London’s Hour of Reckoning
Ozer Khalid July 8, 2005
#407 Posted by ferozk on July 16, 2005 12:11:13 am
Re: # 403
I will try to answer to answer your comments/questions and thus, let me include a passage from an article, which I wrote, for another website, as it helps in answering your question.
``Parenthetically speaking, a comparison needs to be drawn, at this stage of the narrative, between the emerging ideals of political power in Europe and the Muslim world, because it would have far reaching consequences. It would also explain why political independence and representative democracy found such a fertile soil to grow in Europe and not in the Arab/Muslim world. The time period, of AD 700s and AD 800s, offers a rare insight into the nature of European power vis-à-vis Muslim power, because the origins and the development of both European and Muslim political ideas was concurrent, but would they end up with diametrically opposing viewpoints on the nature of political power itself.
As already seen, centralized power was resisted in Europe, because its motives were always doubted and in the political skepticism, which resulted from this questioning, Europe was able to articulate a debate on the nature of political power itself. The European political experiences, at the end of the Roman Empire, suggested that political power had to remain diffused and the nature of power, itself, should be based on the idea of compromise. Furthermore, it advocated that such a power should be balanced evenly and not allowed to be concentrated in the hands of one, or a combination of powers. The key criteria was that Europe favored a multi-polarity of powers and it wanted such an arrangement to exist because of the political leverage it allowed the weaker nations in comparison to the powerful nations of Europe. Therefore, Europe wanted to ensure that the fulcrum of political power tilted against centralized power by favoring a de-centralized power structure. Out of this early multi-polarity in European politics, there emerged a European tradition of political dissent, against a strong political power, which would periodically demand more political rights and resist attempts at the consolidation of power.
Unlike the Europeans, the Arabs were never able to initiate a debate on the nature of political power, because the early experiences of Arab politics did not allow the space for such a debate to occur. Arab political power drew its inspiration from the conduct of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), who practiced both the religious and secular aspects of power, with the result that Arab politics was never able to a create balance, between theocratic absolutism and political pragmatism. This form of centralized political power was the norm in Arab societies and as the Arab political structures matured, there was an increasing concentration of power in the hands of the ruler. The dictates of power were imposed instead of being shared, as was the case in Europe and also; in contrast to the European example of political co-existence, Arab political power, due to its theocratic influences, was disallowed to share political power and instead, it was prompted to subordinate all forms of politics in order to preserve the political integrity of Islam.``
The title of the article, was ``The Eclipse of the Cresent``.
Now, to answer your question.
Political Islam suffers from an actue sense of an inferiority complex and feelings of insecurity. The origins of this harks backs to the days, when Islam was struggling to establish itself in Arabia. The religion of Islam was seen as a political threat by the pre-Islamic societies of Arabia and as a result of this, Islam was openly and agressively persecuted. The fact that Islam and its followers were forced into exile and were still hounded, traumatized the early Muslims. Consequently, a consensus developed within the early Islam, that co-existence with non-Muslims, was not an option and if that Islam was to survive and prosper, it had to assert its own supremacy.
Due to this, Islam was never able to develop a level of political confidence in its own abilities. The early experiences of the Muslims and the lessons, which they learned from the politics of time, reinforced an idea, whose closest analogy would be the Masada Complex of the Jews. Since, Islam had explictly prohibited suicide and that was not an option, the only other resource was to remove the threat itself by force lest it threatened Islam and its political viability. This logic was the underlying reason behind the early Muslim campaigns, which were in reality wars of conquest undertaken with the express and stated aim of enlarging the bounderies of Islam. The extention of the bounderies was intended to protect the core of Islam; Arabia and by creating buffer-zones around it, which would be dominated by Muslims. Hence, the idea was to create a ``bubble of security`` within which Arabia and the seat of political Islam could exist in safety.
The first breach of this bubble of security, was the crusades. The crusades are generally seen a religious war, between Islam and Christianity, but in reality the conflict was not a religious affair as much as it was a political economic war to dominate the trade routes, which passed through the Muslim lands and via the Byzantine Empire into Europe. The motivating idea, behind the crusades was a political attempt by the Holy Roman Catholic Church to unite Europe under its influence and the best way to achive this end, was to stop the inter-European wars and unite the Europeans under the banner of the Church. Crusades, were seen as precedent by church, which would imply that in religious matters, the secular powers of Europe would be subordinated to the religious authority of the church.
On the Muslim side, the crusades were reacted to with a sense of a political angst. The crusades never threatened the religion of Islam, as much they threatened the political power of Islam in the region. The fact that the crusaders butchered everyone in Jerusalem and later sacked the Byzantine capital of Constantinople itself, belied the religious claims. The Muslims were fighting the Christians to protect their political power, which came from their ability to tax the trade, which passed through Muslim controlled lands and the price in all of this was Jerusalem - not because it was city of religious importance to both sides, but because it straddled the trade routes, and had a strategic geo-political importance.
The Muslim reaction, in the aftermath of the crusades, proved the non-religious hypothesis of the wars, because immediately afterwards the Muslim politics entered a period of orthodoxic status quo. Muslim tolerance and openess ended with the crusades, because the sense of security and safety, which Islam was able to engender after its early conquests, was shattered and in the mindsets of the Muslims, political Islam was threatened and had to be protected. However, the problem was that the crusades had brought about a contact, beween Islam and Christians and therefore, the only way political Islam could stop this contact, seen as a threat, was to adopt political and cultural isolationism from the west, whereby offering itself a zone of comfort, where it could recreate the ruptured bubble of security in order to preserve the nature of political Islam.
The last crusade was waged in the 1300s, and the Muslim reaction to it and its self-imposed isolationism would set in a slow, but gradual decline of Muslim fortunes, By early 1500s, Islam was evicted from southern Spain. The Muslim reaction was to ban all forms of change, technical developments and political thought within Muslim societies, which might endanger the political cohesion of Islam. The result was that while Europe was experimenting and progressing, Muslims were viewing progress in a negative light and as political Islam started to show and more signs of its power diminishing, Muslims political thought became more reactionary by seeking to emulate the political glory of Islam in its past as a solution to all its problems.
This is a very instrustive and a salient point, because it empathically suggests that a common consensus was developing, which argued that Islam`s political glory could only be attained as it was in the first instance - by armed conquest. The believe, amongsts Muslims, was that political Islam could not exist, as an equal to Christian Europe, but had to defeat and subjuate it. As Christainity was seen as the most tangible threat to Islam, it had to be defeated, because the growth of the west was bringing it closer and closer to the peripheries of the Muslim security zones.
The political resurgence of Islam, in this sense, was seen in the guise of the Ottoman Turkish conquest of eastern Europe. The conquest of eastern Europe, by the Turks, was again an attempt to push the bounderies of Islam further into Europe, but this could not sustained since the Turkish military conquest was based on a very weak economy. From 1500s to about 1919, the Turks were seen, by the rest of the Muslims as their final bulwark against the creeping of western political power. To the Muslims, western imperialism was tolerable as long as the Turkish Ottoman power was still existant and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire again brought about a feeling of insecurity in the Muslims, which still lingers to this day.
The colonization of large Muslim areas by the west and then the onset of World War I, followed by the inter-war politics and the Second World War did not allow the Muslims much opportunity to respond to the demise of political Islam. However, with Muslim lands gaining independence, this idea of a security bubble started to revive itself. At this point, another schism seems to have appeared in the Muslim political thought. This was the conflict, which existed, and still exists, in the Muslim politics, and it is between those leaders, who seek accomodation with the west and those, who reject it. The leaders, who favor rapprochement with the west, or any non-Muslim dominated society are labled anti-Muslim and a threat to Islam itself. The anti-thesis to this view is the demand to purify Islam by rejecting western influences from its politics and by re-creating it in its early manifestions.
This conflict allow exists on the level of the individuals. Hence, there is a significant majority of Muslims, which does not wish to co-exist with non-Muslims, because they have no wish to share their ``comfort zones`` with non-Muslims. This also explains, why Muslims do not intergrate into non-Muslim societies and why seek to create Muslim ghettos, where they can live in isolation from the mainstream society. The next phase in this self-imposed Muslim segregation is to demand an existence of their own enclaves based on their own laws, on religious grounds.
The irony of this is that Muslims are comfortable ruling over non-Muslims and promise them protection under Muslim laws, but are not willing to accept the promises of non-Muslims and are not comfortable being ruled by their laws. The result of this behavior is a mindset, which is very exclusive and not at all inclusive to towards equality and tolerance unless it is based on the notions of a Muslim supremac. Consequently, the most salient insight, which emerges from this into the Muslim political mind, is that Muslims by the virtue of their religion not only view themselves primus inter pares in a religious sense, but in every sphere of human activity.
The tangent of this view, as seen in the reaction of the Muslims, to the London bombings and the previous terrorist attacks intones an interesting observation. The Muslims` refusal to accept the Muslim mea culpa, in the terrorist acts in New York, Madrid and London, is not a result of a denial, but an admant refusal to adjust their political world views and admit that their historic antecents, to such a political philosophy, are misplaced in a world of global political, and cultural intergration. This is why, the Muslims are not willing to accept anything less than complete supremacy of their views and are not willing to co-exist peacefully, with non-Muslims.
Ciao
I will try to answer to answer your comments/questions and thus, let me include a passage from an article, which I wrote, for another website, as it helps in answering your question.
``Parenthetically speaking, a comparison needs to be drawn, at this stage of the narrative, between the emerging ideals of political power in Europe and the Muslim world, because it would have far reaching consequences. It would also explain why political independence and representative democracy found such a fertile soil to grow in Europe and not in the Arab/Muslim world. The time period, of AD 700s and AD 800s, offers a rare insight into the nature of European power vis-à-vis Muslim power, because the origins and the development of both European and Muslim political ideas was concurrent, but would they end up with diametrically opposing viewpoints on the nature of political power itself.
As already seen, centralized power was resisted in Europe, because its motives were always doubted and in the political skepticism, which resulted from this questioning, Europe was able to articulate a debate on the nature of political power itself. The European political experiences, at the end of the Roman Empire, suggested that political power had to remain diffused and the nature of power, itself, should be based on the idea of compromise. Furthermore, it advocated that such a power should be balanced evenly and not allowed to be concentrated in the hands of one, or a combination of powers. The key criteria was that Europe favored a multi-polarity of powers and it wanted such an arrangement to exist because of the political leverage it allowed the weaker nations in comparison to the powerful nations of Europe. Therefore, Europe wanted to ensure that the fulcrum of political power tilted against centralized power by favoring a de-centralized power structure. Out of this early multi-polarity in European politics, there emerged a European tradition of political dissent, against a strong political power, which would periodically demand more political rights and resist attempts at the consolidation of power.
Unlike the Europeans, the Arabs were never able to initiate a debate on the nature of political power, because the early experiences of Arab politics did not allow the space for such a debate to occur. Arab political power drew its inspiration from the conduct of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), who practiced both the religious and secular aspects of power, with the result that Arab politics was never able to a create balance, between theocratic absolutism and political pragmatism. This form of centralized political power was the norm in Arab societies and as the Arab political structures matured, there was an increasing concentration of power in the hands of the ruler. The dictates of power were imposed instead of being shared, as was the case in Europe and also; in contrast to the European example of political co-existence, Arab political power, due to its theocratic influences, was disallowed to share political power and instead, it was prompted to subordinate all forms of politics in order to preserve the political integrity of Islam.``
The title of the article, was ``The Eclipse of the Cresent``.
Now, to answer your question.
Political Islam suffers from an actue sense of an inferiority complex and feelings of insecurity. The origins of this harks backs to the days, when Islam was struggling to establish itself in Arabia. The religion of Islam was seen as a political threat by the pre-Islamic societies of Arabia and as a result of this, Islam was openly and agressively persecuted. The fact that Islam and its followers were forced into exile and were still hounded, traumatized the early Muslims. Consequently, a consensus developed within the early Islam, that co-existence with non-Muslims, was not an option and if that Islam was to survive and prosper, it had to assert its own supremacy.
Due to this, Islam was never able to develop a level of political confidence in its own abilities. The early experiences of the Muslims and the lessons, which they learned from the politics of time, reinforced an idea, whose closest analogy would be the Masada Complex of the Jews. Since, Islam had explictly prohibited suicide and that was not an option, the only other resource was to remove the threat itself by force lest it threatened Islam and its political viability. This logic was the underlying reason behind the early Muslim campaigns, which were in reality wars of conquest undertaken with the express and stated aim of enlarging the bounderies of Islam. The extention of the bounderies was intended to protect the core of Islam; Arabia and by creating buffer-zones around it, which would be dominated by Muslims. Hence, the idea was to create a ``bubble of security`` within which Arabia and the seat of political Islam could exist in safety.
The first breach of this bubble of security, was the crusades. The crusades are generally seen a religious war, between Islam and Christianity, but in reality the conflict was not a religious affair as much as it was a political economic war to dominate the trade routes, which passed through the Muslim lands and via the Byzantine Empire into Europe. The motivating idea, behind the crusades was a political attempt by the Holy Roman Catholic Church to unite Europe under its influence and the best way to achive this end, was to stop the inter-European wars and unite the Europeans under the banner of the Church. Crusades, were seen as precedent by church, which would imply that in religious matters, the secular powers of Europe would be subordinated to the religious authority of the church.
On the Muslim side, the crusades were reacted to with a sense of a political angst. The crusades never threatened the religion of Islam, as much they threatened the political power of Islam in the region. The fact that the crusaders butchered everyone in Jerusalem and later sacked the Byzantine capital of Constantinople itself, belied the religious claims. The Muslims were fighting the Christians to protect their political power, which came from their ability to tax the trade, which passed through Muslim controlled lands and the price in all of this was Jerusalem - not because it was city of religious importance to both sides, but because it straddled the trade routes, and had a strategic geo-political importance.
The Muslim reaction, in the aftermath of the crusades, proved the non-religious hypothesis of the wars, because immediately afterwards the Muslim politics entered a period of orthodoxic status quo. Muslim tolerance and openess ended with the crusades, because the sense of security and safety, which Islam was able to engender after its early conquests, was shattered and in the mindsets of the Muslims, political Islam was threatened and had to be protected. However, the problem was that the crusades had brought about a contact, beween Islam and Christians and therefore, the only way political Islam could stop this contact, seen as a threat, was to adopt political and cultural isolationism from the west, whereby offering itself a zone of comfort, where it could recreate the ruptured bubble of security in order to preserve the nature of political Islam.
The last crusade was waged in the 1300s, and the Muslim reaction to it and its self-imposed isolationism would set in a slow, but gradual decline of Muslim fortunes, By early 1500s, Islam was evicted from southern Spain. The Muslim reaction was to ban all forms of change, technical developments and political thought within Muslim societies, which might endanger the political cohesion of Islam. The result was that while Europe was experimenting and progressing, Muslims were viewing progress in a negative light and as political Islam started to show and more signs of its power diminishing, Muslims political thought became more reactionary by seeking to emulate the political glory of Islam in its past as a solution to all its problems.
This is a very instrustive and a salient point, because it empathically suggests that a common consensus was developing, which argued that Islam`s political glory could only be attained as it was in the first instance - by armed conquest. The believe, amongsts Muslims, was that political Islam could not exist, as an equal to Christian Europe, but had to defeat and subjuate it. As Christainity was seen as the most tangible threat to Islam, it had to be defeated, because the growth of the west was bringing it closer and closer to the peripheries of the Muslim security zones.
The political resurgence of Islam, in this sense, was seen in the guise of the Ottoman Turkish conquest of eastern Europe. The conquest of eastern Europe, by the Turks, was again an attempt to push the bounderies of Islam further into Europe, but this could not sustained since the Turkish military conquest was based on a very weak economy. From 1500s to about 1919, the Turks were seen, by the rest of the Muslims as their final bulwark against the creeping of western political power. To the Muslims, western imperialism was tolerable as long as the Turkish Ottoman power was still existant and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire again brought about a feeling of insecurity in the Muslims, which still lingers to this day.
The colonization of large Muslim areas by the west and then the onset of World War I, followed by the inter-war politics and the Second World War did not allow the Muslims much opportunity to respond to the demise of political Islam. However, with Muslim lands gaining independence, this idea of a security bubble started to revive itself. At this point, another schism seems to have appeared in the Muslim political thought. This was the conflict, which existed, and still exists, in the Muslim politics, and it is between those leaders, who seek accomodation with the west and those, who reject it. The leaders, who favor rapprochement with the west, or any non-Muslim dominated society are labled anti-Muslim and a threat to Islam itself. The anti-thesis to this view is the demand to purify Islam by rejecting western influences from its politics and by re-creating it in its early manifestions.
This conflict allow exists on the level of the individuals. Hence, there is a significant majority of Muslims, which does not wish to co-exist with non-Muslims, because they have no wish to share their ``comfort zones`` with non-Muslims. This also explains, why Muslims do not intergrate into non-Muslim societies and why seek to create Muslim ghettos, where they can live in isolation from the mainstream society. The next phase in this self-imposed Muslim segregation is to demand an existence of their own enclaves based on their own laws, on religious grounds.
The irony of this is that Muslims are comfortable ruling over non-Muslims and promise them protection under Muslim laws, but are not willing to accept the promises of non-Muslims and are not comfortable being ruled by their laws. The result of this behavior is a mindset, which is very exclusive and not at all inclusive to towards equality and tolerance unless it is based on the notions of a Muslim supremac. Consequently, the most salient insight, which emerges from this into the Muslim political mind, is that Muslims by the virtue of their religion not only view themselves primus inter pares in a religious sense, but in every sphere of human activity.
The tangent of this view, as seen in the reaction of the Muslims, to the London bombings and the previous terrorist attacks intones an interesting observation. The Muslims` refusal to accept the Muslim mea culpa, in the terrorist acts in New York, Madrid and London, is not a result of a denial, but an admant refusal to adjust their political world views and admit that their historic antecents, to such a political philosophy, are misplaced in a world of global political, and cultural intergration. This is why, the Muslims are not willing to accept anything less than complete supremacy of their views and are not willing to co-exist peacefully, with non-Muslims.
Ciao
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#413 Posted by PewResearch on July 16, 2005 6:39:57 am
Re: # 407
Ferozk, thanks for a response that makes sense and does not require me to read other sources to digest. So, Muslims have not recovered psychologically since the Crusades and the result is hypersensitivity and insecurity in a significant percentage of the Muslims that has trapped them ever since? Could this lurking hypersensitivity and insecurity be the reason that results in an exaggerated sense of victimhood that in turn provides fertile soil for breeding homicide bombers from Bali to London? If your hypothesis is correct, then the responsibility of sorting out the centuries old psychological trauma rests primarily on the patient to recognize that he is need of therapy. Meaning the inclusivists have to finally prevail over the exclusivists who have so far held the day. This may take centuries to come about.
Tahmed: You are missing the point again. Friedman made a very specific assertion. Further, he is not in the same league as Falwell and the NYT does not accord Falwell the honor of regular Op/Ed column space on its esteemed pages. Your diffused response of `1 billion muslims...` is not what one would call a logically sound construct to disprove Friedman`s hypothesis. Thanks for trying. It just increases my worry that people like Ferozk are in a minority.
Ferozk, thanks for a response that makes sense and does not require me to read other sources to digest. So, Muslims have not recovered psychologically since the Crusades and the result is hypersensitivity and insecurity in a significant percentage of the Muslims that has trapped them ever since? Could this lurking hypersensitivity and insecurity be the reason that results in an exaggerated sense of victimhood that in turn provides fertile soil for breeding homicide bombers from Bali to London? If your hypothesis is correct, then the responsibility of sorting out the centuries old psychological trauma rests primarily on the patient to recognize that he is need of therapy. Meaning the inclusivists have to finally prevail over the exclusivists who have so far held the day. This may take centuries to come about.
Tahmed: You are missing the point again. Friedman made a very specific assertion. Further, he is not in the same league as Falwell and the NYT does not accord Falwell the honor of regular Op/Ed column space on its esteemed pages. Your diffused response of `1 billion muslims...` is not what one would call a logically sound construct to disprove Friedman`s hypothesis. Thanks for trying. It just increases my worry that people like Ferozk are in a minority.
#397 Posted by ana on July 15, 2005 4:32:21 pm
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.
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.
#396 Posted by arjun_m on July 15, 2005 3:59:37 pm
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.
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.
#395 Posted by arjun_m on July 15, 2005 3:37:05 pm
#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....
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....
#393 Posted by ana on July 15, 2005 3:04:26 pm
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.
talking about closing one`s eyes is such an irony depending on where it comes from.
#392 Posted by Romair on July 15, 2005 2:32:01 pm
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!!
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!!
#391 Posted by Romair on July 15, 2005 2:08:49 pm
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.......
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.......
#390 Posted by dost_mittar on July 15, 2005 2:08:16 pm
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.
``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.
#389 Posted by Romair on July 15, 2005 1:56:35 pm
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?
``.............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?
#388 Posted by Romair on July 15, 2005 1:30:02 pm
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............
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............
#387 Posted by dost_mittar on July 15, 2005 1:24:15 pm
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!]
``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!]
#386 Posted by tahmed32 on July 15, 2005 12:59:26 pm
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.
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.
#394 Posted by PewResearch on July 15, 2005 3:16:26 pm
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
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
#385 Posted by ana on July 15, 2005 12:49:29 pm
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.
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.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- treetop: these dudes NKG and... Hail Obama
- shasane: u cant accuse the... Urdu News Columnists and
- jang: oye yar, now if... Hail Obama
- sattar2: So folks, what’s the... Hail Obama
- KaalChakra: Chalta, US' primary is... G-8: RIP?
- CheGuevara: hehe lubricants... Politics of PPP and
- chaltahai: Lets take Neembu for... G-8: RIP?
- KaalChakra: chalta, who? Start with... G-8: RIP?
