Can Religious Leaders Redeem the Future of the World?

#74 Posted by tahmed32:

tahmed sahib, Gill sahib and others:

Let us not get bogged down with what I have to say about urstruly. Though, let me remind you that US citizens have a right to criticize their country and their structure of governance. Let me instead put forth a disturbing proposition.

The problem put forth by Einstein etc. is well understood. If "humanity" means the same thing to every group then recourse to just "humanity" is the solution. I believe that "humanity" does not mean the same thing to all groups. Hence, recourse to "humanity" MAY not be the solution.

correction to #73: the question to GT in the last para. should have been " Why have you chosen to encourage Urstruly by referring to his bad mouthing of the US using an anonymous nic as being honest? "

GT #61 you write Urstruly etc. can only accept peace under their own terms and they are honest about it

While the logic-challenged can be excused for making such a an odd statement, you sir are not logic-challenged and so cannot be excused on that count.

What is "honest" about talking about armaggedon between the US and the muslim world using an anonymous nic? Between Hamidm and Urstruly, common sense would say that it is Hamidm who is being honest, and Urstruly who is the fake. I say this for the following reason:

Both Hamidm and Urstruly chose to leave Pakistan and come and live in the US, work and raise their families here. Hamidm looks at the positive side, Urstruly can only talk about the negatives, and bad mouth the country he has chosen to live in. It doesnt take a genius to figure out which one of the two is honest, and which one is dishonest.

The above begs the question - Why have you chosen to encourage Urstruly by referring to his bad mouthing of the US as being dishonest? Thanks in advance for your answer.

Gill Sahib, when the kaffirs like China and the india re ready to take over the world in teh next 50 years, shouldn' tthe maulvis be sending flowers to them instead of teh pope?

Re: # 69

gill sahib,

"There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings"

.... it is a noble thought but i don't think it will work with people who think that happiness is a pagan concept, all that we need to know is in 'the book', and wisdom is the domain of bearded fools who pore over the book ..... it is also hopeless to talk to people who love death more than we love life and want to get to heaven in a hurry so that they can get it on with seventy virgins ...... and i am really not sure that they consider infidels and apostates like you as human beings .........

........ it is a hopeless cause .... the battle lines are clearly drawn and it will be a fight to the finish .. luckily, we have bigger and better arms than the poor meccans ......

Re: # 68

urstruly,

... i have been trying to invite you 'out' for years now - it is you who is stuck in flint ....

GT: #58
The two sides do not agree because they are not talking to each other. Each of them is paranoid of the other. We are making the usual presumptions and holding on to them. Many people do understand that its not my world and your world; it is our world. If we destroy it in the zeal of conquering it, all of us lose. We are sitting on the threshold of a nuclear holocaust.
Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell had published a manifesto in the 1950s drawing attention to the great danger that humanity is facing. I am appending a couple of extracts from it for the Chowk readers. Hope they'll empathize with the danger that all of us are facing.

"Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.
The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty. But what perhaps impedes understanding of the situation more than anything else is that the term "mankind" feels vague and abstract. People scarcely realize in imagination that the danger is to themselves and their children and their grandchildren, and not only to a dimly apprehended humanity. They can scarcely bring themselves to grasp that they, individually, and those whom they love are in imminent danger of perishing agonizingly. And so they hope that perhaps war may be allowed to continue provided modern weapons are prohibited...
..................
There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death."

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 66

I think you need to get out more. You have one life to live; why spend it like a frog in the well.

should read "i haven't met a single 'religious' person who had any moral values"

Re: # 65

urstruly,

don't act dumb - you already know about the better ideas and ideologies ..... you spelled them out in your earlier post : Capitalism and Democracy .....

....... and don't give this bullshit about atheism and the lack of morality - i haven't met a single 'religious' who had any moral values - person starting with adam who screwed eve to get us kicked out of heaven, a senile old man who slept with his wife's maid to create our tribe, and a philanderer whose sexual antics have made us the laughing stock of the world .......

Re: # 64

Thanks for sharing your intellectual endeavor but hasn't it proven in your face, time and again, that "Shocks & awes", "agent oranges", "depleted uraniums", "mothers of all bombs", your favorite "daisy cuuters", "thermobarics" and "be all you can bes" do not work. These are the classic examples of the dance and prance of the weak horse. Ideas and ideology cannot be "killed" with bombs; ideas and ideologies can only be replaced with better ones. Had you had any better ideas and ideologies you wouldn't have needed the daisycutters in the first place. That is what I am trying to humbly submit in my last few posts.

Re: # 60

urstruly,

..... i hate to burst your bubble, but your horse is not a horse to begin with - it is a jackass! .....

.... you bitch and moan about this jackass being hobbled - who the heck hobbled it ? .....the rot began with the abominable four who started fighting over the jackass as soon as the original owner passed away ....... . this jackass did fine as long as the competition consisted of other jackasses, but now that it is facing thoroughbreds it doesn't stand a chance - the 313 medinites were able to defeat the 'horde' of a thousand meccans, because they were both armed with swords and sticks ... today, the competition has daisy cutters and other nasty stuff ........

.... people who want to ride this jackass are destined to live in dark caves .........

Re: # 62

Yes, if wishes were horses:)

#60 Posted by Urstruly:

Urstruly sahib,
The correct strategy is not to dicredit the 'stronger' horse. The correct strategy is to kill it. Na rahegi horse, na rahega race.

Enjoy the post Eid horse-race :)

Regards.

#59 Posted by Dash_Dot:

Let us cast aside fascism for the moment. Whith absolute beliefs (or simply beliefs as many in chowk put it), I cannot see how one can be both 'honest' and 'compromising' (peaceful?) under ALL conditions when beliefs are different.

Urstruly etc. can only accept peace under their own terms and they are honest about it (at least as far as chowk is concerned). The 138 religious scholars are just putting forth a puppet show (kaal and me call it sufiyapan). I fail to see how Gill can take it seriously. I actually found both the letter and the Archbishop's reply quite offensive. But the show must go on .....

Re: # 56

I am assuming that your post is addressed to me. You are not the only one asking the question but there are many Muslims who ask this question too. Osama Bin Laden while answering a similar question said that when people bet on horses they would rather bet on the strongest horse rather than on the weakest. This is the paradigm througgh which many people look at the conflict between Islam and Atheism.

But my last post addressed just that pointing to the fact that we are comparing the wrong horses. Consider a weak horse who is gasping for air but it is dressed nicely, its horseshoes are new and shiney; its gait is elegant; and it prances and dances while galloping. On the other hand there is an extremely strong horse but one of its front leg and and one rear leg on opposite side are tied with a rope just like some horse owners do back in Pakistan or India. It gives a limited mobility to the horse. Now put to race which horse is going to win. Weaker one but free or the stronger one but roped? people will obviously bet on the weaker ut free horse.

The stronger horse if free can beat the weaker horse anytime. It is the responsibility of Muslims to free the stronger horses which is chained with the vassalage of inferiority complex and shackles of lack of self confidence. This is our responsibility towards Allah.

So coming back to your question; do Muslims have a winning model of governance and economics? The answer is, we have taken the first steps already. Those who have weak horse are working overtime to discredit the stronger horse through propaganda and flasehood fearing that once the stronger horse is freed it will beat their weak horse anytime. Had they had a really strong horse they didn't have to all this. Its common sense.