Lets Destroy The Bamiyan Buddhas!

Dear Bilal sahib,

I did not say we should hurt the feelings of non-Muslims intentionally nor did Our Beloved Prophet salallahu alayhi wa sallam teach us that BUT what I am saying is that Huzoor Paak alayhisalatosalam told us to stick to Islam no matter WHAT THE KAAFIRS may think of us; Sarkar alayhisalatosalaam ne to sar-e-aam kaafiron kay deen ko ghalt kaha tha aur unhein Allah ki taraf rujoo karne aur Ussee ki ibadat kaha tha; and do you think the kuffaar were happy?! They tried all sorts of things to make Our Beloved Habib sal allahu alayhi wa sallam give up preaching Islam. What I am saying is that if you think that the unbelievers will ever truly like you, as long as you remain a Muslim, you are mistaken.

That does not mean that you be nasty to anyone or hurt there feelings. By your logic, many of the kuffaar find it offensive that Muslims slaughter sheep and cows on Eid ul Adha--should we stop doing Qurbani just because Brigitte Bardot and co. think it is barbaric?!

Bro, please don`t be apologetic for your Deen.

Krashid #146 and feroz

“And business friendly means higher return to big businesses.”

A few points. First, feroz, in saying that bush’s election was “bought by corporate america,” made it seem as if republicans are more beholden to corporate donors then the democrats. Judging from the way gore and lieberman whored themselves and their reputations for votes to any special interest, including corporations and unions, this is hardly the case. During the election, Al gore had no problem giving a speech assaulting “big business” and then immediately going to a corporate, trial lawyer, union, or Hollywood fundraiser. People may disagree with bush, but he was never guilty of this type of blatant hypocrisy. So I agree with you in pointing out that both democrats and republicans receive corporate donations.

Second point. Bush won’t support the current incarnation of mccain’s campaign finance bill because it violates 1st amendment free speech rights, and I agree with bush. And for that matter, I think democrats, in the final analysis, will come out more strongly against mccain campaign finance reform then even the republicans, because they have more to lose. For all the talk of corp. power, the unions have a far more powerful grip on the democrats then corp.s on republicans. The anti-reform teacher’s union (ask yourself why lieberman was on record supporting school vouchers UNTIL he got on the democratic ticket?) and afl-cio, which was instrumental in donating union money to democratic candidates without member consent (in violation of a supreme court ruling), can’t function under mccain’s bill and they will fight it tooth and nail.

The thing you have to realize with corporations and which scares democratic “class warfare” proponents like feroz is that with the dramatic rise in stock ownership by the middle class in recent years, corporations no longer simply represent the elite rich but a much broader range of citizens. This is why al gore’s “attack on big business” didn’t work…because he was attacking us! Real campaign finance reform should not limit anyone from contributing to candidates or parties. Real reform should simply require immediate full disclosure. And the democrats with their far more corrupt, hypocritical, and tyrannical special interests like unions, NAACP, and hollywood will find this type of true reform far more difficult then bush and the republicans.

ahmadb#131,

Dear ahmadb,

In your post you raise in rebuttal of the India Today editorial, the following point:

``(2) The claim that Afghanistan, or a part of it, was “a part of the world that was once India” is somewhat romantic in a modern sense.``

I think you have raised an interesting issue here. In the specific instance of the Bamiyan Buddha statues, I do not think it is objectionable that there is a sentiment, however tangible, that these statues represent in some way a peripheral aspect of Indian culture and civilisation. I believe it should be seen in this respect, and not taken to mean anything more than that.

However, it does raise an interesting question as to what extent is the notion of ``self`` in terms of cultural or national identity a ``romantic`` construct, and further, whether ``romantic`` and perhaps idealised notions of a nation or a community`s self should be encouraged, or discouraged.

For example, many Pakistanis understandably take an interest in certain aspects of Islamic civilisation, for example the great Moorish rule in Spain. Now this may be romantic, but one could argue that in some way it does represent a certain part of the make up of the Muslim notion of self, both individually and communally, in Pakistan. It situates and contextualises the reality of the nation within a stream of Muslim culture and high civilisation. The idea of ``imagined communities``.

Within the Sikh diaspora there is a certain romantic attatchment and interest in the rule of Maharajah Ranjit Singh. In my country, the UK, there is an on-going debate as to the reasons for a current feeling of confusion in national identity, and to what extent it has been caused by the British notion of self having been rooted so much in its role as ``master of the world``, its ``greatness`` being bound up with its imperial possessions.... in other words, the idea of Britain being not only the landmass of England, Wales and Scotland, but also in some measure being linked to a wider notion of British, Anglo-Saxon civilisation (including in some way, the historical reality of British rule in India).Once this physical, administrative Britain has dissapeared, as the empire has fallen,to what extent can Britain`s self identity be rooted in its former achievements, now that it is only a middle sized world power? For example, can Britain claim as part of its own heritage the architecture of Lutyens New Delhi?

So as you can see, this romantic idea of a wider identity, a more disparate and variagated notion of both the individual and national self, is not a phenomenon unique to India and the Bamiyan Buddhas. It is very much a reality in the modern world, and in the modern sense.

I believe the next stage would be to examine the extent to which such romantic, imagined ``selves`` are healthy,or are a hinderance to the formation of a contemporary, progressive formulation of nationhood, or community. My feeling is that the national self is a dynamic construct which is constantly changing, but that romantic imagined constructs can never be done away with completely, the myths/realities of the past always, at some level form, a collective underpinning of community identity.

Sorry if this has veered off the path, but your post raised my interest.

regards

Harpreet

#128,

Who the hell do these people think they are? I mean, ideologically speaking I can understand (though not agree) with why they are hostile to Muslims given the heightened tensions between India & Pakistan, historical conflicts etc, but what threat has Christianity ever posed to India / Hinduism? Have they ever stopped to think that people may not feel a need to convert to Christianity were it not for some people`s abject status within a society? And there have been Christians in India for over a thousand years....

Lets follow their ideology to its next level, their next target should be the Buddhists because of Dr Ambedkar`s vision and movement. In which case the talleban are simply doing the RSS`s dirty work for them.Watch out for news of dynamite shipments from RSS headquarters to Kabul in the next few days.

regards

Harpreet

re asfand 140

Wrong on Singapore. Under US pressure the lashes were reduced to 10. Civilization did win the day. Not to mention that SIngapore is a representative system while Afghanistan...never mind, you guys won`t understand.

Pal, if you like the Taliban why are you not in Afghanistan? Seems to me like you want it both ways of both worlds and talk from both sides of your mouth! Hypocricy as someone pointed out.

For all of you out there who are in the US and don`t think this is the best place in the world, I have some manly advice: nobody is forcing you to be here; love it or leave it if you are men enough.

One correction Mr. Siddiqui, it was 3 lashes, instead of 50 as you mentioned. It was reduced to one after Singapore`s then ambassador Mr. Nathan (who is president now)to US was cosulted?reprimanded? However, your selection of example is not appropriate. The laws in Singapore are strict in order to keep the country as efficient as it is now. Tell me, what did Taleban gain by wasting ammunitions, man-hours, and all the show of rocket-launchers, missiles to destroy some speechless statues? Those statues looked so good at the backdrop of scenic mountains, they almost looked natural as if they belonged there. Nobody was worshipping them, couldn`t they be kept just as symbols of art? It only showed the skills of Afghan people only, no less, no more.

Re: firstlip

``A view from firstslip,

(any spelling mistake is mine and not typo)``

I love your signature, and your honesty. Keep it up!!

In response to Asif Naqshbandi (Reply # 142)
Dear Asif:

Your statement: ``Simply put the choice is to either remain Muslim and be hated by the kuffaar (either openly or secretly) or give up everything in Islam which the kuffaar don`t like and be friends with them. It is a simple choice....``

My reply: No, it is not a simple choice. The choice was neither simple fourteen hundred years ago nor today. The actions of many Muslims are hated today by the believer of various religions (including Islam), let alone the kuffars (whosoever they are). You emphasize sharia but, perhaps in your zeal, tend to forget how Prophet Mohammad dealt with the Kuffar-e-Mecca and other unbelievers of Islam. Did Prophet Mohammad ordinarily believe in hurting the feelings of Others/Non-Muslims? If not, then why don`t you follow his path. I think, you definitely need to rethink your position.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Bahmad,

You wrote:

``The word Barbarians in the title of the piece is too strong. It may lead to additional reactionary behavior by some, if not most, Talibans``

Sometime this bluff has to be called. If the spades don`t like it, must we stop calling them or succumb to them? `Don`t tell them what they are otherwise they will become more irresposible`, just should not cut it. Besides, by not doing that, don`t we risk reactionary behaviour by some other parties as is already happening? Or we don`t have to worry about them?

``This phrase may also annoy many Muslims around the world``

I don`t see why. Does the author say that many/all muslims around the world are barbarians?

``The claim that Afghanistan, or a part of it, was `a part of the world that was once India` is somewhat romantic in a modern sense``

Perhaps. No harm in being romantic though. There are examples of these kinds of romantic notions by other nations as well.

``It is also debatable whether the destruction/vandalism of the Buddhist relics is Islamic or unIslamic. Strong arguments can be made for either position based on Islamic/Muslim belief-system (including teachings), history, and politics``

The author did not argue for either position, I think. Taleban has.

``In a nutshell, it is very dangerous to read non-recent history in light of contemporary ideologies and worldviews. Also remember, how history is written – for example, compare Golwalker, B.R. Nanda, Sumit Sarkar, and Ashish Nandy``

So there are many versions of history written by different individuals. Your preference may be different from the author`s.

``Any situation in Afghanistan needs to be viewed in terms of the social, economic, and political history of Afghanistan vis a vis her relations with the rest of the world. In this sense, Afghanistan in itself is an international political issue that needs to be dealt with politically but sympathetically, amicably, and peacefully``

Iraq is pretty much in the same situation. Why are many of the much maligned western/eastern nations sympathetic to it, but not to Taleban?

Harish 3 #122

Does supporting a party means that a person becomes blind to reality.(Particularly a person like FerozK with indepth analysis)

America is corporate America and is admitted by Americans themselves whether it is democrat or republican.

The debate on compaign finance reform is only one manifestation of this.

As far as funding of parties is concerned. Traditionally big businesses give donations to both parties. And with one party or another one or another business gets most benefit. For example tobbaco industry suffered a heavy blow during Clinton administration, but defense industry flourished. But in general Republican are more business friendly. And democrat more truly represented by Ralph Nader are interested in social issues and enviornment etc.

And business friendly means higher return to big businesses.

TAhmed # 139

I agree with you on your response to Asfand.

What is he talking about crossing the border. Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia Government have no Shariah Laws implemented, or are they not Islamic Shariah.

In mild terms it is called Hypocrisy.

Re: Indianisation of minorities

``RSS chief K S Sudarshan has said `` ‘’Indianisation of Islam and Christanity’’ is a must and that Indian Muslims and Christians should severe links with Mecca and the Vatican and become ‘swadeshi``.

This kind of statement is both unfortunate and irresponsible. What is the meaning of Indianisation? If Sudershan thinks muslims in India are not indianised that is his problem. Cultural assimilation takes a long time,even centuries. While my grandfather,who was working for GOI in Delhi did not speak a good hindi,while my father spoke a better hindi,i along with my brother and sister can speak hindi without any accent. So, you see already there is cultural intermingling happening. I suspect something like this is happening between the religious communities as well. So Mr Sudershan`s argument about Indianisation does not make any sense to me. Muslims will always be proud of their religion and cultural heritage and so will the christians. If Mr Sudershan thinks that a muslim will start his day by saying ``Om namo narayanaya namah`` (i worship Lord Narayana)instead of ``praise be to Allah``,he is living in a fantasy world.

sridhar

Asfand--well said! If Muslims in their own lands thought about what the Western reaction to anything would be before they did it they`d get nothing done! And besides, our frame of reference should be the Shar`iat and nothing else. Also, Allah tells us that the unbelievers will never be

happy with us UNTIL WE BECOME LIKE THEM...Simply put the choice is to either remain Muslim and be hated by the kuffaar (either openly or secretly) or give up everything in Islam which the kuffaar don`t like and be friends with them. It is a simple choice....

Afsand #137 ``I crossed the border before to USA because of the hypocritical system in Pakistan and I will cross the borders again if there is an established Islamic State in this world.``

Are you incapable of speaking coherently, or just bent out of shape trying to explain the lack of any sense in what you are saying? The rest of your post makes no sense either.

Chill out my dear friend and stop blaming the USA for everything that`s wrong with the world today. A little rational thinking would preclude that the reason why the world is adopting American culture is that unlike what happens in most parts of the world; it isn`t shoved down people`s throats or up their behinds, but because of its simplicity and common sense approach.

Siglaph235 reply # 124

``No. You need to nip cancer in the bud. The problem with global communism was that it was given fifty years to prove its goodwill until Reagan and Thatcher came along and said this nonsense is simply evil and has gotta go. The civilized world cannot make the same mistake of waiting fifty years again for the barbarians to become acclimitized to civilized behavior. ``

I guess you will say the same thing about the governemt of Singapore. Few years ago they awarded 50 lashes to an American kid who broke the Singaporean law. The ``civilized`` world put a lot of effort to force Singapore to withdraw the punishment but Singaporean government did what was according to their law. I guess in your frame of reference government of Singapore should also be ``nipped in the bud`` and they should also follow the ``civilized`` form of government as USA and UK follows.

What you are trying to say is that Talibans should follow the western type of democracy and law or in a nut shell their system is bad and your system is civilized. This may be correct in your frame of reference only. According to Talibans it is the other way around. How would you feel if Talibans tell your ``civilized`` governments to follow their system?

What they are doing within the boundries of their country is good for them and what the ``civilized`` nations are doing in their countries is good for them. If you try to go to some other country and try to force the way they run their governments all you will get is chaos and nothing else.

``It is quite a natural defense, and depth of helplessness, to compare the Taleban with the Founding Fathers of America. One revolution was based on the idea that ``...all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...``; the other is based on the premise that Shiites are sub-human, Hindus non-human, and Budhdists idol-worshippers. Give me a break. I`ll be happy to share an eternity in hell with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson than a lifetime in paradise with Mullah Omar and his convoluted merchants of hate.``

Founding fathers of USA only set a frame on how the government shall run the affairs of the country (USA). It took a long time for the people to implement those rules and regulations. Talibans already have a frame (Islam). All they need to do is to implement it. It will take time. In USA (thanks hobbyty) the efforts are still under way to make the system perfect i.e. close to what the founding fathers meant and said 200 years ago.

Asfand Siddiqui

Sacramento CA