London Targeted: Numbers Game

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.

Anil #62: ``Even better, why would you not say that it just simply is NOT ISLAM?``

You have repeated this statement a couple of times. I am not sure where I or anyone else stated it is Islam. I certainly don`t think it is Islam. Kindly read all my comments. I think Al-Qaeda should be eliminated. As I mentioned, it is killing far more people in Pakistan than in any country in Europe..........

However, bombing Iraq and killing 100,000 people in Iraq is not the answer. Has that reduced Al-Qaeda. Or has it increased Al-Qaeda. In fact, it is now clear, through various leaked memos, that bombing Iraq never had anything to do with Al-Qaeda. Even the USA govt. appointed commissions have themselves declared that Iraq had no connection with Al-Qaeda.

So one should look at such points calmly and without emotion. That can only be done, when one does not get caught in the rhetoric from either side.

The unfortunate side of this site is that there is no room for the third option. If one challenges someone who is religious, one is declared an apostate. If one challenges someone who is American, one is declared a member of Al-Qaeda. One is forced to either hail Bush as the savior or OBL as the savior. Which doesn`t leave much room for people like me, who consider both to be the problem (as does an overwhelming % of the world, including Brits, by the way).

I don`t think the British are going to re-engage even furthur in Iraq. That would be suicidal. I think they will withdraw. They would have shown resolve had Al-Qaeda threatened something, internally, inside Britain. However, I think most Brits were against Iraq to begin with. And now their govt. will listen to them. They are already announcing that they are considering reducing their troops from 8000 to 3000.

One should show resovle to terrrorism. But one should never lose the moral upper hand in handling terrorism. The way to handle terrorism is not to become a terrorist one`s self. One should surgically go after such organizaitons, like Al-Qaeda. And I think the British people realized that a long time ago.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think, the only point, you and I differ on, is that I consider State terrorism to be terrorism also. The criteria I use for terrrorism is based on the number of innocent people killed - be they Muslim, Hindu, Christian, American, Arab etc. And I don`t differentiate between the State killing them or an individual killing them.

I think on all other issues, I pretty much agree with you..........

``Cancer cells can only be killed and accepting the fact that other healthy cells will get killed too is the price of such treatment. The treatment is not pleasent, the alternative is too ghastly for modern Pakistan to accept. ``

I agree. But the aim should be to kill the cancerous cells. If the aim becomes to just kill healthy cells to achieve poltical objectives, then it goes off-track. If Pakistan starts attacking Sindhis, and says it is trying to get rid of cancerous cells, when in fact, it is actually trying to crush Sindhis ethnically, then problems will occur.

I think this is what happened in Iraq. The USA ended up bombing the country, under the garb of GWOT, even though Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda. And now Al-Qaeda is using that to its advantage and has made a base in Iraq.........

Re: # 62
Romair:

I am quite familiar with the bogey of State Terrorism and also know when it is used. Honestly I can discuss it with you in great details, however, as mentioned in my previous interact I do not wish to right now, because I want to develop our dialog into something that is more relevant to the unanswered questions that I have.

On the side issue of bombing of Baluchistan by Paksitan enough was written by Tariq Ali to Najam Sethi in 70s as I recall. You probably can google it.

``They should be dealt sternly by people, within Islam. I know they are being dealt sternly by Pakistan. Pakistan has, infact, faced far more violence than UK. And has lost far more soldiers than UK.``

I also believe that now Pakistan is dealing with the terrorism. Therefore, it now has the support of the West and its relations with India are changing. In fact the change is quite dramatic and fast, that in the words of one of my friends in senior Indian diplomatic circles, that even Chinese and the U.S. are bewildered.

Like I have said elsewhere on this board, it is a cancer that Pakistan due to its previous life style, like India in Kashmir due to its lifestyle, acquired it. Cancer cells can only be killed and accepting the fact that other healthy cells will get killed too is the price of such treatment. The treatment is not pleasent, the alternative is too ghastly for modern Pakistan to accept.

Blair when he said vowed to go after and remove this terror from its root, he talked such a treatment and not appeasement or desire to sit down with the terrorists. History of Brits is very clear. They dealt with Malayasian communist insurgency more directly and with overwhelming force than the U.S. dealt in Vietnam. Brits treatment of communist Malayasia, and their treatment of those Indian freedom fighters in Kalapaani who would not talk on their terms and innocents in Jalianwalabagh was more direct and brutal too. What I am saying is that let there be no doubt that Brits will now deal with this situation with or without French, Germans and Italians more directly and more forcefully. Spainairds will be there with them and the U.S. This act only awaken the British Lion and filled it with even more terrible resolve.

The demarcation is now clearer than ever. That is probably why many here are saying either you are unequivocally on side or the other.

Now not only the west but the east too will not leave - the oil - their life line oil in the hands of those who according to you will give up everything for their perceived cause and their perceived way of doing things. I also know neither you nor Binladins of the world would leave the jugular vein in the hands and mercy of someone who would give everything up also. Otherwise Binladin would not be hinding in the mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan. At least one consequence of accepting jugular vein or life line in such hands, is deadly.

````Why these acts be not called Al Qaida-ism or Binladinism and perpetretors of these acts be called the followers of Al Qaida or Binladin, and not believers of Islam? Why?``

I am not clear what the question is here. The perpertrators of these attack are believers in Islam. The perpetrators of any attack are belivers in some religion. And they have committed terrorism. I think everyone should acknowledge that. I certainly do.....``

Or are they believers of your religion, your Islam?

Then where is the peaceful Islam that is also touted, at least in their belief system?

Why believers like you are not standing up claiming your Islam?

Has the control your Islam has taken over thinking and mind so mcuh to make the vison of Islam so myopic and so intense that people like yourself are unable to see what is wrong in your own statement?

When Salman Rushdie wrote something, as Yenta in Fiddler on the roof would say ``you understood`` - I do not know if you agreed or accepted it - and Fatwa was issued to kill him.

When a band of terrorists rise out of very narrow definition of Islam, why would not you within the Islamic tent rise out and disown them and issue a fatwa against them and in fact call a Jihad against them?

Why would you not say it is NOT Islam they are practicing?

Why would not say that it is something different (hence I suggested Al Qaidaism, and Binladinism) and certainly NOT your Islam, the peaceful Islam, the progressive Islam?

Even better, why would you not say that it just simply is NOT ISLAM?

Why this message be not delivered within the Islamic tent, to expel this fringe minority out as non-believers of Islam, and believer of Al Qaidaism and Binladinism?

Haven`t believers of Islam have done it before to Ahmadiyas, and probably to others too?

Thank you.
Anil Kapuria

#93 posted to the wrong board...

#79 by ferozk
Feroz,

All your points from a moral pov may have some significance but from a political and social pov have no meaning. This pontification against a political reality that exists today appears little out of place or may be way before its time.
Last night I was in a party where one visiting Pakistani poet was asked to read his poems. One of the poems was titled “Bush” and it went on to depict Bush pretty much a monster. I was amazed by the response this poem got from about 150 well educated and well placed Pakistanis. About 70% of them were enthusiastic in praising it and pretty every verse got a huge Wah, Wah and encore requests.
If this is the kind of response you see from a crowd that we assume should be at least discerning and judicious about terrorism and legitimate political struggle and If these people are the representative of the people in Pakistan or may be the all Arab world, then I am afraid none of the ten items in your post will be heeded to by anybody in the so called Muslim world at least not now.

The position we must ponder is whether the conflict between the two forces has reached a point where talks of some truce are viable? Your ten action items could be the beginning of a truce where both parties are ready to review some of their actions before they come to the table.
In my opinion that point has NOT reached yet and the likelihood of both parties persevering with the conflict are promising.

When we peel thru the gibberish of Islam, Muslims, victimhood and the so-called root cause Palestine wild theories, what do we actually find is that the whole Jihadi effort is to gain political legitimacy either in the form of acceptance by the Muslim countries or share of some power in Saudi Arabia or the power itself in Saudi Arabia. The control of the Oil wells in the Arab world and political power especially in Saudi Arabia or may be Pakistan are the ultimate and stated goals of the Jihadi supporters and various organizations that support the Jihadi effort and provide a tacit legitimacy to the act of terrorism in the eyes of the general Muslim masses.
The obvious Jihadi goal of control of Oil, control of Muslim holy places, and the political power in the Arab world cannot sit well with the US and the west. So the conflict would continue and any talk of acceptance or denouncement of any thing by Muslims at this point appears mute and not plausible.

Muslims would probably be more inclined to consider your proposals when they see two things:

1. The West has found a way to counter the Jihadi ability to inflict a low- tech but high impact offensive such as the London bombing.
2. The political set up in the Saudi Arabia or the ME countries with oil has been sufficiently altered to reflect at least some of Jihadi political demands OR deprive them of the ability to control them.

The West so far has not been able to effectively deal with No.1 and as long as the Jihadi have this ability to rattle a few windows every now and then, I see no chance of any remorse showing up in the Jihadi supporters.

The US recognizes the importance of Number 2 above. The first US instinct was to secure oil supplies and the weakest link was Iraq. The US went in Iraq. The other two countries that Jihadi covet are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for obvious reasons. Both have strong US support and the US is also pushing them for some reforms in the system to increase participation of centrists in Pakistan. The lack of any moderate political group within the Saudi Arabia has been a thorn on the US side. The monarchy can go as far and removal of the monarchy may open the powder keg.

Since it will take a while for the West to find and implement solution for both 1 and 2 above, the likelihood of this conflict continuing for unforeseeable future are tremendously bright and your proposed actions are not viable options.

AFA Muslims in the West are concerned; they have to fend off for themselves as they too overwhelmingly oppose the West due to their victim mentality. There numbers are not large enough for the Jihadis to worry about them nor do they pose a huge problem for the West. The West can always put enough pressure on them to make them take pro-west stand eventually.

#80 by ozerkhalid
Ozer,
Don’t twist what I said in my post. Don’t try to out smart yourself.

Dost-mittar #76: ``You don`t want to be like the driver of the volkswagon in the right lane who refused to swerve upon seeing a truck coming in the same lane from the opposite direction. He was right. Dead Right!.......Since you are prone to misread/misinterpret my posts, please don`t think that I am predicting your death. It`s just an expression. :-)``

Thanks for the clarification.........

You may have a point. Though I think you are greatly underestimating my driving skills. If the truck is in the wrong lane, I think I can swerve and avoid it, and then get back in my lane again.

Another thing you may want to keep in mind: I can swerve and avoid the truck, or take an exit and go onto a different highway. However, sooner or later, if the truck does not get into its correct lane, it is bound to crash.......

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. And one should be willing to apply them, consistently, across the board, regardless of religion, creed, race, nationality, etc. For example, one cannot support occupations by one`s own country and oppose the occupation of one`s own country.........

Everytime, in my life, when I have comprimised on my principles, under the kind of pressure, you have mentioned, I have lost out. And whenever I have stuck to my guns, on my principles, I have won out. If not in the short run, then in the long run.

Two years ago, I was against the Iraq War, even though many of our, ``hot-airs`` on this site were having a heyday rejoicing over it. I was called all sorts of names, and what not. Now, two years later, 60% of the US population, itself agrees with me. And the, ``hot-airs`` are on the run.

Similarly, while I have called the actions of Al-Qaeda, ``terrorism,`` (as have most other people), I have also called the actions of George Bush and the subsequent killings, ``terrorism.`` I think both Bush and OBL should be put under trial, by an International Criminal Court. Once again, the, ``hot-airs`` are having a field-day. But I can make a bet with you, in five years, or ten years, or fifteen years, the Iraqis, themselves, will set up some kind of a Truth and Reconciliation Tribunal, and they will, themsleves, declare the war on Iraq to be terrorism..........

Similarly, I will never agree to, nor accomodate, guilt by religious association. If I can protect others from it, I will. And if I have to take a stand against it, I will. Regardless of the circumstances or consequences. While I don`t see that happening in Canada, anytime soon, if it were to occur, Canada would be the loser. Not me. And if in the process, my little Volkswagon, despite being on the right side of the street, were to get run over by a Bombardier Go Train; so be it.

But I can make a bet with you: twenty years down the road, or thirty years down the road, when the dust settles, Canadians, themselves, will appreciate what I did, and will put my little broken up Volkswagon in a museum......

further to #90 and so, unless he responds, and unless that response is a simple ``Yes`` or ``No``, i am afraid the answer to your (hamidm`s) question is that Mr. Romair indeed is a monkey in the peanut gallery.

hamidm #87 Am I calling romair a monkey? Lets see how he responds:

Mr. Romair: Do you think that the London bombings is the work of criminals?

No response to the above would prove Mr. Romair does not understand plain english. A reponse other than a simple ``Yes`` or ``No`` would prove that field marshall romair cant tell his rear from a hole in the ground.

mt t: Please dont misrepresent the facts here by drawing parallels between George Bush and Osama bin Laden. These are too important issues - real people, innocent people, are being targetted and killed - to play word games here.

When ben laden refers to ``Us`` he means the ``Muslim Ummah`` (i.e. all muslims who sympathize with him). And by ``Them`` he refers to ``Crusaders``, and the actions of his followers make it clear that ``Crusaders`` includes all those who are not the ``Muslim Ummah``.

When Bush refers to ``Us``, he refers to all those who do not follow ben Laden`s creed. This includes muslims - after 9/11, Bush spoke out loud and clear before Congress about the muslims being a decent people. Then he visited the washington mosque to re-assure muslims. And ordinary americans around the country went out of their way to express solidarity with the US muslim community.

So, please dont fall into this trap of following the rut that too many muslims are following. Leave this is moral equivocation and misrepresentation of facts to lesser individuals than yourself.