif.[the foundder of pakistan philosophical congress, dr absar ahmed(all believers)] and there is a long list of philosophers who can think what the ``innumerable naslain`` of third rate agnostics on chowk cannot even imagine.one more thing, a lot of people consider `richard dawking` `ernest heckel` `T.h huxley as philosophers. None of these guys is a philosopher in the technical sense. they might not be allowed to attend any serious philosophical confrence if they want to.

I just wanted to answer your Question regarding the complimentary position of being philosopher and atheist.

tahmed32, I accept, naqsh can be a lot of fun. Just impossible to resist. On the other hand, Hindus tend to be a little too thoughtless in matters of religion. Truth is, I don`t share the traditional Hindu boundary-less approach to religion anymore. So my personal goal, if that matters, now is to help recognize the boundaries, and then help build bridges across them. So, I genuinely ask for your advice. In your personal consideration, is that a good approach? If so, what might one keep in mind, other than the underlying universality of mankind? Thanks.

Cliffs

For the most part, people are the same. But their religious traditions are very very different. Consider, for instance, the fact that you noted in # 1037, that Islam is growing by leaps and bounds, while other religions are not. My whole effort here was to encourage people to think why that may be the case. But Hindus, of course, are simply and completely incapable of thinking about religion, and Muslims turned out to be to be too chicken. LOL

---

To answer your question in 1037, you can get twenty different opinions, or just ask me. :)

Islam`s message is never diluted. The message is very broad, and can accommodate a huge amount of internal cultural and political diversity. Nor will the message become any different tomorrow from what it is today, or it ever was.

What will happen is that Islam`s aggregate political power will multiply manifold. So in their interactions with non-Muslims across the globe, Muslims will be able to get many many more things done, and conversely, keep many many more things from happening than they are able to today.

There is nothing to suggest that that will not be a very good thing, politically at least, for Muslims. You can think of it as revolution (if not complete takeover of many hitherto non-Muslim lands) through numbers.

And once Muslims gain P0LITICAL power, then they can create social, legal, cultural structures that help them either catch up or even surpass others in other areas, such as technology etc. After all, just because a person becomes a Muslim, he or she does not become technically dumb :)

(Of course, every Hindu worth his or her salt will jump on my neck (or imagine me to to be an evil person) to hear the politics of religion articulated, and perhaps Hamidm2 will too :). But I am telling you what is a fact.)

Re: # 1038Dhoti32

[hamidm #1027 while i agree with you on these vulgarities that zeemax and co. write when they think they are being good muslims, please dont call this ``islamic`` since these vulgarities are a result of the environment they were brought up in and have nothing to do with islam]

Sadqay jawaan.So now we should learn manners from a meerasi who utters stinking filth against our prophet[pbuh].sadqay wai sadqay.I have never seen you condeming that Ma`loon.You always seem to be taking side with that bhaand.

And sir dhoti posh would you please like to enlighten us what kind of ``environment`` produces the gem that your own dhoti has pissed in #898 about Masadi?here is the product of that ``clean environment`` you were brought up in;

from #898

[[allah mian vs hamid mian (the real story)

allah mian: what do you do for a living?
hamidm: i put dots on chowk. and what do you do for a living?
allah mian: mera kam ai banday banana (my job is to make people).
hamidm (pointing to masadi, and scolding God): ai banda banaya ai?? (what kind of a person did you make here?)]]


wah wah wah.what a ``thanda meetha`` environment you seem to be brought up in. Man...i would love to be there.

I still remeber when on another board Abu_safwaan wrote something against hamidm you suddenly discovered your decency and condemned abu_safwan. I have seen it time and again that whenver someone writes something against hamidm you become champion of manners.I have never [literally never] seen you condemning anybody who would insult anyonelse.
Man, your ``environment`` seem to be a bit too selective.ya kiya ke kafir pay baraan-i-rehmat aur hum bechaaray musulmanon pe berq girayee jati hai. Reham; oh you the custodian of good ``environment`` reham.

Now i know why Echoboom warned me the very first day i started interacting with your dhoti.Echo dada knew that it was already messed up.

kaalchakra #1031 this strong attachment to being considered a ``muslim`` is no different than the strong attachment you have to being considered a hindu or a sikh would have to being called a sikh and so forth. That is, it results from the need to ``belong``, be part of some herd. Nothing of course to do with religion, but everything to do with human weaknesses.

Instead of dripping sarcasm at naqshbandi, and (as you sometimes have done in the past on chowk) drip sarcasm about muslims, why dont you go a step better and try to rise above this tribal mindset and see humanity in a philosophically detached manner and demonstrate genuine empathy for this human condition that forces us all to seek refuge - to greater or lesser extents - in the herd. Something like that... :-)

hamidm #1027 while i agree with you on these vulgarities that zeemax and co. write when they think they are being good muslims, please dont call this ``islamic`` since these vulgarities are a result of the environment they were brought up in and have nothing to do with islam.

one more question, since islam is growing by leaps and bounds its likely that there will be more converts to any given school of thought .... whether it is wahabi or sufi or barelvi or interpretative or muslim in name only. Does anyone think thats a bad thing? that it dilutes the message to have so many people with slight differences? i will go out on a ledge here and suggest that no matter which school you may identify more with you would not consider that a bad thing.

Kaal says :

I was speaking to real people still stuck in the darkness of Hinduism and trying to ``save`` Muslims just because some Muslims might seem to ``think and feel`` like the Hindus.

Muslims think and feel for the most part like eveyone else on the planet :) and everyone has some faith and emotion which is large and fulfilling and not necessarily based on logic. Might even be a little exclusion based - Family, patriotism, friendship, love etc etc.