What is Islam?

#302 by tahmed32
``To repeat my earlier post (since, unlike you, I have unlimited time), I am not paid to write a post each time some poster uses nonflattering language with a lady (or a gent, or any other creature on chowk). ``...

Few weeks ago, a drunk man forced his way with a mentally handicapped 11 year (?) girl in a compartment of a running train in Mumbai. 6 people were in compartment. No body objected - as it was not their job. Are we witnessing a similar apathy here.?
This old man writes atleast 5-7 responses every day on chowk. He has time to read posts, congratulate some and chastise others. But he must get paid(!!) or must be officially given responsibility (what does he want, some sort of virtual cyber sheriff badge) before he will act to stop anything wrong happening. Is not expressing your unapproval is absolute must to indicate the socially acceptable pattern?

I can very well imagine this sick old man sitting in that train compartment, applauding the drunk man and later saying, ``My applaud applies only to sermons coming out of drunk person`s mouth. Where did I applaud the act? I do not get paid to stop him forcing his way.``

It is just sickening.

nasah #305 Agreed that it is much better that muslims bash muslims and hindus bash hindus. Much, much better. So, with your permission...
a. Why are muslim societies having so much trouble realizing that we are living in the 15 century AH (=21 century AD), not the 15th century AD.
b. Why do so many muslims in denial about 9/11?
c. Why do so many muslims call you ``brother`` or ``sister`` - but only if you are a muslim as well?
d. Why do so many muslims think that Great Muslim Civilization invented everything and borrowed nothing?

I feel better already.

nasah sahib #306
Please, a person of your experience and wisdom has nothing to apologise for, aap mujhe sharminda kar rahe hain.

I too apologise for my language. All of us come to chowk with a message each, which are all equally worth examining and I on my behalf also donot apologise for questioning the supremacy of any particular individual or his message on chowk.

My dear Shanker miaN –

I am glad that u have apologized to Sadna for your language – and I am glad that Sadna has accepted your apology and in turn apologized to you for her language –

Please in future never address ladies with that bhayanker diction.

But -- I am also GLAD that u did not apologize for your message –
your message is a solid one – for which you MUST NEVER apologize to anyone.

This is a message that needs to be heard on loudspeakers – needs to be hammered on the heads of BOTH -- Muslims and Hindus – that there are bigger holes in the fabric of THEIR societies, cultures and Religions –that need to be mended – and mended fast –

and that before or even – while you are looking into the eyes of OTHERS -- trying to remove the proverbial STRAW – it’s a healthy idea for your eyes – if you can feel and remove the BEAM from your own eyes as well.

But most importantly what Shanker is saying correctly that -- the MESSAGE has to be delivered by the MUSLIMS to the MUSLIMS -- and by the HINDUS to the HINDUS – NOT vice versa..

Although it is good for a community to hear from OTHERS -- how they see us -- because it gives the members a perspective that is never available to them on their own.

Yet – unsolicited OUTSIDE criticism – especially from those self-righteous folks become counter productive -- who themselves have bigger holes to mend in their own fabrics -- but present them -- as glorious designs of their not so glorious traditions -- while gleefully pointing the warts and moles of other`s faces.

usually it ends up having just the OPPOSITE effect – it INHIBITS reforms and -- it WEAKENS the reformers of the other party -- who desperately try to work from the INSIDE -- to modernize their respective communities.

The fact is -- regardless of how much they want to – the Hindus CANNOT reform the Muslims – and the Muslims can NEVER reform the Hindus –

the RSS Goondas can never reform Muslim’s out of their backward Personal Law – (remember Shah Bano?) -- they actually helped the Mullas to ruin the case.

similarly the Jihadi murderers cannot wean Hindus off of their Hindutva sour bottles

the process of DESENSITIZATION -- which Shanker has correctly identified as -- the FIRST STEP – to the PATH of -- modern MUKTI – or new age NIRVANA --

will have to come from the INSIDE -- with the likes of Shankers and Hamidms – not from OUTSIDE – of the likes of urstruly ji and arjun miaN.

And here is the crux of this discussion – as to why -- smart alecshanker the Great -- minus his orificial language – is such a valuable serious -- social critic -- of his community --

because his critique has a healthy effect on `others` -- besides his own.

when a Muslims who bashes his OWN Muslims to wake them from the centuries old delusions – sees a Hindu bashing his own Hindus – it fills him with, confidence, courage, and camaraderie of a common cause --

and most importantly -- it lightens HIS burden of being called an apostate, a traitor, a brown nose , a hindu lover, a hindutva pleaser -- etcetera, etcetera.

Believe me – it’s rather an unkindest cut to call these people -- ‘cheap’ thrill seekers – or they take pleasure in ‘dissing’ their own community -- they are NOT – and they do NOT --

if anything – they are the ‘DEADLY’ THRILL seekers – as the rushdies, the tasleemas, the mahfouzes, the professor shaikhs of this bigoted world -- would gladly testify any time to.

hasan

And my apologies to our progressive sadna -- if urstruly`s posts have crossed the boundries any time --

may we be friends again:-)

Pankaj, Hum UP waalon ki shaan hi kuchh aur hai.

If there is heaven on earth, it is UP, it is UP, it is UP.


Allllllliright folks, no one should laugh now :)

tahmed32:

Regardless of which part of Shankar`s post you were cheering for, you clearly were encouraging him when he was being cruder and cruder in every post. Also, its disingenuous of you to pretend that everyone that objected did so was because Shankar had critcised some aspects of Hinduism, when clearly most of the objectors did mention his language as the reason.

You have been very quick to judge folks on this forum in the past and are now getting a taste of your own medicine. Sorry if this second fall from your high horse hurt bad. Shouldn`t you take the hint and get off it?

Lastly, can those cheesy ``not a man enough`` lines. You clearly have the literary skills, the time and enough obsession with Chowk, to do much better than that.

Until next time,
Satyavadi

PS: It was brave of Shankar to clearly apologize for his language.

#290 and #292 - Oh I didn`t notice these. At last, that is a good beginning.

Banjaraa #295 You write ``I have neither the time nor the erudition nor the wish to counter your points. ``
Good. Now we can all do something useful with our time. But...
You continue ``The language used for a lady was not very flattering and your silence on “that” was tantamount to double standards.`` To repeat my earlier post (since, unlike you, I have unlimited time), I am not paid to write a post each time some poster uses nonflattering language with a lady (or a gent, or any other creature on chowk).
And finally (aaah!!), you write ``This ends my response to the subject.``
Amen. Hope you will keep this promise.

tahmed32#295

I have neither the time nor the erudition nor the wish to counter your points. The language used for a lady was not very flattering and your silence on “that” was tantamount to double standards. This ends my response to the subject.

Regards.

There seem to be quite a number of UPites on Chowk. Let`s see:

1. Prem- Lucknow
2. Friend(?)
3. Sadhana
4. Banjaara: honorary UPite
5. Myself :-)

#287 by shankar on October 15, 2002 7:46am PT
shankar the bhaynkar, (it sounds funnier than writing pennls god)

You are overestimating your posts. Who gives a single penny about what you write for hinduism! Whatever you write about religion is your opinion and I don`t (and shouldn`t) care a hoot about that.

Few other have been more patien and have written very clearly where you crossed the lines. However it appears that you are still under illusion that all brick-throwing is due to your great ``reformer`` role and your crap writing style has nothing to do with it.

I learnt to have thick skin quite early in life. And that comes handy whenever I need to play shit-kabbadi.

Till next time.

Banjaara

Have you heard about a poem that was one of my favs in high school days:

Hum BanjaaroN ki kyaa hasti hai
Hum aaj yahaaN kal wahaaN chale
Masti ka aalam saath chalaa
Hum dhool udate jahaaN chale.

There seem to be quite a number of UPites on Chowk. Let`s see:

1. Prem- Lucknow
2. Friend(?)
3. Sadhana
4. Banjaara: honorary UPite
5. mastram2
6. Myself :-)

banjaraa #293 You clearly dont mind twisting the truth to make your point: You selectively pick from Shankar`s post, ignoring the part I was focussing on. There were two parts to his post, the first to Godot, the second to Sadna. You ignored the part to Godot, when it should be clear that that is the part I was responding to, and made it look like I was congratulating him for insulting Sadna.
To see what I mean, let me cut and paste the first part (the part you ignored):
Shankar #159 godot,
{{``..but i must confess it is probably not right for grownups to pull santa`s beard and say these things in front of the little kids..``
Yes!!!! Praise the Lord!!!! hamidm has seen the light!!!!!}}
Yo! godot, i hate to diss you cuz you`ve been nice to me (SMILEY FACE HERE).
My take on hamidm`s quote was that he is pulling your leg sarcastically & mischeviously. Are we ``little kids`` on Chowk? that we should feel offended if some of us choose to be ``irreverent`` & ``disrespectful`` of the institution of religion ESP if we see a lot of CRAPOLA in it?!
OK, those of u who make such a biiiig to-do about religion, how insecure are you guys?!.... if some ``secular fundamentalists`` choose to mock our religion..hey its OUR choice....if your feeeeelings get hurt..boohooo..``

NOW read my post #167, and look at the references to the ``smiley face`` and the ``crapola`` part and it is clear what part of his post I was responding to. The second part of his post that you quoted was to Sadna, and he has now apologized and Sadna has accepted, and all is well with them. You can now fault me for ignoring that part of his post, and for not dumping on shankar for that second part of his post and that is fine me too. I am not paid to sit and correct people`s manners on chowk. I do it only when I feel like it, and if that bothers too, that is too bad.
PS: Glad you learnt to talk straight finally, and to address me directly This is an improvement over the oblique references to the ``self-proclaimed chowk moderator`` in your last post. Keep working at it and you may go the next step and learn not twist facts to make your point.

Tahmed32 # 280

No... I am not clever.The entire chowk knows who is the self-appointed
moderator and the chief of morality. It`s YOU.

jaanay na jaanay gul hi na jaanay
baagh tau sara jaanay hai

regards.