London’s Hour of Reckoning

Re: #41 by ferozk

Feroz, as I have said MANY times, it is only a small minority of muslims that have the jehadi mindset.

The rest 90% go along either due to fear of social ostracization, or becuase they see no alternative.

I can see that you belong to those who feel a reformation is required. And there are MANY like you that I have met.

Unfortunately, however, this is an impossible task, in my opinion.

You cannot reform Naziism, and still follow Mein Kampf and Hitler.

It`s simply not possible.

As long as the Quran is considered a Holy book, and Muhammad a holy man, there will be people reading what is written in that book, and following Muhammad`s personal example.

The ONLY way would be to tear whole chapters and verses out of the Quran, and radically rewrite MUhammad`s life history. And destroy ALL historical evidence.

And I think that would be impossible.

So the only hope maybe will be for people to quit following this religion on an individual basis as they become more educated/enlightened. Which, I`m afraid, sounds very far-fetched.

ajeya, mohar

Let`s give Ferozk and Romair an opportunity to discuss it out. If they reach a resolution that works for non Muslims, all of us will be better off!

re: Romair (various)

Romair, the point of my comments is that Muslims will, now, have to get involved in the fight. Muslims cannot let the western nations fight to save Islam, because then if the Muslims are not willing to fight to save Islam, then the cause of Islam is already lost. Either they fight politically or with armed force, the Muslims have to get involved and can no longer remain as idle spectators whining how the rest of the world misunderstands Islam.

Ciao

Re: # 49

``So the only hope maybe will be for people to quit following this religion on an individual basis as they become more educated/enlightened. Which, I`m afraid, sounds very far-fetched``

First of all, nothing is impossible and secondly; it might just come to this solution.

Ciao

Re: #52 by ferozk

[First of all, nothing is impossible and secondly; it might just come to this solution]


I sincerely hope you are right. For the betterment of ALL of humanity and peace in the world.

Sorry for pasting duplicate info. from another board.. but found this relevant..

---

For those folks who are of the opinion the ``terrorists`` are misinterpreting Quran, the following verses from the Quran would clarify any doubts..

008.012
YUSUFALI: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): ``I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.``

008.065
YUSUFALI: O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding

009.005
YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

009.014
YUSUFALI: Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers

009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Reference:
Holy Quran

Re: #54 by masanamuthu

I sometimes wonder how it is that people like Romair rationalize these verses (let alone the good Prophet’s exploits). What do they tell themselves, I wonder. How much lying to yourself do you have to do to maintain “faith” in the Quran and the good Prophet. And how do they do it?

Ajeya: #55

I addressed that to ``Romair`` in one of the previous boards about the ``hate speech`` found in Quran, but he ignored it..

RE: #56 by masanamuthu

I have thought about this.

I think that because just like any cult, since Islam eats into the soul of any culture, and becomes its only theme, Muslims CANNOT accept that EVERYTHING that their culture is based on (like all the religious events, communal prayers, feasting, fasting etc.) is based on this monstrosity.

Also there is the family and society angle. They probably think, if Islam is so bad, then how come my father, who was a fervent believer, was SUCH a good man? And my mother? And my siblings? Who I KNOW are good people? And all my relatives?

It is difficult to accept it.

What they don`t realize is that good people often are, and historically often have been, misled by any number of cults. And also that people generally unquestioningly follow the religion handed down to them, in EVERY religion in every part of the world. And Muslims do the same.

And then there is the question of religion being a mental crutch. Most human beings need a crutch, and what better than something familiar and comfortable?

So Romair types would always try to ignore any evidence that makes them feel uncomfortable and on unstable footing.

Feroz Re: # 33 {``...The turning point in the war on terrorism has been reached and passed. It was marked by the reponse of the Londoners, ...``}

I am both surprised and encouraged by your optimistic tone. I also admire the response of the British, yet I am not sure that they will make a hill of beans in the GWOT. It is the US that is the real 800 pound gorilla (or Bre`er Fox re the subsequent metaphor) and will keep punching the tar baby, no matter what. I see little possibility that Blair will be able to change Bush`s approach, nor that of any subsequent US president.

I sincerely doubt that we have reached the turning point. Just wait until the terrorists use their first WMD.

Perhaps the terrorists will go quiescent for a while, but the price will be a great loss of freedom in the West (at least in the US, where the Bill of Rights is fast becoming anachronistic) and I doubt that it will happen without considerable oppression of their Mid East origin citizens. At the US history is rife with examples.

The British civility, touching as it may be, is not visible beyond the white cliffs of Dover.

...SR

zeemax Re: # 34 {...As for the ... deliberate killing of innocent civilians ... did America deliberately kill innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki... started the precedent that deliberate murder of civilians is OK if the objective is sufficiently compelling !!! ...``}

The nuking of innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, beyond question, reprehensible acts of barbarism. But is that a justification for reprehensible acts of barbarism now...? If you accept that the barbaric act of killing innocent civilian Jews in Nazi Germany cannot be used by Israel as a justification today to commit atrocities on innocent Palastininan civilians, then you must also not quote the example of America having obliterated the Red Indians, or the Japanese, nor Brigadier Dyer killing innocent civilians in Jallayan walla Bagh, nor the na-Pak Fauj murdering Bengalis, nor Isebella and Ferdinand killing (1492) thousands of Moorish civilians to somehow explain away today`s barbaric acts of murdering civilians in New York, London, Karachi and Madrid. This perverse logic that employs the sins of the father argument is extremely dubious. Karma some might call it, but it is apologism in poor taste.

...SR

SR:

``If you accept that the barbaric act of killing innocent civilian Jews in Nazi Germany cannot be used by Israel as a justification today to commit atrocities on innocent Palastininan civilians,...``

...Could you please tell when did Israel do that, namely, use the killing of jews by nazis to justify atrocities on innocent Palistinians? Having used to justify the existence of a jewish state is not the same thing.
(from someone who is accused of being anti-jew on another board)

..But I do agree with the following statement:
``I sincerely doubt that we have reached the turning point. Just wait until the terrorists use their first WMD.``

...until then those who think that there is no need to lead protest marches against the sponsors of London attacks can live in their delusionary world.

Ferozek #51: ``Romair, the point of my comments is that Muslims will, now, have to get involved in the fight. Muslims cannot let the western nations fight to save Islam, because then if the Muslims are not willing to fight to save Islam, then the cause of Islam is already lost. Either they fight politically or with armed force``

What exactly are you suggesting? Should Muslim countries send their forces into Iraq? Should they send their forces into Afghanistan? What should they do?

All I can see is that they should denounce this act as terrorism. I would expect this to be the minimum standard for any human being. Be they Muslim or any other religion.

Other than that, in this whole GWOT there have been order of magnitude more Muslims killed than people of any other faith. The total number of Christians killed is roughly 6000 - 4000 in WTC + 1700 in Iraq + 300 in Spain + 50 in London.

The total number of Muslims killed is well over 100,000 now. In fact, the country that has faced the most attacks is Pakistan. It faced attacks like the one in London, multiple times. It`s President was targeted twice. It lost 500 soldiers on the Afghan border, alone. And has 170,000 troops deployed on the Afghan border (that is more than the Americans and Brits combined in Iraq).

I don`t even think Muslims can solve this by themselves. There were people like myself, who were arguing, at the top of their lungs, that the USA and UK should not attack Iraq. Because it would lead to circumstances like this. Did anyone listen? I had also argued that the USA should give the proof that it had against OBL to the Taliban, after which they were willing to hand him over. Did anyone listen? I also stated that instead of spending $200 billion bombing Iraq, the USA should spend a fraction of that (perhaps $20 billion) on rebuilding Afghanistan. Did anyone listen?

And I am arguing right now that instead of waving flags, the solution is to reduce this circle of violence, by starting to vacate Iraq. Is anyone going to listen? I doubt it. And I can make a bet another bomb will thus explode somewhere...........After which we will hear the same flag-waving rhetoric........

This is why I cannot figure out the emotional logic behind Muslims need to do this and do that. You are making it sound like a one-way street. As if someone just came a blew up a bomb in London, just to get his jollies. While his act cannot be justified, if one wants to avoid future attacks, one has to at least analyze his reasonings.........if for no other reasons then to save the lives of Londoners, in the future........

The only thing I can see that the Muslims can do is to convince the USA and UK to get out of Iraq. Which many Muslims, like myself are trying to do. Because that is the catalyst of this current terrorism in Europe, at least. Unless, of course, you think this was a random act. Unfortunately, people like myself end up running into too many gung-ho war enthusiasts on the other end, who keep wanting to continue their side of the killings, and are somehow miraculously hoping that there will be no blowback from that............

I have no clue how to solve such a situation, where one party wants to keep fighting, but it wants the other party to stop.........If you have any ideas, I am all ears.........

ferozk #36 Good to see your posts here as well, my friend. I have been fine, and hope all is well with you and yours as well.

There is no doubt about this ``battle for the soul of Islam``, the hour for which you say has arrived in Pakistan. I would say that this war has essentially been underway ever since maududi first came to pakistan and made politicization of Islam his major goal. I have attempted below to analyze the ``War Situation`` by breaking it down into various ``battlefields`` below, as follows:

1. The Battle of the Ballot Box: This is where the initial battles took place - in the voting booth. Islamists failed to capture the imagination of the average voter, and so suffered humiliating defeats. They gained ``second wind`` when musharaff rendered the mainstream parties headless while tilting elections in favor of islamists.

Current status: Civilized Society - 0. Jahil Society - 1.
Mainstream parties have been put in disarray by musharraf`s opposition to them. Masses remain suspicious of maulvis and somewhat resentful of military rule.

2. The Battle for the Officers Corps: Winning this battle is vital to prevent a complete route of Civilized Society from the forces of Jehaliyat. However, winning this battle does not win the war for Civilized Society - it merely secures a fatal breach in the wall. This battle has been taking place quietly, largely away from the public eye. Zia fired the first shot by elevating maulvi officers to key positions, including ISI. The traditional officer`s corps struck back after Zia`s death, and quietly and without fanfare removed these officers.

Current status: Civilized Society - 1. Jahil Society - 0. However, as noted, winning this Battle by Civilized society merely prevents a complete route of Civilized Society. Winning it does not mean a decisive victory - which can only take place when the Officers Corps themselves are made subservient to elected officials.

3. The Battle for Abdul`s Mind: (Abdul being hamidm`s term for the Poor Man in Pakistan). Again, Zia opened this battle by channeling funds from his below-the-line zikat tax funds and from the vast sums (as much as a few hundred million dollars every year) of saudi money to enlist boys from poor families in his struggle. These boys were shifted to madrassahs with promises of ``free education, room and board`` to their poverty stricken parents, then many of them trained to be cannon fodder by giving them dreams of becoming Rambo-like ``commandos``. However, the elimination of Afghanistan after 9/11 as a breeding ground for terrorism, and the peace moves on Kashmir, has brought an end to the policy of ``proxy wars``. Civilized society is now on the counterattack - with massive funds for poverty alleviation and education programs, and improved economic prospectsof Pakistan lending strength to this counterattack.

Current status: Civilized Society - 1. Jehaliyat - 0.

These are some key battlegrounds. Just thought I would spell these out.

further to #62 whoops. While the battles listed are the critical ones in the Armageddon you mention within Pakistan, the battle most immediately relevent from point of view of london bombings is of course the Battle of the Foreign Legion.

The foreign legion being the 2-3 million expatriate Pakistani community, which is part of a much larger muslim community (perhaps 10 million in the US, and as much as 10 percent of the population in france and some other european nations I think) that has developed in europe and US. This is a newly emerging battlefield, and I dont think the outcome is in doubt: most expatriate muslims are in fact too busy eduating itself and seeking to build careers and businesses to be interested in killing their fellow citizens. And even if they were, there is no way they could win - the US and the UK which have in the past shown their mettle against far more better organized and far more powerful oppponents (nazi germans, japanese, communists). And, as I said earlier, the G-8 summit showed that the rest of the civilized world (including french, germans as well as russia, india, china) are fully with them. So, time for even the most delusional expatriate ``muslim`` extremist to wake up and smell the coffee.

re: tahmed32 # 62 & 63

I would agree, with your comments.

Thanks for asking - I am fine as fine can be....


re: Romair # 61

Romair, I am not suggesting that the Muslim states send their armies into Iraq. If you would care to remember, I was and, am still, against the war in Iraq. Neither, am I, or was, suggesting that Muslims should invade Afghanistan. My comments were designed to impress the fact the Muslim will have to root out this evil, from within their societies, themselves. Muslims have to speak out against these groups and marginalize them and any failures on the part of the Muslims, to address this problem will have dire results.

The Muslims have a very simple choice. Either they root out the problem themselves or see the world root out the problem for them. I was suggesting that the Muslims do this job themselves, because if they delegate this chore to the world; I promise you that in the process of ending scourge of Islamic terrorism, the world will force a series of political reforms upon Islam, which no Muslim nation will be in a position to deny. Are you willing to accept that bargain?

The bottom line of my argument is: either the Muslims institute reforms in Islam or the world will reform Islam and neuter it. Muslims have to solve this by themselves and if they cannot; then they have no reason to gripe or whine or cry crocodile tears of being made an example, when world solves this problem. Right now, the Muslims have a choice, with wide reaching consequences - either they become a part of the solution or they will be seen as a part of the problem by the world; an impression, which is already gaining acceptance.

Secondly, Romair, what is wrong is wrong and cannot be hidden or explained or justified by the use of a common denominator of statistics indexed to a scale of comparative sufferings. It makes no difference, whether Pakistan has suffered more than London or more people died as result of the Anglo-American policies on Iraq and Afghanistan. The loss of linnocence life was terrible, but the idea of the future loss of innocence life is a more frightening prospect. There is not much, which can be done about the past, but the future can still be influneced. What is right is right regardless of the costs involved.

The point, Romair, which seems to escape your analysis, is a past wrong does not condone a future wrong. It is for this very reason that your oft quoted ``circle of violence`` will never shrink but will continue to expand if you play a mathematical game, which justifies violence on the basis of violence itself. In fact and in deed, the circle of violence will end only if the people, who engage in the acts of violence are removed from the equation and for that to happen, force might be required when diplomatic and political entreaties fail.

As to your arguments about ``analyzing his reasons...``, it still does not lessen the fact that Muslims and Muslim societies will have to still root out this evil. My reply to you is: let the west analyze his reasons and let the Muslim get on with the task of fighting their own battles in ending this problem.

I hope this post explains my reasons to you.

Ciao