Lets Destroy The Bamiyan Buddhas!

Perhaps all the countries, US, Japan, France, etc being berated here have MORE than 1/4th of their population outside their national boundaries with Afghan aid agencies tending to them. Thats why the Taliban is able to `hoist them on their own moral petard`.

If bits of stone are not worth all the fuss and bother, going to such lengths to defend the Taliban (by bringing up the assault on a Japanese girl, for example) is just not worth the black face cloth of either of the two Afghan woman executed for prostitution.

I`m sure theses women fully deserved their death sentences and unlike the Japanese government`s policies leading to rapes of their young women, the Taliban`s policies had NOTHING to do with these prostitutes` death-deserving deeds.

Berating the world community is at best a futile activity for better-than-the-best armchair humanists who cannot bring themselves to be counted in the open even marching behind their own activists, much less getting equitable laws passed in their own countries.

Better direct all this hot air and pious indignation on Mullah Omar, it might actually a difference for suffering Afghans before he ascends to heaven.

sac #11
A simple google search on ``Supreme Court`` AND ``Taj Mahal`` and so many wussie baniyas pop up:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/earth/stories/s14365.htm
http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/New/SouthAsia/itinerary/india/india2.html
http://www.goldmanprize.org/recipients/recipientProfile.cfm?recipientID=34
http://www.rediff.com/news/mar/14yanni1.htm


Sadhana

Hello Mr. F. Khan,

Your argument is ‘the condemnation by the western countries’ is unjustified. You don’t care to justify the destruction of artefacts and relics by Teleban on their own merits of human values. For a moment let’s forget about the western countries. The statues of Bamiyan may not have religious value to the Teleban. They may just be stones. But they have immense human values. It’s their history and our history. A civilized person would respect his heritage no matter how he disagrees with his ancestors. It would be hard to think in human terms for the ones who’s minds are poisoned by religious fanaticism and the brains are replaced by edicts.



You go on rambling why didn’t the western condemn so called ‘similar events’ that happened elsewhere. All you examples are pathetic. You scavenged for these examples to attack the western countries. Many countries you quoted were on a war-foot. No one ever supported the Serbians on their destructions. NATO attacked the Serbians to bring them in line. No one supported the communists Russians or the Germans during World-War II. You example of Taj is nauseating.

The western countries did a lot of mistakes. They killed six million Jews in concentrations camps. If any similar event happens elsewhere, are you saying they should not speak up and condemn. Their voice is clear. Please don’t do the mistakes that we did. We humans have improved a lot and evolved between the beginning and the end of the 20th century. You are stuck in the 7nth century and do not want to evolve with the rest of the human species and even want to regress from what you evolved.

At the end of your article you have inserted a sentence “Let us hope for the sake of Islam that we destroy the Taliban before they destroy Islam in their misguided vision of what constitutes as the true devotion to, and implementation of, Islam” which has no relevance to the rest of the article. You are a slimy character and you too want to distance from Teleban because deep down in your heart you know Telebans you support are inhumans.

What a pathetic article! What kind of perverted people are living in this 21st century!

Neurogen,

AM I answerable to you .... I am not going to give you any answer... enough is enough of this bulshit... I didnt know they let your kind on CHowk.

Yasser Hamdani

Neurogen,

AM I answerable to you .... I am not going to give you any answer... enough is enough of this bulshit... I didnt know they let your kind on CHowk.

Yasser Hamdani

dear feroze:

Your literary skills are admirable. Unfortunately your reasoning skills haven`t kept pace. Here are some of your pet peeves.

1)Serbians destroyed a bridge and nobody protested. My dear man there was a war going on in that area. Who gives a flying f... about artefacts of historical significance? And if I remember correctly eventually international troops were sent into that area in order to stop the genocide. Are there any competing parties to the Bamiyan Buddhas? I don`t think so.

2)You`ve used Iraq and Sarajevo as other examples. Once again you are drawing the wrong analogies. Eh....rules of business are generally suspended at the time of war.

3)You show indignation at France for turning a blind eye to its increasing commercialization. I`d say its about time one got some real food in the city of romance and carnal love. If the French have finally figured out the cost of their fake individuality, why blame them? I don`t see you wearing your chudhi-dar-pajama and khussas to work do I?

4)The argument about the world hypcocricy in the face of the drought in Afghanistan has frequently been cited. May I dare ask whose primary responsibility is it to worry about such concerns? Let me guess. The local government..... But maybe the one-eyed king thinks a mortar and armor tatoo show on the statues will alllow the parched masses to forget about their thirst and at least they`ll be spiritually quenched when they meet their maker.

5)As for the hypocritical baniya. Well what else can you expect? They need to have some fun too. And saving the Taj Mahal?? Don`t you know its a security hazard. The PAF pilots used it as a homing beacon in the 1965 and 1971 wars. The baniyas had to cover it with drapes eventually to stop the infernal Muslas from bombing the neighbouring towns.

Methinks feroze sahib, this is a storm in a rather staid teacup. Time to chill out with some stronger stuff perhaps :) I`ll gladly buy the first round.



later

-sac

FRKhan`s iconoclasm and skepticism and deep seated insecurity is a symptom of the ``hate-all that is unislamic`` syndrome/mindset which is the first step towards plunging into nihilistic savagery.

Is the west hypocritical? Who isn`t? What has the west`s hypocrisy (or lack thereof) got to do with the correctness (or incorrectness) of the Taliban`s decision to remove all vestiges of its pre-islamic past?

Mr. Khan mentions that he does not support what the Taliban`s version of Islam is all about, but still he goes all out to applaud the decision to demolish the buddhas - simply because it is a slap in the face of the west/india/OIC - parties regarded by Mr. Khan as equally bad/worse than the taliban.

Are the Bamiyan Buddhas more important than Afghan lives? Tough one. Just as tough as - comparing apples with oranges! Or trying to figure out whether conventional weapons are more important than nuclear weapons!

Lives, Mr. Khan, are precious. So are the Bamiyan Buddhas - because it provides Afghans with a sense of who they are as a people. These Buddhas do not represent an ongoing form of idolatry and must not be regarded as an affront to islam. It represents the skill, sophistication, philosophy, spirituality of the ancestors of present day Afghans. So once you take this away the Afghans lose a part of their own soul!

And why are you even being so nebulous in your argument to delve into the dark psychology of the marine in Okinawa - of what pertinence is it to the issue at hand?

But one important aspect of the controversies you have not touched upon - are the feelings of the worldwide Buddhist community. Any thoughts for the people of Thailand, SriLanka, Japan, Taiwan, Cambodia, Vietnam, Nepal, China, India - or do you suppose official reactions from all these countries were all a part of some larger conspiracy orchestrated by the malicious `west`?

xxx

You may like to see :

http://www.heritage.org/library/backgrounder/bg1383es.html

which suggests what US policy towards the Taliban should be.

``The Taliban`s revolutionary ardor and rural roots made them ``an Afghan version of the Khmer Rouge.``

The underlying theme of the article is ``Blame everyone else``, ``Be a victim``.

Re: Taj Mahal, UNESCO and foreign sources are helping Indian authorities preserve the monument.

e.g.,

http://www.rhone-poulenc.com/bodyu/prms0044.htm#Programme de sauvegarde

http://unescodelhi.nic.in/vsunescodelhi/cul.htm

-Arun the Infidelator

An excellent article, Feroz!

Your rage, and the truth you speak, makes it very powerful. Good job!

You`re right. The world doesn`t give a horse`s behind for little children dying of hunger and cold in Afghanistan, but is in great pains over a few meaningless statues.

I`m sure the Buddha, undoubtly one of the greatest men ever to have lived in this world, will agree with you. He must be turning in his grave over the plight of the Afghans, particularly the little children, and not over the destruction of some lifeless stones.

I`m, like you, equally horrified at the Taleban act, and the world`s hypocracy over it.

Enjoyed your article very much.

There is no doubt in my mind that Taliban truly believe in what they are doing. The problem is with what they think Islam is!!

I feel like a bombarded Buddha after reading this. It is difficult to figure out what the author is arguing for and what against.

Are the Taliban victumes of abuse being pushed to the wall, or are they a menace? Are the Taliban to be congratulated for paying the West back in their own coin or should they be destroyed? What has Japanese cartoons or wonder-bras got to do with religious vandalism?

Is the author arguing that the Taliban action is justified since the Japanese print dirty cartoons, Saudi princesses wear wonder-bra, Paris has Macdonalds and the air is polluted in Agra?

The author argues all through how each nation has its own skeletons to hide and therefore should keep off lecturing the Taliban. Suddenly at the end he executes a neat somersault and castigates all and sundry for not waking up to the threat posed by the Taliban.

Help!

Dear F.R.Khan:

You are spot on, and damn the damnation that will come your way. The West has been hugely responsible for giving Islam this dour face, and the greatest slap to it has been the fact that Islam is the fastest growing religion. It is naturally worried sick. So, it hits back with the ‘civilized’ intellectual version of the Crusades.

And the irony, bloody hell, is that Osama Bin Laden was once a favourite toy boy of the Brits. He was Harry, of the tony English pubs, impeccably dressed in sharp suits, a great raconteur in a subtle fashion, and generous to a fault, and it had to do with more than being rich. So, what happened? He grew a beard, found a cause, and he was exiled from their minds, a ‘pariah’. (Look, who’s talking!) Is he merely flirting with an ideology? Would he then have taken the risk of leaving it all to live in a cave?

I have not been able to understand the different standards we have for rebels. Will we ever know how and why a former terrorist, Nelson Mandela, got legitimized? Was it the 27-year incarceration that did it? Is Subhas Chandra Bose today acceptable merely because he was exiled from the very heart of the revolution when he went underground during India’s freedom struggle? Why has there been no worldwide outcry against Jagjit Singh Chahan, who was drawing a map of Khalistan, sitting in London, where a band of devoted followers continue to nurture him?

Bin Laden has been truly a rootless person and his transformation has been dramatic and more. Unlike the Shah of Iran or Idi Amin who sponged on their own people and had to escape, he sought to leave it all. I think together with your argument “that (Iraq, Afghanistan) dared to thumb their noses”, at the West, the latter cannot accept the fact that most Islamic movements are surviving and thriving without visible leaders. While for them one Billy’s willy can bring everything to a head, the much-maligned jehad, on the other hand, can go on and on, simply because it means ‘to strive’.

And one point: The Bamiyan statues are located in a place where there is no Buddhist population, therefore those who have compared its destruction with that of the Babri Masjid are committing a grave error. Worse, some have even gone into nitpicking about whether there was a masjid there and whether it was open at all…going by that yardstick, I wonder if anyone even looked at those Buddha statues, least of all the Japanese with their little Nikons. Besides, Buddhism does not believe in god or idol worship. So, there.

However, I think you too, Mr. Khan, have decided to cop out. First you say, “Who

gives the world and its self declared knight in tainted armor, the United Nations, the right to point an accusatory finger at the Taliban? Can the west, the defenders of world’s heritage, honestly be the first one without any sin to cast the first stones of moral ire against the Taliban?” and then you end with a tame, “Let us hope for the sake of Islam that we destroy the Taliban before they destroy Islam in their misguided vision of what constitutes as the true devotion to, and implementation of, Islam.” What happened?

The Taliban has as much of a right to exist, as did the old Indian National Congress or the Muslim League or the Jana Sangha or the Mukti Bahini, and Bin Laden has as much of a right to be what he is as does Aung San Suu Ki, Ariel Sharon, Yasser Arafat, V. Prabhakaran, and a host of others. Some get the Nobel Peace Prize, others do not. Some may be right, others wrong. That is for the future to decide. And the future is never visible. So, how can we wear rose-tinted glasses to view it?

You say, “Oscar Wilde once wrote that you destroy the thing you love and that which you love, will destroy you in the end.”

The Quran says, ``Prescribed for you is fighting, though it be hateful to you. Yet it may happen that you will hate a thing which is better for you; and it may happen that you

love a thing which is worse for you. God knows and you know not.`` [K., 2:216]

Interesting juxtaposition!

Regards,

Farzana

Dear F.R.Khan:

You are spot on, and damn the damnation that will come your way. The West has been hugely responsible for giving Islam this dour face, and the greatest slap to it has been the fact that Islam is the fastest growing religion. It is naturally worried sick. So, it hits back with the ‘civilized’ intellectual version of the Crusades.

And the irony, bloody hell, is that Osama Bin Laden was once a favourite toy boy of the Brits. He was Harry, of the tony English pubs, impeccably dressed in sharp suits, a great raconteur in a subtle fashion, and generous to a fault, and it had to do with more than being rich. So, what happened? He grew a beard, found a cause, and he was exiled from their minds, a ‘pariah’. (Look, who’s talking!) Is he merely flirting with an ideology? Would he then have taken the risk of leaving it all to live in a cave?

I have not been able to understand the different standards we have for rebels. Will we ever know how and why a former terrorist, Nelson Mandela, got legitimized? Was it the 27-year incarceration that did it? Is Subhas Chandra Bose today acceptable merely because he was exiled from the very heart of the revolution when he went underground during India’s freedom struggle? Why has there been no worldwide outcry against Jagjit Singh Chahan, who was drawing a map of Khalistan, sitting in London, where a band of devoted followers continue to nurture him?

Bin Laden has been truly a rootless person and his transformation has been dramatic and more. Unlike the Shah of Iran or Idi Amin who sponged on their own people and had to escape, he sought to leave it all. I think together with your argument “that (Iraq, Afghanistan) dared to thumb their noses”, at the West, the latter cannot accept the fact that most Islamic movements are surviving and thriving without visible leaders. While for them one Billy’s willy can bring everything to a head, the much-maligned jehad, on the other hand, can go on and on, simply because it means ‘to strive’.

And one point: The Bamiyan statues are located in a place where there is no Buddhist population, therefore those who have compared its destruction with that of the Babri Masjid are committing a grave error. Worse, some have even gone into nitpicking about whether there was a masjid there and whether it was open at all…going by that yardstick, I wonder if anyone even looked at those Buddha statues, least of all the Japanese with their little Nikons. Besides, Buddhism does not believe in god or idol worship. So, there.

However, I think you too, Mr. Khan, have decided to cop out. First you say, “Who

gives the world and its self declared knight in tainted armor, the United Nations, the right to point an accusatory finger at the Taliban? Can the west, the defenders of world’s heritage, honestly be the first one without any sin to cast the first stones of moral ire against the Taliban?” and then you end with a tame, “Let us hope for the sake of Islam that we destroy the Taliban before they destroy Islam in their misguided vision of what constitutes as the true devotion to, and implementation of, Islam.” What happened?

The Taliban has as much of a right to exist, as did the old Indian National Congress or the Muslim League or the Jana Sangha or the Mukti Bahini, and Bin Laden has as much of a right to be what he is as does Aung San Suu Ki, Ariel Sharon, Yasser Arafat, V. Prabhakaran, and a host of others. Some get the Nobel Peace Prize, others do not. Some may be right, others wrong. That is for the future to decide. And the future is never visible. So, how can we wear rose-tinted glasses to view it?

You say, “Oscar Wilde once wrote that you destroy the thing you love and that which you love, will destroy you in the end.”

The Quran says, ``Prescribed for you is fighting, though it be hateful to you. Yet it may happen that you will hate a thing which is better for you; and it may happen that you

love a thing which is worse for you. God knows and you know not.`` [K., 2:216]

Interesting juxtaposition!

Regards,

Farzana

for a moment I thought here was a fantastic apologia for the cultural wasteland of Afghanistan

and the actions of fascist taliban...and then in the articles ends in a fantastic flourish - maybe the author of the article was sure what he wanted to say and said his piece. And then on reviewing his authorship he decided that the article read like an apologia for the taliban and the so-called `islamist` action taken by them....and changed his mind to become a grovelling apologist for the west and its cultural influences (he derides in a the most fanstastic manner) by suggesting that that the taliban should be allowed to do what they want in order to save Islam.

Where was the author when (to use his words)

`` when the Taliban were destroying the raison d’ etre of Islam by their medieval acts of intolerance and malpractice? `` and then surprises us all with a statement

`` deal with the menace of the Taliban, because today the issue is the statutes of Bamyian and tomorrow it well could be the honor and dignity of Islam, as a religion, itself! ``

The wonder of wonders is that the authors thinks that the taliban havenot as yet insulted Islam! If that is not an aplogia for the taliban in light of the previous quote and his article what else is...

Would the real Mr. Khan please stand up.

As pointed out by one academic, the Taliban jihad against idolatory may be a prelude to an attack on Sufi and Shia tombs and monuments.

This may echo the 1802-1805 Wahhabi destruction of such in Karbala, Mecca and Medina.

Perhaps y`all will sing in a different tune then.

-Arun the Infidelator