The Bubble Bursts

Zeemax

Obsession with individuals (Muhammad or anybody else) is a slippery slope. Working to predetermined objectives, one can justify or criticize any behavior or any decision.

Worse, obsession with individuals deteriorates into fanatical emotionalism. Fanatical emotionalism rules out honest discussion. Dishonest discussion is no discussion.

Focus on ideas.

#468 by swarrier

Interesting thing about Lee Kwan Yeu`s socialism is that he insisted on low-cost public housing NOT to be on cheap land on the fringes of the city, but on prime land alongside the opulent condomeniums throught the city. You can see his vision in thus avoiding the `ghetto-isation` of the poor.

But then again, poor in our countries means you don`t eat. Poor in Singapore means you go to Pattaya for vacation instead of Switzerland.

#469 by sadna

No thanks. Your bracket is with `Big Moose` on the other board.

zeemax #465
No point in complaining now- you`ve got only yourself to blame for bracketing yourself with a bigot.

Re: # 467
Zeemax
I`m not sure that I would like to live in Singapore for a long time. I guess it would be good to vacation in it. From whatever I have heard it`s a society that works like clockwork. I`m not sure that is good for real progress. It seems a little too sanitised. A little chaos , confusion probing boundaries, questioning etc is good for humanity. I may be wrong but I know of few Singaporeans who have pushed the boundaries of art , music , literature, science.
I believe in evolution , not intelligent design.-)

#461 by dost-mittar

Lee Kwan Yew is basically a socialist. The Singapore that we see today is modelled entirely upon his person and beliefs, and It works. Singapore has amazing contrasts.

Singapore is unique in the sense that it is an extremely regulated and orderly society AND very liberal at the same time. It`s just that they have a place for everything accompanied with standard rules which everyone follows. As long as you don`t break their simple rules like littering, smoking pot in the street or indeed smoking at all other than the designated places (which are plenty), brawling, jay walking, vandalizing public property and stuff like that, you are fine. If you don`t, law enforcing authorities appear and you`re in trouble. Still, one never sees police etc at all. I saw a cruising Police car during my last visit only once and that too was at about 2:30 am outside the main nightlife complex called Orchard Towers on Orchard Road. I think they were suspicious of a group of three trans-sexuals who were jay walking and propositioning on the street. Still, I saw in the Police car that they were talking on their radios and watching the group`s movemements but didn`t accost them. I think they would have nabbed them later in some side street but not in open view because that would have disturbed other people. I think that is real smart. They probably have a lot of human intelligence plus observation technology all over Singapore so they can to get to potential trouble spots before these erupt.

Interestingly, pushing drugs carries a death penalty but consuming drugs if you have them is OK.. I smelt a lot of marijuana going around in clubs. The consumers are deemed innocent but the suppliers are hanged.

There is a very interesting anecdote about Singapore rules which are implemented indiscriminately. When Lee Kwan Yeu was prime minister, an American teenager resident in Singapore was caught vandalizing cars parked in his neighbourhood by scratching them with his keys. The standard penalty for that is 20 strokes of the cane. There was a huge diplomatic row between USA and Singapore over that `barbaric` punishment which finally ended when Lee Kwan Yew asked ``Singaporeans are caned 20 times when they commit vandalism. Do they have thicker skin than the Americans?`` The boy was duly caned.

Singapore is kind of a modern day Utopia. It is a lesson in how much is possible for ordinary people to achieve societal order and harmony all along the curve of the ethnic/economic/social/aesthetic horizon. Even the trees alongside the roads are manicured to be not only of the same type, but also of the same size and shape as the others!

#454 by warpster

Saying that islam is a peaceful religion etc. is bakwaas.

That is going a bit far. Please refer to some of my earlier posts on this board about the vast spectrum of Islam`s followers as well as DM`s posts about Sufis and Mysticism in India. Islam was spread in Malaysia/Indonesia by the mystics from India, not through conquest. So it would not be true to say that the Malaysian interpretation of Islam would be the same as, say, Pakistan`s extremeists.

I have spent considerable time in Indonesia, though not Malaysia, but I do know Malaysia sort of indirectly. If the traditional Sharia as we know it was dominant, you would not see girls with head scarves dancing in discotheques, or working side by side with men everywhere just as in wetern countries. How would you explain that?

#455 by kaalchakra
Still, this focus on Muhammad, by Muslims and nonMuslims, is misguided

No. Quite on the contrary, this is what one should focus on first rather than his product. Only through some understanding of who he was can we arrive at some idea of what he produced, and why, in the context of today`s state of the world.

#456 by sadna

Kindly follow your own advice and cease and desist from doing so.

Sure if you wish to close your mind and remain a `kunwain ka maindak`. I couldn`t care less to be bracketed with you or any other bigot for that matter. You started this argument about different belief systems and stuff and now that you`re cornered, you`re crying `cease & desist`.

Youre welcome to rot in your comfortable cocoon of prejudice.

#453 by arjun_m

If you do hold all the cards, why are your citizens being bombed on your soil?

This is the only valid question in your post. Rest is all poppycock.

Afghans are not bombing Pak`s citizens. Americans are bombing Pak`s citizens. Afghans are not in control of Afghanistan. Not Karzai, not any one particular warlord, not even the Americans. Karzai is not even in control of the whole of Kabul but only his postage stamp sized `green zone` in Kabul. Have you recently heard of him touring his own country? Kandhar? Mazaar-e-Sharif? Hilmund ...?

Afghanistan is a mish-mash of automomous fiefdoms ssupported and financed by various neighbouring countries. The most powerful warlords are the Pashtuns, and they are and always have been firmly pro-pakistan. Taliban are Pashtuns in case you failed to notice. The base of Taliban is southern Afghanistan centered around Kandhar .. and from there they have extended into Waziristan. It is almost the same country now for them. That`s why the Americans will never leave because if they do, Karzai will be found hanging to a pole just like Najibullah.

#461.. you are right.

Is it just me or does this look like a racist caricature?

warpster, jang:

If my memory serves me right, it was Malaya who opted out of Malayasia. At that time, its leader was Tungku Abdulrehman. Believe it or not, the reason was that he thought that Lee Kuan Yiew was too pro-communist while Malaya was still fighting communist gorillas. It is not as absurd as it seems today; there was a famous strike in Singapore in 1964 (?) supported by Lee who was at that time still considered to be socialistic.

in singapore there are the chinese the indians and the malays, malays being the most backward. malaya when became malaysia did not want the mosquito infested singapore with no rubber, palm plantations, tin or oil.

both malaysia and singapore had indians for ever (100s of years).. after independence in malaysia fared far worse as compared to singapore where they are among the ruling kabal (a few chinese and indian families control singapore) and have done very well. maharir mohammed always denied his kerala ancestory, scared of losing his bhumiputra status ;-)

#455 by kaalchakra

[The only way to make a judegement is to find out if such marriages were common practice at that time among his people. Of course, that approach would negate any presumption of human perfection. ]

And consequently, negate his credibility regarding chats with ``Allah`` and therefore, negate any credibility about the Quran being whispered by ``Allah``, and by logical extension, negate EVERYTHING related to Islam.


[Still, this focus on Muhammad, by Muslims and nonMuslims, is misguided. All of us should let the man rest in the hereafter. ]

Exactly, and bury the EVERYTHING regarding this monstrosity of a religion in the garbage bin of history. I fully agree with you there.

Re: # 455 by kaalchakra

[Still, this focus on Muhammad, by Muslims and nonMuslims, is misguided. All of us should let the man rest in the hereafter.]

Totally wrong, the focus should be right there on the dude. I`ll tell you why.

If you took Muhammad out, and you compared Islam with Christianity, Sikhism, Buddhism, Hinduism or any religion/cult with codified sets of belief, you would find ideosyncratic crap stuck in timewarps everywhere in each of the beliefs. And additionally you will find that every religion has among their numerous pillars, the four specific islamic pillars: charity, fasting, pilgrimage and prayer.

What makes Islam what it is is the additional, unquestionable and the most important notion that you have to live *your* life by the *practices* of Muhammad in the social setting of *his* times.

And this being the first and the most important pillar, it means that you are tied to Muhammad and Muhammad`s baggage, and it is impossible to shake off that baggage except by apostacy. You can discard all the other pillars - no mullah would care a toot. Did anyone firebomb you because you never went to Mecca? But you are chained to your death to that first pillar, and every mullah & jihadi watches you on that.

That is why as much as the liberal in a ``zeemax`` wants to jump out and reject much of the nonsense he sees and tries to rationalize, he will be pulled back again and again. By himself. By the Muhammad chained to him.

The only way to begin reforming Islam is to demolish the myth of Muhammad. And the really ironic thing is that is the easiest thing to do. The Koran itself, the hadiths and all the supplementaries are shit full of contradictions and the personal picture of Muhammed in these is pretty pathetic. That is why spindoctors aka mullahs are so important in Islam. So that ``zeemax`` doesn`t see what ``khalid_ahmad`` sees so effortlessly.

Another time lets see how Muhammad himself allows a way for taking Muhammad out of Islam. But for now, the focus must be there right on him. It is important to demystify this character.

Re: # 450 by dostmittar

[I have a radical and politically incorrect reaction to this. I think that all non-muslim countries should pass laws saying that their citizens can freely convert to any religion of their choice but conversion to Islam would be a criminal offence.]

Not likely to happen because non-muslim societies are also relatively liberal societies where principles of human equality, freedom and justice form unshakeable pinnacles of written constitutional law. Beyond empty sloganeering, these are truly alien and blasphemous concepts in Islam.

However to your point, western nations have completely failed in the theory that oppressed muslims granted asylum would somehow inspire beacons of democracy and human rights back in their muslim homelands. Instead, the cancer has spread within the west itself.

Hence, a more practical idea would be to
(i) totally deny asylum/immigration to muslims however prosecuted they may be
(ii) aid prosecuted muslims directly in their own lands.

This would prevent the whiskey drinking pork eating moderates from taking the easy flight out, and have them slog for their rights in their own lands. The Afghan and Iraq policies may wear vague resemblance to this. Besides the already asylumed moderates and their next generation have proven sufficiently that they can fight for muslim rights in western countries quite effectively, with bombs, flag burning, jihadis and all.

9/11 has made far too many people aware of Islam and its dark & dirty secrets. The reality of Islam can no longer hide behind the romantic flourishes painted by imaginative hollywood sagas. People are no longer buying bakwaas slogans such as ``this is a peaceful religion``, ``this is the fastest growing religion``, ``muhammed is mentioned in the bible, testament, vedas, upanishad``, etc.

So the decent muslims have created a new opening with a manifesto - to make muslim countries allow free conversion, among other things. This would be a good place to start.

Muslim Manifesto

I can bet some shape of form of this manifesto will make it - not to the OIC - but the UN. It would be tragedy if that didn`t happen.