Blowing Up People and Property is Not Islam
Some years ago I thought like you. That the trouble is the racism in Muslim communities against non-believers, that at the heart of the matter is prejudice and dislike for communities that are different from them. I thought so before I saw the level of prejudice in other communities. That prejudice may not be couched in terms of Allah and religion, yet it is at times more strongly felt by the community than any Maulana`s ethnocentricity. Other communities hide their integral distaste for other communities a little better. They are more diplomatic and politically correct and their followers are ironically less likely to complain about the problem. They wont openly say they hate non-hindus, non-Indians, non christains, Chinese or Japanese. Yet their actions speak louder than words. Quite shockingly I find muslim people more open to marriage outside the community and very openly derisive of racist religious teachings in their private life. There is a leap of induction from the premise that muslims are racist to the conclusion that muslims hate other non-muslims and will kill them. That leap of judgement is where we depart from the truth, which is far more complex. And, I still maintain that intolerance for the perceived `other` is a problem for human being all over the world, and leads to the divisions between people. Unfortunately this US and THEM instinct seems to be be wired into our very basic survival instinct.
The problem therefore is not racism, insularity or inter-communal hatred, the world has lived with this for a long long time. Quite sadly the problem is that the West is indeed after the Middle-east. It is the reaction to this forceful homogeniety, of loss of identity, the loss as it were of Allah, their very source of identity that drives these so-called terrorists who like frightened ants fight the mighty boot of the Western race who have machines.
Your solution to the Muslims is to become more like the Jews. This is exactly what the Jews would like. And exactly what the terrorists will resist.
Is there a political solution? The other replies have hinted at that question and so do you. Is there a Muslim civil society? Muslim modernity? Does such an animal exist? Can such a thing happen in societies ruled by dictators who are rich from oil money and did not become leaders through force of argument but force of money? Those are the real questions.
Between the terrorist and the ordinary person, there is a divide that the terrorist cannot bridge and only the ordinary person can do that task. Is the Muslim world equal to that challenge?
The good signs are that instead of the last time i.e., in 2003 before warring on Iraq or even 2001, the Muslim community is better prepared. Moments after the incident, the reactions of Muslim people made it to the public eye. Programs on CBC showed a healthy debate on several sides of the problem. Writers have questioned the timing of the arrests 1. Just when the antiterrorist bill in Canada is up for debate 2. The chief of CSIS warning about homegrown terrorists 3. The increased budget for military and security surveillance spending 4. The much published articles about multicultural policies not being effective and that Canada lacks identity unlike the US. 5. Stephen Harpers meetings with President Bush, sharing databases, tightening border security 6. Stephen Harpers triumphant announcing of the terrorists that have been caught before even a trial to establish the exact crime. 7. Stephen Harper is the new Bush fan
Here is what I think: The dumbest Muslims fed on religous rhetoric are the greatest pawns of the world`s game for oil and control of Middle-east. IF only this single point made it to a mosque--things would change. But alas, the educated upwardly mobile elite Muslim like yourself is all too ready to find fault with ethnocentricism, the politically illiterate but technically educated believer type is too busy feeling sorry for the Muslim world, the feminist thinker (e.g., Ms Manji to name one) has siezed the opportunity to tout her resentment of being relegated to second spot or none in Muslim societies. And the reactionary terrorist is a teen on hormones. Who or what type is left?
Quite oddly then, the problem of the Muslim community is not the aggresive underbelly, but the apologetic pacifist elites. Afraid of religious rhetoric, doubtful of our own value to the world, we masquerade as consumers in the West even as we resent the labels being heaped on us. It is sad times indeed. Perhaps we are the unwilling witnesses of the death of a culture and of a belief system that really isnt so bad. The root of self-doubt must be examined and a dialogue between the maulana and the intellectual is perhaps the only path to construct a political solution. Yet historically, this dialogue has resulted many times in the death of the intellectual--more graphically shown by the killing of Dara Shikoh by Aurengzaib. But, there must be a political solution to the dilemma, because a fractured society becomes the prey of all invaders. And yes, if this continues, the fear is real that Muslims will be erased from the planet and instead a homogenous global society owned by the US will take its place.
Posted by
SaimaShah
Jun 13, 2006 01:04 pm
Dear Mr Ghori,Some years ago I thought like you. That the trouble is the racism in Muslim communities against non-believers, that at the heart of the matter is prejudice and dislike for communities that are different from them. I thought so before I saw the level of prejudice in other communities. That prejudice may not be couched in terms of Allah and religion, yet it is at times more strongly felt by the community than any Maulana`s ethnocentricity. Other communities hide their integral distaste for other communities a little better. They are more diplomatic and politically correct and their followers are ironically less likely to complain about the problem. They wont openly say they hate non-hindus, non-Indians, non christains, Chinese or Japanese. Yet their actions speak louder than words. Quite shockingly I find muslim people more open to marriage outside the community and very openly derisive of racist religious teachings in their private life. There is a leap of induction from the premise that muslims are racist to the conclusion that muslims hate other non-muslims and will kill them. That leap of judgement is where we depart from the truth, which is far more complex. And, I still maintain that intolerance for the perceived `other` is a problem for human being all over the world, and leads to the divisions between people. Unfortunately this US and THEM instinct seems to be be wired into our very basic survival instinct.
The problem therefore is not racism, insularity or inter-communal hatred, the world has lived with this for a long long time. Quite sadly the problem is that the West is indeed after the Middle-east. It is the reaction to this forceful homogeniety, of loss of identity, the loss as it were of Allah, their very source of identity that drives these so-called terrorists who like frightened ants fight the mighty boot of the Western race who have machines.
Your solution to the Muslims is to become more like the Jews. This is exactly what the Jews would like. And exactly what the terrorists will resist.
Is there a political solution? The other replies have hinted at that question and so do you. Is there a Muslim civil society? Muslim modernity? Does such an animal exist? Can such a thing happen in societies ruled by dictators who are rich from oil money and did not become leaders through force of argument but force of money? Those are the real questions.
Between the terrorist and the ordinary person, there is a divide that the terrorist cannot bridge and only the ordinary person can do that task. Is the Muslim world equal to that challenge?
The good signs are that instead of the last time i.e., in 2003 before warring on Iraq or even 2001, the Muslim community is better prepared. Moments after the incident, the reactions of Muslim people made it to the public eye. Programs on CBC showed a healthy debate on several sides of the problem. Writers have questioned the timing of the arrests 1. Just when the antiterrorist bill in Canada is up for debate 2. The chief of CSIS warning about homegrown terrorists 3. The increased budget for military and security surveillance spending 4. The much published articles about multicultural policies not being effective and that Canada lacks identity unlike the US. 5. Stephen Harpers meetings with President Bush, sharing databases, tightening border security 6. Stephen Harpers triumphant announcing of the terrorists that have been caught before even a trial to establish the exact crime. 7. Stephen Harper is the new Bush fan
Here is what I think: The dumbest Muslims fed on religous rhetoric are the greatest pawns of the world`s game for oil and control of Middle-east. IF only this single point made it to a mosque--things would change. But alas, the educated upwardly mobile elite Muslim like yourself is all too ready to find fault with ethnocentricism, the politically illiterate but technically educated believer type is too busy feeling sorry for the Muslim world, the feminist thinker (e.g., Ms Manji to name one) has siezed the opportunity to tout her resentment of being relegated to second spot or none in Muslim societies. And the reactionary terrorist is a teen on hormones. Who or what type is left?
Quite oddly then, the problem of the Muslim community is not the aggresive underbelly, but the apologetic pacifist elites. Afraid of religious rhetoric, doubtful of our own value to the world, we masquerade as consumers in the West even as we resent the labels being heaped on us. It is sad times indeed. Perhaps we are the unwilling witnesses of the death of a culture and of a belief system that really isnt so bad. The root of self-doubt must be examined and a dialogue between the maulana and the intellectual is perhaps the only path to construct a political solution. Yet historically, this dialogue has resulted many times in the death of the intellectual--more graphically shown by the killing of Dara Shikoh by Aurengzaib. But, there must be a political solution to the dilemma, because a fractured society becomes the prey of all invaders. And yes, if this continues, the fear is real that Muslims will be erased from the planet and instead a homogenous global society owned by the US will take its place.
Change Management:Marx and Muslims
Harimau
1. Every Third World country is not India.
2. Assuming in an energy crisis all oil will go to USA, biggest buyer etc.
3. Third World countries are not fully developed, meaning they can rely on older networks and methods since those have been recently replaced by `new` polluting petroleum based alternatives. The switch would be hypothetically less painful.
4. These countries have less reliance on petro chemicals, plastics etc. They still use more `natural` materials in food, clothing etc, chemicals are more expensive relatively.
5. Inferred that in case of an energy crisis, these places may be more equipped to change back to the old ways.
6. This inference may some optimism--but then for some the glass is always empty and for others half full. Isn`t it time the Third World got out of the Third World Syndrome; i.e, things are the worst here and did something other than compare these places unfairly with America?
Let`s put things in perspective here. Many people imagine that America is wealthy because it somehow outwitted everyone else. That somehow the reason for all its successes was because of its superiority. This is simplistic. Whereas, the truth is somewhat different. A confluence of historic forces has led to the seeming success of American capitalism. However, the success does not mean that a/ It will remain successful regardless of the planet`s constraints b/ its ability to innovate and change is as ahead as it was a 100 years ago wherein it led the world in terms of emancipated ideas c/ The Thirld World has nothing to offer in terms of civilization or ideas. Quite the reverse, the older cultures and languages all had evolved ways to live, lore based knowledge, philosophical systems that had kept the Earth in balance for hundreds of years. d/ That forevermore wealth will be about industrially produced wealth, whereas wealth is also about scarcity, innovation mattered when the products were unique e/ The sources of wealth in this century will be natural resources rather than the ability to produce from them. f/ Capitalism is having a hard time pricing inputs like social structure, family support, clean air in a meaningful way. Why this is so is because unlike mechanized production, these kind of inputs do not follow a linear time value of money type trajectory. Capitalism has succeeded mostly in industrial production, in a machine world. When it comes to pricing clean air, water, parental attention, social values and time to be, it all gets really fuzzy.
The idea that this system is efficient is also misguided.
Efficient in terms of what? Efficient in production? No, coz other countries who have inputs like more supportive social structure, family, greater educational competition, are producing more cheaply.
Efficiency in allocating resources?
Instead of allocating resources to education, educated people being an input this system needs all the time, schools keep getting budget cuts. Instead the military-industrial complex gets the most resources. Inspite of the comparably huge resources compared to say a country like India, why aren`t they able to produce the engineers that they need? Because a non-monetary resource is not there; a social structure that rewards rigor and perseverence over `getting it done.` Look at the language, meetings are `scheduled` people are asked for `inputs` , people are called `resources` and `consumers`. It is similar to religion, where identities are subsumed under Muslim, Hindu, Christain, Jew, The guy who does the communications is called a Marketing VP who plans how his `customers` will react. And communism did the same thing, comrade, worker, titles substitute religious identity.
When people say they don`t understand why, with all this money, there is no time, it is precisely because the money that there is no time.
Efficiency in terms of minimum inputs for maximum outputs?
Again, this is a myth perpetuated because of the hype and the drama that surrounds corporations. Partially true in terms of task scheduling and `getting it done`, time is after all the greatest master of this system, however wastage is incredible. Does one imagine that the food in Safeway on display will all be consumed today?. Over capacity in every sphere of the economy makes this impossible.
Efficiency in terms of resource conservation?
Absolutely not. Just the amount of water wasted in just domestic use is unbelievable. I wont go into global warming, but part of the reason that it is a problem is because of the lack of resource conservation. The HOV lane on a highway has hardly any cars, the average family has 3 cars.
Posted by
SaimaShah
May 27, 2006 12:32 am
Re: # 74Harimau
1. Every Third World country is not India.
2. Assuming in an energy crisis all oil will go to USA, biggest buyer etc.
3. Third World countries are not fully developed, meaning they can rely on older networks and methods since those have been recently replaced by `new` polluting petroleum based alternatives. The switch would be hypothetically less painful.
4. These countries have less reliance on petro chemicals, plastics etc. They still use more `natural` materials in food, clothing etc, chemicals are more expensive relatively.
5. Inferred that in case of an energy crisis, these places may be more equipped to change back to the old ways.
6. This inference may some optimism--but then for some the glass is always empty and for others half full. Isn`t it time the Third World got out of the Third World Syndrome; i.e, things are the worst here and did something other than compare these places unfairly with America?
Let`s put things in perspective here. Many people imagine that America is wealthy because it somehow outwitted everyone else. That somehow the reason for all its successes was because of its superiority. This is simplistic. Whereas, the truth is somewhat different. A confluence of historic forces has led to the seeming success of American capitalism. However, the success does not mean that a/ It will remain successful regardless of the planet`s constraints b/ its ability to innovate and change is as ahead as it was a 100 years ago wherein it led the world in terms of emancipated ideas c/ The Thirld World has nothing to offer in terms of civilization or ideas. Quite the reverse, the older cultures and languages all had evolved ways to live, lore based knowledge, philosophical systems that had kept the Earth in balance for hundreds of years. d/ That forevermore wealth will be about industrially produced wealth, whereas wealth is also about scarcity, innovation mattered when the products were unique e/ The sources of wealth in this century will be natural resources rather than the ability to produce from them. f/ Capitalism is having a hard time pricing inputs like social structure, family support, clean air in a meaningful way. Why this is so is because unlike mechanized production, these kind of inputs do not follow a linear time value of money type trajectory. Capitalism has succeeded mostly in industrial production, in a machine world. When it comes to pricing clean air, water, parental attention, social values and time to be, it all gets really fuzzy.
The idea that this system is efficient is also misguided.
Efficient in terms of what? Efficient in production? No, coz other countries who have inputs like more supportive social structure, family, greater educational competition, are producing more cheaply.
Efficiency in allocating resources?
Instead of allocating resources to education, educated people being an input this system needs all the time, schools keep getting budget cuts. Instead the military-industrial complex gets the most resources. Inspite of the comparably huge resources compared to say a country like India, why aren`t they able to produce the engineers that they need? Because a non-monetary resource is not there; a social structure that rewards rigor and perseverence over `getting it done.` Look at the language, meetings are `scheduled` people are asked for `inputs` , people are called `resources` and `consumers`. It is similar to religion, where identities are subsumed under Muslim, Hindu, Christain, Jew, The guy who does the communications is called a Marketing VP who plans how his `customers` will react. And communism did the same thing, comrade, worker, titles substitute religious identity.
When people say they don`t understand why, with all this money, there is no time, it is precisely because the money that there is no time.
Efficiency in terms of minimum inputs for maximum outputs?
Again, this is a myth perpetuated because of the hype and the drama that surrounds corporations. Partially true in terms of task scheduling and `getting it done`, time is after all the greatest master of this system, however wastage is incredible. Does one imagine that the food in Safeway on display will all be consumed today?. Over capacity in every sphere of the economy makes this impossible.
Efficiency in terms of resource conservation?
Absolutely not. Just the amount of water wasted in just domestic use is unbelievable. I wont go into global warming, but part of the reason that it is a problem is because of the lack of resource conservation. The HOV lane on a highway has hardly any cars, the average family has 3 cars.
Change Management:Marx and Muslims
Harimau
1. Every Third World country is not India.
2. Assuming in an energy crisis all oil will go to USA, biggest buyer etc.
3. Third World countries are not fully developed, meaning they can rely on older networks and methods since those have been recently replaced by `new` polluting petroleum based alternatives. The switch would be hypothetically less painful.
4. These countries have less reliance on petro chemicals, plastics etc. They still use more `natural` materials in food, clothing etc, chemicals are more expensive relatively.
5. Inferred that in case of an energy crisis, these places may be more equipped to change back to the old ways.
6. This inference may some optimism--but then for some the glass is always empty and for others half full. Isn`t it time the Third World got out of the Third World Syndrome; i.e, things are the worst here and did something other than compare these places unfairly with America?
Let`s put things in perspective here. Many people imagine that America is wealthy because it somehow outwitted everyone else. That somehow the reason for all its successes was because of its superiority. This is simplistic. Whereas, the truth is somewhat different. A confluence of historic forces has led to the seeming success of American capitalism. However, the success does not mean that a/ It will remain successful regardless of the planet`s constraints b/ its ability to innovate and change is as ahead as it was a 100 years ago wherein it led the world in terms of emancipated ideas c/ The Thirld World has nothing to offer in terms of civilization or ideas. Quite the reverse, the older cultures and languages all had evolved ways to live, lore based knowledge, philosophical systems that had kept the Earth in balance for hundreds of years. d/ That forevermore wealth will be about industrially produced wealth, whereas wealth is also about scarcity, innovation mattered when the products were unique e/ The sources of wealth in this century will be natural resources rather than the ability to produce from them. f/ Capitalism is having a hard time pricing inputs like social structure, family support, clean air in a meaningful way. Why this is so is because unlike mechanized production, these kind of inputs do not follow a linear time value of money type trajectory. Capitalism has succeeded mostly in industrial production, in a machine world. When it comes to pricing clean air, water, parental attention, social values and time to be, it all gets really fuzzy.
The idea that this system is efficient is also misguided.
Efficient in terms of what? Efficient in production? No, coz other countries who have inputs like more supportive social structure, family, greater educational competition, are producing more cheaply.
Efficiency in allocating resources?
Instead of allocating resources to education, educated people being an input this system needs all the time, schools keep getting budget cuts. Instead the military-industrial complex gets the most resources. Inspite of the comparably huge resources compared to say a country like India, why aren`t they able to produce the engineers that they need? Because a non-monetary resource is not there; a social structure that rewards rigor and perseverence over `getting it done.` Look at the language, meetings are `scheduled` people are asked for `inputs` , people are called `resources` and `consumers`. It is similar to religion, where identities are subsumed under Muslim, Hindu, Christain, Jew, The guy who does the communications is called a Marketing VP who plans how his `customers` will react. And communism did the same thing, comrade, worker, titles substitute religious identity.
When people say they don`t understand why, with all this money, there is no time, it is precisely because the money that there is no time.
Efficiency in terms of minimum inputs for maximum outputs?
Again, this is a myth perpetuated because of the hype and the drama that surrounds corporations. Partially true in terms of task scheduling and `getting it done`, time is after all the greatest master of this system, however wastage is incredible. Does one imagine that the food in Safeway on display will all be consumed today?. Over capacity in every sphere of the economy makes this impossible.
Efficiency in terms of resource conservation?
Absolutely not. Just the amount of water wasted in just domestic use is unbelievable. I wont go into global warming, but part of the reason that it is a problem is because of the lack of resource conservation. The HOV lane on a highway has hardly any cars, the average family has 3 cars.
Posted by
SaimaShah
May 27, 2006 12:31 am
Re: # 74Harimau
1. Every Third World country is not India.
2. Assuming in an energy crisis all oil will go to USA, biggest buyer etc.
3. Third World countries are not fully developed, meaning they can rely on older networks and methods since those have been recently replaced by `new` polluting petroleum based alternatives. The switch would be hypothetically less painful.
4. These countries have less reliance on petro chemicals, plastics etc. They still use more `natural` materials in food, clothing etc, chemicals are more expensive relatively.
5. Inferred that in case of an energy crisis, these places may be more equipped to change back to the old ways.
6. This inference may some optimism--but then for some the glass is always empty and for others half full. Isn`t it time the Third World got out of the Third World Syndrome; i.e, things are the worst here and did something other than compare these places unfairly with America?
Let`s put things in perspective here. Many people imagine that America is wealthy because it somehow outwitted everyone else. That somehow the reason for all its successes was because of its superiority. This is simplistic. Whereas, the truth is somewhat different. A confluence of historic forces has led to the seeming success of American capitalism. However, the success does not mean that a/ It will remain successful regardless of the planet`s constraints b/ its ability to innovate and change is as ahead as it was a 100 years ago wherein it led the world in terms of emancipated ideas c/ The Thirld World has nothing to offer in terms of civilization or ideas. Quite the reverse, the older cultures and languages all had evolved ways to live, lore based knowledge, philosophical systems that had kept the Earth in balance for hundreds of years. d/ That forevermore wealth will be about industrially produced wealth, whereas wealth is also about scarcity, innovation mattered when the products were unique e/ The sources of wealth in this century will be natural resources rather than the ability to produce from them. f/ Capitalism is having a hard time pricing inputs like social structure, family support, clean air in a meaningful way. Why this is so is because unlike mechanized production, these kind of inputs do not follow a linear time value of money type trajectory. Capitalism has succeeded mostly in industrial production, in a machine world. When it comes to pricing clean air, water, parental attention, social values and time to be, it all gets really fuzzy.
The idea that this system is efficient is also misguided.
Efficient in terms of what? Efficient in production? No, coz other countries who have inputs like more supportive social structure, family, greater educational competition, are producing more cheaply.
Efficiency in allocating resources?
Instead of allocating resources to education, educated people being an input this system needs all the time, schools keep getting budget cuts. Instead the military-industrial complex gets the most resources. Inspite of the comparably huge resources compared to say a country like India, why aren`t they able to produce the engineers that they need? Because a non-monetary resource is not there; a social structure that rewards rigor and perseverence over `getting it done.` Look at the language, meetings are `scheduled` people are asked for `inputs` , people are called `resources` and `consumers`. It is similar to religion, where identities are subsumed under Muslim, Hindu, Christain, Jew, The guy who does the communications is called a Marketing VP who plans how his `customers` will react. And communism did the same thing, comrade, worker, titles substitute religious identity.
When people say they don`t understand why, with all this money, there is no time, it is precisely because the money that there is no time.
Efficiency in terms of minimum inputs for maximum outputs?
Again, this is a myth perpetuated because of the hype and the drama that surrounds corporations. Partially true in terms of task scheduling and `getting it done`, time is after all the greatest master of this system, however wastage is incredible. Does one imagine that the food in Safeway on display will all be consumed today?. Over capacity in every sphere of the economy makes this impossible.
Efficiency in terms of resource conservation?
Absolutely not. Just the amount of water wasted in just domestic use is unbelievable. I wont go into global warming, but part of the reason that it is a problem is because of the lack of resource conservation. The HOV lane on a highway has hardly any cars, the average family has 3 cars.
Change Management:Marx and Muslims
Well said. It is time for an alternative economic system and exchange rate system that recognizes resources as the main `wealth` rather than consumption and production of man-made goods. Whether this happens through political conflict or the powers that be will voluntarily adjust the present system is unknown. It may get really nasty or not, depends on who runs USA.
Posted by
SaimaShah
May 26, 2006 12:10 pm
Re: # 37Well said. It is time for an alternative economic system and exchange rate system that recognizes resources as the main `wealth` rather than consumption and production of man-made goods. Whether this happens through political conflict or the powers that be will voluntarily adjust the present system is unknown. It may get really nasty or not, depends on who runs USA.
Change Management:Marx and Muslims
LOL: How about this one:
The dinner if OBL is dead:
OBL`s wife: He is gone, but he has dropped the purdah from people`s eyes. More people than ever before now see USA as the infidel who steals from the poor for his own needs.
We are eating a good meal thanks to the blessing of Allah, grown in our own backyard. The world fights for oil, but we only need the bounty of this Earth. May Allah punish the infidels and expose their lies.
Al Zawahi`s sister: Inshallah, but what is life in a cave? Why can`t we emerge and take our place in the world?
OBL`s wife 2: Who wants to live with Infidels. They are like animals governed by their bodily needs. We do not want their corruption. Our job is to continue even after they are gone.
Posted by
SaimaShah
May 26, 2006 12:06 pm
Re: # 20LOL: How about this one:
The dinner if OBL is dead:
OBL`s wife: He is gone, but he has dropped the purdah from people`s eyes. More people than ever before now see USA as the infidel who steals from the poor for his own needs.
We are eating a good meal thanks to the blessing of Allah, grown in our own backyard. The world fights for oil, but we only need the bounty of this Earth. May Allah punish the infidels and expose their lies.
Al Zawahi`s sister: Inshallah, but what is life in a cave? Why can`t we emerge and take our place in the world?
OBL`s wife 2: Who wants to live with Infidels. They are like animals governed by their bodily needs. We do not want their corruption. Our job is to continue even after they are gone.
Connecting the Dots: From Oil Energy to Green Energy
:). It is funny how being American means a BIG car, a BIG house, a BIG meal and a BIG ego, BIG carbon emissions (double the amount of Europe at only 70% of Europes population and then BIG hurricane, BIG flood, BIG cancer. (man did that sound like an evangelist, o no). Anyway, point is not to put the Americans down, point is will those guys wake up or not?
Rgds
S
Posted by
SaimaShah
May 26, 2006 11:24 am
Re: # 7:). It is funny how being American means a BIG car, a BIG house, a BIG meal and a BIG ego, BIG carbon emissions (double the amount of Europe at only 70% of Europes population and then BIG hurricane, BIG flood, BIG cancer. (man did that sound like an evangelist, o no). Anyway, point is not to put the Americans down, point is will those guys wake up or not?
Rgds
S
Connecting the Dots: From Oil Energy to Green Energy
9/11 Truth.org made it to the Washington Post blogs, reflecting as the author says at the end `what is really interesting here is not some cover-up but the enormous disillusionment that exists not just with the war in Iraq but also the fight against terrorism`.
Posted by
SaimaShah
May 26, 2006 11:14 am
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/05/911_truth_i_dont_think_so.html#215449/11 Truth.org made it to the Washington Post blogs, reflecting as the author says at the end `what is really interesting here is not some cover-up but the enormous disillusionment that exists not just with the war in Iraq but also the fight against terrorism`.
Change Management:Marx and Muslims
I like your set of arguments. Marxism and current Islam has strong parallels. Perhaps Islam is the last frontier to global capitalism because Muslims are more attached to their own identity than anything else. But I am not so sure about their being only one way to embrace the capitalist dream and that somehow embracing the Left side of Islam is a way to accept capitalism. The idea that Rightist Islam is fundamentally opposed to capitalism does not have me wholly convinced. Wahabi Islam is the worst imperialism after all. If anything Leftist Islam is more opposing in nature to capitalism i.e., people before profits, nature, harmony, needs before productivity. We also have to see who Leftists in Islam see as enemies. Is it concentrated wealth or Mullahs?. Does a desperate desire to be known for something other than terrorism or prayer guide them or a genuine cause? I dont think Islam has found its great cause yet. It has found some solace and comfort in the arguments of the anti-corporate Left who was suffering with WTO, IMF and World Bank for some time. Whether this relationship will persist or not would be determined by how quickly Muslims take the opportunity to evangelize their values. This is happening in the Christain world as well--the Left is making an alliance with Christains. Just what is causing it? IMHO, the system of global capitalism needs an overhaul, for far too long the USD has persisted as the reserve currency and the trading currency of choice, these political struggles are about a shifting world order where economic resource constraints will dictate economic wealth--those countries with natural resources will want a higher price to give them up. It wont be so easy for the West to `buy` natural resources from the Third World because it has become aware of the true `value` of such things.
Therefore, Pakistan, instead of trying to copy the Western economic model, and creating the same problems for itself needs to recognize its lifestyle strengths and work with that. As time passes and people realize that the cummulative poisoning from petrochemicals is destroying the eco-system along with carbon emissions i.e., global warming will become the major issue of the day. In such a situation how much capital a country has will not matter as much, resurrecting old indigenous technology may be key. 10 years from now people may be desparate to get a visa to Third World Countries because these would have less cumulative residue from petroleum and lower carbon emissions, therefore a longer lifespan than the West.
Posted by
SaimaShah
May 26, 2006 09:37 am
YLH--I like your set of arguments. Marxism and current Islam has strong parallels. Perhaps Islam is the last frontier to global capitalism because Muslims are more attached to their own identity than anything else. But I am not so sure about their being only one way to embrace the capitalist dream and that somehow embracing the Left side of Islam is a way to accept capitalism. The idea that Rightist Islam is fundamentally opposed to capitalism does not have me wholly convinced. Wahabi Islam is the worst imperialism after all. If anything Leftist Islam is more opposing in nature to capitalism i.e., people before profits, nature, harmony, needs before productivity. We also have to see who Leftists in Islam see as enemies. Is it concentrated wealth or Mullahs?. Does a desperate desire to be known for something other than terrorism or prayer guide them or a genuine cause? I dont think Islam has found its great cause yet. It has found some solace and comfort in the arguments of the anti-corporate Left who was suffering with WTO, IMF and World Bank for some time. Whether this relationship will persist or not would be determined by how quickly Muslims take the opportunity to evangelize their values. This is happening in the Christain world as well--the Left is making an alliance with Christains. Just what is causing it? IMHO, the system of global capitalism needs an overhaul, for far too long the USD has persisted as the reserve currency and the trading currency of choice, these political struggles are about a shifting world order where economic resource constraints will dictate economic wealth--those countries with natural resources will want a higher price to give them up. It wont be so easy for the West to `buy` natural resources from the Third World because it has become aware of the true `value` of such things.
Therefore, Pakistan, instead of trying to copy the Western economic model, and creating the same problems for itself needs to recognize its lifestyle strengths and work with that. As time passes and people realize that the cummulative poisoning from petrochemicals is destroying the eco-system along with carbon emissions i.e., global warming will become the major issue of the day. In such a situation how much capital a country has will not matter as much, resurrecting old indigenous technology may be key. 10 years from now people may be desparate to get a visa to Third World Countries because these would have less cumulative residue from petroleum and lower carbon emissions, therefore a longer lifespan than the West.
The Last Institutionist: John Kenneth Galbraith
Posted by
SaimaShah
May 23, 2006 12:22 pm
An excellent and informative write-up. Capitalism/Communism are a ying yang relationship--each untenable alone. There is much work left to be done in ameliorating capitalism to reduce its deficiencies and its weaknesses. Perhaps a recognition of the same is long long overdue. Capitalism has flipped too strongly to the right in the West--and its weaknesses are considered necessities.
Oil and Water do Mix
Pricing water is another get rich scheme whereby a few will profit at the expense of many. IMHO the public sector has being doing just fine in supplying water--it can be improved--why sell water?
And if we continue to price and sell natural resources, what will be next? Air? and then? family? Where will we stop? and for what? and all this because we rationalize corruption in the public sector and call it a tax? for an accountant everything has a price. For humans, life is more than that--it is essentially priceless. The UN has really become a guardian of capitalist interests--therefore this guardian angel status we accord to it is rubbish.
And why is oil sold like this?. Why can`t the oil producing countries choose the price and to whom it is sold? Why was Iraq forced to follow an oil for food program that failed miserably. Why did Saddam order the oil wells burnt a few years ago? Why can`t oil be rationed according to global population density. Who gets to decide the price of oil and why?
Go down the rabbit hole at your own risk.
Posted by
SaimaShah
Apr 5, 2006 01:01 pm
Privitization of water has been tried in some places with disastrous consequences. When poor people are asked to pay for water, it becomes a very sick sight. Pricing water is like asking a few million people to voluntarily die. Pricing water is another get rich scheme whereby a few will profit at the expense of many. IMHO the public sector has being doing just fine in supplying water--it can be improved--why sell water?
And if we continue to price and sell natural resources, what will be next? Air? and then? family? Where will we stop? and for what? and all this because we rationalize corruption in the public sector and call it a tax? for an accountant everything has a price. For humans, life is more than that--it is essentially priceless. The UN has really become a guardian of capitalist interests--therefore this guardian angel status we accord to it is rubbish.
And why is oil sold like this?. Why can`t the oil producing countries choose the price and to whom it is sold? Why was Iraq forced to follow an oil for food program that failed miserably. Why did Saddam order the oil wells burnt a few years ago? Why can`t oil be rationed according to global population density. Who gets to decide the price of oil and why?
Go down the rabbit hole at your own risk.
A Tale of Two Dinners
Posted by
SaimaShah
Apr 3, 2006 05:31 pm
Hilarious article. Enjoyed it a lot
When Jihad Becomes Terrorism.
And about time Christainity was protected from George W. Bush. Amen, Aameen etc.
``Jihad`, Terrorism etc are non-issues. The real issues that divide this world are deeper. If it weren`t Islam it would be something else. The world unfortunately is engaged in a catastrophic struggle for resources and oil. It is sadly a failure of imagination and humanity.
Posted by
SaimaShah
Apr 3, 2006 05:28 pm
And about time Christainity was protected from George W. Bush. Amen, Aameen etc.
``Jihad`, Terrorism etc are non-issues. The real issues that divide this world are deeper. If it weren`t Islam it would be something else. The world unfortunately is engaged in a catastrophic struggle for resources and oil. It is sadly a failure of imagination and humanity.
Give Us this Day our Tandoori Chicken
LOL.
S
Posted by
SaimaShah
Mar 1, 2006 10:13 am
Loved it. Gorgeous.LOL.
S
Love Ya, Dubya
It took a small child to say that The Emperor Has No Clothes. A child who was subsequently punished for the simple truth. No-one else had the courage. We don`t know how or when Bush the emperor will be told `enough`. Right now the US govt. must be the most hated in the entire world, the US economy more endangered than any other, yet, nobody in the world has the guts to risk the truth--as yet no-one is strong enough.
First US was converted to a country of sychophants, now US needs a world of them--either you are a sychophant or a terrorist. There is smaller and smaller margin to be an ordinary critic. Bush must be the most stupid President the US has ever known--and so India`s sychophancy might be quite a successful strategy for India--.
As for the disconnect between the elites and the slaves of the system--that is part of the modernity being stuffed down India and Pakistan. It might be that the analysts in US think tanks thought that having very modern leaders/the desi moderns in the leadership roles in both India and Pakistan would help reduce resistance to the US control of resources and act as an important bolster against the `terrorist` elements who were protesting against US control of oil and modernity as a way of life in return for that trade. They seem to have made an error here...coz the very idea of US as immutable country of exemplary people is flawed. Also. the idea that the `modern` Indo-Paki is somehow more modern than Indo-Paki is also somewhat incorrect. Not to mention cultural differences that will always temper the kind of modernity that is allowed in these countries...
In a nutshell, the US sees South Asia as the softest resistance in their agenda of global control...and economically, they aren`t afraid coz well Greenspan has figured it all out. Bribe South Asia (after all it is part of South Asian culture) and browbeat others.
Posted by
SaimaShah
Mar 1, 2006 10:08 am
Farzana,It took a small child to say that The Emperor Has No Clothes. A child who was subsequently punished for the simple truth. No-one else had the courage. We don`t know how or when Bush the emperor will be told `enough`. Right now the US govt. must be the most hated in the entire world, the US economy more endangered than any other, yet, nobody in the world has the guts to risk the truth--as yet no-one is strong enough.
First US was converted to a country of sychophants, now US needs a world of them--either you are a sychophant or a terrorist. There is smaller and smaller margin to be an ordinary critic. Bush must be the most stupid President the US has ever known--and so India`s sychophancy might be quite a successful strategy for India--.
As for the disconnect between the elites and the slaves of the system--that is part of the modernity being stuffed down India and Pakistan. It might be that the analysts in US think tanks thought that having very modern leaders/the desi moderns in the leadership roles in both India and Pakistan would help reduce resistance to the US control of resources and act as an important bolster against the `terrorist` elements who were protesting against US control of oil and modernity as a way of life in return for that trade. They seem to have made an error here...coz the very idea of US as immutable country of exemplary people is flawed. Also. the idea that the `modern` Indo-Paki is somehow more modern than Indo-Paki is also somewhat incorrect. Not to mention cultural differences that will always temper the kind of modernity that is allowed in these countries...
In a nutshell, the US sees South Asia as the softest resistance in their agenda of global control...and economically, they aren`t afraid coz well Greenspan has figured it all out. Bribe South Asia (after all it is part of South Asian culture) and browbeat others.
Pakistan\'s \'Incomplete\' Democratic Experiment
1. Democracy is effective only when it is accompanied by trust--in the system, in the media, in the other person. Without trust, people cannot govern themselves, they will only fight.
2. Military is strong in Pakistan because for decades it has received the lion`s share of resources of the country.
3. The military does not trust the civic population and the civic population does not trust itself. It is ironic that it is in Musharraf`s time that a higher degree of a workable degree of trust has emerged in the civic society, due to which there is substantial improvement in governance and some economic growth.
4. To remove the military, the civic society has to continue to prove its competence and ability to self govern to take the power that it should rightfully have.
5. The middle-class (democracy`s axis) has to be large enough to govern, aware enough to guard its power and competent enough to deliver.
6. The emergence of political thought--a full spectrum from Left to Right is required for Democracy to function. The missing Left is picking itself from the fringes--if it does not sink into an armed struggle against the Army--it can be the catalyst for democracy. The army of a nation thinks in very simple terms. One gun=security needs. Security needs=army is needed in civic society. Once it is able to perceive the reverse; civic society functioning=less violence= army not needed, Army will go back.
IMHO, Pakistan is almost there. The next govt., would be most likely an elected democracy since the middle class has grown, the brain drain has stopped--there is a reverse brain gain, people actually understand their own power (thanks to the freedom of the media) and the way they can pressurize governments to work.
The call of the day is give us solutions not problems--the government actually engages in a dialogue with people (in my 2 decades of following Pakistani diaspora, I had never seen this). The problem that the nation needs to focus on is not the army, but their abilities to self-govern. The army is a symptom of a problem and perhaps helps in perpetuating it--that point of view has to be non confrontational, clearly explained and understood for the army to leave.
Posted by
SaimaShah
Jan 15, 2006 10:25 pm
Let us not forget a few things:1. Democracy is effective only when it is accompanied by trust--in the system, in the media, in the other person. Without trust, people cannot govern themselves, they will only fight.
2. Military is strong in Pakistan because for decades it has received the lion`s share of resources of the country.
3. The military does not trust the civic population and the civic population does not trust itself. It is ironic that it is in Musharraf`s time that a higher degree of a workable degree of trust has emerged in the civic society, due to which there is substantial improvement in governance and some economic growth.
4. To remove the military, the civic society has to continue to prove its competence and ability to self govern to take the power that it should rightfully have.
5. The middle-class (democracy`s axis) has to be large enough to govern, aware enough to guard its power and competent enough to deliver.
6. The emergence of political thought--a full spectrum from Left to Right is required for Democracy to function. The missing Left is picking itself from the fringes--if it does not sink into an armed struggle against the Army--it can be the catalyst for democracy. The army of a nation thinks in very simple terms. One gun=security needs. Security needs=army is needed in civic society. Once it is able to perceive the reverse; civic society functioning=less violence= army not needed, Army will go back.
IMHO, Pakistan is almost there. The next govt., would be most likely an elected democracy since the middle class has grown, the brain drain has stopped--there is a reverse brain gain, people actually understand their own power (thanks to the freedom of the media) and the way they can pressurize governments to work.
The call of the day is give us solutions not problems--the government actually engages in a dialogue with people (in my 2 decades of following Pakistani diaspora, I had never seen this). The problem that the nation needs to focus on is not the army, but their abilities to self-govern. The army is a symptom of a problem and perhaps helps in perpetuating it--that point of view has to be non confrontational, clearly explained and understood for the army to leave.
Reinventing Pakistan: The Rise of The Left
Re: 38
There is lots of confusion in the article. First Saima must decide what she means by “the left”?
S: The Left in Pakistan is a nameless, party less, agenda less entity. It is the very rudimentary beginnings of an opposition—a true opposition to rightist elements. I speak of left ‘elements’ like the straws that eventually become a nest.
I cannot decide or define the Left in Pakistan. It is for the Left to define itself. I only reported what I saw.
Is it the good old liberalism, secularism or the plain old Marxism? All three have been mixed up so badly that context is the only guide to figure out what she actually meant when she used “the left” to describe a state.
S: Another reason why I did not define the Left. What it is, what name and what boundaries, we don’t know yet. Is it liberal left that will emerge, Secularism, or Marx. Or Sufi Or what??
The Marxism that took over in the USSR was never liberal. It was not even secular as it discouraged any religious freedom. Marxism is not liberalism, though it springs from similar sources as liberalism.
S: Well that was USSR’s Left and its failures mentioned in the article.
”Marxism professed to smash existing establishment and economic system and create a new establishment and economic system by way of proletariat dictatorship. What is liberal in this concept? “
S: Sharing resources. But it failed for many reasons, irrelevant here, but relevant elsewhere.
Science helps liberalism but scientific inventions and the goods the science delivers are agnostic and don’t support either the left or the right or the liberalism or the conservatism.
S: Not true. Science was a liberating force for a long time, but in the last century it has switched sides —technology has been hijacked by capitalists and governments for rightist agendas and is used to increase the power of the elite than to increase the freedom of the common people. Whereas the initial industrial revolution brought safer working conditions and equality between classes, science today is a means of control, and gaining wealth--Science has become Technology.
But saima`s view is a limited view of Karachi only. I don’t see that it reflects the cultural landscape of the whole country. Karachi in even the dark days of religious supremacy was able to keep its head above the water but other parts of the country that were already under the feudal influence were never as liberal as Karachi was. What is on the rise in Karachi is at best secularism mixed with liberalism in pockets. Or plain common sense on the rise.( #30 by kalihawa )
S: I would have agreed with you, but I think it is important to recognize this movement and call it something, Left fitted it more than ‘democratization’ ‘liberalism’ ‘capitalism’ or other such ideas. Yes it is an intellectual Leftism with no leadership, cause of manifesto.
What is an Islamic society? There has never been an Islamic society in Pakistan at least the Pakistan that I know of was never Islamic.
S: Perhaps you should find out how Muslims used to live in undivided India in the last 300-500 years.
Posted by
SaimaShah
Jan 5, 2006 07:11 am
Re: 38
There is lots of confusion in the article. First Saima must decide what she means by “the left”?
S: The Left in Pakistan is a nameless, party less, agenda less entity. It is the very rudimentary beginnings of an opposition—a true opposition to rightist elements. I speak of left ‘elements’ like the straws that eventually become a nest.
I cannot decide or define the Left in Pakistan. It is for the Left to define itself. I only reported what I saw.
Is it the good old liberalism, secularism or the plain old Marxism? All three have been mixed up so badly that context is the only guide to figure out what she actually meant when she used “the left” to describe a state.
S: Another reason why I did not define the Left. What it is, what name and what boundaries, we don’t know yet. Is it liberal left that will emerge, Secularism, or Marx. Or Sufi Or what??
The Marxism that took over in the USSR was never liberal. It was not even secular as it discouraged any religious freedom. Marxism is not liberalism, though it springs from similar sources as liberalism.
S: Well that was USSR’s Left and its failures mentioned in the article.
”Marxism professed to smash existing establishment and economic system and create a new establishment and economic system by way of proletariat dictatorship. What is liberal in this concept? “
S: Sharing resources. But it failed for many reasons, irrelevant here, but relevant elsewhere.
Science helps liberalism but scientific inventions and the goods the science delivers are agnostic and don’t support either the left or the right or the liberalism or the conservatism.
S: Not true. Science was a liberating force for a long time, but in the last century it has switched sides —technology has been hijacked by capitalists and governments for rightist agendas and is used to increase the power of the elite than to increase the freedom of the common people. Whereas the initial industrial revolution brought safer working conditions and equality between classes, science today is a means of control, and gaining wealth--Science has become Technology.
But saima`s view is a limited view of Karachi only. I don’t see that it reflects the cultural landscape of the whole country. Karachi in even the dark days of religious supremacy was able to keep its head above the water but other parts of the country that were already under the feudal influence were never as liberal as Karachi was. What is on the rise in Karachi is at best secularism mixed with liberalism in pockets. Or plain common sense on the rise.( #30 by kalihawa )
S: I would have agreed with you, but I think it is important to recognize this movement and call it something, Left fitted it more than ‘democratization’ ‘liberalism’ ‘capitalism’ or other such ideas. Yes it is an intellectual Leftism with no leadership, cause of manifesto.
What is an Islamic society? There has never been an Islamic society in Pakistan at least the Pakistan that I know of was never Islamic.
S: Perhaps you should find out how Muslims used to live in undivided India in the last 300-500 years.
- SaimaShah
- Interacts: 609
- iLogs: 19
- Gallery: 0
- Page views: 9265
- Last visitor: guest
- Member since: Aug 3 1998
- Last signin: Oct 6 2008
- Send a message
- Add as friend
- Add to ignore list
- Add to block list
