In Search of the Moderate Muslim

re eklavya 515

THank you for your calm and encouraging words. Those are words to live by. In my and Shima`s interactions I guess you see the ugly side of an otherwise gentle people- too much passion on occasion. But make no mistake, we are still one people, separated but never divided. I have said this before and will dare repeat it that I`d rather see every trace of organized religion disappear from Bengal than the other way round. A Hindu, Christian, or Muslim Bengali is far more a kinsman than some bedouin from Saudi Arabia or some Rajput from the Thar.

re fatimah

``Most of the idiot bangladesh ministers are monkies anyway ```

Ministers in most of South Asia are scum. No need to insult self-respecting apes by such comparison.

``I have never seen a bangladeshy worthy of my intellectual appreciation.Can you name one.``

They are intellectual enough to spell properly and use accurate grammar and syntax. Perhaps you should have stuck to using your Bangla.

``So bangladesh is not islam or typical muslims hatred for non muslims but group of pl. who hate there own mother.``

The inherent bigotry is beneath me to answer. But the last part of the sentence reminds me of the final stanza of Tagore`s `Amar Sonar Bangla`:

``Din furaale sondhya holay, ghore prodip jaalo

Tokhon khlela dhula shokol chhere tomar kolay,

Maago tomar kolay chhutay aashi``

(At the day`s end when evening descends

You light a light at home

Then I leave it all, O Mother,

And run back to your bosom)

re: hamzad afaqui # 527

``actions(deeds)do find their origin in thoughts & beliefs.``

I agree. For example, the willingness to kill another person who does not worship the same way as oneself arises from certain strongly ingrained beliefs. So, some beliefs are certainly more dangerous and in human terms inferior than others. The question is: Which beliefs are the dangerous and inferior ones?

``The ultimate sin(shirk)means that such a person is not a muslim.``

Whoa. I am sorry but I am already most sinful. If you can be less sinful than me without having to be a better human being than me, I must say you have got it all made :)

``Telling a tyrant or a tyrant state that it is not omnipotent and has no control whatsoever over oneself is a firm affirmation of this faith.Expressing gratitude to the point of worship to someone who thinks that one would be a nobody without him(or the state)is also tantamount to assign partners to Allah.For any bounty & blessing one would always express gratefulness & prayers to Allah.To the temporal being or instituition simple thanks are sufficient.To believe that he also is the Provider is simply compromising ones` faith.``

Hamzad, for any of this one does not need any of the beliefs you have cited. If those help you, then fine, but these are not the only ones.

Consider the following concept. The essence of any one of us, any human being is his or her soul or the Atma. This soul is beyond destruction, it bends before none, it is the inextinguishable fire that connects us to the divinity, it makes each one of us part of the larger universe around us. Since the soul, the atma, the divine fire in each one of us is the same, there is no high, no low amongst us. In materialistic terms we are measured by our deeds, but beyond that, in our essence there is no hierarchy.

``And this is an extremely potent & liberating concept.This does translate into deeds accordingly.

La Ilaha(The is none whatsoever)

Il Al Lah(except for Allah)``

That is a wonderful concept IF it is applied correctly. If not, it is a sure prescription for fanaticism, cruelty, and irrationality.

The correct application is to realize that no human being need necessarily bow down to another. This is what you emphasized earlier.

Another application is to take the line to mean that the only way to worship God to call Him Allah. That is the fascist way.

So, amzad, that one concept can lead to many kinds of deeds. It is your responsibility to choose according to the intelligence granted to you by God Almighty.

Regards.

Asif Naqshbandi #503: ``Ofcourse many of the ulama were also eminently qualified judges, diplomats etc and so filled these posts too. that is what the difference between those ulama and todays ulama is and what i was lamenting...``

In a sense we are back to square one. This is the point I was attempting to refute by giving you the examples of Muhammad, and his associates. Very few, if any, of them were ulema, in their professional lives. They were shepherds, businessmen, salesmen etc., who understood religion. How many prominent sahaba can you name who were professional ulema? If God had intended Islamic countries to be ruled by religious ulema, He would have ensured Muhammad was professional aalim.

You need to go to the source to get the answers. Don`t stop at the Imams who came hundreds of years after Muhammad. Go back to the time of Muhammad, to find your answers.

Islam does not dictate that ulema be given the posts of judges, diplomats etc. on the basis of being ulema. Professional ulema only have one domain, and that is the university classroom. The moment they step out of that classroom to enter another profession, their religious knowledge should neither be considered a liability nor an asset.

``But having a religious ruler and shar`iat as the Law to start of with does help!``

Once again, I would like to point out that the Shariat itself does not dictate a, ``religious ruler`` for Islamic countries. Please look at the life of Muhammad. He was a, ``ruler who understood religion,`` not a, ``professional religious person who ruled.`` And what exactly is a, ``religious ruler,`` to begin with. The religious ulema of all persuations have never been able to agree within themselves what Islam exactly is, and who is a, ``religious ruler.`` Many ulema hate each other.

So how does one decide who is an aalim and who isn`t? What if half the population of an Islamic country considers someone to be an aalim, and the other half doesn`t? If every Muslim could agree to the same set of uleman, then there wouldn`t so many sects, and sects within sects in Islam. Can you name one aalim, of present day or past days, whom every Muslim on Chowk would unanimously agree was a legitimate aalim that should be followed? Some would like one, the others would like someone else. If ten Muslims on Chowk cannot agree to one, then what are the odds of 140 million Pakistanis agreeing on one, or 1.2 billion Muslims agreeing on one?

Islam is a way of life. This is its beauty. This means it provides abstract high-level guidelines to be applied to everyday lives, i.e. one should live one`s life and use religion as a reference to discuss and solve issues, problems, etc. This whole process does not even require an aalim. One should not attempt to do the opposite, and try to fit everyday life into religious interpretations of ulema. The former makes Islam a religion of logic. The later makes it a religion of rituals.

There is no concept of clergy in positions of power in Islam. That is, if one believes in the Islam of Muhammad`s days, and not the Islam that was put into practice centuries after him. How many of the greatest men and women to accept Islam, after Muhammad, belonged to the clergy of any kind? How many of them changed their professions and became professional ulema, after accepting Islam?

Khadija was a businesswoman. Abu Bakr, Usman, Umar, Ali, Khalid bin Waleed, etc. were all traders, soldiers, beaurecrats, etc. Why weren`t the important positions of Islam, during the prophet`s days given to anyone solely on their qualifications as professional clergy?

Was Khalid Bin Waleed made the commander of the military, because he had the greatest knowledge of the Quran, or because he had the greatest military leadership and planning abilities? Was Abu Bakr made the first Caliph because of he earned his living as the clergy, or because he was the best statesman available? Their must have been Sahaba whose profession was solely reading and writing and learning the Quran (i.e. they had no professional business, military etc. experience). They must have been respected, but why weren`t any of them given positions outside their domains?

It would only be centuries later when, ``Imams`` and scholars would step outside their domain, and attempt to take over positions which had nothing to do with their religious knowledge. They would use their religious status as a stepping stone to positions of power. In essence, they would portray to the Islamic world that they were closer to religion and to God than other Muslims (this in itself, is disallowed in Islam, if you ask me), and thus should be the executives and legislatures of societies with majority Muslim populations. This goes completely against what was the practice during the time of Muhammad.

In Islam, the corps commander should also lead the prayers. The person leading the prayers should not try to become the corps commander. In Islam, the head of the stock exchange, should also give the Friday sermon in the accompanying stock exchange mosque. The person giving the Friday sermon should not claim to be the head of the stock exchange. In Islam, the President of the country should have enough know-how to lead the Eid prayers. The person leading the Eid prayers should not claim, he has enough know-how to become the President.

In essence, in Islam, the state and the church do not need to be separated. But the church has absolutely no right to take control of the state. It only has the right to do religious R&D (ijtehad) for the state (the 99.9999% of the country who do not practice religion as a profession). After that, it is upto the state to do what it wants to with this R&D. If the state decides not to implement it, the people carrying out the religious R&D do not have a right to attempt to take over the state. Just like the state does not have the right to disallow religious scholars from carrying out peaceful religious R&D.

The best religious scholars are the ones who do exactly what their name implies, i.e. they scholarize about religion. They don`t attempt to claim anything more than that. If they want to become fighter pilots, they accept the fact that knowing the Quran is not going to help them, one way or the other, in flying a plane. They have to learn the trade of flying. Similarly, if they want to become the President, they should understand that religious knowledge is not synonymous with knowledge of being a stateman. Infact, using religious knowledge as stepping stone to any kind of power, makes them a hypocrite, of the highest order. Who can be a bigger hypocrite than someone who uses religion to commit hypocrisy, and gain some kind of power?

If you don`t believe me, just look back to the time of Muhammad. Any references given from days after that do not carry any weight in front of the references from the times of Muhammad.

Some interesting statistics:

``In the 1997 general elections, the JUI(F) won 2 seats and a total of 327,683 votes or 1.83% of the total valid votes polled. In the 1993 general elections, Islami Jamhoori Mahaz (IJM) obtained 483,007 votes or 2.36% of the total vote. In the 1990 elections, the JUI(F) got 62,214 votes or 0.29% of the total while the Jama’at Ahl-e-Sunnat (JAS) managed 1,992 votes. In the 1988 elections, the JUI(F) polled 360,526 votes or 1.84% of the total and Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Fiqah-e-Jafria (TNFJ), now TJP, got 42,216 or 0.22% of the total. As a matter of record, some of the non-Muslim parties have been able to poll more votes.`` (The Friday Times)

Why British Women are turning to Islam

THE SPREAD OF A WORLD CREED

The Times - Tuesday, 9th November 1993 -Home-news Page

Lucy Berrington finds the Muslim Faith is winning Western admirers despite hostile media coverage



Unprecedented numbers of British people, nearly all of them women, are converting to Islam at a time of deep divisions within the Anglican and Catholic churches.

The rate of conversions has prompted predictions that Islam will rapidly become an important religious force in this country.[1] ``Within the next 20 years the number of British converts will equal or overtake the immigrant Muslim community that brought th e faith here``, says Rose Kendrick, a religious education teacher at a Hull comprehensive and the author of a textbook guide to the Koran. She says: ``Islam is as much a world faith as is Roman Catholicism. No one nationality claims it as its own``. Islam i s also spreading fast on the continent and in America.

The surge in conversions to Islam has taken place despite the negative image of the faith in the Western press. Indeed, the pace of conversions has accelerated since publicity over the Salman Rushdie affair, the Gulf War[2] and the plight of the Muslims in Bosnia. It is even more ironic that most British converts should be women, given the widespread view in the west that Islam treats women poorly. In the United States, women converts outnumber men by four to one, and in Britain make up the bulk of the es timated 10, 000 to 20, 000 converts, forming part of a Muslim community of 1 to 1.5 million. Many of Britains ``New Muslims`` are from middle-class backgrounds. They include Matthew Wilkinson, a former head boy of Eton who went on to Cambridge, and a son an d daughter of Lord Justice Scott, the judge heading the arms-to-Iraq enquiry.

A small scale survey by the Islamic Foundation in Leicester suggests that most converts are aged 30 to 50. Younger muslims point to many conversions among students and highlight the intellectual thrust of Islam. ``Muhammad`` said, ``The light of Islam will rise in the West`` and I think that is what is happening in our day`` says Aliya Haeri, an American-born psychologist who converted 15 years ago. She is a consultant to the Zahra Trust, a charity publishing spiritual literature and is one of Britain`s promin ent Islamic speakers. She adds: ``Western converts are coming to Islam with fresh eyes, without all the habits of the East, avoiding much of what is culturally wrong. The purest tradition is finding itself strongest in the West.``[3]

Some say the conversions are prompted by the rise of comparative religious education. The British media, offering what Muslims describe as a relentless bad press on all things Islamic, is also said to have helped. Westerners despairing of their own societ y - rising in crime, family breakdown, drugs and alcoholism[4] - have come to admire the discipline and security of Islam. Many converts are former Christians disillusioned by the uncertainty of the church and unhappy with the concept of the Trinity and d eification of Jesus.

Quest of the Convert - Why Change?

Other converts describe a search for a religious identity. Many had previously been practising Christians but found intellectual satisfaction in Islam. ``I was a theology student and it was the academic argument that led to my conversion.`` Rose Kendrick, a religious education teacher and author, said she objected to the concept of the original sin: ``Under Islam, the sins of the fathers aren`t visited on the sons. The idea that God is not always forgiving is blasphemous to Muslims.

Maimuna, 39, was raised as a High Anglican and confirmed at 15 at the peak of her religious devotion. ``I was entranced by the ritual of the High Church and thought about taking the veil.`` Her crisis came when a prayer was not answered. She slammed the door on visiting vicars but travelled to convents for discussions with nuns. ``My belief came back stronger, but not for the Church, the institution or the dogma.`` She researched every Christian denomination, plus Judaism, Buddhism and Krishna Consciousness, before turning to Islam.

Many converts from Christianity reject the ecclesiastical heirarchy emphasising Muslims` direct relationship with God. They sense a lack of leadership in the Church of England and are suspicious of its apparent flexibility. ``Muslims don`t keep shifting their goal-posts ,`` says Huda Khattab, 28, author of The Muslim Woman`s Handbook, published this year by Ta-Ha. She converted ten years ago while studying Arabic at university. ``Christianity changes, like the way some have said pre-marital se is okay if its with the person you`re going to marry. It seems so wishy-washy. Islam was constant about sex, about praying five times a day. The prayer makes you conscious of God all the time. You`re continually touching base.

Footnotes:

1.This is one of the reasons why there is an onslaught of bad press against Islam and the Muslims. Whoever considers Islam carefully with its principle belief Tawheed (the Uniqueness of Allaah, His and His sole right to subservience, worship and legislation), the sum total of its injunctions, formulated by Allaah (which are harmonic and define the true nature, position, rights and responsibilities of both sexes), and its justice in every sphere of life (social, economical and political) for all categor ies of people - wives, husbands, children, orphans, women, the poor and indigent, the poverty-stricken - will realise why it poses a threat to the leading elite of the western civilisations (i.e. those who benefit most from the unfair and unjust forms by which the people are governed). It is in the hands of such people that the control of peoples beliefs and ideas lie (via television, Magazines, Films, Education) and naturally this advantage is used to maintain the existing status quo. Muslims are not g overned by and enslaved the false beliefs and ideas of humans, they are enslaved to and governed by Allaah alone. This is the essence of Islam - That enslavement is to none but to Allaah alone and everything besides Him is undeserving of worship and subse rvience.

2 It is now an established fact that around 5,000 of the US Troops who were stationed in Saudi Arabia became Muslims during and shortly after the Gulf War.

3 Much of the alleged oppression of women is due to localised culture which is based on a superstition that is more akin to Hinduism. It is, however, portrays it as being Islamic in origin which in turn seriously affects the `independence of thought` of those who do not bother to pursue the matter in an objective manner - which includes most people.

4 One of the biggest industries in the West is that of entertainment and amusement. This is essential to maintain the false idea of progress, that what comes next is better and worth enduring for. Peoples minds are preoccupied with their own pleasures and other pursuits while others are being murdered, slaughtered, women raped, innocent babies and children butchered with axes and knives, innocent by-standers in robberies and muggings killed, the aged battered to death by adolescents, thousands dying of drug abuse, thousands of innocent lives destroyed by the consumption of alcohol, drunkards beating their women and children... the list is endless. The entertainments industry is one of the effective tools in the `normalisation of the thought process`, the `desensitization of the humanistic concern`, and the intensification of the `my pleasure and gratification is what is most important` syndrome.

MAZARE SHARIF MAZARE SHARIF MAZARE SHARIF

LIBERATED LIBERATED LIBERATED

BEGINNING OF THE END OF SCOURGE CALLED TALIBANS

Thank you George Bush!!

Thank you Northern Alliance!!!

Thank you our American Pilots!!!!

For liberating the WOMEN OF MAZARE SHARIF.

GOD BLESS AMERICA

Eklavya---512:

Yes you can say that.It is a belief system.But then actions(deeds)do find their origin in thoughts & beliefs.

Belief in not harming animals or not going across the black-waters is manifested in the actions & ethos of a certain society.If someone choose not to abide then obviously they have traded any promised future `benefit` for the one immediate.They are not accountable to anyone except themselves.

The ultimate sin(shirk)means that such a person is not a muslim.He is still free to act according to his conscience and do good or bad deeds and get rewarded/penalised accordingly in the secular-temporal society.

Telling a tyrant or a tyrant state that it is not omnipotent and has no control whatsoever over oneself is a firm affirmation of this faith.Expressing gratitude to the point of worship to someone who thinks that one would be a nobody without him(or the state)is also tantamount to assign partners to Allah.For any bounty & blessing one would always express gratefulness & prayers to Allah.To the temporal being or instituition simple thanks are sufficient.To believe that he also is the Provider is simply compromising ones` faith.Such compromise is ``Shirk`` if one desires to be within the precincts of Islam.

And this is an extremely potent & liberating concept.This does translate into deeds accordingly.

La Ilaha(The is none whatsoever)

Il Al Lah(except for Allah)

Reply #: 470

AAmir

``

If Iranians themselves ,could not go against Ayatollah even though you know there are dissident Iranians ,do you think Pakistani muslims have any say in it??

``

-- Well that`s the problem that I am trying to identify. Muslims tend not to speak out when fanatics and dictators implement their own policies in the name of ISLAM.

If they did not speak out against an Ayotollah, what right do they have to speak out against a Milosevic or the cause of Kashmir ? Muslims need to introspect cause that is the only way to imporve oneself. All great religons have gone through it. The Reformation in Christanity and the Bhakti movement in Hindusim are 2 such examples.

``

If you talk about free speech of Salman Rushdie,as a Muslim ,i think he has bartered too much not only his religion (imaan) for whatever prize ,money fame he might have gotten out of it .

I realize he is a very talented man .....

through the ardous route making unnecessary enemies.

``

-- Aamir, as a human being, as a consumer as a critic/journalist you have every right to show your displeasure by boycotting Rushdie or Naipaul or any other person. However, keeping quiet when a certain segment of muslims call for the ban of the book, in the name of ALL muslims (including you) takes away your right to protest against anything else either.

If not, then you become as duplitious as the USA is, in choosing your battles. As moral human beings, it is our obligation... no our DUTY to stand up against immoral acts, especially if they are done in our name.

AD

dost-mittar--520

You say:

[Because historically, the side-effects of organized religions have been lethal. And please don`t bother to tell me that the fault is not of the religions but their faulty interpretations by their followers...what good are revealed messages if they are not clear, unambiguous and subject to multiple, often contradictory interpretations?]

Let me assert that no religion organised or not has never waged a war.Just as no scientist has ever ventured to discover/invent anything for the express purpose of annihilation of mankind.They cannot be held responsible for the use of their research.

Absolute Monarchs,even god-kings,who created their own world & were never part of any organised religion,Nimrod,Shaddad,Firaun, who thought they were divine & did not allow any ``organised`` religion as such were overthrown by those who ``organised`` themselves against such tyrants viz Hazrat Ibrahim or Hazrat Musa etc.

The present day protests by the Environmentalists & GreenPeace people is another representation of ``organised`` belief.Would you rather have people do their bit by just whimpering,whining & supplicating to the CEO of such ``Organised`` belief of Exploitation & Greed a.k.a Multi-National Corporations(heathens to GreenPeace).

Is G-8 not organised Heathenism or Satanism?Is UN not an organised Religion,by intent,if not in output?Is not the getting together for the purpose of goodness rather than to cater to the base & dark aspects of Man?

What I am trying to understand here the inherent/learnt concept of evil in itself.All siblings turn out to be different(more or less--as it should be).Even by discipline and exhortations by very virtuous parents(of whatever belief--organised or not)some offspring do choose to go their own path.From where does this light or darkness come from?where do ideas originate from?Most actions are preceded by an Idea.This Idea is never a conscious deliberate thought process by Design.From where does this idea originate to lead us to a certain path.Almost all scientific discoveries are ``accidents``.The light-bulb icon to represent getting of an idea expresses well what I just said.Where is the Switch-Connection-Battery of this bulb.

.

The rambling is a soliloquay.I hope you understand.

let`s pick our battles carefully...there is a much bigger and more dangerous battle to fight on the West..leave Bangladesh and its Hindus to figure out their problems...India`s responsibility is to its citizens, not the citizens of Bangladesh or of any other country..

..as far as refugees are concerned, if we can`t seal and guard our borders, that`s our problem...India cannot afford refugees from anywhere...period.

Eklavya:

I think your desire not to interfere in Bangladesh`s affairs because others may interfere in ours is immoral. We should welcome everybody`s criticism, if appropriate, and we should be willing to offer ours. It would be one thing if the Bajrang Dal started interfering in Bangladesh given their anti-minority record in India but for secular Indians to be quiet (assuming that there is a problem) is cowardice. Similarly, if the Edhi foundation were to criticize India, I would welcome the criticism or if Mohd Yunus of Grameen Bank were to criticize India, I would welcome it (assuming valid criticism). If on the other hand, it came from the Taliban or Lashkar, frankly, my dear, I couldnt give a damn. If it came from Govts, it would depend on the laws of the country offering the criticism. If it came from Dubai which would confiscate a Buddha statue if it found you bringing it in at the airport, frankly, my dear, I couldnt give a damn.

If Muslim Afghani`s need our help, we should offer it.

If Hindu Bangladeshi`s need our help, we should offer it.

If Muslim Indians need help from overseas Muslims, they should receive it.

To the best of our ability and capability.

This of course does not preclude the help an Afghani will receive from another Afghani or Muslim.

It does not preclude the help a Bangladeshi Hindu will receive from a Muslim Bangladeshi.

It does not preclude the help a Muslim Indian will receive from a Hindu Indian.

The fewer walls and boundaries, the less us vs them, the better. Furthermore, if people are getting help elsewhere, our moral imperative to provide help decreases. For example, for India to offer help for World Trade Center victims beyond symbolic gestures is redundant. Americans have rallied to help the victims. The same cannot be said if there is a cyclone in Bangladesh or drought in Afghanistan - India, if it can, should offer more than symbolic help. To take the point further, if Bangladeshi Hindus need help and are not receiving it elsewhere, the moral burden on India increases. This logic did not apply to Kenyan Indians since most were absorbed in UK, US and Canada. But if they were expelled and couldnt find a home, our burden rises. Same for Fijians.

I have to confess I havent read all the interacts, so if I`m repeating, I apologize.

Sigalph:

Thank you for your kind words about India.

Zafar,

Thanks for the reply to my earlier queries re. `who is a Muslim`. Interesting!

Eklavay, hamzad, thanks for enlightening/ provoking deeper thoughts.

....Now if only I can find the time to read all those seemingly interesting -- but long! -- excerpts and reproductions here...

take care guys...

PM

re asif n

``But having a religious ruler and shar`iat as the Law to start of with does help!``

I bet Mulla Omar said that when he got away with `marrying` that `teenage` bride of his. But since you believe that nonsense, why are you in England? The same shariat demands that you migrate to a country ruled by the `righteous`.

ew shima

``I wish Sigalph could post a balanced view on this matter, not giving the examples of Staines and Bujrung Dal in India. It is a sad sad world...``

Didi, that encapsulates the entire mentality. Just because I am raised in East Bengal, I cannot post a balanced view but you can by virtue of being from `opaar Bangla`? Have you ever wondered if it is that kind of Punjabi-style attitude that leads some in East Bengal to be resentful? You guys can give exaggerated examples of spurious propaganda of defeated Awami League(which even the West Bengal CM thinks exaggerated) but I cannot bring up Staines and Bajrang Dal?

I won`t embarass you about your comment on the trade benefits between India and Bangaldesh: feel free to check the balance yourself.

Not that any of trade and fiscal stuff is that important. What is important is that Bengalis generally have been amongst the most tolerant ethnic groups, in terms of religion, in all of S. Asia. Comments like `she shares a name with Ziaul Haque` are only cheap, juvenile, and low shots at a delicate situation. Such comments bespeak more of the character of the speaker than the subject.

My ancestry goes back to Murshidabad and 24 Parganas. Our cultural `kabaa` is Calcutta. But I`ll be darned if I believe that someone from across the Radcliffe line is more of a Bengali than I am. Koto dhane koto chaal, amraao jani!

Jay...483

YLH is a very sweet & passionate young man.There is no need for you to ridicule him or Pakistan.I am sure you can make your point without giving Kerala a bad name.

Parents,countries,religion,race,profession and so many other things we hold so dear is simply because we are part of it.Even the `bad` aspects we can be vehemently unhappy or critical about but when any outsider ridicules us,even under the garb of a do-gooder or from behind a veil of sympathy most of us resent it...unless of course credibilty,trust,and a complete faith has been earned by the critic or advisor.

Until that is established one must always have a tryst at the border.:)

Please do not lose weight or sleep on the affairs of Pakistan.From Kerala you can educate us about some wonderful anecdotes & history which might make us understand each other better.

For example I was happy to that in the recent elections the Muslim League,as a party,has scored big & has perhaps formed a coalition government.(I do not remember the facts---please enlighten).For me that itself was an eye opener & a revelation that there was even a Muslim League there.A visiting communist Indian friend gave me some information when he visited me this summer)

Human-ness begins where logic ends.

.

I am curious to know if Calicut is KaaliGhaat and does it have anything in common with Kolkotta?Were there two Kaalighaats?In south too.Are there many?...but then how come there was Somnaath & not another Ghaat there?

I hope you won`t mind my words.

Thanks.