London Targeted: Numbers Game
Temporal July 7, 2005
#144 Posted by Romair on July 13, 2005 9:23:43 am
Anil #136: “I have been struggling to answer the questions that you have aksed me. I left the color of religions behind many decades ago………..I am very interested in your answer, mainly as the student of change in society.”
Hindvi has done an eloquently good job of answering some of your questions. I will add to that in the next reply. However, I would like to set a premise, in this reply, highlighting two important factors that you may not be considering, in your analysis:
1. I would like to welcome you to the club, of which I consider myself a member also, i.e. a club that refuses to look at religion, as the main cause of all the violence in the world. This is what I have been arguing, from day one: if one wants to understand Al-Qaeda, etc. one cannot simply portray them as an Islamic organization. They agendas are primarily political. At the same time, they are intertwined with religion. As are the agendas of the USA.
But before we proceed, I have to ask you, whether you have truly left behind the, “color of religions.” Do you see, “Islam” when you see Al-Qaeda blow up a subway. Or do you simply see one group targeting another group. If you still see, “Islam, and only Islam,” then I am afraid you have not left behind the colors of religion. You may have left them behind when it comes to non-Muslims. However, you still may be holding them, when it comes to Muslims………..i.e. Muslims kill because Islam tells them to, while the remaining religions kill (even if it is in far greater proportions) because they have just had a bad day at the office………
The reason I asked those direct statistical questions was exactly to put the shoe on the other foot, i.e. to highlight how many in the Muslim world, specifically the more disenfranchised, view the world. The fact that you (and Dost-mittar) have been unable to directly answer the question, indicates to me that people are unwilling to look at the, “Muslim” side of the picture, and the Muslim worldview, objectively. And that is one of the problems in solving this whole circle of violence.
If one wants to understand the, “change in society,” one has to understand how others view it. Not only how one views it, on one’s own. You may have left behind the colors of religion, but does that mean everyone else has also? Specifically, those in the society you live in? If they haven’t, then you must at least study this aspect on society, even if you, yourself don’t practice it. You must, at least, agree to mathematical correctness of the statistical answers to the questions, I presented, even if you don’t agree with how they have been presented.
I will try to present to you, first, as I understand it, the direction the USA is heading, before explaining where the Muslim countries are headed……
The religious movement in the USA has gained phenomenal momentum. According to Pew Research 45% of the Americans now want religion in the State (as opposed to only 33% of the people in India). According to CNN, 42% of the Americans now belong to the Religious Right. This group has overtaken the National Rifle Association and the American Israeli Political Action Committee as the most powerful political pressure group in the country. It exclusively decides the elections within the Republican Party, and has a decisive influence on National elections.
23% of the voters, not only belong to the Religious Right, but are outright Christian Evangelists!! The basic tenet of the Christian Evangelists is that if one does not consider Christ to be one’s saviour, one is going to hell, i.e. according to the most powerful pressure group, in the USA, you and I are hell-bound!! In addition, this group, as a matter of belief, states that the second coming of Christ will only occur, once the Jew have been in-gathered in the Holy Land. This, “Second Coming” is mentioned 318 times in the New Testament. This concept now directly affects US foreign policy, due to the influence of the Evangelists in US domestic policy. Additionally, according to my close friend(s) in the USA military, Christian Evangelism is spreading quickly in the US military. There was an article in Time (or Newsweek), which highlighted its influence in the US military academies.
Hence, while you may not realize it sitting in a relatively non-religious California, religion is slowly engulfing the country, of which you are citizen. And due to the huge influence of the USA over the world, its religious forces (unlike those in Pakistan and India) influence the events of the whole world. Had the USA won the Iraq, this group through its neo-con leadership, would have totally dominated US policy, for years to come. The Iraqi resistance has thus done a huge favour to Americans domestic policy.
So you must consider the colors of religion, and how they are viewed, to understand all these phenomenons – both inside and outside the USA; both Islamic and Christian (and Jewish)…….
2. When I moved to Canada from the USA, it was an eye-opener. I thought there would be almost no difference in the two socities. Yet there was a huge, almost diametrically opposing, difference in areas related to international issues. Only then, did I realize that the West, itself, is going along two different lines: America on one line, and the rest of the West (Canada and Western Europe) on the other.
While you were talking about Dunkirk and grit and raising the ante etc., I mentioned that the Brits would actually reduce troops in Iraq and would talk about causes of terrorism, rather than adapting the USA approach. My view is exactly what happened. How did I know? I also have been saying, since the beginning of Iraq war, that it would be a mess, and America would be alone in it, at the end. Once again I was correct. How did I know?
I would not have known had I not been exposed to Canada, and had only lived in the USA. The US view of international affairs and human rights is now completely out of synch with the rest of the West. No one living in the USA realizes this. I certainly didn’t when I lived there. Of all the G-8 countries, there are only two that practice and legitimize State terrorism as a valid tool of foreign policy. These are USA and Russia (Russia also practices State terrorism, as a tool of domestic policy, while the USA does not). This is why your reply on State terrorism did not surprise me. You are basically presenting the US view. A view that you have, perhaps, been conditioned to accept through the US govts.’ presentation of the how the world functions, through the US media.
What is, however, interesting is that the remaining six countries (Italy, Japan, Germany, UK, Canada and France) have out rightly rejected State terrorism as a form of foreign policy. I would put Spain in this category, also. UK is somewhat in the middle, with the population having rejected it, and its governments only now adjusting to it.
This is something you need to understand, when you try to understand the change in societies of the world, today. When I am commenting on terrorism and Iraq etc., I am actually not giving my Muslim view, nor my Pakistani view. I am speaking as a Canadian.
Germany, now, has the rights of animals enshrined in its Constitution!! Canada, since the Korean war has lost only around 160 soldiers in combat. And every single one was on a peacekeeping mission!! Canada has an Arm of barely 20,000 soldiers. Its Defence budget is less than 1/40th the size of the USA, even though it has an equivalent border to protect. Since the Korean War, the USA has killed 1 to 2 million people in Vietnam. Between 500,000 to 1 million, indirectly, during the Iraq sanctions. And over 100,000 in the current invasion of Iraq. Not to mention, various others in South America, Sudan, Afghanistan etc.
How many have Canadians killed, since Korea? Zero!! Or at most less than 10. 1-3 million on one side, and zero on the other. This should indicate that the two countries have diametrically opposing views of international policies, even though both are Western……..
After living here, I am now convinced that it is almost impossible, if not totally impossible, for any political party in Canada to kill people in another country, and still stay in power, i.e. support State terrorism as legitimate foreign policy. The Canadian people have developed a level of civility, which just values humanity too much – both within their borders, and outside. This is why, despite massive US pressure externally, and massive lobbying by the pro-Israeli groups internally, the Canadian govt. did not enter the Iraq War.
I think the same situation exists in Europe. Though I have not lived there. The govts. of Germany and Spain changed due to the Iraq War! The French govt. became more popular due to its stance. And the British govt. was massively negatively affected in the election, due to its stance.
This was, in my opinion, a watershed point in world affairs. Finally, the respect of human rights, and the denounciation of State terrorism had engulfed the powerful West (other than the USA) at the grass-roots level, and made a massive impact politically. Do you think the Europeans like Iraqis? I doubt it. I think they may be racists towards them. I doubt any Frenchman would enthusiastically marry his daughter to an Arab; and that too one who lives in the Middle East. So I don’t agree with you (or Dost-mittar) that this was Westerners or Christians supporting Muslims, through massive demonstrations. It had nothing to do, specifically, with the Iraqis, themselves. Nor with Muslims. It had everything to do with the respect for a human life. Europeans (and Canadians) were supporting human life, even if they did not culturally agree with it.
Countries that protect donkeys and baboons in their Constitutions (Germany) and have large political parties that will only support their coalition political party in power, if it increases foreign aid by $4 billion (NDP in Canada), are now at a point where their population will not kill others, for any reason, other than if it is itself directly attacked. This is how I knew that the USA would stand alone in Iraq (without even Western support). And this is how I knew the Brits would not raise the ante in Iraq, but reduce it, after the recent attacks………..
So to understand GWOT, BinLadenism, the role of religion today, etc., you and other Americans, first have to objectively understand where the USA is sitting in this whole scenario, and how it is being viewed by the rest of the world. And how it is evolving along different lines than the remaining Western countries…….
In my next reply, I will address how Islam fits into this whole deal……….
Hindvi has done an eloquently good job of answering some of your questions. I will add to that in the next reply. However, I would like to set a premise, in this reply, highlighting two important factors that you may not be considering, in your analysis:
1. I would like to welcome you to the club, of which I consider myself a member also, i.e. a club that refuses to look at religion, as the main cause of all the violence in the world. This is what I have been arguing, from day one: if one wants to understand Al-Qaeda, etc. one cannot simply portray them as an Islamic organization. They agendas are primarily political. At the same time, they are intertwined with religion. As are the agendas of the USA.
But before we proceed, I have to ask you, whether you have truly left behind the, “color of religions.” Do you see, “Islam” when you see Al-Qaeda blow up a subway. Or do you simply see one group targeting another group. If you still see, “Islam, and only Islam,” then I am afraid you have not left behind the colors of religion. You may have left them behind when it comes to non-Muslims. However, you still may be holding them, when it comes to Muslims………..i.e. Muslims kill because Islam tells them to, while the remaining religions kill (even if it is in far greater proportions) because they have just had a bad day at the office………
The reason I asked those direct statistical questions was exactly to put the shoe on the other foot, i.e. to highlight how many in the Muslim world, specifically the more disenfranchised, view the world. The fact that you (and Dost-mittar) have been unable to directly answer the question, indicates to me that people are unwilling to look at the, “Muslim” side of the picture, and the Muslim worldview, objectively. And that is one of the problems in solving this whole circle of violence.
If one wants to understand the, “change in society,” one has to understand how others view it. Not only how one views it, on one’s own. You may have left behind the colors of religion, but does that mean everyone else has also? Specifically, those in the society you live in? If they haven’t, then you must at least study this aspect on society, even if you, yourself don’t practice it. You must, at least, agree to mathematical correctness of the statistical answers to the questions, I presented, even if you don’t agree with how they have been presented.
I will try to present to you, first, as I understand it, the direction the USA is heading, before explaining where the Muslim countries are headed……
The religious movement in the USA has gained phenomenal momentum. According to Pew Research 45% of the Americans now want religion in the State (as opposed to only 33% of the people in India). According to CNN, 42% of the Americans now belong to the Religious Right. This group has overtaken the National Rifle Association and the American Israeli Political Action Committee as the most powerful political pressure group in the country. It exclusively decides the elections within the Republican Party, and has a decisive influence on National elections.
23% of the voters, not only belong to the Religious Right, but are outright Christian Evangelists!! The basic tenet of the Christian Evangelists is that if one does not consider Christ to be one’s saviour, one is going to hell, i.e. according to the most powerful pressure group, in the USA, you and I are hell-bound!! In addition, this group, as a matter of belief, states that the second coming of Christ will only occur, once the Jew have been in-gathered in the Holy Land. This, “Second Coming” is mentioned 318 times in the New Testament. This concept now directly affects US foreign policy, due to the influence of the Evangelists in US domestic policy. Additionally, according to my close friend(s) in the USA military, Christian Evangelism is spreading quickly in the US military. There was an article in Time (or Newsweek), which highlighted its influence in the US military academies.
Hence, while you may not realize it sitting in a relatively non-religious California, religion is slowly engulfing the country, of which you are citizen. And due to the huge influence of the USA over the world, its religious forces (unlike those in Pakistan and India) influence the events of the whole world. Had the USA won the Iraq, this group through its neo-con leadership, would have totally dominated US policy, for years to come. The Iraqi resistance has thus done a huge favour to Americans domestic policy.
So you must consider the colors of religion, and how they are viewed, to understand all these phenomenons – both inside and outside the USA; both Islamic and Christian (and Jewish)…….
2. When I moved to Canada from the USA, it was an eye-opener. I thought there would be almost no difference in the two socities. Yet there was a huge, almost diametrically opposing, difference in areas related to international issues. Only then, did I realize that the West, itself, is going along two different lines: America on one line, and the rest of the West (Canada and Western Europe) on the other.
While you were talking about Dunkirk and grit and raising the ante etc., I mentioned that the Brits would actually reduce troops in Iraq and would talk about causes of terrorism, rather than adapting the USA approach. My view is exactly what happened. How did I know? I also have been saying, since the beginning of Iraq war, that it would be a mess, and America would be alone in it, at the end. Once again I was correct. How did I know?
I would not have known had I not been exposed to Canada, and had only lived in the USA. The US view of international affairs and human rights is now completely out of synch with the rest of the West. No one living in the USA realizes this. I certainly didn’t when I lived there. Of all the G-8 countries, there are only two that practice and legitimize State terrorism as a valid tool of foreign policy. These are USA and Russia (Russia also practices State terrorism, as a tool of domestic policy, while the USA does not). This is why your reply on State terrorism did not surprise me. You are basically presenting the US view. A view that you have, perhaps, been conditioned to accept through the US govts.’ presentation of the how the world functions, through the US media.
What is, however, interesting is that the remaining six countries (Italy, Japan, Germany, UK, Canada and France) have out rightly rejected State terrorism as a form of foreign policy. I would put Spain in this category, also. UK is somewhat in the middle, with the population having rejected it, and its governments only now adjusting to it.
This is something you need to understand, when you try to understand the change in societies of the world, today. When I am commenting on terrorism and Iraq etc., I am actually not giving my Muslim view, nor my Pakistani view. I am speaking as a Canadian.
Germany, now, has the rights of animals enshrined in its Constitution!! Canada, since the Korean war has lost only around 160 soldiers in combat. And every single one was on a peacekeeping mission!! Canada has an Arm of barely 20,000 soldiers. Its Defence budget is less than 1/40th the size of the USA, even though it has an equivalent border to protect. Since the Korean War, the USA has killed 1 to 2 million people in Vietnam. Between 500,000 to 1 million, indirectly, during the Iraq sanctions. And over 100,000 in the current invasion of Iraq. Not to mention, various others in South America, Sudan, Afghanistan etc.
How many have Canadians killed, since Korea? Zero!! Or at most less than 10. 1-3 million on one side, and zero on the other. This should indicate that the two countries have diametrically opposing views of international policies, even though both are Western……..
After living here, I am now convinced that it is almost impossible, if not totally impossible, for any political party in Canada to kill people in another country, and still stay in power, i.e. support State terrorism as legitimate foreign policy. The Canadian people have developed a level of civility, which just values humanity too much – both within their borders, and outside. This is why, despite massive US pressure externally, and massive lobbying by the pro-Israeli groups internally, the Canadian govt. did not enter the Iraq War.
I think the same situation exists in Europe. Though I have not lived there. The govts. of Germany and Spain changed due to the Iraq War! The French govt. became more popular due to its stance. And the British govt. was massively negatively affected in the election, due to its stance.
This was, in my opinion, a watershed point in world affairs. Finally, the respect of human rights, and the denounciation of State terrorism had engulfed the powerful West (other than the USA) at the grass-roots level, and made a massive impact politically. Do you think the Europeans like Iraqis? I doubt it. I think they may be racists towards them. I doubt any Frenchman would enthusiastically marry his daughter to an Arab; and that too one who lives in the Middle East. So I don’t agree with you (or Dost-mittar) that this was Westerners or Christians supporting Muslims, through massive demonstrations. It had nothing to do, specifically, with the Iraqis, themselves. Nor with Muslims. It had everything to do with the respect for a human life. Europeans (and Canadians) were supporting human life, even if they did not culturally agree with it.
Countries that protect donkeys and baboons in their Constitutions (Germany) and have large political parties that will only support their coalition political party in power, if it increases foreign aid by $4 billion (NDP in Canada), are now at a point where their population will not kill others, for any reason, other than if it is itself directly attacked. This is how I knew that the USA would stand alone in Iraq (without even Western support). And this is how I knew the Brits would not raise the ante in Iraq, but reduce it, after the recent attacks………..
So to understand GWOT, BinLadenism, the role of religion today, etc., you and other Americans, first have to objectively understand where the USA is sitting in this whole scenario, and how it is being viewed by the rest of the world. And how it is evolving along different lines than the remaining Western countries…….
In my next reply, I will address how Islam fits into this whole deal……….
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#143 Posted by hindvi on July 13, 2005 1:44:27 am
I will also attempt a more direct answer to your questions Mr Kapuria
``However, don`t you think that Islam is more organized and institutionalized religion, and therefore, where are reformed Islamic institutions?
Can there not be reformed / liberal leaders of mosque or movements to counter Al-Qaidaism and Binladinism? ``
Islam is not as organised and monlithic as western christianity was before the reformation it is split into numereous sects and even most of these do not have a church or a unitary head/organisation.
``Can there not be madarasas which teach peaceful part of Islam and not the hate this or hate that and violence under such circumstances are justified, as probably propogated by Al-Qaida, Binladin etc...?``
there are many such madrasas though i am opposed to madrasas in the first place and think they should be removed in favour of secular schooling.
``Can there not be Islamic media which opens debates and vigorously brings forward liberal, and cultural thoughts of Islam?
Can there not be the media which even more forcefully opposes the violent as preached and practiced in the name of Islam by Al-Qaida / Binladin?
Can there not be Islamic institutions which seek and promote commonality with, rather than exclusion of non-Islamic thoughts, after all there are more humans live while believing in non-Islamic thoughts to run their lives every day?``
above media exists and will become more wide spread as society evolves, as i explained in my previous email about evolution of midle clases and socio-economic development of muslims, it is an inevitable process since it is human nature to aim for a better life for oneself and for ones children other than some fringe elements offcourse. You urself have outlined the same : ``Above institutions emerge out of evolutionary processes and take their own time and need sustained and committed support from within.``
``When I visit and look at the marvels of Islamic buildings in Istanbul, and Taj Mahal in Agra I see beauty, I see excellence, I see creativity that I want to enjoy and admire.
When I go to the mosque built on the site of old Vishwanath Temple in Varanasi and see defaced figurines surrounding the mosque`s walls. And then, when I turn around, I see the new Vishwanath Temple humming with followers. I see an uneasy yet peaceful co-existence.
This sight brings two thoughts in my mind.
One is about peaceful co-existence of Hinduism that co-exist with the ugly side of Islam.
Alongwith it I ponder why the Islam cannot be what I see in Agra or in Istanbul and ask where are the Islamic institutions to do this? Where? ``
This question is not clear to me. the second one i will attempt to give my views on
``The second thought is why are there hardly any examples of peaceful co-existence of Islam with the ugly side of other religious thoughts
After all Islam is also in the minds of humans who believe in it, for a purpose. Whatever that purpose may be - like each to its own. Accepting peaceful co-existence of ugly side of other religious thoughts is very important part of human reality and existence. ``
Muslim people exist with the ugly side of many other eligions all over the world, in the area that was lebanon and jerusalem christian crusaders muredered and butchered hundreds of thousands of muslims and destroyed mosques and built churches yet muslims live side by side with there christian neighbours with out let or hindarence despite the artificial carving out of lebanon from syria by the french just to ensure a region of large christian representation. even in jerusalem jews and christians were free to worship and live for over a thousand year despite muslim political power. in the muslim central asia muslims exist side by side with russians and ukranians despite russia having suppressed islam in those areas for centureies. similarly in Turkey the Aya Sophia has ceased to be an exclusive mosque which it was for centuriesw. in Spain where muslims lived for 700 years every single muslim and jew was either killed, converted or migrated and all mosques were turned into churches and a 300 year inquisition followed but today the spaniards have removed churches from the mosques of cordoba and i think seville. it is only in the arabian peninsula that non muslim places of worship dont exist because it was mohommed`s wish that it be so.
``I cannot stop but wonder, does Islam controls the mind, or mind controls Islam? I start to question if there is something that I am missing!!!! ``
they both control each other man being the animal he is sometimes blindly follows ritual and sometimes exploits it to his own ends and means.
``However, don`t you think that Islam is more organized and institutionalized religion, and therefore, where are reformed Islamic institutions?
Can there not be reformed / liberal leaders of mosque or movements to counter Al-Qaidaism and Binladinism? ``
Islam is not as organised and monlithic as western christianity was before the reformation it is split into numereous sects and even most of these do not have a church or a unitary head/organisation.
``Can there not be madarasas which teach peaceful part of Islam and not the hate this or hate that and violence under such circumstances are justified, as probably propogated by Al-Qaida, Binladin etc...?``
there are many such madrasas though i am opposed to madrasas in the first place and think they should be removed in favour of secular schooling.
``Can there not be Islamic media which opens debates and vigorously brings forward liberal, and cultural thoughts of Islam?
Can there not be the media which even more forcefully opposes the violent as preached and practiced in the name of Islam by Al-Qaida / Binladin?
Can there not be Islamic institutions which seek and promote commonality with, rather than exclusion of non-Islamic thoughts, after all there are more humans live while believing in non-Islamic thoughts to run their lives every day?``
above media exists and will become more wide spread as society evolves, as i explained in my previous email about evolution of midle clases and socio-economic development of muslims, it is an inevitable process since it is human nature to aim for a better life for oneself and for ones children other than some fringe elements offcourse. You urself have outlined the same : ``Above institutions emerge out of evolutionary processes and take their own time and need sustained and committed support from within.``
``When I visit and look at the marvels of Islamic buildings in Istanbul, and Taj Mahal in Agra I see beauty, I see excellence, I see creativity that I want to enjoy and admire.
When I go to the mosque built on the site of old Vishwanath Temple in Varanasi and see defaced figurines surrounding the mosque`s walls. And then, when I turn around, I see the new Vishwanath Temple humming with followers. I see an uneasy yet peaceful co-existence.
This sight brings two thoughts in my mind.
One is about peaceful co-existence of Hinduism that co-exist with the ugly side of Islam.
Alongwith it I ponder why the Islam cannot be what I see in Agra or in Istanbul and ask where are the Islamic institutions to do this? Where? ``
This question is not clear to me. the second one i will attempt to give my views on
``The second thought is why are there hardly any examples of peaceful co-existence of Islam with the ugly side of other religious thoughts
After all Islam is also in the minds of humans who believe in it, for a purpose. Whatever that purpose may be - like each to its own. Accepting peaceful co-existence of ugly side of other religious thoughts is very important part of human reality and existence. ``
Muslim people exist with the ugly side of many other eligions all over the world, in the area that was lebanon and jerusalem christian crusaders muredered and butchered hundreds of thousands of muslims and destroyed mosques and built churches yet muslims live side by side with there christian neighbours with out let or hindarence despite the artificial carving out of lebanon from syria by the french just to ensure a region of large christian representation. even in jerusalem jews and christians were free to worship and live for over a thousand year despite muslim political power. in the muslim central asia muslims exist side by side with russians and ukranians despite russia having suppressed islam in those areas for centureies. similarly in Turkey the Aya Sophia has ceased to be an exclusive mosque which it was for centuriesw. in Spain where muslims lived for 700 years every single muslim and jew was either killed, converted or migrated and all mosques were turned into churches and a 300 year inquisition followed but today the spaniards have removed churches from the mosques of cordoba and i think seville. it is only in the arabian peninsula that non muslim places of worship dont exist because it was mohommed`s wish that it be so.
``I cannot stop but wonder, does Islam controls the mind, or mind controls Islam? I start to question if there is something that I am missing!!!! ``
they both control each other man being the animal he is sometimes blindly follows ritual and sometimes exploits it to his own ends and means.
#142 Posted by hindvi on July 13, 2005 1:02:02 am
Kapuria sahib
I am not putting up a defense of any faith or system of beliefs here, and am writing my own personal views from a perspective agnostic of faith and nationality. The basic assumption one has to start with is that at a basic level all human condition and motivations are the same. No one can deny that islam was an expansionist religion, but which religion wasnt? did not Constantine the christian impose christianity all over the roman empire by decree after his victory with the cross as his battle standard and did not the vedic aryans invade India defeating dravidians who did not follow Sanatan dharam?, didn’t harsha remove budhism from the land of its very birth? very few religions can claim immunity from this its all a question of who has power at a particular time. An example are the jews because if you read the old testament u will see that it is even harsher than the Quran, reveling in smiting the enemies of the jewish tribe and state, making slaves of them and their women and children or putting them to the sword, it is full of an avenging god who imposes the harshest punishments like stoning to death and amputating of limbs etc. they are the source for all abrahimic religions. (And can the laws of manu escape from the charge of inhumanism?)
it is just that the jews havent had that kind of power to impose their laws for the past 2000 years but before that you just have to read the history of the Judaic kingdoms
even vedic litreature and ramayan/ mahabharat is full of negativitytowards Dravidians/Dasas, all the Rakshas and asuras are dark, black evil barbarians, these are the people the fairer aryans would have first confronted.
But the operative word here is that all this is in the past tense. in today`s world there exist two problems which have become intertwined.
first is that of jehadis, is it possible to declare a stoner of an adultress a non jew, when it is written in the torah? is it possible to declare a man who practises cast discrimination or sati a non - hindu, when it is prescribed in the vedas and the laws of Manu? No. similarly the jehadis are following a part of the Quran and can not be technically declared non muslims, we could say they are misguided and that they come from primitive cultures etc. the muslims are more backward and feudal, and development would take a few more decades to come here, after all remember the state of Europe 1400 years after christ? what a mess of religous warfare they were, the 30 years war alone destroyed between a fourth to a third the population of western and central Europe. I am not saying development will follow in the same fashion as Christianity because the specifics of the faiths and their historical conditions are different. To get a better idea of whether muslims are regressing or not one has to look at middle class educated muslims vis a vis other muslims. are the middle classes as a group more liberal and open minded or not whether you compare them in Pakistan, India, iraq or Egypt (I am leaving out places in the west where they have recently migrated). This is not to say that there are not specifics in islam that forestall it and keep muslims regressed but is it any thing that human nature which always tends towards its own material gain cannot over come , I think not.
Hindus were in this respect luckier than the abrahimic faiths because their books were not considered unalterable (they also benefitted from westerrn colonisation), in abrahimic faiths that cant be done, the books cant be changed one has to just ignore certain parts of the book and this takes a while as it took in christianity and judaism with economic, political, cultural and social development (these are much older faiths than islam and the regions they ruled achieved a climax between the church and the state much earlier than Islam because in islam the church was never as powerful and that is why its clash between temporal and spiritual authority is much milder than that of christianity.
the second problem, that plagues some muslim regions along with other is that after the 30 years war came the treaty of westphalia and the prevailing political environment is one of nation states these states also needed a glue and that was provided primarily by language and ethnicity and to a lesser extent religion, all these three things go to make culture that is why there are over a dozen states in europe in an area smaller than India today. Also scientific and organizational advances have made the sates of today far more powerful and intrusive than even the mightiest empires of the past.
This leads to problem in states that are dominated by one ethnicity (but with minority dominated regions) even with out the added difference of religion for example Kurds are running separatist movements in iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria despite all of these being muslims states, Tibetans are running one in china despite there religions being very close. Then there are states in which both ethnicity and religion differ where there are/were problems like East Timor and Indonesia, Jaffna and Sri Lanka, Checheniya and Russia, and the former Yugoslavia where actually Slovenians were the first to break away, followed by the catholic Croatians who fought a bitter war, and only then Bosnians, which itself was a multi religious state where the world’s most secularized wine drinking muslims formed a 6% majority and were ethnically cleansed. Even developed countries like chezcoslovakia broke away along ethnic/linguistic lines. Here I am not even counting the dintegration of the former Soviet union along linguistic/ethnic lines into Byelorussia, Ukraine, Baltic states and the central asian states.
The two issue of jehadism and nationalism have gotten mixed in recent times, with the ethnic nationalists taking support from where ever they can for obvious purposes (I call them ethnic nationalists because nowhere where they won did they establish a theocracy neither in bosnia or kosovo and nor in the semi independent Iraqi Kurdistan not even the temproraly free checheniya of the latter 90s) and the jehadis as well as ayatollahs being created because of several factors such as religious revival in the modern muslim search for identity and their trying to overcome their scientific, political and economic inferiority in the modern world. As well as due to the historical circumstances of the soviets invaiding Afghanistan and the nationalist resistance movement becoming an Islamic one due to Zia’s and US support.
The rise of jihadism is complex and has other causes as well outlined eloquently by Fareed zakaria in the Newsweek article called “why they hate us” part being the support of the US to regimes in the middle east and most being the unconditional US support to Israel, which helped convert a secular/leftist ethno nationalist struggle into a jihad as Arafat increasingly saw the ineffectiveness and weakness of his organization and Israeli intransigence he saw usefulness in using hamas and Islamic jihad as bargaining chips with Israel.
Infact having seen Palestinian houses being demolished, neighbourhood being bombed, land being resettled and areas being carved into occupation zones on middle eastern television every day I am surprised at so low a level of support for them from other Arabs as I am by the Pakistanis for Kashmir, this more than anything gives me evidence that this jihadist threat is over blown.
The issue of muslims in the west is a separate one concerning the fragility and absoluteness of islam and a minority faced with identity issues and assimilation into a culture that they look upon as degenerate while trying to overcome their own material inferiority and should not be confused with the ethno nationalist struggles I have outlined above.
I am not putting up a defense of any faith or system of beliefs here, and am writing my own personal views from a perspective agnostic of faith and nationality. The basic assumption one has to start with is that at a basic level all human condition and motivations are the same. No one can deny that islam was an expansionist religion, but which religion wasnt? did not Constantine the christian impose christianity all over the roman empire by decree after his victory with the cross as his battle standard and did not the vedic aryans invade India defeating dravidians who did not follow Sanatan dharam?, didn’t harsha remove budhism from the land of its very birth? very few religions can claim immunity from this its all a question of who has power at a particular time. An example are the jews because if you read the old testament u will see that it is even harsher than the Quran, reveling in smiting the enemies of the jewish tribe and state, making slaves of them and their women and children or putting them to the sword, it is full of an avenging god who imposes the harshest punishments like stoning to death and amputating of limbs etc. they are the source for all abrahimic religions. (And can the laws of manu escape from the charge of inhumanism?)
it is just that the jews havent had that kind of power to impose their laws for the past 2000 years but before that you just have to read the history of the Judaic kingdoms
even vedic litreature and ramayan/ mahabharat is full of negativitytowards Dravidians/Dasas, all the Rakshas and asuras are dark, black evil barbarians, these are the people the fairer aryans would have first confronted.
But the operative word here is that all this is in the past tense. in today`s world there exist two problems which have become intertwined.
first is that of jehadis, is it possible to declare a stoner of an adultress a non jew, when it is written in the torah? is it possible to declare a man who practises cast discrimination or sati a non - hindu, when it is prescribed in the vedas and the laws of Manu? No. similarly the jehadis are following a part of the Quran and can not be technically declared non muslims, we could say they are misguided and that they come from primitive cultures etc. the muslims are more backward and feudal, and development would take a few more decades to come here, after all remember the state of Europe 1400 years after christ? what a mess of religous warfare they were, the 30 years war alone destroyed between a fourth to a third the population of western and central Europe. I am not saying development will follow in the same fashion as Christianity because the specifics of the faiths and their historical conditions are different. To get a better idea of whether muslims are regressing or not one has to look at middle class educated muslims vis a vis other muslims. are the middle classes as a group more liberal and open minded or not whether you compare them in Pakistan, India, iraq or Egypt (I am leaving out places in the west where they have recently migrated). This is not to say that there are not specifics in islam that forestall it and keep muslims regressed but is it any thing that human nature which always tends towards its own material gain cannot over come , I think not.
Hindus were in this respect luckier than the abrahimic faiths because their books were not considered unalterable (they also benefitted from westerrn colonisation), in abrahimic faiths that cant be done, the books cant be changed one has to just ignore certain parts of the book and this takes a while as it took in christianity and judaism with economic, political, cultural and social development (these are much older faiths than islam and the regions they ruled achieved a climax between the church and the state much earlier than Islam because in islam the church was never as powerful and that is why its clash between temporal and spiritual authority is much milder than that of christianity.
the second problem, that plagues some muslim regions along with other is that after the 30 years war came the treaty of westphalia and the prevailing political environment is one of nation states these states also needed a glue and that was provided primarily by language and ethnicity and to a lesser extent religion, all these three things go to make culture that is why there are over a dozen states in europe in an area smaller than India today. Also scientific and organizational advances have made the sates of today far more powerful and intrusive than even the mightiest empires of the past.
This leads to problem in states that are dominated by one ethnicity (but with minority dominated regions) even with out the added difference of religion for example Kurds are running separatist movements in iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria despite all of these being muslims states, Tibetans are running one in china despite there religions being very close. Then there are states in which both ethnicity and religion differ where there are/were problems like East Timor and Indonesia, Jaffna and Sri Lanka, Checheniya and Russia, and the former Yugoslavia where actually Slovenians were the first to break away, followed by the catholic Croatians who fought a bitter war, and only then Bosnians, which itself was a multi religious state where the world’s most secularized wine drinking muslims formed a 6% majority and were ethnically cleansed. Even developed countries like chezcoslovakia broke away along ethnic/linguistic lines. Here I am not even counting the dintegration of the former Soviet union along linguistic/ethnic lines into Byelorussia, Ukraine, Baltic states and the central asian states.
The two issue of jehadism and nationalism have gotten mixed in recent times, with the ethnic nationalists taking support from where ever they can for obvious purposes (I call them ethnic nationalists because nowhere where they won did they establish a theocracy neither in bosnia or kosovo and nor in the semi independent Iraqi Kurdistan not even the temproraly free checheniya of the latter 90s) and the jehadis as well as ayatollahs being created because of several factors such as religious revival in the modern muslim search for identity and their trying to overcome their scientific, political and economic inferiority in the modern world. As well as due to the historical circumstances of the soviets invaiding Afghanistan and the nationalist resistance movement becoming an Islamic one due to Zia’s and US support.
The rise of jihadism is complex and has other causes as well outlined eloquently by Fareed zakaria in the Newsweek article called “why they hate us” part being the support of the US to regimes in the middle east and most being the unconditional US support to Israel, which helped convert a secular/leftist ethno nationalist struggle into a jihad as Arafat increasingly saw the ineffectiveness and weakness of his organization and Israeli intransigence he saw usefulness in using hamas and Islamic jihad as bargaining chips with Israel.
Infact having seen Palestinian houses being demolished, neighbourhood being bombed, land being resettled and areas being carved into occupation zones on middle eastern television every day I am surprised at so low a level of support for them from other Arabs as I am by the Pakistanis for Kashmir, this more than anything gives me evidence that this jihadist threat is over blown.
The issue of muslims in the west is a separate one concerning the fragility and absoluteness of islam and a minority faced with identity issues and assimilation into a culture that they look upon as degenerate while trying to overcome their own material inferiority and should not be confused with the ethno nationalist struggles I have outlined above.
#141 Posted by Ranjit on July 12, 2005 10:31:16 pm
Re:dost-mittar#122
``-Most Muslim rulers did not forcible convert Hindus.
-After the armed conflict was over and the Hindus accepted a secondary status, they were allowed to practice their religion more or less freely, including their caste practices. etc.``
Shall I be brutally honest here? These above acts of ``tolerance`` from your perspective, happened due to one and only one reason - the massive population of hindus. Otherwise, muslims were in no mood for coexistence. Muslims simply got exhausted trying to convert this huge population to Islam. There was one exception Akbar but he renounced Islam anyway. All the other rulers simply gave up converting the ocean of hindus.
Muslims started out in full force by whole sale conversion in present day areas of Pakistan. There are innumerable accounts vouching for the scale and extent of this holocaust. By the time they reached Delhi, they realized that there was 7 times that work ahead of them in the rest of India. It was just too much. On top of that, hindus with their typical liberal attitude were more than willing to be servants to muslims and live peacefully as slaves. So the muslims finally decided to suspend the violence and just enjoy ruling over hindus. Of course, from time to time, their memories would get jogged and a Aurangzeb would pop out hoping to complete that task started by Mohd. bin Qasim.
The fact of the matter is that hindus have always tried to coexist with muslims. After living like slaves for centuries, hindus were willing to forget all that and live together with muslims. But the muslims suddenly decided that they had had enough of coexistence and wanted Pakistan. No matter, that millions would get killed. Of course, the hindus in their slavish mode, decided to let the muslims in India stay in spite of being completely expelled from Pakistan. On top of it they established a ``secular`` nation to give the muslims full equality.
For the past 60 years, Pakistan has shown relentless, non-stop hostility against India on every issue big or small. Their lust for Kashmir is unquenchable, as they try every trick in the book to get it, no matter how our relations are. They sponsor militancy in Punjab for 10 years, jihad in Kashmir for 15 years running, their people sneak in and blow up temples like Akshardham, Ayodhya, you name it. Now they are talking peace mainly due to pressure from the US. But the reality is that muslims, especially Pakistanis will never accept the status quo in the subcontinent and will keep trying to change it in their favor.
``-Most Muslim rulers did not forcible convert Hindus.
-After the armed conflict was over and the Hindus accepted a secondary status, they were allowed to practice their religion more or less freely, including their caste practices. etc.``
Shall I be brutally honest here? These above acts of ``tolerance`` from your perspective, happened due to one and only one reason - the massive population of hindus. Otherwise, muslims were in no mood for coexistence. Muslims simply got exhausted trying to convert this huge population to Islam. There was one exception Akbar but he renounced Islam anyway. All the other rulers simply gave up converting the ocean of hindus.
Muslims started out in full force by whole sale conversion in present day areas of Pakistan. There are innumerable accounts vouching for the scale and extent of this holocaust. By the time they reached Delhi, they realized that there was 7 times that work ahead of them in the rest of India. It was just too much. On top of that, hindus with their typical liberal attitude were more than willing to be servants to muslims and live peacefully as slaves. So the muslims finally decided to suspend the violence and just enjoy ruling over hindus. Of course, from time to time, their memories would get jogged and a Aurangzeb would pop out hoping to complete that task started by Mohd. bin Qasim.
The fact of the matter is that hindus have always tried to coexist with muslims. After living like slaves for centuries, hindus were willing to forget all that and live together with muslims. But the muslims suddenly decided that they had had enough of coexistence and wanted Pakistan. No matter, that millions would get killed. Of course, the hindus in their slavish mode, decided to let the muslims in India stay in spite of being completely expelled from Pakistan. On top of it they established a ``secular`` nation to give the muslims full equality.
For the past 60 years, Pakistan has shown relentless, non-stop hostility against India on every issue big or small. Their lust for Kashmir is unquenchable, as they try every trick in the book to get it, no matter how our relations are. They sponsor militancy in Punjab for 10 years, jihad in Kashmir for 15 years running, their people sneak in and blow up temples like Akshardham, Ayodhya, you name it. Now they are talking peace mainly due to pressure from the US. But the reality is that muslims, especially Pakistanis will never accept the status quo in the subcontinent and will keep trying to change it in their favor.
#140 Posted by Romair on July 12, 2005 7:06:36 pm
Dost-mittar #139: ``Next time you might consider sending an email to Anil :-)``
Anil and I have actually exchanged countless emails........I am not sure if I should disclose this fact without his permission. But you have pulled it out of me.....He is perhaps one of the most accomplished business personalities on Chowk.......And I am constantly on the look out to learn from people.............My tentacles into the Indian diaspora go far deeper than many people may realize........
``For example, the one-word answer to your first question (sucides) would have been Muslim``
If that is the answer, than that is what you should have answered. I would have probably agreed with you. Though I have to still do some calculations on the total suicide bombings by Tamil Tigers and the 420+ that have occured in Iraq. Remember you are a Martian, at the moment.......
``chowk itself is a rich source for an Islamic student``
I think this is where you got onto the wrong path. If you are using Chowk as a source on Islam, then I think you may want to quit while you are still behind, on this subject......
``I think that with the advent of the Internet it would be difficult for young and educated Muslims not to introspect``
Let me tell you why I object to this statement. It seems, at least to me, to have quite a bit of arrogance in it......Though once again, I may be misunderstanding you.......
``Now, you can have the last word if you wish.``
ibtada-y-ey ishq hai rota hai kia;
agay agay deekhiyay hota hai kia
Believe me, someday you will thank me for enlightening you.............
Anil and I have actually exchanged countless emails........I am not sure if I should disclose this fact without his permission. But you have pulled it out of me.....He is perhaps one of the most accomplished business personalities on Chowk.......And I am constantly on the look out to learn from people.............My tentacles into the Indian diaspora go far deeper than many people may realize........
``For example, the one-word answer to your first question (sucides) would have been Muslim``
If that is the answer, than that is what you should have answered. I would have probably agreed with you. Though I have to still do some calculations on the total suicide bombings by Tamil Tigers and the 420+ that have occured in Iraq. Remember you are a Martian, at the moment.......
``chowk itself is a rich source for an Islamic student``
I think this is where you got onto the wrong path. If you are using Chowk as a source on Islam, then I think you may want to quit while you are still behind, on this subject......
``I think that with the advent of the Internet it would be difficult for young and educated Muslims not to introspect``
Let me tell you why I object to this statement. It seems, at least to me, to have quite a bit of arrogance in it......Though once again, I may be misunderstanding you.......
``Now, you can have the last word if you wish.``
ibtada-y-ey ishq hai rota hai kia;
agay agay deekhiyay hota hai kia
Believe me, someday you will thank me for enlightening you.............
#139 Posted by dost_mittar on July 12, 2005 6:08:08 pm
Romair:
Next time you might consider sending an email to Anil :-)
I thought my answers were quite precise and succinct. I would have given one-word answers if I could do so without misleading. For example, the one-word answer to your first question (sucides) would have been Muslim, but that would have overlooked the fact that this is rather recent and that Tamils were in fact leaders in this respect not too long ago.
Regarding my views about political Islam, they are no different from that of any other non-Muslim who has tried to study Islam (chowk itself is a rich source for an Islamic student!) and quite a few enlightened Muslims who differentiate between introspection, rationalisation and obfuscation. But unlike my friend ferozk, I am not pessimistic. I think that with the advent of the Internet it would be difficult for young and educated Muslims not to introspect even though some of them will also be attracted by the powerful message of political Islam.
Now, you can have the last word if you wish.
Next time you might consider sending an email to Anil :-)
I thought my answers were quite precise and succinct. I would have given one-word answers if I could do so without misleading. For example, the one-word answer to your first question (sucides) would have been Muslim, but that would have overlooked the fact that this is rather recent and that Tamils were in fact leaders in this respect not too long ago.
Regarding my views about political Islam, they are no different from that of any other non-Muslim who has tried to study Islam (chowk itself is a rich source for an Islamic student!) and quite a few enlightened Muslims who differentiate between introspection, rationalisation and obfuscation. But unlike my friend ferozk, I am not pessimistic. I think that with the advent of the Internet it would be difficult for young and educated Muslims not to introspect even though some of them will also be attracted by the powerful message of political Islam.
Now, you can have the last word if you wish.
#138 Posted by kaurasach on July 12, 2005 2:56:11 pm
The Muslim extremist on trial in the slaying of filmmaker Theo van Gogh confessed Tuesday, saying he was driven by religious conviction. ``I don`t feel your pain,`` he told the victim`s mother.
Mohammed Bouyeri stunned the courtroom when, in the final minutes of his two-day trial he declared: ``If I were released and would have the chance to do it again ... I would do exactly the same thing.``
``What moved me to do what I did was purely my faith. ... I was motivated by the law that commands me to cut off the head of anyone who insults Allah and his prophet,`` he said.
At one point, he addressed the victim`s mother, Anneke, who was sitting in the public gallery. ``I have to admit I don`t have any sympathy for you,`` he said. ``I can`t feel for you because I think you`re a nonbeliever.``
Mohammed Bouyeri stunned the courtroom when, in the final minutes of his two-day trial he declared: ``If I were released and would have the chance to do it again ... I would do exactly the same thing.``
``What moved me to do what I did was purely my faith. ... I was motivated by the law that commands me to cut off the head of anyone who insults Allah and his prophet,`` he said.
At one point, he addressed the victim`s mother, Anneke, who was sitting in the public gallery. ``I have to admit I don`t have any sympathy for you,`` he said. ``I can`t feel for you because I think you`re a nonbeliever.``
#137 Posted by kaurasach on July 12, 2005 1:19:53 pm
To add to DM`s post about stern comment.......
TWO qualities help muslims succeed - that Hindus and Sikhs lack.
The most important quality they have is UNITY - Muslims unite against all outsiders, and come to aid of their fellow berthen no matter how wrong or evil s/he is.
Sikhs are notorious for fighting like roosters amongst themselves. Their petty squabbles have undermined the entire brotherhood. They take the `individuality` stuff too far.
Hindus are infamous for aiding the enemy that would make any leftist/liberal 5th colunm to shame. They are like the jews who worked the Nazi camps to save their own skins. As individuals, they are picked up by mob mentalities of muslims - and are dying a slow death in Bangladesh.
Regarding the ``sterner`` stuff. DM made the mistake of equating cruelty and lack of humanity to sternness. Muslims do roll with the punches too. They are good at begging for quarter when they are down, and never giving quarter when they are up.
These are keys to their `success` as a religious body....and expansion.
TWO qualities help muslims succeed - that Hindus and Sikhs lack.
The most important quality they have is UNITY - Muslims unite against all outsiders, and come to aid of their fellow berthen no matter how wrong or evil s/he is.
Sikhs are notorious for fighting like roosters amongst themselves. Their petty squabbles have undermined the entire brotherhood. They take the `individuality` stuff too far.
Hindus are infamous for aiding the enemy that would make any leftist/liberal 5th colunm to shame. They are like the jews who worked the Nazi camps to save their own skins. As individuals, they are picked up by mob mentalities of muslims - and are dying a slow death in Bangladesh.
Regarding the ``sterner`` stuff. DM made the mistake of equating cruelty and lack of humanity to sternness. Muslims do roll with the punches too. They are good at begging for quarter when they are down, and never giving quarter when they are up.
These are keys to their `success` as a religious body....and expansion.
#136 Posted by anil on July 12, 2005 1:01:59 pm
Re: # 134
Romair:
I have been struggling to answer the questions that you have aksed me. I left the color of religions behind many decades ago. Ever since never looked back and immensely enjoyed myself. I cannot see the religious characterization of societal problems. I detest all such characterizations. I do not believe an Arab`s hunger or disease, can be characterizes as Islamic, or a hindu`s homelessness be characterized as Hindutva. A refugee`s home being taken away and resulting pain can be neither be Jewish not Islamic in color. Fascism comes out of such characterizations. I cannot allow myself to be party to any such characterizations.
I am sorry to disappoint you that I cannot live upto the challenge you have thrown at me. However, should you choose to answer my questions, please do so. I am very interested in your answer, mainly as the student of change in society. I do not understand answers to these questions, especially the one about co-existence of Islam with the ugly side of the others. As an outsider, I feel Islamic thoughts and practices would go through reforms that will originate from the within.
You can see from all my interacts on Chowk with which you are familiar or can easily become familiar, one thing that is consistent is that I do not get involved in religious characterization of societal issues. To me religion is limited to mind space, and does not extend beyond into a larger personal space, to fulfill the spiritual needs of the person, whatever they are.
Sorry to disappoint you, I hope others can answer your questions.
Anil Kapuria
Romair:
I have been struggling to answer the questions that you have aksed me. I left the color of religions behind many decades ago. Ever since never looked back and immensely enjoyed myself. I cannot see the religious characterization of societal problems. I detest all such characterizations. I do not believe an Arab`s hunger or disease, can be characterizes as Islamic, or a hindu`s homelessness be characterized as Hindutva. A refugee`s home being taken away and resulting pain can be neither be Jewish not Islamic in color. Fascism comes out of such characterizations. I cannot allow myself to be party to any such characterizations.
I am sorry to disappoint you that I cannot live upto the challenge you have thrown at me. However, should you choose to answer my questions, please do so. I am very interested in your answer, mainly as the student of change in society. I do not understand answers to these questions, especially the one about co-existence of Islam with the ugly side of the others. As an outsider, I feel Islamic thoughts and practices would go through reforms that will originate from the within.
You can see from all my interacts on Chowk with which you are familiar or can easily become familiar, one thing that is consistent is that I do not get involved in religious characterization of societal issues. To me religion is limited to mind space, and does not extend beyond into a larger personal space, to fulfill the spiritual needs of the person, whatever they are.
Sorry to disappoint you, I hope others can answer your questions.
Anil Kapuria
#135 Posted by ana on July 12, 2005 12:08:49 pm
dostmittarji:
thank you for your response.
all ``minorities`` respond differently to and in different situations. i have been critical of how some christians have responded to behavior and actions towards them in pakistan. but i also see why some would not want to make waves and be ``in your face``, and some of them are no less admirable for how they conduct themselves within their own community and without.
and i disagree with your conclusion of if the 9/11 attackers had been hindu. i think we should give some of our hindu sisters and brothers a little more credit. and besides, many north americans would not have allowed saris and bindis to disappear from north america. :)
thank you for your response.
all ``minorities`` respond differently to and in different situations. i have been critical of how some christians have responded to behavior and actions towards them in pakistan. but i also see why some would not want to make waves and be ``in your face``, and some of them are no less admirable for how they conduct themselves within their own community and without.
and i disagree with your conclusion of if the 9/11 attackers had been hindu. i think we should give some of our hindu sisters and brothers a little more credit. and besides, many north americans would not have allowed saris and bindis to disappear from north america. :)
#134 Posted by Romair on July 12, 2005 12:06:48 pm
Dost-mittar #131: ``As long as you keep talking about Muslims and I about political Islam, we will keep talking past each other.........Your replies show that you are either somewhat economical with truth, or ignorant ``
I asked some simple questions to Anil. The reason I asked these questions to Anil was because he had, first, asked me, himself, to explain certain things related to Muslims, to him. Which I am trying to do. I did not, ``talk about Muslims.`` He asked me.
You jumped in, half-way (uninvited might I add :-)) to add you age-old Islam teaches Muslims to rape, pillage and burn-routine. You keep saying this, and then say I am misunderstanding you. I have no clue how to convince you otherwise. Nor is it my job to do so. If you want to continue on that line, please be my guest. I really have no interest, nor motivation to convince you, otherwise. Best of luck........
You have answered my questions, to some extent. However, once again, you have added a mile-long justification to each answer. This is why I specifically asked Anil to answer them, statistically. Assuming he is a Martian, and not a Hindu or Indian. You obviously, have not answered them as a Martian.
Cold statistics cut to the facts. They cut through all the spin-doctoring. This is why they scare people, and people feel obliged to bury them in all kinds of subjective justifications. I did not answer your questions, with any kind of subjective justifications, or ifs ands or buts. I answered them straightforwardly, with either, ``I don`t know,`` or roughly one-word answers. Even though most of your questions were quite subjective, based on interpretations and opinions, while mine are all very objective, based on hard cold facts and figures.........
Perhaps you could do the same, for the questions, I asked........They merely require a Yes/No, and/or one word answer........Or, ``I don`t know`` type answers.......let`s leave aside, the motivations for why someone is killing anohter. Let`s just, first, look at who is killing whom.......
I asked some simple questions to Anil. The reason I asked these questions to Anil was because he had, first, asked me, himself, to explain certain things related to Muslims, to him. Which I am trying to do. I did not, ``talk about Muslims.`` He asked me.
You jumped in, half-way (uninvited might I add :-)) to add you age-old Islam teaches Muslims to rape, pillage and burn-routine. You keep saying this, and then say I am misunderstanding you. I have no clue how to convince you otherwise. Nor is it my job to do so. If you want to continue on that line, please be my guest. I really have no interest, nor motivation to convince you, otherwise. Best of luck........
You have answered my questions, to some extent. However, once again, you have added a mile-long justification to each answer. This is why I specifically asked Anil to answer them, statistically. Assuming he is a Martian, and not a Hindu or Indian. You obviously, have not answered them as a Martian.
Cold statistics cut to the facts. They cut through all the spin-doctoring. This is why they scare people, and people feel obliged to bury them in all kinds of subjective justifications. I did not answer your questions, with any kind of subjective justifications, or ifs ands or buts. I answered them straightforwardly, with either, ``I don`t know,`` or roughly one-word answers. Even though most of your questions were quite subjective, based on interpretations and opinions, while mine are all very objective, based on hard cold facts and figures.........
Perhaps you could do the same, for the questions, I asked........They merely require a Yes/No, and/or one word answer........Or, ``I don`t know`` type answers.......let`s leave aside, the motivations for why someone is killing anohter. Let`s just, first, look at who is killing whom.......
#133 Posted by dost_mittar on July 12, 2005 11:53:59 am
ana:
No ana, I am not describing them as cowards and was critical of FV when she said so in her article about Kashmiri Pandits. But I do see the difference in response of Hindu and Muslim minorities, and not only in the subcontinent. Many Hindus gladly put up with the Saudi conditions of staying there on the condition of not practising their religion or blacking all references to Hindu Gods and Godesses in the Indian-run schools` texts in Gulf countries. Hindu faiths survived the long Islamic rule in India mainly because of this ability to roll with the punches. If the 9-11 attackers had been hindus, my guess is that saris and bindis would have disappeared from North America.
No ana, I am not describing them as cowards and was critical of FV when she said so in her article about Kashmiri Pandits. But I do see the difference in response of Hindu and Muslim minorities, and not only in the subcontinent. Many Hindus gladly put up with the Saudi conditions of staying there on the condition of not practising their religion or blacking all references to Hindu Gods and Godesses in the Indian-run schools` texts in Gulf countries. Hindu faiths survived the long Islamic rule in India mainly because of this ability to roll with the punches. If the 9-11 attackers had been hindus, my guess is that saris and bindis would have disappeared from North America.
#132 Posted by ana on July 12, 2005 11:02:57 am
dost-mittarji (#131):
But there is another reason, too. Generally speaking, when kitchen gets hot, Hindus leave the kitchen; so they have left or converted to another religion in Bangladesh and Pakistan rather than tough it out; heck, they even fled Kashmir valley even when the military was on their side. Muslims are made of sterner stuff; they not only continue to struggle in the face of adversity, they also like to live with an in-your-face attitude. I am saying this more in admiration than as a criticism. There is no reason why a citizen of a country should not have complete rights to his or her protection because of his assertive identity..
oh no! i am no hindu or muslim, and there are some days when i even question whether i am still a christian, but please tell me that in your admiration for those of sterner stuff, you in fact are not labelling these hindus you have described as cowards. please tell me that you are not reaffirming that kashmiri hindus (pandits) are not refugees but cowards?
are these labels/ comparisons/oppositions really all that simple?
But there is another reason, too. Generally speaking, when kitchen gets hot, Hindus leave the kitchen; so they have left or converted to another religion in Bangladesh and Pakistan rather than tough it out; heck, they even fled Kashmir valley even when the military was on their side. Muslims are made of sterner stuff; they not only continue to struggle in the face of adversity, they also like to live with an in-your-face attitude. I am saying this more in admiration than as a criticism. There is no reason why a citizen of a country should not have complete rights to his or her protection because of his assertive identity..
oh no! i am no hindu or muslim, and there are some days when i even question whether i am still a christian, but please tell me that in your admiration for those of sterner stuff, you in fact are not labelling these hindus you have described as cowards. please tell me that you are not reaffirming that kashmiri hindus (pandits) are not refugees but cowards?
are these labels/ comparisons/oppositions really all that simple?
#131 Posted by dost_mittar on July 12, 2005 10:10:25 am
Romair#122
As long as you keep talking about Muslims and I about political Islam, we will keep talking past each other. As my response to Ranjit shows, I do not buy everything that Hindutva people say about Muslims or Islamic rule in India. Let me repeat for the upteenth time that Muslim individuals are no different than others; as in other religions there are good and bad Muslims, honest and dishonest Muslims, kind and cruel Muslims and bigots and tolerant Muslims.
Your replies show that you are either somewhat economical with truth, or ignorant in which case you have not even been looking at the verses and ahadith that have been posted several times at chowk. However, since you have been kind enough to answer my questions, you deserve an answer to your questions. So, here goes:
``1. Members of which relgion, in today`s world, produce the most suicide bombers?``
Most of the suicide bombers in today`s world are Muslims. If you had asked this question ten years ago, the answer would have been Tamil Hindus and Christians. In that answer is implicit the fact that they identified themselves as Tamils and not Hindus. I would compare them to the Palestinians whose suicide missions until recently were based on ethnicity and not religion; the situation has changed somewhat as the recent suicide missions by Palestinians seem to be more religion inspired.
``2. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world
3. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world
4. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world``
I do not know the statistics. The only significant countries with Hindus are on the subcontinent. I would say that more Muslims are killed in India and more HIndus in Bangladesh. Pakistan`s case is similar to that of Nepal; the number of Hindus in the former and Muslims in the latter are too small to pose any threat.
In case of India, Muslims do bear the brunt of communal killings. There are several reasons for that but the main reason is that pseudo-secular Hindu politicians have not taken effective steps to protect the life and limbs of their Muslim citizens. Shame on them!
But there is another reason, too. Generally speaking, when kitchen gets hot, Hindus leave the kitchen; so they have left or converted to another religion in Bangladesh and Pakistan rather than tough it out; heck, they even fled Kashmir valley even when the military was on their side. Muslims are made of sterner stuff; they not only continue to struggle in the face of adversity, they also like to live with an in-your-face attitude. I am saying this more in admiration than as a criticism. There is no reason why a citizen of a country should not have complete rights to his or her protection because of his assertive identity.
``5. Is there any piece of land occupied by Muslims, against the wishes of its Jewish inhabitants
6. Is there any piece of land occupeid by Muslims, agaisnt the wishes of its Christain inhabitants
7. Is there any piece of land occupied by Muslims, against the wishes of its Hindu inhabitants
8. Is there any piece of land occupied by Jews, against the wishes of its Muslim inhabitants
9. Is there any piece of land occupeid by Christians, agaisnt the wishes of its Muslims inhabitants
10. Is there any piece of land occupied by Hindus, against the wishes of its Muslims inhabitants``
The only place for which this question makes sense is Palestine where a jewish state has occupied Palestinian (not Muslim) lands. Bush is not representing Christians and Sonia Gandhi-Manmohan Singh are not ``occupying`` Kashmir because they are Christian or Sikhs but because they represent a nation-state dealing with a provincial insurgency.
As long as you keep talking about Muslims and I about political Islam, we will keep talking past each other. As my response to Ranjit shows, I do not buy everything that Hindutva people say about Muslims or Islamic rule in India. Let me repeat for the upteenth time that Muslim individuals are no different than others; as in other religions there are good and bad Muslims, honest and dishonest Muslims, kind and cruel Muslims and bigots and tolerant Muslims.
Your replies show that you are either somewhat economical with truth, or ignorant in which case you have not even been looking at the verses and ahadith that have been posted several times at chowk. However, since you have been kind enough to answer my questions, you deserve an answer to your questions. So, here goes:
``1. Members of which relgion, in today`s world, produce the most suicide bombers?``
Most of the suicide bombers in today`s world are Muslims. If you had asked this question ten years ago, the answer would have been Tamil Hindus and Christians. In that answer is implicit the fact that they identified themselves as Tamils and not Hindus. I would compare them to the Palestinians whose suicide missions until recently were based on ethnicity and not religion; the situation has changed somewhat as the recent suicide missions by Palestinians seem to be more religion inspired.
``2. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world
3. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world
4. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world``
I do not know the statistics. The only significant countries with Hindus are on the subcontinent. I would say that more Muslims are killed in India and more HIndus in Bangladesh. Pakistan`s case is similar to that of Nepal; the number of Hindus in the former and Muslims in the latter are too small to pose any threat.
In case of India, Muslims do bear the brunt of communal killings. There are several reasons for that but the main reason is that pseudo-secular Hindu politicians have not taken effective steps to protect the life and limbs of their Muslim citizens. Shame on them!
But there is another reason, too. Generally speaking, when kitchen gets hot, Hindus leave the kitchen; so they have left or converted to another religion in Bangladesh and Pakistan rather than tough it out; heck, they even fled Kashmir valley even when the military was on their side. Muslims are made of sterner stuff; they not only continue to struggle in the face of adversity, they also like to live with an in-your-face attitude. I am saying this more in admiration than as a criticism. There is no reason why a citizen of a country should not have complete rights to his or her protection because of his assertive identity.
``5. Is there any piece of land occupied by Muslims, against the wishes of its Jewish inhabitants
6. Is there any piece of land occupeid by Muslims, agaisnt the wishes of its Christain inhabitants
7. Is there any piece of land occupied by Muslims, against the wishes of its Hindu inhabitants
8. Is there any piece of land occupied by Jews, against the wishes of its Muslim inhabitants
9. Is there any piece of land occupeid by Christians, agaisnt the wishes of its Muslims inhabitants
10. Is there any piece of land occupied by Hindus, against the wishes of its Muslims inhabitants``
The only place for which this question makes sense is Palestine where a jewish state has occupied Palestinian (not Muslim) lands. Bush is not representing Christians and Sonia Gandhi-Manmohan Singh are not ``occupying`` Kashmir because they are Christian or Sikhs but because they represent a nation-state dealing with a provincial insurgency.
#130 Posted by hamidm2 on July 12, 2005 9:36:58 am
Re: # 127
dost-mittar,
..... ar you satisfied with romair`s blatantly dishonest attempt at ``answering`` your questions ?....... however, it is very possible that, like the rest of the ummah, he actually might believe the lies he tells .............. good luck !!
..... but there is no hope
dost-mittar,
..... ar you satisfied with romair`s blatantly dishonest attempt at ``answering`` your questions ?....... however, it is very possible that, like the rest of the ummah, he actually might believe the lies he tells .............. good luck !!
..... but there is no hope
#129 Posted by Romair on July 12, 2005 8:17:08 am
Anil #120: ``As rule I do not go into statistics, but you were nice enough to no drag State Terrorism I would certainly answer give from the binary answers. Just let me know the period / duration you want to cover and why you want to cover only that period, so that I can give you the binary answers.``
Hard cold statistics are usually the best way to objectively look at issues, and gauge them, without letting subjective religious, social, national and ideological biases get into the way. I refuse to believe that a phenomenally successful businessman and entrpreneur like yourself would disagree. In all the discussions that you and I have had, on business issues, the one thing I have learned from you, is that VC etc. want numbers. Statistical numbers ( ROI, IRR, EPS, FV, PV, AC etc.). They don`t want fuzzy emotinal reasonings or religion, or gender or historical events like Dunkirk etc..........
So, I will not accept as an argument from your side, that statistics and numbers do not tell a clear story. Or at least the clearest story, of any other available method. I am quite convinced that such an argument would go against your well-developed sense in business.
The timeframe I am looking for is the current day. So you can say over the past twenty years, or so. It is the events of this timeframe that is driving current day events. Also, kindly remember, you are speaking as a Martian, with no attachments to anyone, any country, or any religion, on Earth. So just the cold statistics, without worrying about any personal views about State Terrorism, or individual terrorism, etc.
Also, kindly look at the correction I posted in the previous reply........
Hard cold statistics are usually the best way to objectively look at issues, and gauge them, without letting subjective religious, social, national and ideological biases get into the way. I refuse to believe that a phenomenally successful businessman and entrpreneur like yourself would disagree. In all the discussions that you and I have had, on business issues, the one thing I have learned from you, is that VC etc. want numbers. Statistical numbers ( ROI, IRR, EPS, FV, PV, AC etc.). They don`t want fuzzy emotinal reasonings or religion, or gender or historical events like Dunkirk etc..........
So, I will not accept as an argument from your side, that statistics and numbers do not tell a clear story. Or at least the clearest story, of any other available method. I am quite convinced that such an argument would go against your well-developed sense in business.
The timeframe I am looking for is the current day. So you can say over the past twenty years, or so. It is the events of this timeframe that is driving current day events. Also, kindly remember, you are speaking as a Martian, with no attachments to anyone, any country, or any religion, on Earth. So just the cold statistics, without worrying about any personal views about State Terrorism, or individual terrorism, etc.
Also, kindly look at the correction I posted in the previous reply........
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)
