The Doll’s House hindvi,

I must agree with tahmed32...your responses on this form are very insightful!

---

RE my last post,

btw. I originally hail from Toronto and am quite familiar with the Crescent, so when I call Zafar and gang a bunch of third rate intellectuals, I know of what I speak ;-)

The Doll’s House stuka,

But it`s so fun when he does...for shit sakes, this ass had to do some serious research to find the most obscure (and poorly designed) website with a bunch`o third rate intellectuals...

ROTFL, that just made my day....

Culture Wars BruceLee,

You know what? I am not talking about events from ancient history. I am talking about events that had their origins in the past decade. No one is blabbing on about the Crusades. It is sufficient to point out that the neo-con mentality is (rather crudely perhaps) referred to as a `Crusader` mentality.

But you are correct. Closet fascists and people planning genocide do like to take history and spin a story around it to mobilize against a defined threat which is otherwise...well..boring. Just look at how Hindus react to Muslim invaders (who may have been brutal - perhaps no more brutal than the slaving Hindu Raja`s - but they were - like the Raja`s - also responsible for developing a functioning society). The way Muslim`s invoke Crusader now days is not the same way as Hindus invoke the Arab or Turkic invaders (as you are in fact doing).

Church vs Mosque rozaiba,

What kind of immigrant-hicks do you live among if you get scolded for taking a non-Muslim to a mosque?!?! Where I come from, that kind of objection is simply unheard of...considering da`wah usually centers around the mosque....strange.

2004: One Year Closer to Nineteen Eighty-four
rahul_capri,

Well yeah, altruism and a bit of selflessness may well do the trick. People are just too retarded to think otherwise....so I beg to differ, the alternatives are what appeal to the people with intellects of 7-14 year olds. And they tend to dominate...go figure.

nima,

How do we discredit the followers of an ideology that deem the deaths of 300,000+ people as necessary,or acceptable, or at the very least ignorable in the name of said ideology? The numbers don`t matter, it`s the cause. How do we reason with this kind of mindset? If I remember correctly, in Orwell`s 1984 he pretty much opines that you can`t...there`s no sanity in the masses.

Questioning the Hadeeth [When did I defend Russian brutality?]

Forgive me if I was wrong, however I thought your distinction between so-called collateral casualties and the victims of terrorist attacks implied one was more or less acceptable, while the other was condemnable. My point is that the two acts are much more close than apart.

Questioning the Hadeeth dost,

[I beg to differ. There is a clear distinction between targetting innocents and unintended victims.]

Yes, the ``Oops factor``. I`m sorry, however ignorance of your victims does not imply innocence. More so when the actions you are carrying out are inherently destructive. Bombing a city block has ``unintended`` consequences? That`s news to me...as you said, these are considered as ``acceptable`` or ``collateral`` casualties. They are fully expected. Would it satisfy you, morally speaking, if the terrorists were blindfolded and only fired randomly, unawares of who they hit or not? I would hope not.

[Now, if you can tell me that the Russians have been ``targetting`` innoncent Chechen children, you may have a point.]

No, they were not targeting children specifically. In fact, they didn`t care one way or the other. That is not a morally superior position. Like I said, not equivalent however moral siblings. Now, when you throw in the fact that the Russians managed to kill orders of magnitude more innocent people than the terrorists did, then I`m afraid this condemnation of the acts of criminal terrorists coupled with the excusing of grander Russian brutality inspires little confidence in the moral compass you guide yourself by.

Questioning the Hadeeth dost, vertex


[It is this kind of attitude which is going to get that idiot Bush reelected! ]

What attitude? Vertex was condemning both sides. Not just one. His opinion is quite humane, if I may say so.

[While we must condemn bombings from 10k feet [btw, not too many of my Muslim friends on chowk joined me in condemning americans doing so in Serbia!]]

I was thinking of responding harshly to this, however I recall reports that the American bombing in fact worsened the whole Kosovar refugee crisis in the first place. So you may have a point...

Needless to say, “pinpoint” attacks on Serb positions in the hill side or around small villages is by no means equivalent to carpet bombing /shelling an entire city. Estimates have 80-100k Chechens killed. Excuse me, sir, but it is a poor comparison. Let’s leave out the fact that the Serbs were in the process of ethnic cleansing, whereas the Chechens posed no such immediate threat to anyone.

[there is no moral equivalence in the barbaric acts of individuals deliberately killing innocent children and the unavoidable killings of innocents by professional soldiers obeying the orders of their govt.]

This is weak, and a cop-out. They ARE moral siblings – a fact that is not at all reflected in the different reactions to both events. Are you telling me those soldiers had no inkling that women and children were dying as they were shelling a CITY?!?! I will also withhold comment on the ``professionalism`` of Russian soldiers. There is no justification either way. It worries me that you would sugar-coat, almost justify, one and (rightfully) condemn the other! The Russian invasion of Grozny was barbaric and near genocidal. Period. These terrorists who killed children are barbaric and evil. Period. It is EXACTLY this legitimization of the state-sponsored violence (which is inherently larger-scale terrorism by it’s very nature…nuts to your notion of “unavoidable” killings) that breeds terror, and solicits sympathy for terrorists. Not just among Muslims.

The universal promise of the terrorist is that if nothing is done, “they’ll get you next, and the world will turn a blind eye at best”. Having the world stand in solidarity with Russia after such a barbaric attack may seem righteous, however given their past sins and the rather anemic reaction, if not down right supportive, of Russia’s own barbarity (on a much grander scale) tends to make the terrorist promise seem mighty convincing.

[All such acts do is to convince Americans that there is indeed a war against terror and that Bush-Chenny are justified in killing barbarians who kill in the name of religion.]

You’re right. The timing stinks. However, I am unconvinced that the people who vote for Bush have the intellectual honesty to be “convinced” of anything. These flip-flop chanters are ideologically predisposed. I am convinced that a good number of Americans are convinced of the need for the war.

I understand your desire to remove the religious element from the conflict(s) because it fuels the agenda of the neo-cons. However, I am of the opinion that they have been successful and that a one-sided `clash of civilizations` is already underway. Whereas the rhetoric on the American side is laced with ideological references and a missionary attitude, no such counterpart exists among the Muslim masses.

Questioning the Hadeeth [To a non-muslim it makes no difference whether the killer was a quranic fundamentalist or a hadithi one.]

Right, all they know is that 19 people were dead, and that somehow justifies this. Or indeed, even if they deplore the violence on all sides, somehow there is an equivalence.

[Why cant people just accept from the Quran and Hadith whatever is humane and compassionate and ignore the rest?]

Rest of what? What rest? The ``us or them`` rest? Ignore the rest that everyone else holds as their solemn and sacred right to ``defend`` their ``way of life``? Did you not just watch the republican convention? I would normally agree with you, however now is exactly not the time to think this way. We are the ``them``, and we have been declared a threat to the ``us``. Sorry, but we have no choice right about now. The last thing we Muslims need is an After-school special lecture because these poor 19 Nepalese made a very poor career choice and paid dearly for it. If some non Muslims are ignorant about the psyche of an invaded people, then so be it. I for one don`t think it`s very difficult to comprehend.

Science versus Non-Science Your use of the word ``truth`` is rather simplistic. Scientific truths of today may well be dismissed tomorrow. ``Truth`` has a eternal aspect that is, in some sense, not sought after by science itself. Some scientists may arrogate the status of ``truth`` seekers on themselves, but the honest ones will simply admit to seeking ``coherence``.

Metaphysical ``truths`` are typically self-contained (and so ``true`` by definition), and do not rely strictly on the physical world for validation. When there is references to the physical world, there is an implicit assumption that there is something ``more`` than the physical world itself. Science does not, nor should not, concern itself with this (occam`s razor). That is, it neither confirms, nor does it deny anything beyond the realm of the physical world. Whether divine intervention happened or not is now in the realm of history, not science.

Also, let us not romanticize scientists too much. The Nazi`s had their fair share, and let us not forget that the next WMD`s are being developed in labs across the ``rational`` world as we speak. Science is a profession, not unlike economics. The subject matter is all that is more grand, not the people who are doing the studying!

An Urgent Appeal to all Pakistanis Where was the urgant appeal for this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3580600.stm

Never mind, I know the answer.

Needless to say, Mr. Cowasjee must NOT be touched.

Twilight of a Passionate Love Affair echoboom,

I don`t know about that. Jinnah was proposing some sort of nationalism, and his ideas revolved around the creation of Pakistan as a homeland for Indian Muslims. Empahsis on homeland, I suppose.

I`m unsure if even he understood exactly what idelogical flavor of state he wanted. He no doubt had ideas as to what important characteristics of the state would be, but I don`t think he had a definite ideology.

I don`t even think the post-colonial West were well aware of their own ideologies untill the start of the cold war, which polarized the world along a single ideological axis. Prior to that, the colonial powers pretty much shared the same ideology of supremacy and the precieved obligations it entailed. I could be wrong on this...

My comment wasn`t to suggest that Jinnah had insight into the emerging state of the world, and attempted to add his own Islamic ideology into the mix. That wouldn`t actually happen in the Islamic world untill the Iranian Revolution.

Basically, I think that romantic ideas (at least for their day) of equality among men would no doubt come from former colonial subjects, who liked the general structure of governance introduced by their former overlords but obviously not their racist attitudes.

Maybe I`m a bit of a spacecase, but I think the age of bickering over ideology came down with the berlin wall. Made sense during the cold war, but it`s becomming apparent that the only foces that matter now are economic ones.

Twilight of a Passionate Love Affair Manto,

``The key phrase was `Equality of manhood`` (a word in vogue then for `humanity`) and not the equality of `muslims` ... ``

Interesting...what was the origin of the term? Couldn`t be the segregationist Americans, nor the colonial powers of Europe. :-)

In all honesty, I find Jinnah`s vision quite ahead of the curve, considering the Brithish, French, Americans, and Mr. ``Dihmmi`` Maudoodi perhaps had more or less the same perspective vis a vis minorities in the state.

An Air Canada Flagging Shahid,

Out of curiosity, did you write to The Star, or the Globe and Mail? I would be disappointed if they wouldn`t cover this story...

Twilight of a Passionate Love Affair Well done!


Syd,

There`s no such thing as a Canadian-Canadian. There are Amero-wannabe-Canadians, Franco-Canadians, Anglo-Canadians, but no Canadian-Canadian (except Don Cherry). One thing that creeps us Canadians out is those new Candians that try to be more Canadian than Canadian. So stick with (whatver)-Canadian. It`s okay...it`s the Canadian way. :-)

When did Freethought Cease in the Muslim World? freethinker, macgupta.

The ``debate`` presented was semi-retarded. If indeed we are to take a no-brain etymological approach to democracy and define it as ``equity``, then we must conclude that it didn`t exist in greece (the alleged birthplace of democracy) for women, slaves, etc. were excluded.

Nor did it exist in the West untill 1960`s, 1970`s untill afro-americans were given full rights.

Western Democracy is `incompatible` with Islam *by definition*. Here it is important to realize that democracy is not a concept that exists outside of human action or experiance...it is a direct result of it.