Headache and Heartburn

sadna #322 although I can understand a real danger of a pot-belly sitting before the computer for so long, why would you think RSaxena twirls batons as well? and please describe a thulla.

Asad_K #319 You write ``Arrgghh!!``

I feel your pain, brother. Try moving to the left side of the decimal, and breathe deeply. Send your check and letter of thanks to Dr. tahmed321.

Re: PM

Patrick,

Thanks for your responses and Ramazan greetings. I apologize for he delay in responding to your posts.

I did not find your reply #287 convincing.

Your statement:

“fairdinkum, UNDERSTANDING the practices/rituals of a faith may require a comprehensive study of it’s philosophy, symbolism etc., QUESTIONING it’s validity based on observable effects DOES NOT.”

Religion/spirituality is a complex subject … one should never jump to conclusions based on observable effects of religious/spiritual practices… Europeans made this mistake when they observed the rituals of natives… To Europeans, they seemed liked superstitions/magic etc. (worthless savage voodoo stuff). Christian missionaries forced the natives to stop believing in their religion, forced them to move away from their spirituality, condemned their rituals as magic etc. and forced them turn to Christianity for salvation… In some cases, church even snatched away their children in order to bring them up as “civilized” good Christians. What is the result? The world has lost another way of looking at life.

Pat, there are a lot of things I don’t understand. Lots of questions I cannot answer.
It is interesting that liberal democracies/western cultures encourage and celebrate diversity, but diversity outside of the framework (THEY have designed for the rest of the world), outside of THEIR vision of “civilization” is not acceptable to them… I don’t understand that either.

Your statement:

“But not so harmless when it leads to what we (with a consensus) would consider morally/ethically wrong actions and attitudes. No need for examples here.”

Consensus? :) You know, oppression was also accorded consensus on many occasions in the history of mankind. Well, perhaps you have a point. If a religion or its followers unnecessarily force others to adopt their “morally/ethically wrong” actions and attitudes this should be resisted.


Reply #316

Your statement:

“Leaving aside the incredulity of the suggestion that “ there were no longer legitimate wars to be fought between the Muslims and the non-Muslims”, it is obvious that Abdul Razak, or you, or both, are failing to distinguish between Islam the Religion and Islamic history and civilization. Whether or not “the Islamic CIVILIZATION redefined the mode of interaction between nations” – itself a highly dubious assertion-- the attempt to justify a position with the benefit of retrospection, with little regard to original intent, is rather dishonest and seems like clutching at straws. But then, it seems to be the preoccupation of all learned scholars who it would seem spend much of their time indulging in such apologetics”

For me, Islam the religion and Islamic history are inextricably interwoven. I fail to see how I can understand one without the other? Although I do appreciate your point “it is obvious that Abdul Razak, or you, or both, are failing to distinguish between Islam the Religion and Islamic history and civilization.”

How would you distinguish between the three?

Perhaps the assertion that “the Islamic CIVILIZATION redefined the mode of interaction between nations” is dubious… what is your view/assessment of the overall impact/effect of Islamic movement of Mohammad on the progress/evolution of mankind?

“Fairdinkum, perhaps my knowledge of the Quran is limited, but I can only recall verses in which the freeing of a slave is presented as an OPTION (and where are all the holier-than-thous who otherwise cry “objectifcation!!”?) – NOT A REQUIREMENT. I could be wrong, in which case I’d appreciate your correction.”

Here are some of the verses, which explicitly order freeing of slaves as a requirement rather than an option.

4:92 “Never should a believer kill a believer; but (If it so happens) by mistake, (Compensation is due): If one (so) kills a believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, and pay compensation to the deceased`s family, unless they remit it freely. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you, and he was a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (Is enough). If he belonged to a people with whom ye have treaty of Mutual alliance, compensation should be paid to his family, and a believing slave be freed. For those who find this beyond their means, (is prescribed) a fast for two months running: by way of repentance to Allah. for Allah hath all knowledge and all wisdom.”

[Please note that for those who had/have slaves there is not option but to free a slave]

58:3 “But those who divorce their wives by Zihar, then wish to go back on the words they uttered, (It is ordained that such a one) should free a slave before they touch each other: Thus are ye admonished to perform: and Allah is well-acquainted with (all) that ye do.”

Here is the verses which talks about signing of deeds to which our Maulana referred to in his paper:

24:33 “Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them…”

And here is an example of verses in which freeing of slaves is presented as an OPTION:

5:89 “Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths. Thus doth Allah make clear to you His signs, that ye may be grateful.”

Patrick, you must understand that at the time, even great civilizations of Rome, and Iran had no problem with the practice of slavery. Slavery was acceptable practice through out the world. Mohammad’s reform movement should be commended for its efforts (1400 years ago) to eliminate this practice. Let’s call a spade a spade.

Your statement:

“Btw, on the personal side, do you hold Islam to be ‘perfect’ in every sense? If not, why not just accept that it doesn’t have it right on ALL issues and get on with life, instead of indulging in this intellectual origami?

Oh, and if these are the lengths to which scholars go to defend Islam, I’m sure F_K must be truly impressed, huh?”

Patrick, I am a student of religion. I would not say whether or not a religion or a faith is right or wrong, perfect or imperfect. I am simply not qualified to make this judgment. Yes, I find it difficult to understand some issues… why wasn’t slavery prohibited by a decree or an injunction? I am learning… I am making an effort to understand Muslim point of view… Yes, I do want to question some of the practices such as rights of women in Islam… I do want to learn about the society in which Islam was introduced. I do want to know why certain aspects of Islamic movement are so revolutionary whereas on other issues Islam was happy to maintain the status quo. I know very little. But I try :)

We are all self-serving in one way or another. The purpose of my posts, however, is not to impress F_K or anybody else for that matter… I am surprised by your comment.

Rsaxena #317
Oh thats who you are! That pot-bellied baton-twirling tthulla roaming around chowk. hmmm. I would recommend the bar instead, somewhat like Urstruly does :-).

Sadhana

RSaxena 317

Thanks to Mr. Bill Gates, the scroll bar on the right side of your screen comes in really handy.

(re. Pankaj #227)

Dear Pankaj,

I revisited your posts to see if I had perhaps read it in too much haste the first time `round.

You certainly have a gift for `tranfering` learning from one domain to another.

However, as I suggested earlier, that might not so valid when movng from the Cognitive to the Affective domain. The latter is where the best `models` fall short in either describing or guiding.

But even on the purely cognitive level, here is where I believe your understanding of at least ONE religion falls short... you say:

``I think that is the point a religion should stop dictating people. The laws governing socio economic interactions between people evolve by the forces that are a function of time. (and implicitly of the existing order). The problems arise when people try to overstretch the concept of religion to define all the human interactions by a set of unchanging rules. Whenever a concept is applied outside its domain of validity, it is prone to produce erroneous results. Religion lays down some simplistic rules to deal with the simple social interactions``

You are mistaken because, Islam`s laws are presumably timeless, and to suggest that there is any domain in which Islamic law would not be valid is, well, unIslamic.

Perhaps others can throw more light or correct me if I am wrong.

regards,

PM re: 307

{Still, most (even `moderately` inclined) interactors here seem to think that a feeling of indignation at the insult of one hold dear is the prerogative only of followers of organized religion. So the likes of F_K can get away with noisome remarks on all those `` bhangee`` ``liberals `` [and what-not], and claims (effectively) that western education is the ruination of mankind, and not so much of whimper is heard from those quarters now oh-so-offended by Solitude`s ascribing of that role to Islam.}

Well, as I said.. I may disagree with both perspectives. But the one makes me merely roll my eyes and mutter ‘moron’, the other makes me feel very p.o.’d, enough to reply publiclyI cannot explain the specific reasons behind the disparity of my responses and, indeed, there may be little that is ‘rational’ behind it.. but there you have it!

Regarding Ijtehad… your comments do bring to mind something that I suddenly realized I’m not clear on.. which I realized, natch, while discussing things with a non-Muslim (a situation that often suddenly makes you realize that you really don’t know half as much as you think.. well, it makes me do so, anyway). Well and good that many, myself included, bemoan the lack of it in the current Islamic world, talking about it like a magic bullet for all our ills.. but how far CAN it take us? Can Ijtehad go in conflict with Quran and sunnah? Has it ever happened? What are examples of Ijtehad which changed the mindset and practices of the people? As an example, lets look at womens rights of inheritance. ‘Islam in focus’ justifies the differences in inheritance as being there because the woman only has to support herself, while the divorced man has to support most likely a family.. his wife, children etc. If that is a justification, then in todays world does it still hold true? (well, no, of course it doesn’t). Women are independent, they work, they may have children (adopted/from old marriage/from good old hanky-panky – oh, sorry, THAT’S not Islamic!), they may have more people to support.. and as such that would call for a revision of the laws of inheritance.

But would that be going against the Quran?

Would it be ‘Islamic’? (as you ask).

Is it a veiled (or not so veiled) way to say that women should NOT be independent but should be content with a smaller inheritance because their husbands would be supporting them and their family?

Arrgghh!!

Sadna re: 314

Well, I hope you’re no longer tempted to cross the border and do a ‘lashkar’ on me.. ;)

I’m pretty sure that I’ve previously stated my perspective towards those you have mentioned – an effective squishing. I wish they could be talked to – but fanatics, religious or otherwise, cannot be reasoned with. Is that a clear enough comment on my perspective?

My comment about by ‘nonviolent means’ was merely to preempt any responses saying that Solitude has not advocated extermination camps. Perhaps you can tell me how Solitude should be ‘handled’? (and keep in mind that I’ve not called for his head on a platter). I disagree, and vehemently, with him. I see him as a fanatic of the opposite ilk from the jehadis.

And sometimes, nonviolent means can be as dangerous, and certainly more effective, than crude violence.

Sadna,

Calm down. Your posts are getting longer and longer without adding much value to getting your points across.

Fairdinkum (re. #309)

“Given the nature/structure of society in the early period of Islamic movement, TMP was probably a better/more effective strategy compared to prohibition.”

It is odd that there is no compromise on principles, no fancy TMP, wrt to the rights of women –at lest to the extent that they were liberated from the strictures of pre-Islamic norms—something good Muslims never fail to point out.

The good Maulana’s thesis that “Islam, through measures, which dealt with the root causes rather than with the symptom, effectively reduced these sources.” Is terribly flawed on the following counts:

Consider:

“Islam initially permitted slavery from only two sources - slavery through descent and slavery from POWs of a legitimate war.”

And

“The provision of slavery through wars was no longer important after the Islamic civilisation redefined the mode of interaction between nations - from power struggle to peaceful and productive coexistence. Virtually, there were no longer legitimate wars to be fought between the Muslims and the non-Muslims. Indirectly but effectively Islam has closed another source of slavery.”

Leaving aside the incredulity of the suggestion that “ there were no longer legitimate wars to be fought between the Muslims and the non-Muslims”, it is obvious that Abdul Razak, or you, or both, are failing to distinguish between Islam the Religion and Islamic history and civilization. Whether or not “the Islamic CIVILIZATION redefined the mode of interaction between nations” – itself a highly dubious assertion-- the attempt to justify a position with the benefit of retrospection, with little regard to original intent, is rather dishonest and seems like clutching at straws. But then, it seems to be the preoccupation of all learned scholars who it would seem spend much of their time indulging in such apologetics.

“Islam made the act of freeing the slave a part of punishment for any criminal act as well as for non-conformity of the Islamic rituals. There are several verses in the Holy Quran, which specifically mentioned the requirement of freeing the slave as a way of meeting the punishment for wrongdoings.”

Fairdinkum, perhaps my knowledge of the Quran is limited, but I can only recall verses in which the freeing of a slave is presented as an OPTION (and where are all the holier-than-thous who otherwise cry “objectifcation!!”?) – NOT A REQUIREMENT. I could be wrong, in which case I’d appreciate your correction.

“Islam never became a force or a party that promoted and condoned slavery. A balanced analysis of this issue would recognise the wisdom of Islam in managing the heinous practice of slavery and in effectively putting an end to it.”

Perhaps Islam never PROMOTED slavery, and yes, when one reads the Quran and hadith, it is clear that slaves are to be treated ‘kindly’ (though some would say in a benighted manner). However, please read Sura 4:3 and tell me whether or any amount of TMP-thoerizing and intellectual contortion can interpret that ayat as non-condoning of slavery.

Btw, on the personal side, do you hold Islam to be ‘perfect’ in every sense? If not, why not just accept that it doesn’t have it right on ALL issues and get on with life, instead of indulging in this intellectual origami?

Oh, and if these are the lengths to which scholars go to defend Islam, I’m sure F_K must be truly impressed, huh?

Regards,

fairdinkum #297

Thanks for your informative reply.
I have to take issue however on one or two counts. Firstly, that access to religious texts and free discussion ought not be influenced by history of oppression where the interactors on this board are concerned.

Secondly you say
``So, whereas I may agree with & join you, Solitude, PM, Fuzair and all other critics in condemning certain practices/rituals/interpretations of Islam which are clearly oppressive in nature and serve no purpose other than bringing pain and grief for ordinary people while serving (politically) the ruling classes (such as the Kings and Sheikhs of Arabia), I would be very careful & respectfully disagree in rejecting Islam as a religion and I would certainly not join you in condemning Mohammad a tyrant.``

You ascribe too much to me here. I have not asked anyone to either condemn Mohammed as a tyrant nor reject Islam as a religion. I ask you to read my posts and tell me where I have done so even by implication.

``These prophets stand in contrast with the messengers of the other group or founders of intellectual and moral schools of thoughts such as those in China, India, Iran and the founders of the scientific and ethical schools of Athens. This latter group, without a single exception, were aristocrats. They arose from the noble, powerful, comfortable classes of their society.?``

I have to disagree with the sweeping generalization here of Al-Shariati wrt India at least : both in terms of what he calls `founders` as well as `schools of thought` arising `without a single exception` from `noble, powerful, comfortable classes of their society`. Thats just not true.

Sadhana

Long post.
Assad_K #294
``because for him the problem is Islam altogether, only solvable by elimination of the creed(yes, we know that he supports the elimination by nonviolent means only)``

If one cannot handle those who argue `elimination of the creed` by nonviolent means, how would one even begin handle those who donot choose to convince by reason but use violence and intimidation and their own selective interpretations to bring about an effective `elimination of the creed` from within?

Which is the greater threat to one`s creed, and what is the proportionate response?


tahmed321 #295

I`m sure there are many on this board who can reply to your points more meaningfully than myself. Wish they would :-).

If you are arguing that an individual can be a `complete` Muslim, and live under secular law and government, well, there are many who say that is not true, I have absolutely no idea about that.


If you are saying that free-thinking Muslims with free choice would choose a constitution and laws decided by legislative majority and would so create an Islamic state best suited to Islamic ideals , well this article on chowk and its reponses are relevant.
http://www.chowk.com/bin/showa.cgi?mmohajir_aug1600
Faith, Religion and National Direction
by Mateen Mohajir

Also the recent article in The Friday Times Dec 1-7, 2000
www.thefridaytimes.com, Opinion
Pakistan ideology revisited by Khaled Ahmed

Lets start with the constitution. If an avowed purpose or directive principle is to follow Islamic principles, there may have to be a religious body to provide expert opinions on this matter. Thats a question I posed wrt Iran on the Mateen board.
``The Constitution of Iran:
http://www.persian.com/aboutiran/constitution.htm
The interesting parts of it can be found by searching for `the Leader`, `the Guardian Council` and `the Assembly of Experts`.
Who are better guardians of an `Islamic` system and its ideology, the elected representatives or the religious heads however democratically elected?
In a point of dispute between the elected legislature and the (ideally)elected clergy, the point would be settled by majority opinion or by expert interpretation of Islamic precedents aka earlier interpretations of Islamic texts?

We are back to how literal should one be.

The same applies to points of law. Take the case of interest or say death sentence for particular type of blasphemy. There was a write up either in the Dawn or The Friday Times some months ago on the research done on pronouncing judgement on what was the Islamic thing to do in either case. Sorry I couldnot locate the reference but it detailed going back into precedents and religious authorities.

Or if someone brings up the issue `stoning to death is the Islamic punishment prescribed for xxx` and learned judges have to pass judgement, they would have to go back to precedents in Islamic law/interpretation and relevant scriptures to decide. Back to how literal should one be?

(btw someone in Kerala brought about a suit saying since he Muslim and it was against his religion to pay interest so he shouldnot be asked to pay interest. I am not sure how the Kerala High Court settled that, but I think the guy lost the case, since under the Indian Constitution, same laws apply to all for such matters)

The same issue of `how Islamic` may come up wrt joint electorates for minorities.
btw, this issue of how literal is not peculiar to Islam.
The New York Times, September 17, 2000, Sunday
Israel Ponders Constitution With Head Throbbing
by DEBORAH SONTAG

For 52 years, Israel has avoided drafting a constitution for fear of provoking a civil war between secular and religious Jews. But when Prime Minister Ehud Barak returned empty-handed from his latest frustrations with the peace effort, he switched to an agenda of civic reform and proposed a constitution, just like that.

Stunned, a group of senior Israeli academics and political figures who have been working to lay the groundwork for a constitution were propelled into furious debate about whether they should take advantage of this sudden interest from an Israeli leader.

But having spent two years in seminar rooms dissecting every delicate issue -- the separation of religion and state, the rights of minorities, women`s rights, among others -- most mocked the idea of an instant constitution as a prescription for failure. The issues are simply too loaded, Israeli society too polarized and its democracy too fragile, they said.

``It`s like somebody who offers to marry you on the first date,`` said Yaron Ezrahi, a senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute. ``Given the complexity of the issue and the significance for this country, a leader doesn`t generate a constitution in a month to save his political career.``

The constitutional experts` skepticism about Mr. Barak`s initiative reflects the way the public at large has received his ``civil-social agenda,`` dubbed the Secular Revolution by the news media. His proposals are widely seen as a transparent political ploy to rescue his faltering government or provide a platform for his next campaign.

In addition to creating a constitution, Mr. Barak has proposed a laundry list of changes, most of which have been blocked by the religious establishment for years.

These include civil marriage for those ``hundreds of thousands of Israelis`` who are not Jews or not recognized as Jews by the rabbinate, eliminating the `nationality`` listing on identification cards that distinguishes between Jews and non-Jews and the operation of El Al Airline and public buses on the Sabbath.

Some, like Yossi Beilin, the justice minister, suggest that Mr. Barak`s motives be disregarded and that this rare moment -- when no religious parties are in the government -- be seized. The religious parties and a small Russian immigrant party defected before Mr. Barak traveled to the Camp David summit meeting in July, leaving him with an unstable minority government.

In a strategy session this week, Mr. Beilin urged the constitutional committee at the Israel Democracy Institute to act quickly.

``I`m a great believer in windows of opportunity,`` he said. ``Now Barak wants a constitution. He asks, `Where`s a constitution?` We should say, `Here`s a constitution,` and hand him a document.``

Avraham Ravitz, a strictly Orthodox member of Parliament, said he had no objection to a constitution, ``so long as it includes one paragraph that says constitutional law cannot be above religious law, that`s all.`` In other words, he does object to a constitution -- which he described as ``the strange need of secular people in Israel to import something from Canada or Sweden rather than use what belongs to them.``

Israel`s Declaration of Independence stipulated that a constitution would be established no later than Oct. 1, 1948. Its first Parliament, in fact, was elected to serve as a constitutional convention.

But from the beginning the secular-religious divide was wide, and as far as religious Israelis were concerned, they already had their constitution: the Bible. Rather than rip apart a young nation that needed to focus on pragmatic matters, the country`s first leaders decided that a constitution should be assembled piecemeal, through a series of basic laws.

It took eight years for Parliament to pass the first basic law, the one that establishes the existence of Parliament. The next seven laws mostly set up the institutions of the state, including the role of the president, the army and the courts. It was not until 1992 that the subject of human rights was touched -- and then incompletely because of the controversy sparked by even the fundamental idea of making man, and not God, central.

In a passing political moment when the government was not dependent on religious votes, Parliament did adopt a basic law of human dignity that Israel`s Supreme Court has interpreted liberally.

But it does not address, among other issues, freedom of religion, freedom from religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association and basic equality -- equality, that is, between Jews and non-Jews as well as between men and women (something that the powerful strictly Orthodox and the powerless Bedouins do not want imposed on them). And as a whole, the basic laws are not empowered as the supreme law of the land; they can be overturned by a simple plurality in Parliament.

Dan Meridor, a centrist legislator, tried as justice minister in 1989 to pass a full bill of rights, which got whittled down to the basic law of human dignity several years later.

Now a member of the democracy institute`s constitutional committee, Mr. Meridor advocates a ``thin`` constitution that, among other things, leaves aside the Jewish character of the state, so as not to alienate Israeli Arabs or create legal contradictions between the state`s Jewish identity and the idea of equality for all.

``We don`t want to create a constitution that causes conflict,`` he told the constitutional committee. ``Religious and ethnic wars are devastating, and we should avoid them.``

Ruth Gavison, a Hebrew University professor, a leading civil libertarian and the only woman on the committee, threw her hands in the air. ``What are you talking about, put religion aside, put the equality of women aside, put this aside and that aside?`` she asked. ``We know that these are issues that will blow up the whole thing. We must tackle them.``

A poll released on Friday by the newspaper Maariv showed overwhelming public support for a constitution -- 73 percent -- and little confidence that a dysfunctional government could produce and pass one.

But what would it say? The Justice Ministry has prepared three more basic laws -- concerning due process, free speech and social rights like education and housing -- that go to a parliamentary committee on Sunday. Deputy Attorney General Joshua Schoffman said that if they were passed, ``they would produce something close to a constitution,`` especially if Parliament also approved a bill that elevated their status and made them more difficult to annul or amend.

Justice Minister Beilin suggested immediately pursuing those laws and, in a separate effort, a full constitution at the same time. But Professor Gavison, a secular Jew who has become a hero to many of the strictly Orthodox for her criticism of the Supreme Court, advocates a slow deliberative process that grows out of a dialogue with the right wing and the religious.

Beyond the institute, there is a rival, more populist and clearly anticlerical constitutional advocacy group. Under the guidance of Uriel Reichman, who is president of a private college in Herzliya, it wrote the basic law that changed the political system to provide for the direct election of the prime minister. The democracy institute says the change has radically destabilized Israel`s politics, although Professor Reichman still supports it as a way to keep extremists out of power.

Observing the heated debate at the democracy institute, Uri Dromi, the institute`s publications director and a retired colonel, said he could not help but think of the old joke about the Yeshiva University rowing team. It had a terrible record, and so it sent a spy to Yale to ascertain the key to their success. On return, the spy said, ``You wouldn`t believe it! We`ve been doing it backwards! It`s supposed to be eight people rowing, and one shouting!``

Amit #308 I think the key word to our problems is ``ideology`` that you refer to. Ideology is in many ways the other face of dogmatism. Ideology means - dont question your assumptions, dont question the logic, dont trust your own heads. It is clear that the basic message of Islam being the opposite of ideology - God wants mankind to use their heads and thus further it`s understanding of the limitless creation of God. The education system in Pakistan at least teaches ideology - in other words, the opposite of Islam. The more dogmatic Islam is stressed, the more ideological it becomes. When I came to the US as a student in a university, my observation was that the US students were not any smarter than the ones I had studied with in Pakistan, or even more knowledgable. However, they were more confident and able to ask questions that students in Pakistan normally would not ask. That to me explained why the US made advancements in every field, whereas we in Pakistan simply benefitted from them. Some fellow Indian students agreed with this analysis and said it applied to the education system there too. The narrow interpretation of Islam reduces it to a dogma and the opposite of what God wants us to do, and as such we in Pakistan have to be extra-vigilant of these forces of ignorance masquerading as Islam.

Moral: Have faith in yourself, and use your God-given minds to think rationally. Avoid irrational discussion, unsubstantiated conclusions, and be open to new ideas.

Umair`s and Krashid`s worst nightmare (for different reasons):

``New Delhi, Dec. 1. (PTI): India has bagged orders for supply of 6700 tonnes of tea to Iraq under the food-for-oil programme of the United Nations.

Indian companies have been awarded contracts for supply of tea to Iraq for a total quantity of 6700 tonnes under phase-7 of the food-for-oil programme, Minister of State for Commerce and Industry Omar Abdullah informed the Lok Sabha here today.``

A Muslim government official in India (ouch) getting contracts for India in Iraq (an Arab country) which is giving India favored status because of the recently signed strategic partnership agreements (ouch ouc). So much for the the Arabs partnering with Pakistan to stop the ``repression`` of Muslims in India....

Pankaj:

Oops! Mixed up names for a second there. Apologies to you and Shankar.

On the model you presented, yes, your are right... Who cares about cool, calm analysis with the adrenalin pumping the way it is! :) .. perhaps some other time?

rgds

hey guys

i have a question,though i feel it would be more relevant in atheist board,but since we r having a debate on relate d issue,i might as weel post it here.

my question is if GOD exists why was he no unfair is choosing only men(Muhammad,Jesus,Buddha) as his messenger(prophets),does he have a gender bias?

I`ll appreciate your inputs,though my personal belief is that all the messengers or holy men were social reformers of their time and not men of god as some of them claimed and brought unending miseries on their blind followers(PBUT).

The need of hour as SOLITUDE rightly said is to banish religion(esp those fundamentalist who want to roast unbelievers in hell)

take care

msingh