Wake up Deluded Muslims

Alahambra wrote:

``Deluded Muslims are those who keep women in servility and thus contribute to ignorance in children which ultimately results in an ignorant population, all in the name of religion.``

Not really. Women, no matter how empowered, do not educate children. That`s the assigned responsibility of state institutions. In fact, if women are empancipated in the western, radical-feminist sense, these institutions are perhaps the closest thing children will have to parents. Mom and Dad will be too busy at work trying to earn enough dough for the second BMW.

If your intent was to ridicule Muslims for their so-called sorry state (i.e. their lack of development which makes them an insignificant market and thus by the standards of western consumerism worthless), I can`t share your sentiment.

I don`t mind ``backwardness``. I despise abuse.

So if the prevelance of abuse perpetrated not only against women but all of the vulnerable in society is what bothers you then I sympathize. I would go so far as to say that if the Taliban weren`t so *abusive * towards women, I`d pretty much be a supporter of their movement.

``Why don`t we think of ourselves as ordinary human beings first instead of thinking as having inherited some ``special culture`` from heaven?``

Why? There is nothing in human nature that is inherintly virtuous. Virtue must be worked at. Hence we aspire to a dogmatic ideal, and not some mythical property of a species.

This article says it all.

So,O muslims! wake up. Stop your garbage of Ittehad and Zihad and what not, because there is none.You want to know what is important for a typical muslim today? What food is haram and what is hallal?Whether a man should have a beared and a woman should wear scarf? What will make him go straight to heaven. Let every body kick your ass and expect Allah the Almighty to somehow protect you miraculously without doing any anything to protect yourself. Just like what is happening in Iraq. They keep on dropping bombs, missiles and what not without any resistance from Iraq.

Everybody knows that the muslims don`t have the fire power of the west.However;there are million things they can do to fight the west on different fronts.Use your brain to find what I am talking about, because I am going to spoon feed you are grown accustommed to. It is pathetic to know that in this day of age these muslim contries can`t produce anything of value and have to depent on the west for basic things needed for survival including protecting there motherland. Shame on you muslims.

If your leader is garbage then put him in his place i.e. garbage can. Why do you expect west or the east to do it for you? Of course there are sacrifices to be made.Who said fredom comes cheap.

Millions of people died in civil war before the real freedom came to USA.So wake up muslims, otherwise you ain`t seen nothing yet.

This article is a perfect example of how people generalize a situation (an attack..) and conclude (..on muslims), rather than analyze the situation (alleged retaliation on terrorist training sites)to find facts. Althugh the author is very vague (major western country, scapegoat etc) in disecting ``this situation``, the author is very sure that there is a conspiracy brewing towards muslims in a major western country. I do not believe that there is an issue of religion in this situation. But than, author is as much entitled to an opinion as I am.

Reply to Sattar

Obviously I have touched a raw nerve somewhere ... you have blasted off at a tangent, the triggering point being my remark about ``.the rationale of an Instinctive Apologist``. Once you cool down my dear friend perhaps you will realize that I have not insulted your intelligence or honor or some cherished notion or whatever it is that you so deeply care about. My reference to a particular expected reaction i.e the Instinctive Apologist was not intended with malice towards anyone. It is a completely general observation, surely I am not the first to talk about general categories of human responses concerning social issues. You will find many people in literature who have chosen to a categorization in order to elucidate their point.

You write: ``there very well may be a systematic ``anti-Muslim`` bias in the policies of western countries (say US). But this bias pales in comparison to the internal problems ...``

My friend, when have I denied the presence of internal problems? If you had actually read the article and its subsequent replies/discussion carefully (and not emotively), you would not have committed this glaring mistake. I have repeatedly affirmed that, and my response to that was ``If you propose a more even-handed and a balanced analysis, then you should not swing to the other extreme either.``

Regarding the lack of intelligence or common-sense, I believe once you have cooled down you will easily find who is lacking these qualities... if you could remind yourself what was the scope of my article, as many other readers were perceptive enough to gather, you will agree with me. I am just talking about the presence of a bias, and a realization of it by the people biased against. We should talk strictly within this context.

Now, within this context, you will find that your responses are incoherent and do not conform to any one model or conclusion. It is merely criticism for the sake of criticism. Therefore you cannot propose a model that can be contrasted with what I have presented. I have proposed a model of how I believe certain things work in international relations, and I have bolstered them with concrete references, that I really believe you should think about (once you cool down). No wonder you cannot make a consistent criticism or present a shred of support to anything that you say. However, you do proceed to lose your temper, since that is easy. However, being a student of human psychology, I find the presence of personal attacks in your reply to be very expected, and all too familiar a phenomenon, whose details are best left unsaid. Needless to say, they only serve to undermine your already ambiguous position.

I am amused by your comments though, but believe me, after reading them I really wish that you had provided me with something more substantial, as others have. Maybe in the future :)

cheerio and take care!

re: Saima

Very good points. good read as well. I particularly like the way you have described religion (my view, as well), and how human nature (the one common denominator across all religions) does affect it (forming clans, different cultures, etc.) Also the point about the real conflict being between capitalism/socialism and how Communism and God are issues of belief in different directions.

I would like to take this further and say that religion(any), as I see it, is dated. It addresses social evils of a particular time in a particular place. It can be seen as ``primitive and basic way of organizing social institutions`` which ``inhibits broad based political development.`` And that is why a lot of the world has moved beyond it. (Saima, on a side note, check out Bahai`ism. Being the newest religion, and born where it was, when it was, has a lot of cool features for women.)

Religion, politics, philosophy, culture , etc. all can be separated from each other. And people around the world have done so. America, for example, started with ``separation of Church and State``, came up with secularism and pursued Capitalism with fervor. They saw the mixing of religion and politics as a big problem in the ``old world`` and re-defined their society with different goals and objectives. They saw poverty, rich/poor divide as the main social evils and created/unleashed capitalism. Capitalism, to a great extent, has rendered religion (more recently communism) irrelevant. Everything is market driven and ``must pay for itself``. This in turn has created an ``American`` culture which is taking over the world. The internet, MTV, clothes, fashion, cutoms, language, satellite TV, movies are all products of this capitalistic culture. This is what the ROW sees as a threat.

Islam (actually Mr. Sina`s view)IMHO, sees religion as all-encompassing and this includes politics, philosophy, clothes, culture, and everything else. On one of these forums we even discussed how Islam dictates foriegn policy based on religion. There lies the difference. Where I would see an economic interest he may see religious bias. Where I may see foriegn policy based on self-interest and politics, he will see something related to religion.

I just see this whole conflict as the ``Church`` of religion against the ``sect`` of Capitalism.

regards

Ashish

Re : Saima Shah...

well written

Reply to Rishi

I agree with you on the connection between an individual`s perceptions and his/her background. To an extent, this holds of the Western-Muslim issue that I have mentioned, after all if two ``monolithic`` cultures, or effectively so, turn their focus on each other, they are bound to view each other in certain ways. I was hoping to address this issue in a different article though ... :)

Re : Ibne Sina

The single mindedness with which you refer to religion as all encompassing was quite confounding to me till i read your reply to Saima Shah.

You say, :

``

It is not as simple to dissociate religion or politics from culture or vice versa. If I were to ask you to define the culture of Saudi Arabia or Iran or Indonesia or Marrakesh, how far would you go without involving religion into it?

``

Reply :

Now after this reply, i understand your point of view more than before. Hailing from a nation which is monotheistic could well be the rationale behind your arguments. I now understand where you come from or atleast think so.

However to let you know where i come from, i can fathom the United States as a christian country, the middle east (and pakistan) as a muslim country

Israel as a jewish country because, the very mention of these countries raises religious imageries peculiar and particular to them. However, when i think of india , i cannot relate to Hinduism alone. Granted that Hinduism is the major religion, but then given the myriad branches, sects, and not to mention the gross multiplicities of gods in Hinduism, India does not raise the imagery of mono-religion in me however much the BJP tries . I simultaneously raise imageries of all the various sects, religions, places of worship in my mind whenever i think of india. For all the hinduism in india, the lack of any unity or monotheism helps in letting other religions flourish as well.

For me religion is just secondary. Humanity is different from religion and India is not hinduism.

Probably for you it is not so, Pakistan is Muslim, the West is Christian, and India is Hinduism..... Different upbringings, different perceptions, different viewpoints...

Reply to Saima Shah

You have made very interesting comments, I will go through them one by one, as you have done. (However, we should keep the context of this entire discussion in mind otherwise we will get hopelessly lost...)

You write:

``My view is that the Muslim world is not oppressed by those outside but oppressed from inside because of its narrow vision....``

If you mean that the Muslim world is ENTIRELY oppressed by those inside, then I do not agree with you. A mixture of two is admissable, and as I have stated earlier, is not denied by me anywhere.

You write:

``I also distinctly got the feeling that your article/thesis is about power.``

You are right, it is about power, as any useful discussion about social organization should be. One may try in any way but one cannot escape the fact that societies are hierarchies of power structures.

You write:

``There is a systematic bias of the West against anything sustantially different from itself. That is human nature.``

I dont know how to interpret your response. Does this make this bias justifiable? Does its existence at a basic human level imply that we should be deliberately blind to it? The presence of an intra-religious bias (sunni/shii, catholic/protestant etc.) does not somehow make inter-religious bias justifiable. The same holds for cultural biases, which is more along the lines of what you were saying. If one of my relatives is murdered, and someone comes to me and says that the world is full of murder, does it mean that I should not grieve/protest/seek justice?

Now regarding anti-Muslimism... again I am somewhat amused by the way you side-stepped my direct question. My question is simply, ``Does anti-Muslimism (to use the term coined by Fred Halliday, mentioned in my references) exist, on par with anti-Semitism etc.? `` As I say in my article, ``This term should connotate, as much as others do, an irrational, deep-seeted and insidious hatred against people of Islamic descent that leads to violent and oppressive policies and actions. `` When someone talks of ``anti-Semitism`` for example, one does not question the internal affairs of the Jewish community, but instead refers to the mindset of non-Jewish participants who choose to treat a group of people in a certain way based upon their beliefs etc.

In my article, I am simply trying to point out that this phenomenon exists and Muslims should recognize it. In an ideal world it would not, and I personally would rather have it go away. But given that it is there, must one keep on not recognizing it? It is only after recognition that one can approach ways of dealing with it?

It has been very interesting for me to note that some people on this forum have tended to eventually accept this phenomenon in a rather circuitous way, but no one seems to be able to digest this simple argument when they come across it initially. It is almost like making a Kuhnian paradigm shift. (Please refer to paras 5 and 8 of my article, also reply 10).

You write:

``I wonder how we Muslims would feel if a Western author wrote that the Western world should unite against the bigotry/oppression of the Muslims?``

Actually I wonder how too... I have provided a LONG list of references where western authors do PRECISELY that (see reply no 43 and 45). There is a sanity to this insanity!

About religion:

Again I think that we are getting confused about the issues here. There is a difference between the ideals and implementation of religions also. I would not get into that again because that would be side-stepping the issues here. However, simply put, to state that religion is a product of a primitive mind is deeply flawed and in my view reminiscent of the ideas of social anthropologists of late 19th century who wished to understand the lives of uncivilized savages in terms of their `modernistic` ideas. They would simplify the mechanism of religion to a point of absurdity, not even realizing the powerful forces at work within their own psyches. Amongst others in the West, Jung was eminent is exposing the fallacies of these methods. To deny the need for religion in humans as they are, whatever form it may take, is deeply flawed. And similarly, to treat all religious arguments and motivations in human actions and discourse as primitive is absurd. My reference to communism was entirely within this context, i.e. a large scale experiment in God-lessness in recent history. It`s fate is all too well known.

Moreover, your example of hypothetical humanism is (a) itself merely a belief or your own religion completely at par with any other in terms of its verifiability and (b) already existent in different forms in nearly all present religions. Can you imagine a futuristic hegemonistic state where `humanism` is the official creed and people are persecuted because of it. We already see an increasingly clear demarcation between those who support `freedom` and those who do not in the `tolerant` western nations. That elucidates the difference between the ideals and their implementation.

You wrote:

``I recall Iqbal being so progressive in his poetry ... And Gandhi preached equality, justice and tolerance ... I cannot recall a single one saying that someone else is the culprit... ``

And I cannot recall either of these two gentlemen NOT recognizing the way the western colonial powers worked. I have not, like them, blamed it all on the west, and also neither have I blamed it all on the muslims.

You write:

``I can ask why is it that religion is used primitively? why the temptation?``

It is not correct to assume that ONLY religion is treated primitively. Democracy, freedom, and your example of humanism are and will be treated equally primitively. But that surely a separate discussion.

cheerio.

Reply to Sattar

Let me first reply to your critique on the style of the article ... You wrote: ``I find the author`s analysis of the ``Muslim-vs-western world`` too dramatic and sensationalized. The arguments are too simplistic and based upon raw emotions, and the language is too strong and negative.`` Maybe you could provide me with a formula that determines what the optimum should be in this case? :) What exactly does one mean by ``TOO``?

First, let me say, that I am not, and have not condoned terrorism anywhere. Therefore we should not be arguing about that. The point of the article is something different, and we should keep that in mind lest we wander too much off the issue.

Yes, the bombings were conducted in two embassies, but did you see the presence of legitimate proof in the response to those bombings? The entire drama of cruise missile attacks against a plausible enemy becomes farcical. While not commenting on the justification of the attacks, I am asking a deeper question about why does the US commit unabashed aggression against two sovereign nations and gets away with it in the international community?

Again, nowhere I have denied the presence of injustice within the Muslim countries. To talk about that would again be getting off the track. However, to say `It is largely their own ``doing`` ` is my opinion the rationale of an Instinctive Apologist (see reply 10), i.e. an over-penitent, self-effacing slave who rationalizes all aggression against himself by pointing out his own faults and therefore how he deserves all that treatment. I have met people like that all my life and it is simply ludicrous in my view.

If you propose a more even-handed and a balanced analysis, then you should not swing to the other extreme either. To not acknowledge a bias would be insane realistically.

After reading the article and the responses, here are some of my thoughts:

The article paints the picture of the Muslim world at the feet of the western civilizations, exploited, brain-washed by the ``masters``. The west wants to keep on building its future over blood and bones of these slaves. They have chosen Muslim world as an outlet for their aggression because 1) the Muslim world is too weak to respond, and 2) West is afraid of the faith, number, collective power of the Muslim world and does not want to have them ``wake up`` and get united. The author calls on the Muslims of the world to get united, realize their full potential, and learn to say NO to the western world.

I find the author`s analysis of the ``Muslim-vs-western world`` too dramatic and sensationalized. The arguments are too simplistic and based upon raw emotions, and the language is too strong and negative. There very well may be systematic biases in the policies of ``western countries``, but besides that I have fundamental differences with the author on some issues.

While there certainly may exist a general bias in the policies of the ``western`` countries (say USA, for example), using that (and Monica Lewinsky) to explain the ``political`` motive behind US bombings does not do justice to the issue. After all, bombs were detonated in two US embassies. Whether ``Lewinsky or no-Lewinsky``, ``bias or no-bias`` against Muslims, one can justifiably argue that US had good reasons to conduct the bombings. Now, if the ``terrorists sites`` were located in China where bombing would pose danger of retaliation, then US would have had to resort to more diplomatic means. And that`s just fine. While one-policy-for-all-occasions has an idealistic appeal, it is too simplistic and not a very applicable approach. One has to look at the issues, the position of the enemy (yes, this includes the number and range of missiles in the arsenal of the enemy!), potential gains/risks, and chose an optimum path to solve the problem. Every situation is unique, and that`s life.

Moving on to other issues:

Muslims of the world should get united - but not because of any biases in the western world, but because it is in their best interest. One of the main problem they face is their own fanaticism and holier-than-thou attitude. They seem to be too occupied in defining who is and who is not a Muslim, and waging ``jihad`` against those who fall outside their definition of Islam. Examples are Ahmedis in Pakistan who are declared non-Muslims, shia-sunni riots in Karachi where people are indiscriminately killed with assault rifles in the mosques, and Taliban in Afghanistan. Then there is corruption in the governments, blind obsession with the western ways, illiteracy, moral decay of the populations, class-differences, and feudalism, to name a few others.

These issues, and not the western bias, are what is plaguing the Muslim countries. It is largely their own ``doing``. Blaming west for the Muslim world problems is going too far, as it shifts the focus away from the root-causes, which are issues within the Muslim populations.

As I understand, Islam has a distinct message of acknowledging and worshipping Allah, serving His creation, and achieving purity through sacrifice and perseverance. This is the key to personal development and national progress, and needs to be practiced by Muslims, and perhaps, other nations as well.

If Muslims can do just this much, I would not worry about any western biases.

Best regards.

Reply to Ibne Sina:

Thank you for an excellent discussion. I could not resist arguing some more!



``I have, for example, not condoned the internal matters relating to the Islamic

world. I have not said that Muslims are perfect in the practice of their religion. Neither have I said that the present

Muslim condition is entirely the fault of ``others``.``

I agree that you have not said in so many words that the Muslim world should blame others and ratify

its position, but point of contention is the word `oppression`. My view is that the Muslim world is

not oppressed by those outside but oppressed from inside because of its narrow vision. I also distinctly got

the feeling that your article/thesis is about power. Whenever someone speaks of oppression it means they speak

of political empowerment.

``And also, I have not made a claim, that you should give me power in the name of Islam etc.``

You have not said that about yourself but you have said that for the muslim nation. That somehow they are

denied power.

``I also consider points 2, 3 and 4 to be irrelevant to the central theme of the article.``

If we speak (rather I) of a common vision, a solution, a struggle, point 2,3,4 ARE relevant. I feel (u are welcome to disagree)

that the Muslim nation blames its troubles too easily on the outside world or lack of adherence to ``Islam``. Since that `ISlam` is

as elusive a concept as `God`, we lack political consensus.

``In earlier responses also, people have accused me of saying things I have not said. Such assumptions are

counter-productive``.

I quite agree, but there are certain emotive words in your article which do fire one up! I am glad you clarified

yourself.

``Let me then ask you: Do you think there is a systematic bias of the West against

people of Islamic descent? ``

There is a systematic bias of the West against anything sustantially different from itself. That is human nature. Muslims are just

as if not more biased for a variety of reasons against the West or even other Islamic sects say Ahmedis/shia/sunni etc., etc.

By systematic I also assume you mean verifiable.

``Does anti-Muslimism (to use the term coined by Fred Halliday, mentioned in my references) exist,

on par with anti-Semitism etc.? Let us stick to that point first ... and I will await your response to that.``

Okay. This is most interesting. Is there is such a thing as anti-christian? The point is not that some people don`t like us,

to be very simple but whether:

a/ the `bias` is at some level justified?

Yes: Islam can be very barbaric, arbitrary and undemocratic.

b/ do we like them?

No. Most of us think Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis, christians are all destined for hell.

c/ do we like each other?

d/ do we think shias are better muslims than sunnis?

No we don`t like someone just because they are called muslim. WE feel our sect is better than some-one else.

To make clans is human nature. Agreed. I do it, we all do it. What is pathetic is to call it moral. This is what

destroys the fabric of Islamic society.

``Now let me come to point 1: You write, ``The East West conflict that you speak of

is not just religious or political but cultural.`` I find this statement to be, how should

I say this, naive. ``

Religion and culture do influence each other and are interdependent in many cases but seperate concepts.

My naive statement can be borne out by the many cultural (social institutions/marriage trad./other differences) of several socities

who practice the same religion ``Islam``. What is perhaps more common is a smug avoidance of change and female oppression.

``It is not as simple to dissociate religion or politics from culture or vice versa.``

True.



Bigotry however is much more in cultures where religion is a main organizer of social institutions.

Agree? or disagree?

``I have done no other crime than to expose this basic hypocrisy that persists to this

day. The people who claim to be the doyens of multi-culturalism and respect for

religions are themselves guilty of anti-Muslimism.``

Asking the muslim nation to unite against the West makes the prejudice much much worse. In my simple mind, I wonder

how we Muslims would feel if a Western author wrote that the Western world should unite against the bigotry/oppression of the Muslims?

Are you saying that the entire western world is carrying on a secret conspiracy unspoken in ordinary media sources?

``Now let me respond to another part of your reply: In (3) you write, ``this primitive

and basic way of organizing social institutions inhibits broad based political

development...`` If you are saying that religion is a manifestation of a primitive

mind, you would find many notable people strongly disagreeing with you.``



Well, disagreement can be quite enlightening. Yes. I do think that the human race can use its own mind

occasionally to decide what is fair for people/society. If I may say so all the poeple you quoted brought

new insights and developments in philosophical/psychological thought. That they used religious metaphor is neither here nor there.

What they preached in one simple word is `humanism`. Inner strength. Courage. Tolerance. Individuality. Creativity. Equality.

I recall Iqbal being so progressive in his poetry and pleading cajoling the muslim nation to look above petty issues. And Gandhi preached

equality, justice and tolerance, non-violence, non-nationalism. I cannot recall a single one saying that someone else is the culprit

of your dreams, but rather you (the muslim nation) must emancipate.

``In fact the only people from recent past who would probably agree with you would be

Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. To deny the place of religion in the fabric of any

society might be appealing academically, but catastrophic realistically.``

I feel that the real conflict is between capitalism/socialism. Communism and God are issues of belief in different directions. This

would be however, too involved a discussion; may be you can write something on it.

``Probably you mean that it is not necessarily religion that is primitive, but its adherents that

use it in a primitive manner. then the issue becomes different and again tangential

to the article``.

I mean that religion is a metaphor for more complex cultural/psychological phenomena. I can ask why is it that religion is used

primitively? why the temptation? May be too tangential indeed.

Thanks once again and regards.

Reply to Saima Shah

Maybe before we start discussing this, we should pinpoint exactly what are the points of contention here that we disagree on...

I have, for example, not condoned the internal matters relating to the Islamic world. I have not said that Muslims are perfect in the practice of their religion. I have not said that Muslims should not reform their societies, or that they should not bring about new perspectives in their thought or not embrace ``the ideals of tolerance, justice and legal/social progress``. Neither have I said that the present Muslim condition is entirely the fault of ``others``. And also, I have not made a claim, that you should give me power in the name of Islam etc. Therefore, while I find your criticism to be constructive, I also consider points 2, 3 and 4 to be irrelevant to the central theme of the article. In earlier responses also, people have accused me of saying things I have not said. Such assumptions are counter-productive.

Let me then ask you: Do you think there is a systematic bias of the West against people of Islamic descent? Does anti-Muslimism (to use the term coined by Fred Halliday, mentioned in my references) exist, on par with anti-Semitism etc.? Let us stick to that point first ... and I will await your response to that.

Now let me come to point 1: You write, ``The East West conflict that you speak of is not just religious or political but cultural.`` I find this statement to be, how should I say this, naive. Somewhere in the early replies (Reply no 6) to this article, one gentleman made an analogous statement, ``...it is not a crime against religion, but a crime against humanity. talk about them without involving religion into it...``. My reply to that is contained reply no 10 (case 2).

It is not as simple to dissociate religion or politics from culture or vice versa. If I were to ask you to define the culture of Saudi Arabia or Iran or Indonesia or Marrakesh, how far would you go without involving religion into it? And if the ``secular democracies`` of the West are that free of religion, why do their leaders still swear their oaths of office on the Bible? Why was it that during the Gulf War, one still found allied bombs addressed to Allah? Culture and religion are deeply interconnected still, and to state otherwise would be merely a fantasy. I have given specific examples of modern anti-Muslimism in Europe and U.S (reply no 43 and 45), apart from the presence of extensive literature on Orientalist thought.

I have done no other crime than to expose this basic hypocrisy that persists to this day. The people who claim to be the doyens of multi-culturalism and respect for religions are themselves guilty of anti-Muslimism.

Now let me respond to another part of your reply: In (3) you write, ``this primitive and basic way of organizing social institutions inhibits broad based political development...`` If you are saying that religion is a manifestation of a primitive mind, you would find many notable people strongly disagreeing with you. People the likes of Jung, Iqbal, Goethe, Rumi, Gandhi, Krishnamurti, etc. etc. even Foucault, who was alive during the mass mobilization of the Iranian revolution. in fact the only people from recent past who would probably agree with you would be Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. To deny the place of religion in the fabric of any society might be appealing academically, but catastrophic realistically. Probably you mean that it is not necessarily religion that is primitive, but its adherents that use it in a primitive manner. then the issue becomes different and again tangential to the article.

cheerio

I thought over your perspective a while before replying; Even after thinking about it I do not agree. My reasons are as follows:

1/The East West conflict that you speak of is not just religious or political but cultural. There is probably equal suspicion by the West towards Hindus and Hinduism. Even the `oppressed` Muslims are very ethnocentric. I know that in many households good muslim ones of-course, christian workers are not allowed to touch eating utensils.

2/The call to unite all muslims is lauadable, but who defines `muslim`? Each sect thinks that it is more `muslim` than the other. Ahmedis are not counted amongst the Muslim nation at all. At any time, a fatwa can excommute a muslim because he is considered `offensive`. Male muslims are sure that they are more `muslim` than female muslims in any case. Ashraful makhlooqat etc.

3/The reason why 1/ and 2/ are so important in my opinion is that this primitive and basic way of organizing social institutions inhibits broad based political development. The Islamic world is so busy with mundane matters of clothes, media, sex, marriage, blashpemey that it fails to develop beyond it. Look at the Taliban controversy. Apart from issuing these anti-west rhetoric has any leader said that the Islamic world needs to educate itself? The only thing one hears is that `the West conspires; they are our enemies. VOte for me! I will bring Islam.` Whose Islam is it anyway?

3/I believe that it is due to the integral conflicts of the Muslim nation within itself and its fixation on traditionalism, that we are such a pathetic sight. If anything Ibne Sina, you should bring a new perspective on the religion, a definiton which embraces the ideals of tolerance, justice and legal/social progress.

4/ Power rhetorics like yours will not address the deep-seated problems of the Muslim nation. It will make the Umma fanatics and primitive savages. You being a devout Muslim should convince the world of the beauty of the Muslim God. Truly I am tired of anger and hatred justifying more anger and more hatred.

Mr. Sena

All I am really saying is that there is not just black and white (with White/West SYSTEMATICALLY BIASED against BLACK/Muslim world) there is also a whole lot of GREY.

regards

Ashish

Reply to Ashish

I wonder why even the most strightforward statements that I make somehow get twisted into a ball of confusion? I really wonder why... I am not out to convince you Mr. Ashish, no one can, except you yourself. Imagine, for thousands of years the smartest people on the planet could not figure out that the earth was not flat, but I will end it at that ...

And yes, everyone knows that the West and the Muslim world are composed of different states, but if we are still arguing about this at this point, then surely we are wasting our time, because all of that has been granted and supposed in everything that I have said. Apparently then I have failed in my effort to convey what I wanted to convey (even though others on the forum seem to have gotten it, even though they may disagree with my conclusions).

As far as your belief that Western states faithfully practice a separation of church and state when it comes to international relations, what more can I say? I can provide any evidence that I try, but it will be rejected by you. Yet, surprisingly, you will find many notable people who are conversant in IR who will readily concede the presence of this bias. So I guess I will just have to wait for your book that finally puts this madness to rest. (Again, I have provided specific references ...)

p.s For your convenience, I am providing the definition of the word ``aggression`` (Oxford English Dictionary). It is clear what is the context of the use of the word in my article or replies. Maybe you would see that in reality it is not I who is kidding anyone :)

aggression: An unprovoked attack; the first attack in a quarrel; an assault, an inroad.