Now it’s mannequins I never had much faith in the MMA, one would expect that they would resort to these kinds of antics.

Does anyone have a good analysis of their performance to date? I`m not too concerned with the banning of this and that - as far as I`m concerned this is as foolish and irrelevant as a secular party intent on legalizing alcohol. I`m particularly interested in how well they are managing the affairs of their territory with respect to their predecessors. Are things the same, or is damage being done? Or, are things in fact better?

HisExcellency wrote:

[Let no one prevent the Mullah from implementing his Shariah. Because that is the only way, we will know whether Shariah is indeed the panacea to all evils, or is it just a placebo like communism.]

Not just communism, however ever other form of governance tried in Pakistan to date.

The problems with Pakistan isn`t a lack of ideology...however I think it`s clear that whatever material progress is made will be in spite of political ideology, not because of it. No doubt, whatever party makes the improvement, the ideology they represent will `win` by association...

Enduring Operation Freedom
sigalph235 wrote:

``The nonchalant, appeasing attitude about the imprisonment, torture, and murder of Zahra Kazemi proves my point with more integrity than the Canadian government and its America-bashing apologists are capable of handling.``

What nonchalant and appeasing attitude are you talking about? In no way shape or form do I accept the death of Kazemi, although you seem to want to believe so for lack of any real argument. There is no room for ad homenim here...as I said it`s not at all difficult to understand the difference between the Kazemi and Arar case. One begins with the Iranians, the other with the Canadians/Americans.

We expect ``murderous`` regimes to turn a blind eye to ...well...murder. However those who claim the higher ground must be held accountable with respect to their own standards. Maher Arar`s deportation to Syria was not a blunder...it was an intentional move with a particular purpose in mind. He could have just as easily been jailed in the US or Canada. I call to your attention the 19 or so Pakistan+1 Indian youth who were (wrongly) held here recently on what turned out to be baseless suspicion.

You are ready to `defend` Western civilization yet refuse to apply the values it claims to hold supreme. There are words for such people...``hypocrite`` comes to mind...

Enduring Operation Freedom Sigalph wrote:

[You`re stretching it thin to cover up for latent America-bashing. When Canada doesn`t overtly do anything about the Arar case, it is `ineptitude in the face of American zealotry` and when Canada doesn`t do anything about a bunch of real zealots murdering Kazemi it is what? Moral uprightness?]

``America-bashing`` is a meaningless grievance. I have a particular qualm with the American government over this particular incident, and am by no means indulging in a general rant. So please...show an ounce of integrity.

The difference between Arar`s case and Kazemi`s case is not difficult to understand. Kazemi want to Iran on her own free will. She was murdered there. The Canadian government could not prevent that. As for follow-up, certainly the Canadians could have pushed their case a bit more aggressively, however in the end Canada has no real leverage over Iran to push them to do anything.

On the other hand, in Arar`s case, he was actively expelled to Syria (for some Syrian-style interrogation) by the Americans - America is a country with close ties to Canada from what I hear - when normal procedure would have him sent back to Canada. There is suspicion that Canadian law enforcement and government officials tacitly supported this action.

If I`m American-bashing, then I`m Canadian-bashing too. If criticizing a hypocritical American policy (namely handing people over to states they declare `rogue` nations for intelligence gathering) is American-bashing, then I actively encourage it.

[The interests of Canada and the US, and indeed for that matter Europe, lie together for as Europeans and even Saudis are finding out, appeasement never gets you rid of the
monster.]

*Sigh*. I have some rhetoric of my own for you.

Canada can look after her own interests without them being defined for her from abroad, thank you. The only ones we have been appeasing thus far are the Americans...we`ve had to put up with a lot of crap...flak for not going to Iraq (phew), an alleged border security problem to the extent that we’re considering costly measures to address this non-issue, harassment and torture of our citizens...


[Western civilization, and Canada is an integral part thereof, is under attack and the enemy is not the US. Mollifying murderers in Tehran, coddling Communists in Havana, and appeasing PLO thugs is not going to make Canada any safer, in the long run. ]

The murders in Tehran, the old toothless communist in Havana, and an equally old an toothless Arab in the occupied lands is not an immediate threat to Canada, or anyone else in the West. A reckless super power who is not shy of throwing her weight around - inventing threats to get her way no less - is a grave menace to the world...

Now that`s good old fashion America-bashing...or more properly neo-con-bashing. But of course, nowadays I suppose the only ``true`` American is a neo-con.

Enduring Operation Freedom sigalph wrote

``And by the way, since Arar is mentioned, how come there is no mention of the Canadian journalist who was killed inside a prison in Iran? Bashing America makes juicier reading doesn`t it? ``

The death of Zahra Kazemi was big news here. It`s somewhat `stale` news since there is no change in the status of that story. The Arar story is relatively recent. And unlike the Kazemi case, this one involves Canadian ineptitude in the face of American zealotry. This one involves `our` government and law enforcement agencies, not those of a known corrupt regime. This has nothing to do with `America Bashing` - although America does deserve to be bashed in light of its actions.

Enduring Operation Freedom ``There have been numerous incidents of Arab terrorists coming in from Canada.``

There have been numerous allegations of terrorists coming from Canada. There has, to my knowledge, only been one case with merit, and you have correctly identified it.


``This is a direct result of Canada`s lax policies in allowing foreigners without appropriate background checks.``

Excuse me? And what about all the 9-11 suspects? You have no right to criticize Canada on this matter when America`s record is anything but stellar. Throw in general profiling, and mass detentions which in turn have produced little results, then we must conclude America has a really poor record, if anything. Nothing to emulate, and certainly something we Canadians should keep in mind when Americans go on and on about our apparent lack of security at the borders.

Ramadan Special: The Felicitations of Fasting
Great article Asif, and of course, very timely :-)

In response to bhugider_sing, who wrote in #10:

[Why do Muslims eat more food in the month of Ramzan than in other months? Why the prices of food items rise so high in Ramzan?]

Well, from my own personal experience I think we Muslims eat less during Ramadan than in other months. I find that I actually fill up faster, and can go a lot longer with less food. I don`t know if this is a physiological effect or not, but it becomes quite noticeable after the first week of fasting....or perhaps I`m just strange. :-)

The combination of Iftiar with a proper dinner may make it seem like we`re being a bunch of gluttons. God forbid if people are wasteful of food, though...no matter what the month.

A Movement in Religious Nationalism: Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Hind
I didn`t write 33....

A Movement in Religious Nationalism: Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Hind
Now having read the article, I would like to suggest that we shouldn’t get caught up with communalist interpretations of history. I hope this will allay the fears of good-intentioned Hindus when I say that Shah Wali Ullah`s attitude is not exemplary of what a good number of Pakistani’s, at least those I know, feel towards their Hindu neighbors. Our problems are contemporary, not historical...let’s keep things in perspective.

A Movement in Religious Nationalism: Jami’at-ul-Ulama-i-Hind ``Quite a difference from the great Shah Walli Ullah (200 years ago) who called for the extermination of the infidel.``

LOL, repeating a deceptive argument doesn`t make it much more palatable. Fact is, no one really cares for Shah Walli Ullah`s letter to Ahmad Shah Abdali what`s-his-face anymore. That`s old news.

Also, it`s not clear if he was speaking in general, or if he was talking about a specific group of Hindu`s (the Marathas) that Muslims were in open conflict with. Oh, but I suppose the Hindu side was not thinking the same thing at all...no, they weren`t after the deaths of `foreign` invaders. Truth be known, the Hindu warrior Kings were thinking more along the lines that if anyone was going to use and abuse the Hindu peasantry, it would be Hindus themselves!

But let us bring up old historical figures and pretend like their relevant today, or even yesterday...jeez...clue in dude. If the JUH suppoerted Shah Walli Ullah`s alleged hatred of all Hindu`s, they wouldn`t even dream of having any kind of working relationship with them. Oh, but of course...the great conspiracy comes in here...no doubt us scoundrel Muslims are all just biding our time until the time is right. Conspiracy theories, got to love `em.

Toronto Talks in Whispers
In response to dos-mittar:

``And what are you doing in Toronto. Didn`t they tell you where the Silicon Valley North is?``

I may be a bit out of touch, but from I understand Ottawa has lost the mantle of Silicon Valley North. It`s rather pathetic here, since it was largely a telecom town. Jetform (now part of Adobe I think) and Cognos are notable exceptions, of course. From what I understand Toronto and Markham (my ``home`` town!) always had a larger IT industry base anyway, it was just never hyped as much.

STAY in Toronto for IT work...no one is hiring in Ottawa other than the Government.

For those who are interested in the (rather small) Canadian IT industry, visit:

http://www.branhamgroup.com/branham300

Pervez Hoodbhoy-Paul Kurtz correspondence AlephNull wrote:

[I prefixed ‘coreligionist’ with the word ‘erstwhile’...]

Yes, mistake was mine...missed the erstwhile there. Like I said, minor point.

[You say “Islam may not be under attack, but Muslims certainly are”. Well, in my very unsympathetic opinion, in many cases Muslims as a group are under attack largely because...]

To be clear, no one was trying to solicit your sympathy.

Anyhow, it is just as obtuse to think that there are no legitimate grievances on the Muslim side, (or that the violence is entirely unidirectional), as it is to think all problems of Muslims originate from outside Muslim lands. That is, however, beside the point.

Muslims are under attack. Whatever the reasons may be, the nature of the attack is at the very least as severe as whatever certain Muslims have been able to perpetrate in recent history, (I personally would argue that it`s much worse).

One would think, then, that those who proclaim a love or genuine concern for Muslims would voice some sort of concern for their welfare. One would think that when non-Muslims exhibit the same violent tendencies as Muslims, invoking a similar rationale no less, then the non-Muslims would be subjected to the same standard of criticism. The reasons why this is not done I know, so I don`t need a justification for this. Just spare me this feigned concern. Ibn Warraq hates Islam, however his challenge to it is not on behalf of Muslims. It is, arguably, in spite of them. On this, Dr. Hoodboy’s assessment deserves more than a casual brush off.

[If this diagnosis is accurate (an assertion with which you are welcome to disagree), the route to a cure for the woes of Muslims would be to root out the very Islam that causes the clueless backwardness. In which case ‘tough love’ of the Ibn Warraq school is the best way to ensure their future well-being.]

The Muslim/Islam distinction doesn’t work in this sense, since Islam cannot be physically attacked. Only it’s practitioners can. To attempt to make it work, you will need to come up with convenient or even absurd definitions of who a Muslim is. It would be best just to admit to the simple truth: some people would prefer it if Muslims were non-Muslims. For those who espouse “tough love”, then no doubt the use of violence to see this end is not out of the question. That, however, has no pretense of being tolerant. So I can see why this absurd “love the sinner, hate the sin” business is invoked.

Also, to be clear, I do not know for certain if Ibn Warraq is of this “tough love” school of thought…

Pervez Hoodbhoy-Paul Kurtz correspondence
In response to AlephNull, who wrote:

[Solitude came across as an extremely passionate man, much younger - late twenties, perhaps - with a more unrestrained polemical style]

LOL, that`s a rather mild assesment of one who wrote, and I quote, ``I think we can put our nuclear arsenal to good use by turning Mecca/ Medina into the next test zone during peak season.``

But, of course, this is no doubt is consistent with your idea of ``loving the sinner``...

Pervez Hoodbhoy-Paul Kurtz correspondence RationalFaith wrote:

[The problem is as follows: If you have loathsome sinner, you have two realistic options -]

No, you have a continuum of options, you`ve simply selected two that you found most convenient.

[...you hate the sin but not the sinner. You make sure he does not get to commit his sins. ]

Sounds gentle enough...of course, there is a not so subtle subterfuge here...``making sure`` this person does not commit sins may well involve harming this person. Or worse.

When dealing with unrepentant criminals, those who could care less for mending their ways, we most often resort to `containment` because of the harm they can do to the rest of society. We do this out of a self-love, not because we love this person.


[May be you can jail him.]

Jailing is an act of love, or compassion? Jeez, talk about tough love. ;-)

Again, though, the concept of a jail is to remove undesirables from society. Rehabilitation may be a stated goal, and it certainly is worth a shot, but that`s not the primary reason for jailing people.

[But, according to a religious tradition, that is not enough. You shouldn`t give up on him. You should love him enough as a human being to keep helping him come to his senses, to give up his thievery, if that is the problem.]

Well, back to my original point, if a person`s ``problem`` is believing in a certain faith, ( a la Ibn Warraq), then you`ll forgive me if I find the above sentiment rather patronizing...

Anyhow, we may have hope that some people can be rehabilitated, but I question the wisdom of one who doesn`t place a limit on this hope. It is a virtue to be patient, however one can be too patient, too compassionate. I don`t want a serial killer being given the kind of understanding you advocate unless there`s a darn good reason for it. Remorse is a good reason, or at least a good start. The simple fact that this killer is a human is not a good reason.

In the end, though, we mustn`t be too forgiving of a person who went ahead and committed the crime in the first place, knowing full well they were doing something wrong. Assuming they weren`t in their senses is being much too forgiving...

Pervez Hoodbhoy-Paul Kurtz correspondence In response to PM, who wrote:

[How so ``almost moral relativism``? well, you almost seem to be saying that it wouldn`t do to hate the sin since that inevitably leads to hating the sinner.]

Hmm...that`s interesting. Actually, I do indeed argue that hating the sin can very well lead to hatred for the sinner...the sinner being the implement of the sin, I can`t see how you can separate the deed from the one who commits the deed. But I don`t advocate the abandoning ones principles on this account.

[Before anyone accuses either of us of being to smug here,]

...me, smug? Never! ;-)

[the word `sin` is used as synonomous with clear wrongdoing affecting others (...though I admit to a grey area even there.)]

Sure, and the `sinner` is a person responsible for the wrongdoing.

Pervez Hoodbhoy-Paul Kurtz correspondence In response to PM:

[That`s the whole point. What good is it to have a position on what is right and wrong --as concerning harm caused to others-- if you are not willing to stand by it.]

It`s of no good, of course. What use is it to invoke an impossible love to justify our hatred for certain acts or even beliefs? Is this a guilt thing for actually hating something/someone?

[You almost seem to be making a case for moral relatvism here.]

How so?

[It is, I should add, quite possible to conduct oneself without malice towards the `sinners`. There is such a thing called empathy, with can be inculcated through understanding.]

Certainly. It is possible.

People who find an act loathsome are naturally inclined to find the people performing the act as loathsome people, depending on circumstance of course. It is this circumstance that will dictate the amount of empathy and understanding we`re willing to bestow on the `sinner`.

A beggar stealing for survival deserves all the understanding one can give...an unrepentant professional thief stealing from vulnerable pray is a different story. The latter is a loathsome person who must be stopped.

Pervez Hoodbhoy-Paul Kurtz correspondence In response to RationalFaith:

[If sinners wish to keep committing a sin that affect us adversely, we ensure that such people can`t continue to do what they wish to.]

At the risk of taking this ``love/hate`` thing too literally, how? By loving them into submission or reform? I did not mean to suggest that loving the sinner is necessarily loving the sin. Rather, ``hating`` the sin can indeed lead to acts that would be consistent with ``hating`` the sinner, although we may wish to choose the word ``contain``. Hating a sin I can understand. It`s this business of ``loving the sinner`` that I don`t buy.

A sinner is by definition one who commits acts of sin, not an arbitrary person or a person who happens to commit sin. Within this context, the sin defines the sinner and the two are inseparable. The sinners` humanity (I suppose the “love the sinner” bit is used to profess this), or our love for them, is not an issue or relevant.

Now, according the Ibn Warraq, the sin of Muslims is believing in Islam. You`ll pardon me if I see something a bit more than a cause for concern in such kind of statements, despite his (or your) professed ``love`` for me.