Can Religious Leaders Redeem the Future of the World?

Religious priests - christian and muslim - can serve humanity best by getting a real job.

gill sahib is it that "The clash of civilizations must stop before it gets out of hand" or a clash of ideas?.

These pompous assholes think that the old man in Rome controls Christiandome. Isn't it a little too presumptuous of them to assume the responsibility of Muslim masses?

Sometime back a few Orthodox Jew high priests from Israel had a dialog with their Indian (Hindu!) counterparts. And they concluded that both Hinduism and Judaism teach us the same thing. I mean give me a frikking break!!

You can't talk to religious nutcases. How do you talk to peole who fly planes into buildings, blow up pizza parlors. movie threaterrs,. buses and trains all in the name of religious warfare or perceived injuctices..screw that..no talking. Take it to them and stick it up their ass.

Dash-Dot: #2
Let me clarify as follws.
Samuel Huntington published his "The Clash of Civilizations" in 1996. The attack on the twin towers of The World Trade Center occurred on Septenber 11, 2001, which played into the hands President Bush to open up the way for attack on Afghanistan. Although Iraq was invaded on the facile claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, it was a step toward opening up the clash of civilizations against the Muslim world. If now Iran is invaded, it would further expand into a wider conflict of civilizations. Although Huntington's concept is flawed as pointed out by many critics, the neocons have taken it literally and run with it.
I concluded my article by writing "The clash of civilizations must stop before it gets out of hand" in the above perspective.
Mohammad Gill

Dash-Dot: #2
Let me clarify as follws.
Samuel Huntington published his "The Clash of Civilizations" in 1996. The attack on the twin towers of The World Trade Center occurred on Septenber 11, 2001, which played into the hands President Bush to open up the way for attack on Afghanistan. Although Iraq was invaded on the facile claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, it was a step toward opening up the clash of civilizations against the Muslim world. If now Iran is invaded, it would further expand into a wider conflict of civilizations. Although Huntington's concept is flawed as pointed out by many critics, the neocons have taken it literally and run with it.
I concluded my article by writing "The clash of civilizations must stop before it gets out of hand" in the above perspective.
Mohammad Gill

Gill sahib, what do you suggest? Invite islamic fundosover for chai patta and try to discuss why Allah is crazy for thinking he owns the planet?

Maybe as a scholar and a writer, you should write an eessay ont he following:

"whereever there are muslims in significant minority..there are problems with co-existence" ---philippines to Europe.

Re: # 7

gill sahib,

..... i am afraid that the clash of civilizations - actually it is a clash between the civilized and the uncivilized - cannot be stopped unless al-lah sends down a revision to his message ...... as long as people like dr israr, zeemax, urstruly and osama keep on iterpreting the holy text in its originnal form, this clash is inevitable .....

..... but, it is really nothing to worry about ..... the world has survived many clashes between civilizations and between civilized people and barbarians ...... rome, greece, byzantium, arab, dutch, persian, german,chinese, japanese, portugese, ottoman, mongol - you name it, and every "civilization" has clashed with another at some time or the other ..... some, like the mongols, disappeared from the scences and others like the dutch have been diminished greatly ....... only a few primitive people - like hindoos and the eskimos - have managed to stay above this fray .... but if you believe huntington, hindooism is also a real civilization and it might be part of this global clash soon ..........

the ulama who wrote this open letter are all respected traditionalist [as opposed to extremist] ulama and it is a noble gesture but i don't think it will make the blindest bit of difference simply because it takes two hands to clap and the vatican is not interested in serious dialogue with islam--certainly not under ratzinger the nazi pope.

also, the real popes of the west are the banking institutions and not the vatican any more. it is not the middle ages.

as to gill sahib's question, 'can religious leaders redeem the future of the world?' the answer is an unconditional YES. ONLY they can do it.

The author writes "Even if the Pope responds positively, it will not immediately stop the ongoing warfare, but it will be a first step in the right direction. "

First let me begin by saying that the author, who mass produces articles on here, has again produced a tape recorderesque, banal, nonsensical article that helps cloud the issues rather than fix any problems.

Now, when we know that this letter is the work of idiots who want to crystallize into reality, the mythical war that does not exist in the world while at the same time legitmizing the Huntington thesis-which is a bunch of BS- as well as obfuscating the real issues that of the US elite maintaining their hegemony at the expense of the rest of the world. So, why is the US media so fascinated with this letter. On the one hand they don't want to show Musilms in a conciliatory mode, so they say it contains veiled threats and on the other they want to show that this farce the WOT is actually a war between civilization (Christian) and an ideology of hate (Islam). They get to have their pie and eat it too thanks to the work of some idiots who want to play Captain Kirk by writing grand letters, with their mind stuck in the Middle Ages where the Church dominated the scene but now is valued less than a backyard sewer as far as determining global affairs of consequence.... The US started this farce, they fueled this farce, they have institutionalized this farce and part of that farce is this back and forth about Islam- neither Islam nor Christianity have anything to do with this WOT or the global security situation, whatsoever....

#11 Posted by Naqshbandi on October 15, 2007 12:36:52 pm

Bhai,

I beg to differ.

There's a landmark accord btw Shias and Sunni clerics in Iraq not so long ago. Had the polarisation stopped there?

U know very well the western societies are not under the spell of clergy. If u remember Pope spoke against Lebanon and Iraq in the past. Has Israel stopped it offensive or Bush halted his hold on Iraq?

These rapproachment btw the religious heads wud add to atmospherics. There wont be any meaningful result out of such accords.

Prolly a constant hammering abt the Jews, Muslims and Christains being the children of Abraham/Ibrahim wud bring some perspective in this world. Not much though.

Such letters in themselves can not stop the war and herald a peaceful era because the political power and the decision-making authority is not in the hands of the religious leaders who wrote the letter. They however can certainly help to change the propaganda of hatred which is fuelling the fires of the war and consequent violence. Under the present circumstances, those who vie for peace are considered unrealistic ideologues which is simply unfortunate. The clash of civilizations can not create a peaceful ambience for any one. Violence begets violence. It is very dangerous and can lead to a global conflict with nuclear weapons. True, the Muslim world doesn't have the nukes but an expanded conflict will not necessarily remain confined to the west and the Muslim world. It might drag in other conutries as well.
In my opinion, war is not the solution to any thing; it is, on the other hand, a pathway to global destruction. If homo-sapiens want to sutvive, they will need to learn to live in peace.
The response of Archbishop of Canterbury is encouraging and if he and the other religious leaders, Christian and Muslim, continue to preach and practice peace among their communities and condemn violence, the existing heightened climate of hatred might be scaled down.
Mohammad Gill

Dr. Gill,

I agree with ur opinion - each and every word of it.

masadi writes: "First let me begin by saying that the author, who mass produces articles on here, has again produced a tape recorderesque, banal, nonsensical article that helps cloud the issues rather than fix any problems."

Yaar masadi, please append that to your signature, but change the author to (Mohammad Gill and Dr.Sohail)... look at my signature for inspiration :D

No offence Gill sahib, I think this article is a worthy one indeed.
with much respect,
thinking storm

Also, I want it to be noted that I agree with most of what masadi the fasadi writes. Other than his anger directed at gentle souls like Gill sahib and Dr. Sohail. I also support his fury at Manto, for I think that cretin truly deserves it.

Jeeyo masadi jeeyo ...
with much respect,
thinking storm

It is sheer nonsense I did not expect from Mr. Gill.

As Allama Iqbal had said:

"Deen-e-Mullah (professional religion abusers, misnamd 'Ullema') fi sabilillah fassaad"

It would be a bad day for the world civilization if they both, the Islamic and Christian Mullah, get together.

tehshah:
Although I generally agree with what you wrote about mullahs, yet if they suggest to do some good through their religious influence on the masses, why should we denigrate it? Howsoever hard you may berate them stereotypically, it is a fact that they have greater influence on the masses than the highly enlightened (!) people like you and me. And if they purport to use their influence for a good cause why should we put them down? We should not prejudge and become purposelessly doomsayers.
The intent of the letter that the religious leaders wrote is good. Whether they'll deliver the purported good, we've to wait and see. They will hardly worsen the existing situation which already seems to be at its worst.
If anybody intends to try to produce peace through peaceful means, I support him (her) no matter who he (she) is. We have been brought to the existing apocalyptic juncture by a propaganda of hate; let us try to move away from it and advocate peaceful means for seeking peace. It is better to talk than to bomb.
Mohammad Gill

The West would feign surprise that their arsenal of nuclear weapons and stockpiles of other WMDs is seen by the Muslim world as a threat to it and would counter with an assertion that on the contrary any technology acquired by the later is an absolute disaster to the West if not to the world at large. Hence the song and dance and protests against Iran’s efforts for example, to acquire nuclear technology. In spite of its repeated assurance of it being for peaceful energy generation.
It is generally stated that the West in this regard employs double standards. This suggests that there is some kind of standard in the first place. It is obvious that there isn’t any standard at all!
In layman’s terms, wasn’t there an assurance given in a treaty that the Nuclear Club would dismantle its nuclear arsenal by 1997? One understands from the ex-UN Ambassador Richard Butler, that by 2005 the signatories have not even started the process of dismantling their weapons! And perhaps not even now. Instead we now have additional so called nuclear rogue States, although some are considered friendly and others as Evil States.
Why does not the West realise that by erroneously and misguidedly singling out the Muslims as anti Western and its reaction to the injustices perpetrated in, say the Palestine-Israel issues among others in the Muslim world, the West is creating the atmosphere of hatred with religious overtones. The language of this particular US Administration with terms like the Crusade and Evil etc and turning once Muslim friends into enemies is the main source of the state the world has degenerated into today where Christians, Muslims and every body else is suffering.
No the religion and religious leaders have nothing to do with the situation. For there is a LOT IN COMMON WITH THE TWO FAITHS, except the politicians.
Rashid

BAN BRAINWASHING!
CELEBRATE TRUTH!

Mohammad Gill

Teshah ji has a bit of an unusual take on matters of religion.

One is guessing, teshah ji thinks of this 'letter' as an offer by one bunch of medievalistic bigots (in his view) to another bunnch of medievalistic bigots (again, in his view) to arrive at a mutual accommodation, that would then allow both of them to divide up the world among themselves.

teshah ji seems to see this not as any effort to "redeem the future of the world", but as a proposal to jointly mess up that future for all others, but themselves.

teshahji, please correct me if I misunderstood you.

---------------

Mohammad Gill, you can debunk teshah ji's theory by showing clearly how these Muslim Scholars are interested in securing the future of the entire world and not merely in gaining the support of medievalist Christianity.

(not having read the letter myself, don't know whether teshah ji is right or not)

These 138 Mullahs are blood sucking parasites and need to be made to earn for their living than fantasizing about the rest of the non muslim world paying jizya to them after acepting dhimmitude!!!

What a waste,

The 138 muslim scholars instead of writing to the pope, should have declared that there is nothing like a muslim world, the sunnis are killing teh shias, the tribal muslims of pakistan are killing the mulsim punjabi soldiers, the arb mulsims of sudan are killing the black muskims of sudan ( evry much in line with pak penchant for their beauty and fair colour )

Secondlly they should declare that the 9/11 achieved nothing for the muslims.

The london bombers and their trainers in pakistan should be prosecuted.

That would have been a good indication that the muslim scholars have joined the civilisation.

It is pathetic that such irrelevant propaganda about the actions of ignorant mullahs gets the bandwidth on chowk.

Gill saab please do try to stop this types of wrticles.

These 138 are totally off the mark. They're probably all 'sufis'.

These are neither crusades nor is this a war between Islam and Christianity as a faith. It is between the Muslim apostate regimes and some of their peoples aligned with western powers of whatever faith (or none) who're looking for raw materials to produce plentiful useless goods in excess of their own markets, and then someone to consume this excess production of useless goods by making them adapt their cultures towards this end; and between those Muslim folks who have an alternate politico - economic system ingrained in their faith, and want control of their markets, don't want this junk, don't want to abandon their cultures, and don't want to have to keep dishing away their resources to those who manufacture the junk just to keep the standards of living up in their own lands - while at the same time hanging on tight to any worthwhile technology.

In short, it is all about 'globalization'.

However, Islam is the ONLY motivational force in existence to withstand and resist this onslaught, and therefore its lethal version has bared its fangs. Beware when this happens because nothing will stop it before it achieves its ends.

An extract from a previous UP thread is relevant:

Bhai, this conflict is NOT about Islamic ideology. It is about foreign occupation of Afghanistan which is only another country in you liberals' puny dumb minds but the SAME country for the FATA tribals (they don't give a rat's ass about Durand Line). They're fighting for its liberation and you apostate Pakistanis are killing them (and their schoolgirls, and their old and young) for their doing that. This is totally unacceptable for them. Their terms of staying loyal to Pakistan since the very outset mandate NO Pakistan army inside their territory. If you send it there, they will kill your army. Period.

Secondly, the larger conflict in the rest of the Islamic world (Terrorists? Fundamentalists?) is also not about Islamic ideology. It is all about resisting the projection of US military power in Muslim regions to maintain the US single political & economic system, which is considered by large segments of their populations as exploitative.

Islam is an alternative politico-economic system to the US type Capitalism, PLUS a huge motivating force in the rationale for violent Jihad. That's why the resistance has taken an Islamic form. However, religion was never either the initiator nor the raison' detre for it to begin with.

The backlash against muslims post 9/11 has been there in Europe if rather subtle, from planning permission for new mosques to tighter immigration laws. Unlike US, muslim countries are on the doorstep of Europe so for this reason it has to be very careful not to antagonise them, it relies on them for its energy needs, also maybe in the near future for its manpower needs, because Europe’s population is ageing fast for it to maintain its living standards it would have to import upto 50m people in the next 20 to 30 years, unless ofcourse there is new technology which would do the work of humans.

Zeemax sahib,

Re: #25

Basically Kanjarooon v/s Havayooooon.

Where wud u put countries like China, Japan and Korea in this debate? On the side of kanjarooons or havayoooons?

Regards

majumdar: the orientals would be the kanjalooons. (no "r").

aslam #26: other costs of the mindless anti-west attitude of the mullahs/terrorists is the blocked independence of Kosovo and the opposition to Turkey joining the EU.

On immigration vs automation, Japan has taken the latter road with factory automation, and Europe may end up being the beneificary of advancements made in Japan.

Koleans and Madalins ale all kanjaloons

Legalds

Re: # 26

Europe does not need Arab world (that includes Pakistan).

It can just look up to over populated India and China for its labour needs.

Regarding energy needs- The panic buttons are already pressed and alternative 'sources' of oil as well as energy are now on the way.

Re: # 24

Perhaps that is the way the 138 mullahs are trying to seek employement in the modern world - by trying to be 'brokers' to the violence being inspired, instigate and nurtured by them.

#27 Posted by majumdar,

Where wud u put countries like China, Japan and Korea in this debate? On the side of kanjarooons or havayoooons?

Excellent question. Though I wonder why you missed Bharat. Anyway I'll answer Bharat first. Definitely on the side of kanjaroons.

Re China, Japan and Korea, remember these are yellow people, and none of them forget. All of them have suffered much the same as Muslims at one time or another as Muslims are suffering now. The only difference is in approach towards redressal. Yellows are patient ... they wait for centuries, while Muslims don't. Muslims fight because they've never been defeated as a people. Yellows have been completely defeated as a people several times.

As for your question, the yellows hate the western designs as much as the Muslims, if not more. So I guess that puts them on your 'havayoons' side.

In any event, you would know who is arming the Muslim front.

Zeemax,

(Though I wonder why you missed Bharat. Anyway I'll answer Bharat first. Definitely on the side of kanjaroons.)

I know that. That's why I didn't ask. Besides, India ain't a superpower yet, irrespective of what some of my countrymen think.

(Yellows are patient ... they wait for centuries, while Muslims don't.)

And which approach do you think is more likely to work?

(Muslims fight because they've never been defeated as a people.)

Never mind if until recently large masses of Muslim nations were occupied by Goras. Russians, Austrians and Brits repeatedly licking Turks from 1600 onwards, Goras licking the Mughals and Tipu Sultan.

(So I guess that puts them on your 'havayoons' side. In any event, you would know who is arming the Muslim front.)

Of course, in between there would be some "friendly contests". For instance in Uighurstan, some Chinks getting abducted in Isloo, ocassional Chinks getting bumped off in Gwadar and all that.

Regards

...the yellows hate the western designs as much as the Muslims

Zee,

U r off the mark. If u know Japs, u wudnt be saying this. Did u visit Japan?

Chinese, san the Commies/official attitude are pro-US as well. The western culture that breeds in HK and China is in front of our eyes. They lap up everything that's American.

As for Indians, the public support for the Nuclear deal by the middle class is amazing. They even brushed aside BJP (that's my impression on TV shows). As for Indian Muslims...they are not far behind.

In my first visit to Jama Masid New Dehli (2002), I noticed onething that even hardcore imams cant be immune to the things that are American. A notice board by the imam Bukhari at Jama Masjid reads like this:

For any suggestions pl write to

'imam....bukhari@USA.NET. (sic)

as if there's no other email provider. Even imam of Dehli is fond of USA tag!!

OK, u may disregard this as love to America. I agree.

What abt MMA Hussian's son having education in the US instead of @ Jamia Binoria?

Dont u see any contradiction here? The so called leaders do tell their wards to study @ madarsas but they want everybody else to study @ madarsas.

(From India I can quote some examples of this paradox. Mulayam dont any English in India but sends his son to a school in Ooty and later to Australia, where nothing but English works. Bal Thackery wants his Shiv sainiks to be suicide bombers but he doesnt train his sons to be suicide bombers. Same goes for Osmama and Mullah Omar).

#34 Posted by majumdar,

And which approach do you think is more likely to work?

The Muslims' approach. Because they're the toughest to beat.

Never mind if until recently large masses of Muslim nations ...

I said as a 'people', they have never been defeated, as the Japanese were with the atom bombs or the Chinese by the British/Japanese or the S. Koreans where US bases still dominate their country.

...in between there would be some "friendly contests" some Chinks getting abducted in Islooo ... ocassional Chinks getting bumped off in Gwadar

You mean the chink massage parlours? Those are spying networks. Gwadar/Hub? All that is a battle for domination of that great Islamic force which is on the move.

Samjha karo ...

Re: # 31
ladu
things are much complicated than simply muslim versus christian EU and US want to route gas and oil pipelines from central asia through muslim Turkey thereby avoiding christian Russia and they want to increase their dependence on gas from muslim north africa.

btw India and china are seen as rivals for the upcoming competition for resources.

#35 Posted by VRV,

Look ... I know Japs. Don't take such small things as their mindset. They simply hate US.

As for Jama Masid New Dehli, what's wrong with using technology? It doesn't belong exclusively to them anyway. All nations have a contribution to that.

Zee,

My point is abt Imam flaunting his USA.NET address as if there's no Hotmail or Yahoo (leading email providers @ that time).

2. I can agree if Koreans are against US but not Japs. We disagree here.

Zee,

'The Muslims' approach. Because they're the toughest to beat.'

Achcha??????????????

In fact the rulers of Muslim countries san Mahatir Mohammed, Ahmedinejad are the first-rate ass kissers. They dont even issue a statement when Israel bombs Syria or Lebanon coz they dont like to be admonished by Uncle Sam.

Take Musharraf. He's a good ass kisser too. Do u disgaree??

Aaah Jama Masjid in Delhi..I remember praying to Hanuman there once..

And for a mere 500 rupees you can see three red hair from Mohammed's beard in a tiny jar that the mullah holds so close to his heart.

Zee man, muslims are 1/6th of humanity..it just won't work. The chinkoos and the hinjews will own the next 300-500 years. maybe after that..the muslims cna take a turn.

zeemax, I beg to differ - the ottomans god their ass handed back to them serially till the end of WW-I. After that they muslim lands got bombed and gassed and dumped. They were (and are) encricled and currently are in a situation which is worse than defeat - they are utterly humiliated and shown to be incompetents who cannot even organise a piss up in a brewery. The Japs got defeated but they are in a kick ass position and they have won in the long term.

I would have preferred total defeat than this ritual humiliation. I think you are clutching at straws.

ooops god=got in #42
they=the in #42
encricled=encircled in #42

Re: # 6
gill sahib, the muslims have to get over this idea that this is a clash of civilisations. No it is not a clash of civilisations. It is a clash of concepts - the majority of the muslims should wash their hands of the culprits and their methods and treat them as criminals (TAHMED32 says Islam is not about the killing done by the terrorists, hamidm2 says they are criminals) - as basically the majority do not have any truck with these guys (or atleast that is what they say - but do not voice this opinion in public but are silent).

It is the muslims who have created this ntion that this is a Clash of Civilisations. For they were the first who got all excited with this new theory. If only they had treated it as such it would have gone the way of many other such theories. In the islamic mind such (social and historical) theories are taken as factual truths (in science Mathematical theory can be taken as the truth and fact but in liberal art?????) and given the penchant for conspiracy theories these take on a life of their own.

No this is not a clash of civilisations - but a criminal venture thrown upon the civilised world by the terrorists.

#41

Laykin Pandas of Puri, Hardiwar Vrindavan charge much less for there own show and tell

Senna, what have you experienced?

Re: # 44

"It is the muslims who have created this ntion that this is a Clash of Civilisations. "

So says Wafa Sultan - but no muslims wants to listen to her- they prefer to be bewitched by the mullahs cursing her.

Laykin i 'dont believe' Pandas like rest of you just as much as you "believe" in Imam Bukhari .

Laykin the world is global now every where you can 'go' including Jama masjid MathurA Kashi .....

#42 Posted by no nick fool,

You can go and tell the americans that in Iraq.

Zee man, did the americans lose in Iraq? they kind of went in and put a whuppin on the locals and carved up the country in three..sort of taking the fight to the enemy...

I like this conceopt of "muslims never losing"...these types of victories are great.

the yanks achieved what they set out to do....tell the numbers they killed and the numbers of theirs killed?

looking at one particular aspect does not tell you much about the whole picture. Generally the muslims (apart from the oily Arabs) are ritually humiliated - remember the body cavity searches you undergo whenever you enter the US.

Calling me names does not change the fact that right NOW the MUSLIMS are the biggest losers in this world. Intellectually backward. Culturally backward. Economically backward. Industrially backward.


Heck they cannot even process their own effing raw material - look at Iran the blighter's cannot even refine their own oil! If that is not humiliation than what is?

A few snake oil salesmen like the Iranian Prez can grand stand - but that does not take away the fact they are backward in all respects without much of a future right now - unless they are prepared to KILL THEIR CHILDREN AND KILL OTHERS.

Perhaps that is what guys like you want.

#39 Posted by VRV

USA.NET address

USA.NET is (was?) just another web-based email. I had an account on it too.

2. I can agree if Koreans are against US but not Japs. We disagree here.

Aah ... and how about the Chinese? Did you miss them or was it a convenient oversight?

# various laykinbilkul,

You're a fool so forget it.

#51 Posted by no-nick-fool,

Haha. Don't get mad. Just tell me, how long can americans remain in Iraq? (or Afghanistan for that matter).

Just give me a timeline. Thanks :)

The original question in the article that is "Can Religious Leaders Redeem the Future of the World?" is hard to answer because Christians (of West)may be the stakeholders in the neo-colonial assault on Muslim lands but they are not the one who are calling the shots. Please keep in mind Islam originally was revealed to reform both Christianity and Judiaism. Judiaism rejects Islam on the basis of their perceived sense of racial superiority over all other. hence Judiaism has been reduced to a racial fraternity. On the other hand in Christianity the grafting of Greek and Roman pagan mythology has reduced it to a polytheistic religion-where gods have sons and fathers and they have mothers and what not. This is an absolute deviation from the religion of Abraham. The final blow to Christianity came with the renaissance when Christianity as an ideology was defeated on all fronts politically, militarily, and morally at the hands of atheists.

So the real interlocutors in this war of oppression and freedom are the Muslims and the atheists (Kafirs) of West in particular and of rest of the world in general. The adherents of other looser religions such as Christianity, Judiaism, Hinduism and Quadianism are on the Western bandwagon because this is their last ditch effort to survie and they are thinking that they are on the winning side. As a matter of fact their situation is nothing but damned if you and damend if you don't.

The correct approach, following the Sunnah of Holy Prophet (pbuh) has been adopted by Ahmadinejad who has addressed the heart of kufr (atheism) and conveyed them the message of Monotheism of Islam.

Christians and Jews has one advantage over atheists that even though they have corrupted their belief in equality of humanity and soveriegnity of Allah still has managed to the moral values that Moses (pbuh) and Jesus (pbuh) taught them. Holy Prophet (pbuh) did nothing but revitalized the same moral values.

Atheists on the other hand, by default, cannot have moral values. At the best they can take some religious values and call them their own as long as it serves their purpose and then move on. There are two points however upon which atheists solely bank on:

1. An economic system that has benefitted them immensely materially. call it Capitalism.

2. A secular democratic system of governance.

Other than that what do they have ideologically and morally to offer? Nothing.

So a Muslim asks do I need to convert to atheist to benefit from Capatilism; if that is so then why don't the atheists of elsewhere like Russia benefitted from being atheists.

As far as secular democracy is concernd, it has consequences too, which West has begun to experience. So a Muslim would rather see the example rather than hearing the sermon.

can we see an example of this shiny islamic caliphate..just one..

Urstruly #55 Very dramatic post. You have outdone yourself!! Congratulations. Drama Queens the world over are green with envy!!

Dr. Gill:

If two sides cannot agree on what is presently wrong in this world then how can they redeem the future of the world without violence?

For, the future can only be redeemed by getting rid of those who do 'bad' fully convinced that what they do is 'good'.

Re: # 58

GT an interesting way of posing a question...its a conundrum of sorts.

You already have an answer of sorts below #55 from Urstruly's key board.

The categorical manner in which you have posed the question: the only answer is fascism (which is also what Urstruly advocates (ultimately his answer can be reduced to that - if it is shorn of all the niceties of religion he decorates it with). I am sure you for one moment are suggesting that this is way out.

Democracy thrives on this interplay of good over bad. That this the key to human progress. Without it we are monochrome and would still be riding camels and thinking cold is god's punishment for being a "sinner"!

Re: # 56

I am assuming that your post is addressed to me. You are not the only one asking the question but there are many Muslims who ask this question too. Osama Bin Laden while answering a similar question said that when people bet on horses they would rather bet on the strongest horse rather than on the weakest. This is the paradigm througgh which many people look at the conflict between Islam and Atheism.

But my last post addressed just that pointing to the fact that we are comparing the wrong horses. Consider a weak horse who is gasping for air but it is dressed nicely, its horseshoes are new and shiney; its gait is elegant; and it prances and dances while galloping. On the other hand there is an extremely strong horse but one of its front leg and and one rear leg on opposite side are tied with a rope just like some horse owners do back in Pakistan or India. It gives a limited mobility to the horse. Now put to race which horse is going to win. Weaker one but free or the stronger one but roped? people will obviously bet on the weaker ut free horse.

The stronger horse if free can beat the weaker horse anytime. It is the responsibility of Muslims to free the stronger horses which is chained with the vassalage of inferiority complex and shackles of lack of self confidence. This is our responsibility towards Allah.

So coming back to your question; do Muslims have a winning model of governance and economics? The answer is, we have taken the first steps already. Those who have weak horse are working overtime to discredit the stronger horse through propaganda and flasehood fearing that once the stronger horse is freed it will beat their weak horse anytime. Had they had a really strong horse they didn't have to all this. Its common sense.

#59 Posted by Dash_Dot:

Let us cast aside fascism for the moment. Whith absolute beliefs (or simply beliefs as many in chowk put it), I cannot see how one can be both 'honest' and 'compromising' (peaceful?) under ALL conditions when beliefs are different.

Urstruly etc. can only accept peace under their own terms and they are honest about it (at least as far as chowk is concerned). The 138 religious scholars are just putting forth a puppet show (kaal and me call it sufiyapan). I fail to see how Gill can take it seriously. I actually found both the letter and the Archbishop's reply quite offensive. But the show must go on .....

#60 Posted by Urstruly:

Urstruly sahib,
The correct strategy is not to dicredit the 'stronger' horse. The correct strategy is to kill it. Na rahegi horse, na rahega race.

Enjoy the post Eid horse-race :)

Regards.

Re: # 62

Yes, if wishes were horses:)

Re: # 60

urstruly,

..... i hate to burst your bubble, but your horse is not a horse to begin with - it is a jackass! .....

.... you bitch and moan about this jackass being hobbled - who the heck hobbled it ? .....the rot began with the abominable four who started fighting over the jackass as soon as the original owner passed away ....... . this jackass did fine as long as the competition consisted of other jackasses, but now that it is facing thoroughbreds it doesn't stand a chance - the 313 medinites were able to defeat the 'horde' of a thousand meccans, because they were both armed with swords and sticks ... today, the competition has daisy cutters and other nasty stuff ........

.... people who want to ride this jackass are destined to live in dark caves .........

Re: # 64

Thanks for sharing your intellectual endeavor but hasn't it proven in your face, time and again, that "Shocks & awes", "agent oranges", "depleted uraniums", "mothers of all bombs", your favorite "daisy cuuters", "thermobarics" and "be all you can bes" do not work. These are the classic examples of the dance and prance of the weak horse. Ideas and ideology cannot be "killed" with bombs; ideas and ideologies can only be replaced with better ones. Had you had any better ideas and ideologies you wouldn't have needed the daisycutters in the first place. That is what I am trying to humbly submit in my last few posts.

Re: # 65

urstruly,

don't act dumb - you already know about the better ideas and ideologies ..... you spelled them out in your earlier post : Capitalism and Democracy .....

....... and don't give this bullshit about atheism and the lack of morality - i haven't met a single 'religious' who had any moral values - person starting with adam who screwed eve to get us kicked out of heaven, a senile old man who slept with his wife's maid to create our tribe, and a philanderer whose sexual antics have made us the laughing stock of the world .......

should read "i haven't met a single 'religious' person who had any moral values"

Re: # 66

I think you need to get out more. You have one life to live; why spend it like a frog in the well.

GT: #58
The two sides do not agree because they are not talking to each other. Each of them is paranoid of the other. We are making the usual presumptions and holding on to them. Many people do understand that its not my world and your world; it is our world. If we destroy it in the zeal of conquering it, all of us lose. We are sitting on the threshold of a nuclear holocaust.
Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell had published a manifesto in the 1950s drawing attention to the great danger that humanity is facing. I am appending a couple of extracts from it for the Chowk readers. Hope they'll empathize with the danger that all of us are facing.

"Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.
The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty. But what perhaps impedes understanding of the situation more than anything else is that the term "mankind" feels vague and abstract. People scarcely realize in imagination that the danger is to themselves and their children and their grandchildren, and not only to a dimly apprehended humanity. They can scarcely bring themselves to grasp that they, individually, and those whom they love are in imminent danger of perishing agonizingly. And so they hope that perhaps war may be allowed to continue provided modern weapons are prohibited...
..................
There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death."

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 68

urstruly,

... i have been trying to invite you 'out' for years now - it is you who is stuck in flint ....

Re: # 69

gill sahib,

"There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings"

.... it is a noble thought but i don't think it will work with people who think that happiness is a pagan concept, all that we need to know is in 'the book', and wisdom is the domain of bearded fools who pore over the book ..... it is also hopeless to talk to people who love death more than we love life and want to get to heaven in a hurry so that they can get it on with seventy virgins ...... and i am really not sure that they consider infidels and apostates like you as human beings .........

........ it is a hopeless cause .... the battle lines are clearly drawn and it will be a fight to the finish .. luckily, we have bigger and better arms than the poor meccans ......

Gill Sahib, when the kaffirs like China and the india re ready to take over the world in teh next 50 years, shouldn' tthe maulvis be sending flowers to them instead of teh pope?

GT #61 you write Urstruly etc. can only accept peace under their own terms and they are honest about it

While the logic-challenged can be excused for making such a an odd statement, you sir are not logic-challenged and so cannot be excused on that count.

What is "honest" about talking about armaggedon between the US and the muslim world using an anonymous nic? Between Hamidm and Urstruly, common sense would say that it is Hamidm who is being honest, and Urstruly who is the fake. I say this for the following reason:

Both Hamidm and Urstruly chose to leave Pakistan and come and live in the US, work and raise their families here. Hamidm looks at the positive side, Urstruly can only talk about the negatives, and bad mouth the country he has chosen to live in. It doesnt take a genius to figure out which one of the two is honest, and which one is dishonest.

The above begs the question - Why have you chosen to encourage Urstruly by referring to his bad mouthing of the US as being dishonest? Thanks in advance for your answer.

correction to #73: the question to GT in the last para. should have been " Why have you chosen to encourage Urstruly by referring to his bad mouthing of the US using an anonymous nic as being honest? "

#74 Posted by tahmed32:

tahmed sahib, Gill sahib and others:

Let us not get bogged down with what I have to say about urstruly. Though, let me remind you that US citizens have a right to criticize their country and their structure of governance. Let me instead put forth a disturbing proposition.

The problem put forth by Einstein etc. is well understood. If "humanity" means the same thing to every group then recourse to just "humanity" is the solution. I believe that "humanity" does not mean the same thing to all groups. Hence, recourse to "humanity" MAY not be the solution.

GT you have hit upon the problem (or rather stumbled onto it or rather still stated it) by the use of two words "good" & "bad". In the world of urstruly's everything he holds dear is good and all else is bad. (I respect urstruly a nice person and a remarkably honest as far as his "little world" goes (perhaps dishonest in the sense TAhmed32 states below - but that is not the issue here).

The point about "good" and "bad" is about how closed your mind is to rationale and reason. If "good" and "bad" are closed definitions, and compact (and completely inscribed (note not circumscribed)) within the a fixed framework you end up with the near fascist harangue of the Urstruly kind you have seen below. There is redemption is there is circumscribing (using the geometric analogy - you have room to wriggle).

When you are faced with the new, and want reassurance that the world is still flat you reach for the "inscribing" option. That is from where all their "you kafir" "your murtid" "you munaafiq" and other torrents of bouquets come from.

It is often the case that when people follow an inscribing approach to life they end up in a cul de sac from which there is often no reprieve (by no reprieve i mean - no progress of thought/intellect and development of potential). This is something the ancient greek understood reasonably well, and the modern atheist Christians and jews and hindus and buddhists understand very well (the very same people Urstruly reserves the most vitriol for). That is why they will leave behind the inscribing zealots (of whatever hue).

That is why these guys who wrote that letter are oafs and the people who reply, if at all they do, do so only out of politeness for the effort these guys have gone through in putting this epistle together. For this epistle is meaningless, and in fact does not take forward human thought - there is really no contribution and or anything new in there. It is same old same old.


This is precisely the reason why I asked Gill in #2 whether he thought it was really a clash of civilisations or not? For this is not a clash of civilisations - for this to happen you need two similarly matched sets of human thought to meet. that aint happening here.

#75 humanity - might mean different things to different groups of people. But if there is a "circumscribing" of the definitions there will be an intersection of ideas and views (overlapping) from where progress can be made.
The absolutist positions taken as a result of the a lack overlapping is the issue. ONe group wants the total annihilation of the other group. In such an eventuality no group can afford to let their guard down - that is why you have the current situation. One group let its guard down for too long and got it in the neck - and this group has removed its gloves and gone for the daisy cutter option!

Re: # 74

tahmed,

you ask GT: " Why have you chosen to encourage Urstruly by referring to his bad mouthing of the US using an anonymous nic as being honest? "

.... it is obvious, isn't it?

#77 Posted by Dash_Dot:

Sir/Madam,

I shall not single out urstruly sahib or George Bush. It has to do with our intellect. Classical logical systems are binary in nature: "good / bad", "right / wrong" etc. Even Einstein could not accept a different system.

Different systems of logic are being used in natural sciences (I am told with better results), it lies on the frontier of research in economics today, poets and painters perhaps always used it. Such systems of logic will take generations to percolate down to common people like me. And by that time we may all be happily dead :)

Please do not take any of the above seriously.

Dear Dash_Dot,

My post to you (#79) may sound a bit fuzzy. So let me give you a concrete example.

When you see a sand dune, you know it is a sand dune. You can differentiate between what is a sand dune and what is not a sand dune. Now try the following thought experiment. (1) You get a truck-load of sand. (2) pick one grain from the truck and put it on your porch. (3) Keep repeating the process counting the number of grains. (5) What is the number of that grain before which you did not have a dune but after which you have a dune?

Do you see a small proble with binary logic now?

good and bad are relative if we have different notions of humanity (as you conceded in an earlier post). When it is relative, it is the degree of over lap you have which results in the starting point of counting the grains of sand to figure out the dune.

If there is no such understanding we will be arguing over what is a grain of sand! Forget the dune - it doesnot exist as a sand dune till we agree on the sand thing.

My earlier post (#76) was against the binary 0/1 logic. This binary logic is more inscribing rather than circumscribing -

got to go and hit the sack - the good old water of life is over and need some more to think what you said through and make myself sound more erudite than I really am!

hamidm: I dont wish to speculate on anyone's intentions, and certainly Urstruly, GT, Dash_Dot and yourself are all gentlemen in the sense that they dont use the anonymity of the internet to start abusing anyone who questions or disagrees with them. And I wont speculate on GT's intentions for avoiding my simple question, even though I find the respon.

Having said that, it is obvious that this absurd policy of demonizing the US while setting up the worlds 1 billion plus muslims as victims has cost muslims dearly in many ways. While Urstruly may be comfortably making a living and getting the benefits of living in society that respects his rights, millions of muslims who would give anything to be in their place are denied visas in EU and the US. So, by encouraging Urstruly by making the absurd claim that he is "honest", GT (regardless of intentions) is certainly not doing muslims any favor.

GT: I am sorry that you chose to avoid my question. But I hope you will reflect on it before you start applauding those who claim to speak on behalf of "muslims" when in fact they have cost muslims plenty in real terms (one example given in my post #82).

And, btw, I never questioned urstruly's right to say one thing and do another, so your referring to this right was unnecessary. What I questioned was your referring to urstruly as being "honest" (and by implication, hamidm as being dishonest), when in fact simple logic would indicate that the opposite is true (as I tried to explain to you).

Dear tahmed,

I had said "Urstruly etc. can only accept peace under their own terms and they are honest about it (at least as far as chowk is concerned)". I really do not understand what is wrong or right about this statement.

You also say "...GT (regardless of intentions) is certainly not doing muslims any favor". Sir, frankly speaking I do not want to do a favor to anyone, especially to those who do not need a favor from me.

If I am being offensive, or if there is a misunderstanding, please do let me know why and I will try to correct or clarify my position if needed.

Warm regards.

Dear tahmed:

I also believe that "hamidm2 etc. can only accept peace on their own terms and they are honest about it (at least as far as chowk is concerned)." The problem is not with the honesty of hamidm2 and Urstruly, actually one should be thankful that both of them are honest. From their interacts we come to know that what is "good" for one is "bad" for the other. The 'problem' is that both of them are ready to "defend" what they think is "good". And oh! ... what is "defence" for one is "offence" for the other.

GT: Thanks for taking the time to explain (not that you owe me any explanations, of course) your views, since it does clarify what you meant.

On the question of urstruly's honesty, we obviously will have to agree to disagree. He is no doubt honest about "seeking peace at his own terms". But he is not honest when you look at what these terms are (i.e. rejection of the US or western way of life) and contrast them with his actions (i.e. leaving a muslim country not for another supposedly more pious muslim country, but for the green pastures of the US).

GT: and to add to #86, I should say cheers, my friend. No personal offense intended or taken, and appreciate your making the effort to make that clear. We dont have to agree on everything, nor will the earth stop spinning or galaxies start colliding as a result. ;-)

Re: # 85

GT,

.... look there is a fundamental difference between me and urstruly: i am willing to let him bang his head on the floor ten times a day, not drink if he doesn't want to, grow a beard, go to bed with four women and a sheep, return his interest payments to the bank and practice all the silliness of his religion as long as i can have a drink when i want to ......... that's all i want in addition to free markets, democracy and the playboy channel ......... i don't want to kill him or convert him or anything of the sort ........

....... on top of that, i am not willing to die for my cause either - i will move to china and join the communist party if i think that the forces of al-lah are going to overrun the land of the free ........ i am not that brave ..... shit! worse come to worse i will even convert back to islam ... unlike urstruly, i love life .... of course, if other people are willing to die for my cause i will write them a check like i do every april 15th ..........

I apologize for blaspheming US and if it has hurt anyone's feeling, but aren't you the two testicles who defend people's right to blaspheme anyone or anything all the time. What gives?

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

Re: # 89

urstruly,

.... you can blaspheme the US as long as you don't collect welfare, ssi, medicaid, student loans or live in state subsidized housing ... just as i can blaspheme the prophet and his camel (pbu them) because i don't want anything from them ...... if i started praying to them and started asking for 70 virgins and whatnot, then i would be totally out of line ... wouldn't i ?

Re: # 90

arjun,

.... are you saying urstruly is some guy named mohammed?..... i think that urstruly does not really exist - he is a character invented by the horrible hindoos and the zionists to discredit muslims in general, and pakis in particular .... unfortunately, tahmed is our best response to this horrible caricature .....

Re: hamdim2 # 92

“as long as i can have a drink when i want to ......... that's all i want in addition to free markets, democracy and the playboy channel ....... “

and all he wants to do is run your life for you....


sounds like a marriage made in heaven!

Regards,

Faruk

Re: # 85 but within their definitions if there was an overlap, then there would be, perhaps a meeting point, a point from which a new discourse could start.

If there is not overlap - binary- you have a problem.

Re: # 93

"as long as i can have a drink when i want to ......... that's all i want in addition to free markets, democracy and the playboy channel ....... “


There is going to be one in Jannah- with lots of intoxicating and refreshing drinks and a lot of houries and young boys as per your preference.

And the benefit is that none of the gals there mensturate- thereby implying that they are available 24X7 times a day for your pleasure.

How can you resist that offer from Allah and ask for subscription to a pay channel for which you have to work as slave to the capitalist west.??

An Appeal to Hamidm2 and Urstruly and others!

Since you are all reasonable and learned Gentlefolk. So here is an appeal.

Urstruly(and religious & conservative folk) do whatever Hamidm2 suggests - drink, womenise, go to lap and pole dancing clubs. I.E enjoy life according to Hamidm2

Hamidm2 and others (non-religious debauched folk) do whatever urstruly suggests - bang heads,bend over, whatever in addition to Praying to God, reading the Koran.Life accoding to Urstruly

In other words see what the other perceives to be the DARK SIDE

While you guys are at it (like rabbits or otherwise), me GT, and a few other will open the books and start taking bets!

Its a win win all roound. What say you!

Urstruly: No one is arguing below against your right to speak your mind. All I am saying for example is that your actions contradict what you say. I have been pointing this out to you for years, and you have been simply ignoring this question.

If your actions were to match your words, you would have moved to neighboring Afghanistan when it was under the Taliban (whose de facto policies matched quite well what you keep favoring on chowk) to raise your family - and not come thousands of miles to the US instead. So, the only logical conclusion is that you want to have the luxury of following the mullah fashion of berating the US and western civilization generally, while at the same time enjoying the fruits of western civilization.

Only muslim-haters (read arjuns posts gloating about the low popularity of the US in Pakistan) and only the ignorant fools among muslims applaud this ego-satisfying "confrontation" with the west the maulvis engage in - since (as I pointed out to GT below), it is the millions of muslims not as fortunate as you in getting a visa to the west who are paying the cost of your above-mentioned luxury.

The truth is that mullah fazloo - who was at the forefront of US flag burning in Pakistan after the US invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11, which was prominently shown on US TVs - has made clear he is fighting for no principal higher than that of furthering is personal political ambitions like any other two-taka politician. And the truth is that it is because of such actions that Pakistanis find it much harder to get jobs and visas to the west today than Indians e.g. I hope someday, for the sake of the millions of muslims who suffer the consequences of this bogus "confrontation" with the west, if not "merely" for the sake of being fair and honest, you will give this matter some thought.

Tahmed sahib,

(So, the only logical conclusion is that you want to have the luxury of following the mullah fashion of berating the US and western civilization generally, while at the same time enjoying the fruits of western civilization.)

If Maulana Urstruly (pbuh) and his likes want to enjoy the fruits of paradise both in this world and hereafter why should we act spoilsports?

Regards

#98 majumdar: "why should we act spoilsports?"

because this luxury is cost-free only to urstruly (as explained in my post).

The muslim scholars instead of writing to the pope should have written to teh fellow muslims of pakistan that blowing up barber shops are un-islamic. No ...no...they could not have done that, there is a specific verse in the book that says that all muslims should grow beard and as such blowing up barber shops is a jihadic act.

Tailoring shops, music centres blown up



Dawn Report


GHALANAI, Oct 16: At least five shops — two videos and CDs centres, two tailoring shops and one hair cutting salon — were destroyed and about a dozen others damaged in an explosion that occurred in the wee hours of Monday in the Mian Mandi Bazaar.

Local people said the bomb explosion in Khwajawas Market spread panic in the area.

On Tuesday, hairdressers displayed large banners outside their shops in the area stating that they had stopped shaving beards. The banners stated that the hairdressers would only cut hair in accordance with the religious code.

The local militants have been patrolling different areas.

A group of militants also patrolled some roads in the settled areas adjacent to the Mohmand Agency, including Pir Qala.