Mr. President, Stop the War! Re: bulleya Interact #23

so, what has been gained by the usa, after 8 years of war?.......can anyone highlight.......

The answer to this question is very simple: Military-Industrial complex, in President Eisenhower's words. This industry had lots and lots of goods to sell. Thanks to the war, private for-profit war-industry got public funding.

I may be wrong but you seem to understand that the world revolves around statements of politicians. A statement by a politician or a president who committed to war during elections campaign is never part of any hard calculation. Wars are always waged after cold-computation of material INTERESTS and rarely for ideologies, if ever. Ideologies and jingoistic slogans provide emotional support to recruit necessary manpower for deadly wars from the public.

Kindly, look for the money trail and stock value of war-industry. And, you will have the answer to your own question!!

Regards

Who are the Power Elite
Dear Asadi Sahib:

Nice article. Looking forward to reading more from you. Thank you.

Kind regards,

Tahir Qazi

Age of Obama: Beginning of the End of Racism
Dear Choudhry Sahib:

Very nice article.

It is true that racial barriers have come down and yet it is a reality that race-element is still there. Just the other President Carter spoke about it too. I’m not sure if you heard him.

Racism as cruel a reality as it is, I hope you will have noticed that it is always coupled with something else to become a monster of social significance. In the US, the agrarian economy needed slaves to keep southern plantations alive right from the get go. Rights for blacks were acknowledged alongside the changing tide of economy from southern agricultural based economy to industrialization that took hold first in the north.

What I am trying to say, it is my understanding that anything to become a social phenomenon of some significance, for instance, race, there are always more than one complementary phenomenon. In case of Obama, you say race, but there are lots disenfranchised ‘whites’ in the US. It is hard to explain them away by the race-yardstick. Do you think we have to change our descriptive terms?

Kind regards

Tahir

Bubble of a Believer
Dear Javed Sahib - Re. #318:

I owe you thank for reading my long article, “Bubble of a Believer� Thank you!

With due respect at the outset, I disagree with your arguments on several counts.

My understanding is that you are interested in “Evolution� but you look at it through a religious prism. I do not discount that there are several prominent scientist who have spoken against evolution but their views on science of evolution are tainted with religious-ideological fervor. Some of them weave a web of rationalization to discard science that does not befit their religious model. It hardly bears any weight in scientific discourse.

Allow me to admit that science does not offer answers to every question that is posed. However, it assures to follow a logical and rational approach (not rationalization) towards solving a problem. That’s what is missing in a religious approach … Humility to accept, “I do not know�.

Specifically, when you write, “The science has not supported the theory of evolution ….� Honestly, I do not understand what does it mean? Please tell me if you have found a fossil of horse or human that is 4 billions years old. I could have been more specific in time-line but I am pulling this number4 billions because science tells us that the planet earth is about 4 billion years old.

The theory of life in religious scriptures like Bible and Koran is, “Creation� not natural selection over time. This would turn the table … Now you have to provide physical proof for creation of life, a human, a horse or any others creatures in current morphology dated 4 billions years old.

Dear Javed Sahib: In your article “Busting the Bubble of Non-Believers� you tried to make several arguments but virtually every argument remains in the sphere of ‘creation & creator’ – The cosmological argument. This is an ancient argument that morphs into many various forms and, somehow, fails to go away.

The reason why the idea of a creator refuses to fade away is common human experience: since everything is made by something. We have life … therefore, there has to be a creator and natural selection simple does not point in that direction.

“Theory of Natural Selection� is not a theory for everything. It does not speak to the origin of life or the ultimate end (whatever it may mean).

On a different but parallel note, as you know, we do not expect gravity to provide for the laws of motion. I wonder why do you expect “Theory of Natural Selection� to provide you answer to the origin of life question. This question is simply beyond the purview of this theory. May I respectfully remind, science is a brick work … one by one. Does religious approach provide us answers … brick by brick, one by one?

Thanks and kind regards … like always,

Bubble of a Believer
Dear friends at Chowk:

Thank you all for taking time to read, reflect and respond. I agree with some of the views and honestly disagree with others.

I read the article this evening again and found several typos. I sincerely apologize. However, I still believe that arguments forwarded in this article have been in good faith.

Thank you and regards,

Tahir

Bubble of a Believer
Dear Regards – Interact #4:

Yes … Darwin is missing from article. I actually considered it for this article for Chowk. However, I thought that Chowk had published some good articles on this subject written by Dr. Mohammad Gill over time. So, I left it out for I did not want to be redundant.

Apropos, in hindsight, I should have acknowledged the impact of Darwin on social thought. He provided great impetus to scientific material paradigm that has swept the history in past 500 years, beginning with Newton.

It is interesting that you indicate, “multiple Gods create multiple power centers�. It is difficult for me to agree with it.

The reality is determined by actual social conditions (“Sociologist� would attest to it!). For example, In spite of multiplicity of gods in Hindus, history tells us that human conditions within Hinduism have been a mixture of good, bad, altruism and greed and so forth because human psychology does not change much on ideological spectrum. These are human traits and there relation to mythical conceptions may need further study.

Yes, I did write the following: "I must add that atheism is also a ‘belief’ for some atheists." I stand by it.

On atheism in this sentence, my vantage point is individual psychology whereas I note that your comments refer to social psychology, a macroscopic view of the society.

I am not sure what you think of role of social, economical and political conditions that do sometimes coalesce under banner of an ideology at a certain point in history such as Taliban – as ruthless, exploitative force in Islam. There are examples of similar nature in other ideologies too. Contrarily, some of human rights battles against secular society have been fought under banner of religion like civil rights movement in the US under the umbrella of church. Please share your ideas.

And, thank you for forwarding the idea that altruism is epigenetic. Yes, I find it hard to conceive it as intrinsic.

Thanks and regards,

Tahir

Bubble of a Believer
Dear Regards – Interact #4:

Yes … Darwin is missing from article. I actually considered it for this article for Chowk. However, I thought that Chowk had published some good articles on this subject written by Dr. Mohammad Gill over time. So, I left it out for I did not want to be redundant.

Apropos, in hindsight, I should have acknowledged the impact of Darwin on social thought. He provided great impetus to scientific material paradigm that has swept the history in past 500 years, beginning with Newton.

It is interesting that you indicate, “multiple Gods create multiple power centers�. It is difficult for me to agree with it.

The reality is determined by actual social conditions (“Sociologist� would attest to it!). For example, In spite of multiplicity of gods in Hindus, history tells us that human conditions within Hinduism have been a mixture of good, bad, altruism and greed and so forth because human psychology does not change much on ideological spectrum. These are human traits and there relation to mythical conceptions may need further study.

Yes, I did write the following: "I must add that atheism is also a ‘belief’ for some atheists." I stand by it.

On atheism in this sentence, my vantage point is individual psychology whereas I note that your comments refer to social psychology, a macroscopic view of the society.

I am not sure what you think of role of social, economical and political conditions that do sometimes coalesce under banner of an ideology at a certain point in history such as Taliban – as ruthless, exploitative force in Islam. There are examples of similar nature in other ideologies too. Contrarily, some of human rights battles against secular society have been fought under banner of religion like civil rights movement in the US under the umbrella of church. Please share your ideas.

And, thank you for forwarding the idea that altruism is epigenetic. Yes, I find it hard to conceive it as intrinsic.

Thanks and regards,

Tahir

Bubble of a Believer
Dear Taji:

Admittedly, you are right. These arguments with some variation have been around for a long time and I agree and acknowledge that God has survived.

Do you think ideas of social-welfare will help God dwindle from its divine pedestal? I am curious about your vantage point.

Regards,

Tahir

ps: A have a few comments for interact "Regards" ... but later!! Gotta go!

Bubble of a Believer
Dear hamidm2 – Interact #2:

You wrote: “..... but why do we need a "technique" to inspire prople to behave ethically or altruistically ? ..... most people instinctively know that they should do unto others as they would have them do unto them ........�

Your question is very insightful … My understanding is that human nature is very diverse. I agree that most people would like to be treated well. But, does it mean human behavior is always altuistic and monolithic? Obviously, not! It takes us to exploring the nature of evil if we wish to use religious metaphor and unethical behavior in civic terms.

However, “techniques to inspire� is part of methods use by overarching systems of religions and secular states to steer human behaviors clear of narcissism and greed. Islam, Hindu and other traditions etc ... all have tried various methods. Is any system better than the other?

How do you feel if I asked that fear of punishment is a good technique to steer behavior?

Regard,

Tahir

Bubble of a Believer
Dear Paradox #1:

Thank you for your kind words.

In fact, publication of this article was prompted by reading “A Letter to God� by Saima Shah: www.chowk.com/articles/letter-to-god-saima-shah.htm

She wrote very eloquently. I admire and greatly appreciate her narrative of the God-experience. I just wanted to add a different perspective.

Regards,

Tahir

The Palestinian Puzzle Dear Dr. Gill Sahib:

Thank you for a timely article. While and Hamas and Israel keep (asymmetrically) firing at eachother and political horse trading goes on endlessly in corridors of power, humanitarian crisis keep getting worse. It is an absolute shame. It is a well known fact that Israel has been the biggest recipient of US aid in the world (In spite of being one of the countries with high GDP) with only exception of few years in the past when Afghanistan and Pakistan shamefully surpassed Israel. For the money that the US advances to Israel, I am not sure if too many people try to figure out what Israel offers in return?

I really dread the day when US money for Israel will dry up and that day may not come unless oil wells in Arab lands stop pouring out black-blood of global economy. I presumed that would be the day when peace between Palestine and Israel will be on the offing.

Very often, as Joseph Stigliz put it, “… motives cloak themselves in more righteous mantles, and, while resource money fuels the conflict, the extent to which the fighting is just over resources is not always clear�. Sometimes, it is a question how guilty conscientiousness of the western world helped carve out Israel to provide a safe home for the Jews.

I hate to cut and paste but I found the following from Mahatma Gandhi (1938 & 1946) rather insightful. Thanks again and kind regards … Tahir


319. THE JEWS


Several letters have been received by me asking me to declare my views about the Arab-Jew question in Palestine and the persecution of the Jews in Germany. It is not without hesitation that I venture to offer my views on this very difficult question.

My sympathies are all with the Jews. I have known them intimately in South Africa. Some of them became life-long companions. Through these friends I came to learn much of their age-long persecution. They have been the untouchables of Christianity. The parallel between their treatment by Christians and the treatment of untouchables by Hindus is very close. Religious sanction has been invoked in both cases for the justification of the inhuman treatment meted out to them. Apart from the friendships, therefore, there is the more common universal reason for my sympathy for the Jews.

But my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?

Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home.

The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred. The Jews born in France are French in precisely the same sense that Christians born in France are French. If the Jews have no home but Palestine, will they relish the idea of being forced to leave the other parts of the world in which they are settled? Or do they want a double home where they can remain at will? This cry for the national home affords a colourable justification for the German expulsion of the Jews.

But the German persecution of the Jews seems to have no parallel in history. The tyrants of old never went so mad as Hitler seems to have gone. And he is doing it with religious zeal. For he is propounding a new religion of exclusive and militant nationalism in the name of which any inhumanity becomes an act of humanity to be rewarded here and hereafter. The crime of an obviously mad but intrepid youth is being visited upon his whole race with unbelievable ferocity. If there ever could be a justifiable war in the name of and for humanity, a war against Germany, to ... [text missing in original]

Can the Jews resist this organized and prevent the wanton persecution of a whole race, would be completely justified. But I do not believe in any war. A discussion of the pros and cons of such a war is therefore outside my horizon or province.

But if there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews, surely there can be no alliance with Germany. How can there be alliance between a nation which claims to stand for justice and democracy and one which is the declared enemy of both? Or is England drifting towards armed dictatorship and all it means?

Germany is showing to the world how efficiently violence can be worked when it is not hampered by any hypocrisy or weakness masquerading as humanitarianism. It is also showing how hideous, terrible and terrifying it looks in its nakedness, shameless persecution? Is there a way to preserve their self-respect, and not to feel helpless, neglected and forlorn? I submit there is. No person who has faith in a living God need feel helpless or forlorn. Jehovah of the Jews is a God more personal than the God of the Christians, the Mussalmans or the Hindus, though, as a matter of fact in essence, He is common to all and one without a second and beyond description. But as the Jews attribute personality to God and believe that He rules every action of theirs, they ought not to feel helpless. If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest gentile German may, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment. And for doing this, I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance but would have confidence that in the end the rest are bound to follow my example. If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now. And suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy which no number of resolutions of sympathy passed in the world outside Germany can. Indeed, even if Britain, France and America were to declare hostilities against Germany, they can bring no inner joy, no inner strength. The calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the godfearing, death has no terror. It is a joyful sleep to be followed by a waking that would be all the more refreshing for the long sleep.

It is hardly necessary for me to point out that it is easier for the Jews than for the Czechs to follow my prescription. And they have in the Indian satyagraha campaign in South Africa an exact parallel. There the Indians occupied precisely the same place that the Jews occupy in Germany. The persecution had also a religious tinge. President Kruger used to say that the white Christians were the chosen of God and Indians were inferior beings created to serve the whites. A fundamental clause in the Transvaal constitution was that there should be no equality between the whites and coloured races including Asiatics. There too the Indians were consigned to ghettos described as locations. The other disabilities were almost of the same type as those of the Jews in Germany. The Indians, a mere handful, resorted to satyagraha without any backing from the world outside or the Indian Government. Indeed the British officials tried to dissuade the satyagrahis from their contemplated step. World opinion and the Indian Government came to their aid after eight years of fighting. And that too was by way of diplomatic pressure not of a threat of war.

But the Jews of Germany can offer satyagraha under infinitely better auspices than the Indians of South Africa. The Jews are a compact, homogeneous community in Germany. They are far more gifted than the Indians of South Africa. And they have organized world opinion behind them. I am convinced that if someone with courage and vision can arise among them to lead them in non-violent action, the winter of their despair can in the twinkling of an eye be turned into the summer of hope. And what has today become a degrading man-hunt can be turned into a calm and determined stand offered by unarmed men and women possessing the strength of suffering given to them by Jehovah. It will be then a truly religious resistance offered against the godless fury of dehumanized man. The German Jews will score a lasting victory over the German gentiles in the sense that they will have converted the latter to an appreciation of human dignity. They will have rendered service to fellow-Germans and proved their title to be the real Germans as against those who are today dragging, however unknowingly, the German name into the mire.

And now a word to the Jews in Palestine. I have no doubt that they are going about it the wrong way. The Palestine of the Biblical conception is not a geographical tract. It is in their hearts. But if they must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs. They should seek to convert the Arab heart. The same God rules the Arab heart who rules the Jewish heart. They can offer satyagraha in front of the Arabs and offer themselves to be shot or thrown into the Dead Sea without raising a little finger against them. They will find the world opinion in their favour in their religious aspiration. There are hundreds of ways of reasoning with the Arabs, if they will only discard the help of the British bayonet. As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them.

I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.

Let the Jews who claim to be the chosen race prove their title by choosing the way of non-violence for vindicating their position on earth. Every country is their home including Palestine not by aggression but by loving service. A Jewish friend has sent me a book called The Jewish Contribution to Civilization by Cecil Roth. It gives a record of what the Jews have done to enrich the world's literature, art, music, drama, science, medicine, agriculture, etc. Given the will, the Jew can refuse to be treated as the outcaste of the West, to be despised or patronized. He can command the attention and respect of the world by being man, the chosen creation of God, instead of being man who is fast sinking to the brute and forsaken by God. They can add to
their many contributions the surpassing contribution of non-violent action.

SEGAON, November 20, 1938
Harijan, 26-11-1938 - COLLCTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI, VOL. 74 : 9 SEPTEMBER, 1938 - 29 JANUARY, 1939, pp. 239-242.



331. JEWS AND PALESTINE

Hitherto I have refrained practically from saying anything in public regarding the Jew-Arab controversy. I have done so for good reasons. That does not mean any want of interest in the question, but it does mean that I do not consider myself sufficiently equipped with knowledge for the purpose. For the same reason I have tried to evade many world events. Without airing my views on them, I have enough irons in the fire. But four lines of a newspaper column have done the trick and evoked a letter from a friend who has sent me a cutting which I would have missed but for the friend drawing my attention to it. It is true that I did say some such thing in the course of a long conversation with Mr. Louis Fischer on the subject.i I do believe that the Jews have been cruelly wronged by the world. "Ghetto" is, so far as I am aware, the name given to Jewish locations in many parts of Europe. But for their heartless persecution, probably no question of return to Palestine would ever have arisen. The world should have been their home, if only for the sake of their distinguished contribution to it.

But, in my opinion, they have erred grievously in seeking to impose themselves on Palestine with the aid of America and Britain and now with the aid of naked terrorism. Their citizenship of the world should have and would have made them honoured guests of any country. Their thrift, their varied talent, their great industry should have made them welcome anywhere. It is a blot on the Christian world that they have been singled out, owing to a wrong reading of the New Testament, for prejudice against them, "If an individual Jew does a wrong, the whole Jewish world is to blame for it." If an individual Jew like Einstein makes a great discovery or another composes unsurpassable music, the merit goes to the authors and not to the community to which they belong.

No wonder that my sympathy goes out to the Jews in their unenviably sad plight. But one would have thought adversity would teach them lessons of peace. Why should they depend upon American money or British arms for forcing themselves on an unwelcome land? Why should they resort to terrorism to make good their forcible landing in Palestine? If they were to adopt the matchless weapon of non-violence whose use their best Prophets have taught and which Jesus the Jew who gladly wore the crown of thorns bequeathed to a groaning world, their case would be the world's, and I have no doubt that among the many things that the Jews have given to the world, this would be the best and the brightest. It is twice blessed. It will make them happy and rich in the true sense of the word and it will be a soothing balm to the aching world.
PANCHGANI, July 14, 1946
Harijan, 21-7-1946


COLLECTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI, VOL. 91 : 20 MAY, 1946 - 8 AUGUST, 1946, pp. 272-273
i According to the newspaper cutting Louis Fischer had quoted Gandhiji to the effect that the Jews had a good case but he hoped the Arabs too would not be wronged.

From Marx to Mao to Jintao
Re: #13 allah001 & quin #7:

Dear allah001:

Sorry to disappoint you but I don't think I’m knowledgeable enough to answer your question regarding Nixon’s geopolitical maneuvering while opening up with China. I presume there will be some consideration of that too. Maybe someone else on Chowk could offer views on that particular issue.

Anyhow, I am positively delighted to read “Interact #7 by quin� who has raised a very logical and valid question. “… how historical materialism is being turned on its head�. I think that kind of assertion is certainly questionable if not speculative. That is a topic for full length article.

Due to time constraints, I don’t know when but I might write something on this topic in the future. Meanwhile, I would most welcome if quin writes about it because I admire his insight and wisdom in many intellectual disciplines.

Regards,

Tahir

From Marx to Mao to Jintao Dear allah001 (Interact #4):

Interesting question!! But, I'm getting the chance to talk to "allah" first time in my life. I beg forgiveness :)

Kidding aside, I am sure Dost Mittar is more than capable of answering your question. I am taking liberty to comment as well.

I sense Dost Mittar may tell you that gist of Marxism is diagonally opposite to your understanding of historical forces. It seems you think of historic forces in a “Top-down Tickle Model�.

While talking of historic forces, leaders (Nixon etc) are only managers of political economy at a certain point in history. Had Nixon not taken that trip, I am sure someone else might have trodden the crowded Chinese markets few years down the road.

In broad historic context, Nixon’s trip is a relatively small event. I guess, Marx explains it best … In his own words, Marx – (The Seer of social justice ever first time in the history of mankind):

“Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given, and transmitted from the past�.

Ps: Aside from few points here and there that Dost Mittar wrote in his/her article, I still think, conceptually, this is one of the best on Chowk dealing with this subject. Very readable. Dost Mittar … Thank you!

Regards,

Tahir Qazi

The Importance of Natural Selection
Dear Zarrar: Thank you for your kind reply #115

(Re: Interacts 90 and 115 - Zarrar or anybody is welcome to respond)

I can easily acknowledge your understanding that Koran is allegorical. In that case it is probably wise to stay away from theology while discussing hard-science of biology. So, I will not bear down on it anymore :)

Nonetheless, questions that I had asked still remain unanswered:

1. Can you point to some design-flaws in the make of an organism called human being (Homo sapiens)?
2. With your expertise in evolutionary biology, can you tell me when did first sexual differentiation appear in organisms? Please give me sense of paleontological time frame and/or the genra of those organisms.
3. Is there any evidence of micro- or macro- evolution that is going right now?
4. Your description of natural selection makes sense that it is the correct term and that it is the theory that explains the mechanism how does life interacts with environment whereby some organisms are selected to survive and others perish but the way you have defined “Evolution� is confusing for me.

As an expert on this subject, kindly elaborate on above questions. I shall be grateful and I believe chowk-readers would have a better sense of biology.

Kind regards,

The Importance of Natural Selection
Dear Zarrar:

Thank you. Nice essay. Let me ask a few direct questions (Hope you don’t mind):

1. Is there a difference between “Evolution� and “Natural Selection?
2. At what point in time, there is concrete evidence of sexualization of species?
3. If evolution is an ongoing process, is there any evidence of ongoing micro- or macro- evolution?
4. You have briefly commented that some scholars infer evolution from Koran. Do you find any reference of extinction in Koran or Bible, which is a fact anyways?
5. Religions claim God to be the creator and declares in Koran “We have indeed created man in the best of moulds� (Yusufali 95:4). Therefore, any flaw in human design would put the above verse to real test. Do you have any evidence of flaw in human design or could there be any possibility of a better anatomical or physiological human design? By the way, if there is no design flaw we would indirectly know that He did exist at the time of claim because his Koranic assertion proved to be true.


Akcheema #42:

Great to hear Stanley Miller being appropriately recognized. Nice reading list. May I add to your list an excellent, easy and comprehensive link for study of Evolution 101:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html

Regards,

Making a Mockery of Democracy
Dear Dr. Gill Sahib:

Thank you for being the voice of reason when emotions are flared up.

Democracy is not only elections but a mind set and a process based on egalitarian principles that needed to be reminded. It was certainly due at this juncture.

Thanks again.