Headache and Heartburn

``I guess the rest of the eighty five percent of the Pakistanis there were not well read individuals.``

Well - duh! we have the lowest literacy rate! but all of us CAN read the Quran (without understanding it ofcourse) - why that is how we keep all the Qari Sahabs and Maulana Sahabs, and Imam Sahabs in business :) Someone has to feed their family of 20+ children so that the sons can go to afghanistan, destroy ancient archaeological artificats and rape afghani women - then return to pakistan to lead the army and the country to the glorious 6th century.

And for goodness` sake do we all have to try to act ``Righteous`` and ``oh I love the poor and hate all the parties and functions I have to attend with filthy rich, super successful, multi talented, hardworking, efficient, skilled, intelligent people - oops UPTIGHT people ... ``. There are reasons for which Pakistan is poor : it is poor sense of reality. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan is a country ruled of ancient superstitions, feudal lords and strong armed, stupid, violent military leaders (soon the militia men from Afghanistan). Those of us who have become successful should band together instead of maligning each other. We should use our concentrated talents to drive out impractical voodoo-like religious prejudices far from Pakistan instead of thinking about ``beant singh`` and the number of muslims in Bombay (mumbair is doing fine thank you and there probably are MORE people who were born muslims in mumbai than karachi)
Today Salman Rushdies opinions are requested on every topic from the beatles and rock music to India and Islam and England - I just saw him the other day on a documentary about the Beatles on ABC. What is an indian boy`s opinion matter when it comes to THE BEATLES ? John Lennon and the beatles are the father of modern rock and they are asking Salman Rushdie what he thought of them ... that is the miracle of a _intentionally_ secular country [note the intention was and is secular]

The rich and powerful of Pakistan need to stop moping and feeling guilty about enjoying life - pick up your gold plated Parker Pens and honk the horns of your latest mercedez and declare to the gunmen rattafying the Quran : ``we studied for and struggled for our right to enjoy LIFE! If you dare to make it as dull as your life, if you dare to transform our lives into miserable, violent, hatefilled existances then be forewarned : we will let our doberman pincher`s loose on your arse ... ``. If we the successful (me excluded) started to give credit to ourselves (instead of Allah) for our good fortunes and if we stopped blaming ourselves for enjoying the good fortunes - we will create within us : magnificent human beings. Human beings capable of charity , people willing to share their talents, their knowledge and their efficient skills with others - for the betterment of the poor.

I don`t mean any of my comments to hurt you as a person - I am however critical of a few sentences in particular.

Here is a statement from the article that staggers me:

``...a mental note of how awkward and unnecessary it was to include religion into everything, a trait Pakistanis could not give up, no matter how educated and ``broad minded.``

``Awkward and unnecessary``?? Can a person become so far removed from their spiritual center that they can actually write and think like this?

To be broadminded is to be able to hold in your heart all beliefs and all that exists in creation.

What was the point of the article? I would have liked to have read more details about the events, the interactions of the people there, what they hoped to accomplish - but the article does not seem to be a journalistic exercise either- it is written too superficially. If I am being unduly harsh, please forgive me. But I am just expressing what I honestly feel

scout...how do yuo get sucked into these
things...
dont go..stay away..i went to one paki
professional thing and never looked back...it
was too scary yaar.
almost as bad as appna meetings.

*shudder *

rizvi

Sherdil #2

Jaam Jab Peenay Lagey Munh Se Kaha Bismillah.

Yeh Na samjhe Koi Rindoon Ko Khuda Yaad Nahin.

````Awkward and unnecessary``?? Can a person become so far removed from their center that they can actually write and think like this?``-Reply #: 2 sherdil

Pakistan is composed of people of all religions and NO religions. Some people may choose to follow 2 religions at the same time - others may combine and pick and choose as they wish. NOT everyone likes to listen to the braying of harsh arabic words from the Quran PARTICULARLY when you cannot even understand what the reciter of the Quran is whining about. How would a Hindu Pakistani feel at such functions ? Do you think he will feel as though he were part of the community ? How would you feel if someone started screaming words from the Bible in your ears ( in German ) every morning at 5 am through loudspeakers? How would you feel if you were sitting at a hindu gathering and the hindu started saying ``all monotheists/ Muslims are committing the greatest sin of all and they will die from 1st degree burns in hell for their shirk`` ?
Sherdil, pardon me for hurting your feelings but are you the type that wipes his arse with leaves and stones (just like the prophet)?
Islam is the least spiritual of all religions, instructing the beating of women and children, propagating segregation and veiling of sexes (extreme hatred of women, kafirs and everyone non muslim), it is racist (anti semitic) anti human rights (hoqooq of Allah are above human rights) it discriminates based on sexuality (homophobic), it is primitive (crucifixion, stoning, lashing, chopping body parts from those of innocent children to making cripples out of petty thieves -breaking their spirits and forcing them adorn the sidewalks of Muslim countries as useless members of society rather than re habilitating them and equipping them with skills).

Re: Solitude #5

Dear Friend,

If I may presume to address you as such, lets not get carried away here in blasting Islam. I will certainly agree with you that Islam is all of the things that you said it is. However, ALL `revealed` (i.e., Judeo-Christian) religions are inherently intolerant and are esssentially thought control devices until their control over day-to-day life is stripped out of them and they are reduced to the mythology, spirituality if you will, that is at their core.

So whether it is Christianity, or Judaism or Islam, they were/are all harsh, intolerant and totalitarian UNTIL they were/will-be reduced to their correct role in life: providing comfort to old men and women worried about their eternal soul. As I have said over and over again, the true tragedy of Islam is that ijtihad ended about 800 years ago and we are incapable of restarting it.

Regards.

Nov-20-00 9:59:13 EST Reply #: 6

I agree I did get carried away. The greatest enemy of a cause is its most fervent disciple.
I would like to say : we have put up with religions like Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism (what I know of it). We have compromised and tried to treat its followers like children who will eventually learn to love and who will live with others in peace. The followers on the other hand interpret our tolerance as a weakness and boast ``we have been around (persecuting, torturing) and they still can`t touch us! our very names strike fears in their hearts``. These were the words of the Nazi youth until the world kicked them in the arse. Any student of Nazism will learn that Islam and Nazism and the KKK have STRIKINGLY similar ideals. Is it any wonder Muslims would not fight with Allied forces against Germany ? Is it any wonder the Turkish Khalifa was on the German side ? Is it any wonder that to this day Muslims say ``Hitler was a great name , the jews are giving him a bad name ... I admire Hitler`` ?

They do not see murderous, psychotic nature of Hitler - because they are themselves warped. It is time we introduce them to mental infirmaries. It is high time we herded the sheep into psychiatric hospitals where their violence can be neautralized.
The reaction of the educated and civilized has always been restraint and temperance and moderation. I can understand why you would choose that path : but look what restraint has done to Pakistan - what it has done to Egypt, to a once prosperous Malaysia and Indonesia etc.
You compromise today and your children will suffer tomorrow! Today you allow the camel to poke his head through the tent for warmth and tomorrow he will invade the entire tent and push you out.
There was a time when I used to pride myself for being a Muslim : I would say - the world quakes at the mere mention of Islam. The word Muslim inculcates a ``haybath`` (terror) in the minds of the Kafir. I did not know it was a fear akin to the one you feel towards a snake.

Sometimes I feel like stepping on the head of this snake and then I hear John Lennon`s Imagine, and I hear All You Need is Love and I dissolve into all that Love and Peace and Rock n Roll.

The Quran never had that benevolent influence on me - the sermons inflamed my hatred - the readings often worsened my violent intentions to the point I would start cursing the Christians and the Jews.

nice...... it reminds me of the time I went to an Indian Lawyers Association party here in London. I can honestly say that I have never met a bigger bunch of pompous people in my life.

sherdil #2,

I`m neither a journalist (to provide u with details etc.) nor a writer (to write eloquently for your satisfaction).

Having said that, coming back to religion, you say:

``Can a person become so far removed from their spiritual center that they can actually write and

think like this?``

I believe religion is a private affair and should be left at home, or within you. And in this case, the religious recitation was followed by not so religious behavior. What`s the point of reciting the Quran and following it with crazy party behavior? It`s like saying ``before we get down and dirty,`` we`d like to remember God.

Pardon the crudity, but does one pray before having sex, or going out to a ballgame?

It`s not necessary to include religion into parties. Anyone who wants to pray, can do so in their heart.

It`s not a question of spirituality, it`s about doing the right thing at the right time and place.

Yawn....this is boring..what`s the point of this article? Good writing doesn`t need to have a point but this isn`t even good writing.

Re: Solitude

Good points...well written too.

Re: Solitude #5

You are my new hero. Keep up the good work.

Almirah:

This one could have come straight out of a cheesy celebrity rag. I wonder if that was the intention. The search for a desi soulmate in the city of lights........maybe someday!! Good luck.

later

-sac

Solitude #7

Umm, this is going to get far off topic but there are some historical inaccuracies that need to be corrected here.

In WWI, Hitler was a corporal in the German Army. The Sultan of Turkey sided with the German Kaiser because he saw the Brits and the French were set on carving up his empire among themselves. Indian muslims fought for their King-Emperor pretty faithfully (barring the odd mutiny/desertion or two, but then, hey, there were mutinies/desertions in Sikh units as well). Non-Egyptian Arab muslims, by and large, fought for the Brits against the Turks, their hated colonial masters (remember Lawrence of Arabia, Prince Feisal and all the camel jockeys blowing up Turkish troop trains?).

In WWII, Turkey was on the side of the Allies, albeit it joined in very late in the game when it was clear that Germany was losing. However, its earlier `neutrality` was pretty much a sham since it gave the allies a free hand in Turkey. In India during WWII, it was the Muslims who were, as a whole, loyal to the Raj. They rightly saw Gandhi, Nehru and the other Congressites as the real enemy, not the British Raj. The single largest component of the British Indian Army, at 2.5 million the largest volunteer force in history was Punjabi Muslim. Sikhs ran a close second. In the INA, muslims, as a rule, stayed the most loyal to the King-Emperor. The most loyal group was Punjabis (muslims, sikhs and hindus) and Gurkhas, but there were, of course, some notable exceptions. Of course, after the war was over, the Muslims got the dirty end of the stick when Mountbatten sold them out to Nehru.

As far as Islam being like Nazism, as I said before, ALL Judeo-Christian religions are totalitarian. (I might go so far as saying ALL religions are totalitarian but I don`t know that much about non-Judeo-Christian ones.) Thats nothing new. Why single out Islam? I will agree that we can be rightly criticized for being ignorant and close-minded but what about the RSS types or Jerry Falwell or the diehard difference feminists? All are close-minded people incapable of rational discussion.

As far as my personal restraint goes, Prof. Bilal Ahmad would be quite surprised to hear about that. I`ve long supported the Algerian eradicateurs and would wholehearedly support a complete purge of ALL jihadist elements in Pakistan and a change of the name from ``Islamic Republic of`` to simply ``Republic of.`` I think we could also be better off if we demolish a few thousand mosques and got rid of the loudspeakers and enjoyed a peaceful night`s sleep. I am not saying that we let the Jihadists see the error of their ways, their way is RIGHT as far as they are concerned, I am simply saying that all religions need to be firmly stamped out from public life because they are all bad in their own way.

Regards.

Ref Fuzair #: 6

You said {ALL `revealed` (i.e., Judeo-Christian) religions are inherently intolerant and are esssentially thought control devices}

I am glad that you qualified `revealed religions` with `Judeo-Christian`. I don`t presume to know much about Jainism but Mahavira is considered the revelator of Jainism and he preached non-violence even toward insects which is followed by Jains to this day. It is possible to reveal ``The Truth`` and still treat people of other faiths as human beings deserving of respect, love, compassion, etc. In fact, so did Buddha, too.

``Non-Egyptian Arab muslims ...``

mercenaries.

Thanks for the history lessons - this is what I read : Indian Imams/ Maulanas had a specific fatwa that you may not fight against our Turkish Khudas (since they were fighting against the Brits). They would repeat their warnings against defectors over mosque speakers with the usual threat of kufr etc.

Muslims did form the largest group of soldiers - CONTRARY to the Muslim propaganda that ``hindus sided with the British, hindus sucked up to the British , hindus never fought for independance, they were servile to the British``. The fact that hindus (and secular Muslims) were on the fore front of the Independance movement is clear from your confirmation that Ghandhi & Co. resisted British attempts to recruits *Indians * (not hindus, not muslims BUT Indians - since Gandhi considered all human beings first and Indians second ...)

The truth as you confirm is : Muslims sucked up to the British, Hindus resisted elegantly (non violance, Thoreau`s civil disobedience etc.) and when Gandhi & Co. were succeeding Muslim Nationalists moved in to take credit and they actually threatened violence (which was a weakness of Gandhi - him being a pacifist).

``Why single out Islam? ``

Islam is Pakistan`s problem. We know Islam the best - talking against Christianity or Judaism is pointless (which I would love to do if only I knew enough about it - or if I was one of them). One may not point at others while one`s own house is burning. Islam and its 6th century dogma has to be weeded out first before we can deal with other religions. Islamists have used the bogeyman of hindus, christians, jews and non muslims to inflict into our hearts. A country must be free of fear before it can heal.

Mountbatten was too kind and generous when it came to Muslims. To say he was indifferent is an understatement. India should have remained one - we would have rivers of hindu muslim / afghani blood (Russia would never have occupied Afghanistan if we had been one, China would never have dared to reckon with our Afghan, Sikh, Gurkha warriors and Southern Indian minds). We could have been great if it had not been for these divisions and boundaries. Today Muslims in India are happier than the ones in Pakistan. They are excelling in business, science, politics, military service and even space ventures. I say break these walls - tear them down like the Berlin Wall, take sledge hammers and shatter the houses of hatred and run into each others` arms.

``As far as my personal restraint goes`` - sounds good, we are on the same page. Someday I hope you will join us in invading some mosque - don`t hold your seeds of ideas too dear to your heart or they may never flower the gardens of tomorrow. Oh by the way we intend to shatter their houses of worship with flowers and use their ``mein-kampf`` (qurans) for compost. Telling from the stench that emanates from these books and the mouths of the Maulanas (particularly during Ramadhan) I should say they are just begging for it.

Re: Solitude #15

Umm, at the risk of dragging this discussion far afield again, it is being manifestly inaccurate to describe the Muslims of India as sucking up to the Raj. If you look at Sir Syed Ahmed Khan`s writings, its pretty clear that he is calling upon the Muslims of India to stop contemplating their own navels, to stop lamenting over lost glories, to stop doing Allah Allah in the mosques and learn English and join the British service, JUST LIKE THE HINDUS HAVE ALREADY DONE, lest the Hindus steal too big a march on us.

The Hindu/Congress opposition to the Raj is a much later event, post-WWI, because Gandhi & Co. felt, after the Jallianwala Bagh massacre and the Rowlatt Acts, etc, that earlier British promises to gradually move towards Home Rule after WWI (in exchange for Indian assistance during the war) had been violated--which to a certain extent they had. Don`t forget, Congress was a British creation, or at least the creation of a British ICS officer, Hume. Hardly an impeccable nationalist pedigree.

The Punjab was loyalist during WWII because it had a Unionist ministry, not Congress or Muslim League, comprised of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs (and the odd Christian or two). Punjabi Hindus or Sikhs were hardly more likely to be traitors to the Raj than Punjabi Muslims. ALL Unionists were more royal than the King. The Unionist govt was heavily Muslim dominated because Muslim landlords were in a majority in the Punjab, not because Muslims were the ONLY loyalists.

I asked my father once why the Punjab had remained loyal to the King-Emperor. He laughed and said that Punjab was enroute to India proper and so lay on the main invasion route. Whenever an invading army would march through, Punjabis would water their horses and point out the way to Panipat and the battle that had to be fought if they were to rule India. If the invaders succeeded, the Punjabis would show up in Delhi asking for jagirs as their reward. If the invaders lost, the Punjabis would pounce upon the retreating armies and loot them. And then they would ask the Sultan in Delhi for jagirs for their loyalty. Heads we win, tails you lose. Worked out quite nicely for the Punjabis for a long time.

But seriously folks, the Punjab was loyal because loyalty paid well, the British had been good rulers, and the Punjab had given its loyalty and was not namak-haram. Given the choice between a bunch of politicians and the King-Emperor, guess what, the King-Emperor won.

Regards.