Can Religious Leaders Redeem the Future of the World?

#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 .........