Inzi Post-Bob: An Interview

precisely what does their religious connection have anything to do with their cricket-playing??
I dont see the England team following any religious beliefs and they play lousy cricket!

RIP Bob Woolmer.

How very conclusive of you, zeemax. But the only problem is, this article had nothing to do with what you’re gloating about. Instead of being the effervescent Tableeghi apologist you’ve been, I think you mailing a wreath to the Sacred Heart Cathedral would have been a better idea. Mind you, I do respect your views, so kindly spare me the gung-ho cyber-jihadi muscle flexing.

LAHORE, Pakistan (AP) -- Muslims joined Christians in observing a minute of silence, as they lit candles and offered prayers in a memorial Sunday for Bob Woolmer, the Pakistani cricket coach found dead on March 18.

Some 200 people, including cricket players and officials, attended the service at the Sacred Heart Cathedral in the eastern city of Lahore, the home of Pakistani cricket.

So much for this idiotic article.

Re: # 160

Certainly: as Inzi, Yuhanna, etc., are degrading Islam by displaying their paganistic ritualism to promote their profession which is anti-Islamic like prostitution.

It`s funny and the writer has a point

Re: # 158
Don`t know. But is it relevant to this discussion?

Kaptain bahi nice idea
i think we must teach them lesson and tell them how much we love cricket ,so decide the venue and we need some volunteers some body-builders some phaddy baaz and ` mela` party ,and one thing pans will be served after this .
Chowk Sisters can join us aswell esp. ZahraJ ,Sadia Rizwan n Nembu baji
P.S:`
Vote against Inzi . Support KAPTAIN .


PapuPanwari biggest chamcha of Nfp.

Re: # 157

PewResearch

You raise the question:

``You don`t think that there was marriage before Islam in pagan Arabia? Ditto for every other religion.``

I raise a counter question:

Do you think there was no religion in Arabia before the advent of Mohammadan Islam?

Re: # 128 Bulleya

``...I hope you agree that marriage is a religious concept. Getting, ``married`` in no way affects one`s biological, intellectual, ethical faculties....``

Marriage if defined as `an interpersonal relationship with governmental, social, or religious recognition` precedes organized religion. Humans have had monogamous relationships for time immemorial with social sanction before there was organized religion. You don`t think that there was marriage before Islam in pagan Arabia? Ditto for every other religion.

The rest of your argument breaks down because it is built on a weak foundation.

If you get the time, check out this
book. It will explain to you chapter and verse how human behavior and physiology has biologically evolved to promote monogamous relationships. You won`t find any linkage to religion, and why monogamy is essential to human survival. You will learn that while men are naturally inclined to be polygamous, women have evolved pretty clever mechanisms to counter such behavior! There is no morality/religion in play here - pure survival of the species.

Nadeem lets out and vents out the anger yet again on Tableeghis. Why not grind Naseem Ashraf who came and exit the scene without a blotch?

Cricket, which was a gentlemanly sport having become a dirty show-biz profession mostly of the scum of the society, at least so far as the Pakies are concerned, why don`t they avoid at least to Talibanize it by showing repulsive faces with unkempt beards.

anil ji

As you know, on one hand institutions are absolutely necessary to make life possible and get any work done in any area. Institutions are our great enablers.

On the other hand, institutions can and regularly do lead to all kinds of troubles, as you mentioned.

So, we are back to relying on the ancient wisdom - that wisdom begins with the attainment of vivek - the ability to recognize distinctions across situations and offer appropriate responses to varying situations.

Unfortunately, these days it is hard to convince people that just because things look the same they are not necessarily the same, and that ignoring of distinctions helps nobody.

So good religion, bad religion - its all the same. All bad for (Indian) communists, all good for religionists the world over. How do we get people to the idea that religions could differ, and within every religion there could be good and bad (institutionalized) elements?

Re: # 131

Kaalchakra & Khurram:

An institution creates an advantage to generate values (good or bad) that otherwise cannot be accomplished. If it is to leverage education, then it is educational institution, and likewise it is to realize economic value or trade then it can be a corporation. Religion in my definition is a belief system. Something you cannot question, but must accept, however emotional or questionable it may be, unlike in other institutions. Now therefore, when religion is institutionalized it creates advantage to exploit questionable ethics and emotions, just as well it can promote good values of the religion. Separating such use from misuse is important.

It is my opinion that Islam today is being challenged to reform itself. I find that in Islam there are concepts, like Fatwa and Jihad, that can be used by a group of disgruntled to create ``institutes`` (or extreme words - killing machines) as if their acts have divine sanctions and all of their acts therefore, are justified. I am surprised why believers of Islam cannot see it, and see that it is doing more harm than good to their belief system - Islam.

Kaalchakra, the ferocity, intensity of suicide bomber is captured in the institution of suicide bombing. Many madarassas who teach such concepts are institutions. Hooded Jamia Hafsa girls in today`s news kidnapping the pimp in Islamabad looked no less fearful than KKK. These girls took law in their hands, in the name of Islamic injunction. This is a creation of another institution. Not all institutions need to be as large as Roman Catholic Church.

I can give you examples of institutions in other religions including Hinduism too. My thesis that it is very dangerous to institutionalize emotions and beliefs holds, unless you want to create mental asylums. Institutionalized religions are very dangerous, and have always been. They have served their purpose of expansion through deliverance of believers.

Referring to #41 by subhashjoshi...Unfortunately what he quoted is ABSOLUTELY wrong...In Quran Chapter 9, verse 11:(this is the general way of reading 9:11)
``But if they repent, perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât) and give Zakât, then they are your brethren in religion. (In this way) We explain the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) in detail for a people who know.``
But if you take it otherwise i.e., Chapter 11, verse 9 then its like:
``And if We give man a taste of Mercy from Us, and then withdraw it from him, verily! He is despairing, ungrateful.``
Source: http://muttaqun.com/quran/e/
NFP, your article left a bad taste in my mouth.

zeemax (re #150)

Ask your ullema, and not me. Or you could simply ask brother Urstruly here ...

When Quran contradicts ullema, they shift the discussion to ahadith. When ahadith are shown to contradict them, they cite consensus among scholars to support their views. It`s sorta like blind leading the blind.

Similarly, Quran vests no authority in anyone to declare another non-Muslim either (ahem, ahem). Do you still want to discuss Quran ... or have you had enough?

#148 by sattar2

... do enlighten us on “Islamic values” of stoning an adulterer to death ..

Please quote the ayat of Quran where it says this.