Lets Destroy The Bamiyan Buddhas!

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

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.

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.

Asif Naqshbandi #142

“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!”

Asif, what exactly have Muslims in their own lands gotten done? Correct me if i’m wrong, but Muslims in their own lands have not gotten much of anything done in the last few hundred years. Muslims in lands including the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Pakistan, northern Africa, and Southeast Asia generally have low prosperity, low standards of living, and oppressive governments. The western world has surpassed them in thought and prosperity. Now, Muslims in other people’s lands, that’s a different story.

In response to Harpreet (Reply # 152)
Dear Harpreet:

Thank you for an excellent response. I tend to agree with your arguments. In my rebuttal, however, I had said: “somewhat romantic in a modern [political] sense.” My comment needs to be read in light of the tone of the editorial which, I reckon, is grounded in a particular regional cum global geopolitical discourse.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Re: 149 cheraym

[``Tell me, what did Taleban gain by wasting ammunitions, man-hours, and all the show of rocket-launchers, missiles to destroy some speechless statues?``]

cheraym, I think you are the biggest hypocrite on this forum.

You pretend to care so much about extremism and fanaticism in Pakistan and other muslim countries that one might get the (false) impression that you are against ALL extremism and fanaticism and not just its muslim variety.

Lets see you do (or at least say) something about hindoo fanaticism for a change?

So tell me, what did the BJP gain by destroying the 400 year old babri mosque?

Answer: It apealed to the not-so-latent intolerance of hindoos and gained BJP the government of India!

In response to Asif Naqshbandi (Reply # 154)
Dear Asif:

Your statement: “I did not say we should hurt the feelings of non-Muslims intentionally nor did Our Beloved Prophet.”

My reply: How about the unintended consequences of our thoughts and actions? Let me give you an example. Muslims use the word Kaafir or Kuffar. Do you believe that these words are not misused or overused by the Muslims? Do you believe that the Hindus, for example, are Kaafirs? If yes, then I would argue that you have no clue about Hinduism. If no, then why many, if not most, Hindus believe that the Muslims call them Kafir? For your information, even Jinnah was called “Kaafir-e-Azam”? Do you think, they were justified in such name calling? Now, let me add another dimension to it. I have also been called a Kaafir by an apparently highly educated Pakistani, who (I understand) currently teaches journalism in Punjab University, Lahore. This was a person, I actually provided all kinds of courtesy and help when he initially came to the US, and I never asked him for any favor.
What is so great about any religion or its believers to pass such kind of judgements on other believers or non-believers, and make them feel bad?

Your statement: “. . . what I am saying is that Huzoor Paak alayhisalatosalam told us to stick to Islam no matter WHAT THE KAAFIRS may think of us. . . .”

My reply: Please tell me about the origin of the word Kaafir. Was it used in the pre-Islamic period or was it coined/revealed during a particular historical moment to address a particular political situation? If revealed, what makes it so universal that we can use it indiscriminately over all times, places, and all kinds of people?

Your statement: “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.”

My reply: Are you saying that human beings can never act/interact as humans only? How did Islam spread over such a large part of the world in a reasonably short time-period? By developing “othernesses”only? Or, with the use of the Sword? Or, what? What is so great about the Muslims (or the political Islamists to be more precise) that they are currently under attack from so many different directions?

Your statement: “ 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?!

My reply: I am myself a meat-eating (and loving) person. But, I do have a contradiction in my life. I was able to slaughter animals in the past, now I cannot even see an animal being slaughtered. I still eat meat and consider myself a Pacifist. Nonetheless, if I live in a community where some people symbolically (or otherwise) treat the cow as their mother, it would be wise on my part to stop eating the beef. Moreover, I don’t consider it necessary to slaughter an animal on Eid ul Azha (pardon my spelling). I would prefer to spend the same amount of money for the education of a poor child.

Asif, religion should basically be a person`s relationship with his/her God. Difficulties arise when we start imposing our own ideas upon others.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Lets admit it, Michael Fay, the brat, got what he deserved for malicious vandalism. If anything, Singaporean friends of mine were outraged that the sentence was reduced. BTW, many `average` Americans here think he got what he deserved as well. The only ones who were `outraged` were the professional whiners and apologists in the social-worker/asinine-psychologist category, the same people who have turned the US into a dysfunctional society where nothing is your fault any more: its a fair cop, but society`s to blame, eh?

Regards.

PS: In defense of Feroz, he belongs to the rapidly disappearing Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party, the one that is uncomfortable opening the Bible every 30 seconds to ask WWJD or speaks to Him every night to tell him what is wrong with the US.

Mr. Khan, I would invite you to try to hold the bull by its horns. For the moment, forget the Taliban and the West. Tell me what you think about basic human values, that as Bilal Ahmad Sahib will tell you, were also nurtured in Muslim societies by scholars such as Ibn Khuldun, and numerous mathematicians, and scientists. These were the people who paved the way for the emergence of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. I am talking about values such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to equal citizenship regardless of ethnic origin, religion, colour. Do they matter? Should we become nauseated when Bush and Blair selectively chant some of these words in pursuit of their bloody objectives? Should we get so carried away that we lump all these values with the ``West`` and forget about their content?

The ``West`` that you rail against is a stereotype, and like all stereotypes, it does not exist. Your categorization does not enable us to distinguish between the Zapatistas and the U.S. Republicans, Bush and Nader, Samuel Huntington and Noam Chomsky. All of them belong to the West. You seem to forget that in some ways, you are Western too. The reputation of Islam in the ``west`` does matter to you. That obviously accounts for the outburst against the Taliban at the end of your piece.

Dear Bilal sahib,

Just a quick reply for now but the Qur`an and hadith clearly state who is a kaafir and Muslims of Sunni Islam have been agreed on this matter since the time of Our Beloved Prophet sal allahu alayhi wa sallam. To be concise, the world is split into Muslims and kaafirs. All those who do not accept Islam are kaafirs (i.e. non-believers). i.e. anyone who does not accept There is No God but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam) and all this statement implies (i.e. iman e mufassil). Then the kaafirs can be divided into two groups: kaafirs with a divinely revealed book (i.e. Jews and Christians) and those without. All are unbelievers. Munafiqs (i.e. those who say they are Muslims but actually dont believe are kaafirs too.) The Muslims can be divided into Ahle Sunnah and the rest (which are Ahle BiddaH). All these are Muslims unless they believe something which is outside the Zaruriyat e Deen. In this day and age those who are Ahle Sunnah are the followers of Imam Ashari and Imam Maturidi in aqeedah i.e. those who follow one of the 4 orthodox mazhabs (Maliki, Shafi, Hanbali and Hanafi)....

This has been the orthodox opinion since the formulation of the madhhabs and the ummah is agreed upon this.

wallahu aalam.

I`m sorry but the examples you have given are typical of the apologists mindset. If someone doesn`t like being called a kaafir, we cannot help that. It is a part of the deen to call a kaafir a kaafir and a muslim a muslim.

I would not be offended if a orthodox christian called me a heathen nor if a hindu called me `maleech` (?) nor if someone calls me a fanatic. I am what I am and you either accept me for what i am or you dont. I will not apologise for my aqeedah. Why should I ? (I am not forcing you to accept my views but i am not going to shy away from telling anyone what they are).

please read Belief and Islam. You can read it online at www.hizmetbooks.org--it explains this much better than i have.

yours

Asif

``Please tell me about the origin of the word Kaafir. Was it used in the pre-Islamic period or was it coined/revealed during a particular historical moment to address a particular political situation?``

Kufr in arabic is to deny. Kafir, the person who denies. In particular those who deny the existence of ``one God`` (polythiests). Muslims and Jews are very strict on Tauheed. Jews have suffered for insisting on it (Shama y Israel Adonai Eloheynu Adonai echaad - Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is one - kind of simmilar to la illaha il Allah). In one of his poems Faiz uses the word in its literal meaning:

jin ka deen pervi-i-kizb-o-reyan hai un ko

himat-i-kufr milay, jurat-i-tahqeeq milay

For people like Naqshbandi, anyone who doesnt follow their narrow definition of a mussalman is a Kafir and nothing except plenty of chittars on their asses will result in reconsidering their bigoted viewpoint.

re asif# 161

This is the re-re-re rendition of the overture of the symphony orchestra of seventh century medievalism.

You guys are against all decency, all tolerance and all good things made by the Good Lord.

``sab hasiin hain zaahidon ko na pasand

ab koi huur ayegi in ke liye``

On one theme I agree with you: the world will indeed soon be divided in two camps but not in the categories so see. Either we will stand for liberty or stand against it. This will be monumental philosophical struggle between Thomas Jefferson and Mullah Omar. May the best man win.

A perspective:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49468-2001Mar9.html

Harish3 #153

In America there is a saying ``Money talks, bull sh--it walks``.

That is very true.

American elections are very much influenced by money. (And who knows better than Americans who manipulate elections in other countries).

Republican Party in its current stage is a party of rich class, and they don`t hesitate to admit it. Therefore the problem of money is not their problem. As is well evidenced in this election.

Democrats with their bases in minorities and working class, money is a big problem.

That is why Compaign finance reform is a demand of Democrats mainly. Because once the influence of money is gone, democrats will find it easy to win the election because of their position on social issues, minorities, workers right, enviornment etc which appeals to majority of people.

As far as your contention, that middle class is now owning a substantial portion of corporate shares. In my opinion this is going to be a temporary phenomenon. And the next cycle of depression will shift the money to where it belongs.

There are already signs of it with massive sell out of shares. Dropping in the prices of shares. Big mergers. And small businesses going out of business.

Siagalph235 #150

I would disagree with your logic.

Love it or leave it.

While in Pakistan, I have been vocal in wrongs in society. Does that make me eligible for an exile from Pakistan.

There are lot of wrongs in America, if you look carefully and is pointed out by American themselves inspite of their holier than thou media. (Recall the public debate on Iraq by Madeline Albright).

The point Asfand was making was falling in the category of holier than thou. That he is waiting for an Islamic State to be established so that he can migrate to that state.

Forming the notions of life on wrong premises lead only to the life of duplicity.

rajajanjua,

actually if you read my last post carefully you would find that I do NOT believe that anyone who doesn`t follow my ``narrow definition`` of islam is a kafir,rather I wrote:

``The Muslims can be divided into Ahle Sunnah and the rest (which are Ahle BiddaH). ALL these are Muslims unless they believe something which is outside the Zaruriyat e Deen. ``

So what is YOUR definition of a kaafir? Pray tell.

sigalph---I don`t agree with Mullah Omar on many points BUT he sure is infinitely better than Thomas Jefferson! At least he reads the kalimah.

And if kaafirs can go to jannat why did our beloved nabi spend their life opposing their belief systems and fighting them until Islam was made victorious?