Why Am I An Agnostic Muslim?

Marking Down Bin Laden
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: February 6, 2005


A few weeks ago it was reported that the Bush administration was considering doubling the reward for the capture of Osama bin Laden from $25 million to $50 million. I totally agree with readjusting the reward for bin Laden`s capture, I just think the Bush team has the number totally wrong.


The U.S. should announce that it is lowering the reward for bin Laden from $25 million to one penny, along with an autographed picture of George W. Bush. At the same time, it should reduce the $25 million reward for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the chief terrorist in Iraq, to one pistachio and an autographed picture of Dick Cheney.

Don`t get me wrong. Bin Laden and Zarqawi have murdered thousands of people. I want them brought in dead or alive - and preferably the former. If I thought $100 million would do it, I`d be for it. But these megarewards clearly are not working, and in many ways they are sending the totally wrong signals.

First, both of these guys are obviously megalomaniacs, who think the world is just hanging on their every word and waiting for their next video. All we are doing is feeding their egos, and telling them how incredibly important they are, when we not only put a $25 million bounty on their heads, but in the case of bin Laden, double the figure. We are just enhancing their status on the Arab street as the Muslim warriors standing up to America, and only encouraging other megalomaniacs out there who might have similar fantasies to follow suit. We should be doing just the opposite - letting these two losers know that we don`t think they are worth more than a penny or a pistachio.

But there is an even more important issue of principle at stake. We should not be paying Iraqis or Arabs or Pakistanis to get rid of their problem. Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are a curse on their civilization. Their capture will have meaning or real value to them, to us and to the world, only if it is done by Arabs and Muslims for the sole purpose of purging their civilization of these two cancer cells.

Also, if bin Laden`s or Zarqawi`s own neighbors turn them in for nothing, it will have a much greater deterrent effect on others. After all, what story would you rather read after bin Laden`s capture?

``Osama bin Laden was apprehended this morning after villagers turned him in to local police. The villagers collected the $50 million reward and then fled their country in ski masks, not wanting anyone to know their identities.`` Or, ``Osama bin Laden was captured this morning after villagers tipped off local police. One of the villagers, Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed, told reporters: `This man sullied the name of Islam, a religion of mercy and compassion. There is a special place in hell for him. I will dance on his grave.` ``

What I would do with the $75 million we have budgeted as rewards for bin Laden and Zarqawi is use it instead to sponsor an essay contest for high school students in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria and Egypt. The contest entry form would say the following: ``In 2,000 words, write an essay on one of these two topics: 1. Why do you believe the Arab-Muslim world is fully capable of achieving democratic, representative government and how do you envisage it coming about through peaceful changes inside your country, without any American or other outside help. 2. Write an essay about the lives of any of the great medieval Arab or Muslim mathematicians, scientists or philosophers and how their innovations helped to shape our world today.``

The winners would be awarded visas and four-year scholarships to any accredited university in America to which they could gain acceptance. The winning essays would be posted on the Web in English, Arabic, Urdu, Farsi and French. What do you think would make America more secure? Rewarding one person for turning in bin Laden or putting thousands of young Arabs and Muslims through American schools?

Maybe we could even call them the ``Bin Laden Scholars.`` I sort of like the idea of bin Laden sitting in a dark cave somewhere, composing his latest nutty video message, and suddenly learning that all the reward money we were devoting to killing him will go instead to killing his ideas - and to bringing young Arabs and Muslims closer to America rather than pushing them farther away.

I know the 9/11 families want justice and closure when it comes to bin Laden. So do I, and I can`t think of any better punishment than having him turned in one day by one of his neighbors in return for a penny or a pistachio.

Warpster #218 Thanks for pointing out - I read hamidm #213 but not Romair #212, and so assumed this was hamidm speaking rather than quoting (without attribution to Romair) Romair.

This was such a dumb, arrogant, ignorant statement that I decided to have a bit of fun with it in #214. If it I had known it was romair, I probably wouldnt have bothered because dumb, arrogant statements from him are the norm (and that is why most of the time I skip his posts anyway).

Re: # 213
Q is how do you come to the conclusion that just becasue someone is poor he/she is weak. Poverty has many reasons - the most common being born to poor parents. If man made peverty was not around, and all children were fed properly and given the same access to education/health and the like, tables might get turned on the rich - cause as you can see on the streets on India/Pakistan - the poor work their asses off and go through hell on a daily basis just to survive. Obviously their stress management skills, physical fitness is way above the average rich/middle class guy and it`s proven by the amount of physical work they CAN do. So now who should be put to death ???

Slightly off topic, brought up by the discussion on the swastika. Anyone read the book by Dan Brown called `The Da Vinci Code`? In the book, Brown talks about symbology - one of symbols being two triangles superimposed on one another, one triangle pointing up and another pointing down, resembling a star. You can see it on the Star of David or the Israeli flag. Well, does anyone know its significance in Hinduism (or other Indian religions)? I have seen this pattern used in puja rooms, in rangoli drawings (kolam in Tamil) etc. Recently, there was a TV snip of the Nepalese king speaking just after he had dismissed the elected government, and I was startled to see this star symbol on a flag behind him on screen. So it must be pretty relevant symbol for Hindus as well.
Any comments?

#209 by warpster on February 6, 2005 5:38pm PT

How can a perfect God come up with an imperfect creation???

This shows that he is not perfect...................

warpster #191

I am sure people shoot their mouth without reading Darwin or the Evolutionist School and sound as if they are making a great point by taking observations from Social Domain and extending it to the physical sciences as a refuting evidence to Biological Darwininsm. It only shows the shallowness of their ``knowledge``.

#209 by warpster on February 6, 2005 5:38pm PT

How can a perfect God come up with an imperfect creation???

This shows that he is not perfect...................

tahmed: I think you got hamidm confused with Romair #212

Romair: What you are describing is an extreme form of social darwinism that no one would advocate. One person who believed in something like this was Hitler. I dont see why one has to bring Darwin into this. Current evolutionary theory talks about fitness not at the level of species or individual but at the level of the gene.

Cultural development falls outside the purview of evolutionary theory (Dawkins introduces the cultural counterpart of the gene and calls it the meme.. A meme might be something like the recipe for tandoori chicken or the wearing of a beard or turban; memes compete to stay alive by any manner of transmission). So I am not sure what the argument is about.

In fact some societies are beginning to make choices that are hard but necessary. How much money is it worth to keep an ailing 80 year old alive for a few months if the same amount can be used to keep many infants healthy? These are ethical issues that need to be confronted head on.

I said

---

But within the current cultures, those that can cooperate better will do better.``

You replied

---

Not quite. I cannot agree with above. Cultures that co-operate with each other, may do better. But within cultures and societies, natural selection is still (probably) the most efficient mechanism for progress. Yet it is not practiced. In fact, it is considered criminal.

---

My comparison was between cultures (African vs. East Asian); I did not refer to individuals within cultures ( I should have used the word across rather than within). Those that have developed institutionalized ways of cooperation (asian) will dominate those who dont develop such mechanisms (african). All cultures hold life to be sacred and the human rights declaration in 1945 was a step towards that. China`s policy of 1 children families has put a check on their growth rate. India is behind as the problem of overpopulation was not taken seriously in the decades past (and perhaps pakistan is in an even worse position).

Successful societies do not need to get rid of their less able members. All they need to do is adopt meritocratic practices (this is the form of within cultural selection favored and proven to work). After all, every single human being has a potential to contribute. In America there are disabled people (mental subnormal) who work in grocery stores. They make their contribution to the economy! The 20th century is full of such failed experiments (Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao) in which millions of people were killed. None of these societies benefitted directly as a result. The main point I want to make is that the success of a society does depend on both cultural selection (meritocracy, being gender, race, religion, class blind in hiring) and mechanisms that encourage co-operation (private companies, public companies, judiciary etc provide structures that encourage people to pull together towards common goals that represent progress.. what progress is depends to some extent on the perceiver and can cause serious disagreements as seen in the case of islamists vs. everyone else).

hamidm -- only God is not subject to mutation and natural selectionotherwise because of our ethics, compassion, conscience we will go on collectiong all the bad genes -- generations after geneations -- then a time will come when -- the human species will suddenly die out -- because of massive accumulation oF unselected BAD DEFECTIVE GENES....

that will be one scenario...

another one -- because of the same ethics, group health cocerns, compassion and conscience -- we will introduce gene therapy on a routine basis at massive scale to remove bad genes and replace them with good genes......and may save the species from extinction.....

in that scenario we will come to a point where we will escape Darwinian mutation and selection and become God.....ourselves

Re: # 213 & Others
Hmmm... very specious.
``Natural`` selection when practised by human beings becomes ``unnatural`` and is hence ethically wrong. ``Natural`` selection when practised by ``Nature`` (aha!) is neither wrong nor unethical - for example when a mother miscarries a foetus it is natural selection at play because a miscarriage is usually indicative of something physiologically wrong either with the foetus or the mother which makes it unfeasible for the pregnancy to be carried out to full term.

Further on #214: In fact you are beginning to sound like Adolf Hitler: ``Achtung!! Der Feuhrer Hamidm veeshees you to keel all veek volks und all the seeck volks!! Keel!! keel!! keel!! Jawohl!!``

hamidm #213 ``If today all the poor and weak etc. in Pakistan were allowed to wither off and die``

That would mean the entire chowk contingent of Pakistanis (you and me included) would die!! So be careful with what you ask for.

...................a case for natural selection and euthanasia (or suicide):

If today all the poor and weak etc. in Pakistan were allowed to wither off and die, as per natural selection, would Pakistan be stronger.

if all those with low IQs, lower physical fitness etc., were allowed to die off on their own (or even killed) would Pakistan be able to progress faster.

Infact hand natural selection been allowed in the human society, all of us would probably be healthier and more intelligent

However, mankind, due to ethics, regularly goes against natural selection. It does not allow the poor and the lower IQs to die off.

Human ethics, including the points described by Kurtz, oppose survival of the fittest.

Natural selection, though scientifically valid, is extremely unethical.

warpster #209: So co-operation in many contexts is a win-win strategy and ensures cultural fitness.....But within the current cultures, those that can cooperate better will do better.``

Not quite. I cannot agree with above.

Cultures that co-operate with each other, may do better. But within cultures and societies, natural selection is still (probably) the most efficient mechanism for progress. Yet it is not practiced. In fact, it is considered criminal.

Let`s take Pakistan. It today all the poor and weak etc. in Pakistan were allowed to wither off and die, as per natural selection, would Pakistan be stronger. Yes it would be. Similarly, if all those with low IQs, lower physical fitness etc., were allowed to die off on their own (or even killed) would Pakistan be able to progress faster. Yes it would.

The limited resources avaialbe would be made available to those whom nature chose to be the most fit. They would use the resources most efficiently and the society would progress. At least for those who pass the test of natural selection. This is what will happen in any society which allows Darwin`s natural selection to take place.

However, mankind, due to ethics, regularly goes against natural selection. It does not allow the poor and the lower IQs to die off. It passes on resources to them, to keep them going, thereby, keeping the combined IQ and financial level of society lower than it would be if natural selection were allowed.

Human ethics, including the points described by Kurtz, oppose survival of the fittest. This is what differentiates humans from other species, which lack the power of question and inquisitiveness. Infact hand natural selection been allowed in the human society, all of us would probably be healthier and more intelligent.

Yet we don`t want that. Why not?

Because we think about the meaning of life. The concept of creation, after life, about something more than just our survival. We do not consider human life a random coincidence and combination of methane and carbon, which just happened to have occured. Ethics is a result of this thought process. Natural selection, though scientifically valid, is extremely unethical. Any society that allowed it, without trying to counter it, or actually enforced it, would be considered evil (much like Hitler`s Germany)...........

hamidm:

...i have to lodge a protest with my Allah that smiles against abdul-hate`s subliminial praise of your effort in 197...

...may you live a thousand years and may he die an insect`s crushed live in front of his children and wives;)


now back to the game...

Re: # 206

To me Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest is a shear nonsense, as it conveys nothing. Who is fit, who survives. Who survives, who is fit. In Punjabi they would call it ‘GooN naiN billi hugga e’.
Darwin forgets that there is a ‘Rab’ also, not the religious Allah, Bhagwan or God, but an intrinsic power in nature making fit an unfit or helping the weakest to survive. It’s so obvious. For instance, human child is one of the weakest creatures but it usually survives its parents. Why? Because Rab created conditions for its survival. In fact nature is not static but in a flux wherein a fit is becoming unfit and unfit is becoming fit every moment. It is the question of becoming and not merely of being as Darwin thought.