London Targeted: Numbers Game

incredible -- nonsense like this gets published on chowk -- well, after all, they have to , for the baba`s sake

hamidm:

am in TO

waiting for the other shoe to fall:)

but not with the other two in attendance!...cannot hack them!...if you insist that will be your solitary pilgrimage....jazakalllah!

bring your lovely and let`s make it a foursome

kaal #109:

spinning?

is this all you can come up with?

sad!

in internal combustion engines....in autos...there is fly wheel... behind the transmission box...it rotates...visualise it in a circular fashion...am trying to be as circumambulating as you are;)...then there is the gear box...gear for you...on the steering wheel or the floor...when you rev the engine...depending on... if you have engaged it in the forward or reverse the automobile would go in THAT direction!

now spinning!

heard of the clutch?

i can be as foggy or as clear as you

your choice;)

There is a serious need to consider why every push forward leads to the same old spinning of wheels without any forward movement.

temporal,

.... i am a little surprised by your rather morbid fascination with islam :).... one of these das we will talk about it ..

Anil #96: ````I think you are misreading Blair statement. The Brits have the grits to ensure, a come back even after Dunkirk.``

I am surprised you are comparing this to Dunkirk. It is extremely dangerous to compare this to Dunkirk. Pretty soon, someone will compare this to Karbala. And then we can continue fighting, forever. Why is everyone bent upon raising the ante? Why aren`t their more people who want to reduce the ante, like me.............

I don`t think I am misreading the statement, at all. It is a pretty straightforward statement. I had mentioned yesterday that the British would reduce their forces in Iraq. And today they have announced that they are considering reducing them, by a huge margin. If this was Dunkirk, they would have tripled their forces. Which they can easily do, if they want to. But they, wisely, don`t want to.........

It is extremely counter-productive to show, ``grit`` (in the sense that you are suggesting) on issues like this. That would be harmful to everyone. One should show grit when someone challenges one`s internal affairs. Or in situations like Dunkirk. If the terrorists had said that they want everyone in UK to stop eating pork, it would make sense to show grit.

However, this is about something that the UK population was itself against, to begin with. It never wanted to get involved in it. That is how this differs from Dunkirk.

``God forbid, if the bombers are from the British-Pakistani group. They would ensure that the mosques, and madrasas there are purged and cleaned as part of this cancer treatment to the extent that is not possible in the U.S``

This is the thing that could be done, within the UK. If this is actually a problem, it should have been done a long time ago. If it is not a problem, then doing so just out of emotion is no different than me attacking a mandir in Karachi, out of anger for Babri Mosque.

One should use common sense and a cool head, and not emotion. The UK has a lot of experieince in dealing with the IRA. They know, far better, than the USA, what works and what does not. As I keep saying, this is why the UK population, itself, was against going into Iraq. They knew it would reach their streets, The London mayor said it, himself.........

Being, ``resolute`` should not always mean more violence. I can never understand ideas, that push violence as the only solution. Must the UK now bomb Iraq furthur. Is London going to be any safer, because of that?

I have seen exploding bombs up close. I know what kind of damage they can do. Rest assured, more violence, resolute or otherwise, is not the answer........And I can make a bet that the UK leadership will show a lot of sanity, in this......

Anil #96: ``Why allow such qualifiers, and acts being performed for ISLAM or in the name of ISLAM. Its believers should not permit it, and expel those who perpetrate such act while within the tent.``

I am still not sure what you would like me to do.

People perform varoius acts, on their own. If today I walk up to your office, and shoot you, and say I am doing this in the name of Islam, what would any other Muslim have to do with it. If tomorrow, a Hindu comes and shoots me, and says it is in the name of Hinduism, what would that have to do with you.

The best you could do is say that it is not Hinduism. Which is what I have said, also. What else should I do? Kindly highlight in detail. I don`t have the power to purge someone from Islam. Islam does not have a Pope or Brahmins who have that authority. The concept of fatwa is actually not legitimate in Islam. No one can pass a fatwa. Although many people do.

However, if it makes anyone feel better, ``I hereby pass a fatwa that Bin Laden is not a Muslim.`` I don`t know what legal authority it will hold, however.......

Dost-mittar #97: ``bringing Bush into this now seems like justifying such attacks without saying so.``

Not at all. I condemn them with or without Bush. I am truly suprised you think, otherwise. I thought that was a given..........I don`t see how anyone could justify them......

I have very close relatives who live in London. One of my siblings called from there early morning, to tell me he was alright. That is how I found out about the attacks. So my close family members use the subway in London, regularly.........

I also have very close family members who live in Pakistan. Which has been a major target of Al-Qaeda. My best friend is flying combat missions in Waziristan. We are like brothers. I wouldn`t be surprised if one day I received a phone call, that he has been shot down or killed.

So, rest assured, nothing is being justified. If someone thinks that way, then I am afraid they are missing my whole point.......The last thing I want is for my sibling(s) to my friends get blown up in London, or shot down in Waziristan. My aim is always to analyze something and provide reasonings and solutions to it. The attachment of the attacks and Iraq is obvious and was made by most people in London, themselves......

People need cool heads to analyze this. There is far too much rhetoric and emotionalism, on both sides. What I have suggested as a solution, is already happening. UK is considering withdrawing troops from Iraq. It is good to see some sanity..........

R-D#102:

Though a non-believer or perhaps because of being so, I think that I can answer your question.

As far as I have been able to determine, it is okay to interpret/misinterpret/twist the meaning of any quranic verse or claim that they need to be explained with reference to the context. You can give more importance to some verses than others. You can even question whether all the verses were accurately transcribed in writing. But as soon as you say that each and every verse of quran may not be the word of God or start entertaining the possibility that it might not be valid for all times and all places, you are risking being declared a shirk or even an apostate. I do not need to tell you why no one wants to be so proclaimed.

R-D:

complexities cannot be reduced to simplicities to everyone`s satisfaction...over simplifications has its merits and demerits too ...bro hamidm has his way of tackling...

ghore o fik`r and tadabbur has been invoked time and again in the book...why?


ps: wasn`t alluding to a fatwa from you...perhaps i should have elaborated...

no fatwas.
just a simple question about Your views on certain hateful verses in Quran but it doesnot seem like you are gonna answer that in the specifics.
I have seen on these boards a set of Hinduism followers who were very vocal about denouncing the despicable things in the Hindu tradition (alright, i know nothing abt. Hindu mutt so my wording is shaky) But i have yet to see a person calling himself Muslim taking on certain verses of Quran upfront except Hamidm probably.

R-D:

you love fatwas don`t you?

strip yourself of the baggage of centuries and think of qur`an as a guide pointing out a direction...and if you like the vision travel on that path...the key is traveling towards that goal...…you do only if you want to…(btw ‘you’ is figurative)

i also said there are many paths that lead to the stream:)

temporal:
equating Quran with a light/torch as a metaphor doesnt work. Bad choice. Write in plain english next time about how much Quran can actually be salvaged out of the 6666 verses that it supposedly has right now (though Shia Fiqh says current copy of Quran is incomplete).

Romair:
consider tomorrow terrorists decide to blow a hole right in the downtown of Toronto becuase YOUR government and Parliament has recently legalised Homosexual unions.

Something like that had invited Allah`s wrath on the nation of Prophet Loot`h. Now, if terrorists decide to impersonate Allah`s wrath on these new-age Loothians aka Canadians, to what extent will you be UNDERSTANDING their Reasons.??

Re: # 96

Romair: ``... simply is NOT ISLAM`` is something I have said. Your interacts generally carry 100,000 people in Iraq, etc. tagged and give an indication of cluttering up the issue.

I notice that ISLAM is being assigned different qualifiers.... by different people at different times. Like political ISLAM, peaceful ISLAM, and then obvious claims to ISLAM and in the name of ISLAM being made to commit murderous and terrorist acts. It is in this context that I am trying to raise my questions. Why allow such qualifiers, and acts being performed for ISLAM or in the name of ISLAM. Its believers should not permit it, and expel those who perpetrate such act while within the tent.

For example, Political Islam has been implied to mean extremist activities of the type I am calling Binladinism or Al-Qaidaism. My question, then how about the peaceful and democractic election in Iran too. This alsow showed a peaceful transfer of power to a democratically elected new government, which is more rigid. So was the peaceful transfer of power in India earlier from Congress to BJP and then back Congress. Hardly, anyone can substantiate that Rafshanjani would have tempered the election process to defeat itself. What legs any arguments against Iranian elections will have. Even the White House was found searching for words to describe the Iranian election process.

Project from here, and ask why no one terms political hinduism to Indian democracy, or political christianity to the U.S. politics and British politicals. Church of England at one time was very strong in England and English politics, and now it is side lined altogether. This process of side lining is needed in Islamic countries too.

Accepting or allowing any group to add qualifier eventually prevents a natural evolution of separation of church and state, and prevents reforms. This is my point. There must be people within the Islam tent who are fed up of Al Qaidaism and Bin Ladinism, if not, both the West and the East will then continue to put pressure, till such group emerges to lead peaceful Islam out or throw Al-Qaidism and Binladinism out of the Islam tent. Until then we all will have to put up with it whether we live in Canada, England, the U.S., Pakistan or India.

I think you are misreading Blair statement. The Brits have the grits to ensure, a come back even after Dunkirk. The laws their are not as open as in the U.S. State has greater and wide ranging powers to control and act in secret. God forbid, if the bombers are from the British-Pakistani group. They would ensure that the mosques, and madrasas there are purged and cleaned as part of this cancer treatment to the extent that is not possible in the U.S. due to bill of rights. Brits have no such bill of rights. It is all common law.

Anil Kapuria

Romair:
``One has to have certain principles in life. And a certain set of core values. And one should be willing to stand by them, regardless of the pressures.``

What core value would you be giving up in condemning London attacks without equating Bush with Bin Ladin? You and I have attacked Bush before several times and will almost certainly do so again; bringing Bush into this now seems like justifying such attacks without saying so.