The Death of Edward Said -- A tribute

Said the truthful?

How truthful was this Ivy League intellectual? Decide for yourself:

1. ``I would say that from about last November (2002) on, dissent disappeared from a mainstream media swollen with a surfeit of ex-generals and ex- intelligence agents sprinkled with recent terrorism and security experts drawn from the Washington right-wing think tanks.``
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles4/Said_US.htm

2. ``No one could argue today that Afghanistan, even after the rout of the Taliban, is a much better and more secure place for its citizens.``
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002900
FACT: Number of Afghan refugees that have returned after ouster of Taliban = 1.8 million

3. ``US Middle East policy built as it is on two mighty pillars, the security of Israel and plentiful supplies of inexpensive oil.``
http://www.counterpunch.org/said1019.html
FACT: Cost of producing/shipping oil = $3 per barrel; price of oil = $31 Nymex Crude 10/10/03

4. ``None of his (Saddam`s) neighbours perceives him as a threat.``
http://www.counterpunch.org/said1019.html

5. ``You cannot speak about Palestinian suffering or Arab frustration because Israel`s presence in the US prevents it.``
http://www.counterpunch.org/said1019.html


Cordially,
Rizwan

mni #189:

Further to my post #190 - OK. Time`s up. You have failed to back up your heat with light with regard to my calling Said a lier when he claimed in al ahram that US bookshops are full of anti-Islam books.

I hope you will reflect upon this a bit, and start using your own eyes and ears and mind a bit more in future rather than simply accepting views presented by someone famous ``intellectual``, or some government propoganda for that matter. You will see reality, rather than the self-pleasing picture of reality that the likes of ``secular`` or the islamist extremists draw for consumption by unthinking people.

MNI if you are honest--and you appear to be-- then why keep the fact of your apostasy from your immediate family? Are you afraid of their reaction? Also i am not sure if you are married but when one partner becomes a murtad [apostate] his or her marriage is immediately annulled and if they continue to live together as man and wife it is zina. Probably your poor wife is a believing Muslima--shouldn`t you tell her of your decision to apostate so she can decide for herself if she wants to stay living with you? Surely you owe her that much? (If you are not married then none of this applies of course!)

astaghfirullah...

mni #189 I am patiently waiting for you to tell me what you found anti-Islamic in these books on the amazon.....(the clock is ticking)...

But you seem more interested in making your own beliefs the issue: while for the Man Worshipper Naqsh your post is manna from heaven (so he can stand on a pedestal and declare you an apostate - another anti-Quranic concept this little chamcha picked up from his gods), I really couldnt care less what your beliefs are. They are your business and have nothing to do with the discussion on this board.

All I ask is of you is to shed some light on the heat you have been shedding. If you cant shed any more light, I will assume that all you have to shed is heat - as in hot air.

sattar2:
Naqsh (#184) ...

... while you take back your salam ... perhaps you should also slit his throat ... and flush his head down the toilet ... I am sure your insecure, vengeful god will reward you abundantly for killing an apostate ...

Let`s not put words in Naqshbandi`s mouth. All that Naqshbandi did was taking back his salam.

On the books yes, the punishment for apostacy is death. But books don`t mean much. My apostacy (outside of my immediate family) is well-known. I continue to have many Muslims as friends. No one has killed me yet. You seem to be pretty much alive too? Then why such anger at Naqshbandi?

N #186 You will excuse me for not engaging in discussion. Thank you.

hamidm mian...i do not want to get in the middle of the arguments between you and tahmed--you are both gumraah at best--but please do not write that the `prophet of the barelvis had not descended then` (or words to that effect). Our Prophet is non other than Our leige-lord and Master Sayyidina wa Mawlana Hadrat Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Abd al Muttallib al-Arabi, al-Hashimi, The Beloved of Allah (sal Allahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam--Allah`s blessings and peace be upon him and his family) who was born on the 12th of the lunar month of Rabi` al Awwal in Makkah al Mukarramah in the year 570 of the Christian Era and after whom no new prophets shall be sent. May my parents and myself be sacrificed for his name alone! Ameen!

Ala Hadrat Imam Ahmad Rida Khan rahmatullah alayhi of Bareilly Sharif, UP, India (d.1921) was a great reviver of the Deen in the 14th Islamic century and the Imam of his time in tariqat and shariat but he was only a slave of the shoes of The Noble Prophet sal allahu alayhi wa sallam. He was an honoured slave though so much so that the Beloved Master accepted his slavery and we are happy to be his slaves in turn! Allahu Akbar! What a great fortune to be accepted as a slave (ghulam) by Allah`s Messenger sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam. Thus he signed his fatwas, ```Abd al MuStafa Muhammad Ahmad Rida Khan`` Abd meaning servant/slave in Arabic.

I hope this is clear.
As a modern Pakistani naatkhaan has written:

Main kahoon ke ghulaam hoon aap ka
Aur woh kehein ke ``haan humein qabool hai!``

subhan Allah!

Naqsh (#184) ...

... while you take back your salam ... perhaps you should also slit his throat ... and flush his head down the toilet ... I am sure your insecure, vengeful god will reward you abundantly for killing an apostate ...

tahmed--with all due respect to your late father i doubt many ulama even bothered to read his book as it was probably so unlearned compared to their knowledge that they couldn`t be bothered with it.

What were your father`s qualifications in religious knowledge? Who were his teachers? Did he have isnad? (Isnad--chains of transmission) Without isnad we do not accept anything in this religion as otherwise anyone can say anything. Does he have isnad in all of the sciences of the Qur`an and the 15 sciences of the Arabic language? If not then his views mean nothing just as my views mean nothing (which is why I only relay views of traditional ulama who have these sciences with isnad and never my own views).

That is probably why the ulama didn`t even bother with the book. It is like expecting Einstein to respond to an article written by a tabloid journalist refuting his Theory of Relativity by writing a professional article. He wouldn`t even bother.

Ditto the ulama. Still if you can give me the details of the book i would be interested in reading it...

MNIphirsay --I can`t believe you have turned apostate by your own admission. Law hawla wa la quwwata. I take back any salams I gave you under the impression that you were a Muslim. Naudhubillah.

***

As for Ed Said he was a very good writer and intellectual who told the truth about al-Falasteen.

In response to SN, who wrote:

``I would really like other chowk posters to respond to this. Haven`t they seen a sudden spurt of anti-Islam books in the US bookshops - just like the pro-Islam books?``

Sure, been to the book store the other day (Chapters), and the ``current events`` section was filled with them. The ``Pro-Islam`` books were in the religion section...

mNI #181 you seem to have the time to read my lengthy post to another person. Yet you have not yet had the time to answer the one simple question I had for you yesterday I think on this board, namely:

What is it in any of these books you list that you consider anti-islamic?

tahmed32 #177:
He did none of the above. And this affirms my point that too many of us muslims have this stupid habit of labelling books, individuals, indeed entire communities and countries, as ``anti-Islamic`` without any basis.

Please leave this lecture baazi on the problem with Muslims for someone else. Just so you know, I do not consider myself a Muslim, having given up religion 13 years ago. That`s why when I say someone is being anti-Muslim, I say that based on something more than the visceral rage and paranoia of a fanatical believer.

On the topic of books, I have said what I had to say already.

PM:
[it`s as if I`ve accepted that these are the ground rules, and we have the choice to play or leave.]
....but they have another choice - to embrace the perfect religion:-)

plat #176 I see you are now trying to trivialize my objection to your misquoting me. As I said, dont bother to apologize, dont bother to explain. Go out and enjoy the rest of your day. (and you didnt get the ``corrected`` quote at the end of your post right either).

SameerJB#172

``It is impossible for a balatantly outrageous, succinct and irrational person in his interpretation of history to get his work published by the world class publishers, surviving tough academic environment of Ivy laeague standards and Columbia University granting him tenure. There has to be some scholarly merit in his work otherwise he would have been ignominiously thrown out in the cold long time ago. ``

Excellent Point. Does that mean we all have to completely agree with all that he says? Certainly not. But that doesn`t take away the merit of his work. And ranting against him, calling him various names is just not on...(though fuzair didn`t do that...)

SN #175 I checked #166. It is a lengthy post basically indicating irritation at what you perceive to be uncivil behavior on my part (e.g. in my use of the term ``lecturing`` for what you considered to have been a civil response from you, my not having more than 24 hours a day and so on). Fair enough - I did feel there were too many interactors coming out of the woodwork, raising issues I had already responded to. So I did get irritated and was skipped responding to your post I think.

Anyway. You quote me as saying ``...and I wont respond to his repetition of the same lie that I criticized Said for, that you tried to support but failed to substantiate by claiming you were too busy. `` and you write ``That went right over my head. If u are talking about the amazon searches, its quite simple, both of u were right. ``

The problem wasnt amazon searches, as you thought. I was referring to an earlier discussion I had where a poster had said he had done an amazon search on ``Islam``, and listed three titles he said popped up, and had referred to them as examples of anti-Islam literature. I then repeated the same search myself, and the three titles that popped up were different than the ones he had listed. One of those books I had read recently (Bernard Lewis`s book titled ``What went wrong? Islam and modernity`` (or something like that). I had in fact found it to be a informative and well-written book. I then asked the poster to identify pages in any of these books that he considered to be unIslamic. He refused to do that claiming I was sending him on a red herring chase.

THAT was the background to what went ``right over (your) head``.

So, I hope you will understand why I did not properly respond to your post - I would have to explain the discussion that has already taken place.

Anyway, the ``discussion trail`` is right here on this board. If someone wants to have a fair and objective discussion, I am happy to do that:

For example, the poster I mention above could have simply said he had not read these books and had just assumed from the titles that they were anti-Islamic. Or if he had read these books, he should have been able to tell me right away some basic message they contained that he considered anti-Islamic. Or he could have taken the few minutes it would take to check the pages of each book that amazon makes available online, and told me he had found something (or agreed that he had not found something).

He did none of the above. And this affirms my point that too many of us muslims have this stupid habit of labelling books, individuals, indeed entire communities and countries, as ``anti-Islamic`` without any basis. We dont even ask ourselves the meaning of ``anti-Islamic``. To me the definition is clear: if someone thinks that Islam is an inherently evil doctrine then that is anti-Islamic. In fact, I know of no popular author in the US, and know of no major public figure (other than the christian fundamentalists) who consider Islam to be an evil religion. And I know of many popular authors and many major public figures (including Bush himself, the favorite target of derision among muslims) who have staunchily promoted the image of muslims as being a decent people and making the distinction between muslims and terrorists. And who have also educated the public on islam as being a peaceful religion. And yet, many muslims routinely paint Bush, the US, the entire jewish community, Indians, hindus and so on as being anti-Islamic.

And when a high profile ``intellectual`` writes major lies in a major newspaper publised in Egypt to promote this lie, then I fail to understand why it touches so many raw nerves that I called his lie. Particularly when the issue is central to the thousands of innocent people of all nationalities who lost their on 9/11 and in the subsequent US retailiation in Afghanistan.

Indeed, if you want to see anti-Islamic stuff, it is among the disenchanted muslims like hamidm (who, like the equally superficial christian fundamentalists, are determined to prove that Islam is an evil religion) or any of the thakeray crowd from india (the chaps who refuse to distinguish between ordinary pakistanis and terrorists, and are happy to paint ``pakis`` as being terrorists). The scholars and political leaders in the west are way to sophisticated to come up with such dumb views.

I hope I have adequately responded to your post, and you will understand why I seem to use harsh language like ``lies``.

Tahmed #171
``Forget the apology part then. That was too much to expect from you, I can see...``
Yes, it was, in this context. I have noticed that exchanging regrets and apologies
seems rather high on your agenda (rather than the content of the debate at hand),
as is condescending and patronising people you don`t know (SN, myself and hamidm,
for example).

``If the best you can do is milk this piece of information I voluntarily provided in
the spirit of an open discussion, then you dont have much of an argument.``

Again I ask, argument to do what ? Is there a big debate going on here that I am
unaware of ? This entire discussion has been content-free, and Said became peripheral
to it a while back. However, proving that your estimate of Said is mistaken requires
you to get hold of the two books I mentioned and reading them. That`s all....

``But then, I have seen you and others ignoring Fuzair`s points too``...perhaps that is
because some of us explicitly mentioned that we are not competent enough to evaluate
Said`s work on Orientalism and literary fields, but have some exposure to his writings
on Palestine and related matters. By the way, just as Fuzair has presented, what I
assume is an informed critique of ``Orientalism``, one can find instances where the work
has been praised to high heavens. What will that prove ?

Since you keep harping on the apology bit, let me apologise for missing a pair of
quotes...what I mean is that ``whiny, habitual liar`` was supposed to be ``whiny``,
``habitual liar``. Is this really the extent of your discontent ? And you don`t consider this
nit-picking ?

Anyway, I do not wish to recycle this particular wheel.

re. #169: ``Why cant there be a Christian Pakistani to mtake up some Pakistani cause? What do the Thekedars of our so called ideological lobby have to say a bout this? Are vwe Pakistanis First or Muslims First? Our Constitution does not permit a NON MUSLIM to hold the office of the President or the Prime Minister of the country?``
You ask the question and provide the answer. I would add that the histories and cultural landscape of the two (Pak and Palestine) are so different as to render any comaprison specious anyway. The Palestinian struggle, had, for the longest time, been a purely nationalistic one.
Still, there are several Christians, and otehr `minorities` who fight the good fight in Pakistan. But for every one that stays to fight, nine other talented ones resign to the `fact` that it`s not worth the struggle. Okay, maybe not nine, maybe three. I really don`t blame them. Pakistan has, for long now, been a place where a majority of Muslims feel that non-Muslims are really guests, at best deserving of their `protection`.
``Isnt this institutionalised discrimination? or Racial and religious prejudice deliberately built into our political system with constitutional safe guards?``
Well, to be fair, it is only to be expected from a country founded on ideological grounds (with apologies to YLH, who of course, rightly points out that technically it was not to be an ideological state... but that`s like saying that a JayLo role was not really meant to be a male-puller). Funny thing is, I don`t really resent this... it`s as if I`ve accepted that these are the ground rules, and we have the choice to play or leave. The poor, who don;t have this choice, suffer gross discrimination of other sorts anyway.

re. SN
``I would really like other chowk posters to respond to this. Haven`t they seen a sudden spurt of anti-Islam books in the US bookshops - just like the pro-Islam books?``
Good point, since TAhmed`s characterization of Said as a liar (I thought that word connotes habitualness anyway-- maybe its used differently in DC!) rests primarily (the validity of the link being another matter) on Said`s assertion that there is a proliferation of anti-Islam books on shelves these days.

tahmed#170

Yeah, as long as u stick to ur original apology, we smoke the peace pipe, sure.

But how about my reply #166?

Thanks.

Interesting bit of news.

Coetzee Wins 2003 Nobel Literature Award

By MATT MOORE, Associated Press Writer

STOCKHOLM, Sweden - South Africa`s J.M. Coetzee, whose stories tell of innocents and outcasts oppressed by the cruel weight of history, won the 2003 Nobel Prize for literature Thursday.

The 63-year-old writer, long a favorite for the book world`s most prestigious prize, was cited as a ``scrupulous doubter, ruthless in his criticism of the cruel rationalism and cosmetic morality of Western civilization.``

---

I am not sure about his honesty or morals. Moreover, I never heard of him or read anything by him.

re: Ed Said / fuzair

It is impossible for a balatantly outrageous, succinct and irrational person in his interpretation of history to get his work published by the world class publishers, surviving tough academic environment of Ivy laeague standards and Columbia University granting him tenure. There has to be some scholarly merit in his work otherwise he would have been ignominiously thrown out in the cold long time ago.

plat #68 Forget the apology part then. That was too much to expect from you, I can see.

Lets get back to the substance:

a. I consider Said to be whiny because that is exactly what his two articles were about: how the poor arabs and muslims are looked down upon by the west.

b. I have already explained enough times on this board why I consider him to be a lier on a major issue in a major arab paper.

c. I VOLUNTEERED the info that I had simply read a couple of his articles, and that too after reading fuzair`s criticism of Said. If the best you can do is milk this piece of information I voluntarily provided in the spirit of an open discussion, then you dont have much of an argument.

d. Further on c., I have not referred to Fuzair, who has read Said`s magnum opus ``orientalism`` as part of a course, and who has the same view I have of Said. In a couple of long posts, fuzair has provided a large number of examples of Said`s writings that reinforce the conclusions I reached. I have not referred to Fuzair`s points since what I had read and posted on chowk would to any reasonable person be enough. But then, I have seen you and others ignoring Fuzair`s points too, and simply clutching the straw that I threw out voluntarily (that I had read only two of his articles).

e. Now to remind you why you need to apologize: Because you put something in quotes and attributed it to me, when in fact you cannot find any such phrase. When you put something in quotes, it means you have cut and pasted, verbatim, that phrase. In your case that wasnt true. That is enough reason for you to owe me an apology.

And if you think this assembly of words said in different contexts is harmless, consider the result you have tried to achieve as a result in trying to win this argument: The word ``habit`` was used in a different context (as a joke) while the terms ``whiny`` and ``lie`` accurately reflect what I read. By tossing in something i cannot support based on the two articles, you try to falsify something that (``whiny`` and ``lie``) that i can and have supported.

Thus, I can retract something I have said in a joke, while still standing by what I said seriously based on evidence I have seen. By packaging ``whiny`` and ``lie`` (which I can support) with ``habit`` (which I cannot) into a single phrase, you were able to reject all three aspects of my criticism of Said. THIS IS WHY ASSEMBLING WORDS SAID IN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS AND PUTTING THEM IN QUOTES AND ATTRIBUTING THE PHRASE TO ME ON YOUR PART IS WRONG. AND THAT IS WHY YOU NEED TO APOLOGIZE. But as I said, I dont care whether you apologize or not anymore.

SN #67 And so we smoke the peace pipe. Cheers. :-)

tahmed #165,

``Of course, he is being kept under close observation in heaven by the angels to
make sure he keeps his promise to the Lord to give up his habit of lying...`` - so
the claim is that this was a joke that went off target. I suspect that the Lord/angel
bit was a joke ; insinuating that Said had a ``habit of lying`` was not made in humour.

Remind me again what I need to apologise to you for. You owed up to saying
that Said had a habit of lying. By your own admission this was deduced from two newspaper articles you read, thus my claim that you have a rich data set of two
points does stand. You also did call Said ``whiny`` (if needed, I can dig up the post).
So, remind me again why I need to apologise.

``Even I have only 24 hours in a day to work with geniuses like you and SN. `` Of course
there was meant in all humility, I presume.

``and I see that you and others like MNI and plats have been trying to milk that,
lacking any other argument``....argument to do what ? You may want to check out
``Peace and its discontents`` and ``The politics of dispossession`` to get a fairer idea
of where Edward Said stands on relevant issues.

Very befitting tribute to one of the greatest palestinians of this age. Words just cannot describe the contributions and the role played for the Palestinians by a giant like Edward Saeed isnt it ironic that the voice of the Palestinians had to be a christian Arab? why cant there be a Christian Pakistani to mtake up some Pakistani cause? What do the Thekedars of our so called ideological lobby have to say a bout this? Are vwe Pakistanis First or Muslims First? Our Constitution does not permit a NON MUSLIM to hold the office of the President or the Prime Minister of the country? Isnt this institutionalised discrimination? or Racial and religious prejudice deliberately built into our political system with constitutional safe guards? and then we have the nerve and the cheek to criticise the western democracies for their discriminatory policies against the Muslims and Asians! Who are the prejudiced lot WE or the Western Nations? Care to comment somebody? Anyweay my compliments to Shahnawaz Khar for a very well written and realistic tribute to a giant amongs the pygmies the reaL intellectual in a crowd of self styled geniuses so fond of blowing their own trumpets. Well Done Shahnawaz!
Tariq Aqil

``Of course, if you think I actually used the word ``habitual``, please give the number of my post where you got it from. I would then certainly agree that the I used the word without basis. But I know that I dont normally throw adjectives around like this without any basis. ``

Refer to post #145. Willing to concede u used the word without basis?

``...SN, who first attributed the word ``habitual`` to me in starting of his lecture to me ``

Since when is typing a civil reply ``lecturing``?

``and to repeat the same nonsense about US bookstalls having anti-Islam literature that you came up with. ``

What is it with u? Is what u see the only truth? Are u not even willing to concede that others may have had a diff experience? I just dont get this. Maybe u weren`t to the same bookshops about the same time as others have been?

I would really like other chowk posters to respond to this. Haven`t they seen a sudden spurt of anti-Islam books in the US bookshops - just like the pro-Islam books? (Actually the general level of interest on Islam is high after 9/11)

``As for SN, I wont demand an apology from him``

Thats preposterous. apology for what? For writing a decent reply without being condesending and resorting to name-calling?

``and I wont respond to his repetition of the same lie that I criticized Said for, that you tried to support but failed to substantiate by claiming you were too busy. ``

That went right over my head. If u are talking about the amazon searches, its quite simple, both of u were right.

Go to amazon.com.
In the search corner try ``Islam`` under ``All Products`` - u get the books u listed.
In the search corner try ``Islam`` under ``Books`` - u get the books the other guy listed.
Strange are the workings of search engines...

``Even I have only 24 hours in a day to work with geniuses like you and SN. ``

So, u ``dont normally throw adjectives around like this without any basis``, huh? You really know nothing about me. So, cut out the sarcasm ok?

PS: I have to say I am really disappointed. I have been on the sidelines for way too long and I thought I might slowly start interacting and already in one reply I have ``misspoken`` , ``lectured``, said ``nonsense`` and I am a ``genius`` Wow...

tahmed#165

Apology accepted. It takes courage owning up. I do appreciate it. Thanks.

In future, if u mean it as a joke kindly put a smiley, ok? For humor-impaired ones like me ;-)

SN #164 I see. This is the phrase I used ``Of course, he is being kept under close observation in heaven by the angels to make sure he keeps his promise to the Lord to give up his habit of lying... `` That was obviously meant to be a joke. In any case, I agree that I was wrong in referring to this as a habit. My regrets. No spin needed.


My criticism of plats (who, as I mentioned, embellished your use of the word ``habitual`` to come up with a complete phrase that he incorrectly attributes to me), and my suggestion of an apology, still remains.

hamidm #161 you ask ``who are these unbelievers if not stuka, jay, arjun and other horrible hindoos ?``

That is the million dollar question. And the answer is plain and simple No. Please read my previous post carefully and you will find the answer. If you still have trouble figuring out the answer, ask yourself this question: Why does it specifically say in the Quran that ALL individuals whether they are christians or jews or sabians or any other religon will be judged on the judgement day? I think you are a smart chap, and will be able to answer that question if you really WANT to know the answer that is.

As for your other point (that in any case what I say is not important since I have read only two articles on the subject), three things:

1. the only two articles i mentioned were Said`s articles. They had to do with a totally different subject (i.e. with Edward Said`s big lie in al ahram about US bookshops carrying anti-Islmic books) than the one you are arguing about (which has to do with the teachings of the Quran). You are simply confusing things here. I was honest and volunteered that info on my having read only two articles from Said, and I see that you and others like MNI and plats have been trying to milk that, lacking any other argument. Too bad.

2. i am not ``defending the faith`` out of fear of losing identity. Rest assured that if I honestly felt Islam was as evil a religion as you think it is, I would have rejected it a long time ago. This is a free country and I dont have to prove anything to anyone.

3. you write ``tell me that the ulema don`t know what they are talking about - for sure they have read more than two articles on islam``. I would not burden you with this, but i have read more than two articles on islam. I have also read the book ``Quranic and non-Quranic Islam`` written in 1998 by the late Brig. Nazir Ahmad which discusses this issue at length and which was widely praised in pakistan newspapers (including by Khalid Ahmed (?) of Friday Times) and also in the 2000 winter issue of the US based publication ``Current History``. In fact ``Current History`` named it as one of two books published in the entire islamic world that give hope of a renaissance in muslim countries. I have also discussed the issue with the author (who happens to also be my late father). No mullah ever came forward to repudiate my father`s book, because my father was very careful to base the book strictly on the Quran - and no mullah dares to challenge the Quran. The mullah just ignores the Quran.

Now, I think I have spent enough time discussing this point, and will beg to be excused from further discussions on this question.

tahmed#160

I picked up ``habitual liar`` from ur post #145. Please revisit. This is what u said of Said (no pun here!)

``Of course, he is being kept under close observation in heaven by the angels to make sure he keeps his promise to the Lord to give up his habit of lying... ``

``habit of lying`` , ``habitual liar`` - not the same? Give me ur spin....

plats #158: I see I need to correct you one more time. That is because you attribute to me something I never wrote, and then use that very word to support your claim that my criticism of Said is based on weak evidence. Specifically, you write to Stuka:

``I think I have an accurate perception of what Tahmed has written in this board - unfortunately, his case stands on exceptionally weak evidence....Personal invectives like ``whiny, habitual liar`` (habitual based on two data points !!) do not a criticism make. ``

I called the Said whiny and a liar (which is based on what I read from his own articles and knew to be wrong). I DID NOT call him habitual, since that would (since obviously I cant reach that conclusion based on two articles). You made that up and then ridicule what I have been writing based on that word by adding ``habitual based on two data points !!``.

Please let me know what word I should use to describe your conduct. I am a simple man, and would simply say that you were lying. But if that bothers you, I can use a euphemism (as you had helpfully suggested in case of the Dearly Departed Scholar) like ``misattributed misquote`` or something.

In any case, I think you owe me an apology and to retract the conclusions you reach based on that misquote. I dont know if you are man enough to apologize, or whether you will drop out of the discussion, or come back with abuse, or claim you dont have time, or whatever. That is your choice.

Of course, if you think I actually used the word ``habitual``, please give the number of my post where you got it from. I would then certainly agree that the I used the word without basis. But I know that I dont normally throw adjectives around like this without any basis.

PS: i think you may have picked up the word from SN, who was the original ``misspokeperson`` (to use a polite term). However, please dont point to SN, who first attributed the word ``habitual`` to me in starting of his lecture to me and to repeat the same nonsense about US bookstalls having anti-Islam literature that you came up with. You may have taken the word from his post without bothering to check if I actually wrote it, and then embellished it into a complete phrase. As for SN, I wont demand an apology from him and I wont respond to his repetition of the same lie that I criticized Said for, that you tried to support but failed to substantiate by claiming you were too busy. Even I have only 24 hours in a day to work with geniuses like you and SN.

tahmed,

.....you are merciless in defense of ignorance based on faith ....or is it the other way around?............... what are you afraid of? ........i guess faith alone defines a muslim`s identity and his reason for being - if he doesn`t have that, he has nothing .........

............. anyway i did a quick simpe search on the koran and found 163 references to unbelievers (not heretics, apostates or other lower beings) ........... most of them threatened them with hell fire............ who are these unbelievers if not stuka, jay, arjun and other horrible hindoos ?......... i don`t think your book is referring to ahmedis and barelvis because their prophets had not descended then ............and please don`t tell me that your arabian god couldn`t have been talking about the hindoos since he had never visited india... .............

............you might be interested in reading sheikh bazz`s fatwas on ``deviant groups`` on fatwaonline.com.......... maybe you can get a fatwa against hindoos as well ............ and for god`s sake don`t tell me that the ulema don`t know what they are talking about - for sure they have read more than two articles on islam .................i will ask an al-azhar and deoband trained scholar whether hindoos are unbelievers or not and get back with you ...........

plats #158 In sending you my comments just now on this post of yours, I think I said something in the footnote about you having claimed that Amazon (or US bookshops) had anti-Islam books. I just realized that I had confused you with MNI, and you had never said that. So please ignore that part of the post with my regrets.

The rest of the criticism of what you wrote, and my suggestion for an apology for misquoting me (and thus forcing me to spend time correcting you), stands.

re Tahmed 122

Point taken. Can`t do it myself; my mom may be watching and she`ll give me a royal verbal lashing if she finds out I`m speaking ill of dead chaps :(

Stuka #156

I agree. Any religion can be made to look regressive, as indeed they mostly are. But that`s beside the point here. To be honest, I think I have an accurate perception of what Tahmed has written in this board - unfortunately, his case stands on exceptionally weak evidence. To make a credible case even on this particular aspect of Said, he would have to read at least a fraction of what this man has written on this very subject matter over many years - that is what hamidm and a few others have been trying to point out to him.

Also, this was never a criticism. Personal invectives like ``whiny, habitual liar`` (habitual
based on two data points !!) do not a criticism make.

Re: :MNI #154

Fuzair miaN...do I know you from somewhere? haiN? It looks like we have a history. Khair..I will respond to your post in detail either tonight or tomorrow. Right now I`m busy with my day job.

Ji, jahan tak mujhay patta hai, aap say pehli kabhi taaruf nahiN hua. Aap kay humkhayal ko to main kaafi achhi taraah say jaanta houn. Mugger, afsoos ki baat hai, mein un say kuch mutasiir nahin hua.

I first heard of you when I read the posts here. Where do you think we might have met?

Plats8:

``no, I do not have any particular problem with Islam. ``

No no, my question was if you have a problem with religion per se, and not Islam specificaly. As we agree, by the standards of today`s interpretation, any religion can be made to look regressive.

As far as TAhmed`s opinions are concerned, maybe it is a question of percieving what he writes. My perception is that he has only criticized that one aspect of Said, and not Said`s work in itself. Again, I don`t have an opinion either way. I just thought that it was unfair the way Fuzair initially was sneeringly dismissed, though not you. Said`s wor then became incidental, as it often happens on Chowk anyway :)

Damn, should have just read the whole of Said`s obituary in the NY Times and saved myself a lot of time and effort. Here he is, condemned unequivocally out of his own mouth:

Begin quotation:
``Since the enlightenment, Dr. Said wrote, ``every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric.``

This view did not go unchallenged, even among specialists on the Middle East who found many of his points valid but who rejected numerous assertions as overdrawn, hyperbolic and oversimplistic. ``
End quotation

So basically, he had a good journal article that he stretched into several books and a whole career.... Have to give him credit for that. That actually does take real skill.

But seriously, folks, do we really think that EVERY SINGLE European (and presumably American) who has ever written anything about the ``Orient`` has written it meaning to keep the Wogs down? Does this sound like a serious scholar or does this sound like the hysterical ranting and raving of a Mad Mullah type about the evils of the West? I know that Foucault said that we are all prisoners of our own discourse but really! Despite myself, I like and agree with a fair bit of what Said has said but he is certainly his own worst enemy, needlessly weakening his own case by being just downright embarrassing.

tahmed#various

I just dont get this. All this name-calling by u

---

``whiny``, ``habitual liar`` etc based on just 2 of his articles? Amazing!

And the reason u called him a liar was because he said he saw more ``Islam bashing`` books in the bookstore - whereas u have seen none. I have personally been to the bookstores -more than ``often`` and my own observation is mixed. There is an equal mix of ``islam bashing`` and ``Islam appreciation`` books. So, now u are going to call me a liar too because I didn`t see what u saw?

It was just his observation. What is the point of calling him a liar and disregarding his entire work based on that?

Personally, I have read a few articles of his(def more than 2 but none of his books!) . In fact, I have disagreed with him more times. But it is the ``voice of the other side`` and for that I respect him.

On whether he is a scholar or not I personally haven`t read enough of his works and so I am not even qualified to pass judgements of that kind. More knowledgeable people and even his detractors call him one. That is good enough for me to repect him.

I think i`ve said all I wanted. Just a request - Kindly dont start taking personal pot-shots at me for saying what I have.

Problem is not that TAhmed called Said a liar. Problem is that his basis for that charge is ludicruously flimsy. That`s why I have been harsh on him, and will continue to do so. Incidentally, I disagree with him on both counts: on his accusation that Said lied in that quote, and on his claim that Qur`an preaches peace and tolerance. Maybe some day I will take him up on the latter point as well.

Baaqi sab you guys can pat each other on the back, and thank each other for support. I didn`t know there was a gang war going on.

Fuzair miaN...do I know you from somewhere? haiN? It looks like we have a history. Khair..I will respond to your post in detail either tonight or tomorrow. Right now I`m busy with my day job.

hamidm2 #150 The referee Stuka has declared a check mate. You have lost. But, like the japanese guy who was still fighting world war ii in the philippine jungles in 1970, i see you never quit.

Anyway...lets see what we have now that you have scraped up from the bottom of the barrel:

``and what about women? `` who knows and who cares? Just live by certain universally accept values that are also mentioned in the Quran (like honesty, to repeat myself), be grateful for what you have, and stop begging for more (which is the concept of prayer of a slave-minded people).

Heaven and hell are all part of the hereafter. And the hereafter is the part of things that are beyond human comprehension or imagination. And most of us are aware that there is much more to things than we can imagine. There is plenty in the Quran that is clearly not meant to be taken literally (e.g. the story of Solomon and Sheba, or the story of Adam and Eve, and so on).

you ask: ``are hindoos considered unbelievers ``

No. They are as much believers as muslims are. The Quran does not draw the line on Jews and Christians only, and leaves things open ended to ALL religions (and indeed to ALL individuals, regardless of their religious affiliations or lack therof). Unbelievers (or Companions of the Left Hand) as they are also referred to, can be from any religion. Including islam. Indeed, muslims may well contribute more than their fair share of unbelievers (given the troubles caused nowadays by the muslim extremists, and given that muslim societies are often among the most jahil on earth today).

As I keep repeating ad nauseum, check out surah baqarah on this. There is another a verse elsewhere (and dont ask me to find it for you, you`ll have to do it yourself) which refers to ``Muslims, Christians, Jews and Sabians and indeed people of all faiths`` (or words to the effect) having nothing to fear as long as they behave themselves. Sabians are considered to have lived in Yemen (Queen Sheba`s people) and the religion is considered akin to hinduism (being polytheistic as hinduism is considered by many people to be, although it seems and is generally agreed that the concept of the Brahman is similar to that of Allah).

you ask ``what is the difference between them (hindus) the idol-worshippers of mecca``: i dont know and i dont care. i know prophet muhammed fought the idol worshippers. i wont try to defend why he fought them, nor will i refer to the Treaty of Huddaiybiah (which, muslim extremists and muslim hating extremists of other religions both conveniently forget) where muhammed made peace with the Qureish and asked to be allowed to perform the hajj ALONGSIDE the idol-worshippers. I dont want to start a discussion here on specificis on what muhammed did or didnt do: he was an individual, no more than a warner (as the Quran repeatedly tells him), and as such as much subject to human weaknesses as you and me.

I hope you are satisfied now, and I can do some real work...

Stuka #143,

Please read the second line of Hamidm`s post #144 - that pretty much sums up my
view on Tahmed`s interacts on this board. I have no desire to make a demi-god or
anything out of Edward Said - he and his work have become incidental to this debate
at this point. I have no problem with Fuzair`s interpretation of Said`s work - I am just
not qualified to argue about Said`s impact on Orientalist studies. Criticism of
someone`s work after having studied it is surely a part of the game. More credible
people can engage in a debate with Fuzair on this issue.

I did not call any particular line from the Quran regressive. But by the standards
established by Tahmed, all I have to do is find two random verses from the Quran
that are regressive and then condemn the entire book as a racist/sexist document.
That is exactly what he has done thus far to criticise Said`s work. You are right - the
same can be done for all religious texts and, no, I do not have any particular problem
with Islam.

Tahmed #148,
``Not at all. As long as you also post ALL verses that refer to nonbelievers vs. people of other religions``

Do you still fail to see the gaping hole in your argument ? (hint : hamidm doesn`t have
post ALL verses, he just has to pick a random verse).....

tahmed,

............. and what about women? ........ like ``unbelievers`` and ``people of other religions,`` is there also a distinction between different types of women - say ``good`` and ``bad`` or ``full`` and ``transvestites``.............by the way, are hindoos considered unbelievers .? ...........and if not, then what is the difference between them the idol-worshippers of mecca .................. you know that you are clutching at straws? ..........

stuka #143 i think your post and my post #141 crossed each other in the mail. But thanks for sticking up for me anyway.

``Then I may not even have to respond. Since the Quranic treatment of this subject (if presented with no preconceived notions) will speak for itself that islam is a religion of peace, not one of violence and strife. ``

HAHA!! Check and Mate!!

hamidm #144 you write ``....... do you want me to post all the verses that explicitly condemn non-believers?``

Not at all. As long as you also post ALL verses that refer to nonbelievers vs. people of other religions (since that will make clear that the Quranic concept of a nonbeliever is otrhogonal to the mullah concept of a non believer).

And (just so there is no doubt left) also cut and paste the entire surah kafiroon and sura rum and the odd verses here or there that talk about prophets being sent to all religions, and of living peacefully with people of all religions and also including the verses from surah baqarah i directed dost mittar`s attention to below.

Then I may not even have to respond. Since the Quranic treatment of this subject (if presented with no preconceived notions) will speak for itself that islam is a religion of peace, not one of violence and strife.

hamidm #140 as for me being ``pompous, conceited and downright silly`` in reaching conclusions on the Great Martyr Scholar Said: all I can say is that hopefully lies more peacefully in death than he did in life (please dont get mad at this pompous and silly attempt at playing with the word ``lie``).

as for ``of course you will argue that edward said is a mortal human being who can err, whereas the koran is written by an infallible god .............. right?``

wrong. read my post #141 to plat that i just sent. And dont try to have me say dumb things: I have never claimed that the ``koran is written by an infallible god``. Please stick to what i write, not to what you think i really mean, and we will all get along fine. Same request i had for plat.

tahmed,

....... do you want me to post all the verses that explicitly condemn non-believers? .......and please stop going on pontificating about ed said until you have at least made the effort to read some of his stuff - you are making a royal little horse out of yourself on this one ............

plat #142 I feel the dear departed scholar is smiling down from heaven at you and hamidm and saminasha and the rest of his staunch defenders. Of course, he is being kept under close observation in heaven by the angels to make sure he keeps his promise to the Lord to give up his habit of lying...

Plats 8:

Is your problem with TAhmed calling Said a liar? Or is it with TAhmed`s interpretation of the Koran?

If it is the former, why don`t you address that specific doubt instead of bringing in all the good works the subject may have done but which do not take away from the specific point itself? I have nothing for or against Ed Said since I don`t know shite about him. But I see the way that he is being treated as a demi God and the slightest criticism by otherwise respected interactors leads to their being raked over the coals.

I am not defending TAhmed`s and Fuzair`s views. I am defending those individuals.

If it is the latter, why do you call those particular lines from the Koran regressive? Iif that be so, then the old testament is equally regressive and so is every religious text in the world.

Your problem then may not be with TAHmed, it would be with religion itself.

Tahmed # 141,

You define pomposity and condescension on this particular board. For your information, I have not imagined anything in my head - I am perfectly happy being spectacularly unimaginative. If you have the audacity to criticise Said by reading two newspaper articles he wrote, then I (or anybody else) can pick random regressive lines from the Quran (yes, they do exist) and draw our own uncharitable conclusions about the religion. I would
then be engaging in exactly the same thing as you in this board. Am I being sufficiently clear now ?

That is the sum total of my last post. It has nothing to do with Dost-Mittar, so please
do not bring him in this. Quoting chaptersw and verses from the Quran is useless, because
you see, my mind is made up. By reading 3 lines from the book, I have decided in
smug arrogance that it is worthless.

tahmed,

``I think it is OK to expose him for what he was in life. May God forgive his wrongdoings and his mendacity``

........... and you reached this conclusion after reading two articles on the web?........... don`t you find that rather pompous, conceited and downright silly?.................... and yet when i give you two dozen quotations from the koran, which i have studied all my life, that condemn all non-believers to hell fire you keep on insiting that it is a ``great`` book .............of course you will argue that edward said is a mortal human being who can err, whereas the koran is written by an infallible god .............. right? ..... but as they say what is good for ..........

plat #136 You are assuming that what I wrote about fuzair and sigalph on the issue of Said`s fibbing implies the opposite about dost mittar with whom I exchanged posts below on a totally different subject. Please stick to what I have actually written and not what you think is said between the lines.

In fact, you are also reading too much behind the lines even in dost mittar`s post when you say that those are ``regressive`` lines (which I have cut and paste):

``[36:60] Did I not covenant with you, O Children of Adam, that you shall not worship the devil? That he is your most ardent enemy?``

The devil in islam (and judeo-christianity) represents evil (which includes being dishonest on issues that can lead to violence and deaths, I may add). Nothing regressive here. In fact, as this discussion shows, what we need is a greater sense of right and wrong, rather than trying to hide ``lies`` behind euphemisms as one interactor was saying. A very progressive line indeed, particularly for the corrupt Pakistan elite (I wont comment on the elite of other countries).


``[36:61] And that you shall worship Me alone? This is the right path. ``

Monotheism is not a crime. Nothing regressive here.

``[36:62] He has misled multitudes of you. Did you not possess any understanding? ``

Absolutely. Do not let your desires rule your mind. Try to understand the harm that you can do. No regression here either. Very good advice indeed.

``[36:63] This is the Hell that was promised for you. ``

Yup. Try to be too clever and you get hell. Ask Saddam, hiding like a rat. And wait till he faces the music before the Good Lord.

``[36:64] Today you will burn in it, as a consequence of your disbelief. ``

Ditto.

``[36:65] On that day we will seal their mouths; their hands and feet will bear witness to everything they had done. ``

In other words, actions speak louder than words. And God will hold each individual accountable for his actions.


See? Try to read what is written as I said. Dont comment on stuff that you imagine inside your head.

``Go pose with a tank``

I already did.

Is that what you were waiting for to start posting your own stuff?

Really, Chowk does not need an interactor to do web searches. We can all access Google.

Reposting from Unplugged:

Go pose with a tank.

Reposting from Uunplugged ..

If an interactor`s entire intellect can be replaced with one of Arjun`s spidering software (with key words Negative and Pakistan being replaced by Progressive and Anti-Bush) threads, thereby putting up articles from all over the place without original insight....

..would that speak positively about the wonders of technology or negatively about said individual`s intellect??

Just wondering....

Tahmed #135,

So posts on chowk are good and rational only when they support your stand ?
Hmm....integrity, indeed.

Also, please excuse interactors in the future when they pick and choose the most regressive lines from the Quran and describe Islam in a way that is not too generous.
I hope you realise that it would be very disingenuous of you to ask them to read
the whole book - given your stand on this board.

stuka #127 A jewish colleague once accused (jokingly) us muslims (and christians too) for cheating on their religion. She was closer too the truth than even she realized. Right down to adopting the ``kosher`` food concept.

dost mittar #125 it would indeed be nice if the mullahs and other muslim chauvinists tried to get the Quran through their thick heads. They would then see for themselves that the Quran does not give them special privileges because they are muslims, and a hindu or jew worshipping in his own way is just as fine by God as well.

What the Quran DOES demand of every human being, regardless of religion, is that he/she distinguish between right and wrong (thus the emphasis on the Judgement Day, when all humans will be judged). Honesty being a basic aspect, with a number of verses in the Quran reminding the reader to give fair measure. And not ignore lies on important issues as people have been doing on this board wrt the Said (may God forgive his transgressions).

Saminasha #132 I am not judging his scholarship. I am judging his honesty - and for that I have read enough as I said. Honesty comes before scholarship.

Tahmed,

``Good, rational posts``? Do you actually claim that you can judge the credibility of a scholar without
a. having read his/her primary text
b. extrapolating a disputed quote that is incidental when compared to this scholar`s life work of humanistic theory?


This has been unbelievable. And I am extremely disappointed in your lack of inquiry.

Fuzair,

Not worth wasting your time?

WHERE IS THE POST WHERE YOU ACTUALLY EXPLAINED THE TENETS OF SAID`S INTERPRETATIVE LENS?

Lets see if the Iraqi invasion apologists have anything to say lately...keeping in mind, reading comprehension is apparently a challenge for them...one of them especially...

TAhmed and Stuka (and Sameer?)

Thank you for defending me; I do appreciate it. Given that MNI has done little but throw out gratuitous insults without really attempting to address the basic question of just how good was Said`s scholarship in ``Orientalism,`` I`m not sure its worth wasting much time on him and his chelas.

I was a bit angered at his sneering disdain for any one that dares to criticize his heroes and his preferred school of though without he even trying to address any of the issues raised. This is something that I`ve experienced in many classes and seminars during both my graduate and undergraduate days. Partisans, whether of the Left or the Right, really do not do well with logic or evidence, do they?

There are some honourable exceptions to this. My graduate Political Theory professor, a leading authority on Lesbian Rights/Feminism, was one of the few I`ve met who was capable of judging an argument fairly and impartially.

Regards.

Saminasha #123 Please re-read my posts, and you will realize that I did not thank them for clarification, since I required none (having read enough of Said to realize that the man was without integrity).

Rather, I thanked them for writing good, rational posts at a time when they seemed to be on short supply on this board.

Dost Mittar:

``[36:60] Did I not covenant with you, O Children of Adam, that you shall not worship the devil? That he is your most ardent enemy?

[36:61] And that you shall worship Me alone? This is the right path.

[36:62] He has misled multitudes of you. Did you not possess any understanding?

[36:63] This is the Hell that was promised for you.

[36:64] Today you will burn in it, as a consequence of your disbelief.

[36:65] On that day we will seal their mouths; their hands and feet will bear witness to everything they had done. ``


This is funny. I have never read the Koran, but these verses sound like they are right out of the Old Testament. In fact, the crux of the message is exactly the same as what Yahweh tells the Chosen People (the jews)

If anything, Islam should not be studied in isolation but in conjunction with Judaism and Pre Roman Christianity.

``You are the one who confidently insists that Said lied -- ot ``exaggerated``, not ``mischaracterized``, but lied. ``

HAHAHA!!! If the left does it, it is ``exaggerated``...but the right always ``lies``...Wah wah!! Two different sets of rules, and these people actually believe they hold the moral high ground!!

Talk about self delusion.

temporal, tahmed:
temporal saheb, I agree with you, IF it is permitted:-)
tahmed saheb, I did not toss in a few random verses from quran but the ones immediately preceding the one you had quoted which, to my admittedly untrained mind, seemed to provide the context to your verse.
Hey, I would love to see all Muslims accept your interpretation of Islam. That would be wonderful for all Muslims and even more wonderful for kaafirs like me. But to me, your religion seems more like Akbar`s Deen-e-Illahi.

Also, Fuzair and Tahmed...lets see what Benard Lewis makes of this....


Is Bush`s War in Iraq A ``Brain Fart``?
09/26/2003 @ 4:50pm
E-mail this Post
Did retired General Anthony Zinni really call George W. Bush`s war in Iraq a ``brain fart``? That seems to be the case. But first, some background.

On Thursday night, Zinni, the former commander of the U.S. Central Command, was interviewed by Ted Koppel on Nightline. And he was rather sharp in his assessment of George W. Bush`s policy in Iraq. Before the war, Zinni, who had been an envoy for Bush in the Middle East, opposed a U.S. invasion of Iraq, arguing that Saddam Hussein did not pose an imminent threat. On Nightline, Zinni compared Bush`s push for the war with the Gulf of Tonkin incident--an infamous episode in which President Lyndon Johnson misrepresented an attack on two U.S. Navy destroyers in order to win congressional approval of the war in Vietnam--and he challenged ``the credibility behind`` Bush`s prewar assertions concerning Iraq`s possession of weapons of mass destruction and its association with anti-American terrorists. ``I`m suggesting,`` Zinni said, ``that either the [prewar] intelligence was so bad and flawed--and if that`s the case, then somebody`s head ought to roll for that--or the intelligence was exaggerated or twisted in a way to make a more convenient case to the American people.`` Zinni said he believed that Hussein had maintained ``the framework for a weapons of mass destruction program that could be quickly activated once sanctions were lifted`` and that such a program, while worrisome, did not immediately endanger the United States.

Zinni raised the issue that Bush might have purposefully misled the public and not shared with it the true reason for the war: ``If there`s a strategic decision for taking down Iraq, if it`s the so-called neoconservative idea that taking apart Iraq and creating a model democracy, or whatever it is, will change the equation in the Middle East, then make the [public] case based on that strategic decision....I think it`s a flawed--like the domino theory--it`s a flawed strategic thought or concept....But if that`s the reason for going in, that`s the case the American people ought to hear. They ought to make their judgment and determine their support based on what the motivation is for the attack.``

Zinni was, in a way, being polite. Earlier in the month, he addressed a forum sponsored by the U.S. Naval Institute and the Marine Corps Association. There he let loose. Reflecting the views of high-ranking U.S. military officials who were dubious about launching a war against Iraq and skeptical about the occupation that would follow, Zinni accused the Bush crowd of having not been ready for the challenges to come after defeating the Iraqi army. ``We`re in danger of failing,`` he noted, because the Bush administration had not readied itself for what would follow the initial military engagement. ``We fought one idiot here [in Iraq], just now,`` he said. ``Ohio State beat Slippery Rock 62 to 0. No shit! You know! But we weren`t ready for that team that came onto the field at the end of that three-week victory.`` He went on:

``Right now, in a place like Iraq, you`re dealing with Jihadists that are coming in to raise hell, crime on the streets that`s rampant, ex-Ba`athists that still running around, and the potential now for this country to fragment: Shi`ia on Shi`ia, Shi`ia on Sunni, Kurd on Turkomen. It`s a powder keg. I just got back from Jordan. I talked to a number of Iraqis there. And what I hear scares me even more that what I read in the newspaper. Resources are needed, a strategy is needed, a plan. This is a different kind of conflict. War fighting is one element of it.``

Zinni displayed little confidence in Bush and his aides. He said that their Iraq endeavor has landed the United States into the middle of assorted ``culture wars`` in the Middle East. ``We don`t understand that culture,`` he remarked. ``I`ve spent the last 15 years of my life in this part of the world. And I`ll tell you, every time I hear...one of the dilettantes back here speak about this region of the world, they don`t have a clue. They don`t understand what makes them tick. They don`t understand where they are in their own history. They don`t understand what our role is....We are great at dealing with the tactical problems--the killing and the breaking. We are lousy at solving the strategic problems; having a strategic plan, understanding about regional and global security and what it takes to weld that and to shape it and to move forward.``

Do you think Zinni is angry over the war? He did get worked up as he ended his speech:

``We should be...extremely proud of what our people did out there....It kills me when I hear of the continuing casualties and the sacrifice that`s being made. It also kills me when I hear someone say that, well, each one of those is a personal tragedy, but in the overall scheme of things, they`re insignificant statistically.`` (Perhaps he had in mind the comment Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made in June, when he played down attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq by saying, ``You`ve got to remember that if Washington, D.C., were the size of Baghdad, we would be having something like 215 murders a month; there`s going to be violence in a big city.``) Zinni continued: ``When we put [our enlisted men and women] in harm`s way, it had better count for something, It can`t be because some policy wonk back here has a brain fart of an idea of a strategy that isn`t thought out.``

Brain fart? That`s not quite a military term. But those are fighting words. And Zinni practically counseled his audience to rebel against the Bush administration. U.S. troops, he said, ``should never be put on a battlefield without a strategic plan, not only for the fighting--our generals will take care of that--but for the aftermath and winning that war. Where are we, the American people, if we accept this, if we accept this level of sacrifice without that level of planning? Almost everyone in this room, of my contemporaries--our feelings and our sensitivities were forged on the battlefields of Vietnam, where we heard the garbage and lies, and we saw the sacrifice. We swore never again would we do that. We swore never again would we allow it to happen. And I ask you, is it happening again? And you`re going to have to answer that question, just like the American people are.``

Brain fart. Garbage and lies. Never again. This was harsher rhetoric than Zinni deployed on Nightline, though his message was essentially the same. With such talk, he is in sync with Senator Ted Kennedy, who was blasted by Republicans for calling the war a ``fraud.`` Note to Kennedy and other critics of the war: Fire away. If a Republican counter-attacks, you can always reply, at least I didn`t say Bush is asking Americans to give their lives for a war based on mental flatulence.

COMING SOON: David Corn`s new book, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers, due out September 30).

Tahmed,

Can you actually explain how Sigalph`s or Fuzair`s posts clarified Said`s body of scholarship for you?

dost mittar #115 Your basic point clearly is that the Quran seeks to compel the individual to reject other faiths and accept only Islam. You couldnt be more wrong. I`ll come to the lines you quote in a minute. Please look up Surah Baqarah (considered to be a summarization of the Quranic message), where it explicitly states that ALL individuals, regardless of religion, will be judged on the Judgement Day. And this is consistent with the message elsewhere in the Quran: e.g. where it says that what the message given to the prophet muhammed is no different than that given to messengers before him; where it says prophets have been sent to every people, to convey the message to them in their own language; where it refers to itself as the ``Arabic Quran``, sent to a people who are not familiar with other languages; where it addresses ``O Mankind``, not ``O Muslims.

I am surprised that you think that when the Quran admonishes people to use their eyes and ears this is ``contrary to the central basis of Islam - as well as other religions with the exception of Buddhism - which is faith``. A moments reflection should make it clear that far from being contrary, it is fully consistent with the concept of a God who cannot be seen. The Quran makes it clear in a number of places that man cannot ``see`` everything. So: logic would say that the Quran tells us to use your eyes and ears to do what they are supposed to do (like catching liars and fakes like Whiny Eddy, even if they are idolized by third world intellectuals for pandering to their knee-jerk anti-westernism). However, we use our heads to realize that we can only perceive so much of reality.

You toss in a few Quranic verses as if they substantiate what you are saying. They dont mean anything out of context. How, for example, does even one of these verses demand that people convert to Islam? And particularly when the Quran has made it clear (as I discuss above) that ALL INDIVIDUALS, regardless of faith, will be judged.

While what you are saying would be music to any mullahs ears (who also like to think that it is either the ``muslim way`` or the highway), it simply isnt true. Any careful reading of the Quran makes it clear. I suggest you read the Quran one more time, and check for yourself the points I make.

Fuzair #111 Great post. After reading your post it becomes clear that the emperor is not only has a tendancy to fib, he cant translate too well either (where he translates the french for ``Ionian sea`` to ``Ionian sky``) and cant get his facts straight either.

sigalph #113 Just when one is ready to give up on the ability to think rationally of people on chowk, you and fuzair come along to set things straight.

One minor quibble: Agreed one should not speak ill of the dead, but only if one is within earshot of a close relative (in order not to hurt the feelings of the grieving widow). Said is a public figure, he made public statements on things that had to do with matters of life and death (since surely the events of 9/11 have caused so many people to die, and 9/11 was at its root a case of knee-jerk anti-americanism from hell). I think it is OK to expose him for what he was in life. May God forgive his wrongdoings and his mendacity.

Thanks for the post.

dost-mittar & hamidm
...at the risk of over-simplifying...yes the Book says it all ( and more)...the medieval stickler…the orthodox mullah is as guilty of picking-and-choosing passages from it as is the modern revivalist...

(...if Islam is for all times it cannot be rigid...)

...it is incumbent upon the silent majority and well-meaning folks to also pick-and-choose

urstruly
....perhaps you misunderstood...it is not ideas but the proponents of those ideas....specifically the hardliners...

the truth is this…hard liners and extremists of any position lob grenades at each other without regard to the vast silent majority trying to survive in the middle…call it north/south, left/right, developed/developing, have/have-nots:)...

rgds,

t

temporal

I dont think, when it comes to ideas, there exists a ``middle``. Either ``you are with us or you are with them`` or you have to open up your own school of thought. Or you can say that you have no opinion about anything. No one will beleive ya even then.

And yes, I know there are some grammatical mistakes in my last post, but I have just woken up and have a wretched cold.

Fuzair Sahib,

re:
“…First off, you and your friends appear to be very worked up about my using the term “neoMarxist” to describe Said….”

If when using the phrase “neo Marxist”, you and the readers understand that you are referring to the theories that:

1. Literature and Culture are inextricable from the politics of class relations.
2. A society’s wealthy class also control the means for making wealth: factories, corporations, private schools
3. The society in which we live separate wealth accruing professions from the realms of manual labor
4. WHAT literature says and HOW it says it will be determined by the aforementioned structure
5. “Literature” and “Culture” approved by these structures will concern itself with NOT challenging the basic assumptions of the class structure of society. (You may add race, gender, sexual orientation and its corresponding interdisciplinary intersections and theory, if you are up to the task)
6. IF and WHEN makers/producers of literature and culture take serious issue with those assumptions, their ideas will be either silenced or treated with VERBAL VIOLENCE on the part of the cultural apparatuses with the economic power/leverage.
7. Silence is consensual-yours, mine, our institution’s
8.Most of us are expected to produce more labor for less compensation-and therefore the necessity of focusing on survival
9. Culture is one of the FEW sites where one can pause, stand back and look at the system critically.
10. Culture does the job of keeping us in line OR
11. Culture is a rich and complicated set of discourses; there is no one DOMINANT narrative, but many different ways of signifying reality.

If this is understand as “Marxist”, then it is an acceptable term for the theories that are well acknowledged among academia who can actually discuss it in a thoughtful manner.