Of Evil Zionists and the Great Satan Chowkies - Rejoice! Rejoice!

For long I have invited you examine clearly the case of Islam and that of obscuritanism. Many criticism of the understanding of Islam are indeed valid and do form what is understood as Obscuritanism. Today the picture tilts towards the obscuritanists, BUT more and more Islam is being reclaimed and it is God`s mercy; more and more, we see the desperation of the Obscuritanists and more and more we shed light on the blight they inflicted. Lets remind ourselves of the words of the benevolent scholar, Allahmah Mohammed Iqbal Lahori, these words are even more potent, offer even greater light today than when first penned - From his magnus opus ``Reconstruction of Religious Thought`` (Caps are mine)

``...Is it then possible to apply the purely rational method of philosophy to Religion? The spirit of philosophy is one of free inquiry. It suspects all authority. Its function is to trace the uncritical assumptions of human thought to their hiding place, And in this pursuit it may finally end in denial or a frank admission of the incapacity of pure reason to reach ultimate Reality.

The essence of religion, on the other hand, is faith; and faith, like the bird, sees its “trackless way” unattended by intellect which in the words of the great mystic poet of Islam “only waylays the living heart of man and robs it of the invisible wealth of life that lies within”. Yet it cannot be denied that faith is more than feeling. It has something like a COGNITIVE content, and the existence of rival parties-scholastics and mystics- in the history of religion SHOWS THAT IDEA IS A VITAL ELEMENT IN RELIGION.

Religion on its doctrinal side, as defined by Professor Whitehead, is a “system of general truths, which have the effect of transforming character when they are sincerely held and vividly apprehended”. Now, since the transformation and guidance of man’s inner and outer life is the essential aim of religion, it is obvious that the general truths which it embodies must not remain unsettled. No one would hazard action based on the basis of a doubtful principle of conduct. Indeed, IN VIEW OF ITS FUNCTION, RELIGION STANDS IN GREATER NEED OF A RATIONAL FOUNDATIONS OF ITS ULTIMATE PRINCIPLES THAN EVEN THE DOGMAS OF SCIENCE. Science may ignore a rational metaphysics; indeed, it has ignored it so far. Religion can hardly afford to ignore the search for a RECONCILIATION of the OPPOSITIONS of EXPERIENCE and a justification of the environment in which humanity finds itself. That is why Professor Whitehead has acutely remarked that “ THE AGES OF FAITH ARE THE AGES OF RATIONALISM.” But to rationalize faith is not to admit the superiority of philosophy over religion. Philosophy, no doubt, has jurisdiction to judge religion, but what is to be judged is of such a nature that it will not submit to the jurisdiction of philosophy except on its own terms. While sitting in judgement on religion, philosophy cannot give religion an inferior place in its data. Religion is not a departmental affair; it is NEITHER MERE THOUGHT, NOR MERE FEELING, NOR MERE ACTION; it the expression of the WHOLE man. Thus, in the evaluation of religion, philosophy must recognize the central position of religion and has no other alternative but to admit it as something focal in the process of reflective SYNTHESIS. NOR IS THERE IS ANY REASON TO SUPPOSE THAT THOUGHT AND INTUITION ARE ESSENTIALLY OPPOSED TO EACH OTHER. They spring up from the SAME ROOT and COMPLEMENT EACH OTHER. The one grasps reality piecemeal, and the other grasps it in its wholeness. The one fixes it gaze on the eternal, the other on the temporal aspect of Reality. The one is present enjoyment of the whole of Reality; the other aims at traversing the whole by slowly specifying and closing up the various regions of the whole for exclusive observation. Both are in need of each other for mutual rejuvenation. Both seek visions of the same reality which reveals itself to them in accordance with their function in life. In fact, intuition, as Bergson rightly says, is only a higher kind of intellect.

The search for rational foundations in Islam may be regarded as have begun with the holy prophet…"

From DAWN dtd today

``A Religion of Reasoning

By Haider Zaman

The main argument that the unbelievers used to put forward for not accepting the message conveyed by Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was that why did he not display any miracle. In reply the Quran said ``And we refrain from sending the signs (miracles) because men of the former generations treated them false (17:59).

The other reason was implicit in another Quranic verse which said ``O, Prophet invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and excellent preachings and argue with people in the best manner`` (16:125). The words ``wisdom``, ``excellent preachings`` and ``argue with people in the best manner`` in this verse, among other things, implied the extensive use of knowledge and reasoning in the process of preaching and arguing with people.

In fact, with the revelation of the Quran started a new era - the era of reasoning and enlightenment. We cannot deny the role of miracles because Allah in His Wisdom did give miracles, in one form or another, to the prophets which helped them in carrying out their messages across. But at the same time we have to accept that a miracle has a limited scope of influence and vitality.

Firstly it appeals only to sentiments rather than the reason. Secondly only those persons are convinced by the miracles who actually see them. With the passage of time, people either start forgetting them or questioning their authenticity. Hence, reliance on miracles could not have been an appropriate course for the last of all religions to follow.

There was need for adopting a course that could ensure the acceptability of its message at all times to come. That could be possible only by appealing to the intellect, reason and conscience of the people instead of relying on miracles. Therefore, with the revelation of the Quran, the reliance shifted from sentimentalism and emotionalism to reasoning, reflecting, deducting and understanding. Out of the total of 6666 verses of the Quran about 756 verses emphasize reflecting, listening, pondering, knowing and understanding.

In the past, the word ``sign`` was used for a miracle. But in the Quran it is used for something definite and within the comprehension of every one. That is why with every reference to a sign there is due emphasis on reflecting and pondering over the sign referred to (30:22). Some of the signs referred to frequently in the Quran are the creation and existence of certain objects that one can see with the naked eyes like the sun, moon and various other celestial bodies (50:6).

Some are the orderly movements and functioning of such objects like the movement of various celestial bodies in their orbits (36:40) capable of being proved by unrefutable evidence. Some of the signs are the clear-cut and verifiable conclusions one can draw from certain creation and their functioning like the maintenance of balance and the resultant harmony one can note while reflecting over the existence of countless celestial bodies (55:7,8). Some are the provision of things in due measure necessary for sustaining life on earth (15:19), (30:40) so evident that they require no proof. And some are the events that have actually happened.

In short all the signs referred to in the Quran are such that their existence or happening cannot be denied. As the Quran says ``Say thou: This is my way: I do invite unto Allah on evidence clear as the seeing with one`s eyes`` (12:108).

Reflection over the signs, referred to in the Quran, has a twofold object. One is to strengthen faith in the existence and Unity of Allah and the other is to make use of such signs and the conclusions drawn there from for the benefit of mankind. For example, reflection over the degree of balance and harmony that exists in the creation tells us about two things. One is that such balance could not have been established and maintained without there being a single and highly skilled Creator and Designer.

According to Charles Townes, a noted physicist who shared the 1964 Nobel Prize in physics, ``recent discoveries in cosmology reveal a Universe that fits the religious views that some intelligence must have been involved in the laws of Universe.`` The other is that it is because of such balance and the resultant harmony that the system has survived for billions of years. Hence, the first thing one should learn could be to have faith in the existence and Unity of Allah. That`s why the Prophet said that ``contemplation over and study of Allah`s creation for a while is better than a year`s prayers.``

According to the renowned scientist Einstein, ``God reveals Himself in the harmony that exists in the creation.`` The second thing that one should learn could be that the secret of survival lies in harmony and that harmony can be possible only through the maintenance of balance. This provides an excellent example for the people to follow and emulate in their own spheres of activities. According to Martin Lings, ``harmony is the imprint of Oneness upon multiplicity, and the Quran draws attention to that harmony for man`s meditation.``

Thus, after the revelation of the Quran, there was no need for any miracle or any thing of that kind. In fact, the Quran itself could be the greatest of all miracles. According to Husayn Haykal, a renowned Egyptian scholar,`` history has not reported to us that any of those early companions had entered faith because of miracles witnessed. Rather it was the conclusive Divine argument conveyed through the revelation and the superlatively noble life of the Prophet that conduced those men to faith.`` The Prophet himself said that ``every Prophet was given miracles because of which people believed him, but what I have been given is Divine inspiration and that which Allah revealed to me (the Quran).``

The Quran while enjoining belief in the unseen (2:3), also emphasises the need for pondering and reflecting over various facets of the creation so that any one having such faith can test its authenticity on the touchstone of reasoning and the conclusion drawn there from. It also goes to the credit of the Quran that it gives due importance to the acquisition of knowledge which, among other things, enhances the scope of the process of pondering and reasoning making it capable of being used for the benefit of mankind.

The importance that the Quran gives to the knowledge is manifest from its very first verses revealed to the Prophet which said ``read and thy Lord is the Most Gracious Who taught knowledge by pen: taught man that which he did not know`` (96:4,5). Soon after the revelation of these verses, another verse was revealed which again stressed the importance of knowledge but in a different way i.e. through the Divine oath by the pen and that which is written with it (68:1). Besides, the importance of knowledge is conveyed to us through a practical example, namely, the outcome of the test to which Adam and angels were put together.

There are also a number of sayings of the Prophet emphasising the need for the acquisition of knowledge so much so that he said that the ``Day of Judgment will be the Day on which the knowledge is lifted from the world`` (Bukhari). Another Quranic verse which says ``O Lord advance me in knowledge`` (20:114) conveys the message that there should be no end to the acquisition of knowledge. This was further clarified by the Prophet when he said ``go on acquiring knowledge from cradle to grave.``

It also goes to the credit of the Quran that the Muslim scientists and scholars, inspired by its teachings, played pivotal role in the acquisition and dissemination of different kinds of knowledge - a fact that has been acknowledged the world over. According to Robert Brifault ``the light from which civilization was once more kindled, did not arise from any embers of Graeco-Roman culture smouldering among the ruins of Europe, nor from the living death on the Bosphorous. It did not come from the northern but from the southern invaders of Europe, from the Saracens (Arabs).``

J.W. Draper in his book ``The history of the intellectual development of Europe`` observes that the Quran gave science to two continents, Asia and Europe. Will Durant in his book Civilisation Vol-II observes ``Islam led the world in power, order and extent of government, in refinement of manners, in standards of living, in human legislation and religious tolerance, scholarship, science, medicine and philosophy.``

The Cambridge history of Islam highlights the contribution of Islam thus ``Muslim civilisation acted as a teacher to medieval Europe in virtually all branches of knowledge including philosophy and medicine, mathematics, astronomy and astrology.`` That`s why the French biographer of the Prophet, Henry Comte de Boulainvillier, calls him (the Prophet) as the fore-runner of the age of reason and enlightenment.``

Coney Al Jazeera Scout

Thnks you I`m working on not being as fragile - now, I take it that I`m a UKP? Well, Ok, I have been lots of other things BUT It would help to know what is this UKP thing.

Worldwide India-Pakistan peace movement begins? Fawad

Do you know what ``agent provocateur`` means?

Of Evil Zionists and the Great Satan Pakistanis - read, and do not despair. Instead make up your mind as to who you are. Are you feudals and Obscuritanists? Or are you Muslims and Christians, men and women of conscience regardless of confession??? Are you a community governed by Law??? DO you want to be? If yes, what values will have to change?? - All social transformation is preceded by a change in values, by a reordering of priorities - Lets leave the religion of Obscuritanism, it is not Islam but a seperate religion - it is an affront to Islam and we are duty bound to confront this evil.

From Friday Times

``In which country are women who have been raped liable to be charged with adultery and stoned to death in punishment?

In which country are women liable to be publicly gang-raped on the orders of “democratic” village community organizations like jirgas and panchayats in revenge for alleged crimes committed by male members of their families and clans?

In which country are young girls criminally assaulted by deranged, perverted or powerful individuals as a matter of routine and condemned to live a “shameful” lie in silence?

In which country are women killed to avenge the perceived “honour” of their male relatives, tribes, clans, village elders, and influential families even though they may not have committed any crime?

In which country are women defaced and deformed by frustrated, “acid-throwing” maniacs?

In which country are women burnt alive in “stove explosions” engineered by enraged in-laws, husbands, brothers and fathers?

In which country do judges clutch at medieval notions of dishonour, inequality, piety and even religiosity to punish and demean women?

In which country are state and society predisposed against women?

If the answers are shameful and embarrassing, we should do something about it. If it is hurtful to see the foreign media washing our filthy linen in public, we should put an end to our dirty practices. If we are appalled by such brutality, we should protest vehemently. If we are aghast at such injustice, we should institutionalize punishments for crimes against women. If our laws are misplaced or discriminatory, we should change them.

Women constitute more than half the population of Pakistan. Yet they are more illiterate, downtrodden, oppressed and exploited than any other section of society. This is a blot on our country’s face; a blot that all the nuclear or nationalist “honour” in the world will not efface. The irony is all the greater when it is lost on our leaders. In an interview some time ago with the National Geographic magazine on the subject of women’s oppression in the context of “honour killings”, General Pervez Musharraf was asked by the foreign interviewer why nothing had been done to alleviate the plight of women in Pakistan. Pat came the answer: “We don’t have the money for alleviating poverty and eradicating illiteracy and backwardness”. “But you have the money for nuclear weapons and missiles”, retorted the devious foreigner. “Yes”, said the simple soldier, “we need nuclear weapons and conventional weapons and missiles in order to live honourably”. Should General Musharraf ever get round to watching that anguished documentary, he might look out for the gleam in the interviewer’s eye. It indicts the country and convicts its leader.

Much the same sentiment can and should be expressed regarding some so-called “Islamic” laws that are demonstrably unjust and also give a bad name to Pakistan. We refer, in particular, to the blasphemy law that has been the subject of so much mischief in the name of a great and just religion. Alleged blasphemers are punished by enraged mobs. They rot in prisons or are killed awaiting trial. They are assassinated inside and outside the courts. Judges dare not acquit them. And self-avowed reformers like General Musharraf don’t have the courage of their convictions to revamp such laws. Why, then, are we surprised by the condemnation of the world when a miscarriage of justice concerning some masih or the other is splashed on television screens and some of Pakistan’s murderous laws and cultural practices are displayed in all their gory details?

Pakistan is stretched on a historical rack, an arm and a leg in antiquity and barbarism, an arm and a leg in modernity and civilisation. Old notions of sovereignty, statecraft, politics, power, patronage, despotism, honour, religion and culture vie with modern symbols of globalisation, electoral democracy, constitutionalism, accountability, civil society, gender equality, professionalism, competitiveness and universal literacy. Historic Islamic strictures contradict post-colonial Anglo-Saxon structures. Unable to find a mutuality of interests between these two streams of thought and behaviour, society is inclined to descend into a feisty confrontation between the two. As the pace of life quickens under the impact of the new world order, large swathes of state and society are uprooted and dispersed. The job of the modern prince is to channel this energy into a productive, stable and assimilated nationhood. But tragically Pakistan has lacked leaders of substance or vision.``

Coney Al Jazeera Scout

What are UKP`s?

Coney Al Jazeera Read and quit weeping - It`s high time something is done - Destroy feudalism and most especially destroy Obscuritanism - Of special notice to all readers - Anglo-saxon or Western concepts of Human Rights have no conflict with conception of such rights in Islam - but of course, they do in Obscuritanist Islam. Obscrutanism is a religion in it`s own right and is not Islam - This is my testimony.

From The Friday Times:

``In which country are women who have been raped liable to be charged with adultery and stoned to death in punishment?

In which country are women liable to be publicly gang-raped on the orders of “democratic” village community organizations like jirgas and panchayats in revenge for alleged crimes committed by male members of their families and clans?

In which country are young girls criminally assaulted by deranged, perverted or powerful individuals as a matter of routine and condemned to live a “shameful” lie in silence?

In which country are women killed to avenge the perceived “honour” of their male relatives, tribes, clans, village elders, and influential families even though they may not have committed any crime?

In which country are women defaced and deformed by frustrated, “acid-throwing” maniacs?

In which country are women burnt alive in “stove explosions” engineered by enraged in-laws, husbands, brothers and fathers?

In which country do judges clutch at medieval notions of dishonour, inequality, piety and even religiosity to punish and demean women?

In which country are state and society predisposed against women?

If the answers are shameful and embarrassing, we should do something about it. If it is hurtful to see the foreign media washing our filthy linen in public, we should put an end to our dirty practices. If we are appalled by such brutality, we should protest vehemently. If we are aghast at such injustice, we should institutionalize punishments for crimes against women. If our laws are misplaced or discriminatory, we should change them.

Women constitute more than half the population of Pakistan. Yet they are more illiterate, downtrodden, oppressed and exploited than any other section of society. This is a blot on our country’s face; a blot that all the nuclear or nationalist “honour” in the world will not efface. The irony is all the greater when it is lost on our leaders. In an interview some time ago with the National Geographic magazine on the subject of women’s oppression in the context of “honour killings”, General Pervez Musharraf was asked by the foreign interviewer why nothing had been done to alleviate the plight of women in Pakistan. Pat came the answer: “We don’t have the money for alleviating poverty and eradicating illiteracy and backwardness”. “But you have the money for nuclear weapons and missiles”, retorted the devious foreigner. “Yes”, said the simple soldier, “we need nuclear weapons and conventional weapons and missiles in order to live honourably”. Should General Musharraf ever get round to watching that anguished documentary, he might look out for the gleam in the interviewer’s eye. It indicts the country and convicts its leader.

Much the same sentiment can and should be expressed regarding some so-called “Islamic” laws that are demonstrably unjust and also give a bad name to Pakistan. We refer, in particular, to the blasphemy law that has been the subject of so much mischief in the name of a great and just religion. Alleged blasphemers are punished by enraged mobs. They rot in prisons or are killed awaiting trial. They are assassinated inside and outside the courts. Judges dare not acquit them. And self-avowed reformers like General Musharraf don’t have the courage of their convictions to revamp such laws. Why, then, are we surprised by the condemnation of the world when a miscarriage of justice concerning some masih or the other is splashed on television screens and some of Pakistan’s murderous laws and cultural practices are displayed in all their gory details?

Pakistan is stretched on a historical rack, an arm and a leg in antiquity and barbarism, an arm and a leg in modernity and civilisation. Old notions of sovereignty, statecraft, politics, power, patronage, despotism, honour, religion and culture vie with modern symbols of globalisation, electoral democracy, constitutionalism, accountability, civil society, gender equality, professionalism, competitiveness and universal literacy. Historic Islamic strictures contradict post-colonial Anglo-Saxon structures. Unable to find a mutuality of interests between these two streams of thought and behaviour, society is inclined to descend into a feisty confrontation between the two. As the pace of life quickens under the impact of the new world order, large swathes of state and society are uprooted and dispersed. The job of the modern prince is to channel this energy into a productive, stable and assimilated nationhood. But tragically Pakistan has lacked leaders of substance or vision.``

Worldwide India-Pakistan peace movement begins? Democracy and rule of law - PPP style

``ISLAMABAD – Pakistan People’s Party is fully prepared to hold party elections to re-elect Benazir Bhutto as its Chairperson.

“We had elected her as life chairperson through a democratic process and we will do it again as we have no substitute for her leadership,” said Qasim Zia, President PPP Punjab, while briefing the newsmen here on Wednesday.``

Dhirubhai Ambani: The Heathcliffe of Indian business

If one was to say that servitude and the idea of servitude defined the lives of Indians, one would not be too far off the mark. Yet, the lands that are today India have never been poor, quite the opposite in fact. A new awareness is growing in India that all mena and women of conscience can celebrate. This consciousness is the link between Liberty and economic order.

From Hindustan Times dtd today

``Footpath businessmen

Sagarika Ghose

The legend of Dhirubhai Ambani started with Rs 500. Yet, in times of high profile privatisation, millions of Dhirubhais with Rs 500 in their pockets are being prevented from achieving their potential because of the continuance of a savage licence permit raj. India’s ‘footpath businessmen’ are trapped in the colonial attitude that ‘business’ is the pleasure of the rich, when in India, business is, in fact, the occupation of thousands of the poor.

Nine out of 10 people in India are self-employed as opposed to Europe where only 10 per cent are employed in the informal sector. Sixty per cent of our gross savings comes from the unorganised sector. Less than 20 per cent savings comes from the public and private corporate sector. Yet, in a recent survey, the Delhi-based Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) discovered that liberalisation remains narrowly focused on the public and corporate sector and 80 per cent of Indians have never even heard of economic reforms!

The magazine Manushi in partnership with CSDS has begun a campaign for ‘liberalisation from below’. The campaign aims to free hawkers, vendors, self-employed artisans, shopkeepers, garbage collectors, fishermen and cycle-rickshaw pullers from the oppressive grip of a brutally colonial set of laws which subjects them to beatings, fines, harassment from the police and municipality officials.

The corporate sector, Manushi points out, will absorb approximately only 15 per cent of the work force in the next 20 years. Today, the private, public and corporate sectors provide employment to only 3 per cent of the work force.

But the hawking and vending economy in Kolkata alone employs 2 lakh people with almost 2 crore customers.

We view hawkers as ‘scum’, vendors as ‘vermin’ and hawking as a ‘law and order problem’, when they are in fact crucial economic actors. We insist on Manhattan cityscapes when the truth is that every city will necessarily reflect the lives of its majority. The campaign has offered to set up ‘model markets’ of international standard where hawkers and vendors might trade in specifically designated areas. It advocates cycle tracks for the main feeder roads, aprons, gloves and push carts in the Bangkok style for hawkers and regularisation of licences for cycle-rickshaws.

Already the hawkers’ movement has had many successes. As a result of cases filed by the Bombay Hawkers Union, by Sudam Singh, a garment vendor, and by SEWA in Ahmedabad, the Supreme Court brought down its hammer in favour of every hawker and vendor of India. In 1992, Justice Chandrachud thundered: “Hawking is a fundamental right!”

Since then the PMO itself has stepped in with a set of encouraging policy formulations, but on the ground the footpath businessmen are still denied their dignity. Perhaps, as a tribute to Dhirubhai Ambani, we could all realise that the Indian businessman is not only he who wears a suit and sits in board meetings. The Indian businessman also wears a lungi and pushes his cart along the road. He has as much right to participate in economic reforms as the Tatas. He too needs the attention of the Union minister for disinvestment``

Of Evil Zionists and the Great Satan Shatru Sinha

Thank you for that post - Along the same lines we now discover that the godhra train incident was a case of a fire being set or developing from within the train, deliberate or a tragic accident we don`t know, yet.

Hopefully this will give Indians cause to think about the direction ceratin powers in India hope to take India in.

Coney Al Jazeera SaminaShah

Hello Samina

Save me $12 and just email it to me - if that`s possible.

``I agree. However that should not prevent us from looking for the trajectories of those manners into our present day cultures-I contend that you`ll find its pretty much the same old story. Do you agree?``

I agree that the impossibility of predicting the future must not prevent us from critical thought - of course. On finding ``it`s pretty much the same old story`` - yes and no. It`s problematic to say that we shall find the same old story - it has implications for such ideas as evolution and notions such as ``human nature`` - I am unsettled by the proposition that we may make definitive statements about these, especially since I don`t think these by definition are amenable to such. Also what we may find and construe to be ``pretty much the same story`` is actually superficial - perhaps it is the journey and the elusive destination that we might understand ``truth`` to be?

``I`m still out on that verdict; all texts are to me part of vast dialogues that we couldn`t possibly trace; its hard for me to experience any text as a flat, unalive medium.``

Excellent Samina Sahab: YOUR EXPERIENCE of any text. Who owns your experience?? Clearly the object of experience is important to the experience, yet it is not what You bring to the experience.

``Can we claim that all music/dance/painting/craftwork/science is silent and depends solely on our interpretations? Or do some of us reach a generally consensual interpretation because an effective work of art has evoked primal fears/joys/subconsci in us?``

Think of Art appreciation classes - unless we are trained to appreciate...Think of ``effective work of art`` - ``Effective``?? - is that a quality within the art? or is it a representation of how we do or not relate to the work of art? Subconscious? is that a quality of art? or again, OUR EXPERIENCE?



``What happens to the other connections that are simultaneously made and unnoticed?

On one hand, I believe the act of reading/writing is based on critical thinking processes that involve the connections of a million systems/references for the reader, training or no training.``

Connections that go unnoticed? well, they go unnoticed, that is to say we remain unawre of them. Impossible to make connections unless the paradigm of ``training`` has been established - Do we make connections without ``method``? How would making connections even be meaningful without ``method`` i.e. ``training``

``It is the task of the critical mind to keep her/himself open in understanding codes,

genres and in making interdisciplinary and sometimes contrary linkages.``

Most certainly I would agree with you - and making those connections or not, is a function of training/method.

``Well I don`t know what ``lower`` and ``higher`` faculties are. I remain by contention that humans are the most base and wretched form of life on this earth-i.e. we systematically exploit each other and this planet in ways no animal species has ever had. Our ``higher`` faculties have made us owners and not an organically a part of this planet.``

This statement in itself suggest that positing the human entirely in nature would be an error - afterall, we would then be in a position of articulating, that relationship (base and wretched) to nature - which would not be worthy of your support. Higher/lower faculites is the dialectic opposition between nature and reason. I`m sick of using that word, dialectic.



re:``... Do you think there is merit to the proposition that ``feminization`` refers to exactly the kind of paradox Eagleton constructs: that it is artificial, even as it suggests it`s ``natural`` origin and ``rootedness``?

Please refer to original post #202 2nd and 3rd para - please also consider Eagleton`s construct of the argicultural dweller who has less of the ``culture`` than does the urban dweller.

``I don`t know. Its pretty anthrocentric to assume that the human mode of ``self`` is the

only form of consciousness, when all we seem to want is ``flow`` and natural grace in ourselves and in the world. In other words, animals seem to exist in a state of regenerative harmony. They simply are. So we as humans place ourselves above animals because we have ``higher faculties`` and spend humankind trying to acheive that naturalness in the world animals have....``

I am not satisfied with this statement - Anthrocentric?? how else could a response possibly be? To the best of our knowledge, do we know that a ``consciousness`` of Self exists in any other animal except man/woman? Clearly we are not aware of any such ``consciouness``. Might we one day? possibly. Should that alter our position? Lets be clear, we will alter our position when we become aware of such a consciousness among any other than humans, in the meantime, we have no option but to formulate and act upon the knowledge we posssess now. The same as thoughts that go unnoticed, how are we to be aware of that which we are not aware of??

Should we be trying to achieve ``naturalness`` or a state of simply ``being``? Only we if we are convinced that we have no self consciousness - but how could be convinced of something like the non-existence of self consciousness without the experience of self consciousness? This is what I was referring to about ``Gilgamesh`` and the opposition of knowledge and innocence.

``I would need to know what his def. of cultivation is. I doubt Eagleton would reduce the urban, industrialized experience as less potentially exploitative and difficult than agricultural labor....however, there probably is much more possibility of class, political, social, gender and economic (and therefore cultural and material consumerism) fluidity. One`s income and social strata may change more readily than in agricultural contexts.``

I think it is unnecessary to read more into whatever his definition of cultivation - whatever else it may be, we can be sure that it means more ``tending`` and more ``natural growth`` - he contends and we experience, more cultivation (as in those who partake of culture) in urban centers than agricultural centers - Is this not so? it is difficult and unworthy to obfuscate here. Let me come directly to the point: If culture is ``tending natural growth`` why is there more of it in urban centers? Indeed, Eagleton adds, ``Cultivation, however, may not only be something we do to ourselves. It may be something done to us, not least by the political State`` - What an excellent, logical building block for an argument for ``Bildung`` and other totalitarian ``manners`` of whose trajectories we ought to be mindful of. - So while ``tending`` may have been an understanding of, for the lack of a better words, argricultural society , the historical transformation of organized society has by degree, ceased to deposit the same meaning to the word ``culture``. Is ``culture`` then better defined as the degree and character of human interactions?? Reality is as we devise to experience it, not as we wish it were.

Samina, Have you read ``the Origins of Totalitarian Democracy`` or ``Political Messianism: The Romantic Phase`` - both by J. Talmon?

Coney Al Jazeera SaminaShah

Super post - so much fun.

Dirt and Desire - where do I find it ? have a link? or just send it to me as an email attachment.

``One of it`s original meanings is ``husbandry``, or the tending of natural growth...``

I want to point out that here the verb is ``tending`` - it is tending that is the active in culture - not ``natural growth`` - it is passive - and what might ``unnatural`` growth be?

``It can be if we are not critical and vigilant about what these ideas are and how, why, when and where they are used in oppressive manners``

I`m sure we agree on the notion of sex as an idea (among other things) in culture. Of course we must try to be critical in a constructive manner. I think that it is very difficult to impossible, to discern the potential of some ideas to be used in ``oppressive manners`` - in the present sense - as time passes we can evaluate them and do evaluate them with lens/light that is different, from when we first encounter the idea. You may recall we discussed that we can indeed learn from history and in particular, we can understand women in history with a combination of how persons made a living and how the sexes viewed themselves and each other. Today`s ``oppressive`` manners were not ``oppressive`` yesterday - if we shall not be mindful of this, we will risk becoming enveloped by constructs of relativism.

``I refer you to an interesting book by Marlene Zuk entitled Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can`t Learn About Sex From Animals as reviewed in last Sunday`s NYT`s book review section. According to the author, humans have the propensity to impose their own interpretations of the animal/natural world to bolster a political agenda.``

An excellent insight, I`m in general cautious of transposing ``truths`` of the animal world to human society, however; this instance seems to confirm the point about ``theory int LIGHT of...`` that is, that all text are silent and it is the ``training`` and knowledge that any person brings to a given text, is how we may understand the foundations of any particular interpretation. Would you agree?

``the unpalatable truth that female selection (based on male animal symbols of virility) was a driving force in choosing procreation partners, (based on the ideation of female ``passivity``) humans impose interpretations on the natural world that are simply untrue.``

Yet another confirming instance: In my experience and I would be willing to bet a dollar for a dime, in the experience of all men: men understand only too well, just who does the ``selecting`` -

``Are we encouraged to think critically about our need to find self reflection and self reference in the natural world to justify our particular ideologies? Are we encourage to interrogate culture in the same way? If so, why? If not, why not?``

Thank God for that - you had me panicked, I thought I had lost you - ``reference in the natural world``?? Your Nietzsche is showing - We are not just ``nature``, we are more, we are ``reasoning`` (not that it`s evident) - ideally, (another `poor` word) our ideology should be constructed on our understanding of, and ``creation`` of, a balance between these ``higher and lower faculties`` - Do you think there is merit to the proposition that ``feminization`` refers to exactly the kind of paradox Eagleton constructs: that it is artificial, even as it suggests it`s ``natural`` origin and ``rootedness``? Seems to me, that there is a kind of positive/negative, Yin/Yang, Male/Female kind of tension that holds up the construct, culture and that this tension is instructive. - No we do not and I suggest we ought not ``interrogate culture`` from an or all ideologies rooted in the natural world. Nature does not have ``moralic acid``, human society must, it is based on it. Recall the notion that if culture means husbandry, it means ``regulation`` and spontaneous growth`` and ``Self-overcoming as much as self-realization.`` Culture is itself ``artificial`` with reference to the natural world and indeed it would be calling to the most elastic of definitions of culture to suggest that it is the same as nature. Does the Self have an ``autonomous existence`` in nature? that is, is there such a thing as Self in nature? Isn`t that ``consciousness`` exactly what nature is not? Something akin to ``you can`t go home...``? I don`t know if you are familiar with the ``Epic of Gilgamesh`` - if you are, don`t you think the same themes are explored in it - the meaning of the natural and the cultured, of knowledge and innocence? Indeed, would your question be relevant or even be meaningful, if we could posit the self in the natural world?

``Is Eagleton referring to the transformation of feudalistic societies to industrialization attendant with the hierarchies of state/political/religious/business systems? Or is he commenting on the urban space as being an site of the constructors and consumers of things and ideas?``

Yes, I think so! Notice: ````if the word culture...it also encodes a number of key philosophical issues.``

``Eagleton`s point that the labor and ownership of land; the relationship between farmers and their soil and product is increasingly eclipsed by an industrialized existence that severs the tie between worker and the object of his/her labor in many ways.``

No, I don`t think it is a point he is making here, but were we to infer a mastery, a suppleness, an ease, that Eagleton has with the ``scriptures`` of the left, we would not be of the mark. Eagleton clarifies: ``Those who cultivate the land are less able to cultivate themselves. Agriculture leaves no leisure for culture.`` - It is interesting that he does not continue this line of reasoning to take it into urban life. Does factory work leave relatively more leisure time than agricultural work - or what about those who find they must do two jobs? - No, Eagleton devises a definition to suit his purpose: e.g, If we can agree that while distinct, all kinds of work and the need for ``dignified`` life - while engendering labor with ``dignity`` leaves little time for leisure, for cultivating the self - but why does the cultivation occur as prominently among urban dwellers? What other characteristics of ``culture might we explore to get a better understanding of why it is that culture is more prominent in urban settings and not agricultural settings?

Parties? What bores! No one knows how to behave in a civil manner anymore and the notion of having FUN seems to have been lost somewhere - I can`t wait for this idiot dam to burst.

Of Evil Zionists and the Great Satan Urstruly

Sincere apologies for late response. You may have misunderstood me, let me clarify:

I am not denying the external factor - it is a fact - what I was suggesting is that there is much that we have control over or exert considerable influence over - Enemies and Adversaries do not necessarily fit under our control or considerable influence - What does however fit is what we can do about ourselves.

Dost Mittar

Read the above - ``our heroes are their villans...`` -- I think Shankar or Shammi said it on this board: ``leave India alone`` - I agree completely and add that Kashmir ought to be resolved by a process of dialogue.

Narain

Your post assumes the Army has already blundered with the amendments - Lets leave this for history to decide - What most of the so caled ``democratic rights`` type on these boards never imagine is that a strong executive is not an aborgation of such ``democratic`` rights, neither is accountablity - The ground work is being laid for a Pakistan that can focus on nation building - Mr. Musharraf and his team may not win all the rounds with the politicians, but it is already clear that Mr. Musharraf and his team have already won over Pakistani public opinion; even after these three years it seems some of the ``democractic`` types to whom, it seems the ``right`` to plunder and apportion Pakistan to their supporters, is what democracy means - have not gauged the public anger at the humiliation and failures - Was the armed forces blameless? How much blame? What difference does it make? the State has been restructured - will it survive? Show me something that has, it is not natural - but what matters is that it will levae Pakistan better prepared to distribute opportunity to it`s citizens and not historicist and obscuritanist policies. Afghanistan was become an imperative for Pakistan, this will not change - the idea of Pakistan, a non-ethnic Pakistan, in which Liberty and the freedom of conscience are fundamental values, is an idea that has only now begun to experience appeal across traditional boundaries.

Coney Al Jazeera

SaminaShah

Hello Samina: I take your point about the ``autonomous existence`` of sex without ideation - yet in ``culture``, it cannot but be infused and transformed (at the level of societal transaction) into an idea - I`m reproducing parts of something I`ve been meandering through and I would like you to consider it and give me some feedback: ``The Idea of Culture`` by Terry Eagleton (Dedicated to Edward Said?):``...though it is fashionable these days to see nature as a derivative of culture, culture etymologically speaking is a concept derived from nature. One of it`s original meanings is ``husbandry``, or the tending of natural growth...`Culture` at first denoted a throughly material process, which was then metaphorically transposed to affairs of the spirit. The Word then charts within its semantic unfolding humanity`s own historic shift from rural to urban existence...in marxist parlance, it brings both base and superstructure in a single notion...But the semantic shift is also paradoxical: it is the urban dwellers who are cultivated, an those who actually live by tilling the soil who are not.

...If the word `culture` traces a momentous historical transition, it also encodes a number of key philosophical issues...If culture means the active tending of natural growth, then it suggests a dialectic between the artificial and the natural, what we do to the world and what the world does to us. It is an epistemologically `realist` notion, since it implies that there is a nature or raw material beyond ourselves; but it also has a `constructivist` dimension, since this raw material must be worked up into humanly significant shape. So it is less a matter of deconstructing the opposition between culture and nature than of recognizing that the term `culture` is already such a deconstruction.

...If culture originally means husbandry, it suggests both regulation and spontaneous growth. The cultural is what we can change, but the stuff to be altered has it`s own autonmous existence. But culture is also a matter of following rules, and this too involves an interplay of the regulated and unregulated. To follow a rule is not like obeying a physical law, since it involves a creative application of the rule in question...And ther are no rules for applying rules, under pain of infinite regress. Without such open-endedness, rules would not be rules, rather as words would not be words; but this does not mean that any move whatsoever can count as following a rule. Rule following is a matter neither of anarchy nor autocracy. Rules like culture, are neither sheerly random nor rigidly determined - which is to say that they both involve the idea of freedom...The idea of culture, then, signifies a double refusal: of organic determinism on the one hand and of the autoonomy of spirit on the other. It is a rebuff to both naturalism and idealism...If culture transfigures nature, it is a project to which nature sets rigorous limits. The very word, `culture` contains a tension between making and being made, rationality and spontaneity (how much he sounds like the Allahmah, and like Popper and Van Quine and Einstein)

Once culture is grasped as `self-culture`, it posits a duality between higher and lower faculties, will and desire, reason and passion, which it instantly offers to overcome. Nature now is not just the stuff of the world, but the dangerously appetitive stuff of the self...Culture is thus a matter of self overcoming as much as self-realization.``

With what tools will we negotiate the self realization that mean self-overcoming?

Which leads me to: ``Traditional ignominies Asma Barlas

How is it that when people speak of “Islamisation” they never speak about the radical iconoclasm of the Qur’an’s teachings that undercut the core of patriarchal power as it has been defined historically

To be born a Pakistani is to be born with the life-long burden of trying to make sense of cultural practices that frequently are unintelligible, incomprehensible, and monstrous, like the panchayat-sanctioned gang rape of Mukhtaran Bibi as a way to avenge tribal “honour”. At first, I was too overcome by rage, shame, and sorrow to want to write about it, but I realise that keeping silent in the face of this latest ignominy would be to yield up too much to its perpetrators and even to become complicit in it through inaction.

It’s not as if the rape or its circumstances were unusual, as many people have pointed out. Hatred and violence towards women are the bedrock of the feudal-tribal culture that masquerades as “Islamic” in Pakistan. What may be unusual is that enough people who matter have decided to make this rape actionable. However, it is unlikely that any action can deliver justice for a rape victim in a society that views them as “damaged goods”.

So far, critics have focused-perhaps understandably-on the panchayat and the police. It was, after all, the panchayat that authorised the rape and, to many, the panchayat is the most representative form of self-governance, hence democracy; though how anyone can regard as democratic an exclusively male body that helps to keep in place reprehensible traditions is beyond me. In fact, this atrocity proves once and for all that self-governance may not be democratic or even representative. In other words, a democracy in form may not necessarily be a democracy in content, a lesson that has been proven time and again by elected regimes (which is not, however, to endorse militarism).

As for the police, it is true that such incidents cannot occur without its knowledge or tacit consent; indeed it is not unusual for the agents of law enforcement themselves to violate the law much of the time. However, blaming only the police and the panchayat or the 200 odd villagers who stood by as onlookers to the rape obscures the fact that Pakistanis for the most part-in spite of their claims to being moderate-countenance, if they do not actively promote, the abuse and degradation of women in the name of honor, tradition, or religion. The police, the panchayat, and the villagers are all products of a social matrix in which tradition, culture, and misogynistic interpretations of religion intersect to produce a view of women as “paoon ki jooti” (a slipper, to be changed at a man’s will). That such views should generate ritualised rape, the “honour” killing of women (as in karo-kari), and watta-satta, where women are “legally” exchanged like commodities, is then hardly surprising. Crimes against women don’t count for much because women themselves don’t count for much.

I have heard enough people blame Islam for such debased views of women to have spent the last several years researching and writing about the interpretive strategies by means of which the precept of male superiority and female inequality and subordination to men has been projected onto the Qur’an (“Believing Women” in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur’an, University of Texas Press, 2002). I have found that the Qur’an does not, in fact, elevate men in their biological capacity as males over women, notwithstanding customary exegesis of the verses on the “degree” that men have over women, “wife-beating,” the giving of evidence, polygyny, etc. Not only that, but the Qur’an prohibits killing girls or keeping them on sufferance and outlaws all those actions that constitute a rape, such as lust, sex outside marriage, and taking women against their will (the Qur’an extends the notion of will even to female slaves, countering their sexual objectification). Further, it counsels sexual chastity for men and women, equally.

As Pakistan’s case illustrates, however, the Qur’an’s teachings have been buried under the rubble of pre-Islamic customs that continue to thrive in this “Islamic” Republic. To elevate these traditions over the teachings of the Qur’an constitutes a double heresy both because the traditions explicitly violate its teachings and because the Qur’an itself is unremittingly critical of blind adherence to tradition. As it tell us, whenever God

sent a Warner

Before thee [the Prophet] to any people

The wealthy ones among them

Said: ‘We found our fathers

Following a certain religion,

And we will certainly

Follow in their footsteps.’

He [the Warner] said: ‘What!

Even if I brought you

Better guidance than that

Which ye found

Your fathers following?’. . .

So We exacted retribution

From them: now see

What was the end

Of those who rejected (Truth)

(43: 23-25; in Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Qur’an, 1989: 1328-29).

Similarly, it is the Arabs’ imprudent embrace of their traditions that keeps them from heeding the Prophet’s call to the right path, as another ayah makes clear:

When it is said to them:

‘Come to what God

Hath revealed; come

To the Apostle:’

They say: ‘enough for us

Are the ways we found

Our fathers following.’

What! Even though their fathers

Were void of knowledge

And guidance?

(5:10; in Ali, 275).

One can read these ayat narrowly or, more universally and timelessly, as illustrating the natural conflict between monotheism and patriarchal tradition for, what else is patriarchal tradition but following the “ways of the fathers?” How is it that when people speak of “Islamisation” they never speak about the radical iconoclasm of the Qur’an’s teachings that undercut the core of patriarchal power as it has been defined historically?

Meanwhile, we need to devise a fitting punishment for rape. Customarily, Muslims have reverted to stoning to death, but the Qur’an does not prescribe stoning for any crime. (The Prophet once sanctioned the stoning of a Jewish man and woman taken in adultery because he was applying Jewish law to them.) Shahid Nadeem suggested castration (Daily Times, July 10) and it certainly fits the crime. Since the men who kill and rape women seem to have a notion of honour that is tied to their reproductive organs, that would be the logical place to start if one wants to change their ideas about (self-)respect.

Asma Barlas is associate professor and chair of Politics at Ithaca College, New York``

Of Evil Zionists and the Great Satan Urstruly

I read your post with interest, and I wonder if you can clarify a couple of points for me:

As Muslims, As Islamia, are we to define ourselves only by our opposition or hostility towards the West?

Is Islam or are Muslims required to be anti-western? recall Islam is built upon and claims as its heritage the prohetic and redemptive traditions as well as Greek rationalism - if we have such breadth of commonality, how shall we justify a call to define ourselves by our hostility to the very same spiritual, intellectual and cultural traditions we share with the West?

I found the issue of neocolonialism that you raised to be most pertinent - yet would we not be better served were we to first seek to understand our role in the reemergence of colonialism?

Many of our compatriots do not appropriately understand Western history and how attitudes towards non-western, non-christian civilizations developed. If, to us, Western attitudes towards Muslims appear ignorant and crude, perhaps we can understand these attitudes as their revulsion of our failure. Recall as Europe was awakening, civilization was Islamia, intellectual activity was Islamia, Art was Islamia, Power was Islamia. Such was the awe of the Muslim world that products manufactured in Europe at that time were stamped by Arabic markings to make them more attractive. What marks Western attitudes towards Islamia and Muslims is their awareness that the Muslim is not only not 10 feet tall but in all the areas that he was once invincible, succesful, he has been and is today a failure. What merit is there in positing our failures in their understanding and emotions? Do these failures not rightfully solely belong to us? If we shall answer yes, then clearly, the responsibility for corrective action will also be solely ours. Is the West responsibile for Pesh Imams` sanctioning Gang rape, lynching for blasphemy? For our sad ignorance? our poor schooling? our lack of ethical fortitude?

Gentle sir, I recognize you as a voice of conscience and while enemies abound, it is not their scheming or strength, but rather our weakness, we ought to take note of. Just as Obscuritanists define a very narrow section of Islamia, similarly historicist fundamentalist and opportunists define a very narrow section of the so called West. These two extremists are feeding off each other and propelling both the West to a civilizational decline and Islamia to recreate a ``Islamic`` version of crusades, both in terms of societal upheaval and time frame. This may well become an eventuality, yet we must not lose hope that we can reshape, refocus this debate towards productive ends that serve the larger interests of Islamia; defining ourselves by our hostility to the so called West is not in the interest of save but a relatively few obscuritanists.

Of Evil Zionists and the Great Satan THE EXCLUDED MIDDLE

From ``The Guardian`` - an excellent piece - and a portend of what I am convinced, is a coming upheaveal, unless there are some major changes in the American policy and government - one which will alter the world as we have known it, not a swift revolution but sustained anarchy - NO power will escape unscathed and those held responsible will not evade ``justice``.

``Middle Eastern gulf separates EU and US

On either side of the Atlantic, fundamentally different attitudes towards the problems of Israel and Islamic unrest are hardening, writes Brian Whitaker

Monday July 8, 2002

When continents drift apart they usually move so slowly that nobody notices, but since George Bush became president the Atlantic has widened perceptibly.

In the pre-Bush era, disputes between Europe and the US could often be passed off as differences of nuance rather than substance. What is emerging now, however, particularly in relation to the Middle East, is a fundamental difference of approach that will be hard to ignore or resolve.

Let`s start, on the eastern side, with Sherard Cowper-Coles, a classics graduate from Oxford, who has spent almost 25 years in the British diplomatic service and is currently Britain`s ambassador to Israel.

A couple of weeks ago, largely unnoticed by the media, he gave a lecture at Tel Aviv university entitled ``Israel and the Palestinians - a European view``.

As befits a classicist, his talk was sprinkled with scholarly references to Thucydides and the devastating Peloponnesian War between ancient Athens and Sparta.

As befits a diplomat, his talk also gushed with expressions of affection for Israel while delivering a few home truths in the delicate manner of someone who broaches the subject of a close friend`s body odour.

Without mentioning Israel`s increasingly permanent military grip on the Palestinian territories or the massive iron wall now under construction, Mr Cowper-Coles said:

``It must be obvious to every decent Israeli that, whatever short-term measures Israel chooses to take, more than three million Palestinian men, women and children should not be kept for ever confined by military force to a series of security zones in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.``

Turning to the question of Palestinian reform - but ignoring the strident calls from Israel and the US for Yasser Arafat`s removal - he supported reform but gave it an unexpected and (for Israel) unwelcome twist:

``In my own personal view, what will be required is nothing less than a large-scale and lasting international presence, led by the United States, overseeing and underpinning first the reform, and then the development, of the Palestinian polity, economy and security apparatus.``

``Surely,`` he continued, ``there can be no serious question over the principle of such a benign international intervention, intended to give Palestinians the help with nation-building they deserve, and Israelis the confidence they need to end occupation and settlement.``

Israel, of course, has long opposed any idea of international intervention and if the ambassador`s remarks did not bring audible gasps from the audience they must at least have caused some shuffling in the seats.

Finally, Mr Cowper-Coles took a swipe at those who spread what he called ``the contagion of anxiety and isolation``.

``Knowing your enemy is one thing,`` he told the audience. ``Convincing yourself, in elaborately researched detail, that he is an anti-Semite or a terrorist [...] doesn`t seem to me to help much.

``In fact, it can be worse than that: the rigorous application of the law of the excluded middle - those not wholly with us are wholly against us - can be deeply destructive of rational discussion. Believe the best of people, and you get some good from them. Believe the worst, and you reap the whirlwind.``

These, the ambassador stressed, were personal opinions, not the views of the British government, but in many ways his talk epitomised the European approach to international relations: cajole people along (even if you detest them), highlight the common ground rather than the points of difference, minimise the risks and, if you must rock the boat, rock it gently.

On the opposite side of the Atlantic, none of this goes down well nowadays. It`s seen as wimpish, ineffectual and hopelessly old-fashioned.

Like Mr Cowper-Coles, Victor Davis Hanson knows a thing or two about Thucydides - he`s Professor of Classics at California State University - but there the similarities stop.

Professor Hanson`s area of expertise is ancient warfare, around which he has built a theory of western superiority claiming that certain cultural values - democracy, free markets, the rule of law, etc - bring success on the battlefield.

He expounds these ideas in a book, Carnage and Culture, which has found its way on to college reading lists in the US and is reviewed favourably on Amazon`s website by Newt Gingrich, the maverick former Speaker of the House and champion of the new right.

Professor Hanson also has a 60-acre fruit farm in California and writes polemics for the American media, including a regular column in the National Review magazine.

In one recent column, he debunks Edward Said`s famous book, Orientalism, as ``simplistic`` and ``superficial``. The real problem, he says, is not western misunderstanding of the Arab world but ``occidentalism`` - which he defines as the Arabs` desire for western products that they either cannot understand or ``blindly and in ignorance`` loathe.

He backs this up with a series of examples which, presumably, he regards as neither simplistic nor superficial:

``Sheikhs from Saudi Arabia go to London or New York for bypass surgery - not to Cairo or Amman; they buy their Viagra from the States, not from apothecaries in Yemen.

``The Arab street purchases appliances that are made in China or Japan on western blueprints, rather than producing them en masse in Damascus or improving on their designs at Baghdad University.``

His latest polemic, in Commentary magazine, takes the form of an attack on Saudi Arabia.

``After the murder of 3,000 Americans, and the various anthrax, dirty-bomb, and suicide-attack scares,`` he writes, ``Americans are finally seeing militant Islam not merely as a different religion, or even as a radical Jim-Jones-like cult, but as a threat to our very existence.

``Saudi Arabia is the placenta of this frightening phenomenon. Its money has financed it; its native terrorists promote it; and its own unhappy citizenry is either amused by or indifferent to its effects upon the world.``

While many of Professor Hanson`s other complaints about Saudi Arabia - discrimination against women, human rights abuses, corruption - are obvious, the solution that he offers is anything but.

The US, he says, should destabilise the entire Middle East in order to contrive the sort of upheaval that befell the Soviet Union.

``Only by seeking to spark disequilibrium, if not outright chaos, do we stand a chance of ridding the world of the likes of Bin Laden, Arafat, and Saddam Hussein,`` he says.

``Just as a reconstituted Afghanistan eliminated the satanic Taliban and turned the region`s worst regime into a government with real potential, so too a new Iraq might start the fall of dominoes in the Gulf that could wipe away the entire foul nest behind September 11.``

It is tempting to dismiss this as the ramblings of a clever but slightly unhinged academic, but Professor Hanson is by no means alone in his views. His remedy for the Middle East is not so much a proposal as a statement of the direction in which US policy appears to be heading.

Iraq is already a declared target and President Bush has indicated, though his speeches, that Iran and Syria are also in his sights. The Israelis, meanwhile, are doing their best to turn the US against Saudi Arabia.

There are several reasons why this is happening. One is that Ariel Sharon, having won approval for his idea that there can be no peace without re-moulding the Palestinians in a form that is more to his liking, has begun to extend it to the rest of the Middle East.

Palestinian terrorism, he argues, is funded and encouraged by Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and others - so those countries must be changed too.

The second reason is that both Israel and the US persist in their rigorous application of the law of the excluded middle - exactly what the British ambassador warned against.

Those who are not wholly and unreservedly committed to the ``war on terrorism`` are considered to be siding with terrorists.

Those who disapprove of Ariel Sharon`s policies are labelled anti-Israeli or even anti-Semitic.

Worse than that, under the law of the excluded middle positions become more and more polarised, the problems become magnified and require ever more drastic solutions.

The third but perhaps the most important factor is that deliberately creating turmoil throughout the Middle East diverts attention from the underlying problem - the Israeli occupation that has blighted the region for more than half a century and has played a large part in the rise of Islamic militancy.

In the current American climate, it`s politically more acceptable to talk of sending a quarter of a million troops to change the regime in Iraq (and to threaten Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia with similar treatment), than it is to talk of imposing a fair peace for Palestinians.

That, in essence, is where the US and Europe part company. Europeans see the world as it is and seek to deal with its problems; Americans see the world as it would like it to be and seek to change it.

But it`s one thing to attempt wholesale change and another to achieve it. As ambassador Cowper-Coles told his Israeli audience: ``In the real world, constructive politics is the art of the possible, not the impossible.``

Coney Al Jazeera SaminaShah

Samina

First of all sorry for the late response - now to my opinion of male attitudes towrads sex, sexuality in Pakistani society: As you we discussed earlier I am convinced there is some sort of tremendous FEAR among men in Pakistani society about sex and sexuality - A fear of WOMEN.

I do not know how or when to locate it time or to a specific idea in our society (except to the ideology of the Obscuritanist - but that is all too easy and while valid, I don`t think it is satisfactory; in the general sense)

I do not understand the NEED to repress and do violence to women, as expressed in our society - and certainly the attitudes among men (entirely personal, non-scientific) are victorian, with a strong streak of the loathing of sex and sexualityand at the same time intense curiousity and attraction. Of course this means girls and women who even so much as exhibit the slightest idea that they enjoy the attraction or are attracted by the ``maleness`` or enjoy sex or the idea o sexuality are ``whores`` and such; a sort saint/slut paradigm that our repressed society seems to support. I think this supports the jelly like inside of men in our society when it comes to women - it seems we never outgrow our childhood; the women, our mothers, still holding together the fragileness of our ego, when it comes to sex. Where is that lovely Ms. Rizvi who used to write on Chowk?

I also think that this has some connection to our culture`s aggrandizment of the ``love`` as being a powerful, majestic wave that must crash and break against the immovable in society; a failure of love, of love being merely ``baazi`` instead of the ``aishk baazi`` as act one, scene one, in a long complicated journey of self discovery and ultimately self discipline; one and one make two before arriving at the proposition that one and one make one.

Do you not think that the entire concept of ``love`` and pair bonding is devalued in our society; especially among younger persons? Flirting, dating, love making are intensely attractive and will become increasing so, to the younger (and not necessarily confined to the younger) amongst us and I think our inablity, our society`s inability to rise to this need being felt in our society, will make us even more sick -what do you think?

These attitudes even reflect in clothes - in that awful heat - covered up head to toe, in volumes of cloth, wrapped up like some living dead - as if ``modesty`` as but one definition and interpretation - even the cultural prohition against shaking hands among some - it`s just really sick - just intense sexual awareness and just intense denial, as if it is possible.

I`m rambling now and my distaste of Obscuritanist ideology and culture is showing - so give me some feed back on these ideas.