The Book is also Just a Book
Farzana Versey May 23, 2005
#188 Posted by vertex on May 26, 2005 12:36:36 pm
HP,
``On one issue unity- I should again repeat that there is no precedence of that happening in the history. The Mullah or the Islamic fundamentalists initiated this war.``
War is between nations, not between stateless organizaitons. There is a civil war going on, and America unwisely got itself mixed up in it. Their foreign policies in fact had consequences, and Sept 11 is simply ``blowback``. That is the cost of doing business as they do. Apparently, their cost-benifit shows that it was well worth it, given their even more agressive policies implemented since Oct 2001.
``The US or the West did not.``
The US. The West is not unified, esp. when it comes to the course of action to take in response to terrorism. Needless to say, this point is debatable.
``Now the West, based on its superior skills and knowledge, controls the outcome of this war. In fact the outcome is pretty obvious. The US would let it linger until it achieves most of its geo-political objective in the area.``
OR it untill it becomes cost prohibitive to keep persuing those policies (a-la Viet Nam).
``...the Arab unity by riding on the backs of dead Palestinians and forced a perfectly legitimate political struggle into a bizarre melee by bringing individual suicide bombers in to the struggle.``
What explains Fatah suicide bombers, then? Or PLO terrorism? Needless to say, the tactics didn`t change much, just the scope and intensity. Pan-Arab nationalism died because it was vapour, and never acted on anything.
``On one issue unity- I should again repeat that there is no precedence of that happening in the history. The Mullah or the Islamic fundamentalists initiated this war.``
War is between nations, not between stateless organizaitons. There is a civil war going on, and America unwisely got itself mixed up in it. Their foreign policies in fact had consequences, and Sept 11 is simply ``blowback``. That is the cost of doing business as they do. Apparently, their cost-benifit shows that it was well worth it, given their even more agressive policies implemented since Oct 2001.
``The US or the West did not.``
The US. The West is not unified, esp. when it comes to the course of action to take in response to terrorism. Needless to say, this point is debatable.
``Now the West, based on its superior skills and knowledge, controls the outcome of this war. In fact the outcome is pretty obvious. The US would let it linger until it achieves most of its geo-political objective in the area.``
OR it untill it becomes cost prohibitive to keep persuing those policies (a-la Viet Nam).
``...the Arab unity by riding on the backs of dead Palestinians and forced a perfectly legitimate political struggle into a bizarre melee by bringing individual suicide bombers in to the struggle.``
What explains Fatah suicide bombers, then? Or PLO terrorism? Needless to say, the tactics didn`t change much, just the scope and intensity. Pan-Arab nationalism died because it was vapour, and never acted on anything.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#187 Posted by Kulharee on May 26, 2005 12:34:36 pm
Re: # 186
Truly… When Prophet Mohammad and his family couldn’t stop violence, how can you expect Imam Mehdi to stop violence? He was a Mujadad and came to rejuvenate Islam, not to stop violence. He didn’t land on a white Minatare in Damascus waving a stainless-steel sword, nor did he leave on a Pony to heavens, he was just a regular human being, like the rest of us. The only difference being that he was a Prophet of Allah, and a true reformer.
Truly… When Prophet Mohammad and his family couldn’t stop violence, how can you expect Imam Mehdi to stop violence? He was a Mujadad and came to rejuvenate Islam, not to stop violence. He didn’t land on a white Minatare in Damascus waving a stainless-steel sword, nor did he leave on a Pony to heavens, he was just a regular human being, like the rest of us. The only difference being that he was a Prophet of Allah, and a true reformer.
#186 Posted by Urstruly on May 26, 2005 11:50:57 am
sattar writes:
``This cycle of violence is nowhere close to being over. It will continue for decades to come and will cause much human suffering, death, and destruction. Almost all of this can be avoided if collectively we side with Allah Almighty ``
But wasn`t Mehdi Maood, the Isa ibn-e-Mariam supposed to stop this violence once and for all. But I see that he died while writing pledges of allegiance to Queen Victoria. and the violence continues.
``This cycle of violence is nowhere close to being over. It will continue for decades to come and will cause much human suffering, death, and destruction. Almost all of this can be avoided if collectively we side with Allah Almighty ``
But wasn`t Mehdi Maood, the Isa ibn-e-Mariam supposed to stop this violence once and for all. But I see that he died while writing pledges of allegiance to Queen Victoria. and the violence continues.
#185 Posted by Urstruly on May 26, 2005 11:37:37 am
sattar writes:
``Some time ago you disparagingly asked me about divine punishment for those who are persecuting Ahmadi-Muslims. You asked, defiantly, when will this punishment that Quran so frequently mentions … come to those who have violently persecuted Ahmadis.
It would be too presumptuous of me to say that the current state of affairs of ullema is divine punishment.``
Okay, but then why Quadianis are being devinely punished for past so many years
``Some time ago you disparagingly asked me about divine punishment for those who are persecuting Ahmadi-Muslims. You asked, defiantly, when will this punishment that Quran so frequently mentions … come to those who have violently persecuted Ahmadis.
It would be too presumptuous of me to say that the current state of affairs of ullema is divine punishment.``
Okay, but then why Quadianis are being devinely punished for past so many years
#184 Posted by Urstruly on May 26, 2005 11:33:57 am
Sattar
``I am condemning ullema’s response to desecration of Quran`` - yes but you are not condemning the desecration of Qura`n by Americans. Isn`t that what I wrote.
#183 Posted by sattar2 on May 26, 2005 11:19:48 am
Urstruly (re #179),
Reread my earlier post. I am condemning ullema’s response to desecration of Quran, without supporting desecration of Quran (or any other scripture, for that matter). As a Muslim I have highest regard for Quran, and make an effort to regularly recite it, read its translation, review its commentaries, ponder over it, and learn from it. My copy of Quran is heavily marked and has scores of tags and post-it notes for references. Your irrational hatred of Ahamdis has blinded you silly.
Let’s rewind
Some time ago you disparagingly asked me about divine punishment for those who are persecuting Ahmadi-Muslims. You asked, defiantly, when will this punishment that Quran so frequently mentions … come to those who have violently persecuted Ahmadis.
It would be too presumptuous of me to say that the current state of affairs of ullema is divine punishment. No, I am in no position to make such statements. But if I were you, I would rethink my original question and review my position.
Desecration of Quran? Yes, indeed. But by who???
Your ullema have methodically created a culture of intolerance and hatred. Blasphemy laws, dealing with adultery, blasphemy, and apostasy, anti-Ahmadi legislation, violent jihad ideology are manifestations of this culture. When supporting ullema’s views on Chowk, you have always steered clear of Quranic guidelines. Instead, you chose to follow your ullema whose views conflict with Quran’s take on things. Your ullema have misled you. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) foretold this crises when he mentioned that a day will come when ullmea of his followers will be Allah’s lowest creation.
This cycle of violence is nowhere close to being over. It will continue for decades to come and will cause much human suffering, death, and destruction. Almost all of this can be avoided if collectively we side with Allah Almighty … and not with corrupt ullema. It is the ummah and their ullema who has desecrated Quran in real sense.
#182 Posted by ferozk on May 26, 2005 9:54:35 am
re: Raw_Dust
Thanks for the correction and I think, we are in agreement on the basic parameters.
Yes, the GOP and the flag is good example of this behavior.
Despite my pretenses of being a devil`s advocate, I believe in the liberal democracy and I believe in the secular nature of politics, because my academic background, which is rooted in European history has convinced me of the folly of religion as a solution to our temporal problems. The problem, with religion is that it creates an utopia of mental isolationism, which gives one a sense of a moral ubermensch and from this, there is created a caste system of ethics and virtues, which are more exclusive in their nature than they are tolerant of dissenting views. The major problem with religious views is that they are the antithesis of consensualism and such, are not prone to accept an alternative explanation.
Ciao
Thanks for the correction and I think, we are in agreement on the basic parameters.
Yes, the GOP and the flag is good example of this behavior.
Despite my pretenses of being a devil`s advocate, I believe in the liberal democracy and I believe in the secular nature of politics, because my academic background, which is rooted in European history has convinced me of the folly of religion as a solution to our temporal problems. The problem, with religion is that it creates an utopia of mental isolationism, which gives one a sense of a moral ubermensch and from this, there is created a caste system of ethics and virtues, which are more exclusive in their nature than they are tolerant of dissenting views. The major problem with religious views is that they are the antithesis of consensualism and such, are not prone to accept an alternative explanation.
Ciao
#179 Posted by Urstruly on May 26, 2005 6:57:12 am
Sattar #155
At least Ulema were right all along that Quadianis desecrate the Qura`n and now your post reconfirms that you support the desecration of Qura`n by Americans.
Arjun # 170
Yes, I understand that the Hindus support the torture and humiliation of human beings. I do not exepct anything better from the people who have no respect for equality and respect of fellow human beings and whose religion divide humanity into lesser or better halves.
FV # 176
``Where did this come from? I have in fact demarcated between morality and decency.``
And how have you done that? The core thesis of your article is that that ``Muslims deserved it``. And unless Muslims or any group ``clean up their act`` they are fair game for humiliation, torture, and even murder. So how do we clean up our act? Should we go item by item as you have listed them in your article or are there any additional demands as well? Would it help if we start subscribing to the Western imposed agenda? Could you please tell us in one paragraph that these are the requirements that we have to meet to save our ideals from desecration, humiliation, and insults.
#177 Posted by FarzanaVersey on May 26, 2005 6:40:48 am
#157 by Godot:
[Farzana - Why do you think Muslims are so sensitive about their religion and its symbols?]
Every religion is. If you will recall, a few years ago a Seattle-based company had manufactured toilet seats with the images of Hindu gods. This is what I had written then:
“Why is it that where money, gambling and even harmful fireworks are concerned no one gets offended, but alcohol and now toilet seats get people frothing? What is sacred about the former, and reprehensible about the latter? I am asking very genuine probing queries, so don’t throw any communal pebble at me. Why is it that everytime this sort of thing happens, the whole world wants to know, ‘What would happen if Islamic or Christian symbols had been the subject? Would they tolerate this nonsense?’
Of course, they would not. Muslims would go on a ‘jihad’ and Christians would most definitely not offer the other cheek. There would probably be a `fatwa’ issued and the Vatican would summon a world-wide conference on the true meaning of religion. So, I think it is every good Hindu’s right and duty to protest. But there is a little problem here. I saw photographs of some people burning toilet seats in the street to express their anger. I must confess I found it ironical, for most of them are good old ‘squatters’. Besides, these are the same people who pee in the open, sometimes against temple walls, who display calendars and pictures of the deities in shops selling everything conceivable and concealable. Why, even the so-called middle-class and intelligentsia go bonkers over Raja Ravi Verma’s buxom ‘devis’ and stud-like ‘devtas’. It is garish and gauche, but it is considered art.”
- - -
HP (perhaps some more explanation), Feroz (I must confess I have not shown enough tolerance on several issues. On this subject, though, I do feel the symbol is not the message), vertex (you are being rather cavalier towards those who believe the Book is also a book; some of us are nice people…), I am taking the easy way out and reproducing an old article of mine (I know I have probably done this earlier), but there are a few counterpoints in here…
Rediff On The Net
HOME | LIFE/STYLE | COLUMNISTS | ANTI-VIEW
Farzana Versey
The Islamic Pilgrim`s Progress
It`s such a funny situation. Some years ago, people found me terribly
liberal whenever I made a critical appraisal of Islam. Today, if I say
something in its favour, they brand me regressive or a closet fanatic!
There is a mistaken notion that every believer in Islam is blind to its
flaws. Way back in 1948, Sheikh Muhammad Ashraf published a journal called
The Islamic Literature, which listed, among its objectives, a need to find
a new interpretation of Islam to fit the changed conditions prevailing
then. The social conditions and mores the prophet had to deal with then
were primitive.
Tied as the religion is to a single source -- the holy book -- it is an
easy target. Every time it is sought to be evaluated, its authority gets
diminished for it is invariably evaluated on the basis of the Shariat.
However, in 1951, Jordan brought in a legislation ostensibly based on the
Ottoman Law of Family Rights which set down many changes, especially
regarding divorce. According to it, a woman can stipulate in her marriage
contract that she has the right to divorce her husband; he, on the other
hand, might be permitted to utter the word talaq, but on three separate
occasions.
Besides this, reformers within the community have raised important
questions -- when the text lays down certain commandments, do they mean,
``You shall (not) or you may (not)? Are they matters of conscience which
will be tried in heaven, or are they subject to the action of an earthly
court? How far is a divine ordinance binding when the conditions under
which it was promulgated have passed away?``
For the purpose of discussion, we may voice aloud Koenraad Elst`s
apprehensions: ``Reason is bound to defeat Islam.`` All belief systems do
not depend on systematisation, but on belief. What Kierkegaard said about
Christianity`s appeal lying in it being transempirical and untestable
could as well apply to Islam or any other religion.
What makes Islam`s position peculiar is that it cannot cope with the
essential duality of the sacred and the profane within its ambit, unlike
other religions. One reason for this, seen purely from the sociological
perspective, is the painstaking attempt by academicians to demarcate
Islamic fundamentalism from Islamic revivalism.
There is no complementary attempt to make a distinction between Islam and
the Muslim although, even according to the Koran, the Muslims are not a
unified body of people: ``Those believers who sit at home are not equal to
those who fight in the way of God with their goods and their persons.``
To understand how revivalism and fundamentalism feed each other, one will
have to find an analogy in the recent attempts. The Hindu revival is
entirely the handiwork of a few fundamentalists. Leave alone trying to
judge by the canons of reason, neither concept even appeals to collective
reason for religion, per se, has ceased to be a team game. It takes a
fundamentalist to revive the spirit.
Ironically, a dissenter works as well. He appeals to the believer in every
common man. His strides in individualism necessarily need to find echo in
the individuation of his religion. Islam stands alone and, despite its
so-called primitiveness, poses a threat both to the West and to societies
where its followers form a substantial minority.
Consequently, whenever the Muslim has felt threatened, he has used his
religion as a shield and, sometimes, as a front to camouflage his personal
insecurities.
The simplicity, and no doubt simplistic interpretations, of Islam is made
difficult by analyses that set out to create a spectre. This only whets
the appetite of the Muslim who feels that, at last, he has something to
defend.
The survival of Islam depends, to a large degree, on the need for others
to want to judge it and of its believers to not want to do so.
* * *
[Farzana - Why do you think Muslims are so sensitive about their religion and its symbols?]
Every religion is. If you will recall, a few years ago a Seattle-based company had manufactured toilet seats with the images of Hindu gods. This is what I had written then:
“Why is it that where money, gambling and even harmful fireworks are concerned no one gets offended, but alcohol and now toilet seats get people frothing? What is sacred about the former, and reprehensible about the latter? I am asking very genuine probing queries, so don’t throw any communal pebble at me. Why is it that everytime this sort of thing happens, the whole world wants to know, ‘What would happen if Islamic or Christian symbols had been the subject? Would they tolerate this nonsense?’
Of course, they would not. Muslims would go on a ‘jihad’ and Christians would most definitely not offer the other cheek. There would probably be a `fatwa’ issued and the Vatican would summon a world-wide conference on the true meaning of religion. So, I think it is every good Hindu’s right and duty to protest. But there is a little problem here. I saw photographs of some people burning toilet seats in the street to express their anger. I must confess I found it ironical, for most of them are good old ‘squatters’. Besides, these are the same people who pee in the open, sometimes against temple walls, who display calendars and pictures of the deities in shops selling everything conceivable and concealable. Why, even the so-called middle-class and intelligentsia go bonkers over Raja Ravi Verma’s buxom ‘devis’ and stud-like ‘devtas’. It is garish and gauche, but it is considered art.”
- - -
HP (perhaps some more explanation), Feroz (I must confess I have not shown enough tolerance on several issues. On this subject, though, I do feel the symbol is not the message), vertex (you are being rather cavalier towards those who believe the Book is also a book; some of us are nice people…), I am taking the easy way out and reproducing an old article of mine (I know I have probably done this earlier), but there are a few counterpoints in here…
Rediff On The Net
HOME | LIFE/STYLE | COLUMNISTS | ANTI-VIEW
Farzana Versey
The Islamic Pilgrim`s Progress
It`s such a funny situation. Some years ago, people found me terribly
liberal whenever I made a critical appraisal of Islam. Today, if I say
something in its favour, they brand me regressive or a closet fanatic!
There is a mistaken notion that every believer in Islam is blind to its
flaws. Way back in 1948, Sheikh Muhammad Ashraf published a journal called
The Islamic Literature, which listed, among its objectives, a need to find
a new interpretation of Islam to fit the changed conditions prevailing
then. The social conditions and mores the prophet had to deal with then
were primitive.
Tied as the religion is to a single source -- the holy book -- it is an
easy target. Every time it is sought to be evaluated, its authority gets
diminished for it is invariably evaluated on the basis of the Shariat.
However, in 1951, Jordan brought in a legislation ostensibly based on the
Ottoman Law of Family Rights which set down many changes, especially
regarding divorce. According to it, a woman can stipulate in her marriage
contract that she has the right to divorce her husband; he, on the other
hand, might be permitted to utter the word talaq, but on three separate
occasions.
Besides this, reformers within the community have raised important
questions -- when the text lays down certain commandments, do they mean,
``You shall (not) or you may (not)? Are they matters of conscience which
will be tried in heaven, or are they subject to the action of an earthly
court? How far is a divine ordinance binding when the conditions under
which it was promulgated have passed away?``
For the purpose of discussion, we may voice aloud Koenraad Elst`s
apprehensions: ``Reason is bound to defeat Islam.`` All belief systems do
not depend on systematisation, but on belief. What Kierkegaard said about
Christianity`s appeal lying in it being transempirical and untestable
could as well apply to Islam or any other religion.
What makes Islam`s position peculiar is that it cannot cope with the
essential duality of the sacred and the profane within its ambit, unlike
other religions. One reason for this, seen purely from the sociological
perspective, is the painstaking attempt by academicians to demarcate
Islamic fundamentalism from Islamic revivalism.
There is no complementary attempt to make a distinction between Islam and
the Muslim although, even according to the Koran, the Muslims are not a
unified body of people: ``Those believers who sit at home are not equal to
those who fight in the way of God with their goods and their persons.``
To understand how revivalism and fundamentalism feed each other, one will
have to find an analogy in the recent attempts. The Hindu revival is
entirely the handiwork of a few fundamentalists. Leave alone trying to
judge by the canons of reason, neither concept even appeals to collective
reason for religion, per se, has ceased to be a team game. It takes a
fundamentalist to revive the spirit.
Ironically, a dissenter works as well. He appeals to the believer in every
common man. His strides in individualism necessarily need to find echo in
the individuation of his religion. Islam stands alone and, despite its
so-called primitiveness, poses a threat both to the West and to societies
where its followers form a substantial minority.
Consequently, whenever the Muslim has felt threatened, he has used his
religion as a shield and, sometimes, as a front to camouflage his personal
insecurities.
The simplicity, and no doubt simplistic interpretations, of Islam is made
difficult by analyses that set out to create a spectre. This only whets
the appetite of the Muslim who feels that, at last, he has something to
defend.
The survival of Islam depends, to a large degree, on the need for others
to want to judge it and of its believers to not want to do so.
* * *
#176 Posted by FarzanaVersey on May 26, 2005 6:33:45 am
“Ab koi gulshan na ujdey, ab watan aazaad hai
Mandiron me shank baaje, masjidon me ho azaan
Sheikh ka dharm aur deen-e-barhaman aazaad hai...”
Considering that there are people who have felt offended by the ‘desecration’, I am surprised there was no article on Chowk. We also need to address the issue from the journalistic ethics POV. Many societies today subvert freedom of expression and knowledge.
- - -
#115 by Urstruly:
[You must realize the pitfall of your own argument; all you are saying is that the religions teach and enforce human dignity, self respect, and respect for the surrounding whereas atheism and the so-called rationality teach and promote disrespect, indignity, and self-loathing indifference towards your fellow human being in the name of rationality. I challenge you that I can write here one sentence to test your rationality and even if you somehow manage to pretend that you have ignored it, you will remember it for the rest of your life.]
Where did this come from? I have in fact demarcated between morality and decency. I went to the extent of saying that atheism in contemporary society is all about managing contradictions. Go ahead and pose any challenge you wish to, but just don’t jump the gun…
[Everyday I see the monkey dance of the so called rational people at this website at echo boom’s posts.]
I will confine myself to what has happened on this board. It would take a very narrow view to accept a view such as this…besides of course considering it as an example of Islamic virtue…
“#166 by echoboom
If one has been weaned & nurtured on westoxicated jahiliyat, he/she will never ever be able to comprehend what it means to be a muslim. If one has even a lousy cell of secularism/atheism/liberalism/humanism or any of such fancy mimbo-jumbo westoxicated jahiliyat, please do not ever attempt to be a do-gooder for muslims.”
Is it not possible to have an Islamtoxicated jahiliyat? Does every Muslim who believes the Book is the ONLY Book comprehend what being a Muslim is? Must we see the quarrels between the different sects as mere emotional reactions as opposed to rationalism? What is lousy about humanism (I am keeping iffy subjects like secularism and liberalism out of this)? And who decides what a do-gooder is, forget what good must be done? Isn’t the Muslim also a human? Must s/he wait to be saved only by fellow Muslims? And where are these Muslims during wars, during riots? They are burning effigies and places of worship of other communities and creating MORE problems for those already suffering.
I have already said that true values cannot be desecrated nor can they be confined within Books.
PS: Considering the responses I have got on some of the earlier pieces, there is no way I would call some Hindus on Chowk ‘rational’. In one post I did make a distinction between the demolition of the Babri Masjid and this incident – there is no way I can claim to have been rational regarding the former.
- - -
#146 by HP:
[That is what is happening to the Islamic revivalist movement. It will continue to slide and when you talk about “the unified, self-respecting, self-sufficient Islam?” you allow yourself to fall in the Mullah’s rhetoric and I assume that is unintentional on your part.
Your intention may be noble when you want a levelheaded response and a strong message but when you attempt to translate that into some practical method you fall right into the ditch mullah is trying to dig for some time.]
The query was rhetorical, though not rhetoric. I have already stated in my response to urstruly that Muslims are a disparate group and who is to define what a Muslim must or can do. The “level-headed” response I want is more one of avoiding falling into any trap – Western or Islamic. Why do Western societies that are self-sufficient not fall into traps?
[There cannot be a unified response if the response is based on an artificial unity based on religion transcending multiple geographical areas and Nations.]
I have stated that it is time for Muslims to give up the pretence of one Islamic whole.
Mandiron me shank baaje, masjidon me ho azaan
Sheikh ka dharm aur deen-e-barhaman aazaad hai...”
Considering that there are people who have felt offended by the ‘desecration’, I am surprised there was no article on Chowk. We also need to address the issue from the journalistic ethics POV. Many societies today subvert freedom of expression and knowledge.
- - -
#115 by Urstruly:
[You must realize the pitfall of your own argument; all you are saying is that the religions teach and enforce human dignity, self respect, and respect for the surrounding whereas atheism and the so-called rationality teach and promote disrespect, indignity, and self-loathing indifference towards your fellow human being in the name of rationality. I challenge you that I can write here one sentence to test your rationality and even if you somehow manage to pretend that you have ignored it, you will remember it for the rest of your life.]
Where did this come from? I have in fact demarcated between morality and decency. I went to the extent of saying that atheism in contemporary society is all about managing contradictions. Go ahead and pose any challenge you wish to, but just don’t jump the gun…
[Everyday I see the monkey dance of the so called rational people at this website at echo boom’s posts.]
I will confine myself to what has happened on this board. It would take a very narrow view to accept a view such as this…besides of course considering it as an example of Islamic virtue…
“#166 by echoboom
If one has been weaned & nurtured on westoxicated jahiliyat, he/she will never ever be able to comprehend what it means to be a muslim. If one has even a lousy cell of secularism/atheism/liberalism/humanism or any of such fancy mimbo-jumbo westoxicated jahiliyat, please do not ever attempt to be a do-gooder for muslims.”
Is it not possible to have an Islamtoxicated jahiliyat? Does every Muslim who believes the Book is the ONLY Book comprehend what being a Muslim is? Must we see the quarrels between the different sects as mere emotional reactions as opposed to rationalism? What is lousy about humanism (I am keeping iffy subjects like secularism and liberalism out of this)? And who decides what a do-gooder is, forget what good must be done? Isn’t the Muslim also a human? Must s/he wait to be saved only by fellow Muslims? And where are these Muslims during wars, during riots? They are burning effigies and places of worship of other communities and creating MORE problems for those already suffering.
I have already said that true values cannot be desecrated nor can they be confined within Books.
PS: Considering the responses I have got on some of the earlier pieces, there is no way I would call some Hindus on Chowk ‘rational’. In one post I did make a distinction between the demolition of the Babri Masjid and this incident – there is no way I can claim to have been rational regarding the former.
- - -
#146 by HP:
[That is what is happening to the Islamic revivalist movement. It will continue to slide and when you talk about “the unified, self-respecting, self-sufficient Islam?” you allow yourself to fall in the Mullah’s rhetoric and I assume that is unintentional on your part.
Your intention may be noble when you want a levelheaded response and a strong message but when you attempt to translate that into some practical method you fall right into the ditch mullah is trying to dig for some time.]
The query was rhetorical, though not rhetoric. I have already stated in my response to urstruly that Muslims are a disparate group and who is to define what a Muslim must or can do. The “level-headed” response I want is more one of avoiding falling into any trap – Western or Islamic. Why do Western societies that are self-sufficient not fall into traps?
[There cannot be a unified response if the response is based on an artificial unity based on religion transcending multiple geographical areas and Nations.]
I have stated that it is time for Muslims to give up the pretence of one Islamic whole.
#175 Posted by Inquirer on May 26, 2005 6:21:45 am
Re: # 158
There is some truth in each of your statements as you have objective, secular and modern view. Your statements apply to the extremists of all religions but the widespread lack of education in Islamic world and the extraordinary financial power of the mullahs combined with the presence of autocratic rulers has aggravated the situation for Islam.
I bet you are not very popular at the Masjids!!!
There is some truth in each of your statements as you have objective, secular and modern view. Your statements apply to the extremists of all religions but the widespread lack of education in Islamic world and the extraordinary financial power of the mullahs combined with the presence of autocratic rulers has aggravated the situation for Islam.
I bet you are not very popular at the Masjids!!!
#174 Posted by dost_mittar on May 26, 2005 5:46:33 am
HP#168:
I agree with you that the demolition of babri masjid was meant to humiliate Indian Muslims and the demolition of Bamiyan Buddhas was a rejection by Taleban of their ancestral civilization. About Ghazni/Ghauris, enough has been said already.
I agree with you that the demolition of babri masjid was meant to humiliate Indian Muslims and the demolition of Bamiyan Buddhas was a rejection by Taleban of their ancestral civilization. About Ghazni/Ghauris, enough has been said already.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- quin: Asif, I am glad... Translation of a (Love)
- Naqshbandi: quin: thanks for your... Translation of a (Love)
- quin: I don't know why... Translation of a (Love)
- Naqshbandi: I wrote 'love' in... Translation of a (Love)
- Naqshbandi: Tahir, I apologise for calling... Translation of a (Love)
- chaltahai: masadi, how would you... Translation of a (Love)
- mullah_toofani: Masadi baitay, You seem like... Translation of a (Love)
- masadi: g'night... Translation of a (Love)
