Living Together

By now I am pretty sure that this guy 'tahir' is implanted by Danish secret police (in conjunction with Germans) to defame Islam.

The way he is frantically behaving at chowk and picking up indiscriminate fights is just giving bad name to the calibre of Muslim interactors.

A revealing example is his fight with …mojo when …mojo posted protest for desecrating Quran by another interactor.

For this I heartily commend mojo, that in spite of his atheistic beliefs, he showed a great moral sense and strength of character. In contrast, this man with monkey at his back started attacking mojo only because mojo was doing it not for religious reasons but ethical reasons.

Since then, I am left with no respect for this man.

Actually, if I start thinking in terms of 'conspiracy theorists' I can pretty well say that this man is implanted by CIA or someone like that to give bad name to Islam.
Anyone who watches his behaviour and words (and wa'hyaat posts) can see what I mean. Displaying a behaviour of extrem bigotry and intolerance, he attacks anyone who brings some sense of reason to theology. He cannot stand a thought different from his own squinted vision, no matter if it is based on rich Islamic traditions.

In his last post now he is even hurling physical threats to me. If he is not a CIA agent then he is Swati or Chakwali talib in true sense. Thanks that he is not in my hometown otherwise I will report him to Police for hate crimes.

Tahir! it is you who keep coming across my way – not the other way round. It is you who do not spare a single opportunity to attack others. So don’t tell me not to cross your way. Just watch your own steps. Now, calm down and do something positive – don’t waste your time on ChowQ please.

Posted by quin on Sunday April 5, 2009 07:39 am

For TAHIR:

naach naach naach bunder naach
chowQ ki sunder dugdagee per dikhaya ja upna naach

You truly are a laughing stock of this website - your favourite ChowQ. And every body knows it except you.

I have never come across a more foolish and ludicrous person in my life. A shame for all muslims.

And not just utterly absurd, but totally crazy, hysterical and fanatical. And extremely 'paindoo'.

You definitely qualifies for a psychological assessment by Dr. Khalid Sohail. It seems that the poison of on-line ivy has gone into your head. If action is not taken quickly enough you will end up in an asylum.

Take care,

Thank you again quin.

Pls. read as Re # 7 instead of Re # 5 , in my last interact.

Re: # 21 and oh, please replace 'senseless' with either 'sensitive' adding 'seeker' to it or 'receptive' adding 'thinker' to it - or rather both.

Re: # 21 It is my pleasure and it was worth the effort as it educated me in so many ways.
I am humbly grateful.

Re # 20

Thank you for taking all that (sweat and) pain and uncompromised deviousness to explain the intricacies and delicacies of this intriguing poem. Now makes more sense to a senseless person like me:)

Re # 5

If anything, bending my shoulders never meant providing any room to facilitate your gun.

I am convinced you have got plenty of vantage points and space of your own to launch your mock and pun attacks. Spare me for now.

Re # 3 & 6:
As I re-read some of the comments on this poem, I thought that probably I am duty bound to explain my poem. The noble commentators did not explicitly ask me to explain it but nevertheless alluded to the aspect of 'ambiguity' in the poem.

In my earlier poem “God of Many Needs� one commentator had wryly challenged me to explain the poem. Though I believe explaining a poem is no less awkward than explaining a piece of music, I decided to help the reader at least by giving some cues. To come up with some viable cue, I re-read my poem and while reading it, suddenly an idea shot trough my mind. Substitution. Those who have read that poem will find it easier to know what I mean by substitution. Here it is. I came up with a simple solution – substitute the word ‘God’ with ‘Man’ and see what it can do for you. And there it was. The irksome commentator, being an incurable cynic, won’t admit it but it was on bull’s eye, which I could see from the lacklustre response.

That the substitution did help to understand the poem was later affirmed by another reader. This second reader’s first reaction was
“Seriously, had never read more no sense making poem than this one. What is it about?�

After my suggestion about substitution, an open and honest response came back as
“just read your post#31, where u said to replace word God with word Man and i have to apologize or rather applaud u poem. things fell into place and i loved it. beautifully done�

For me this was one of the greatest compliment I have received and precious compensation for my hard work. Thank you.

I have gone off track but only in order to set the settings. So back to this poem, “Living Together�. I re-read and I see that how at one instant the meaning may comes to grips and how on the next it can slip away. Though ‘ambiguity’ in poetry is a known phenomenon and has been used as a device to create an artistic ambience, but it should never compromise the coherence. Earlier I had responded thus:

“… it is the nature of this unruly beast: poetry; a spectre of self, raising thousand questions and giving no definite answers. It is more like a dream awakened with a heightened sense of awareness and as we know, no one always totally understands the dreams - not even the dreamer. One can only try in words to convey some sense of ambience of that state of mind, and that is why we have art and thanks God that we have it. Otherwise our hearts may turn into bricks and stones.
(And are not all of us dreamers in one way or other - to make this world better?)�

And earlier I have said,

“No doubt poetry is such an unruly beast. As it rises from the depths of unconscious, not even a poet knows what it is up to. Ultimately an incomprehensible spectre of self - that is where all the fun as well as the pain is. We all are in it together.�

In those exchanges I tried to emphasize that I myself being an element in that creation process, that is, being only one element of a complex progression, may not be able to grasp every thing. But as I kept pondering over it, I realized that, at least, I have the advantage of being a direct witness to the process. That is why when in the last poem I tried to explain, I did end up with a helpful device. So I must try for this too - even at the risk of being misunderstood, half-understood or making it less than what it is.

How about if I give an outline of the underlying thoughts/feeling/ sentiments, over which this formation of linguistic structure /form evolved?

I was in an immense rapture of gratefulness when the poem started to form. Feeling of sudden thankfulness for this fleeting life; in the middle of this intense drama - drama of our existence – all this perception not in some logical linear way, but as thunder ball across the mind’s sky or over valley’s of the heart. I said ours drama of existence - not mine. Think of this, that if you are removed from all others, can you be what you are. I find this an intriguing idea that we absolutely cannot live without others. Look even at people who are throwing grenades at each others (or verbal slings at chowk). They need the others, even to kill, so that they can live. So there is no existence without others. We live with others – not only that – but if you think of it – we live in each other. We are someone else’s tormentors or soothers and others are ours. Sounds simple in linear writing but when it flashes in soul’s night it is some drama to watch. Always – as far as we live – until we die are in this together. It is a different matter if we realize it so or not. Making sense so far?

To continue: and that thought brought another though back to me from the repertoire of my wonderings or wanderings. Why the great minds of the worlds, even the most spiritualist one, which at some stage of their life have completely withdrawn from life did not or could not stay in that seclusion forever. As soon as they saw the light, they wanted to share it with others. Why – why the hell. The answer is simple – we are not separate – we are one - like blood in the veins. It is all one organ. It is all YOU – YOU – YOU which is almost as I – I – I.

But do we reach at the stage where we can realize that. Do we? Do we ever? And that is the pondering to where the last part of poem leads to. And I won’t spoil the enjoyment of the last part – with its colouring, with its ambiguity, with its haze, so that the readers can slowly unveil at self pace. I hope I can be forgiven for this final deviousness. But by now, I hope it is not that tedious.

To end this rather long post, I want to quote slightly modified words of Rita Mae Brown's from her "Starting From Scratch - A Different Kind of Writer's Manual"

“There is a geography of intellect. The brain locates function. Speaking is separate from and not connected to your centre for writing. (And so is poetry. Poetry is separate from and is not directly connected to your centre for writing prose). ... Language must be connected to reality. The words ‘red hot’ instead of fire tell you something about the reality. The speaker is getting as close as s/he can to the object/event without being able to find the correct word ... They are speaking in English, yet it's a slightly different language"

#18

Cheema sahib,

Thought you would call me an " existentialist maniac" like the rest of my friends here after hearing this declaration. :)

A surprizing reply, indeed!
-E

Re: # 17

LOL!! ... all hail Enam Hassan ... the 'mahdi' of our times! (thumbs up icon)

Cheema sahib,

Interesting. I can smell something like love of freewill here.

Actually, these days I am trying to formulate a new belief system, whose primary premise is borrowed from Christianity - the punishment of Sin committed. My contribution is the deletion of God's existence from the old story. Sounds neurotic, I guess!
Check this out...
"Being is Sin; Becoming is Punishment". How's that?
-E

Re: # 15

... and the probability of that is even less with theory of 'all-in-one and one-in-all' ... and all this exuberant 'love' thing quin sahib speaks of

though he is very much entitled to his point of view and I respect that right very much

Enam ... all I can say for myself is that either 'I' (i.e., the 'creation') exist or 'God - the creator' ... both cannot co-exist

and THAT is the foundation of my 'belief'.

Re: # 5

Cheema sahib,

Don't get me wrong this time. I only meant to say: "it's over, darling!" :)

Clarification: And this time I meant, the I-God sessions in purely existentialist way.

Have a silk evening! :)
-E

#2
Quin,

That frequency is not so difficult to catch on. I think you poets can do that as well. Just get off your poetic fence of dictation, forget the poetic liscence.

And I am NOT suggesting anything here. :)

Your science of poetry is surely a damned 'private dancer' to Sociology. I am still waiting to see one word of poetry falling out of this supposed sociological realm.

Oh the silence of the soul. God! When will this silence be broken? And what is it that's gonna break it apart, if not today's world situation?

"I hope that it is a turning point for humanity to declutch themselves from the claws of slavery of depraved materialism"

Hope you probably mean "materialism" as literal, not philosophical. Btw, what kind of an ancient statement is that? What's it that you are looking for, quin, if not an advanced and humane form of Materialism in your proposed evolution of Man from here on, I wonder?

P.S: By the way, I have an old case against poetry, love, and God. All things "existentialist" need to be rejected at any cost, I believe. So, no hard feelings!
-E

My post # 10 responds only to the last line addressed to me in post #7.

Someone posted this 'shaer' on Chowk iLog that I liked very much:

"Zahid, nigah e kam say kisi rind ko na daikha kar
kia janay Uss Kareem ko tu hai kay woh pasand "

And I had posted the following earlier:

"Ignorance’ black tongue,
By intolerance stung,
By conceit swollen,
Scornfully flung,
Leaps
At the sight of every novelty."