Pakistan: Media Under Siege

Majumdar:
I would bargain it for the same or similar house for equivalency.

laddu 135:
I would love to, but there is time constraint.

Rashid mian,

(I don't understand, the nature of money.)

If I had lots of money (sigh), I couldn't care less for its nature.

Regards

PS: Btw since you believe that the value of house has only deteriorated since you purchased it, I hope you will not consider it a bad bargain if I were to offer you the full Rs. 23,000 for your house. (LOL)

Re: # 127

Same old propaganda Rashid miyan.

Care to have a debate at www.faithfreedom.org ?
Can you take Ali Sina's challenge ?

Majumdar:
The point is The real worth of house has depreciated. It is the same house. No technological advancement. Nothing
While its price in money has changed from 23000 to 60-70 lac. So I as I said the real thing is house and money as exchange medium, I don't understand, the nature of money.

Rashid mian,

(For example the house I used to live was 23,000 Rs and is now 60-70 lac RS (or more). With time its value in real term is somewhat depreciated.)

Yes. But if you had to build a similar house at a similar location it would cost you maybe a little bit more than Rs. 60-70 lakhs. So that's why ur house would be worth that much.

Regards

As a continuation.
Money is just exchange value. It is still the production which is exchanged.
I think it is important to think on this aspect.
As I said I don't know how the wealth of nation is generated. But it is not generated in the form of paper, but production, institutions, education etc without us knowing it.
For example the house I used to live was 23,000 Rs and is now 60-70 lac RS (or more). With time its value in real term is somewhat depreciated. So what happened to money.
Buk Raha Hun Junoon Mein Kia Kia Kuch.
Kuch Na Samjhe Khuda Kare Koi.
What I am talking in my madness
Let's hope nobody understands it.

I believe, that kind of experiment can be done in a big economy like China.
On the other hand banking system has its advantages and disadvantages. Its role in the circulation of money and multiplying its power is well known. Interest free banking as it is called and there are numerous experiments going on in different parts of the world.
I think more important than this is nature of money. I wish I was economist. I think it is the production which is more important (it includes all aspects like R&D etc). How you circulate money for that or even can do without money in the form of credit card or future money. I don't know.

Rashid mian,

(I think, as Islamist also accept that constitution of Pakistan provide sufficient guarantee i.e no laws will be made in antagonism to Islamic laws.)

I am afraid that on some issues and at some point of time there may be conflicts between the two. For instance on usury.

Regards

I don't think that is right approach, or even correct.
Even in India as I have heard there are Muslim family laws.
What we need to do is compete or keep abreast with the current concepts. I think, as Islamist also accept that constitution of Pakistan provide sufficient guarantee i.e no laws will be made in antagonism to Islamic laws.
How can we isolate ourselves with the whole world, until and unless forced to.
India was partially isolated, but China was completely isolated from the whole world both east (Russia) and West (USA and Europe). Last century was a century of Nation State and whichever people took their destiny in their own hands progressed.
Muslims have their own frame of thinking. But Islamic philosophy or superstructure of religion more appropriately Muslim philosophy, is in inertia after the sacking of Baghdad (not by democratic ideal BUSH but by killer Halaku) and defeat in Spain.

Krashid mian,

(He brought GOD's message and said there is no indiscripency in the message because it is not from man but God. Challenge is for more than 1400 years. There is no valid response to this challenge yet. )

I am sure most Injuns/Hanuds on chowk would be more than happy if Paki/Momins think that Islam is quite literally God's word and cannot be challenged. And recreate the Rule of the Righteous Prophets (within the borders of Pakistan, ofcourse, hopefully not export the model beyond the Radcliffe Line!!!)

Regards

Ajeya:
You think there are are no Houris, no Ghulaman, no Gabriel in cave, and he fooled all of us guys.
He brought GOD's message and said there is no indiscripency in the message because it is not from man but God. Challenge is for more than 1400 years. There is no valid response to this challenge yet.

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:

Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it." Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Kab and said, "That man (i.e. Muhammad demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you." On that, Kab said, "By Allah, you will get tired of him!" Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be.

Now we want you to lend us a camel load or two of food." (Some difference between narrators about a camel load or two.) Kab said, "Yes, (I will lend you), but you should mortgage something to me." Muhammad bin Mas-lama and his companion said, "What do you want?"

Ka'b replied, "Mortgage your women to me."

They said, "How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the 'Arabs?"

Ka'b said, "Then mortgage your sons to me."

They said, "How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the people's saying that so-and-so has been mortgaged for a camel load of food. That would cause us great disgrace, but we will mortgage our arms to you." Muhammad bin Maslama and his companion promised Kab that Muhammad would return to him. He came to Kab at night along with Kab's foster brother, Abu Na'ila. Kab invited them to come into his fort, and then he went down to them. His wife asked him, "Where are you going at this time?" Kab replied, "None but Muhammad bin Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Na'ila have come." His wife said, "I hear a voice as if dropping blood is from him, Ka'b said. "They are none but my brother Muhammad bin Maslama and my foster brother Abu Naila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed." Muhammad bin Maslama went with two men. (Some narrators mention the men as 'Abu bin Jabr. Al Harith bin Aus and Abbad bin Bishr). So Muhammad bin Maslama went in together with two men, and sail to them, "When Ka'b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strip him. I will let you smell his head." Kab bin Al-Ashraf came down to them wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Muhammad bin Maslama said. " have never smelt a better scent than this.

Ka'b replied. "I have got the best 'Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume."

Muhammad bin Maslama requested Ka'b "Will you allow me to smell your head?" Ka'b said, "Yes." Muhammad smelt it and made his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka'b again, "Will you let me (smell your head)?" Ka'b said, "Yes." When Muhammad got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions), "Get at him!" So they killed him and went to the Prophet and informed him. (Abu Rafi) was killed after Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf."

Ka,ab Bin Ashraf, a jewish chief and renowned poet even planned prophet's (SAW) assasination. (The sakooter speaks)
(And at that time jews had treaty with Prophet)


33. In thc meanwhile the Jewish citizens of Madinah began to foment trouble. About the time of the victory of Badr, one of their leaders, Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, proceeded to Mecca to give assurance of his alliance with the pagans, and to incite them to a war of revenge. After the battle of Uhud, the tribe of the same chieftain plotted to assassinate the Prophet by throwing on him a mill-stone from above a tower, when he had gone to visit their locality. (Seerah Sarrerullah)

When I have time I will bring more historical resources.
But bottomline is inspite of treaty or Meesaq e Medina jews continued to oppose Muslims and prophet. That is not right. Once you have accepted the treaty abide by the terms and condition. Would you agree.

Note what really happened here. Ka`b encouraged Muhammad's enemies, and made up some poems about Muslim women. Muhammad didn't like it, and had him murdered. After they kill Ka`b, they behead him and bring his head to Muhammad. When Muhammad sees his head, Muhammad praises God for Ka`b being slain!

#124 Posted by pedophilefollower1961

Here's one incident, numbnuts. There are MANY more. We can do this one by one.

It's true. There are no houris. No ghilmans. No Gibreel in a cave. He fooled all you guys. And had good fun while he lived. Twelve wives for himself. And only four for the rest. :))

Muhammad and Ka`b bin al-Ashraf


Abstract
While Muhammad lived in Medina he grew in power. There were a number of Jews that opposed him. Muhammad asked several of his followers to murder a number of these Jews. One of them was Ka`b bin al-Ashraf. This paper deals with Ka`b's murder.
Introduction
In Yathrib, Muhammad began to experience opposition by the Jewish tribes living nearby. For the most part, they rejected his message and Islam. The Jews had several treaties with Muhammad, but that did not mean they were on good terms. One of the Jews, Ka`b bin al-Ashraf, vocally supported the Meccans (Quraysh) against Muhammad. He let it be known that he believed that Muhammad was a phoney, not a prophet at all.
Note that I provide a lot of detail; I want to quote the references in full, to provide the proper context. I also quote the sources as they are written in English. Some of the words are arcane, but I want to present the words as they have been translated into English.
Ka`b was a Jew. He hated Muhammad. Ka`b never lifted a weapon against Muhammad or any Muslim, he only voiced his opinion against Muhammad, and made up some unsavory poems about Muslim women. Muhammad saw him as a threat, and therefore had him murdered in the night.
The Jews around Medina were not under Muhammad's rule; they had only entered into a treaty with the Muslims. Muhammad did not have legal right to murder Ka`b, rather he took it upon himself to rid himself of a man who hated him.
It's understandable for a Mafia chieftain to commit such crimes, but not understandable for a man who claims to be a prophet of a righteous God, and implies that it is God's will that the murder be committed. David, the king of Israel also had a man killed - Uriah, but David never said it was the will of God, and when confronted with his sin, David repented. Muhammad never repented for his crimes.
________________________________________
DETAILS: THE MURDER OF KA`B AL-ASHRAF
Let's start with Ka`b bin al-Ashraf. From Bukhari vol 5 #369: [Note, this is a very long Hadith. Also note the actual killer in this Hadith is another man named Muhammad bin Maslama. I have referred to him as Maslama.]
QUOTE FROM BUKHARI, VOLUME 5, #369
Narrated Jabir Abdullah:
Allah's messenger said "Who is willing to kill Ka`b bin al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His apostle?" Thereupon Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's messenger! Would you like that I kill him?" The prophet said, "Yes". Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka`b). The prophet said, "You may say it."
Maslama went to Ka`b and said, "That man (i.e. Muhammad) demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) [taxes] from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you." On that, Ka`b said, "By Allah, you will get tired of him!" Maslama said, "Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be. Now we want you to lend us a camel load or two of food." Ka`b said, "Yes, but you should mortgage something to me." Maslama and his companion said, "What do you want?" Ka`b replied, "Mortgage your women to me." They said, "How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the Arabs?" Ka`b said, "Then mortgage your sons to me." They said, "How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the people's saying that so and so has been mortgaged for a camel load of food. That would cause us great disgrace, but we will mortgage our arms to you."
Maslama and his companion promised Ka`b that Maslama would return to him. He came to Ka`b at night along with Ka`b's foster brother, Abu Na'ila. Ka`b invited them to come into his fort and then he went down to them. His wife asked him, "Where are you going at this time?" Ka`b replied, None but Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Na'ila have come." His wife said, "I hear a voice as if blood is dropping from him." Ka`b said, "They are none by my brother Maslama and my foster brother Abu Na'ila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed."
Maslama went with two men. So Maslama went in together with two men, and said to them, "When Ka`b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strike him. I will let you smell his head."
Ka`b bin al-Ashraf came down to them wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Maslama said, "I have never smelt a better scent than this." Ka`b replied, "I have got the best Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume." Maslama requested Ka`b "Will you allow me to smell your head?" Ka`b said "yes." Maslama smelt it and made his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka`b again, "Will you let me (smell your head)?" Ka`b said "Yes". When Maslama got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions) "Get at him!" So they killed him and went to the prophet and informed him."
END OF QUOTE
Note here that:
1)
Muhammad wanted this man killed because he had "Hurt Allah and His apostle!" Now then, how does a man hurt Allah?
2)
Muhammad got someone else to do his dirty work. Muhammad did not partake in killing the man who was hurting Allah, and himself.
3)
Muhammad allowed Maslama to lie to draw Ka`b out of his home.
________________________________________
Now we will examine other source references to this event.
From the Sirat, page 365. The background to his murder is that after the battle of Badr, Ka`b bin al-Ashraf was horrified by Muhammad's victory, and the death of certain Arab leaders. I'll start with Ka`b's quote expressing his surprise at the Muslim victory.
QUOTE FROM THE SIRAT RASULALLAH
"Is this true? Did Muhammad actually kill these whom these two men mention? These are the nobles of the Arabs and kingly men; by God, if Muhammad has slain these people it were better to be dead than alive."
When the enemy of God became certain that the news was true he left the town and went to Mecca to stay with al-Muttalib who was married to `Atika. She took him in and entertained him hospitably. He began to inveigh against the apostle and to recite verses in which he bewailed the Quraysh who were thrown into the pit after having been slain at Badr.
The Sirat now lists some of the poems made up by Ka`b and others. The narrative continues:
Then he composed amatory verses of an insulting nature about the Muslim women. The apostle said - according to what Abdullah Burda told me, "Who will rid me of Ibnu'l-Ashraf?" Maslama said, "I will deal with him for you, O apostle of God, I will kill him." He said, "Do so if you can." So Maslama returned and waited for three days without food or drink, apart from what was absolutely necessary. When the apostle was told of this he summoned him and asked him why he had given up eating and drinking. He replied that he had given him an undertaking and he did not know whether he could fulfil it. The apostle said, "All that is incumbent upon you is that you should try." He said, "O apostle of God, we shall have to tell lies." He answered, "Say what you like, for you are free in the matter."
Thereupon he and Silkan [Abu Na'ila], and Abbad, and Harith, and Abu `Abs b. Jabr conspired together and sent Silkan to the enemy of God, Ka`b, before they came to him. He talked to him some time and they recited poetry one to the other, for Silkan was fond of poetry. Then he said, "O Ibn Ashraf, I have come to you about a matter which I want to tell you of and wish you to keep secret." "Very well", he replied. He went on, "The coming of this man is a great trial to us. It has provoked the hostility of the Arabs, and they are all in league against us. The roads have become impassable so that our families are in want and privation, and we and our families are in great distress." Ka`b answered, "By God, I kept telling you, O Ibn Salama, that the things I warned you of would happen." Silkan said to him, "I want you to sell us food and we will give you a pledge of security and you deal generously in the matter." He replied, "Will you give me your sons as a pledge?" He said, "You want to insult us. I have friends who share my opinion and I want to bring them to you so that you many sell to them and act generously, and we will give you enough weapons for a good pledge." Silkan's object was that he should not take alarm at the sight of weapons when they brought them. Ka`b answered, "Weapons are a good pledge."
Thereupon Silkan returned to his companions, told them what has happened, and ordered them to take their arms. Then they went away and assembled with him and met the apostle.
Thaur b. Zayd told me the apostle walked with them as far as Gharqad. Then he sent them off, saying, "Go in God's name; O God help them." So saying, he returned to his house. Now it was a moonlight night and they journeyed on until they came to his castle, and Abu Na'ila called out to him. He had only recently married and he jumped up in the bedsheet, and his wife took hold of the end of it and said, "You are at war, and those who are at war do not go out at this hour." He replied, "It is Abu Na'ila. Had he found me sleeping he would not have woken me." She answered, "By God, I can feel evil in his voice." Ka`b answered, "Even if the call were for a stab a brave man must answer it."
So he went down and talked to them for some time, while they conversed with him. then Abu Na'ila said, "Would you like to walk with us to Shi`b al-`Ajuz, so that we can talk for the rest of the night?" "If you like", he answered, so they went off walking together; and after a time Abu Na'ila ran his hand through his hair. Then he smelt his hand, and said, "I have never smelt a scent finer than this." They walked on farther and he did the same so that Ka`b suspected no evil. Then after a space did it for the third time and cried, "Smite the enemy of God!" So they smote him, and their swords clashed over him with no effect. Maslama said, "I remembered my dagger when I saw that our swords were useless, and I seized it. Meanwhile the enemy of God had made such a noise that every fort around us was showing a light. I thrust it into the lower part of his body, then I bore down upon it until I reached his genitals, and the enemy of God fell to the ground. Harith had been hurt, being wounded either in his head or in his foot, one of our swords having stuck him. We went away, passing by the Umayya and then the Qurayza and then both until we went up the Harra of Urayd. Our friend Harith had lagged behind, weakened by loss of blood, so we waited for him for some time until he came up, following our tracks. We carried him and brought him to the apostle OT the end of the night. We saluted him as he stood praying, and he came out to us and we told him that we had killed God's enemy. He spat upon our comrade's wounds, and both he ad we returned to our families. Our attack upon God's enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life."
END OF QUOTE OF THE SIRAT RASULALLAH
________________________________________
Ibn Sa'd adds another interesting feature to this story. From Ibn Sa'd, vol 1, page 37:
Then they cut his head and took it with them. ... they cast his head before him [Muhammad]. He (the prophet) praised Allah on his being slain.
END OF IBN SA'D QUOTE
Note what really happened here. Ka`b encouraged Muhammad's enemies, and made up some poems about Muslim women. Muhammad didn't like it, and had him murdered. After they kill Ka`b, they behead him and bring his head to Muhammad. When Muhammad sees his head, Muhammad praises God for Ka`b being slain!

Ajeya B.wale#
Keep your foul mouthing to yourself.
How many people have been killed in last century in the name of democracy and keep the people away from so called fundamentalist.
Compare that to Mohammed PBUH who broght one of the biggest revolution of his time . 3 big wars have been imposed on him i.e Meccans attacked medina. The 4th war which was fought because of breakage of oath by meccans caused total of 13 deaths resulting in capture of Mecca.
So tell me how much information you have that Mohammed PBUH murdered someone who disagreed with him. Lets dissect. It is better than foul mouthing.

#89 Posted by krashid1961

[Ajeya b.wale #81:
Can you deal with me if I say your mother is a b.
Let see what legal action you can take except telling the same thing to me.
I think your father was also a b. and you are the most understanding person smart a. and a b.]

Yes, I can. But can you think of not rioting/murdering etc? If there is no legal recourse, then use the civil society to change the laws.

Don't do what mohammed did. Don't murder people who disagree with you.

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

Welcome home Nawaz Sharif!

It took a while but a Government of National

Unity/Reconciliation is the need of the hour.

Good luck to all members of the Sharif family.

Time for Pakistanis to put the politics of

revenge behind them.

Ras

Lest the nawaz sharif fan club(or its lone member) forget..

Over 4,000 soldiers killed in Kargil: Sharif

By B. Muralidhar Reddy

ISLAMABAD Aug. 16 . The former Pakistan Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, claimed that more than 4,000 Pakistani troops and officials were killed in the Kargil conflict.

While Mr. Sharif accused the Pakistan military in general and the then Army Chief, Pervez Musharraf, of undertaking the Kargil operations without the knowledge of his government, it is for the first time he has come out with concrete figures of the casualty on the Pakistani side.

The Pakistan Government had consistently denied charges of its involvement in the Kargil War and claimed it to be an operation conducted entirely by the Mujahideen (holy warriors). Several months later it indirectly acknowledged its participation by decorating some of its soldiers who died in the conflict.

In recent times, Mr. Sharif has been harping on Kargil as an example of failure of the military leadership of Gen. Musharraf.

Mr. Sharif, in exile in Saudi Arabia under a pact with the Musharraf regime, in a first ever on record interview some weeks back had threatened to "reveal all" about the "Kargil misadventure".

In his message to a rally organised by the Alliance for Restoration of Democracy (ARD) at Lahore on Thursday to demand the resignation of Gen. Musharraf as Army Chief and President, Mr. Sharif said the Kargil plan was prepared by Gen. Musharraf without the knowledge of his government.

The conflict had resulted in derailing the process of normalising relations between the two countries. Had it not been done, he claimed the Kashmir dispute would have been resolved long ago. Pakistan was defeated in Kargil, but as the Pakistan Prime Minister he covered it up by undertaking a visit to the United States, he said.

Mr. Sharif visited Washington and gave an undertaking to the Clinton Administration to withdraw Pakistan forces.

He argued that had he accepted defeat then, it would have demoralised the army and India would have got an opportunity to invade Pakistan.

He alleged that the mastermind of the Kargil operation, instead of accepting responsibility and resigning voluntarily, overthrew the elected government under the diktat from some "other quarters".

Mr. Sharif said Gen. Musharraf was behind the protests "staged" on the arrival of Mr. Vajpayee in 1999. (The Jamaat-e-Islami had organised street protests against the February 1999 visit of Mr. Vajpayee to Lahore).

Mr. Vajpayee was not given the honour equal to that accorded to the delegation of parliamentarians and journalists, which visited Pakistan a few days ago.

#114 Posted by masadi on November 25, 2007 4:50:24 am


sell their souls for a few $$


I resemble that remark...except, I sold my non-existent soul for a lot of $$s.

As usual the muttarwa ignoramus is all over the place crawling around in ignorance. On one hand it claims " Saudis are best friends with the mighty only ie USA their protector and christianed father since its creation." (Does the muttarwa mean 'christened'? Probably it does but that's not the point), but then also says Saudi exported wahabi fanatics to fight USA.

But in any event, Jaati Umra's resident is back, and soon while muttarwa goons are battling BBs goons for control of karachi municipality and water supply board, motorways will be being built in Punjab.

Nice to see all these niceties.
First resolve your differences, find a direction for country and then talk something else.
Particularly on the ideological front.

Re: # 112

As usual the choppaya ignoramus conveniently forgets that its the Saudi exported wahabi fanatics that are responsible for this culture of intolerance, obscurantism and factory of suicide bombers. House of wahab is responsible for more death and destruction around the world than any other state or ideology. Yet, we have idiotic ideologues singing their praises.

anil #85 you wrote "This such a great moment for Pakistani parties to leave egos behind and ask Pakistani to vote for or against the Army rule."

This is certainly what it should be. It would make the issue clear - that is, this is not politics as usual (as Musharraf would like to play it, with himself lording over everyone as the President. Rather, it is a vote against Musharraf and a vote against military raj.

The parties could all agree on a collective "National Candidate" and seek to get the voters out in large numbers so that regardless of cheating at the polls, the verdict of the people is clear. Justice Wajihuddin would be a great choice I think.

The above is of course one option. The other option is to simply boycott the elections.

anil writes "You have already wasted it on the opium of the other kind. "

I am not wasting anything, I am trying to conserve humanity from destruction imposed on it by a barbarous elite, the one that you worship day and night only because immoral folk like you (with very little grey matter I might add) sell their souls for a few $$ as they busy themselves with the worship of the white man. Regarding my articles and your dimwitted comments on them, they are much beyond your "pay scale" to understand. If status were allocated on the basis of intellect, you'd be shining shoes of 90% of the chowk posters, and learn the spelling of my nick it is "masadi" not massaddi. Now go to hell....

Re: # 110

Massaddi Mian:

"....You on the other hand do not have any clue about anything,..."

Even this statement you can prove only on the basis of self-reference. Just grow up, Massaddi sahib, else I may have to say that you may lost the right to the fine grey matter that you have been bestowed. You have already wasted it on the opium of the other kind.

As usual the muttarwa ignoramus is unaware Saudia provided free oil to Pakistan for 5 years after US had slapped sanctions after the nuke tests.

Re: # 107

"Saudia carries a big stick with Pakistan when it wants. It has just applied it on musharraf in solidarity with their long time friend Nawaz Sharif, in continuation of their returning his single biggest favour to them - the nuke tests."

This statement has so many factual errors, religious bigotry and reeks of Punjabi chauvinism.

Saudis are best friends with the mighty only ie USA their protector and christianed father since its creation.

Since the Saud are wahab, they cannot do any wrong as implicit in this complimentary statement.

And, najaiz Sharif being the son of soil, blue blooded Kashmiri Punjabi thus deserves all credit.

anil writes "Your arguments were dead when you showed that you fooled yourself in believing that Godel's theorem allows you "self-reference". "

Fools like yourself think in this bs manner. The article on self reference, regarding systems of logic, concerning the Quran was based on Godel's work, and as stated in the article it was not my "belief" but the work of a university professor of mathematics Gary Miller. Regarding my ideas on the political scenario in Pakistan, it is based on first hand observations as well as history of this country based on the theoretical framework of the power elite established by C. W. Mills, the hypothesis of which are found to be true time and again. You on the other hand do not have any clue about anything, your standard of reference is worship of all things Western because the US allowed you to maintain a standard of living that the sewers of Bombay would not and so you are still after decades star struck.

#108 Posted by majumdar,

"And both have selfless intent."

Yes. I believe it is true. Though Musharraf is selfless because he believes Pakistan embodies his personna (otherwise he would have run off like Papa Doc long ago), while Imran is selfless because he has seen it all and is into self-actualization at any cost to his person.

"They both want the best for Pakistan"

Yes. In their own single-mided visions, both are reckless.

"President Musharraf in the category of people who can differentiate between right and wrong."

Again, in his own tunnel-vision. It is no different from Bush/Cheney's or Reagan.

"All Musharraf wanted to do was hold elections and retire from the army."

Totally false. This is musharraf's ghost-writer of 'In line of fire' talking, or perhaps his mentally challenged son who wrote 'He had no choice' on Chowk in October 1999.

"the intrinsically democratic Musharraf"

Same as above.

Regards.

Zee sahib,

Does Mr. Gauhar really believe in what he has written:

"And both have selfless intent."
"They both want the best for Pakistan"
"President Musharraf in the category of people who can differentiate between right and wrong."
"All Musharraf wanted to do was hold elections and retire from the army."
"the intrinsically democratic Musharraf"

Regards

...add-on #102...to hamidm2,

An interesting tidbit on the subject:

After Nawaz's incarceration and deportation in 2000, his Model Town residence was seized by Punjab Government and turned into a shelter for homeless women named 'Gosha-e-Aafiat'. Yesterday, all those homeless women were evicted and their bag and baggage loaded into municipality trucks and taken away, to vacate and to restore the residence to Nawaz family.

Saudia carries a big stick with Pakistan when it wants. It has just applied it on musharraf in solidarity with their long time friend Nawaz Sharif, in continuation of their returning his single biggest favour to them - the nuke tests.

Zeemax:
I already knew it.

#104 Posted by krashid1961,

Good. Please continue. Your thoughts are amusing at best.

Zeemax:
I have passed my eighth grade last year from Maddressah?
I plan to do a research in Fiqh regarding Impact of Islam on Sita white's daughter.

#101 Posted by krashid1961,

I'm wondering, did you ever make it beyond high-school?

#29 Posted by hamidm2,

..... even though after this latest case of turnsherwani by nawaz sharif ...

At the time of this post, I wasn't sure whether he was or wasn't. Since then, the fog has lifted and I was reminded by Ahsan Iqbal's BBC comment that after Nawaz's last deportation in September, he was explained and committed to by King Abdullah that right now Saudia was constrained to retain him, but Saudia will make sure he is not retained beyond November.

Coming to think of it, there were indeed several media reports as well as Nawaz's party statements in the succeeding days that he will be back in November. And he is.

So there isn't any deal or accomodation by Pakistan Government at all. Saudia has kept it's commitment made in September.

To further clarify the above, it has now been established that whatever 'agreement' was there on staying away from Pakistan, it was between Shareef Family and the Saudis. There had been never any deal with Musharraf. This is why when November arrived and Nawaz's return facilitated by Saudia became imminent, musharraf rushed to dissuade Saudis but failed. Now Saudia are sending Nawaz back in the King's own jet laden with gifts and three bullet-proof vehicles plus an official Royal escort.

That's all there's to it.

Zeemax:
I think you are too impressed.
Imran apart from his baggage of Sita whites (and some blacks and brown) is a cunning person by nature. When Javed Miandad was at score of 280 he declared the team to prevent him from making 300. And Javed Miandad later said if he had been informed he would have played fast. Action speaks much much much louder than words. As far as Shokat Khanum memorial hospital. There is Dr. Shamvil Ashraf in Karachi, with no means and started from scratch a cancer hospital. As far as philanthropy Edhi has started from a meagre beginning all from scratch. And here is a man whose whole campaign had been organized by agencies, whose function and fund raising with great Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan were all arranged. Propping up a paper tiger. But who is behind him is and will be the question.

The point of the article below is that Imran Khan may have finally found his constituency in the groundswell of the rising civil-society discontent.

He had always been saying when confronted with the allegation of being a one-seat party, that when his support comes, it will come in a flood. He has proven to be right.

masadi,

You may find this article by Humayun Gauhar of interest:

Caged tiger, angry dragon

Humayun Gauhar (posted 19 Nov 2007)

What an affront to God. Whilst our most corrupt villain of a politician has been let off the hook, our most honest hero of a politician has been arrested under the anti-terrorism act. "It could only happen in Pakistan," many would say spontaneously. I reject this assertion with contempt, for it implies that we are intrinsically a dishonest people who cannot tell the difference between right and wrong.

We most certainly can. It is only that our voices get drowned out by wrongdoers. Right and wrong are not to be confused with cleverness and foolhardiness. I have always placed President Musharraf in the category of people who can differentiate between right and wrong. What has made him go awry of late is the mind-boggling pressure of our convoluted politics and inability to stand up to a hyper-power that is the biggest state terrorist of them all and which has spawned every other type of terrorism that exists today.

All Musharraf wanted to do was exactly what his detractors are hypocritically demanding: hold elections and retire from the army. That is precisely his intention. What is the problem? It is that power hungry politicians who know they will do badly in the elections and Pakistan's American opponents whose real agenda is not democracy but chaos and castration have deliberately made such a production out of it that his intent has got lost in the fog of their diabolical politics.

It has turned the intrinsically democratic Musharraf who always tried to take the path of least resistance into an angry fire-spewing dragon. Confusion caused by the inordinate pressure of a hyper-power has regularly made our rulers take the wrong path. Talking of the right path, it means siraat al mustaqeem. It comes from the Arabic word Sha'r, which means 'path that leads to water', water being the source of life. Sha'r is the root of the word Shariah, which has come to mean law but is actually a code to keep one on the path that leads to water.

Imran Khan's arrest on terrorism charges reminds me of the arrest of the late great Punjabi poet Ustad Daman by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto on terrorism charges. One of his poems had offended the late prime minister. Ustad Daman was charged with keeping grenades in his house. He lived in a small room in the old city of Lahore that has seen more history than any other and more than an American can comprehend.

The room was built next to a well. A window in his room opened into the well and as the water went up he would quickly take some from one of the cups and pour it into his glass of whisky. He laughingly said that he was lucky that the door to his house was so small that PPP goons could only plant grenades there, else they would have shoved in a tank or two. Bhutto's government became the laughing stock of the Punjab.

The manner of Imran Khan's arrest was appalling. Sure in our filthy politics getting arrested comes with the turf, which it should not. But being arrested in this manner, with storm troopers of the Jamaat-e-Islami posing as students locking him up in a room, manhandling him and handing him over to the police is totally unacceptable.

It is dreadful. What makes it indefensible, and therefore unspeakable, is that the authorities booked him under the anti-terrorism act, handcuffed him and sent him to jail. Imran Khan a terrorist? He may be many things, but terrorist he is not. Hero he already is, being the best cricketer in our history, the first of our truly great fast bowlers, one of the greatest all rounders of all time, and certainly one of the greatest captains ever who led us to victory in the World Cup. He is number eight amongst the all time legends. He is in everyone's best Test team from all eras, and in many he is captain. Britain's great opening batsman Geoff Boycott memorably said that the prime reason why he included Imran in his best ever team was that "he could control that mob." People fondly called Imran "Tiger of Pakistan." Imran Khan is a hero to not only every Pakistani, young and old, he is also a hero to the cricketing world, a global celebrity and an international superstar. I know English people who have named their sons after him.

Actually, that's where the story begins. Imran Khan wisely used his celebrity to build a cancer hospital in Lahore in his mother's memory. Everyone said it couldn't be done. I remember a dinner we had in Shezan, London, with British and American doctors of Pakistani extract to discuss plans and strategies for the hospital.

The consensus was that it was too difficult and expensive a task and that Imran would fall flat on his face. Even his family was worried. I was the only one who believed that Imran could do it because I knew him and his tunnel vision and the obsessive way in which he went about achieving an objective. That is not to say that he does it brilliantly. He makes every mistake in the book and then invents some more. But he always gets there in the end because he has his mother's prayers with him and because his intent is selfless. God helped him, and through him he helped cancer-stricken people. The hospital got built, Musharraf inaugurated it and said that he wishes Imran success in his third vocation, politics, and it is running beautifully.

I know Musharraf too. Both he and Imran are my friends. Whenever I felt that they were wrong I always told them so, either verbally or through my writings or even on television. Neither of them may like what I am going to say, but they have many things in common. They both have tunnel vision.

Both achieve their objectives, no matter how many mistakes they make and how ruthless they may have to be along the way. Both are attractive to women. And both have selfless intent. They both want the best for Pakistan even though they might make a hash of in getting there. Musharraf's intent may be right, but treating Imran in this sordid manner is plain wrong. So is arresting his sisters or a policeman shoving his niece into a van. Instead of arresting Imran with such alacrity, the government should have booked the Jamiat students first to demonstrate that they didn't do this at its behest. It has actually helped Imran and harmed Musharraf. It has given Imran an unprecedented political boost and done Musharraf a grave damage.

I was totally against Imran going into politics. I wanted him to continue with his social work and build more cancer hospitals in Pakistan. Politics is a waste of time. I remember one night Imran, his sisters Rubin and Aleema, my late father and I discussed Imran's entry into politics into the wee hours of the morning. We all told him not to and instead concentrate on social work.

He said that he felt frustrated because one could set up one hospital here and another there, but if one wanted to do good on a vast scale one had to be in government to beat bureaucratic red tape and corrupt rulers. None of us bought it. Should Mother Teresa have been in politics, or Edhi? That is another trait he shares with Musharraf: both can be obstinate; both learn the hard way.

Imran's thoughtless arrest and abysmal treatment has appalled international public opinion and international celebrity opinion. They are all Imran's friends or acquaintances. When they speak the world listens. They are icons and role models and mould public opinion. And they are speaking loudly and demonstrating. Jemima has taken the lead and just her photograph standing outside our High Commission gets splashed all over the world. Worse, Imran's arrest has done for the opposition what they were pining and praying for - genuine public support, for if students come out in the streets, especially in Lahore, the cause is eventually won.

Well, that is exactly what is starting to happen. Real students thrashed up the Jamaat activists and had them thrown out of the university. That is unprecedented. Many more have demonstrated since, not only in Lahore but also increasingly in other towns and cities as well. These demonstrations are in danger of snowballing into a full-fledged movement. If that happens, its curtains.

Musharraf should act now to correct this folly and concentrate on our real problems. John Negroponte is intent on achieving America's real objectives, which are to disable our nuclear assets, attack our tribal areas and force Dr A Q Khan to give evidence that nuclear proliferation was state policy, forgetting that most of it was done during Benazir's second government. Installing Benazir in power would enable them to achieve all three. If that doesn't work, break Pakistan. There is a bumper sticker doing the rounds these days: "Be nice to America or they will bring you democracy."

Re: # 92

Massaddi Mian:

"..agent for change ..."

Don't make me laugh. You cannot even feel the change of seasons, unless it is proven by your theory of "self-reference".

BTW, do you even know how to recognize change?

masadi:
Anti USA foreign policy, neither militarily nor ideologically):
Bushji BB or NS ke baad Ek Nazre Karam idher Bhi
Ham Bhi To Parein Hein Rahon Mein.
(Bushji after BB and Nawaz Sharif Look at me also)
( I am also lying in your way please)

Re: # 92

Massaddi Mian:

Your arguments were dead when you showed that you fooled yourself in believing that Godel's theorem allows you "self-reference". Stop kidding yourself. Seriously use your smartness for something more beneficial.

bulleya writes "this will leave a vacuum.......if the americans are lucky, it will be filled by people like imran khan.....who are anti-usa foreign policy (like i am), but not militantly nor ideologically...."

Mr. Clueless you cannot seperate US foreign policy from the ideology of its elite. What you take as "ideology" of the US are mere master symbols for legitimation that veil and mask the real ideology behind the policies and that is a dirty, dark, inhumane ideology that only barbarians who consider the vast majority of humankind expendible can espouse. Imran is no authority on anything, on many issues he is as clueless as you are...

tahmed writes "every time there is a discussion on the serious crisis Pakistan is going through, he floods chowk with posts geared to make chowk posters (myself, quite often) critical of the musharraf government the issue"

You are not critical of Musharraf nor what he represents, you never were but became so because he has fallen out of favor with the Americans. I expose the roots of the problems we face which will throw up a thousand Musharrafs regardless of this one in the future if it is allowed to continue, and unlike you I have been consistent in my condemnation of dictatorship and in pointing to the reason for these current series of crisis in Pakistan, which you have copied and borrowed from my analysis to use in your own myopic view (deliberately to mask US involvment). You are the agent of the Americans but are doing, like a said, a "piss poor" job of defending their propaganda even though you sway in your point of view with whatever happens to be in vogue with the US elite, and they are a hypocritical, immoral, barbarous lot, much like yourself who is their peon...

tahmed wrote "masadi: dont blame hamidm - i red-flagged your posts."

We expect nothing different from immoral cowards

zeemax writes "masadi,

BTW we're still waiting for that rocket ... made in USA, ... Is it still on the way? "

Like I have been saying all along, the US wants to strip its peon of the uniform, either in private by him stepping down which he has been reluctant (to say the least) to do or in public (by a hellfire with a mullah's prints on it aimed for his a$$). Negroponte came with the final warning, and Musharraf started hopping to, but is stopping short of giving up the uniform, not realizing that other than the "uniform" the Americans don't give a damn about the emergency and the prisioners and the media. If he doesnt go through with the final step you can bet hamid's gardner's salary, the hellfire from the Americans will find him....

Regarding Anil and tahmed thinking I'm an "agent"- just because they have been "stumped" by my valid arguments to which they can respond only with ad hominem for discrediting them- let me tell them that I am indeed an "agent", but not an agent for maintaining the status quo but an agent for change in the fulfilment of which purpose, I will not surrender to dimwits like you who have been thoroughly and completely exposed on chowk for being peons of the West whose side you both take even at the expense of stabbing the people of your countries in the back. Go climb a pole for I am here to stay and will expose your bs every opportunity I get...

bjkumar#81:
I don't think in hindu religion there is something against prophetPBUH or Muslims as Islam is a much later religion than hinduism, unless the later addition to hinduism is also very sacred.
In Islam there is no bad mouthing of personalities as such. It is the actions which are told that they are right or wrong. As far as prophets before Islam all of them are revered. As far as idol worship. It is mentioned they they cannot benefit you.
Something are sacred to people. If there is a problem, lets discuss.
As far as secularism and religion mutually exclusive are not true.
One of the initial pioneers of scientific methods Averroes(Ibn-Rushd) was one of the greatest secularist and thinker whose books were taught in Europe for many hundred years. Still he was the Chief Justice in I think Cardova which involved religious knowledge of highest degree.
In the same vein you will find many non religious people who secularism ends by teasing other peoples sentiments.
Secularism as far as I understand is a way of thinking, where you don't invoke supernatural for everyday or any phenomenon.

bjkumar #67.
I have not read her. But if she has bad mouthed the prophet and there is no law in your constitution to deal with her send her to some country where legal system deal with these kind of people.
If law does not give remedy. You either make the law or take the law in your own hands.
Do you have alternative. Why there is punishment for traitor, agitator etc. Doesn't the people have as much right to agitate against 3rd or 4th grade writer who write porn to make money or bad mouth religious sensibilities to make money and get fame.

Ajeya b.wale #81:
Can you deal with me if I say your mother is a b.
Let see what legal action you can take except telling the same thing to me.
I think your father was also a b. and you are the most understanding person smart a. and a b.

TAHmed, BJkumar:
All the pseudo liberals and pseudointellectual red flag the people on this forum for using foul language. Man before "Bari Bari Haank" look at your own "Gareban.

Re: # 86

BJ:

This can be a chance to show those "fixers", what can be the alternative.... true?

#85 Anil

Pakistani referenda have a strange habit of coming up with the exact results sought by those who arrange such referenda - and "legitimizing" those individuals.

Like the Mushy.

Re: # 74

Tahmed Sahib:

I would say that all of Pakistan make the coming elections -A referendum on whether Pakistan can continued to be ruled by the Army?

This such a great moment for Pakistani parties to leave egos behind and ask Pakistani to vote for or against the Army rule.

One voice. Yes, there was single voice - in Pakistan; and one voice in India. That was in 1940s. Right things did happen.

Musharraff and Army may live to regret, in Pakistanis turn in into a referendum on the Army rule.

#80 Anil

I do not remember but I think somebody (I forget who)accused me of trying to "smell like roses" and the term stayed with me. I am not creative like Taslima, of course!

anil/bjkumar: I have to sign off. Have a good evening.

#79 bjkumar: ok, let me change your zero to one: Taslima has every right to express her views, and all those threatening her with physical harm for this purpose should be treated as the common criminals that they are. And anyone calling for banning her books is a coward.

btw, the reason you wont find Pakistanis on the Taslima board is obvious - we are more concerned about our own problems. Or do you seriously think that, if asked, most Pakistanis would give something opposite to what I just said above??

And as far as this concept of "respect" for the religion of others is concerned - tell me where is the reciprocity?!

Why should the reverrred religious figures of other religions get any less respect in Saudi Arabia than the religious icons promoted from Saudi Arabia are expected to get in other parts of the world?

Yet, does that happen?

If so, explain to me.

If not, will the people who are bad-mouthing Taslima here show the same energy in pleading for that reciprocity?

BJ ji:

".... is punishing the press for expressing its views..."

Your use in the above clearly states the reason for punishing the press. I know you are very intellgent.

"Smell like roses" confirms that you are a creative writer too, and not just Taslima.

#77 Tahmed

[What guts does it require to write stuff on the internet using a nic?]

My guess is - it takes zero guts. Yet, when it comes to protecting Taslima's right too write - how many Pakistanis are doing that?

Exactly the same number as the amount of guts involved!

A BIG FAT ZERO!

#76 bjkumar: and why would anil need to smell like roses to anyone on the internet?? you are really losing it right now!!

#76 bj: you didnt take my advice to think "gutless". So, let me ask you: What guts does it require to write stuff on the internet using a nic?

I think you need to cool down a bit. As I pointed out below, you are contradicting yourself in your righteous anger all over the place!!

#71 Anil

Stop trying to smell like roses to Tahmed miaN by putting words in my mouth. Where did I say that the media should NOT be reporting?

But Taslima is a writer – not a media person. She must be given her freedom to express her views without the threat of harm. So many Pakistani chowkies are so gutless to admit that simple fact and when they become so gutless – they become, through silence, the co-conspirators of those same troublemakers who never believe in those freedoms to begin with. Then these same people turn around and wonder how their khakis – the most coward of the cowardest – can trod them under those boots so easily!

Again, and again!

bjkumar #73 "You are neither Bangladeshi nor Indian – what you say on this issue is as irrelevant as what an Albanian monk could say! "

That is the opposite of what you were saying just now (i.e. saying that I need to condemn the fundamentalists), and consistent with what I said!!

You are not your usual sharp as a razor self today. Hope all is well at home. :-)

anil #71 I once heard a prominent American journalist (Pam Constable of the Washington Post)describe her experiences in South Asia, and she made an interesting comment on how she saw her role as a journalist - which she said was that of a sponge. i.e., to soak in as much as she possible could of what was going on, and then pass it on.

As humans, we no doubt can never be totally free from biases. But hats off to all professional journalists - and I think the subcontinent can proudly claim to have increasing numbers of such true professionals describing events to us.

#69 TAhmed32,

[So, please ever dont put on your "dunce" cap again when writing posts to me. I expect you to write like an intelligent person.]

TAhmed32, I will write any damn well way I please to any damnbody that suits my fancy – and I don’t care much for this “Mushy” act you are trying to pull here.

Perhaps the irony escapes you that the Mushy is also asking the press to write “intelligently” – and by his definition, “intelligent” means – to agree with him!

Taslima is a writer. She has a right to express her views. She is in India. You are neither Bangladeshi nor Indian – what you say on this issue is as irrelevant as what an Albanian monk could say!

anil #70 To leave Musharraf out of the current crisis would be like discussing Hamlet without prince Hamlet. Having said that, in answer to your question - the rubber stamp does not do anything to the army one way or another.

So let me rephrase your question to something more realistic: i.e. Will the current crisis result in not just the removal of Musharraf, but also an end to military rule in Pakistan? Any answer at this stage would be simply a guess, obviously. Since we dont even know for sure how the current crisis will play out wrt Musharraf.

As for the Supreme Court - no doubt Musharraf has dealt a severe blow to Pakistan by destroying the Supreme Court. But again - there is every reason to believe that as and when democracy is restored in Pakistan (as it will no doubt one day), the Supreme Court will come back that much stronger.

I see you havent considered the premise I had made, btw - that the battle is already lost for Musharraf.

Re: # 68

Tahmed Sahib:

I am with you that Tasleema and Pak Media cannot be compared. I may also add that, unlike as BJ says, Media should report. It's experts should express their opinions elsewhere, and not bias the news reporting process. I realize it is a tall order to isolate personal prejudices, which frequently are co-mingled. But then everybody cannot be a winning journalist.

Re: # 42

Tahmed sahib:

"...the Chief Justice has already won.... Reason: the key issue ..... was the Mush getting a rubber stamp from the Supreme Court..."

Let us leave Musharraff out. Don't you think that the Army has now got the rubber stamp Supreme Court?

Sadly, the independent judiciary has once again been choked. A powerful institution stands destroyed. It took judiciary over 10 years (= NS + Musharraff times) to have an independence and be active. It is hard to predict how long it will take now to get judiciary back to Oct. 2007.

It was sad that BB decided not to be inside the system and reform from within. She started confrontation even before she became PM. Indira Gandhi was "elected" by "syndicate" in the congress, as they thought through her they will come in power. Hence they voted her to lead Congress Parliamentary Party that made her the PM. It did not take her long to throw syndicate out, all thru the democratic process.

Pakistan badly needs democratic leaders. I do support Sadna's advice that all Pakistani's participate in election. I would add that they vote to give a single party absolute majority. Only then a face off in democratic institutions will be credible to put Army back in the barracks, and show the world that Pakistani civilian institutions can control nuclear trigger also.

bjkumar: further to #68: as for "guts" - that is again an uncharacteristically dumb statement on your part. I wont bother to explain to you why that is a stupid statement, because I think you are quite capable of figuring that out yourself.

So, please ever dont put on your "dunce" cap again when writing posts to me. I expect you to write like an intelligent person.

bjkumar #66 This post is below average for a generally sensible poster like you - i.e. you use strong words (hypocrisy) to back a weak argument (i.e. that the Tasleema whatshername in India is the same issue as the issue of muzzling the media in Pakistan). Your argument that they are the same issue is a weak one because it one can stretch any two issues to find some common ground and claim they are the same.

KRashid1961,

It is meaningless to couch the issue in terms of “respect”. The concept of what constitutes “respect” is very subjective and it lies in the eyes of who gets that “respect”!

The point is – is one to be ruled by the laws of the society or the laws of the Mullah-interpretations of the Book of one segment of the society.

What is your position?

If you believe in the freedom of expression - which is the topic of this board then do you have the guts to say that openly to those same fundamentalists who are after the Taslima's blood?!

If you do not have that ability, then your rant at the Taslima is simply a fake a marriage of convenience with those same jihadi killers!

TAhmed32.

People should have the freedom to express their views. They should not be threatened with death or other punishment for expressing those views.

Mushy is punishing the press for expressing its views.

The Bengali fundamentalists are threatening the writer Taslima for expressing HER views.\

The underlying issue is the freedom to think independently and it is one and the same issue.

If you condemn one form of suppression but go wishy-washy on the other, it is fair to accuse you of hypocrisy.

Your directive to Ajeya – to “go somewhere else” is very similar to what the fundamentalists are saying to Taslima – to “go somewhere else”!

#60 Posted by krashid1961

[Ajeya:
I don't think you can comprehend a Muslim mind.
Secular does not mean to disrespect ones prophet. Nor is it right. He had the right question. Why does she have to write. To proof that she is non religious and antiprophet.
What is so "SECULAR" and "RATIONAL" about teasing ones religion or sacred people. What would you do if someone badmouth your mother or father. Will he/she show "SECULARISM" and "RATIONALITY" ]

If he/she does not, the proper way to deal with it is the Legal System.

Not murdering that person.

This will be hard for you to understand. But if you get this, you won't be a true Muslim any more.

Re: #58 by tahmed32

[#56 this is not the kolkata board. go spread your misery on the kolkata board]

It's all the same board, my friend. The disease is one. The symptoms are many.

No. The disease is not Danish Cartoonists. Not Taslima Nasreen. Or VHP suicide bombers.

It's Islam.

krashid: i think you will find the kolkata board more relevant to this subject. it would be nice to keep this board focussed on the serious crisis pakistan is engulfed in. thanks.

#59 bubba: "pomposity" does not violate chowk guidelines. :-)

#54 anil: your premise that masadi may be an agent is certainly plausible - every time there is a discussion on the serious crisis Pakistan is going through, he floods chowk with posts geared to make chowk posters (myself, quite often) critical of the musharraf government the issue.

However, while thanking you for pointing this out, I think the answer is simpler than you may think - masadi is simply a self-important jahil who can only do what jahils do, namely throw insults at others. I say this because I doubt if any agency would bother with this pitiful little corner of the internet - they have bigger things to worry about.

So much for masadi and his diatribes.

I would be interested what you think of my view that Musharraf has already lost even as he is busy imprisoning people right and left, pulling the plug on the media - see my post #42 below.

Ajeya:
I don't think you can comprehend a Muslim mind.
Secular does not mean to disrespect ones prophet. Nor is it right. He had the right question. Why does she have to write. To proof that she is non religious and antiprophet.
What is so "SECULAR" and "RATIONAL" about teasing ones religion or sacred people. What would you do if someone badmouth your mother or father. Will he/she show "SECULARISM" and "RATIONALITY"

Re: # 48 Posted by tahmed32 on November 24, 2007 9:53:09 am

[masadi: dont blame hamidm - i red-flagged your posts.] Thank you for red flagging masadi's posts. Indeed his posts have objectionable content. Could you now please start flagging Romair's post as well? His lengthy posts do not contribute anything, except for his pomposity.

#56 this is not the kolkata board. go spread your misery on the kolkata board.

Correction.

I meant "tow" the party line

I had an interesting discussion with an Iranian colleague yesterday about Muslims rioting in Kolkata demanding that Taslima Nasreen be deported. This guy is an Iranian "intellectual" - he calls himself "non-religious".

I was telling him how appalling it is that the famously "saccular" Lalu-supported, Sonia-led Indian government, the Rajasthan government, and the "fiercely independent and secular" West Bengal government have exposed how beholden they are to Muslims and to Islamism (I won't use the word "communal" Muslims, because that would be a tautology - the HUGE majority's vote is what these politicians are afraid of).

This Muslim "intellectual" told me that in reply - "WHY did she have to write what she wrote in the first place"? I tried to explain to him that if someone allegedly abuses freedom of speech, that should be dealt with in a civilized manner through the legal process. NOBODY should be living under the threat of bodily harm from ANY group. This, unfortunately, was too much for him to comprehend. He kept repeating - "But WHY did she have to write it?"

It reinforced in my mind the point that there CANNOT be any Muslim who is also secular and rational. At the end of the day, they have their societal pressures to "pray", attend the Mullah's mosque, and are thus obliged at the end of the day to toe the party line.

Buddhadeb Bhattacharya and his "secular" communists have the problem of their life on their hands. They made the deal with the devil when they allowed miilions of illegal Muslims to come across the border from Bangladesh and granted them ration cards illegally for their votes . Now they have to pay the devil it's due. Muslims are now 25% of the population, and growing way out of proportion to the rest of the population.

It will be interesting to see how the "secular" Sonia/Lalu/Buddhadeb government deals with this.

And it's going to get a lot worse in the years to come.

Get your popcorn and grab a seat. Unless you are unfortunate enough to live in West Bengal. Because then, your life is going to be on the line. Just wait a few years.

Zeemax:
Progress is the only constant.
Taleban etc are temporary phases.
At one time they were controlling more than this. then what.
Even if they stop progress of their region, they cannot stop it in other parts of world.
As Galileo said "Whether I say that earth does not rotate around sun, It will continue to do so."
Beheading me by Taliban is going to do what. 1 person less in a 6 billion population. Who cares.

Romair:

On the other points that you bring out, and my views. Just look at the composition of the invitees to the middle east - Arab / Israeli conflict conference being organized at Annapolis.

Brazil is invited / Mexico has been kept out. India has been invited. What do you really think Brazil and India can do as invitees, and Mexico can do without being invited. They have need for the energy, Mexico does not. Blair may be the new Lawerence of Arabia - just that