Islams Challenge

ronald:

...let me lead the charge...allahu akbar!...hamidm you there?...cover the right flank...tahmed...left flank...naraa-e-takbir....allahu akbar...

...three deep breaths...(yeah i follow my advice as well!)...

now...sir...where were we?...oh yeah..blaming islam...well sir...you are wrong...wrong...WRONG to attribute the actions of fringe lunatics to the entire spectrum of the religion...

...yes muslims have short-comings...some terrible...some unforgiven...but to fault the entire religion for the deeds of the minority is not fair game...and no am not casting any intellectual doubts...heck have no idea who you are...there is no blurb at the end informing us whether you are an academic scholar or a starving artist...just stating the obvious...

...you know why?...`cause i do not fault the world christians for the actions of the irish terrorists or the basque separatist or the jews for the zionist instransigence...or...or...you get the drift?

...naara-e-insaniyat: insaniyat zindabad....er...on second thoughts...jindabad as well!

regards,

temporal

Very well said, Ronald...

The emphasis in the Islamic History has been misplaced in my opinion. A Muslim child grows up hearing stories of great and mighty Muslim conquerors, and no doubt they were important people, but what is not emphasized is the fact that the days of conquering glory are over.. the modern world is one of Technological, scientific and Economic competition. In this sphere, Avicenna, Averroes, Al Khuwarzimi (Father of Al Jabr wal Muqabala or Algebra), Ibnal Haitham (the founder of Optical science and mechanics), Ibne Khaldun etc the list is indeed long, these scientists and philosophers assume supreme importance... they should be the number 1 heroes of the children in Pakistan, not Mahmud of Ghazni, or Muhammad bin Qasim, though we can make an exception for Saladin or Sher Shah Suri for the obvious reasons Saladin is a symbol of Chivalry...

Sher Shah Suri is a road builder and a Modernizer!

I remember when I was younger, PTV used to air Historical dramas about Medieval Muslim figures, and I used to switch the TV off if it was about a Scientist,... I loved action, I loved stories of Kings and Conquerors..

The emphasis needs to be laid on on scientists, Philosophers, explorers, Geographers and astronomers.... Islamic Civilization did a good job translating and preserving the texts of ancient greek and roman literature... and then it passed it off to the West.

How ironic is it, that the Taliban go against the very grain of the basis of Islamic civilization... Knowledge, not just religious knowledge, but Modern Scientific knowledge... I wonder if the Muslims of the 7th century could translate the works of Aristotle and Plato, what makes Muslims of today resist western science.

In this is the issue .... which Muslims need to address. I saw `Imam` Hamza Yusuf sitting in the Congress listening to Bush speak, ... but has he decided to teach the students at Zaytuna Santa Clara the History of Science, Darwin`s theory of Evolution, Computer Science, Economics yet? This is the question which needs to be answered!

I have to admit I have been very disappointed with the Islamic scholars interview on the TV. They all say the same thing: Islam doesn`t condone suicide killings. But, they never address the issue that the Jehadis kill in the name of Islam.

One guy used the example of Timothy McVeigh to make his point. He said, ``we never refer to what Timothy McVeigh did as Christian terrorism then how can we refer to what happened in NYC as Islamic terrorism?``

Very unsatisfactory. The interviewer I guess was polite and let it go.

McVeigh didn`t kill in the name of Jesus, but these morons did.

When asked what these Jehadis interpret differently these scholars have only one standard answer. Islam is a very peaceful religion. Islam doesn`t condone terrorism.

Very unsatisfactory. If this is how all Muslims are going to be then God help you. You bury your head in the sand while many of your co-religionists kill in the name of your religion.

I for one have no intention of getting used to the kinds of ignorance we have seen some Western persons display about Islam and Muslims. As only Western persons and ``secularists`` can do, you display your ignorance and bias while maligning Islam by equating it with murder, suicide and an irrational hatred of other religions, and then suggest the very same that you did trash has within it, ``fruitful and constructive elements``.

``...we are only too aware that there is a tradition in Islam of Holy War and Holy Martyrdom, wherein, as near as we can tell, both suicidal attack and the possible slaughter of innocents are specifically urged upon Muslims.``

This from those who did not hesitate to vaporize 200,000 innocent civilians? This from from those who fire bombed Dresden? This from those who sat on their thumbs knowing what was happening to the Jews of Europe? This from those who claim moral and military leadership and watched daily massacres in Bosnia while having dinner and debated casualties that might be incurred, while Serbs, fighting to save Europe from Islam, butchered freely? This from the descendents of a culture and civilization that in it`s entire history has not been able to reconcile itself with Islam, and it`s reconciliation with Judaism required the sacrifice of millions in ovens, and the dispossesion of Plestinians. Should we then arrive at conclusions about the nature of their religion? Marxist who hide behind the banner of ``Secular`` would want nothing more. But these are all beside the point.

``...in a world that no longer fight with swords, a train of thought and practice inimical to all those who choose a faith other than its own.`` And your evidence for making this absurd statement is...? Are you unaware of how and why Israel was created and the role of, not only guilty conscience, but of a deep religious conviction? The fulfillment of a Biblical promise, based on the dispossesion of an entire native peoples is a reflection of the barbarous and irrational nature of Islam? how rational of you, how secular.Who other than Western Christian, Orthodox Christianity and Judaism, have in the last 300 years sought to impose their culture and values upon other peoples? Yes, it`s true they did not call it holy war - but what was/is it if not war? Did Muslims impose a war on themselves in Palestine? Bosnia? Chechnya? Kosovo? Kashmir? Or do your notions of ``modernity`` include resignation, only on behalf of Muslims to, captivity, servitude and dispossession?

Modernity is not something that arose out of itself, it`s roots are in the learning preserved in monasteries, as are the roots of modern science, at a time when Western civilization was itself in ``Dark ages``. Similarly, within Islam the roots of modern values exist while similarly some have concluded that modernity is a threat to their way of life. You are correct that the major conflict within Islamia are over visions of a modern or traditional societies. If you are going to make the kinds of sweeping statements you do, a little, rather a lot, of research would have afforded your work, your thinking, clarity and balance.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Ronald,

Right on....these are very pertinent questions that the whole non-Muslim world - silently or loudly - wondering right now.

temporal # 1

You make a common mistake. IRA does not have the support of Christians the way we support Osama. IRA does not give war cries in the name of Islam. Neither it gets open support from catholics all over the world the name of Christianity. Why is everyone suggesting that an attack on Afghanistan is an attack on Islam? We ourvelves have not made clear the distinction between terrorism and our religion. By blindly supporting Jehadis we have lost our right to claim that they do not represent Islam. We must put our house in order before asking others to distinguish between a good Muslim and a bad Muslim. I support the author.

..... ayeeeeeeeeeee!

... now this place is getting really crazy - first we had our own maulana naqshbandi from the pit of vipers, uk, telling us that we needed to return to the sixth century and trade in our suvs for camels .......then we had maulana urstruly the terrible from the great madrassa of detroit urging us to conduct some kooky ijtimaa to reach ijtihad -or maybe it is the other way around.....we have also had the great professor hobbs tell us that pure islam is the real enchilada - better than any other flavor of god`s ice-cream for his silly creation .......anouzobillah, we have also had some sisters who had the audacity to tell us that we should quit dreamiong of houris, and if we really followed what was in the koran we would find heaven on earth

........ and now we have some infidel named ronald advising us that we need to shave off our beards, take a bath, kick the camel out of the tent and put on knickers to join the modern world .....heck no, we can`t do that - we must return to the time of the pious four and start all over again - even if it kills us .....our priests will not be outdone by jerry falwell and pat robertson - may the better man and the funnier hat win ........

I agree with temporal that the article expects of Islam a kind of monolithic coherence that is unrealistic. I am sure the writer will accept that interpretations can be made of Christianity, by its leaders, that Crusades, Inquisitions, witch-burnings, Holy Wars and so on are justified. And the tradition continues - with blessings of soldiers in ``Just Wars``, such as recently in Iraq, and possibly soon in Afghanistan.

Each sides feels self-righteous in its retaliatory actions, and they express their moral positions with religious language and references - eg. ``crusade against terrorism`` and using church services to express anger and ``resolve``. It would no doubt be called hatred if the same words fell from the lips of a Muslim.

If the writer truly wants to understand the roots of violence, textual analysis of the Qur`an and Hadiths are of limited value. Analyses of power and oppression will help you to understand why certain interpretations and passages on the duty to resist oppression may seem so relevant to young Muslims in different parts of the world.

But it is not ONLY a matter of oppressed Muslims looking desperately for a way to confront an even more violent and powerful enemy. We have to analyse power issues within the ummah too. How some Saudi wahabi and related deobandi movements have been financed and used intimidation against other strands of Islamic interpretation, for example.

There are minorities of power-seekers who intimidate and bully other Muslims and present themselves as representative of ``true Islam``. There is also the majority which does not always choose to confront them, because they are not organised and too busy getting on with their lives with the double intimidation from both foreign colonialism and local leaders trying to use the resulting anger to gain power.

And in the end it is these double victims who get blamed.

The author touches upon a highly controversial topic in his article, and I am too ill-equipped to address it adequately.

Islam promotes excellent family values, and if a family is considered to be a basis for society, then Islam certainly provides sound foundations. But a society, is much more than a family, especially a complex, Western one. Modern societies are progressive, challenge custom and tradition, tolerate dissent, are open to ideas, and technological change. I find it hard to believe that Islam would not be in favor of these ideas. There are plenty of individuals who espouse these ideas, and are Muslim, who lend credence to this hypothesis. However, why is it that hardly any Muslim society today anywhere in the world is a `best-practice` example of being progressive, challenger of custom/tradition, tolerance, open to ideas and technological change? Why do individuals succeed, but the society does not? Why is this happening now? Why are Muslim societies less powerful than what they were even a hundred years ago, and certainly much less powerful than a thousand years ago?

(Not that the only significant Hindu society has performed any better -- it certainly has some elements who exhibit many of the same anti-modern viewpoints, but as a statistical sample, it is an insignificant sample of ONE, and it is hard to distinguish whether it is religion-inspired mediavelism or a statistical anamoly, that has resulted in statism).

Perhaps, one answer lies in the extent to which Islam governs society -- from criminal law, to banking and commerce. For example, whereas Western societies have allowed capitalism and markets to self-regulate, Islam prescribes its own governance structure for the same. This has the potential of stifling the economy, and may have contributed to the decline of the economies of Muslim countries. There might be other examples (for example in the case of civil law) that impede the modernization of societies.

I have perhaps already exceeded the bounds of my scant knowledge of the subject, and my purpose was not to offend anyone, but to initiate a debate on the subject from the likes of Zafar Al Talib, Hobbyty, Tahmed321, Nasah, et al.

Regards.

Time for Intellectual Honesty

There Are Many Islams

By Edward Said

Spectacular horror of the sort that struck New York (and to a lesser degree Washington) has ushered in a new world of unseen, unknown assailants, terror missions without political message, senseless destruction.

For the residents of this wounded city, the consternation, fear, and sustained sense of outrage and shock will certainly continue for a long time, as will the genuine sorrow and affliction that so much carnage has so cruelly imposed on so many.

New Yorkers have been fortunate that Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a normally rebarbative and unpleasantly combative, even retrograde figure, has rapidly attained Churchillian status. Calmly, unsentimentally, and with extraordinary compassion, he has marshalled the city`s heroic police, fire and emergency services to admirable effect and, alas, with huge loss of life. Giuliani`s was the first voice of caution against panic and jingoistic attacks on the city`s large Arab and Muslim communities, the first to express the commonsense of anguish, the first to press everyone to try to resume life after the shattering blows.

Would that that were all. The national television reporting has of course brought the horror of those dreadful winged juggernauts into every household, unremittingly, insistently, not always edifyingly. Most commentary has stressed, indeed magnified, the expected and the predictable in what most Americans feel: terrible loss, anger, outrage, a sense of violated vulnerability, a desire for vengeance and un-restrained retribution. Beyond formulaic expressions of grief and patriotism, every politician and accredited pundit or expert has dutifully repeated how we shall not be defeated, not be deterred, not stop until terrorism is exterminated. This is a war against terrorism, everyone says, but where, on what fronts, for what concrete ends? No answers are provided, except the vague suggestion that the Middle East and Islam are what `we` are up against, and that terrorism must be destroyed.

What is most depressing, however, is how little time is spent trying to understand America`s role in the world, and its direct involvement in the complex reality beyond the two coasts that have for so long kept the rest of the world extremely distant and virtually out of the average American`s mind. You`d think that `America` was a sleeping giant rather than a superpower almost constantly at war, or in some sort of conflict, all over the Islamic domains. Osama bin Laden`s name and face have become so numbingly familiar to Americans as in effect to obliterate any his tory he and his shadowy followers might have had before they became stock symbols of everything loathsome and hateful to the collective imagination. Inevitably, then, collective passions are being funnelled into a drive for war that uncannily resembles Captain Ahab in pursuit of Moby Dick, rather than what is going on, an imperial power injured at home for the first time, pursuing its interests systematically in what has become a suddenly reconfigured geography of conflict, without clear borders, or visible actors. Manichaean symbols and apocalyptic scenarios are bandied about with future consequences and rhetorical restraint thrown to the winds.

Rational understanding of the situation is what is needed now, not more drum-beating. George Bush and his team clearly want the latter, not the former. Yet to most people in the Islamic and Arab worlds the official US is synonymous with arrogant power, known for its sanctimoniously munificent support not only of Israel but of numerous repressive Arab regimes, and its inattentiveness even to the possibility of dialogue with secular movements and people who have real grievances. Anti-Americanism in this context is not based on a hatred of modernity or technology-envy: it is based on a narrative of concrete interventions, specific depredations and, in the cases of the Iraqi people`s suffering under US-imposed sanctions and US support for the 34-year-old Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. Israel is now cynically exploiting the American catastrophe by intensifying its military occupation and oppression of the Palestinians.

Political rhetoric in the US has overridden these things by flinging about words like `terrorism` and `freedom` whereas, of course, such large abstractions have mostly hidden sordid material interests, the influence of the oil, defence and Zionist lobbies now consolidating their hold on the entire Middle East, and an age-old religious hostility to (and ignorance of) `Islam` that takes new forms every day.

Intellectual responsibility, however, requires a still more critical sense of the actuality. There has been terror of course, and nearly every struggling modern movement at some stage has relied on terror. This was as true of Mandela`s ANC as it was of all the others, Zionism included. And yet bombing defenceless civilians with F-16s and helicopter gunships has the same structure and effect as more conventional nationalist terror.

What is bad about all terror is when it is attached to religious and political abstractions and reductive myths that keep veering away from history and sense. This is where the secular consciousness has to try to make itself felt, whether in the US or in the Middle East. No cause, no God, no abstract idea can justify the mass slaughter of innocents, most particularly when only a small group of people are in charge of such actions and feel themselves to represent the cause without having a real mandate to do so.

Besides, much as it has been quarrelled over by Muslims, there isn`t a single Islam: there are Islams, just as there are Americas. This diversity is true of all traditions, religions or nations even though some of their adherents have futiley tried to draw boundaries around themselves and pin their creeds down neatly. Yet history is far more complex and contradictory than to be represented by demagogues who are much less representative than either their followers or opponents claim. The trouble with religious or moral fundamentalists is that today their primitive ideas of revolution and resistance, including a willingness to kill and be killed, seem all too easily attached to technological sophistication and what appear to be gratifying acts of horrifying retaliation. The New York and Washington suicide bombers seem to have been middle-class, educated men, not poor refugees. Instead of getting a wise leadership that stresses education, mass mobilisation and patient organisation in the service of a cause, the poor and the desperate are often conned into the magical thinking and quick bloody solutions that such appalling models pro vide, wrapped in lying religious claptrap.

On the other hand, immense military and economic power are no guarantee of wisdom or moral vision. Sceptical and humane voices have been largely unheard in the present crisis, as `America` girds itself for a long war to be fought somewhere out there, along with allies who have been pressed into service on very uncertain grounds and for imprecise ends. We need to step back from the imaginary thresholds that separate people from each other and re-examine the labels, reconsider the limited resources available, decide to share our fates with each other as cultures mostly have done, despite the bellicose cries and creeds.

`Islam` and `the West` are simply inadequate as banners to follow blindly. Some will run behind them, but for future generations to condemn themselves to prolonged war and suffering without so much as a critical pause, without looking at interdependent histories of injustice and oppression, without trying for common emancipation and mutual enlightenment seems far more wilful than necessary. Demonisation of the Other is not a sufficient basis for any kind of decent politics, certainly not now when the roots of terror in injustice can be addressed, and the terrorists isolated, deterred or put out of business. It takes patience and education, but is more worth the investment than still greater levels of large-scale violence and suffering.

``At the same time we are only too aware that there is a tradition in Islam of Holy War and Holy Martyrdom, wherein, as near as we can tell, both suicidal attack and the possible slaughter of innocents are specifically urged upon Muslims. So first, what are we to believe?``

The code of conduct for war in Islam is clear and very well defined:

Cannot go to war unless provoked by an act of injustice

Cannot harm women, children and elderly

Cannot harm anyone who is unarmed

Cannot cutdown trees (usually understood to mean: cannot destroy property)

Cannot harm anyone who surrenders

But there is a brand of Muslims who follow their bayghairat-besharam shiekhs and imams who have ``maslayhatan`` perverted the teachings of the Prophet to either suit their own purposes or to justify the actions of some degenerate caliph/sultan they were serving - these pervertions are a part of what is generally known as the Shariah - or the Islamic Law - Many Muslims believe that its time to discard the Shariah once and for all - its so antiquated that its not even worth the time to revise/revamp it.

I see a basic flaw in your this article (shared of course by far too many people). This flaw is summarized in the penultimate sentence ``Islam should understand an obligation to do so as well.``

Now, children, repeat after me: ``Religion does not have obligations, People do``. Once we understand this, the next step is to try and understand some common obligations for all human beings, and the third step is to understand why some humans fail to meet these obligations or violate them as violently as those who committed the murderous acts last week. That is the article I would like to see on chowk.

The descendents of Averroes and Avecinna come in all varieties. Sweeping generalizations are the undoings of a proper perspective.

I am getting sick and tired of current western fashion of branding ALL Muslims as extremist fundamentalis.

For that matter -- WEST cannot absolve itself of its responsibility of pandering to ONLY the despots, kings, shaikhs, Amirs, disctators and army generals of Muslim world -- and propping them up in power through its armies, money and material -- at the same time digging the ground under the feet of progressive and secular Mulim governments -- yes, like that of the Najeebullah government.

In simple english -- yes, SOME descendents of Averroes and Avecinna have turned out totally weird in 2001 -- but then the question is: why did you -- Mr.Ronald K. Rodebaugh -- ARM them to the teeth in Afghanistan -- for crying ut loud.

``We have all heard in recent days of how the Koran tells Muslims that to take one innocent life is to commit a crime as grave as taking the lives of all innocents, and that suicide is an unforgivable sin.``

This is true.

``At the same time we are only too aware that there is a tradition in Islam of Holy War and Holy Martyrdom, wherein, as near as we can tell, both suicidal attack and the possible slaughter of innocents are specifically urged upon Muslims.``

There is a concept of Holy War in Islam, however only in self-defence. I do not know of any injunction in Islam which encourages Muslims to slaughter innocents. I would be interested in the author`s sources. Otherwise, this argument is no different than suggeting that Christians were specifically urged by their faith to carry out the Holocaust. Historically speaking, Muslims, at the height of their enlightenment, were far less prone to carry out civilian killings than many other faiths at the height of their enlightenment. Even now, far more Muslims are and have been killed by people of other faiths (over 1 million in Afghanistan by the USSR (UN reports), over a hundred thousand in Iraq by the USA (Ramsey report), tens of thousands in Kashmir by India (BBC, Amnesty International), hundreds of Palestenians in Israel (Amnesty International) etc.) than vice-versa. This is a well-recognized and accepted fact. So while it is good to point out the Muslims who are carrying out innocent killings, one needs to keep things in perspective, and not get carried away.

``The two other religious faith’s springing from Judaic roots made their own accommodation to modernity, and emerged stronger for it. Islam should understand an obligation to do so as well. There is little that would serve it and the world as well.``

This is true. However, not as easily achieved, as suggested. It is only now towards the end of the twentieth century that Christianity and Judiasm have made accomodations to modernity (although, according to UN voting records, Israel has yet to follow these accomodations). So it has taken Christianity 2000 years to reach this stage of enlightenment. It has done so after going thru and carrying out inquisitions of Jews, holocausts against Jews, colonisations of Muslims and Hindus and athiests, slavery of Africans etc. None of this was the fault of Christianity, it was more related to the people interpreting it. Similarly, it is not Islam that needs to understand this obligation. It is the people who interpret it that need to understand this. However, 70% of the Muslims in the world are illeterate. So unfortunately, I cannot see this happening until the literacy rate goes up.

If the author is interested in what Islam says and does not say, I would encourage him to read the English translation of the Quran, and figure it out for himself, rather than listen to arguments of religious scholars of varying degrees. Until that time, I am not quite sure whether the author can claim to be in a position to criticize or compliment the actual teachings of Islam, one way or the other. What he can criticize and compliment is the current state of countries which have majority Muslim populations.

Also, the biggest problem in this, ``conflict`` is the perpetual state of denial that the West (primarily the US) and the Muslim people are involved. Each group seems, openly or subtly, to be convinced that it has done nothing wrong towards the other, and claims the other to be the problem. I think what is required is a great deal of introspection by the Muslims and the US govt. regarding how many innocent people have been killed by their actions. This article addresses the former group; unfortunately it does not address the later group.

Hopefully, such an introspection will start now. Perhaps that will be the siliver lining to this whole WTC tragedy.

Note to temporal: I carried out your orders even before they were issued. That is, I too had sent an earlier post with a similar message (great minds think alike, I guess): religions dont kill people, people do. I see that that pearl of wisdom I flung into cyberspace has not reached chowk yet, but hopefully it will have done so by the time you read this.

Interesting article:

``Living with the Enemy?

Trapped within the national nightmare, many Arab-Americans have become even more deeply ensnared by calls for retaliation against entire ethnic or religious groups. They are now being forced to live with an additional kind of fear, a fear fueled by jingoistic rhetoric that all who have roots in the Middle East are somehow complicit in the atrocities.

This anxiety certainly appears to be well founded. A recent CNN/USA Today/Gallop poll found that 58 percent of Americans supported the idea that all Arabs, including US citizens, should ``undergo special, more intensive security checks before boarding airplanes in the U.S.`` More disturbingly, roughly 49 percent said all Arabs -- again, including US citizens -- should carry a special identification card. According to a sampling by the Los Angeles Times, more than two-thirds of Americans said law enforcement officials should ``randomly stop people who may fit the profile of suspected terrorists.`` (http://usnews.about.com/library/weekly/aa092001a.htm)

Uh oh, this will probably be poor Mr. Rodebaugh`s last visit to Chowk after all the Mullahs vultures are done with him.

hamidm #11: ``and now we have some infidel named ronald advising us that we need to shave off our beards, take a bath, kick the camel out of the tent and put on knickers to join the modern world``

Are you sure this is what is being asked? Should what is being asked be carried with or without the special identification cards? Do you know if they will arrive in the mail, or do we have to go pick them up ourselves? Could you get mine for me, when you pick yours up?

I don`t think this article will receive the same amount of criticism that a similar article about Christianity by a fellow Muslim, would have received. Even though it deserves it. Pakistanis tend to be a lot more civilized when dealing with, ``foreigners,`` than with their own kind. An inferiority complex perhaps; or just mehmandari. Let`s hope the foreigners are equally civilized when dealing with Pakistanis, after this tragedy. Thank Musharraf for that one. A decision in the other direction by him wouldn`t have changed his lifestyle much, but there would have been a lot Pakistanis running scared in the USA.

I am still waiting for an article, either from an infidel or a momin, which points out the crimes against innocent civilians being committed by govts. and people of both faiths. Unfortunately, it is still a situation of, ``we do no wrong; only you do wrong.`` So far from all the articles, the Gandhi solution is the best way to go, if you ask me.

Reply Shammi # 14

Shammiji

“… why is it that hardly any Muslim society today anywhere in the world is a `best-practice` example of being progressive, challenger of custom/tradition, tolerance, open to ideas and technological change?”

Maybe it would be useful to list which societies are like this, and which are not. Next step: try and see what other factors define each group.

I suspect that societies where religion is a major force for social control are reactionary, while societies where religion is an entirely private matter are not. (I can’t think of any “Muslim” country which doesn’t fall into the first group. Possible exception: Turkey.) Of course there are degrees of this, or rather a slippery slope, and comparisons within each group might yield more usable information than comparisons between societies which have more differences than similarities. (A stab at the scientific method, if you will.)

For example, compare the Netherlands and the US (or Australia and the US, better yet, as they are two immigrant nations). Problem: how do we define progressiveness?

I think the status of women (including control of their own fertility inc by abortion) might be one good indicator. Practical (as opposed to theoretical) freedom of expression and association would be another.

It might also be good to compare countries from the other group. (May I suggest that we NOT compare any countries on the subcontinent, lest intellectual honesty fall victim to patriotism?) Perhaps Thailand and Cambodia?

I realise that this approach changes the thesis that Islam is the factor which keeps countries back to ``socially powerful religious institutions keep countries back`` but that seems to be closer to the truth to me (and also perhaps more palatable).

Zafar

Let me defend Ronald K Rodebaugh not because I only partially agree with him. Because he is a dear friend of mine and I introduced him to chowk sometime ago. I even discussed in detail with him before writing couple of my post about ``god and science`` and ``Why Europe and not India``. We have the same scientific background and talked at length about many many issues during our ride sharing.

I have always taken positions more liberal, less godly and more ethno-centric than theology centric as we both increased each others understandings. I always took positions which I believe are true according to my understanding. He agrees on many accounts but being a pragmatic, and since religions and belief in god are not going to disappear any time soon, something has to be done to make fruitful interactions among nations based on religions.

In my opinion, Muslims are too occupied with religion as compared to many other nations. Unlike Jesus, Mohammad lived long enough with achieving the leadership and laying out great details about Islamic living. What he laid out were right things at that time in that geographic and ethnic environments. Since then Islam has grown much and encompasses a variety of culture. Most Muslims have adopted Islamic culture (mostly Arabic culture in origin) to varying degree. Except for spiritual satisfaction, it has not made any positive contribution in the standard of living. Even those who are not carrying out jehad, living peacefully for long time and no fundamentalist tendencies are generally lagging behind their neighbors or even countrymen of other religions. In prosperous Malaysia, the business and educated class is mostly non-Muslim chinese, chinese in Indonesia are much better off, Albanians, Kosovars and Bosnians were much poorer, less educated and having larger families than Serbians. In Kenya and Tanzania, Muslims have less per capita income than others. Hindus were better represented in education than Muslims in Bangladesh and in Punjab before partition. From Kazakhistan to Turkemanistan in central asia, Russian still make the backbone of intelligensia and bureaucracy. Muslims must have at least one example where Muslims are doing better than fellow non-Muslims because of following Islam.

In the last 5000 year history almost every civilizations was once the leading light to the rest of the world, Egyptians, Greek, Persians, Indian, Sinic, Islamic and Western. If Islam can make a case on the basis of Averros and Avecina, almost every other religion and civilization can make similar case. A success at certain moment of history does not guarantee, nor provide role models for future generations. Each generation has to play its role, by looking ahead and not looking at history alone.

As many people have pointed out that it is ultimately people and not religious ideas that can make a difference. However, that requires more reliance on self than theological literature. I do not see any great idea in old or new testament to justify the Michelangelo, Gallileo, Newton or Bill Gates as well as Timothy McVeigh or George Bundy. In current western traditions, religion is at the service of people whereas Muslims are serving religion. Here lies the fundamental problem. The needs of people change with changing time, so are services desired. If people are here to serve religion, the religion will resist any change. As long as people love drinking coca-cola, coca-cola company does not have to introduce new or improved coca-cola. They only need to be innovative in publicity-propaganda-marketing-sale.

Let me defend Ronald K Rodebaugh not because I only partially agree with him. Because he is a dear friend of mine and I introduced him to chowk sometime ago. I even discussed in detail with him before writing couple of my post about ``god and science`` and ``Why Europe and not India``. We have the same scientific background and talked at length about many many issues over the last 5 years.

I have always taken positions more liberal, less godly and more ethno-centric than theology centric as we both increased each others understandings. I always took positions, which I believe are true according to my understanding. He agrees on many accounts but being a pragmatic, and since religions and belief in god are not going to disappear any time soon, something has to be done to make fruitful interactions among nations based on religions.

In my opinion, Muslims are too occupied with religion as compared to many other nations. Unlike Jesus, Mohammad lived long enough with achieving the leadership and laying out great details about Islamic living. What he laid out were right things at that time in that geographic and ethnic environments. Since then Islam has grown much and encompasses a variety of cultures. Most Muslims have adopted Islamic culture (mostly Arabic culture in origin) to varying degree. Except for spiritual satisfaction, it has not made any positive contribution in the standard of living. Even those who are not carrying out jehad, living peacefully for long time and no fundamentalist tendencies are generally lagging behind their neighbors or even countrymen of other religions. In prosperous Malaysia, the business and educated class is mostly non-Muslim Chinese, Chinese in Indonesia are much better off, Albanians, Kosovars and Bosnians were much poorer, less educated and having larger families than Serbians. In Kenya and Tanzania, Muslims have less per capita income than others. Hindus were better represented in education than Muslims in Bangladesh and in Punjab before partition. From Kazakhistan to Turkemanistan in central asia, Russian still make the backbone of intelligentsia and bureaucracy. Muslims must have at least one example where Muslims are doing better than non-Muslims because of following Islam.

In the last 5000 year history almost every civilizations was once the leading light to the rest of the world, Egyptians, Greek, Persians, Indian, Sinic, Islamic and Western. If Islam can make a case on the basis of Averros and Avecina, almost every other religion and civilization can make similar case. A success at certain moment of history does not guarantee, nor provide role models for future generations. Each generation has to play its role, by looking ahead and not looking at history alone.

As many people have pointed out that it is ultimately people and not religious ideas that can make a difference. However, that requires more reliance on self than theological literature. I do not see any great idea in old or new testament to justify the Michelangelo, Gallileo, Newton or Bill Gates as well as Timothy McVeigh or George Bundy. In current western traditions, religion is at the service of people whereas Muslims are serving religion. Here lies the fundamental problem. The needs of people change with changing time, so are services desired. If people are here to serve religion, the religion will resist any change. As long as people love drinking Coca-Cola, Coca-Cola company does not have to introduce new or improved Coca-Cola. They only need to be innovative in publicity-propaganda-marketing-sale.

Take the case of Taliban. They have said many times that they are only interested in seving Islam (the way they see it). Even suggestion like serving Islam in order to serve Muslims better is rare in recent history. Yhe founder of Pakistani nation, being a secular Muslim, always talked about serving the interests of Muslims instead of serving Islam. What he said was exactly the current western concept vis-a-vis religion. Muslim countries around the world must follow similar to what Jinnah had in mind with respect to people and religion-people come first.

yeh Azadi jhoota hai Desh ka Junta Bhooka Hai



Killer kernel: What makes the lethal mango seed



gruel that kills

Press Trust of India

Kashipur, Orissa, September 1: Amidst the raging controversy over the string of 19 deaths in Kashipur block of the underdeveloped Rayagada district, the government has been trying to persuade people not to eat mango kernel, which has often proved fatal.``We have been eating the stuff since long as we could not always afford rice or red gram,`` said 35-year-old Risha Majhi, of Panasguda village, whose daughter Gahadi (17) died after consuming the gruel last month.The government on Friday kicked off a new scheme to wean tribals away from eating mango kernel that had landed it into a lot of embarrassment. Revenue minister Biswabhushan Harichandan said that the authorities would exchange mango kernel received from the tribals with an equal amount of rice.The Kashipur region gets a good crop of mango in most years. The tribals have a good time feeding on the luscious mangoes during summer. But they preserve its hard seed inside which lies the soft kernel. The kernel is then dried and almost all tribals store them in heaps for the rainy days ahead, Majhi said. She said that the gruel was made after the kernel is put into water for three days after which it is ground to powder. Often it is further dried or turned into a paste right away. It is served after being mixed with maize powder, if available, or just eaten straight. However, the kernel apparently get fungal growth on it, making it unfit for consumption. Despite the deaths, the gruel was being freely consumed in the rural areas.

How about (from http://www.saag.org/papers4/paper327.html) :

In the ultimate analysis what is threatened are the fundamental values of humanity. Islam does not threaten these values but an absolutist ideology, anchoring itself in Islam, does.

.........

To the average liberal of the contemporary world, certain Qoranic concepts will appear quaint or anachronistic. Following is a brief list:

* Allah’s sovereignty: All things are subordinate to His will. But how is the will of an abstract entity to be determined? The Mullah then slips in and claims the authority which at once makes any Islamic system Unitarian, nonsecular and non democratic. It is for these reasons, democracies do not flourish in Islam. Democracies subscribe to the view that a democracy is of the people, by the people, for the people.

* The Ummah is one and indivisible. This principle calls for one God, one people, one nationalism. But multiplicity is the natural human norm. Thus there is a conflict between natural evolution and imposed obligations, creating an environment of ``them versus us``.

These two concepts are basic to the growth of fundamentalism in Islam. For the fundamentalist, religion and politics are one and the same and authority flows from the former to take control of politics and the State, to conform to the identity as prescribed by the scriptures. He accepts no interpretation of the scriptures other than his own, aimed at seeking his own political objectives, which are to create one Ummah and establish rule of purity of the Allah.

.................

The extremists among them respond in an identical manner, unifying their energy, and desiring to build up a global front. The non militant sections of the Islamic world watch this phenomenon by and large either as passive partners or paralysed bystanders. They may subscribe to the formulation that fundamentalism and the terrorism it generates are not the true faces of Islamic faith, but rarely will they raise a voice of protest. This tacit acceptance of the fundamentalist or extremist vision rules out a debate within the Islamic world over the genuine values of the Islamic faith. The Gurus of fundamentalism or extremism may not number many but those who question their approach would number even less.

Temporal :

How many pro-Taliban marches have there been in Pakistan in the last five years ? How many anti-Taliban marches have there been in Pakistan in the last five years ?

You blame the West for propping up Israel and for propping up corrupt, dictatorial regimes in Muslim countries. But compare the number of demonstrations in Pakistan over Israel and Palestine in the last five years compared to that against corrupt, dictatorial regimes in Muslim countries.

It is very unrealistic to expect the average Muslims to be able to control the fanatics. But the necessity to speak up has never been greater.

When Salman Rushdie offended Islam, there were

protests in every country that has Muslims. Since

Osama bin Laden issued his fatwa in 1998 calling

for the killing of all Americans, military

personnel and civilians, men, women and children

alike, there has been mostly silence.

If one was blaspheming, why not the other ? If one was declared apostate, why not the other ? You cannot blame the West, or a Jewish-Hindu nexus or anyone else for the failure to speak.

-Arun Gupta

Tahmed,

It`s very easy to say that religion doesn`t kill people, people kill people.

Does this remind of you something else like ``Guns don`t kill people, people kill people.``.

People use guns to kill. Jehadis use Islam to kill.

As I have said many Imams have been asked what is this that these Jehadis interpret differently. There has been no answer.

If moderate Muslims doesn`t help matters how do you expect the non-muslims to?

Let`s see. Who were the people celebrating the WTC tragedy. It was invariably the Muslims. Now, why is that?

Didn`t the people who were celebrating take this as an instance of justice meted out by Allah.

Before you go hammer and tongs at me. Think calmly. Isn`t it the responsibility of moderate Muslims to put these extremists in place. There`s no point screaming after the fact that Islam doesn`t condone violence.

It`s happened time and again. Moderate Muslims have looked the other way till the repurcussions of the attacks seemed to hit home.

If this attack had happened in India. How many of these Imams here in the US would condemn the attack as many are doing now?

I am sick and tired of this hypocrisy.

Excuse my grammatical errors.

Atleast Mr. Rajanjua had the courage to pinpoint the problem.

What are the rest doing?

Sahir #10,

I am glad at least somebody has the brains to see why Timothy McVeigh and IRA can not be treated as Christian terrorism.

It`s very well to scream about Islam being a peaceful religion. That`s just not enough. Move your asses and curb those extremist voices.

With all due respect, I do not think that it is your position to advise Muslims on how to interpret our religion. We have experts to do that called `ulama` who spend their lives devoted to such issues.

As for Islam being a peaceful religion it is peaceful but at the same time it does not believe in `turning the other cheek`. There IS a way in which Muslims and non-Muslim worlds can co-exist--when you stop trying to force your liberal secular democracy down our throats whether we want to have it or not and stop exploiting the resources of our land. Treat us as equals and sure we can be partners for peace :)

Read the book called Unveiling Islam by Roger du Pasquier :-)

Ref ylh #: 2

[...the modern world is one of Technological, scientific and Economic competition. In this sphere, Avicenna, Averroes, Al Khuwarzimi (Father of Al Jabr wal Muqabala or Algebra), Ibnal Haitham (the founder of Optical science and mechanics), Ibne Khaldun etc the list is indeed long... ]

Nope.

The list ain`t long.

What you listed is THE list.

There ain`t anybody else.

I guess there was Ahmediyya called Abdus Salaam but Ahmediyyas don`t count, do they?

Ref sarwari #: 15

[Time for Intellectual Honesty]

Well said. Let us hear the Surahs on blasphemy before hear the Surahs about tolerance of other religions.

[There Are Many Islams]

Absolutely. One that you trot out whenever there is a major atrocity by Muslims about how Islam is Peace. And then of course there is the reality in which Sias are killed, Ahmediyyas are hounded and innocent men, women and children are massacred in the WTC attacks.

How about this new Islam?

A lecturer in Anatomy at a medical school in Pakistan gets sentenced to death for blasphemy for suggesting Prophet Muhammad was not circumcised till late in life, that he did not shave his armpit and pubic hair.

A student is reported to have said that their faith wasn`t strong enough, for if it had been strong, they would have hanged him themselves without handing him over to the police.

So, here we now have another variant of Islam: Pubic Hair Islam!

Re: Islam`s Challenge by RonaldK. Rodebough.

I found you article very interesting and true to form.

I agree with you totally about how Islamic world lost its sence of direction and got lost in the history pages.

But I was quiet surprised at your conclusion about why you think Islamic world succumbed to the forces of fundamentalism is very shallow.You apprently ignored to consider the geoplitical forces at work agaisnt the Islamic world from 1000 AD to 1500 AD, and the impact it had not only on Islam but also Judiasm. Starting from the first crusade to the destruction of Bagdad by Mongols, to closing with the Inquisition, and subsequesnt colonialism. The focus of the Islamic world changed from Arts and Learning to to self defence and survival and into the arms of religious fanatics.

This is not an apology for the present day condition of Islam, nor am I pointing fingures, I think that the ``statute of limitations`` has expired and we should move forward. But remember you can only clap with both the hands, the West has to grow out of its ``colonial era`` mind frame of `us vs them` ie the occident vs the orient, and the concept of superiority and inferiority that it entails.

The stakes are being raised in this war, the West has to reevalaute its policies towards the ``Orient``, ie. Middle East. Otherwise we can expect more of the horrors of September 11, 2001 in New York.

Regards

Saif

Rsaxena,

I am not sure what you are talking about. For an Ivy League alumnus, you sure seem to lack critical reading skills... From what I understand every single one of the so called `Mullahs` has supported Mr Rodebaugh`s thesis.

Please dont make stupid comments without reading the article or the responses, though this has been your characteristic style here on Chowk!

-YLH

Re: Islam`s Challenge by RonaldK. Rodebough.

I found you article very interesting and true to form.

I agree with you totally about how Islamic world lost its sence of direction and got lost in the history pages.

But I was quiet surprised at your conclusion about why you think Islamic world succumbed to the forces of fundamentalism is very shallow.You apprently ignored to consider the geoplitical forces at work agaisnt the Islamic world from 1000 AD to 1500 AD, and the impact it had not only on Islam but also Judiasm. Starting from the first crusade to the destruction of Bagdad by Mongols, to the Recoquest during Inquisition, and subsequesnt colonialism. The focus of the Islamic world changed from Arts and Learning to to self defence and survival and into the arms of religious fanatics.

This is not an apology for the present day condition of Islam, nor am I pointing fingures, I think that the ``statute of limitations`` has expired and we should move forward. But remember you can only clap with both the hands, the West has to grow out of its ``colonial era`` mind frame of `us vs them` ie the occident vs the orient, and the concept of superiority and inferiority that it entails.

The stakes are being raised in this war, the West has to reevalaute its policies towards the ``Orient``, ie. Middle East. Otherwise we can expect more of the horrors of September 11, 2001 in New York.

Regards

Saif

Sahir #10:

[...YOU make a common mistake. IRA does not have the support of Christians the way WE support Osama...Why is EVERYONE suggesting that an attack on Afghanistan is an attack on Islam?.... WE ourselves have not made clear the distinction between terrorism and our religion. By blindly supporting Jehadis WE have lost our right to claim that they do not represent Islam. WE must put OUR house in order before asking others to distinguish between a good Muslim and a bad Muslim. I support the author....]

(CAPS are mine)

...you are taking too much for granted...no witnesses...rest my case!

macgupta #25

[...How many pro-Taliban marches have there been in Pakistan in the last five years ? How many anti-Taliban marches have there been in Pakistan in the last five years ? ...]

---I don’t know...but I understand your concern...taken with salt and caution...the silent majority does not speak up often enough or loud enough even here..or even in other bastions of free-speak...

[...You blame the West for propping up Israel and for propping up corrupt, dictatorial regimes in Muslim countries..]

---did I come across as blaming the West for that?...hardly...but I certainly do not condone the double standards in their policies...need not elaborate...you are familiar with them...

[...It is very unrealistic to expect the average Muslims to be able to control the fanatics. But the necessity to speak up has never been greater....]

---I agree...and I see folks are speaking up against the hijacking of their beliefs system by the extremists...

[...When Salman Rushdie offended Islam, there were protests in every country that has Muslims. Since Osama bin Laden issued his fatwa in 1998 calling for the killing of all Americans, military personnel and civilians, men, women and children alike, there has been mostly silence. If one was blaspheming, why not the other ? If one was declared apostate, why not the other ? You cannot blame the West, or a Jewish-Hindu nexus or anyone else for the failure to speak...]

---arun, khomeini was an ayatollah...(how he got that is another story)...but he was QUALIFIED to issue a fatwa...and another thing his fatwa was not binding on the sunnis...some 80-85 of the muslims...to equate osama’s ‘fatwa’ is not fair...osama is not a qualified ‘mufti’...heck his fatwa is about as good as mine against that double agent zafar (relax zafar, am enquiring from isi for your back pay as well as asking raw to increase your remunerations...you know the times!...both are citing economic woes..blahblah...but have faith brother...this business never dies!)...

rgds,

t

PS: CHOWK EDITORS

Yaaro bhagwah/khuda kay liyay kum az kum headings ka tou khaas khayal rakho ---what is islams challenge?

Sahir #10:

[...YOU make a common mistake. IRA does not have the support of Christians the way WE support Osama...Why is EVERYONE suggesting that an attack on Afghanistan is an attack on Islam?.... WE ourselves have not made clear the distinction between terrorism and our religion. By blindly supporting Jehadis WE have lost our right to claim that they do not represent Islam. WE must put OUR house in order before asking others to distinguish between a good Muslim and a bad Muslim. I support the author....]

(CAPS are mine)

...you are taking too much for granted...no witnesses...rest my case!

macgupta #25

[...How many pro-Taliban marches have there been in Pakistan in the last five years ? How many anti-Taliban marches have there been in Pakistan in the last five years ? ...]

---I don’t know...but I understand your concern...taken with salt and caution...the silent majority does not speak up often enough or loud enough even here..or even in other bastions of free-speak...

[...You blame the West for propping up Israel and for propping up corrupt, dictatorial regimes in Muslim countries..]

---did I come across as blaming the West for that?...hardly...but I certainly do not condone the double standards in their policies...need not elaborate...you are familiar with them...

[...It is very unrealistic to expect the average Muslims to be able to control the fanatics. But the necessity to speak up has never been greater....]

---I agree...and I see folks are speaking up against the hijacking of their beliefs system by the extremists...

[...When Salman Rushdie offended Islam, there were protests in every country that has Muslims. Since Osama bin Laden issued his fatwa in 1998 calling for the killing of all Americans, military personnel and civilians, men, women and children alike, there has been mostly silence. If one was blaspheming, why not the other ? If one was declared apostate, why not the other ? You cannot blame the West, or a Jewish-Hindu nexus or anyone else for the failure to speak...]

---arun, khomeini was an ayatollah...(how he got that is another story)...but he was QUALIFIED to issue a fatwa...and another thing his fatwa was not binding on the sunnis...some 80-85 of the muslims...to equate osama’s ‘fatwa’ is not fair...osama is not a qualified ‘mufti’...heck his fatwa is about as good as mine against that double agent zafar (relax zafar, am enquiring from isi for your back pay as well as asking raw to increase your remunerations...you know the times!...both are citing economic woes..blahblah...but have faith brother...this business never dies!)...

rgds,

t

PS: CHOWK EDITORS

Yaaro bhagwan/khuda kay liyay kum az kum headings ka tou khaas khayal rakho ---what is islams challenge?

Re: ylh

you still chasing my shadows from board-to-board, little boy? guess you`re too angry with the truth.

This might not be the most well written article ever, but it does raise some interesting points.

To tell the truth I have become more and more confused about Islam myself. How often do we have to exceptionalize such acts as those of a `few misguided souls`? There are tons of misguided people in the world, of course, of all religions and from all countries.

How is it, then, that my religion has the same kind of misguided souls regardless of the country they are from? Why do they indulge in such similarly barbaric acts, most of the time?

Yes, the Western media is biased. Yes, the entire Western world sows seeds of discontent. But the media do not manufacture news. They report it, biased though it may be. And even if the West is totally evil, why do we fall for it all the time? And why are we so unabashadly violent?

This is not meant to be an indictment on Islam (before the death threats begin :-). This is my own sense of frustration and confusion, every time something like this happens.

How do I continue to call myself a Muslim while reconciling these happenings? Or do I?

Re: Zafar Al Talib

``...(I can’t think of any “Muslim” country which doesn’t fall into the first group....``

Zafarji:

Why is that?

As regards your point about, `try and see what other factors define each group`, I completely agree. I do not, however, claim to know what the other factors could be. I thought of geography, climate, etc. (but dismissed them on the grounds that while these factors can certainly determine which society/civilization is placed at an advantageous position vis a vis competitors, today virtually all religions are present in virtually every geography/climate type). BTW, I recommend a great book called `Germs, Guns and Steel` by Jared Diamond which demolishes the racist notion that certain civilizations/societies lagged behind others due to any innate (ie `controllable`) factors. Rather, the book asserts, that geography, and climate are the two single most determinants as to why Europeans discovered Australia (and the aborigines(sp?)) first and not vice versa (amongst many other things).

You bring the example of Turkey -- and it is a very interesting case. Jared Diamond asserts that competition amongst European states (and the geography of the continent is such that no single power could assert hegemony over the entire continent) ensured that there was an intense rivalry for technological innovation to support warfare. This resulted in a need to develop `the scientific method` of inquiry (to support innovation), and the accompanying challenge to religious dogma. Thus, self-preservation required jettisoning the primacy of the clergy in affairs of the state. Turkey, since it competed directly with European powers, would have had to adopt similar methods. Could that explain Turkey`s situation today?

Going further, could it be that since similar conditions did not exist in the Middle East (I am not even sure about this), ie. of different countries/nation states sharing a common religion AND engaging in intense power rivalries, that Islamic societies never saw the need to develop what I am loosely referring to as the `scientific method`, around the time that the Rennaisance was flowering in Europe?

Also, you are right -- I did not define the word `progressive`, and rather than define it adequately, I would much rather drop it.

MaheshG #26 No, dont worry. I shall not respond with hammer and tongs to your post. My point is that by blaming religion for criminal actions, one reduces the responsibility that each one of us has towards society. This point has become very important nowadays when the ``battle lines`` are being drawn. These ``battle lines`` can be between civilized society vs. terrorism (as President Bush has correctly stated), or they can be along communal lines (as the religious extremists, the outright criminals, and the plain bloody minded are trying to make it). My problem with this article is that it draws the battle lines as the terrorists would like to see.

As for the question of whether Islam teaches hatreds, the writer is obviously no more knowledgeable about the Quran than Mullah Omar is about Italian opera. If you dont believe me, read some relevant books by established western scholars of comparitive religions (e.g. Karen Armstrong) and you will see what I mean.

This is my plea: Let us break this habit some people have of seeing ``us`` as Indians or Hindus and ``they`` as Pakistanis or Muslims (and vice versa). ``Us`` is those desiring to see civilized society and peace and prosperity in South Asia, and ``them`` is those finding one reason or another (Islam, Kashmir, Hindutva) to continue violence and strife in the land. These are the battle lines that we must fight across, whether on chowk or elsewhere.

Maheshg #26 One more thing to my previous post: You ask the right question ``Who were the people celebrating the WTC tragedy.`` and come up with the wrong answer by saying: ``It was invariably the Muslims.``

Do you recall seeing anyone - even the worst flag burning religious extremist in Pakistan - ``celebrating the WTC tragedy``? In fact, people in Pakistan have been as much shocked by these horrible events as anyone else. While there have been noisy protests in Pakistan, those protests have been against military action on taliban, and not in celebration of anything. And even those protests have been by a few, loud members of religious parties and do not represent the thinking of the vast majority of Pakistanis (as even CNN and other news agencies have acknowledged, and as I know from talking over the phone to my family members in Pakistan).

By portraying muslims in general as monsters celebrating the horrific events of september 11 when nothing like that is true, you are betraying the same mindset that I am pleading should be dropped in my post below.

re SameerJB #21:

Absolutely agree with you. The sign of a decadent civilization is when all its energies are spent in justifying its acts no matter how indecent. All this talk about when is jihad allowed or not skirts the basic issue-human decency. No matter how much of a nutcase a jewish or christian fundamentalist one may be, one can mostly expect a modicum of understanding that certain things are off limits(lets hear hobbyty with his litany of abortion clinic bombings and urstruly with his babblings about atrocities in Kashmir....). With most Muslims one can expect that but the number is less than EVERY other major religion.

It is a sad time indeed when the intellectual energies of the Muslim world are spent in justifying horrible acts by presenting examples of barabric acts committed by other nations/religions. The Muslim world may be destined to go the same way as communism or Nazism or the Mongols before them. They conquered everything in sight and yet left no lasting legacy in their wake. Eventually they ended up being folded into a more superior intellectual entity(Islam). Those days are long gone. The shoe is on the other foot now.

later

-sac

Harimau,

The list is indeed long... maybe hatemongers like you cant look beyond your Hindu noses.... One can name atleast 1000 famous names... I named the really famous ones... By the way, Dr Abdus Salaam said that his entire theory was totally inspired by his belief in the message of the Quran? Maybe we forget this dont we? I am not saying that the message of the Quran is scientific, I dont find it as such, but to quote Dr Abdussalam will be disastrous to your theories.

In any event, the list I know of, and perhaps cant fully appreciate is and I am by no means an expert of any of the following people:

Ibn Sina (Avicenna) Abu Raihan al-Biruni

Abu al-Hasan al-Mawardi

Abu Ali Hasan Ibn al-Haitham

Jabir Ibn Haiyan

Mohammad Bin Musa al-Khawarizmi

Yaqub Ibn Ishaq al-Kindi

Thabit Ibn Qurra

Ali Ibn Rabban al-Tabari

Abu Abdullah al-Battani

Al-Farghani

Mohammad Ibn Zakariya al-Razi

Abu al-Nasr al-Farabi

Abul Wafa Muhammad al-Buzjani

Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi

Abul Hasan Ali al-Masu`di

Omar al-Khayyam

Abu Hamid al-Ghazali

Abu Marwan Ibn Zuhr

Al-Idrisi

Ibn Rushd

Ibn al-Baitar

Nasir al-Din al-Tusi

Jalal al-Din Rumi

Ibn al-Nafis

Ibn Khaldun

Dr Abdussalam

The history of the Islamic civilization is indeed great... it is the perversion that we see in the form of the Taliban!

List:

Jabir Ibn Haiyan (Geber)Chemistry (Father of Chemistry) Died 803 C.E.



Al-Asmai Zoology, Botany, Animal Husbandry.

740 - 828

Al-Khwarizmi (Algorizm) Mathematics, Astronomy, Geography. (Algorithm,Algebra, calculus) 770 - 840



`Amr ibn Bahr Al-Jahiz Zoology, Arabic Grammar, Rhetoric, Lexicography 776 - 868



Ibn Ishaq Al-Kindi (Alkindus) Philosophy, Physics, Optics, Medicine, Mathematics, Metallurgy.

800 - 873

Thabit Ibn Qurrah (Thebit) Astronomy, Mechanics, Geometry, Anatomy. 836 - 901



`Abbas Ibn Firnas Mechanics of Flight, Planetarium, Artificial Crystals. Died 888



Ali Ibn Rabban Al-Tabari Medicine, Mathematics, Caligraphy, Literature. 838 - 870

Al-Battani (Albategnius) Astronomy, mathematics, Trigonometry.858 - 929



Al-Farghani (Al-Fraganus) Astronomy, Civil Engineering. C. 860



Al-Razi (Rhazes) Medicine, Ophthalmology, Smallpox, Chemistry,Astronomy.864 - 930



Al-Farabi (Al-Pharabius) Sociology, Logic, Philosophy, Political Science, Music.

870 - 950 Abul Hasan Ali Al-Masu`di Geography, History.Died 957



Al-Sufi (Azophi) Astronomy 903 - 986

Abu Al-Qasim Al-Zahravi (Albucasis) Surgery, Medicine. (Father of Modern Surgery) 936 - 1013



Muhammad Al-Buzjani Mathematics, Astronomy, Geometry, Trigonometry. 940 - 997



Abu al-Qasim Maslimah al-Majriti Astronomy

Died 1007



Ibn Yunus Trigonometry, Astronomy Died 1009



Ibn Al-Haitham (Alhazen)Physics, Optics, Mathematics.965 - 1040



Al-Mawardi (Alboacen) Political Science, Sociology, Jurisprudence, Ethics.972 - 1058



Abu Raihan Al-BiruniAstronomy, Mathematics. (Determined Earth`s Circumference) 973-1048



Ibn Sina (Avicenna)Medicine, Philosophy, Mathematics, Astronomy. 981 - 1037



Al-Zarqali (Arzachel)Astronomy (Invented Astrolabe). 1028 - 1087



Omar Al-Khayyam Mathematics, Poetry. 1044 - 1123

I will continue the list at another time, but for now I have just this to say... an educational system created by communal fanatics and murderers can only produce people like Harimau.

He has once again shown us his biased uneducated illiterate view of History, that he has become legendary for on Chowk. Be it partition history, be it world history, be it Islamic history.... he comes in farting, and then disappears after thoroughly stinking up the place.

He has to understand, that Islamic civilization, unlike some other civilizations, were not preoccupied with Hanuman, the Monkey God!

-YLH

Tahmed #41,

I guess you misunderstood my post. I didn`t say all Muslims celebrated the WTC tragedy. I said people who celebrated were all Muslims. Big difference.

Regarding celebrations in Pakistan have you not Prof. Hoodbhoy`s article? If you want I can give you a link for a video footage of such celebrations in Pakistan.

Anyway, that doesn`t take away from my post that people who celebrated were Muslims. What made them do that? Is that they are misinterpreting something in Quran (BTW, I completely believe that Quran doesn`t say anything of the sort. You have misunderstood the thrust of my post)?

Isn`t it the responsibility of moderate Muslims like you to set these characters straight. If there is any ambiguity in Quran which leads to misinterpretation shouldn`t that ambiguity be rectified?

Unless moderate Muslims step up and take responsibility for what their extremist correligionists are doing in Islam`s name you can`t FAULT non-Muslims for pointing fingers at Islam.

Naqshbandi

You are a disgrace to Islam, and everything good about it... You and Harimau are like long lost brothers.... separated at birth, one a Hindu Fanatic, other an Ossama Bin Laden follower!

List Continued:

Abu Bakr Muhammad Ibn Yahya (Ibn Bajjah)Philosophy, Medicine, Mathematics, Astronomy, Poetry, Music.1080 - 1138



Ibn Zuhr (Avenzoar)Surgery, Medicine.1091 - 1161



Al-Idrisi (Dreses) Geography (World Map, First Globe). 1099 - 1166



Ibn Tufayl, Abdubacer Philosophy, Medicine, Poetry. 1110 - 1185



Ibn Rushd (Averroes)Philosophy, Law, Medicine, Astronomy, Theology. 1128 - 1198



Al-Bitruji (Alpetragius) Astronomy Died 1204

Ibn Al-BaitarPharmacy, Botany Died 1248



Nasir Al-Din Al-Tusi Astronomy, Non-Euclidean Geometry. 1201 - 1274



Jalal Al-Din Rumi Sociology1207 - 1273



Ibn Al-Nafis Damishqui Anatomy 1213 - 1288



Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi Trigonometry, Astronomy, Physics 1236 - 1311



Al-Fida (Abdulfeda) Astronomy, Geography, History.

1273 - 1331



Muhammad Ibn Abdullah (Ibn Battuta) World Traveler. 75,000 mile voyage from Morocco to China and back.1304 - 1369



Ibn Khaldun Sociology, Philosophy of History, Political Science. 1332 - 1395

Ulugh Beg Astronomy 1393 - 1449

Baha al-Din al-Amili 1540 - 1621

Note this list excludes the Scientists and Philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries which is the beginning of the renaissance of Islam.

I believe now I have exposed the sweeping statements and Bigotry of both the Hindu Fanatic

Mr Harimau, and the Fundamentalist So called Muslim the Naqshbandi Sufi POS!

Tahmed, please don`t think I am classifying all Muslims as evil.

Asif Naqshbandi,

Your Mullahs and Ulama are nothing but piece of sh-- do you understand? They have brought nothing but ruin to Islam. Islam is not the religion and civilization of progress it used to be. Fools like yourself, reaping the fruits of `liberal secular democracy` in the West keep complaining of it.

Who are you, a resident of the west, to decide what the people of the Muslim world want and not want? Do you live in Pakistan?

This recent fiasco has provided the Muslim World especially Pakistan to rid itself of nonsense like yourself. We will hunt down and root out fundoos like you... and we will liberate Islam from its shackles that you have created.

-YLH

When temporal starts qualifying terrorism and deflecting valid questions, it is time to worry. While it was just the lunatic fringe (Bapu, Urstruly, ylh, sarwari, scout, etc.) doing it, there wasn`t much to worry about.

When people like Rsaxena speak of truth, one can only shake their head in disbelief... Maybe this mature grown up boy didnt see that I was on this board way before he was... But then again, what do

I know... Rsaxena is the Ivy League educated !

NEWSFLASH

Message from Osama to Pakistanis

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/09/24/ret.binladen.message/

``To our Muslim brothers in Pakistan, peace be upon you.

``The news of the death of our brother Muslims in Karachi while expressing their opposition to the crusade of American forces and their allies on Muslim lands Pakistan and Afghanistan has reached us with great sorrow.

``We ask God to accept them as martyrs and to join them with the prophets, the caliphs and the martyrs and those of goodwill and to provide for their families. Those who are left behind children are my children and I will, God willing, take care of them.

``It`s not a surprise that the Muslim nation in Pakistan will die defending Islam. It is considered on the front line of defending Islam. As Afghanistan was on the front line of defending itself and Pakistan during the Russian invasion more than 20 years ago.

``We hope that these brothers will be the first martyrs in the battle of Islam in this era against the new Jewish and Christian crusader campaign that is led by the Chief Crusader Bush under the banner of the cross.

``We tell our Muslim brothers in Pakistan to use all their means to resist the invasion of the American crusader forces in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

``I convey to you good news my beloved brothers that we are steadfast in the way of jihad following in the footsteps of the prophet -- peace be upon him -- with the believing heroes, the people of Afghanistan and under the leadership of our prince the warrior Mullah Mohammed Omar.

``We ask God to make us defeat the infidels and the oppressors and to crush the new Jewish-Christian crusader campaign on the land of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

``If God allows you to win, there will be no defeat; if he chooses that you will be defeated nothing will allow you to win. Therefore, depend on God.

``Your brother in Islam, (signed) Osama bin Muhammed bin-Laden``

Re religion-based political movements, their rhetoric and their justifications of violence. If you listen to the rhetoric, you will find one thing in common irrespective of which religion it is. Namely a high-pitched note of whining and complaining in the tune of `he hit me first`, which in fact is more fundamental to the philosophy of such movements than the religious constructs which are claimed to follow logically.

Hence bin Laden is truly fundamentalist about getting the US out of S. Arabia, not about Islam. If he were truly fundamentalist about Islam, he would be running clinics and schools for women and girls in Afghanistan, and hitting his hosts, the Taliban, very hard for their inhuman rule and utter disregard for the Afghans general welfare.

The challenge facing those who consider bin Laden and his modus operandi a pernicious influence on religion, religious choices and mobilization of believers is this. To draw a clear distinction between the purer intentions of religion toward individuals and society and the dirtier manipulative politics of power.

The question is such a distinction between religious practice and politics possible under the tents of a given religion? Is it desirable? Given the dynamics and circumstances of most believers lives, is it even feasible? Meaning, do we have the wherewithal to offer alternatives to religio-political activism as the vehicle for change in people`s lives?

Also is there an inbuilt bias or skew delaying the settlement of the above questions in the past many centuries? If some believers are/were more willing or better-placed historically to physically eliminate or overwhelm their competitors within their own faith, then some philosophies would be more widespread and enduring not on `merits` but due to mere longevity as the survivors.

I got my laugh of the day reading ylh`s pathetic little list.

a) All those names on his list are from several hundred, some over a thousand, years ago...a gora like Mr. Rodebaugh is going to read it and wonder what Islam has produced the past century or two (other than ylh and his Madrassa Valley High girlfriend -- no names, please)

b) Yes, indeed, there was a global librabry in 800AD to track and keep records of things like who first wiped his a$$ with a leaf and hence invented concept of toilet paper

I am A born Muslim..But some time I wonder Wether Islam was A brain child of a genius( Like Mao of China, Stalin Of Russia Or any other.or Hitler)My reasons are as follows

1) Mohmmad was a polygammist, Married a girl of nine years old(Today he would have been charged for child molestation if for nothing else). Did it not cross his mind of the legacy that will be left behind....????

2)Just after his death , there was a civil war and his own grand children were butchered..what kind of a ``teaching`` was that.. which resulted in that kind of chaos..even today the shia & sunni are at each others throat

3)All the Khaliffas following Mohmmad were killed???

4) How come Monarchy is acceptable to Islam??..

5) Women rights in a society are almost non existant...???

6)

These are only few examples..the list is very long.... I would appreciate that some learning schollar(may be URSTRULY..though self claimed fundi) throw some light for the benefit of many...though I am expecting Fatwa for committing

Balsphammi...May be some one put a price for getting me DEAD OR ALIVE ?? BUT DO NEED SOME SOME EXPLANATION

MaheshG #51 I think we are saying the same thing and there is no disagreement. I hope you will keep in mind that the battle lines between good and evil are not along the LOC in Kashmir, or along the India-Pakistan border. The battle lines are between civilization and barbarism, as I discussed earlier, and these lines cut across both India and Pakistan.

Akash #55 Is there a return address on the fax? There are some folks out looking for Osama to discuss some issues with him over a cup of tea and pakoras who would like to know.

After bin laden`s congratulatory message to the ``defenders of Islam`` in Karachi -- this column makes interesting reading.

It is `sab achcha` from this end

A. B. S. Jafri

Headlines in Saturday`s newspapers about the strike the day before in Karachi were misleading, if not incorrect. It was said to be a ``complete shutdown.`` Let it be explained that it was, in fact, a complete shutdown of the government. Experience has taught the 13 million people of Karachi that they cannot trust the government to protect them against the ruffians who rule the streets. So, a call to strike here always succeeds like the proverbial success.

Nobody would seriously doubt that the bane of Karachi is the madrassas. You might call them informal Taliban cantonments. Within minutes of the clerics` call for a strike, thousands of these Taliban surrogates invade the streets. It is total mayhem thereafter.

As for the police, they may either stand aside, or join them, or beat them up. If somebody gets killed, it is jus