Jihad: Paradoxes and Defining Moments hamidm #151 ``.....so what do you expect me to listen to on my morning commute `` I think you will have no trouble finding something better to listen to early morning than Howard Stern discussing the male sexual organ, while his girl Friday dutifully giggles.

Jihad: Paradoxes and Defining Moments scout #132 ``ps: if i get a tattoo, which i`ve always wanted to, would you think less of me?`` Depends upon the location and artwork of the tattoo...

Jihad: Paradoxes and Defining Moments scout: Further to my post below, I agree with what you say in the rest of the post. I think we need to distinguish between freedom of choice vs good taste.

I am all for freedom of choice. I dont have a major problem with anyone wearing clothes, hairdo, rings, in order to ``make a statement`` - the only statement they are making is ``I am in need of attention from strangers wherever I go``, and that is no skin off anyone else`s back. It is their business.

It is nevertheless poor taste to dress up in ways designed to attract attention. Like wearing shorts to a formal wedding, or a hijab to a shopping mall. And if one tried to limit poor taste by limiting freedom of choice, then clearly it is like giving chemotherapy to a person, causing his hair to fall out, when all he needed was a haircut.

However, if that person adds to this the kind of aggressive self-righteousness that you describe in some bibi hijabans, or sunday school teachers demanding girls wear the hijab at all times, that is perhaps the only time that one can justifiably object to it since they are now limiting the freedom of choice of other people.

Whitman’s World ````Alas, there were not enough Gandhis to go around````(Shammi)

You said it Shammi miaN -- you said it.

Whitman’s World ylh #29: You are using words that are too large and comprehensive for your experience. As they say, fine wine takes time to age; to attempt to create it in a few years, is not a very good idea. Actually, ``they`` don`t say it, I just made it up, after reading your replies.

I am well aware of the Cabinet Mission plan. I skipped most Pakistan Studies classes, but not all of them. Could you point me to your info on

Gandhi opposing the idea of the Sub-Continent existing as a loose federation (the best solution in my opinion).

Your knowledge of Gandhi is based on books authors have written about him. As is mine. I am assuming you are not related to Gandhi, through family ancestory, as you are to so many other famous people. So let`s start from our favorite author, Wolpert Sahib. Someone you quote extensively on Jinnah. And see what he says about Gandhi:

A couple of points that stand out from his work, titled, ``Gandhi`s Passion.``

``Gandhi alone among India`s politicians accurately anticipated the tragic aftermath of partition and its murderous legacy of more than half a century of Indo-Pakistani wars and hatred,`` writes Wolpert in referring to Kashmir. Gandhi foresaw the danger that Kashmir, with its large Muslim majority, posed. He advised that Kashmir`s ``real rulers`` were its people, not its maharajah. ``If the people of Kashmir are in favor of opting for Pakistan, no power on earth can stop them from doing so. They should feel free to decide for themselves.`` (Wolpert: Gandhi`s passion as quoted by Bapsi Sidhwa at http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/ae/books/reviews/1047028 ).

Prophetic words, which the RSexanas of India need to recite a million times, before they launch their defense of Gandhi.

````The end of life was Gandhi`s finest hour,`` (Wolpert)

Words that you need to understand, before you launch your attacks on Gandhi.

As I have tried to explain to you, people can never be put into buckets of black and white. Everyone is in some area of grey. Human beings are too complex to be considered, secularits or religionists, kind or cruel, normal or abnormal, etc.

As an example, I requested you to point me to any of the speeches of Jinnah where he openly stated that, ``Pakistan should be a secular state.`` Either I missed your replies, or you are unaware of any speeches. I am unaware of any such speech. Why didn`t Jinnah utter these words, if he didn`t? He kept saying that Pakistan should not be a theorecratic state. But why not go the whole nine and a half yards, and declare it to be a secular one, over and over (I can`t even find him doing it once).

Because Jinnah was well aware of the strange nature of his stance, i.e. even though, he himself was a pure secularist, he was demanding a state based on religion. And he was a realist. He realized that Pakistani history and politic would not be able to handle the concept of pure secularism (just like Indians have been able to not handle it), and may swing to the other extreme of theocracy (like India has). So Jinnah just wanted to ensure that Pakistan never became theocratic. After that he was willing to let it evolve in any direction that its people wanted (secular or otherwise).

Gandhi also had his ups and downs, faults and virtues. Extremely accomplished people, like Jinnah and Gandhi, are usually very complex. They cannot be bracketed, as shown by the following quote.

``As a husband Gandhi was despotic; as a father he was a bully whose eldest son turned to drink and as a gesture of defiance converted to Islam.`` (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/ae/books/reviews/1047028)

Where he started his life is not important, where he ended it is important. To state that he, alone ``introduced`` the politics of religion into India is incorrect. Politics of religion has existed everywhere in the world, since time immemorial.

Infact this is what scares me most about Pakistanis who give, ``secularism`` or, ``religionism`` (both opposite ends of the same argument) far far more importance than it deserves. Their only criteria of judging anyone becomes that person`s secular or religious tendencies. Once someone reaches such extremes, they become unable to see the good in religious people, or the good in secular people, respectively. Which is the common problem with Pakistani secularatics and religionatics.

You need to understand the complex nature of leaders. All of them usually are intense people, with combinations of good and bad in them. If in the end, they let the good overpower the bad, then one has to consider their lives a success, even if one does not agree with their political or religious (lack or excess) persuasions.

In my opinion, in both Gandhi`s and Jinnah`s case, the good did completely overpower the bad. Unfortunately, I cannot say that for Nehru (his life remained a struggle between the good and bad in him; he was very conscious of the poor Indian, but completely unconscious of the poor Kashmiri or poor Pakistani).

A Pakistan lead by Jinnah, with a neighboring India led by Gandhi, in a lose federation, as one dominion, with complete autonomy for the provinces constituting Pakistan and those constituting India, with open borders, and a central control on a few issues, would have worked out quite well, I think (Jinnah and Gandhi would have solved the Kashmir problem quite amicably, at least that is what their quotes indicate). It could have occured in 1947. Who knows, it may occur again. Then again, maybe it was too good to be true.

Military Action Begins in Afghanistan In his latest column -- Ayaz Amir is implying -- that from the very beginning -- Mr. Musharraf has worked ‘real hard’ -- to earn his personal power stint for 5 – 11 years -- as a payola -- for 5 star services -- rendered to the Americans of Easy Virtues -- (referendum an internal affair!)

The trickle down ‘benefit’ to Pakistan -- is an afterthought -- an accidental side bonus – a lame bid -- to legitimize the illegitimate.

Here is Ayaz Amir(excerpts):

“”If the obvious must be restated, Gen Musharraf`s coup was not a response to any threat to the country.

It came in response to a threat to his own position. And it arose from a feeling shared by the army high command that the cavalier manner in which Nawaz Sharif had tried removing the army chief was an insult to the army as a whole. This was it.

The army command was not out to save the country or establish anything like `real` democracy.

These were after-thoughts on Gen Musharraf`s part to justify his seizure of power long after the original impulse behind the coup had ceased to have any relevance.

But there is no cure for the fallacies of the innocent mind. Even when it was clear that Gen Musharraf was casting himself in the mould of the traditional strongman - for whom power becomes an end in itself - there was no shortage of well-meaning souls who ascribed all manner of pious motives to him.(romair, fuzair, hobbyty tahmed to note please)

The bankruptcy of such piety was never more evident than in the aftermath of September 11 when Pakistan`s caving in to every last American demand was hailed by broad strata of the newspaper reading public as a supreme gesture of statesmanship.

Pakistan had no choice, they chanted in unison, and Pakistan had been saved. A course of action embarked upon without much thought, and certainly without any awkward questions being put to the Americans, thus received the highest accolades.

In the first flush of our pro-American switch the nation was assured that both our Kashmir policy and our nuclear assets had been saved (presumably from certain destruction).

When only a short time later Pakistan was made to go through another switch, this time to renounce its `jihadi` policies, Gen Musharraf was once again hailed as a statesman who was turning his back upon the `extremist` policies of the past and returning Pakistan to the vision of the Quaid-I-Azam.

Cutting links with the Taliban (a good thing in itself) never entered the military`s mind before September 11.

Renouncing `jihadism` did not figure in our calculations prior to the international outcry which arose after the December 13 attack on the Indian parliament.

Both turnarounds came about because of external pressure. Such have been the elements of military statesmanship.

The outlines of the Faustian bargain we have made should, however, be clear.

In signing up with the United States, the military government, beyond any payola for services rendered, has won something more important for itself: American approval.

Not under the shadow of our Ghauri or Shaheen missiles but under the strategic cover provided by this American approval is this referendum taking place.

As long as we play ball and hand over every Abu Zubaydah that crosses the US`s line of fire, the military government can do no wrong in American eyes.

As for continuity of reforms and real democracy, let us ask for a break. (DAWN)

An Alternate View sadna #72 you write ``I think most religions teachings in their essence aim for the same things.``

I think we can agree on that. One wonders then, why those who claim to be the most ardent devotees of these various religions do not observe their respective faiths in peace and tranquility. And why instead they aim to create mischief everywhere with their guns, stones, and insults. Perhaps they really are not as ardent devotees as they claim to be!!

An Alternate View urstruly #71 since you too seem somewhat challenged, I will try to explain to you what people of average intelligence would understand from my earlier response below. That is, I had said that the quotes from the Quran you provide reinforce what I have said, and do not negate them as you seem to think. I have explained this further below by taking the terms you have been able to come up with through painstaking research (I have numbered them to link them to my explanation on each):

``

1. As a witness (to testify about Allah)

2. The bearer of good news

3. As a warner

4. An inviter to God

5. And a guiding beacon.

6. He(pbuh) was sent out of mercy from Him towards the whole world.

7. He (pbuh) was blessed with a great gift, the gift of great moral character.``

Now ask yourself:

1. Witness: Is a witness responsible for how his/her testimony is interpreted?

2. Bearer of Good News: A bearer of news of any kind is a messenger.

3. Warner: I already mentioned this.

4. Inviter: Is an inviter expected to drag people in anyway if the invitation is not accepted?

5. Beacon: Does a beacon drag people to itself, or simply let them decide how they want to deal with the light.

6. Sent as mercy: this is simply irrelevant.

7. Moral character: Having a good moral character does not make a man responsible for other people`s moral character as well.

You really are an idiot!! You cant even read simple words and get them through your head! Better stick to posting insults to hindu chowkies (some of them will be perfectly happy to respond in kind, I am sure, while most will simply give you the attention you deserve).

An Alternate View ylh #22 ``Since Chowk doesn`t value what is really important anymore, writers like myself have been forced to take refuge elsewhere...``

Oh the tragedy! (violin please).

Oh the shame!! (more violin please).

Just like Abdus Salaam, one day you will get the Nobel Prize and all chowk citizens will hang their heads in shame (remember to put in a good word for me in your memoirs though - for posterity`s sake you know).

PS I will get to the article you pasted too perhaps later on...

An Alternate View Gopal: Why is race so important to you?? If it helps - the original bloodline of all of us was a two inch tall mammal that scurried around hiding from the dinosaurs. If that is going too far back, then we can jump 64 million years and lo and behold: the first little monkey climbs down from the tree in the Rift Valley in Kenya. He was great...great granddaddy to you and to me, and to Nicole Kidman and to Sonny Liston too. Hope this helps you solve your need to find a bloodline.

Violent Changes HANDS OFF ARAFAT – AND WITHDRAW : UN AND US tells Sharon.

Sharon may be trying to eliminate Arafat but the writing on the wall is that -- IT IS Sharon -- whose days are numbered.

Like Hitler, Mussolini, Bin Laden and Saddam Hussain -- every TORMENTOR of the people -- in a rising crescendo of VIOLENCE -- one day -- OVERPLAYS -- his HANDS -- and suddenly the world catches those HANDS -- and says NO MORE -- and BEATS those HANDS into pulp.

The blood soaked HANDS of that Butcher of Shattila and Sabra are -- in the process of -- OVERPLAY -- around Arafat`s compound -- those HANDS are heading for the chopping block.

The US supported 14-0 Security Council resolution ordering Israel to WITHDRAW -- is the FIRST warning SHOT.

As always like every TYRANT -- Sharon the Bulldozer is about to BULLDOZE the moral and political structure of Israel -- into the grounds of NAZI abominations.

IT IS TIME -- for that Likud’s APOLOGIST – the FIG LEAF -- Shimon Perez -- to jump off the TYRANT`S TITANIC.

Looking Without; Looking Within anNy #161 Thanks for the nice feedback. Glad you enjoy reading some of the stuff I send out on chowk. You do a pretty good job yourself of introducing a broader perspective and great humor to chowk discussions.

Black Tuesday: The View From Islamabad progressive #39 I thought that the gibberish you post on chowk were merely the meaningless mutterings of a nutcase. In this post it appears that there is perhaps another explanation: When you write ``Jinnah nicked and robbed India of its language... n left us 2 be baboons for good...``, you are clearly trying to tell the world that you and someone else (``us 2``, with the second person being your cellmate obviously) were turned into baboons. And by none other than Jinnah himself!! Something like ``The Island of Dr. Moreau`` where the evil doctor turns humans into all sorts of animals!! How strange and how sad at the same time.

Explaining it to an American Friend To semipreciousme, anNy, roohi and Aamir (I was in two minds on whether to include Aamir with the angels on account of his multiple nicks, but he did write a nice post and we can always use those on chowk): Thanks for the good wishes and kind words. There are some idiots on chowk, and a number good people too as anNy points out. In fact more good people than idiots, I think, and it just seems that there are more idiots.

PS: anNY: post #130 is a fake, although no doubt the real mrs.ahmed would agree with it. She thinks, e.g., that I spend too much time ``chatting with strangers on chowk``. Fortunately, one can have a perfectly happy marriage without requiring that both individuals be perfect human beings, or agree fully on everything.

Explaining it to an American Friend sattar2 #114 You write ``I have asked repeatedly, and you have continuously side-stepped this question … does your acceptance of Jesus as a prophet amount to hero-worship? Does Quranic injunction of accepting prophets amount to hero-worship?``

The answer to both is no. It should be clear to anyone what one means by hero-worship vs. prophet, and that the two need not be the same. However, I hope you now have the anwser to your specific question.

As should be amply clear by now, what I am objecting to is this fascination with the messenger rather than with the message, with prominent men rather than with values and principles, with political personalities rather than with the constitution. I am objecting to this because these are all symptoms of the same weakness in character and are very real problems underlying Pakistani society.

You have obviously interpreted my point on hero-worship as being something directed towards how Ahmedis look up to Mirza Ahmed. The fact is that I honestly wasnt trying to single out Ahmedis in my earlier post, and I included sunnis and shias in the same criticism. HOWEVER, now that I think about it, I must say I dont have a clue on the message delivered by Mirza Ahmed and how it differs from that delivered by the prophet Muhammed. The main focus of your discussion has been on providing a basis for establishing Mirza Ahmed as a prophet. You have, in the 10-15 posts I have read from you on chowk over the past several months, NOT ONCE referred to any difference in concept or philosophy or values that Ahmedis are enjoined to subscribe to and to which other muslims are not. I can only conclude, NOW THAT I THINK ABOUT IT, that your focus too is on personalities and not on concept. Please prove me wrong.

Explaining it to an American Friend Urstruly #118 you write: ``Dear Mr. Ahmed, guide and philosopher to myself and other lost souls on chowk: First time in your life, you have asked the right question.`` Second time actually. First was when I got married (this is my practice for an upcoming anniversary).