London’s Hour of Reckoning

Re: # 398

Tahmed:

You are missing the point. You keep pointing me to different sources to read and tasking me, whereas, what I am suggesting is that Muslims now have an obligation to allay fears of non-muslims about harboring a murderous minority in their midst. Do you agree? You do not appear to agree to either of my suggested alternatives in #394. You also feel no compulsion to `negate that heresay` which you speculate as having been gathered `in India` (you are wrong there. My point of reference about Sunni Muslim misplaced anger is the Friedman article in the New York Times of today.). You are under no obligation to accept any of my suggestions, nevertheless, do you not feel a sense of responsibility to explain, if not to act to restrain (rather than task me) as to why a predominant number of homicide bombers are Sunni muslims?

Your remarks about impugning me to BJP in India are off-color, and those regarding Pakistan`s military irrelevant.

Romair: I agree this has been a good discussion, and I appreciate your civilized manner even as i dont agree on some things. We will no doubt have a chance to discuss this subject in some other context, on some other board on chowk. So till then, au revoir my friend. :-)

PewResearch #394 If you do not have the time to read the Quran for yourself, then read one of the many popular books on Islam written by western writers. Read Huston Smith`s ``The World Religions``, e.g., or any of the fine books on the subject written by Karen Armstron or Joe Esposito. After all, if you seriously wish to understand something (the issue about whether the Quran promotes terrorism, the point you were making earlier), then you need to find the time to read objectively about it.

I must repeat that I am not interested in dispelling ``any misgivings in the minds of non-muslims that one can be a good Sunni muslim and not have a small, uncontrollable and deadly minority that will resort to homicide-suicide bombings ``. I can see from the time spent on chowk that much mischief has been done in India by BJP in terms of poisoning Indian minds about Islam - but why should I care? Pakistan is militarily secure, and even the BJP now understands that. If they wish to have peace with Pakistan (as is now happening) while continuing to harbor hatred for Pakistanis or their religion (as I can see is also the case from chowk) - Well, all I can say is, God bless their conflicted little hearts. :-)

As for the last part, I dont see how you can consider the Quran to be offensive to nonmuslims when you have neither read it, nor consider it worth your time to read it. If you just want to go by heresay in India, why should I spend time trying to negate that heresay - much less start apologizing for my religion??

arjuna:

you can post all the reports you want. . . i know you don`t care about the derision of the ``pakis``. . . they aren`t listening to you. so why keep talking at deaf ears? (not the only part that`s deaf for some)

even those who may have said they agreed with what you posted, now talk about your verbal diarrhea. . . because there is only a point, a fine line up to where you can express yourself, and then they stop listening. after that it is nothing but paki hatred, or muslim hatred from you. funny, isn`t it?

you see where there are paki idiots who call me an indian rather than deal with their own shortcomings. what is all this railing accomplishing? nada. nothing. zilch.

and if you`re going to ``piss`` on the pakis, when are you going to call some of the indians on their crap, the stuff that comes from the mind of little mikey for example. or is it all indians united on ``his`` front as he says? i`m waiting for more than just the unplugged folks to point out the extreme opinions he has. why should his words be any less important than captain clueless`s to point out the f*****up nature?
and the muslim scholar named sounds more like arab muslim to me, but i do see a lot of pakistanis buying into that. and more.

have a good weekend. . .

p. s. you didn`t answer my question `bout the blogs.

Note to pakis: When already deep in a hole. stop digging...

Muslim Scholars Condemn London Attack, but Not All Suicide Bombings

By Thomas Wagner Associated Press Writer

LONDON (AP) - Muslim leaders and scholars met at London`s largest mosque Friday to condemn the terrorist attacks in the British capital, saying the perpetrators had violated the Quran by killing innocent civilians and that no one should consider them martyrs.

But the 22 imams and scholars stopped short of condemning all suicide bombings, saying that those that target occupying forces in countries such as Israel and Iraq are sometimes justified.

``There should be a clear distinction between the suicide bombing of those who are trying to defend themselves from occupiers, which is something different from those who kill civilians, which is a big crime,`` said Sayed Mohammed Musawi, the head of the World Islamic League in London.

``The media in the West are mixing the difference between these two, and the result is that some of our Muslim youth are becoming more frustrated and they think that both are the same, even though Muslim law forbids killing any innocent lives,`` Musawi said. He spoke at a news conference at the London Central Mosque after the leaders and scholars read a statement condemning the July 7 attacks.

#393 by ana on July 15, 2005 3:04pm PT


talking about closing one`s eyes


Captain clueless thinks because when he closes his eyes and everything goes dark, he can make the sun set by the power of his eyelashes...he`s that deluded...

He`s already dazzled us with his self-deluded logic of how Islamic fundamentalism isn`t the problem and how the world needs to focus on the tamil tigers... I`ll bet when he came up with that gem, he ran out out of his bathtub crying ``eureka eureka``, wearing nothing but a t-shirt with a paki flag on it....

Re: # 386
Tahmed:
Your principal point, that I read the Quran, is difficult to implement for a large number of people. As a practical matter, there may be millions of non-muslims who neither have the time nor the inclination to do so. Muslim intellectuals like yourself have to develop and articulate a cogent message (or behavior - e.g.: anti-terror peace march in downtown Riyadh or Islamabad would be a great idea. your pick of what needs to be done) that quickly dispels any misgivings in the minds of non-muslims that one can be a good Sunni muslim and not have a small, uncontrollable and deadly minority that will resort to homicide-suicide bombings (I chose Sunni only because Friedman cited them in his article).
This message cannot simply be: Read the Quran, OR, `we are interpreting it correctly, but the bad guys are not` (this line is not very convincing to the non-muslim world). The alternatives are to (i) as an individual to either acknowledge the fact that there are passages in the Quran that are offensive to non-muslims, or failing (i) to (ii) as a member of a larger muslim-majority group/country to practice democracy that upholds minority rights with no distinction between muslims/non-muslims so that deeds may indeed count more than messages, so that the need for option (i) never arises. Do you agree?

BTW, my real name is not `prashant`, and that issue is irrelevant to this discussion

i checked out a book written by eric margolis to use in my research vis-a-vis kashmir and i discovered that margolis wasn`t really useful for what i was writing and i did find him to be rather biased (and who isn`t?).

talking about closing one`s eyes is such an irony depending on where it comes from.

Dost-mittar #390: I always find it funny, how people quickly attempt to tear down anyone whose views contradict with theirs.

I only mentioned Margolis` knowledge on Afghanistan, and the character assasinations started. He is recognized, worldwide, including by CNN, as an authority on Afghanistan`s Soviet war. He was, in there fighting with the Afghan Mujahideen. Even his critics recognize his expertise of that area.

I am not sure what his mother`s religion has to do with. He is actually an athiest, himself. And is an Eisenhower Republican. And fought in the Vietnam war. His mother, Nexhmie, was actually an American journalist, of Greek and Albanian background...........

I don`t think he hates India. He has, however, gone into Kashmir, and written about the human rights violations there. Which maybe why many people think he hates India............

One should look at the point being made, about his experience in Afghanistan, rather than getting into someone`s mother or father, or India or Pakistan.............The other option is to simply close one`s eyes to anyone who disagrees with one`s opinons..........something I have never been willing to do...........but too many on this site prescribe to.........

I think his knowledge regarding the creation of Al-Qaeda, in Afghanistan, would be far greater than most other people`s. Then again, that should not count, because his mother may(?) have been a Muslim.........How in the world can a son of a Muslim mother (if she even was Muslim), who is an athiest himself, know about Afghanistan!!

Anil #372: ``Romair I am so happy that someone from within Islam is tyring to differentiate and define Binladinism.``

Ayaz Amir is my favorite journalists. We have actually exchanged emails. He is the one journalist, with whom I have most of my views in common. He has a solid understanding of the pakistani military, beaurecracy, and politics and professional life. He has been in all four areas.

By the way, Ayaz Amir`s views on various issues are completely different from yours. For example, he is a harsh critic of Musharraf, and thinks Musharraf has given up far too much to India, without getting enough in return for peace (a view I disagree with). Also, his views on Kashmir, Palestine and State terrorism will be quite different from yours.

I think you are greatly misunderstanding my views. In fact, I knew you are. My views on BinLadenism are identical to Ayaz`s. If anything, more severe than his. Anything else, is a mere confusion in communication, between you and I.

Having said that, I am not sure it is a good idea for us to debate this particular issue. We have certain core differences on the basic defintion of the term, ``terrorism.`` And we have not been interacting with each other, long enough to know each other, well enough. I think it would completely destroy the friendly relationship I have with you, which I would like to maintain, since I know that on Indo-Pak issues, we are on the same page.......

As an example, Dost-mittar and I have been interacting for so long that we have been through too many ups and downs, and have grown thick skins. We can beat each other up, abuse each other, and will still shake hands, and start all over..........Such a level of understanding takes some time to develop.......

bbabu:
``Eric Margolis is a demoagogue``

Eric Margolis is the darling of all Islamists. He hates Indians, loves Pakistanis like Hamid Gul and is highly articulate. His mother was an Albanian Muslim. Once, he was asked by some Muslim audience why he did not become a Muslim and he replied that he was much more useful to the ummah as long as he is not considered part of it (How useful would he be if his name was Al Nasr?). He was at one time very pro-American and anti-communist, fought in the Vietnam War and was in Afghanistan during the anti-soviet jihad, but has turned anti-American in recent years.

hamidm mian#364: Are we still on, ``mian`` terms. Or are those golden days, long gone........

``.............you really should go to a mosque more frequently to find out what your brethern are up to instead of basing your opinions about the ummah on conversations with your imaginary friends .........``

How are they my, ``brethren,`` when you are the one hanging around with them? In a social function, they are your brethren, but when they do something wrong, you declare them to be my brethren!!

Actually, to tell you the truth, you may have a point here. I should go to the mosque and include that in my area of observation, as well. I meet a lot of people who go to the mosque regularly, but have, myself, not gone there, other than once, in the past eleven years.......It was for a traveeh prayer on 1999. My wife has not been to a mosque in fifteen years..........or so......

The point I was finding hard to comprehend was how a person, like yourself, who is against religion, ends up in the mosque so often. There must be other, ``social clubs,`` available...........

Having said that, I think the view in the Canadian mosques is, probably, far more integrated with the Canadian view, then the view in the USA mosques. I think the US national view and the US Muslim view has started conflicting deeply. In this sense, I understand your apprehension. Though I don`t agree with your solutions.

Something I have noticed here, in Canada is that every Arab - Muslim or Christian - I talk to here, or see on talk shows seems to be pro-Canada. I have yet to meet, an anti-Canada Arab or Muslim, here. This was different in the USA. Then again, my circle of friends may be limited.......

``but i am against all organized religions that seek to divide humanity and wreak havoc in the name of arrogant and vengeful gods ..............``

I would have to agree with you on this one, as well. Which is why, from day one, I have been telling you to stay away from the Christian Evangelists and Religious Right. I have been telling the general population of the USA to do the same.

This is another contradiction, I cannot understand (alongwith your mosque visits). I don`t support the MMA or the Evangelists. You support the Evangelists, or at least are in line with them. Your logic is that they are not that bad. Be that as it may, there certainly are other options available in the USA, which are more inline with your views, which you should exploit. If you consider religion to be the main problem........In fact, I would have thought you would fanatically hate the Relgious Right, regardless of any cause.........

I hope you can understand why I find it confusing to understand your stances. You visit mosques (at least more than I do). You are inline with the Religious Right. And you, simultaneously, consider religion to be the main problem of society. And despite my opposition of the Religious Right (both in Pakistan and USA) and my lack of mosque attendance, you keep attaching me to the maulvi brigade, whenever I disagree with you on something...........

Is it possible for me to disagree with you, on something, without being part of the maulvi briagade?

tahmad/dost-mittar/bbabu #: All of you have made some interesting points to my replies. I would be interested in discussing these furthur. Perhaps we can move to a thread on the front page.

This is the correct way to discuss terrorism. Or any other issue, for that matter, i.e. through points and counter-points. One`s aim should always be to understand something, in a discussion. Not to belittle anyone`s ethnicity, religion, etc.; neither bluntly nor subtly. Nor to unnecessarily play a blame-game of trying to figure out whether either of you three, or me were responsibile for a crime..........I think too much of Chowk`s time is wasted on the later............

arjun_m:

``Cult: A small unpopular religion
Religion: A large popular cult.``

You do come up with some gems now and then.
I would add this: it is a lot harder to grow a cult into a large religion now than it was in the days of old. [But then there is Sai Baba!]

PewResearch: What Blair is referring to is educating MUSLIMS themselves on Islam. After all, it is muslims, not nonmuslims, who justify their terrorism on the basis of Islam. So, there is no point in trying to educate nonmuslims on Islam.

If you are seriously interested in understanding the Quran, then the best thing is to read it for yourself with an open mind. It is not a very big book. Dont just pick a verse here or there (as you had done), ignoring what the rest of the book has to say.

I did spend a lot of time several years ago discussing the Quran with muslims (a fellow named adnan e.g.) on chowk, and satisfied myself after those discussions that my understanding of the Quran is indeed legit. That those sticking by what I consider to be the ``mullah culture Islam`` of today have no basis for their views. E.g., the Quran explicitly places boundries on the prophet muhammed himself - saying that he is just a messenger, and implementation of the message is not his concern. That is a matter between God and the individual alone. This single point (repeated a number of times) takes the wind out of the ``mullah Islam`s`` call for things like shariah courts, the muttawas of saudi arabia, those calling for an ``islamic state``. Similarly, to take your example - sure there are verses like the one you quote. But read the complete Quran, and it makes it clear that it does not matter what religion you belong to - ALL individuals, regardless of religion, will be judged on the Judgement Day.

This is a lengthy explanation. Hope your disappointment is eased a bit by this. :-)

btw, prashant may not be your nick, but it is your real name i am pretty sure.

it would be silly to think that those words were not from a translation of the quran, and that those words do not exist. they do.

i think it would be equally silly to think that there are those who read those words but do not take them to heart. they do.

and it would be silly not to call them muslims. they are.

these words are disturbing and frightening. no doubt. and there is no doubt that these are taken literally. by both the believers and the non-believers.

but. . . there are muslims who have evolved past such language, they have evolved, but they do not separate themselves from the words. there are those ``liberal`` muslims, but just as malcolm x said something once about the ``liberal`` whites being more deceitful and dangerous than the conservative ones, there is something to consider when those ``liberal`` muslims, be they the elite or otherwise, are in denial a) about these verses b) about the extremists who have indeed read the quran and take their words to heart.