London’s Hour of Reckoning

I watched a couple of newspiece/documentary on the muslims/West european conflicts.....a ``Liberal`` muslim implied that the Theo killing and other attacks were brought upon by European themselves.


If this is the thinking of a `liberal` muslim, one can guess what the thinking of `moderate` muslims and fundoos would be.

Ferozek #127: ``Romair, you have quoted me as saying: Ferozek #90: I don`t think Al-Qaeda should be reformed. It cannot be. It should be eliminated.............Where, did I say that, or are you simply making up quotes to askew the debate and confuse the arguments?``

Kindly go back and read the comment again, before jumping to unnecessary and false conclusions.

The remark, I don`t think Al-Qaeda should be reformed. It cannot be. It should be eliminated, was neither attributed to you, nor quoted to you. To quote something, one puts quotes (``) around it. That is a basic English grammar rule. And one would expect a teacher of your calibre, teaching some of the brightest students in Pakistan, to be aware of that simple grammatical rule. No wonder Pakistani students (including me) cannot speak proper English :)

It was, thus, my remark. Since it did not have quotes around it. So no one is implying that remark to you. You are unnecessarily implying it to yourself, for some reason. And get unnecessarily worked up..........Just debate the point. Instead of debating the person and his/her intentions.........

Having said that, you did actually remark that Al-Qaeda should be reformed. Though I did not quote it in my previous reply. However, I will quote it in this reply:

Following is what you stated in Reply #86: ``Romair, if you want to how Al-Qaeda can be reformed, I will give you a simple answer. .....``

(note: Unlike last time, this time I have put quotes (``) around it, indicating that I AM quoting you). Unless I am misreading English, you had set out a prescription on how Al-Qaeda could be reformed. ``If you want to know how Al-Qaeda can be reformed,`` would mean that. The word, ``reformed`` would imply that..........

#126 by ozerkhalid on July 11, 2005 1:47am PT


Now I have deep-seated respect for HINDUISM but not for the racist Hindutva agenda spurred by interactors like Arjun M. Can you imagine the outrage if someone slurred the Hindutva agenda ?



Go ahead....say what you want about the ``hindutva agenda``...give it your best shot...monkey gods etc etc...see if I care..

The world is a complex place.Would it surprise readers to know that India`s petroleum reserves are maintained entirely by free and unfettered supply from , surprise!!!, the Saudis.And, the saudis are thought to be the society that has spawned `Wahabism` throughout the world!.Yes, China and India are the largest consumers of oil, and India has the edge in oil reserves thanks to our Saudi friends.That is why, the indian govt. can afford to subsidize the price of fuel across the country, as we speak.Leave religion where it belongs, in the private domain, and all will be well in this world.

Ana,

You`re right, i think i should not let fear and hate overcome me, and should ignore the nasty posts!

PS. I smoked over the weekend but put on a stronger patch this morning. See how it goes!

Take care Jaan

Following is from Guardian Unlimited, (July 11,2005).

Blair`s blowback

Of course those who backed the Iraq war refute any link with the London bombs - they are in the deepest denial

Gary Younge
Monday July 11, 2005
The Guardian

Shortly after September 11 2001, when the slightest mention of a link between US foreign policy and the terrorist attacks brought accusations of heartless heresy, the then US national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice got to work. Between public displays of grief and solemnity she managed to round up the senior staff of the National Security Council and ask them to think seriously about ``how do you capitalise on these opportunities`` to fundamentally change American doctrine and the shape of the world. In an interview with the New Yorker six months later, she said the US no longer had a problem defining its post-cold war role. ``I think September 11 was one of those great earthquakes that clarify and sharpen. Events are in much sharper relief.``

Article continues

---

---

For those interested in keeping the earth intact in its present shape so that we might one day live on it peacefully, the bombings of July 7 provide no such ``opportunities``. They do not ``clarify`` or ``sharpen`` but muddy and bloody already murky waters. As the identities of the missing emerge, we move from a statistical body count to the tragedy of human loss - brothers, mothers, lovers and daughters cruelly blown away as they headed to work. The space to mourn these losses must be respected. The demand that we abandon rational thought, contextual analysis and critical appraisal of why this happened and what we can do to limit the chances that it will happen again, should not. To explain is not to excuse; to criticise is not to capitulate.
We know what took place. A group of people, with no regard for law, order or our way of life, came to our city and trashed it. With scant regard for human life or political consequences, employing violence as their sole instrument of persuasion, they slaughtered innocent people indiscriminately. They left us feeling unified in our pain and resolute in our convictions, effectively creating a community where one previously did not exist. With the killers probably still at large there is no civil liberty so vital that some would not surrender it in pursuit of them and no punishment too harsh that some might not sanction if we found them.

The trouble is there is nothing in the last paragraph that could not just as easily be said from Falluja as it could from London. The two should not be equated - with over 1,000 people killed or injured, half its housing wrecked and almost every school and mosque damaged or flattened, what Falluja went through at the hands of the US military, with British support, was more deadly. But they can and should be compared. We do not have a monopoly on pain, suffering, rage or resilience. Our blood is no redder, our backbones are no stiffer, nor our tear ducts more productive than the people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those whose imagination could not stretch to empathise with the misery we have caused in the Gulf now have something closer to home to identify with. ``Collateral damage`` always has a human face: its relatives grieve; its communities have memory and demand action.

These basic humanistic precepts are the principle casualties of fundamentalism, whether it is wedded to Muhammad or the market. They were clearly absent from the minds of those who bombed London last week. They are no less absent from the minds of those who have pursued the war on terror for the past four years.

Tony Blair is not responsible for the more than 50 dead and 700 injured on Thursday. In all likelihood, ``jihadists`` are. But he is partly responsible for the 100,000 people who have been killed in Iraq. And even at this early stage there is a far clearer logic linking these two events than there ever was tying Saddam Hussein to either 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction.

It is no mystery why those who have backed the war in Iraq would refute this connection. With each and every setback, from the lack of UN endorsement right through to the continuing strength of the insurgency, they go ever deeper into denial. Their sophistry has now mutated into a form of political autism - their ability to engage with the world around them has been severely impaired by their adherence to a flawed and fatal project. To say that terrorists would have targeted us even if we hadn`t gone into Iraq is a bit like a smoker justifying their habit by saying, ``I could get run over crossing the street tomorrow.`` True, but the certain health risks of cigarettes are more akin to playing chicken on a four-lane highway. They have the effect of bringing that fatal, fateful day much closer than it might otherwise be.

Similarly, invading Iraq clearly made us a target. Did Downing Street really think it could declare a war on terror and that terror would not fight back? That, in itself, is not a reason to withdraw troops if having them there is the right thing to do. But since it isn`t and never was, it provides a compelling reason to change course before more people are killed here or there. So the prime minister got it partly right on Saturday when he said: ``I think this type of terrorism has very deep roots. As well as dealing with the consequences of this - trying to protect ourselves as much as any civil society can - you have to try to pull it up by its roots.``

What he would not acknowledge is that his alliance with President George Bush has been sowing the seeds and fertilising the soil in the Gulf, for yet more to grow. The invasion and occupation of Iraq - illegal, immoral and inept - provided the Arab world with one more legitimate grievance. Bush laid down the gauntlet: you`re either with us or with the terrorists. A small minority of young Muslims looked at the values displayed in Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and Camp Bread Basket - and made their choice. The war helped transform Iraq from a vicious, secular dictatorship with no links to international terrorism into a magnet and training ground for those determined to commit terrorist atrocities. Meanwhile, it diverted our attention and resources from the very people we should have been fighting - al-Qaida.

Leftwing axe-grinding? As early as February 2003 the joint intelligence committee reported that al-Qaida and associated groups continued to represent ``by far the greatest terrorist threat to western interests, and that that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq``. At the World Economic Forum last year, Gareth Evans, the former Australian foreign minister and head of the International Crisis Group thinktank, said: ``The net result of the war on terror is more war and more terror. Look at Iraq: the least plausible reason for going to war - terrorism - has been its most harrowing consequence.``

None of that justifies what the bombers did. But it does help explain how we got where we are and what we need to do to move to a safer place. If Blair didn`t know the invasion would make us more vulnerable, he is negligent; if he did, then he should take responsibility for his part in this. That does not mean we deserved what was coming. It means we deserve a lot better.

g.younge@guardian.co.uk

Ozer #125 ``Why is it that when someone praises Islam even by a mere modicum the cyber-titans at Chowk come raging down to belittle it.``

I am glad to see you growing up so quickly and asking such big questions, Ozer :)

Haven`t you realized by now that ``reforming`` islam is the chic thing these days? Every single person on and off chowk has an opinion about making Islam a better religion. If you ask them how much time did they spent studying Islam in the last one month, most of them could not say more than 1 hour, if that.

It is as if Islam has become the ONLY entity that is most in need of reforms, as opposed to a society that willingly sends its soldiers to a soveriegn country to kill 120,000+ civilians. The number of people killed as a percentage of population is far higher in Kashmir than in Darfur, yet none of these self-styled enlightened hindus are calling for the reforms of hinduism. A whole population of Palestine is living under an aparthied system, yet no one calls for the reform of Judaism.

Its all about what sells. And what sells is ``reforming`` islam. Islam has become the perfect solution to all your personal shortcomings.

- Fallen on hard times?? Solution: Write a fiction/non-fiction about some aspect dealing with injustices of Islam. It will sell more copies than any other topic your mediocre intellect can undertake.

- Are you a budding film maker and need a break into the market? Solution: Make a documentary about some aspect of injustices of Islam. It will not only make your subjects in western countries feel better about themselves, it will also pay your bills for a while.

- Cant get enough exposure in media? Solution: Become an overnight `terrorism expert`.

When someone like Ferozk opines that ``leaving`` islam may be the only solution to current issues, you know that he has become a ``chic magnet``.

one last comment:

this article was more about what the ramifications of 7th july 2005 were to the muslim community. to only ONE community, and not others who may have been affected by this and were.

ozer khalid has been critical of the ``savage bearded folk`` but that seems to have gone awash in the talk of the west`s anti-islamism, and what the more right-wing conservative racist nationalists would do -- backlash, rather than what needs to be done by the community as a whole and yes, that includes muslims.

the phrase ``hour of reckoning`` refers to judgment, and to use such a phrase in connection with the bomb attacks on the london underground and the buses, was a poor choice for a title. regardless of whether the writer wants to see it or not, it was not up to the attackers to pronounce a death sentence on these londoners. the writer has since quipped about centuries of judgment that london and the west must deal with. what ozer khalid gives with one hand, a criticism of the attackers, he takes away with the other by london`s ``hour of reckoning.``

and no, there is no literalism here. i think whatever message was meant to be delivered in this article was lost in the writing. i think that feroz has brought up some good points, and so have other interactors. . . and calling us fascists or racists, or islam-bashers, or as someone`s, who mr. khalid could well identify with, label as colonial apologists does not conveniently make his argument any more palatable.

ozer #125 you write ``Why is it that when someone praises Islam even by a mere modicum the cyber-titans at Chowk come raging down to belittle it. ``

I have been on chowk for years, and have written countless posts referring to the postive message of the Quran, and as such am better qualified to speak on the above than you. And I have not experienced any ``cyber-titans`` coming ``raging down to belittle it``. Reactions have ranged from expressions of (1) disbelief to (2) acceptance but with the expression that my point is irrelevant since it is a minority opinion among muslims to (3) apathy. The last (apathy) has been from those most vocal about their perceived ``muslim grievances`` that in their mind excuses.

If you or your kind were faithful to the Quran, you would recognize the clear responsibility placed on you to use your common sense to distinguish between right and wrong, between good and evil. That is what you would then be held responsible for on the Judgement Day. And common sense would tell you that the London bombings were wrong. Evil. No ifs and buts.

you write ``Now I have deep-seated respect for HINDUISM but not for the racist Hindutva agenda spurred by interactors like Arjun M. Can you imagine the outrage if someone slurred the Hindutva agenda ? ``

I share your views hear. And I have been longer on chowk on chowk, and have had far, far more exchanges on chowk when arjun or some other indian has written posts ridiculing muslims or pakistanis. And I am telling you - this time they are absolutely right. I can confidently say that no one has stronger credentials in standing up when I feel muslims or pakistanis are being unfairly targetted. And yet - I can also confidently say that the Indian posters whose posts I have read on this bard have been exactly right. In fact, I complimented Ajeya further below on the very good advice he had for muslims.

There is a time to stop blindly following the herd, and to start using your head and to act in a responsible manner. This time after the vicious bombing in London is that time. The time for reckoning is not that for Londoners (as the title of your article suggests) - it is for you and individuals like you in the muslim world. Individuals who do not see the line between right and wrong.

ferozk#131:

``Muslims have to learn and accept that fact that there are other opinions in the world and if the Muslims do not respect the opinions and the believes of others; others will not respect their believes or opinions``

I beg to differ with you on this one. I like to make a distinction between respecting people and respecting their beliefs/opinions. How can a Muslim respect a religion which has millions of gods and godesses, a clear case of shirk? The only way he or she can do so is by saying that Allah had sent them the same message in the vedas but that they have corrupted that message, which would be quite consistent with what the quran says. Or how can they respect the opinion that there is no God altogether? It is easy for the believers of Indic faiths to respect other beliefs because their faiths do not believe in a single true path. But what one can legitimately ask Muslims without compromising their belief is to respect the right of other people to have a different opinion and belief, even the one that do not and cannot respect and not insist that others show the same admiration for their Book or the Prophet that they do.

ozer khalid Re: # 125 {``...How come Chowk has been hijacked by a Hindutva agenda ? ...``}

Ozer

You must be new on Chowk otherwise you would not have asked this question. I`ve been watching this group and their agenda and I`ll tell you that its hopeless.

Chowk is actually operated by deep under cover RAW agents who are also members of the RSS. Their funding comes from a racist Hindutva foundation with deep links in the Bharati ministry of defense and Information. They pretend to be Pakistani techies in California, but that is a damn lie. They actually operate out of Delhi and then echo their website through a proxy host in California. Many of the interactors (who have supposedly Muslim names but anti-Islam and anti-Pakistan biases) are also their own agency employees and they are moving slowly but surely with a grand plan to corrupt the heats and minds of the Muslim youth and undermine our future. They plan to start Chowk Radio and then open a Chowk TV channel. This is far worse then your worst nightmare. I`ve discovered this after years of research.

I doubt if this post of mine will ever see the light of day in its original form, but I am taking a chance that maybe those horrible hindus will slip up and this post might get through and the truth will thus be seen by a few.

Any way, the real agenda is to discredit Islam and Pakistan and to plant seeds of dissent in the impressionable minds of the youth of the Ummah.

The only way to defeat their agenda is to be steadfast and flexible.

...SR

ozer,

oh that`s just bloody convenient, isn`t it. . . to be all paranoid and talk about chowk being hijacked by a hindutva agenda?

how do you explain muslims who are critical of islam? have they been hijacked too? are they bashing ``islam`` or have they lived in their countries and seen the hypocrisy for themselves. ozer, have you ever lived in pakistan? or iran? what rose-colored glasses have you been wearing? or are they completely opaque?

it is one thing to say ``there is no compulsion in islam`` -- but then throw a fit, and worse, when someone from within begins to question the faith.

and let me tell you something else. not all hindus subscribe to hindutva, and referring to arjun as a hindutva simply because he seriously gets under our skin for saying paki this and paki that, he does not equal hindutva. a warped sense of nationalism (not too much unlike yours and your ``racist`` buddies perhaps) but not hindutva. there is a difference, and people who jump to such conclusions should think about that.

let`s not lose all credibility here, shall we? oh, i think it might be too late, here at least.

Nabeel,

There is a big difference between Hamidm and our Indian friends and/or others like you. Hamidm has always been an honest critic of the Muslims and Islam. He has done so without making any overtures to the Indians .... he has always done it with some fine humor which has bitten the Muslims ... and at time the ``orrible indoos`` as well.

You on the other hand are cheap copy... trying to endear yourself with the Indoos by making comments which are just dead wrong. In doing so you are happy to sell any semblance of self respect that you might have. There are many ways a person reacts to sudden exposure to western civilisation ... some imbibe the best.. some go the Hamidm route... that is actually good. Others go the Mullah route and become reactionary.... still others like you become sell outs.

I have no problem with how you live your damn life.. but please don`t do it under any pretensions of reform. A sell out is not a reformer... he can only pretend to reform.

-YLH

Re: # 108

Ozer, it is nice to know what the Muslims did in the past, but what have they done in the last 100 years or even in the last 50 or 25 years, which they can boast about?

If the only accomplishments, which the Muslims can claim were 700 years ago, then that is a very sad and pathetic comment upon the Muslims themselves.

Ciao

Re: # 125

Ozer, please allow me to say a few words on this issue.

Criticisms of Islam are not tantamount to Islam bashing and Muslims, should be brave and confident in their own religion to hear a dissenting view on Islam.

Muslims have a habit of demanding the utmost respect for their religion, but they are very niggerdly in giving the same consideration to other religions. Muslims have to learn that Islam is not the only monothesistic religion in the world, with the monoploy on the truth and Muslims are not the only people, who are blessed, with the enlightenment of the proverbial holy light of knowledge. Muslims have to learn and accept that fact that there are other opinions in the world and if the Muslims do not respect the opinions and the believes of others; others will not respect their believes or opinions.

Ciao

Re: # 126

You`re really doin` a disservice to yourself, your faith and your countrymen by ranting like this.Calm down, take a deep breath and chill out, bro`.There are many disciplines of hinduism and many schools of thought and worship.There is no monotheistic establishment that can encompass all hindus.The RSS/VHP try to unite hindus as a political force.They try and in an open society must be accorded the same rights as the Muslim League (India) has.But, they don`t speak for all hindus or all indians.Once you realize that , you`ll realize why india is a candidate for a permanent UNSC seat, why indian muslims are not subject to the same censures that muslims of other nationalities are in present circumstances. Peace out.