Change Management:Marx and Muslims

Re: # 202


hp,

...... i like this map - i would be proud to be part of the persian empire instead of being associated with the rickshaw pullers and code coolies .......... unfortunately, i don`t think the iranians would be too happy, for the same reason .......... babur was right

...... look, maybe it is just me, but i feel that over the last sixty years, inspite of the internicine squabbling betwen this group or that group, pakis have developed their own unique identity (even though it is not much to write home about !).......... a couple of years ago i took the road from multan to quetta via dg khan, fort munro and loralai - now that is about as off the beaten track as you can get, but i never felt like a stranger even though there was always the danger of being kidnapped or blown up by an idiot fishing in ratni nalla with dynamite ......... as much as i love my madrasi friends, they don`t give me the same vibes as i get from an unwashed baluchi who has not been introduced to a barber, a razor or soap - this inspite of the fact that single malt is a great equalizer .................

re: HP 202

But the map IS authentic in the mind of the person who believes in it :)

Of all possible debates between Indians and Pakistanis, the one about whether India existed or not is easily the silliest.

The predominant basis of any nation is a commonality of belief. It is the legitimation, the acceptance of a common idea; and based on it, a common identity. That`s all there is to it.
(Even India and Pakistan, as the political entities exist today, will surive long into the future, or not, depending upon whether people accept or reject those nations as commonly internalized, key ideas.)

Are we going to argue other people`s beliefs based on our beliefs? That seems quite futile.

#174 ntsyed

NTSyed saheb, I have always wished your beard to flow on smoothly - at your point in life, especially!

But this #174 is rather pathetic, won`t you say?!

You ask the author to explain the exact meaning of some foreign words that probably nobody here understands, then fail to do so yourself! Perhaps you yourself also don`t have a clue! And then you make derogatory reference to the content of matter inside his thobra!

You ask him to distinguish between radical Islam and good Islam.

In the USA, we make a clear distinction between adherents of radical Islam versus the vast majority of peaceful people of Muslim faith who happen to be so by the accident of birth. The distinction is not as ambiguous as some of the Islamic ``clergy`` would like us to believe.

The former are those who blow up innocent subway riders, who send in hijackers to hijack planes to crash them into buildings or to cut up the throats of newlyweds like goat-kids, who put their ``religion`` above their common sense!

The latter are those hard-working souls who keep their religion a part of their private life, who respect and abide by the laws of the places that they live in and who feel allegiance to those places, and who work to build up those places - not to damage and destroy those very places!

Is that such a difficult distinction to comprehend?

Faulty as this author`s thinking is on many issues, he is at least trying to turn your whole multitude of humanity to a different direction - from the current one of certain destruction that it has been on an onward march for the last sixty years!

What the heck are YOU doing?

Now, don`t start scratching that beard!

Don`t you DARE scratch that beard!!!

hamidm2:

I am dismayed to notice that you are increasingly sounding educated--the bane of a full-blooded & robust muslim (whether neat, on the rocks, stirred, shaken , unshaken, thoroughly soda-splashed, or even 100% Evian).

What is wrong with you? Getting high on plain water or Latte these days?

Allah invented hindians for splitting hair , and it does not behoove a muslim of any stripe or spot to lower himself to this level. When one gets long in tooth & dull in claw one resorts to such vixen chay-chalaakees (get it?--the pudding syndrome). The stupid Pakis from the Cantonements & Colonies are still trying to argue with hindians; they have no idea that Macaulay wanted them to become drones for whoever be their master. You certainly do not belong to that class; because you learnt early on to refuse to get what is called `education`. Your earthiness seldom gets unnoticed in these quarters & speaks volumes about you --despite your buughz-i mulla & huubb-i-Bush.

Never let the razor blades rust & rousing blood rest; You never know when we might need an army of barbers from Raja Bazaar ........

that was an innocent mistake..................


Now the siht head Hate Pot is here .........we can expect to have very meaningful discssions.....

#173 by hamidm2
“i will not accept the maps of the maurya empire, the mughul empire or the british empire - empires don`t count ........ there are fools in pakistan who want to use similar logic to show that pakistan is part of saudi arabia !”

Well! this new map has emerged out of Iran. It shows the current Pakistan was part of the Persian Empire a long time ago… 3200BCE.
Interesting, even at that time Saudi Arabia was not a part of the Persian Empire. So both Indians and Saudi supporters are wrong.
I am NOT sure how authentic this map is…

tahmed
things are improving with regard to education last year stats for pak-brits :post graduate enrol: 2035
undergraduate: 12070

these are from website below column 9 and girls are well represented

http://www.hesa.ac.uk/holisdocs/pubinfo/student/ethnic0405.htm

#196
``I am only reposting what a Sindhi Muslim has written on the history of Sindh: ``
Deception and lying is just part of the Indian lifestyle…

Actually the book was written by Malkani a Hindu Sindhi with a preface by :
Ram Jethmalani
Bombay
30th August 1984
Member of Parliament

And written by:
K.R. MALKANI
B-51 New Rajendra Nagar,
New Delhi-110060.
Raksha Bandhan, 1984.

http://www.freesindh.org/sindhstory

THE SINDH STORY
K. R. Malkani

Eat shiit as usual...

#196 having trouble reading what i wrote in #188? cut and paste the part of that post that seems to be in denial of any reality, then come talk to me. dont just repeat cliches like a babu.

A bakwaas write up by a bakwaas writer, this was published in your wifes bakwaas site and got only 35 interacts.

hamidm #195 No doubt there are a lot of neanderthals among ``muslims`` who ignore education while thinking they are fulfilling their ``islamic duties``. But you are not one of them. I am not one of them. None of my siblings is one of them. Many of my Pakistani friends are not like one of them.

But there is no doubt that hindus have historically emphasized education more than muslims in India. That is what Sir Syed lamented about. And that trend continues - but I sense that there is a growing awareness of the importance of education among pakistanis, particularly within Pakistan.

Re: # 188

still in denial...........



I am only reposting what a Sindhi Muslim has written on the history of Sindh:


http://yangtze.cs.uiuc.edu/~jamali/sindh/story/node18.html

Thrown to the wolves
...............


And then there was a third factor the British presence. It worked both ways.

During the Muslim rule the Hindu was kept down. When the Muslim hand was replaced by a neutral hand, things changed dramatically. The Hindu came into his own. By and large, Brahmins and Vaishyas had not converted to Islam. Their traditions of learning and trading blossomed forth into higher education and big business. Large sections of the Hindu society forged ahead, leaving the Muslims far behind.

As a perceptive observer in Sindh noted: ``THE OFFICES ARE FULL OF HINDUS AND THE JAILS ARE FULL OF MUSLIMS``.......................................The Muslim mind, rooted in mediaevalism, and still basking in the sunset of the Mughal empire, could not comprehend the dynamics of modernity. ..............................It reacted to the new situation by staging a riot or throwing a spanner in the freedom movement.

Re: # 187


tahmed,

..... and here is the sad part - i see the same trend here in the us ....... as much as i am proud of my sprinkler guy - he is an exception ..........

......... a lot of pakistanis here do not put the same emphasis on education as the indian immigrants, specially when it comes to girls ...... most of them still think it is better ot get them married off as soon as possible instead of encouraging them to go to college - i have atteded three weddings in the last year where the brides were barely eighteen or nineteen ............ and these are not cab drivers - they are college professors, doctors and engineers ....... and the blue collar pakistani immigant seems to be going down the same slippery slope as his counterpart in the uk ............ at least that is what i see in brooklyn and queens ......

hamidm #187 i agree that arjun could be a useful idiot if he was not consumed by his hatred for muslims and his personal complexes (and no doubt he has good reasons for his inferiority complexes). and in any case, masadi`s mind is closed to messages of any kind.

arjun: lab specimen like you are not expected to communicate with the scientists observing your behavior. so dont speak unless spoken too. :-)

Prophet tahmed..lookie here..reality demonstrating it`s well known bias against the land of the pure..

`After the Rushdie affair, Islam in Britain became fused with an agenda of murder`

Our capital is now `Londonistan`, the hub of Islamist extremism, argues Melanie Phillips in her provocative new book. In this explosive extract she traces the impact of one disturbing episode

Sunday May 28, 2006

In 1988, the novelist and British citizen Salman Rushdie published his novel, The Satanic Verses. A bitter satire on Islam which understandably gave serious offence, its publication provoked uproar in the Islamic world with protests in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, that led to the deaths of five Muslims. Shortly afterwards, in Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa, sentencing Rushdie to death for writing the book, along with `all involved in its publication who were aware of its content`. As a result, Rushdie was forced to go into hiding for many years and to live the life of a highly guarded fugitive, with a bounty on his head for anyone who succeeded in killing him.

This incitement to murder a British subject and his associates in the publishing world set the Muslim community in Britain alight. Literally so - they burned the book in the street, in scenes uncomfortably reminiscent of Nazi Germany. There was a positive feeding frenzy of incitement. Sayed Abdul Quddus, the secretary of the Bradford Council of Mosques, claimed that Rushdie had `tortured Islam` and deserved to pay the penalty by `hanging`.

Speaking in Bradford, where the first demonstrations against the book took place, he said: `Muslims here would kill him and I would willingly sacrifice my own life and that of my children to carry out the ayatollah`s wishes should the opportunity arise.` Dr Kalim Siddiqui, director of the Iranian-backed Muslim Institute, shouted at a meeting: `I would like every Muslim to raise his hand in agreement with the death sentence on Salman Rushdie. Let the world see that every Muslim agrees that this man should be put away.`

The importance of this episode and the no less significant reaction to it by the British establishment can hardly be overestimated. Such scenes were unprecedented in Britain. The home of freedom of speech was playing host to the burning of books and an openly homicidal witch-hunt. Yet not one person who called for Rushdie to be killed was prosecuted for incitement to murder. The most the government could bring itself to say was that such comments were `totally unacceptable`.

On the contrary, they seemed to be not only accepted but even endorsed by certain members of the British establishment. Far from universal condemnation of this murderous expression of religious fanaticism, various people used their public position to jump prematurely upon Rushdie`s grave. Eminent historian Lord Dacre said he `would not shed a tear if some British Muslims, deploring Mr Rushdie`s manners, were to waylay him in a dark street and seek to improve them`. In Leicester, Labour MP Keith Vaz led a 3,000-strong demonstration intent on burning an effigy of Rushdie and carried a banner showing Rushdie`s head, complete with horns and fangs, superimposed on a dog.

Here in microcosm were the key features of what would only much later be recognised as a major and systematic threat to the state and its values. There was the murderous incitement; the flagrant defiance of both the rule of law and free speech; the religious fanaticism; the emergence of British Muslims as a distinct and hostile political entity; and the supine response by the British establishment. What was also on conspicuous display was the mind-twisting, back-to-front reasoning that is routinely used by many Muslims to turn their own violent aggression into victimhood. Muslim leaders claimed that the refusal by the British government to ban The Satanic Verses showed that Muslims in Britain were under attack, with the political and literary establishment trying to destroy their most cherished values. `They are rapidly coming to the conclusion that they will have to fight to defend Islam in Britain,` said Dr Kalim Siddiqui of his community.(hey...this dude could be another jinnah..)

Of course, it was Britain that was under attack from an Islamism that required the British state to dump its most cherished values in order to placate the Muslim minority. Yet this was promptly inverted to claim that it was Islam that was under attack. Thus, Islamist violence was justified and its victim blamed instead for aggression, the pattern that has come to characterise the Muslim attitude to conflict worldwide.

The Rushdie affair became a rallying cause for Muslim consciousness. It was the point at which British Muslims became politicised and hitched their faith to a violent star. According to writer Kenan Malik, Muslim radicals had until then been on the left, not religious and against the mosque. Now, fired by resentment at the apparent insult by the Rushdie book, they became transformed into religious radicals and formed the pool of discontents for militant Islamic groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir, which began organising in Britain, particularly on campus, in the late Eighties and early Nineties.

When Khomeini died in 1989, British Muslims reiterated that the death sentence on Rushdie still stood. A spokesman for the Council of Mosques said: `We are talking about the Islamic revival.` It was at that point, therefore, that the promotion of Islam in Britain became fused with an agenda of murder.

Hard on the heels of this seismic episode came two further key developments. The Bosnian war was another major radicalising factor for British Muslims. They watched the appalling scenes of Bosnian Muslims being massacred by their Christian neighbours. What made this carnage so much worse was that it was taking place in the middle of secular, multicultural Europe. The Muslims being wiped out were pale skinned and clothed in jeans and track shoes. They looked and behaved like any other Europeans.

And yet Britain and Europe were dragging their heels about doing anything to stop the slaughter. So British Muslims believed that it was Islam that was under attack and that they, too, were unsafe and threatened in a country which had so conspicuously failed to view the massacre of Muslims with any concern. With their sense of victimisation thus accelerating by the day, they started volunteering to fight for the jihad in Bosnia and organising the `defence` of their own communities in Britain.

At around the same time, Arab Islamist exiles from Libya, Algeria, Egypt and elsewhere started turning up in London in large numbers. Many had fought the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. They had returned to their home countries from where, after instigating violent agitation, they were promptly thrown out. So these trained `Afghan Arab` warriors made their way instead to Britain, attracted, they said, by its `traditions of democracy and justice`. But they had now been trained to be killers. They had discovered jihad. And the radical ideology they brought with them found many echoes in the Islamism and seething resentments that, by now, were entrenched in British Muslim institutions.