On Hate

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

re: Prem

{I therefore, request you to kindly take a minute of your time to tell us the caste you were born into.}

...this is like when you meet most indians in the US, the first question the twits will ask is if you`re gujju, punjabi, sindhi, etc...so irritating...what goddamn difference does it make...that pretty much sums up my feelings about this question as well...sorry...

Prem #395
I am Brahmin, Kshatriya,
Vaisya, Shudra, Dalit, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Jain, Buddhist, Jew, Parsi, commie atheist, dravidian atheist, Nicobar Island headhunter, animist etc(though NOT a scientologist, or Moonie, those guys have to manage without me :)). As an Indian, I am all these.

Vaise, I am a Vaisya/bania.

Stuka, Akash, Hobbyty

I don`t agree with hobbyty`s ideas, but his conclusion that Chowk has only brahmin Indians is intriguing. If that allegation is true, then we are surely in for an unpleasant surprise. This is not a trivial matter. We ought to investigate it.

A REQUEST TO ALL HINDU INDIAN CHOWKIES -

Folks, you are all aware that caste is and has been a major issue confronting us Indians. Irrespective of our individual attitudes toward it, we would acknowledge that the custom of caste does continue to affect Indian society. In this light, whether Hindu Indians on Chowk are only those born in brahmin families (or even mostly so) is NOT a trivial question. And we Indians can never run from the truth, even if it is bitter.

I therefore, request you to kindly take a minute of your time to tell us the caste you were born into. Since your caste per se is of no significance, all we would be interested in knowing is whether or not you belong to a brahmin family.

Name: Brahmin/Non-brahmin

Prem: Brahmin

stuka: ?

Shankar: ?

Shammi: ?

Dost-Mittar: ?

RSaxena: ?

Harimau: ?

Jay: ?

tvarad: ?

arjun_m: ?

Akash: ?

rsridhar:?

soysauce: ?

sadna: ?

subroto: ?

HN: ?

Humbsab:

Roohi: ?

soundmeister:?

ANY OTHER?

Apologies if I have wrongly included your name in the list of Hindu Indians. If your name is not included and you are a Hindu Indian (or a Hindu Pakistani), please count yourself in!

PRIVACY NOTES:

(1) Some of you may be hesitant to publicly reveal information that most of us would deem quite irrelevant. If that is so, PLEASE drop me a one-liner at eklavya786@hotmail.com

(2) Rest assured, I will NOT sell, or in anyway reveal to ANY THIRD PARTY, private information thus acquired.

I am sure you understand that we can not arrive at any meaningful conclusion unless we have information on ALL (or MOST) people. So, do participate.

Come on, folks, it is important to have OBJECTIVE information about who we are. Help me out here.

Many thanks in anticipation.

Akash

You`re such a tease - promise? come get you some.

Chacha Hobby

Tere ko kisne bola mein Brahmin hoon. I am not a brahmin, okay. I am neither brahmin nor baniya. But I will still kick the hell out of you.

Lajwanti ,

It is the shaheed concept that makes islam unique and ensure that jihadic frontiers will always be a line of bloodshed. The muslims from all over the world converged in afghanistan in large numbers seeking tickets to heaven, so is the case in kashmir, philippines. People have to realise the religious dimension of these frontiers. What the world needs is guidelines and global cooperation to control the jihadic frontiers.

regards

Jay

Zafar and Hobbyty

Glad to see you two trying to get to the HEART of the matter. I am keenly following your dialogue.

Zafar Al-Talib

I was not suggesting different human rights - I am agreed that these cannot be different - these are ``Human`` rights.

I was asking for assitance in better understanding, or rather not falling into a trap of saying mean and women are the same - of course they are the same as far ``Human`` is concerned - I do have difficulty in carrying it further, to say, mean are same as women.

having agreed on ``human`` rights - I also, see a problem, with the notion of ``equality`` - not as ``humans`` but in the kinds of space that must be created in our agreement on the meanings of several things, as the equality of womenas huamn persons? makes itself felt to a greater degree in society - here I have in mind, the particular differences beween man and women. Whacha ya think?

Reply Hobbyty #383

“Gender discrinimation - good or bad ? Again - if we take an overarching position, which is the desired - looking at mena and women as the group, humans but I fear the qualifications we seek to avoid will come back to haunt us - if effect we would be saying men are no different from women - and that just is not the case - yes, they are both human but moving away from this group, looking at the as particular - we cannot escape the distictions that again will bring the qualifications into play. What do you think of these objections?”

The fact that adult human beings are DIFFERENT from each other is not a sound basis for saying that they have different human rights.

Equality for all adults does not assume that difference between them is not meaningful or profound. Only that difference does not mean less or more worth or capability, as reflected in rights and obligations.

This IS a different pov from at least traditional understandings of Sharia, where women have fewer rights and also fewer obligations – what seems like a permanent status of legal minority.

??

HobbyTy

``“…Indians on Chowk are all Brahmins, of course, one never runs across any other than Brahmins – “"

??????? Dude, what makes you think I am a Bamman? No way, Jose. I am a Khatri, as Ali#1 found out eons ago...don`t even remember how. Fully Non Vegetarian, Beef Eating, Pork Eating, Alcohol comsuming Khatri

#379 dost-mittarsaab

“hobbyty#370

The ``Daily Times`` article you posted is right on the money. [Is it an Indian newspaper?]”

….it’s a pakistani newspaper from lahore recently stared by najam sethi….dailytimes.com.pk if you’re interested….

What makes Palestinian suicide bombers tick? Not the Koran, media pundits are quick to say.

They maintain they are martyrs for a political, not religious, cause and are only resorting to such violent extremes to defend against an oppressive Israeli military. The media romanticize the heinous bombings as the desperate struggle of the downtrodden.

Given the alarming toll of innocent Israelis (not to mention Americans) recently slaughtered by Islamic suicide attacks, this is a particularly noxious batch of politically correct swill to swallow.

And those in the media who know better should be ashamed of themselves for peddling it. They are nothing but professional liars. Others too lazy to read the Koran to independently verify the spin of ``moderate`` Muslim scholars are guilty of intellectual malpractice.

If you read the Koran (the Muslim-approved Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation), you discover that martyrdom is the only guaranteed ticket to Paradise for Muslims.

But don`t take my word for it. Listen to a former radical Shiite Muslim tell it.

``The only way Muslims can have assurance of salvation and eternal life is by becoming a martyr for the cause of Islam,`` said Reza F. Safa, author of ``Inside Islam.``

``To a Muslim,`` he added, ``dying and killing for the cause of Islam is not only an honor, but also a way of pleasing Allah.``

That explains how a Palestinian grandmother could proudly pose with her beaming teen-age grandson for a final photograph knowing that just hours later he would strap himself with explosives and eviscerate Israeli ``infidels`` – and himself – in the name of Allah. This adoring old woman was actually celebrating the boy`s imminent death, as if he were about to cross the stage at his high-school graduation ceremony. But to her, a death certificate sealed by Allah meant more than any diploma. She said she was happy – overjoyed that her grandson would soon disembowel himself – because she knew he would be instantly transported to a better place.

Where does she get such faith? From the Koran.

Meanwhile, the pubescent grandson dreamed of the carnal pleasures awaiting him in Paradise – ``Companions with beautiful, big and lustrous eyes ... virgin-pure and undefiled`` – just as the Muslim prophet Muhammad promised in the Koran (Surah 56:22,35-36).

And such Koranic promises explain how the father of another young Palestinian, who set off a bomb on a crowded commuter bus, could gush, ``My son will go to heaven`` – as if he had just scored the winning touchdown at the homecoming game in front of Ivy League scouts. Most fathers would be bawling their eyes out over such a senseless loss.

Safa says local Muslim clerics recite to such young men the verses from the Koran that promise the reward of Paradise, and all its oddly non-spiritual perks, if they die while fighting the ``unbelievers`` – Jews and Christians – in the name of Allah.

```Are you ready for martyrdom?``` the young man is asked. ```Yes, yes,` he repeats,`` Safa said, explaining the ritual. ``He is then given the oath on the Koran.``

``These young men leave the meeting with one determination: to kill,`` he said.

Of course, the same media pundits who like to pretend Palestinians are fighting a political war for freedom and are only using suicide as a ``cheap defense weapon,`` argue that the Koran forbids suicide. They claim clerics twist the meaning of the salient passages in the Koran to imply martyrdom paves the way to Paradise.

But don`t be fooled. Typical of Islam`s apologists, they are merely cherry picking verses to try to make the Koran seem less violent than it is.

Yes, the Koran tells Muslims not to ``kill or destroy yourselves`` (Surah 4:29) – but only when doing so is outside the cause of Allah. Dying for Allah is not viewed as a waste of life.

In fact, the Koran encourages it. Consider these verses:

``When ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks,`` Muhammad commands in Surah 47:4. ``Those who are slain in the way of Allah – he will never let their deeds be lost.``

``Soon will he guide them and improve their condition,`` he continues in Surah 47:5, ``and admit them to the Garden (of Paradise), which he has announced for them.``

And look at Surah 4:74: ``To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah – whether he is slain or gets victory – soon shall we give him a reward of great (value).``

And Surah 3:157: ``If ye are slain, or die, in the way of Allah, forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than all they could amass.``

Surah 3:140-143, moreover, glorifies “martyrs” who “enter Heaven” and, at the same time, ribs those who “flinch” from death. That’s followed by Surah 3:170, which says “martyrs” -- suicidal killers who “die in their cause” -- don’t really die, nor should their loved ones “grieve” for them.

Maybe I’m just an ignorant “kaffir” who is misreading the Koran, which I’ve read cover to cover in two translations now.

Or maybe not. Translator Yusuf Ali, respected the world-over by Muslims, reads it the same way in his commentaries.

In footnote 469, he says: “Dying in doing your duty is the best means of reaching Allah’s mercy.”

“Martyrdom is the sacrifice of life in the service of Allah. Its reward is therefore even greater than that of an ordinarily good life,” Ali says in footnote 2839. “The martyr’s sins are forgiven by the very act of martyrdom.”

So in the Muslim faith, the reward for death in the cause of Allah is greater than good works or faith in general. That’s what the Koran teaches, the book that Ali says is “the duty of every Muslim -- man, woman or child -- to read.”

But what of the wives and children left widowed and fatherless, or parents left sonless, by these men of fanatical faith, these duty-bound suicide bombers, these glorified martyrs?

“The dear ones have no cause to grieve at the death of the martyrs,” Ali says in footnote 478. “Rather have they cause to rejoice.”

Like the Palestinian grandmother and father mentioned above.

But cultural relativists among the punditry, such as Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman, aren`t convinced.

Goodman recently insisted that the Palestinian suicide bombers are merely ``desperate`` to improve their lot, deluded by the ``despair`` of their impoverished existence. Some politicians call them ``freedom fighters.`` Over the weekend, former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell even compared PLO leader Yasser Arafat to Nelson Mandela.

But if Palestinians are deluded into carrying out such wicked acts, it`s not a function of their social or economic condition. It`s a function of their faith.

They are deluded, quite simply, by their holy book, which teaches them to ``fight unbelievers (Jews) who are near to you`` (Surah 9:123) for the cause of Allah.

You never hear of Jewish or Christian suicide bombers for the simple reason the Bible does not encourage murder-suicide in the name of God. The Koran does.

Still not convinced?

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Syria, which according to Safa has helped the Palestinians against the Israelis, has this as its slogan:

``The Koran is our constitution, the prophet is our guide; Death for the glory of Allah is our greatest ambition.``

Greater than land or voting rights. Greater than family or love. Above all, death. This is the enemy Ariel Sharon faces. This, sadly, is now our enemy, too.

Zafar Al-Talib

You have valid points about human rights - and I must say I had not included or I had not looked at caste in that way - On all discrinimations including caste and gender - certainly the argument you present is compelling - but I must let this cook in me for a while - I had not really thought of it in that way - at all.

Gender discrinimation - good or bad ? Again - if we take an overarching position, which is the desired - looking at mena and women as the group, humans but I fear the qualifications we seek to avoid will come back to haunt us - if effect we would be saying men are no different from women - and that just is not the case - yes, they are both human but moving away from this group, looking at the as particular - we cannot escape the distictions that again will bring the qualifications into play. What do you think of these objections?

Arjun

Do, please make an effort to think -

``Unless it is accompanied by a stick, there will be no change on the ground``

Not everyone wishes to think of themseleves as persons who cannot reason.

Bong Dong

You are right - the particular article does not justify the statement that flight testing has been performed.

Dost Mittar

``Daily Times`` is a new English language paper Najam Sethi is publishing.

Akash

Why are are you dumping on me for Ms. Rice`s statement of US policy?

re: Dost-Mittar # 379

DMjee, the Daily Times is new daily brought out by Najam Sethi. Its online version is available at http://www.dailytimes.com.pk

I was a bit ambivalent about that article. It offered a good analysis of the fractious nature of Indian politics and the particular role of Hindutva forces. But I was not sure if the author fully understood the nature of support for secularism in India. That blindspot, IMO, weakened the analysis considerably.

As ylh and I discussed partly once earlier, support for secularism stands on a number of legs:

1. The principle of Moral Rights - This principle posits that it is utterly immoral to create and support arbitrarily discriminatory constitutions. All non-secular constitutions, according to this view, are fundamentally immoral.

2. The Efficiency Principle - According to this principle a secular polity is preferable because it is more ``market-efficient`` than non secular polities. Under conditions of free market conditions, non-secular polities will invariably lose to relatively secular polities.

3. ``Pre-requisite to Public Order`` principle - According to this principle, presence of significant number of minorities leaves no choice other than the path of secularism.

The author of that article is of the view that a country with the majority population of merely 85% could only be secular. That is not entirely true. Consider a few countries -

Country Majority population

Malaysia 55%

Nigeria 75%

Albania 75%

Bangladesh 85%

Syria 87%

Mali 90%

Egypt 93%

Sudan 94%

You will notice that there is no direct or obvious relationship between the size of population groups and the purely secular nature of their constitutions.

The reason for absence of such a clear relationship is that secularism is primarily a moral idea. That is, it can arise and survive only within a universally moral framework. That is why, Hindutva forces pose a deeply moral threat to us all. Secularism is also, as many Chambers of Commerce and investment bankers in India are realizing, an efficacious idea, both in social and market terms. Secularism, thus, is far less a matter of peace and public order than is realized. India is secular because, and will remain so only so long as, the majority of ALL groups share the belief that that is only ``right`` way to govern any nation.

Analyses that leave out this moral component will not fully understand the appeal of secularism to Indians.

Hobby

``US national security advisor Condoleezza Rice said India should resume a dialogue with Pakistan and work to reduce months of border tension, following steps by Islamabad to ease the stand-off between the two nations.

``

Blah blah blah blah... Who are you fooling Sir. Pakistan taking steps to ease standoff??? We know pretty well what Mushy has done with the religious leaders he arrested as a smokescreen?? And where are 20 terrorists that India provided evidence against??? Some more blah blah blah. BTW where is your counter list of criminals wanted in pakiland but hiding in India. We are ready to hand over to you any crimiinal that you provide minutest evidence against. And dont utter blah blah this time. And you fools believe that USA can apply pressure on India to talk. Nay it didn`t do that even during cold war... Quit deluding yourself.