Teaching Science Badly – and Well

#178 by Humsab

What facts has AbbasiJi laid out contrary to my assertions?

#176 by Tehsinabbasi,

No. Actually I was going to reply but then thought you had become busy elsewhere.

You said:

... another term that you are a fundamentalist but not a fanatic. ... both these terms are meaningless .... Either you follow Islam or you don’t. There are no gradations, no moderation, no enlightened moderation, fanaticism etc ... Either you accept the literal word of God and you observe it to the best of your ability …. And if you don’t accept it ….. aap daira e islam sey kharij hein.

The selectively picked literal word with all its limitations is there for those to believe, to the exclusion of all else, who would do so. But Quran actually discourages it. There`s a lot of emphasis on `mukammal` or `complete` as you would know is repeated over and over.

In #141, I had said :You can take a single piece of the puzzle i.e. the literal word in any single sentence and believe it .... Or you can take a few together and get at a part of it. ... Or you can take all the pieces of the entire puzzle and try to solve it ...

That`s the difference between a fanatic and a fundamentalist. The fanatic believes in a single piece of the puzzle or cetrain aspect/s of it (the Sufis and the perpetually moderate etc also fall in this category, not only whom you refer to) and either does not believe or is ignorant of all other, while a fundamentalist is aware of all pieces of the puzzle and able to bring it together in a single picture. Each piece is a part of Islam, and none can be rejected. Jihad (or extremism if you prefer) becomes one of these vital pieces when warranted, and not only that, it becomes the penultimate ingredient to achieve Tauheed which is the very basis of the entire faith.

The Jihadis whom many term as fanatics, are a lot less fanatical than others etc in understanding the entire Islamic socio-political system which the sufis and the `perpetually moderate` reject. Without a strong political and military power, Islam is incomplete.

Rgds

Zeemax ji
This combo of Hamidm ji and Abbasi ji is deadly for you. You are also well read but your expertise seems to be more on economic issues.
Actually your transformation during last few months to born again muslim is your weak point. You are not strong on history and you can`t beat facts laid out by abbassi ji.
If you want to compete then go back to your earlier version and try to argue rationally as you used to.
Regards

Re: # 151 Tahmed32
``Speaking for myself, I am very comfortable with being a muslim because religion in our household was first and foremost developing a good character - the thing that was emphasized were basic values like being honest at all times....``

Was accepting responsibility part of this cheery upbringing? In case you are wondering what this is in reference to, I am referring to the fact that you have no qualms defending General-President Musharraf with a call to arms when your country`s neighbors threaten to pay back in kind when he sends murderous agents to their civilian centers, but express no such calls to action when he engages in such provocative acts in the first place.

Hey Zeemax:

Man, I have been waiting for you, because I really wanted to have our discussion, but you have chosen not to. That is okay. I am sorry, I put you on a spot, but you see this is the subtlety of our condition. Life is nothing more then a journey and self doubt and being conflicted is an essential part of the human experience.

This is where it becomes crucial to believe in a benevolent, beneficent and compassionate God, who understands our frailties and forgives our trespasses. This is also where we have to reject the Mullah trap of an angry, vengeful God all set to throw us all into eternal hell fires. Both you and I are hopeful (because without hope there is nothing) that His mercy will pull us through.

#172, #173

In #171, the paragraph containing ``guess`` is my own baby - not a contribution from Ms. Mirza.

mullahs have no problem with hard modernity, modern medicine, trains and planes etc. they have problem with soft modernity, secularism, democracy, eqaulity of sexes, arts& culture etc.

#171 by bjkumar

[Krishna, let me respond to the only portion of your response which cites data: ]

So what you are saying is that only that portion merits a response because there is data cited. Surprising how there was no ``data`` in your post #156, as well as the overwhelming majority of your posts.


[You are perhaps referring to the report by Ms. Munira Mirza which found, among other things, that 37% of British born 16-24 year old Muslims prefer sharia compared to 17% of 55+ year olds. ]

Regardless of what I am referring to, you have skirted the MAIN issue, which is that EVEN 37% is no ``aberration``.


[I do not know too much about the UK, but my guess is that it has a track record of institutionalized racism which frowns upon integrating immigrants – and systematically discriminates and alienates especially their younger generations. ]

Surprising then, that minorities of OTHER RELIGIONS, like Hindus, Sikhs etc. are solidly on the side of democracy.

See how your ``argument`` has no leg to stand on? Do you see that? No? I thought so.



[Mirza cautioned: “We should be wary of treating the entire Muslim population as a monolith with special needs that are different to the rest of the population. There is considerable diversity amongst Muslims, with many adopting a more secular approach to their religion and a majority feeling they have as much, if not more, in common with non-Muslims in Britain as with Muslims abroad. There is clearly a conflict within British Islam between a moderate majority that accepts the norms of Western democracy and a growing minority that does not.”

So there, your argument has been shot to death!]

Ah, so my argument has been shot to death by Ms. Mirza`s ``argument``.

No doubt.

If this is the best you can do, try not to respond to my baseless and illogical arguments. Just ignore my comments just like I ignore yours. And keep up your interfaith dialogue with Chowk Islamists.

#171 by bjkumar

So according to Ms.Munira Mirza`s ``guess`` ( a nice technique to establish facts ) UK Muslims are terrorists because ``it has a track record of institutionalized racism ....`` etcetra, etcetra.

I wonder then, if 37% of Hindus and 37% of Sikhs in UK also want to blow up their fellow citizens ? After all, by the first hand accounts of many Pakistanis on this board, Injuns are ugly darkies, who are also smelly, short and generally look ugly as hell. Surely then, Hindus in UK must have been far worse victims of Racism than fair skinned pakistanis ? no ???

By the way yo fair skinned pakistanis of UK, is that why you people trap young early-teen ( iam talking 13,14 year olds ) white girls in to what is called ``grooming`` ? or is that a way of sticking it to the ``whitey`` as a revenge ?

#165 Krishna_abcd

Krishna, let me respond to the only portion of your response which cites data:

[Did you know that 40% of Muslims in UK admit to preferring Shariah to democracy? And a much larger number supports/empathizes with terrorism.]

You are perhaps referring to the report by Ms. Munira Mirza which found, among other things, that 37% of British born 16-24 year old Muslims prefer sharia compared to 17% of 55+ year olds.

You pull this factoid from among many in that report but neglect to talk of the CONCLUSIONS the author made based on the whole survey. Let’s look at it a bit closer:

Is such support a worldwide phenomenon among Muslim expatriates or is it uniquely a British situation. If it is the former, have we seen similar numbers in, for example, the USA? I seriously doubt it. I do not know too much about the UK, but my guess is that it has a track record of institutionalized racism which frowns upon integrating immigrants – and systematically discriminates and alienates especially their younger generations.

In fact, the lead author of that report, Munira Mirza, said: “The emergence of a strong Muslim identity in Britain is, in part, a result of multicultural policies implemented since the 1980s which have emphasised difference at the expense of shared national identity and divided people along ethnic, religious and cultural lines.”

And here is the clincher, from the same lead author:

Mirza cautioned: “We should be wary of treating the entire Muslim population as a monolith with special needs that are different to the rest of the population. There is considerable diversity amongst Muslims, with many adopting a more secular approach to their religion and a majority feeling they have as much, if not more, in common with non-Muslims in Britain as with Muslims abroad. There is clearly a conflict within British Islam between a moderate majority that accepts the norms of Western democracy and a growing minority that does not.”

So there, your argument has been shot to death! But shed no tears – it is good death!

For your viewing pleasure, I produce below a picture of Ms. Mirza because, because…

Because I think she is a lot more photogenic than Dr. Hoodbhoy and she is perhaps more photogenic than 99 percent of the chowk writers and interactors!

Enjoy!

#169 The Church raised similar objections like our ulema that translating the Bible was not possible as its divine meaning would be lost.

While the comparison with 15th century europe is valid to the extent that priests wanted to hold on to latin the way mullahs hold on to arabic to give them that special edge over the laity, it is misleading: while 15th century christian priests sought to usurp control over society by keeping the bible in latin, mulahs have gone a step further and supplanted the simple straightforward message of the quran altogether by the sharia and sunnah.

Also, while your statement above (in italics) is true, this does not capture the uproar that issue caused in england when the issue first came up. william tyndale who translated the bible to english from latin was condemned as a heretic and burnt at the stake in the late 15th century. john wycliffe who had similarly translated the bible along with a bunch of ``conspirators`` before tyndale, managed to escape the church`s attention, but after his death his body was pulled out of its grave and hanged for good measure by the church.

the church lost its influence in part due to the black death, spread by rats, which killed priests in larger numbers than the ordinary populations (rats and priests tended to be together in closed confines of buildings) and thus lost credibility for their magical powers with the ordinary people.

#143 by malik99

“the fact that there was no dearth of ``aalims`` who had mastery of arabic just as good, if not better, than arabs’

Please guide me to some sort of course requirements for aalim, faazils, because as I understand it Faazil e Adab, Fazil e Dinyaat, munshi fazil (farsi), moulvi fazil (Arabic), adeeb fazil (urdu) sanad e hikmat younani; were all the asnaad in the madrasah which was conducted at the mosque. Hardly any of them required over 10 or 11 years of education. These graduates had very little ability. Their main function was that of being munshis whose job was to read letters or write letters to loved ones who were far away. Most if not all of the population lived in villages and there were one or 2 munshi fazils or with alim sanad. But calling these dinyat peddlers as ‘aalims’ is a stretch. Knowledge of Arabic enough to know about the Quran and tafseer was rare. If you have any data or sources which give some indication as to the level of such literacy I would love to have them.

“but even Bible didnt get translated from Latin into English and other languages until well into 1500s - nearly 1500 years after it was put together”

You are absolutely right – but it did not happen without a fight. Fact of the matter is that this ended up dividing the Church into its current Catholic and Protestant factions. The Church raised similar objections like our ulema that translating the Bible was not possible as its divine meaning would be lost. Practical reason was that where as it was so much easier for a priest to utter his words in an unknown language where he could impress his congregation as they didn’t know what was being said. But once it was said in the local vernacular they knew that what ever the priest was saying was after all not so magical and some of it was actually pretty ordinary that they were afraid to loose their power over the people. So Martin Luther said something to the effect that the strength of the church should not be in the ignorance of the laity. Moreover the printing press was just coming on and he was able to get the gospel translated into German published and distributed much more quickly then the opposition had time to solidify against him.

Kemal Ata Turk with his national hero credentials tried it for us Muslims as well, but not having philosophical credentials he was unable to make a coherent argument for having the Quran and the namaz conducted in Turkish. It never caught on and as a matter of fact today even in Turkey namaz is conducted in Arabic. But for our Muslim reformation we may end up having to revive the same formula that the Christians had adopted 500 years ago.

hamidm #164 the miswak serves a useful purpose if you dont have a toothbrush. the watwani i have my doubts about under any circumstances. the sunnah and sharia on the other hand are tools in the hands of animals-that-cannot-be-named to impose their will on society by setting themselves up as a priesthood.

but thanks for the clarification anyway.

#157 by tolkinin

[.....U and your broken record revoling needle ]

Do you call your brethren in Hamas ``broken record revoling needle``, or your brethren in the Pakistani terrorist establishment that have been harping on the ``rights`` for Muslim Kashmiris For the last 50 years?

You don`t, right?

Why not?

hamidm #163 what i meant was ``syed`` means something special to ``muslims`` who see the ``syed`` as a cut above the regular folks. abbasid doesnt have the same connotation.

the syed qutbs are a footnote to history - their ideology is riddled with inner contradictions, their methods are criminal, and they have no more chance of changing the course of history than king canute had of turning back the ocean tides.

syed qutbs are the result of social backwardness (jehalyiat). to equate them with islam is in fact to give them the very legitimacy they seek. separate syed qutb from islam, and all you are left with is a common criminal.

#156 by bjkumar

[Dear Krishna, for most individuals, religion is a personal matter. Populations are not monolithic. Vast numbers of individuals do not take the time to go back and think through whatever were the originating events of the religious labels that they wear ]

So what would you call reading re-reading and re-re-reading and following the koran day in and day out by the millions of Muslims then? Vast numbers of Muslims IN FACT take the time to go back and study ``whatever were the originating events of the religious labels that they wear``.

You are wrong in your arguments.


[– they are fully occupied trying to meet the day-to-day challenges that face them in life and trying to make a decent living while protecting their loved ones around them while surviving the multiple constrains (sometimes contradictory) imposed on them by larger structures. The aberrant behavior of groups, even well-organized groups, is not to be taken as something that most reasonable people of any creed or nationality endorse.]

Did you know that 40% of Muslims in UK admit to preferring Shariah to democracy? And a much larger number supports/empathizes with terrorirsm.

Is 40% an ``aberration``?


[The wholesale “demonization” of a people based on the actions of some of its people has been a tool used by numerous demagogues in the past to bring about organized mayhem. ]

This ``demonization`` line is used to silence critics of Islam all the time. But with me, you have to do better.

Since you are a ``thinking`` person, I would expect you to get back to me on these points.