Local Liberal Dribble

I mean that's how I perceived it, but god knows which angles I see things from, sometimes things I see have nothing to do with what anyone else wants me to see.....
Nadeem, very good points about the emphasis on "psychological" not just ideological -- these past few years I've confronted this discipline, its brought me to my senses, I think we all suffer from this or that, from time to time...don't we?
I love the way your writing can make us laugh, actually, its quite something -- somehow I don't find it cruel, but that's maybe because I like German poetry now.
In the nearest language, it always works.

Interesting article.

I liked the bit about the Azan ...he was psychologically destroyed ...and he just didn't care about anything anymore.

I like how you delicately handle the words about the rape, and challenge with the 'girlfriends, sex, alcohol' -- sensitive.
In the nearest language, it always works.

Its a good article though Mr. NFP is overly harsh on Shoib Mansoor. Firstly, Mr Shoib Mansoor's effort was not directed towards giving a freudian cum marxist explanation of religous fanatiscism, rather he targeted those who already were religus....After all the hard liners draw their human resource from people who beleive in religon ardently....
Regarding religous fanaticism being an outcome of pyschology and social circumstances....
Well partly true.....
The fanaticism is also an outcome in the present times, of the international developments and the way those developments are interpreted by both local and international media and how international heavy weights react...
Frankly if in tribal areas some one's brother is killed by security forces, he wont think about the international definition of terrorism before blowing himself up...
Moreover not all terrorists and suicide bombers are from poorer households....
so while socio economic conditions are one factor, these can not explain the entire phenonmenon....
Another aspect is that this brand of Islamic fundamentalism started gaining ascendency in 1980s.....
Once again this timing points towards a large role of international developmens....
it is the interaction of many factors which may at times be mutually reinforceable which account for extremism...
extremism becomes dominant in an ideology under particular circumstances...which are local as well as international

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

HP,

You seem to be a confused fellow. ANP and PML-N are not exactly secular parties.....ANP's manifestor clearly states that their faith is Islam and that this is a major part of their manifestor, while Nawaz declared himself Ameerul Momineen when he was PM and has very strong tendencies towards Islamization. Even Zardari uses the religion of Benazir rather than the religion of Islam, so he too is using a faith...albeit a twisted one. For you to speculate that these election results demonstrate Pakistan's anti-Islamic tendencies is a real stretch.

Also, you pay lip service to wanting to discuss Islam's various answers but on the other hand you seem to be saying that the point of view of those who a practicing Muslims is insane and therefore not worth discussing. I'm afraid you've already given up the facade and have demonstrated that you're just one of those people who doesn't want to let facts and truth get in the way of hating Islam and Muslims.

Dude, HP you just seem to have a gripe against anyone Muslim. You say the Pakistan army is a bunch of wusses, but you seem to be lacking the stones to even say what you think in public, while also claiming that the majority of Pakistan thinks the way you do. In my view, you're the confused wuss.

My concept of ghairat is to not be a boot licking house nigger who hates his own identity and background more than the goras who colonized him did.

Re: # 60
HP says: "Okay that’s fine. If you two insist, can you spell out what the thought at the other end of Islamic spectrum is and why that qualifies as logical?"
and in #56 HP says: "[...]The best course is to fight what mullah preaches with the facts right out of this world and not from some imaginary make believe world."

HP the main thing I was objecting to in your post #56 was that you claim that the worldview of the Mullahs is "imaginary" and "make believe" and thus not worth arguing against. Don't you think, even if you don't agree with it, that it's better to study the content and origins of the philosophy that you are opposed to rather than just dismissing it as crazy? What made me think about this recently was reading about Dr. Fadl's criticisms of Al-Zawahiri.

#72 Posted by Zyxius
“You're the one saying that those who you disagree with are insane and therefore cannot be reasoned with!! Now you say that if the other side holds this same point of view about you....its unfair? There is your hypocrisy right there! Also....personally I don’t believe you won’t say what you think in public because of this reason...I feel it has more to do with the fact that you realize you are just a fringe burger boy who's out of touch with reality and too scared to to speak in public IN PERSON.�

How am I the fringe when secular parties in Pakistan have won overwhelming majority in the recent elections? Actually, the Islamists in Pakistan are the fringe and not just now but from the very beginning. They never had any support from the people and that’s why they rely on laws enacted under martial law. The cowards know they can’t win any debate because they only have some empty slogans.

What is this childish fancy about saying something in public? Is the spitting match your preference?
I am asking you to present what Islamists are actually promoting and you are issuing challenges for some personal confrontation. What system of governance Islamists have, what is their economic system, and how they intend to handle crimes and other civil litigation issues. These are just the starting points.

“did you realize that the motto of the Pakistan army has always been, "Jihad fi sabiillah"? Our boyys have always defended Pakistan in the name of Allah and Islam..�

I know Zia added jihad but when was the last time “Our boys� won anything? Which part of Pakistan they have ever defended? Lost East Pakistan, lost Kargil. Are they even willing to defend the country, if the US or NATO armies enter Pakistan? This bunch of wusses, have a track record of surrendering not fighting. The army defends Allah and Islam but loses Pakistani territory left and right. Your boys clearly are cowards who bark on the unarmed Pakistanis but when it comes down to facing the real armies, they leave the defense of Pakistan on Allah and Islam and run to the nearest enemy army officer to surrender.

Do these wusses represent your idea of ghairat?

Salman Rushdie. When asked if 'fundamentalism was the root cause of terror', he replied
'no, they both have a common root cause. Fear of sexuality, especially fear of the female as a sexual person in the psyche of some believers.'


What nonsense Since when Rushdie became a booker awarded writer to Freudean clinical Psychologist to be quoted /taken seriously .

Fundoo both Moulanas Mormons take more than one wives .

Rushdie is mysogynist to blame all problems fom fndoo to terorist on women

May be b/c his own asexuality fear of Padma and girls he liked who left him lonely

....tahmed32 sahib whose dad.....

#79 by Zyxius

Thats right man...why let facts stand in the way when some dude on the net says otherwise. Did I tell you my daddy was the first man on Mars?

Yaar I don't know if you're being sarcastic, but when I as an Indian know that the motto of the Paki army is indeed "Jihad fi Sabilillah", tahmed32 sahib dad was an armyman surely should be knowing it.

#78 Harish,

Thats right man...why let facts stand in the way when some dude on the net says otherwise. Did I tell you my daddy was the first man on Mars?

#77 by zeemax

I think tahmed32 sahib knows what the motto of the Paki army is. If I'm not mistaken, his dad was a Brigadier in the Paki army.

#74 Posted by tahmed32,

Err ... sorry to jump in. But zyxius is right:

The motto of the Pakistani Army reads: "Iman, Taqwa, Jihad fi Sabilillah". Translated into English, it means "Faith, Piety, to strive in the path of Allah".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Army#Motto

Actually, I just remembered that I'm thinking of Hamidm rather than you (living in Detroit). Scratch that.

Its still a fact that that is the Pakistan Army motto regardless of whether you are aware of it or not. And people who die on duty in our armed forces are called Shaheed. One would think that the people who enjoy this protection would in turn have some respect.

Tahmed32,

"I never heard of this kind of rubbish from anyone other than mullahs."

If I recall, you live in Detroit with your religious wife who is an ex-classmate and major fan of Imran Khan...but I digress....just because you haven't heard of it living in Detroit, doesn't mean that it isn't a fact you retard. Check it out from someone who is actually in Pakistan and knows the army.

Zyxius #73 "the motto of the Pakistan army has always been, "Jihad fi sabiillah"?"

I never heard of this kind of rubbish from anyone other than mullahs. Zia the hypocrite (who happily slaughtered palestinians in what the latter now call Black September) tried to introduce this mullah rubbish into the army as part of his strategy of using Islam to maintain is illegal rule of Pakistan. And even he failed, and the best he could come up with was help mullahs take over from the true freedom fighters (ahmed shah massoud) in Afghanistan - the genesis of the suicide bombers and other rogues seeking to carve out pieces of Pakistan for themselves - again abusing Islam for this purpose.

HP,

I forgot to mention....did you realize that the motto of the Pakistan army has always been, "Jihad fi sabiillah"? Our boyys have always defended Pakistan in the name of Allah and Islam...It is Islamic sentiment that protects our country because bhayghayrat anti-Islamic fanatics like you wouldn't dare take the risk to fight and die for this country...you have no faith in anything. If you insist on being a bhayghayrat...that is your prerogative, but you should recognize who has been defending this country and you should have some respect.

HP,

You're a total hypocrite man...why don't you see it?

"I would attribute this more to the mullah threats of declaring anyone opposing them blasphemous or non Muslim. Mullah supports the laws used against the naysayers. The reason for the aggression is to stifle the debate."

You're the one saying that those who you disagree with are insane and therefore cannot be reasoned with!! Now you say that if the other side holds this same point of view about you....its unfair? There is your hypocrisy right there! Also....personally I dont believe you wont say what you think in public because of this reason...I feel it has more to do with the fact that you realize you are just a fringe burger boy who's out of touch with reality and too scared to to speak in public IN PERSON.

"I would welcome the opportunity. Can you suggest any newspaper in Pakistan to publish my thoughts against mullah and his ideology? For starter, can you take the initiative and ask the mullah to support the removal of the anti blasphemy laws from the books? The only purpose of that law is to block any challenge to the religious bigotry in Pakistan."

I am glad that you keep showing your intolerance. You keep referring to a whole segment of society that you disagree with as "mullah" as if you are talking about one single person. And...if you have the guts to say what you think...then you shouldn't need laws to support you...cmon dude...be a proud burger.

Really? Is that all you got man? A little ranting and pissing about "mullah" and "i hate you people" kind of tantrums? Can you picture a loser burger like you leading any kind of movement in Pakistan except his little group of 3-4 bhayghayrat burger friends?

#62 Posted by Zyxius
“Honestly I find it pathetic that there are so many fanatic secularists who say so much about mullahs that they would not dare say in public.�

I would attribute this more to the mullah threats of declaring anyone opposing them blasphemous or non Muslim. Mullah supports the laws used against the naysayers. The reason for the aggression is to stifle the debate.

“Which one are you HP? Can I invite you to present your anti-mullah manifesto anywhere in Pakistan on a public podium?�

I would welcome the opportunity. Can you suggest any newspaper in Pakistan to publish my thoughts against mullah and his ideology?

For starter, can you take the initiative and ask the mullah to support the removal of the anti blasphemy laws from the books? The only purpose of that law is to block any challenge to the religious bigotry in Pakistan.

Religion does not provide any answers to any problem faced by the people in Pakistan. We are witnessing the destruction of the Pakistan society because of the unnecessary emphasis on religion. Religion is a personal matter and should remain so.

I was impressed by KKL because it was a serious attempt

to make world class movies in Pakistan. Critics have

their own views on its message, but I liked it a great

deal.

On the baseball cap, the message was that attire should

make little difference to worship.

I did not send my review to CHOWK because YLH had already

done that. So mine went to the Pakistan Link.


Ras



KHUDA KAY LIYE/IN THE NAME OF GOD DESERVES ACCLAIM

Last Saturday, I had the privilege to view Shoaib Mansoor’s widely anticipated Pakistani movie “Khuda Kay Liye� or “In The Name Of God� on a full screen at NAZ8 Cinemas in Fremont, California. I call this a privilege because Pakistani movies being shown to the wider public on a full screen in Northern California are something quite rare, even when the theaters screening them like NAZ8 are known for showing Indian (Bollywood) blockbusters. Since this was a 1:00 PM show on a Saturday, we hurried to the venue to get a good seat. There were five of us and when we stepped into the theatre we were surprised that there was plenty of room. Either word about this movie has not circulated or the impact of pirated DVD’s had already been felt. But after seeing it I can write that this movie should not be missed by Pakistanis, Americans or other Desi-South Asians. We saw it with English subtitles but a great deal of this movie is already in the English language.
South Asian films have overcome many barriers in the United States over the past few years. Most of them have been made by the Indian-Pakistani Diaspora resident in Britain, Canada and the US. Mira Nair, Hanif Kureishi and now Tariq Ali have entered into filmmaking for western audiences. Mira’s “The Namesake� is being released on DVD and is being considered Oscar material. And indigenous Indian movies such as Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s Saawariya are getting international funding. But where does this movie fit in?
Khuda Kay Liye is a remarkable film that can compete with any movie coming out of either Hollywood or Bollywood these days. Unfortunately it will not penetrate the mainstream US movie market because it is going to be very controversial on both sides of “the divide�. This is not fun entertainment (except for a wonderful soundtrack). It is a must see for those interested in the Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations� model for the immediate future of the West’s relationships with Islam and the rest of the world. This movie tears that model to shambles. It brilliantly exposes the shortcomings of bearded fanatics or “Islamic� warriors� involved in false Jihad while at the same time revealing hypocritical truths of overeager warriors on the other side who in the process of fighting this menace might actually be creating it. This movie is about the moderate middle being attacked by two extremes.
That moderate middle is a represented by an educated and relatively affluent liberal Pakistani family living in the city of Lahore, The parents and two sons are interested in playing music (the duo somehow reminded me of two Pakistani Pop/Rock stars that we know). Like all creative young people searching for something more, one son Mansoor brilliantly played by actor Shan reaches the shores of America to find his calling in music. The other son Sarmad played by Fawad Khan is pulled into religious extremism by fanatics with their own vicious agenda and ends up fighting in Afghanistan. The two are allowed to develop their own ways by their liberal parents but their initial falling out deserves the viewer’s attention. One son happily pursues music in America till 9/11 horribly intervenes. The other gives it up music “Cold Turkey� because he is told that it is against Islam. It is this struggle that forms half of the core of the Khuda Kay Liye/In the Name of God. And here I just have to write that Shan, the son of Pakistani actress Neelo and one of my favorite Pakistani movie directors of all time the late Riaz Shahid has made them proud in this movie.
The other half-core in this film is the story of Mary or Maryam, wonderfully played by Pakistani Model Iman Ali. Mary is the daughter of a Pakistani father and a British mother. Her father, a beer drinker who lives with a woman who he is not married to suddenly develops “morals� and executes a devious plan to lure his daughter to Pakistan to get her married even against her will, because she wants to marry a white boy named Dave in Britain. Mary is the cousin of the other two young men (Mansoor and Sarmad the musicians) mentioned here earlier. She is deceived into traveling to Pakistan’s Pashtun tribal areas and forced to marry Sarmad, the young man who has given up music for what he thinks is religion and “for saving her soul.� It is the moving story of Mary and her futile attempts to escape from the remote village after her forced “marriage� that gives Khuda Kay Liye a truly sensitive side and paints a portrait of a part of Pakistan and the lives of women there.
The twin issues of whether music is allowed in Islam and if a woman has the freedom to marry of her own free will, both end up in a Pakistani court. Here a religious expert is called. Maulana Wali, brilliantly played by Indian actor Naseeruddin Shah, in his best (ten odd minute) performance that I have ever seen since his portrayal of Urdu’s greatest poet Mirza Ghalib. This character will certainly make the Muslim viewer think. For those that have the pirated DVD in circulation that have somehow cut out Naseeruddin Shah’s role in the movie, please throw it in the trash. It is this role that brings the main message of Khuda Kay Liye/In the Name of God to us.
The gruesome and detailed segment of torture and humiliation via extraordinary rendition of Mansoor, the Pakistani music student who is now married to an American, Janie (played by Austin Marie Sayre) by security officials’ post 9/11 is bound to raise many eyebrows. Shan’s acting and that of his torturers makes it all so believable that this movie is not suitable for people under 17 years of age.
Khuda Kay Liye/In the Name of God is a story of a family (and a country?) caught in the clutches of a war not of its making. Two young men here face extreme disappointment in their pursuits. It is all about young people who dream of finding salvation in today’s world, but the reality they face is quite brutal. All one can say when Khuda Kay Liye ends is; “Thank god there is the music�. A special thanks to Shoaib Mansoor for making us all look into the mirror of our times via this superb film. One can only hope that the world beyond Pakistan will get its message.


Ras H. Siddiqui

11-25-07

"First of all, just how his family (and the government), never bothers to apprehend the fanatic who is seen remaining free to preach hatred, is a rather strange happening.

But the azaan scene takes the cake in the art of offering a gimmicky response to a question that requires a more substantial answer. I mean, what is Manoor suggesting through this scene? Is he suggesting that attire is the only overwhelming problem in the moderate vs. fanatic debate?

In fact, the film actually never takes a firm stand against the fanatics on issues other than the question of what is the correct "Islamic attire." As a matter of fact, subjects like sex, girlfriends, alcohol, etc., are treated and dismissed by the moderates in the film almost as mindlessly and myopically as they are by the fanatics.

For example, after Fawad comes to his senses, he says he was a good Muslim even before he became a fanatic. And he justifies this by saying "main sharaab, larki, jhoot mein nahi involve tha …" (I wasn't involved in alcohol, girls, lies).


What does that mean? Is he saying he was a better human being than those who do drink and have girlfriends? And how can he be a better Muslim when instead of a womanizing and alcoholic Muslim, it was him who had the tendency to join fanatics in the blackening of billboards, kidnapping women and killing fellow Muslims? How can he be a better Muslim when he was the one with some serious psychological issues and violent urges enough to get brainwashed by an irrational and sadistic band of fanatics? "

All Hail NFP - This is EXACTLY what I felt after the movie ended - what the hell was THAT??

Re: # 67

apologies.....it is THERE and not their!

Re: # 66

sorry...we are at cross purposes their; I thought you were refrring to the originals!

I am only familiar with fifty-fifty

Regards

Re: # 64

what do you mean akcheema?
i'm on about shoaib mansoors storytelling from a pakistani perspective, have you seen his older work? alpha bravo charlie, sunehre din, ankahi, gulls and guys (voyage of discovery), hell even fifty fifty?

Re: # 61

Ras, I dont know about India or US, I watched it in England though, couldn't make it back to Pakistan, and waited for the film to release in England, and it was a nightmare to begin with, as the local cinemas weren't aware of it, and then the day before it screened it was listed under 'bollywood' no publicity whatsoever, i managed to book four tickets, once we got there, it was fully sold out, we had to sit in seperate seats wherever we could (lucky, i'd booked!) and once the credits rolled, there were loud cheers and applause.
apparently it stayed that way, played to a full house for those 2 months it showed, they had to create more time slots for it too! :)

Re: # 63
[[it's something only shoman would've been able to do, all pakistani's have seen alpha bravo charlie, gull's and guys etc,]]

are we all talking about the same country here???

just wondered!

Zyxius, i'm so glad there is someone else who disagrees with this sudden eruption of anti-mullah rhetoric.

islam is a journey we take on our own, a mullah is there as a guide if you get lost somewhere, utilise them for that purpose, dont depend on them blindly, they're human just like we are and make mistakes!

nfp no doubt was going to have an issue about a movie with 'khuda' in the title, but hey that's his view.

i just dont like him painting this picture of pakistani-muslims as primeval beings who lack intellect, cant think for themselves and get jazbaati quick!
thats really undermining us.

on a seperate note about the movie, there were many parts i could relate to, either myself or from situations i've seen and could understand them re-enacted on screen.

it's like mary, iman ali's character, i like how they show her an estranged girl within her own home, and she's quiet and meek, almost afraid of her father, and that is today's youth, we're not like ''love you mummy... you're the best dad'' (in a cheesy american accent).
or when she's in the village and whilst she's in such an adverse situation, we could say she was going through 'hell', but even then, she found moments of happiness, she made friends, and that is life, that we are never quite in hell or in heaven, even in the most happiest situation there will be a glimmer of sadness, and even in the face of such tragedy, there is a glimmer of hope etc.
it's all this attention to detail, it really matters.
it's something only shoman would've been able to do, all pakistani's have seen alpha bravo charlie, gull's and guys etc, he's quite holistic in his appraoch to storywriting.

HP,

I think it only makes sense to say what you're willing to also say in public, otherwise you're either a hypocrite....or so much on the fringe that you dont have enough people who agree with you to have the guts to say it in public. Honestly I find it pathetic that there are so many fanatic secularists who say so much about mullahs that they would not dare say in public. I wonder if its because they're hypocrites and know what they're saying is bullshit and unrealistic, or they know they're such a marginal group that they'll be talking to a loser/fringe audience of extremists who are out of touch with reality. Which one are you HP? Can I invite you to present your anti-mullah manifesto anywhere in Pakistan on a public podium?

For tahir's benefit......

Once again my take on this movie here at:

http://www.pakistanlink.com/Community/2007/Dec07/07/01.HTM


By the way, I really liked this film and was not happy

with the limited publicity that its release generated here

in the US. How did it do in India?


Ras

#58 Posted by Zyxius
“it is YOU and PIRACHA who have adopted that takfiri brand of logic.�

I don’t know what takfri brand of logic is this must be some new word in mullahspeak.

#57 Posted by grandtrunkroad
“It's pretty much an intellectual dead-end to dismiss the other end of the Islamic spectrum as populated by a bunch of lunatics with unresolved Freudian sexual issues.�

Okay that’s fine. If you two insist, can you spell out what the thought at the other end of Islamic spectrum is and why that qualifies as logical?

“they're crazy but because most of what passes as liberal criticism of extremism is usually not presented from within Islamic tradition,�

As I said in my previous post, you cannot beat mullah on his own turf. Using the religious books against the people that in our society are accepted as the authority on religious affairs would backfire and you would hand them the victory. That is exactly what is happening in Pakistan. No one challenges them and people step back for fear of blasphemy charges. Mullah is not much in to argument and would reject you right away because the accepted wisdom is that the mullah knows religion more than any western educated scholar does.

The youth would not listen to you if you present your case and your arguments are based on knowledge and logic. The knowledge should use every possible source.

Arguing the mullah using the religious books alone would perpetuate the myth and the whole debate would revolve around something that is already illogical and hearsay.

I object to Mr. 'P' taking over Mr. Ras Siddiqui's job of writing movie reviews.

Will the real Mr. Siddiqui please stand up!

Grandtruckroad,

I totally agree with you.

HP,

You are basically doing the same thing that Piracha is and that is to divide between into an "us" and "them"....the "them" being mullahs. Furthermore, to feel that you have the power to label a group insane or crazy because you don't agree with their views or logic is the definition of intolerance and I think it is YOU and PIRACHA who have adopted that takfiri brand of logic.

Re: # 56
I don't know HP. It's pretty much an intellectual dead-end to dismiss the other end of the Islamic spectrum as populated by a bunch of lunatics with unresolved Freudian sexual issues. Even if you oppose them on every single issue, where is this approach going to get you? That's probably why the self-termed civil society of Pakistan is always left on the sidelines: because it never bothers to participate in Islamic tradition and has isolated itself from it to the point where it's almost indistinguishable from disengaged Westerners.

The reason why the "liberal dribble" as Mr. Paracha terms is so ineffectual is not because it's useless to argue with extremists because they're crazy but because most of what passes as liberal criticism of extremism is usually not presented from within Islamic tradition, it's just a hotch-potch derived from Martin Lings' biography of Muhammad or Karen Armstrong's latest or something like that. It's intellectually lightweight stuff. I guess a pretty good metaphor for the whole thing is all the students who get their Islamic learning from studying for the Cambridge O-Level Islamiat exam. The Brits must really be laughing at what we've become.

#55 Posted by Zyxius
“It simply repeated the dreadful old act of a "moderate Muslim" soft-feathering a hardliner with counter quotes from the Hadith and certain worn out clichés about social and parental responsibilities." –NFP

“So in your view....the answer must be offensive to Islam and observant Muslims in order to qualify as an answer.� - Zyxius

Sounds like your own views force to you believe that any answer contradicting the mullah argument is offensive. Nadeem is rightfully suggesting that instead of the clichés pulled out of the same narrative or source that mullah is using to promote jihadi nonsense, is not going to work. The answers to the mullah rhetoric that mullah justifies from the Quran and Hadith are in logic and rational thinking.

Instead of playing on the mullah turf, show the people what the reality is and win argument there. Simply put, Nadeem’s message is very clear. IF you are going to play on a pitch tailor-made by mullah, using his ball and bat, you are going to lose to mullah. The best course is to fight what mullah preaches with the facts right out of this world and not from some imaginary make believe world.

"Also, I think it's time we start addressing irrationally-charged matters like religious fanaticism as a psychological issue rather than an intellectual or an ideological one." –NFP

“Its a good thing nobody gives a **** what you think Piracha. In your words here you are saying that the views that you are disagreeing with do not even qualify as legitimate views and those people are mentally ill. Therefore you are likely against any form of dialogue with insane people and your only solution would be violence. Its a good thing that you're only a loser writer and have no say in any affairs of importance.� - Zyxius

You clearly again fail to see the point NFP is making. It is not what he is disagreeing with as you put it, it is what the religious fanatics are saying. There are 100s of examples of irrational thoughts promoted by the mullah. How long can you rationally show what the mullah propagates is crazy? You got the point that any dialog with the insane is insane in itself. Unfortunately, people will always climb on the supposedly cognitive rope and the less rational will quickly jump to blaming other people for the disasters of their own making. The fanatics really need treatment and not lecture because the experience has proven that no amount of rational arguments will cure their insanity.

“You're damned lucky that civil society in Pakistan is totally bhay-ghayrat and that your twisted views are widely held in these circles.�

This is unfortunate! You quickly fall in to the insane category when you call the civil society in Pakistan bhay-ghayrat. If you believe in what you preach is rational then why do you need a gahiratmand society to defend you? The force of your argument should bring you victory. Sounds like you are supporting that any one opposing the mullah in Pakistan should be hanged.

I got to say NFP is so right in classifying this attitude psychological!

Piracha,

You are a fanatic who sugar coats his words to make it sound as if he's the one who's the true moderate.

"It offered nothing new (or "offensive") as answers. It simply repeated the dreadful old act of a "moderate Muslim" soft-feathering a hardliner with counter quotes from the Hadith and certain worn out clichés about social and parental responsibilities."

So in your view....the answer must be offensive to Islam and observant Muslims in order to qualify as an answer. Anyone who does not take your totally confrontational and arrogant approach is dismissed by you as a "moderate"....well at least you admit that you're an extremist.

"Also, I think it's time we start addressing irrationally-charged matters like religious fanaticism as a psychological issue rather than an intellectual or an ideological one."

Its a good thing nobody gives a **** what you think Piracha. In your words here you are saying that the views that you are disagreeing with do not even qualify as legitimate views and those people are mentally ill. Therefore you are likely against any form of dialogue with insane people and your only solution would be violence. Its a good thing that you're only a loser writer and have no say in any affairs of importance.

"And was Fawad really cured when he went into the mosque and deliver the azaan in a baseball cap?"

So you come out of your shell......it is clear that you believe that people who have deeply held religious beliefs are inferior to you at some level, but to go to the extent of viewing those other people as insane is the very definition of intolerance. You're damned lucky that civil society in Pakistan is totally bhay-ghayrat and that your twisted views are widely held in these circles.

May I ask...will you be volunteering yourself for these proposed military operations against these insane people whom you disagree with?

Mad Sad I,

"A foolishly irrelevant and meaningless question. Barcuh Goldstein a Jew killed Palestinian Muslims from behind their back as they knelt in prayer at the masjid, the US new crusader forces routinely bomb mosques and kill innocents, the Hindu Indian Army entered the Golden Temple to kill people there, and the list goes on and on......now go F yourself"

Let's count the deaths in last decade. Do you see your religion in the mirror with 100% tag on its forehead.

Who was the comanding officer in 1984. Gen Brar, a Sikh! Did they enter the Golden temple to kill the people or flush out heavily armed terrorists?

Does US bomb mosques only or they are collateral damage?

Why Baruch Goldstein did that? Because since 1986 Palestenians killed hundreds of innnocent Jews. He did it when Jews had been suffering for a decade or more.

==================
http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/jun/03inter.htm
ht tp://www.rediff.com/news/2004/jun/04inter1.htm
Twenty years later, how do you look back on Operation Bluestar?

I look back in sorrow that it had to happen.

Apparently, the government had no other recourse. The events in Punjab had reached a complete breakdown.

The Sikh militants were in total control of the state machinery. There was a strong feeling that Khalistan was going to be established at any time. [Jarnail Singh] Bhindranwale was being seen as a prophet; he was making very strong speeches against [the then prime minister] Indira Gandhi and non-Sikhs; and trying to send a message across to the rural areas that the Sikhs are being given second-grade treatment and that it is high time we formed our own independent state of Khalistan. There was a strong possibility of Pakistan helping them and I think there was the possibility of a Bangladesh being repeated.

I can't comment on the inside of politics, but I assume that after taking everything into consideration, the prime minister and the government decided this was the only course of action left if we were to keep this country together, to prevent its fragmentation, to prevent Khalistan. And having seen reports of about 2,000 militants inside [Amritsar's Golden Temple] with any number of machine guns, different types of weapons, it was clearly beyond the capabilities of the police force to flush out the militants from the Golden Temple; the task had to be entrusted to the Army.

As a soldier, if I am given an order, I obey it and 20 years later, all I can say is I wish the situation had never risen that such an order had to be passed. And God forbid we have to do it again.

How did you motivate the soldiers?

No soldier enjoys or cherishes taking up arms against his fellow citizens. But they also know that there are many situations, be it in Nagaland, Mizoram, Assam, Tamil Nadu, Punjab or Kashmir, where the Army has to be called in. When the Army is called in, we don't think about of religion, caste, creed, ethnicity; we are sworn to the Constitution of India, our primary role is to safeguard the national security of the country and we have to act on orders to do so.

Why did the army go in just after Guru Arjan's martyrdom day, when the number of devotees is much higher?

That was a coincidence. You must try and understand that perhaps the government had just about three or four days to carry out the operation. We had some sort of information that Khalistan was going to be declared any moment. You try and figure out that one fine day, Bhindranwale declares Khalistan and hoists the Khalistan flag...

The Khalistani currency had already been distributed; Pakistan was pumping in money, they wanted a strong part of India, which is Punjab, to secede and for India to disintegrate.

Can you imagine if one fine day Khalistan has been declared, what would have happened? Pakistan would have recognised Khalistan and crossed the borders to support Khalistan, like we did in Bangladesh. The Punjab police might have crossed over to support Bhindranwale...

Did you fear that happening?

Of course! After all, emotions then were very high. I am not saying that the entire Punjab police would have crossed over, but a large section might have. If there could be desertions in the army, then the police, who were in Punjab, who were privy to Bhindranwale's speeches, might have [also deserted]; they were also emotionally charged by what was happening.

Moreover, Hindus and non-Sikhs were leaving Punjab while Sikhs in Delhi and Haryana were moving to Punjab, causing further fear and apprehension. The law and order situation in such a case would have been beyond the police force and difficult for the Army.

Would we have been on the border to stop Pakistan? Would we have been working on maintaining law and order with huge migrations underway? Would we be disarming the police and militia for fear that they might go over to the other side?

It would have been a task well beyond the army. So whether we could have waited a few days is something the politicians can best answer. But the impression given to us was that we had very little time.

Lieutenant General (retired) Kuldip Singh Brar commanded Operation Bluestar 20 years ago, when the Indian Army entered the Golden Temple to remove the terrorists who had turned the Sikhs' holiest shrine into a private bunker. It was one of the Indian Army's most difficult operations, and undoubtedly the most controversial.

In the second part of a four-part interview with Deputy Managing Editor Amberish K Diwanji, General Brar looks back at the compulsions that forced him to send his men into the Temple:

Part I: 'Pakistan would have recognised Khalistan and crossed the borders'

Were you given a timeframe within which to act?

The fastest possible. When I met my CO [commanding officer] Lieutenant General K Sundarji [then General Officer Commanding, Western Command; he later became Chief of Army Staff] at Chandimandir [in Chandigarh], he told me he would fly down in 48 hours to hear my first briefing. Time was at a premium.

So we moved all night and got our forces into Amritsar and then the Temple.

What about a siege to flush out the militants?

A siege is easily spoken of. A siege is only effective when you are able to make the people under siege unable to continue to stay under siege. That means they have no water, no food, no electricity, no ammunition and are forced to surrender or to capitulate.

But, in the Golden Temple, there is no shortage of water. There are any number of wells; besides there is the Sarovar [the Holy Lake on the premises of the Temple]. There are a number of generators. There is no shortage of food -- every day, thousands of devotees flock to the Temple bringing with them food and provisions, so there is enough food to feed a few hundreds of thousands of people for over a month [food is served free of cost to the devotees every day in the Golden Temple; this food is made from offerings by the devotees], and here we are talking of forcing the hand of a few thousands…

The other problem of a siege was that, once laid, word would have spread to the hinterland within 24 hours. Every villager in Punjab would be told the Golden Temple was under siege. In those days, every rumour or fact was exaggerated; such messages are sent out emotionally, thus surcharging the atmosphere. People would have picked up their swords or lances and hundreds of thousands would have converged on Amritsar and the Golden Temple and besieged the army that was besieging the Temple! We can't fire at these people, and we can't surrender, so what are we to do? We didn't want such a situation to arise.

After asking the militants to surrender [on June 5], we waited and waited. It soon became 8 o'clock, then 9 o'clock and was nearing 10 o'clock. We were worried. We had to finish the operation before dawn [around 5.30 am] for fear of mobs amassing around the Temple. The news would spread fast that we hadn't cleared out the militants, then we would be under siege. People must understand these things.

It is very easy to say to we could have laid siege, we could have postponed it for a day or two, or carried out the operation without the loss of life. It is only we, who were there at that time, who know what our limitations and needs were. Our soldiers went into what you would call a death trap. They had no cover, they were out in the open [when moving from the entrances to the various rooms and sections where the militants were hiding]; in contrast, the militants had barricaded every window and were heavily armed…

So ultimately you had to finish off the operation in 48 hours, because you feared Pakistan coming in?

That was the biggest fear. It had to be a surgical operation and one that caused the minimum damage with least loss of blood but it had to be as quick as possible because once word got around, there would have been a flood of people… like the Brahmaputra. When the Brahmaputra floods, there is nothing you can do. No amount of sandbags can stop the flood.

What about the innocent pilgrims inside?

We were to go in at 7 pm [on June 5]. Since afternoon, we used the public address system to keep asking those who were inside to surrender. We told them we don't want to come in, we pointed out that there were pilgrims inside, there were women and children inside, and we told the militants that if they want to fight it out, do so but for God's sake to at least send the pilgrims, the old, the young, out safely. But until 7 pm, nothing happened.

I asked the police if they could send emissaries inside to help get the innocent people out, but the police said that anyone sent inside would not come out again. They said the militants were no doubt keeping the pilgrims as a sort of trump card, believing their presence would stop the army from coming in. Eventually, about 100 sick and old people were let out, but not the rest. They told us the others were not being allowed to come out.

I feel sorry for the innocent people who died in the crossfire.

In the fight, you were dealing with a former superior, Major General [retired] Shahbeg Singh [a highly decorated army officer who, after being dismissed from service for financial irregularities, became a close accomplice of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale].

Yes, and he knew something was up because the day before, I had walked around the Golden Temple in civilian clothes and seen the militants and the barricades. And he saw me taking my rounds so he knew something was up. We had gone into Bangladesh together.

Was he a formidable enemy?

He was a very seasoned soldier who won the Mahavir Chakra [India's second highest bravery award in war] in 1971, who had to leave the army for whatever reason. He was a highly emotional person and had joined with Bhindranwale. Perhaps he believed that with the pilgrims inside, the Indian Army would not come in but he never realised there is always a limit to how much any country can take.

How difficult was the operation?

It was in the middle of the night. One cannot see and one is out in the open and under fire from the militants holed up behind barricades. Plus I was constantly screaming at the men inside that come what may, they were not to fire in the direction of the Harmindar Sahib [the sanctum sanctorum where the Sikh holy book, the Guru Granth Sahib, is kept during the day] and that even if there was fire from that side they were not to return fire. Later, there were a couple of bullet holes in the Harmindar Sahib, which could have been the militants' fire or odd stray fire from the soldiers. Otherwise there was no damage to the Harmindar Sahib.

Even at the Akal Takht [seen above], there would have been no damage. Our soldiers tried to lob stun grenades [which release gas that momentarily stuns people without causing any collateral damage]. But the Akal Takht was completely sealed and there was no way to lob the stun grenades inside. And when our soldiers were crawling towards the Akal Takht for some commandos to get in, they were being mowed down by enemy fire. They were being killed by the dozen, it was a terrible sight.

As you know Bhindranwale had shifted to the first floor of the Akal Takht. How did the Sikhs allow that? It was against the religion's tenets. The Akal Takht is where the Guru Granth Sahib [the Sikh holy book] is kept at night after being taken from the Harmindar Sahib. No one is allowed to stay above the Guru Granth Sahib, but Bhindranwale and his immediate accomplices were living on the Akal Takht's first floor.

The members of the SGPC [the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee which has managerial control of the Golden Temple and other gurdwaras in India] were living elsewhere in the Temple. They had long lost control of the situation and had no say in what was happening. The writ of Bhindrawale ran not just in the Golden Temple or in Amritsar but throughout Punjab.

Why were the tanks brought in?

Tanks were brought in late to illuminate the Akal Takht, so that the soldiers could see where they were going and to momentarily blind the militants in the glare of the lights. Those who have seen these huge halogen lights know these lights fuse in 20, 30 seconds, so the tanks had to keep going in and coming out. It was not an easy task at all.

Next: 'You are not acting against any religion but against a section of misguided people'

pappu writes ""followers of which religion kill followers of other religions at their place of worship?"

A foolishly irrelevant and meaningless question. Barcuh Goldstein a Jew killed Palestinian Muslims from behind their back as they knelt in prayer at the masjid, the US new crusader forces routinely bomb mosques and kill innocents, the Hindu Indian Army entered the Golden Temple to kill people there, and the list goes on and on......now go F yourself

Super Sized One,

Are you aware of what is happening in Indian Kashmir? Muslims are not willing to give even an inch of land for pilgrims. This kind proves every one that Pandits were kicked out. This also tells what would happen if Kashmir is given a choice to remain in Indian union or not. If they decide to secede then next step is Talibanization.

Indians cannot own any land in Kashmir but even the undies of kashmiri ladies are subsidized by the Indian state.

Why have these movies when ultimately what Pakistan wants is Kashmir on a platter? Don't you think Indians should not encourage this cultural exchange?

will some admin do something about this spammer pappu?? he doesnt know his arse from his elbow and has just ruined what was an interesting flow of discussion!

(psst pap .. me and u, lets take this outside!)

yes.. great flick shoaib mansoor! thumbs up!

Re: # 47

err... are all indian kashmiris tamil?

Middle Finger to God,
"As for Pakistanis in UK or US, they generally are as much model citizens as anybody else, but again due to the ways of deception of the thugs, they may appear less so."

Who are the London bombing suspects/convicts? Who are suspects/convicts in last airline bombing attempt in UK? Who trained the Ethiopians?

By twisting the truth and not looking at it objectively you are showing middle finger to the truth/god.

Middle finger to God,

"Pappu yaar maybe you misunderstood me. I merely wanted to tell you that one who belongs to the land that actually spawned a cult of "thugs", doesn't point fingers at others to point out their flaws to them. And you may wish to rewrite history here and deny that a certain sect called thugs existed for a long period of time, because you don't seem to like the way it might look on you, but a part of history it is, and it is not a concoction of the British. In fact it is as much a part of history as is the other beautiful ritual called satti, or the burning of live women, however you may wish to deny it now. These are all tricks of the deceivers, to try to rewrite history in a way more favorable to show the deceivers as paragons of virtue to the world. As for Pakistanis in UK or US, they generally are as much model citizens as anybody else, but again due to the ways of deception of the thugs, they may appear less so."

I do not read history because most of it is written to please who pays for it. I would take rather present reality and back track it. Which city is more safe Mumbai or Karachi? Where robberies at gun point happen more, Mumbai or Islamabad? With this reality of today, can we backtrack?
Thugs were the byproduct of anarchy of Muslim in particular Mughal rule. Constant plundering and looting of common folks made people very destitute. People follow the rulers.

In muslim period people became poor and foreign rulers became rich.

Sati was prevalent among Kshatriyas, esp among Rajputs. The reason is same, Islamic hoardes, who lusted women. There was recent verbal vulgur abuse of some Bollywood actress of Punjabi-Afghani descent by Pakistani cricketeers at IPL. can we backtrack that?

Meerpuri Muslim Britishers murdered Indian diplomat, Mr. Mhatre in 1983 way before any so called atrocities started in J&K. Can we backtrack that?

Isn't the majority in Pakistani Occupied J&K, Punjabi?

Re: # 36 little pappu says :"I do not know exactly what is an angel? But looking at Pakistanis and in comparison to them it seems so. Be it in UK or US, Indians seem to be model citizens. Thuggy is more British concoction so that Indians and the world do not start looking at the thuggery of British in Trillions."

Pappu yaar maybe you misunderstood me. I merely wanted to tell you that one who belongs to the land that actually spawned a cult of "thugs", doesn't point fingers at others to point out their flaws to them. And you may wish to rewrite history here and deny that a certain sect called thugs existed for a long period of time, because you don't seem to like the way it might look on you, but a part of history it is, and it is not a concoction of the British. In fact it is as much a part of history as is the other beautiful ritual called satti, or the burning of live women, however you may wish to deny it now. These are all tricks of the deceivers, to try to rewrite history in a way more favorable to show the deceivers as paragons of virtue to the world. As for Pakistanis in UK or US, they generally are as much model citizens as anybody else, but again due to the ways of deception of the thugs, they may appear less so.

Super Sized One.

Can you write in English or Hindi/Urdu? Can you tell what you have seen with your own eyes?

If you need to see model Indian citizens then you need to visit Universities, Bell Labs, IBM York Town Heights or Sandia Labs. Do not look for them on Jackson Heights. It tells more about you, if you do.

ermm.. objection i'm not punjabi!?
dont have a clue who those guys are who you're on about and dont want to know about such delinquents either! ''there were too many muslims there''? what the bloody...?

and it'd be better if you didn't get me started on emigration issues across the border, im originally from ajk and it is chock-full of indian-kashmiri immigrants... so really, dont get me started, i've seen things with my own eyes, despite that i'm still not naive enough to paint every indian the same, though i've seen very little evidence so far to contradict them otherwise. hmmmm...

about the media of the subcontinent, lets just say we've come a long way from the 60s and 70s, this is 2008 and the media means big money, there are far more tabloids in india than pakistan so you tell me.

Super Size Me,

"pappu yaar tang na kar! you're obviously indian and you're living with a one-dimensional stereotypical view of pakistanis, i would've welcomed some wholesome arguments re: this film, but you're far too immature for any of that, i'm not even gunna go there!

besides all our comments are clashing here, we're just counter attacking one another, nothing tangible and juicy about this discussion, then again thats always the case whenever i choose to lock horns with indians, as much as i try to understand their perspective, they show more ignorance, c'mon guys, where are all those intelligent 'superpowered' doctors and other elites i've heard so much about? or is that just another stereotype?
living n britain currently i havent seen any 'indian model citizens' which is a shame really, the only ones i've come across queer creatures.. really unsociable! pray tell me where i can find these indian model citizens?"

Ask yourself who started? Since Pakistani contribution to this world is one dimensional, i.e. terrorism in the name of religion, Indians and now even west has this view of terrorism means Pakistan and Pakistan means terrorism.

Common Namazi Abdul is not a problem. It's the rich Anglophile Ahmed lives in a delusion of fake grandeur. Indians do not show off like Pakistani, more of Punjabi trait, so it is hard for you to find model ciitzens of Indian origin to your tainted eyes. This super sized Ahmed sells his mother to the highest bidder to buy few bombs which he can throw at Indians.

Ask Nasruddin Shah why his father did not emigrate to Pakistan. Ask MJ Akbar why his father came back from Pakistan. MJ Akbar told on NPR after 9/11, his father came back because there were too many Muslims.

ras, i really liked your views on this movie, they are very similar to mine, although being an avid fan of ShoMan I was drooling at his magnificent, yummy script-writing throughout the film too! the reason we had a positive view towards it is we're pakistani muslims, we ARE that movie, we are in two groups, the sarmads or the mansoors... (or 3 inc. the hussain khans ... haha) all the dialogue the situations, they hit home, indians may have a couple of things in common, but they really cant understand or respect the pakistani perspective on this. every little detail in that film, i was like ''ditto''!

the words that mansoor uses '' we ruled india for like something-thousand years, we ruled spain for like.. we built the taj mahal'', those aren't shoman's own words he was mimicking a typical young pakistani frame of mind, haha.. my cousins used to use exactly them words! i laughed at that part it sounded so familar and there are many other things in that film that pakistani's can relate to.
i'm certainly not justifiying the scenarios in that film as being a good thing but he did do a good reflection, we as a nation are prone to cock-ups and we admit that openly, which pakistani doesnt? i just wish the indians here on chowk would be a little more open-minded about this film, oh and besides it is just a film at the end of the day, so hold your horses, maulana tahiri wont jump out of the screen and bite you, or even worse.. brainwash you.. bhagwaan forbid! :)

pappu yaar tang na kar! you're obviously indian and you're living with a one-dimensional stereotypical view of pakistanis, i would've welcomed some wholesome arguments re: this film, but you're far too immature for any of that, i'm not even gunna go there!

besides all our comments are clashing here, we're just counter attacking one another, nothing tangible and juicy about this discussion, then again thats always the case whenever i choose to lock horns with indians, as much as i try to understand their perspective, they show more ignorance, c'mon guys, where are all those intelligent 'superpowered' doctors and other elites i've heard so much about? or is that just another stereotype?
living n britain currently i havent seen any 'indian model citizens' which is a shame really, the only ones i've come across queer creatures.. really unsociable! pray tell me where i can find these indian model citizens?

My take on this movie here at:

http://www.pakistanlink.com/Community/2007/Dec07/07/01.HTM

Ras

Re: # 39

pappu saab,(Mad Sad I)

i told masadi saab this saab. he needs a good woman saab so he can be happy saab.

it is sad saab.

Mad Sad I,

You did not answer the simple question, "followers of which religion kill followers of other religions at their place of worship?"

What does it have to do with US? Followers of your religion harm us, the innocent ones.

pappu writes "Is US a religion? My guess of 90% might be worng it could be 97% or 100%."

You miserable bigot, the US power elite is still quite a homogeneous group of WASPS and WASP wannabes

THE NEWS INTERNATIONAL - EDITORIAL


State of siege


Thursday, June 26, 2008
The report that the historic town of Peshawar could fall to militants is obviously terrifying. Worse still, it seems that despite meetings between the chief minister, top military officers stationed in the city and the adviser on interior, no one is ready to defend the city against a possible onslaught by the militant militias that stand ranged all around it. The foray by forces who took away 16 Christians recently from a locality in the heart of the city shows just how vulnerable it is. It is believed that militants, who have scored a series of victories in operations across the northern areas, may just make an attempt to seize Peshawar. The fall of the city, analysts believe, will bring other districts across the NWFP toppling down before militants as well. The resurgence of these forces is evident everywhere. After several weeks of calm, conflict between security troops and the local Taliban has been reported from Swat, where ten people have been killed. Indeed, each day stories come in of new aggression and new acts of brutality by these crazed men who wield automatic weapons and believe that Islam means burning down schools, attacking video shops or beheading people they suspect of collusion with the government.

The extent to which Peshawar, the once peaceful entry point to the northern areas, has changed over the last decade or so is also terrifying. Music, once integral to the culture of the city, has been banned. Folk artistes have been forced into penury, shops selling instruments destroyed. Women on some campuses have been forced into veils; many fear leaving their houses unescorted; schools for girls have been threatened and the relaxed traditions of bazaars where people sipped their tea in the many 'chai houses' dotted across them has given way to one of suspicion and anger.

The threat to Peshawar of course exposes the ineptness of government policy. Under Musharraf's 'enlightened moderation', even as the US declared him a key ally against terror, militancy grew everywhere. The new government has failed, despite some efforts, to do very much about it. Things in the FATA areas appear to be tumbling out of control – and the possibility of Taliban forces driving through Peshawar in trucks now stares us in the face. There is, quite obviously, no time to lose. If militancy is to be defeated, the strategies to do so must be put in place now. There is no space left to fumble or to ponder, and as a first step, a plan to defend Peshawar must be devised immediately before it is too late to prevent the frenzied armies of extremists marching in on the city.

Godfinger or Middle finger to God,

"Is India the land of angels "

I do not know exactly what is an angel? But looking at Pakistanis and in comparison to them it seems so. Be it in UK or US, Indians seem to be model citizens. Thuggy is more British concoction so that Indians and the world do not start looking at the thuggery of British in Trillions.

Rest of your post is a plain rant under the influence of drugs. Please come back afer you get into senses.

Masadi,
"Not only is this claim outrageous whoever its proponents are have defined "terrorist" based on their own bigotry and stereotypical convenience. What the US does world over to control the majority world through the barrel of the gun and through a web of deceit or economic starvation in a system in which the taps are controlled by them, how does that not translate as terrorism, and those numbers convert your 90% into a pittling 0.0001% FOOL."

Is US a religion? My guess of 90% might be worng it could be 97% or 100%. Answer this question followers of which religion harm/kill people at random folks of other faiths/religions at their places of worship? Don't you see your religion in the mirror? What does it have to do with US? We know you cannot do any harm to US but do a lot to us, the innocents.

Re: # 30

pappu says "Afghanistan gave Pakistan strategic depth and Mulla gave it strategic cannon fodder farm. Against whom? India? India never started any war with Pakistan and is not interested in having larger Muslim minority. Is it then Islamic psyche to spread itself and capture the state to rule?"

I don't know what pappu means? Is India the land of angels or is it the land of the deceivers, where flourished for a long time the thugee cult, a people who practiced the wonderful art of deception, and only answered to the black Goddess Kali, and made the English language richer by giving it the word "Thug"! This cult is estimated to have deceived and murdered about 2000,000 innocent travelers between them, according to the estimate of the Guinness Book of World Records! Obviously the thuggee gene must be quite rampant there still, and obviously they do not harbor any of those angelic ideas towards their arch foes to the north that you seem to think that they do. And pappu, as for those darn fool tribals who you berate for harboring expansionist idea's, well naturally you are right they are used to it...historically first they came as mercenaries in invading armies down south, then they established sultanates of their own for a few centuries, what to say of leaving their copious progeny who still populate your movies, sports or other such arts and endeavours.

cliftonbridge writes "The point is this guy wearing jeans and whatever felt he had a right to give the azaan. "They" thought otherwise and took the mike away from him ...but he continued giving the azaan, - his voice couldnt be drowned out just because the "fanatic" had the mike. "

That was HALF the point, the other half GEO and its CIA sponsors don't want you to get: The "mike" was deliberately given to the mullah by those wanting to use him for their motives and the liberal voice was deliberately drowned by them to deflect the real struggle against them, yet even by their doing this the "voice" of the people has not been drowned and we saw side effects of their meddling like the lawyers movement arising. Islam linked to terrorism is most popular among the Western audiences whereas before Islam was an exotic unknown, so whose agenda has given the mike to the mullah?

Supersize writes "i've noticed the majority of material here on chowk is centred around ''muslim extremism in pakistan'', honestly folks it aint that bad..."

True it aint that bad, it becomes bad only when the Americans decide to dispatch suicide bombers through their proxy networks including the Pakistan Army. Why it isn't more is what is truly baffling given the socioeconomic conditions the brave people of this country have to face while its rulers fight America's wars to further impoverish them...

pappu writes "Masadi,

A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding ideology..."

You post was bigotry to the dot, you isolate Muslims in your post as the only criminals and then you link the few handpicked incidents, that are the product of a farcial WOT or similar neo colonial meddling to the Quran, without knowing anything about the Quran whatsoever. Finally your bigotry and ignorance comes out clear for all to see in this quote of yours "then why Islamic country such as Pakistan where 97% of the population is Islamic, produces 90% terrorists?"

Not only is this claim outrageous whoever its proponents are have defined "terrorist" based on their own bigotry and stereotypical convenience. What the US does world over to control the majority world through the barrel of the gun and through a web of deceit or economic starvation in a system in which the taps are controlled by them, how does that not translate as terrorism, and those numbers convert your 90% into a pittling 0.0001% FOOL.

Goldfinger,

"As for the rap the tribals are getting everywhere, I think its quite unfair. It basically is all the fault of those at the helm of affairs, ever since the existence of Pakistan."

The rap they are getting is after 9/11, before that they were brave Mujahids. World trade center was first bombed in 1994 by these Mujahids. Killings of Indians and Russians never made it to western media.

"Naturally the only viable option open to most of them (and rest of the Pakistanis) is to send their kids to madrassas for cheap education. Once there, the children are brain washed by vituperative mullahs, with the repercussions that every one has seen."

Afghanistan gave Pakistan strategic depth and Mulla gave it strategic cannon fodder farm. Against whom? India? India never started any war with Pakistan and is not interested in having larger Muslim minority. Is it then Islamic psyche to spread itself and capture the state to rule?

#26 SuperSized,

"Are you simply quoting someone with this 90% figure or is that your true opinion???"

Do you expect 100%? We are talking about terrorist attack on people of other faiths. Terrorism of organisations such as LTTE and Bath Party are not being considered here.

"if so, that is seriously screwed up! "

What is being screwed up by whom and where? What we see in the media is one sect of Islam killing other in Pakistan and Iraq. I am new to this site, so I need not point articles here dealing with atrocities and descrimination on Ahmedis, Shias and Christians.

"90 frickin percent.. tut! what a drama queen!"

Again I would like to convey you that we are talking about terrorism in the name of religion which involves harming people at their place of worship. 90% is my opinion.

What is drama here? Who is the queen? Since you seemed to have a super sized Me, I bestow this honor on you to be the queen, though you might want to be the Khilapha.

"actually no I should let you live with those views.. please... it's fun!"

Only me having those views will not have an effect. If my views are molded by media then you need to be also worried, because millions of TV viewers are not getting the "real" picture as you see. These viewers do not get to interact with you.

"honestly folks it aint that bad, its being a tad exaggerated by the media, violence exists everywhere."

You say tad exaggerated here, but in earlier quotes it sounds as if whole hoopla is madia creation. I would rather say killing of Asian, in particular Indian subcontinentals hardly makes to the western media. Since Pakistan is a military dicatorship or authoritarian state what appears in media is probably only the tip of the iceberg. The reality might be dire. In 65 Pakistani media made Pakistanis believe that their were going to have their Sheesh Kabab at Red Fort in Delhi within a week. In 71 also there was bombast of Gen Niyazi that Indian could only get into Dhacca over his dead body. Given this kind of Pakistani media, do you think you have the "real" picture.

I tend to agree with Mr. Paracha's review of the movie, which I too lately saw on DVD. After a promising start, it suddenly falls flat on its face, most particularly with the fake feel to some of the scenes, (like the torture, war and fight scenes),some empty sounding dialogues as if someone is blandly preaching to someone, and some unrealistic characters. I hope next movie they keep an eye to correct such flaws. I think a good way to make this sort of political thriller is to give your message in a subtle way, as was done for example in the movie made from the Le Carre novel, The Little Drummer Girl.

As for the rap the tribals are getting everywhere, I think its quite unfair. It basically is all the fault of those at the helm of affairs, ever since the existence of Pakistan. How can you keep a proud, tough, hardened people out of the ambit of all sorts of modern developments (like schools, colleges roads, hospitals etc.), and then expect them to operate as modern day city slickers? Naturally the only viable option open to most of them (and rest of the Pakistanis) is to send their kids to madrassas for cheap education. Once there, the children are brain washed by vituperative mullahs, with the repercussions that every one has seen. The madrassas, in turn were encouraged by the US itself not too long ago, when they saw that just across the border from Pakistan's tribal areas, the Afghans were fighting tough against the Russians, so they thought it opportune to fight communism with the zeal of the mujahids, and also avenge their loss at Vietnam. Thus the first dregs of this madrassa induced jihadism was launched, and a Frankenstein monster was born.

i've noticed the majority of material here on chowk is centred around ''muslim extremism in pakistan'', honestly folks it aint that bad, its being a tad exaggerated by the media, violence exists everywhere. unstable politics however (backed by the usa) on the other hand is what's causing an unsettled mindset amongst the inhabitants of the country leading to all sorts of kerfuffle.

sorry guys, when i'm writing informally i cant be fussed with the caps key, but then still use it willy nilly out of habit. scusez moi i've no intention of inducing epileptic attacks - on any of you who may read my comments.

pappu? are you simply quoting someone with this 90% figure or is that your true opinion??? if so, that is seriously screwed up!
do you live in Pakistan? Do you personally KNOW its people??? Have you actually ever had a civil conversation with any of them?

90 frickin percent.. tut! what a drama queen!

actually no I should let you live with those views.. please... it's fun!

akcheema, I actually agree with one of your points, religious fascism is a bitch! eally it is, in any religion. I am a Muslim and I hold my faith in the highest regard, but I dont like all this distorting it, illiterate (or ignorant) people making up rules as they go along, all this that is happening moreso in this modern, enlightened age, though I know many elements are instigated and spurred on by politics, not religion but politics, including shades of social class systems (poverty, desperation, poor access to education etc). But yes, thank you! Good point! :)

Cliftonbridge, dude, that ending was magnificent, I felt the same way, it has a resounding, positive message.

Masadi,

A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding ideology.

How did you decide I am a bigot? Do you mean if I am intolerant to bombing of innocent civilians and places of worship, which is the life style of some Pakistanis, you labeled me bigot? Mohammad Atta and 18 other Arabs who did 9/11 did not have economic grievances and also they did not come from the lower social strata. Moreover, Islam is not supposed to have any stratas, then why Islamic country such as Pakistan where 97% of the population is Islamic, produces 90% terrorists?

For your ready reference this is what I wrote:
"Religious fanaticism is a social, economic and psychological problem, or in other words, it is a purely modern human problem rather than only an ideological one. Unfortunately "moderate Muslims" when they address it become as myopic as the fanatics themselves because they get stuck in the quicksand of conflicting ideas, conveniently forgetting that the fanatic may just be a mentally ill human being with serious social problems and that the moderate himself may only be indulging in a navel-gazing tug-of-war of ideas and words to come to terms with his own liberalism in a place where religion is ubiquitously present in everything and everywhere.
"
Lot of words but what does it mean? Are Buddhist/Hindus from Combodia bombing Churches or Mosques? They and Tibetans are economically destitute as Pakistani Muslims involved in terrorism. You may be right it might be psychological. At purfunctory level one could point at the reports in press regarding high deppression among Pakistanis. That might be in turn because of social conditions, family practices and easy Islamic devorce laws. But what is behind all this? Is it the teachings of Koran and Hadiths? What is idealogy?

well it wasnt an existentialist novel...but for lollywood it was very well made and timely.

I thought the last scene was great ....it isnt a question of what he was wearing. The point is this guy wearing jeans and whatever felt he had a right to give the azaan. "They" thought otherwise and took the mike away from him ...but he continued giving the azaan, - his voice couldnt be drowned out just because the "fanatic" had the mike.

NFP:

okay, so you're inching just a little closer to "art" again. good for you.

i haven't seen this movie, and probably will not. thanks for the write-up. :)

p.s. next time give the liberals thoRa sa break and rage against the surkhis. if you can!!! On second thought, never mind.

p.p.s. mohar only likes your "write-up" 'cause he hates us "pakis." :) do not be fooled by his praise. ;)

Re: # 20; aanandk sahib,
[[The movie also had some irritating and rather offensive statements like "we ruled India for hundreds of years" or "we created the taj mahal" (Shaan tells his white gf this). Who is the "we?" - muslims? pakistanis? There are just as many muslims in India ... and sorry, pakistan never ruled india. (Of course, a pakistani's view on these dialogues would have been different)]]

I noticed that too and agree it comes across as quite offensive....depending of course on one's perspective like you said.

My criticism of religious theology in interact # 2 is not limited to "one particular faith system" as perhaps perceived at times......I have repeatedly made it clear that religious belief/ritualism etc is often inter-twined with one's cultural background and at times inseparable. Religio-fascism, the concept of the domaination of one faith over the other, is the issue and has to be tackled head on.....it is meaningless to attempt an apologetic stance and try to 'justify' barbarism in the name of religion...any religion!

That is why I am in favour of confining this beast, as much as possible, to the private. Let's face it, we can't 'eliminate' it completely; its like treating cancer....sometimes the only option is to "de-bulk" the tumour as much as possible, to prevent its spread to other more vital structures.....it only means that the procedure may have to be repeated several times to gain 'local control' of the disease.

Unfortunately an interest in fairytales seems to be a necessity for the common man with feeble insight and imagination (I have no idea why?). Why can't people enjoy and cherish the 'mythos' in mythology more than the 'logos'?....or at least equally as much.....afterall, we all enjoy "Iliad and Odyssey" without 'believing' in the ultimate supremacy of Zeus(substitute apropriately)! don't we?

Re: #20 (Yes, I'm new and will address you as you just did me)

About Rasheed Naz's 'Tahiri', I kept an open mind and have a softer view on Mullah's than what they are portrayed in the media or hear'say. They dont bite, I have met some very honourable charismatic and peaceful Mullah's (this was waay before Sept 11 happened and new-era aggressive confused 'Mullahs' cropped up mind you), hence I have mixed views on anti-Mullah-ism and didn't know what to expect from the character in the film. Unlike the majority I wasn't like Beard + Afghan Turban = Evil!

Aanandk, I'm open to good film suggestions, please name a few, I've heard south Indian films are good, but dont get enough exposure which is usually the case unfortunately, would they have English subtitles?


To the rest of the commentors; NFP likes to have an issue with all things Islam in general, I dont give a monkey's about his opinion. Besides it was a film, a medium of entertainment, and made for the underrepresented Pakistani-Muslim public ABOUT the Pakistani-Muslim public (and being one of them, I can relate so much to that film, he got it spot on!).

Anyway not like it was made to appease everybody on the planet's tastes impossible as that is, koi theka tho nahi liya Shoaib Mansoor ne.

You're all entitled to your own views, but dont just mimic NFP here. It's like he's just weedled a little hole in there and now non-Muslims who felt uncomfortable by the movie's popularity are climbing nay jumping onto this bandwagon.

I could argue all the negative points being raised here nonstop as I didn't find any fault in the film, but (yawn),I dont have such time to spare.

Re: # 13

About the tahiri character. Perhaps you saw the grey that I missed. But it was clear from the beginning that he was going to be the dark one.

Nadeem Paracha raises a very important point. My biggest problem with the movie is that it seems to play "fair and balanced" on the issue of terrorism - on the one side there are the mullah-types who go around finding vulnerable, confused youth & on the other side is the imperialist superpower. The truth is that this is a very cliched view on this topic. It creates a false sense of right & wrong and plays up stereotypes about US and mullahs. The same stereotypes are employed by Mohsin Hamid in his book "reluctant fundamentalist."

The general theme that the innocent, common man is caught up in a larger battle between two evils (religious fanatics versus imperialist US) is woefully cliched in my opinion. It absolves almost all mistakes committed by the common man himself.

The most important character in the movie was that of Sarmad the younger brother. No one talks about his psychological transformation - what prompts a "modern" youth like him to take up a rather medieval outlook?

The movie also had some irritating and rather offensive statements like "we ruled India for hundreds of years" or "we created the taj mahal" (Shaan tells his white gf this). Who is the "we?" - muslims? pakistanis? There are just as many muslims in India ... and sorry, pakistan never ruled india. (Of course, a pakistani's view on these dialogues would have been different)

Cinema couldn't get any better? Hmm, I respectfully disagree with that. (Then again, I'm an Indian and from south india. Truth be told, I grew up watching some real quality home-grown cinema from kerala like Adoor Gopalakrishnan and the bengali masters. Even today, there are many many independent and original movie makers in India who don't get the exposure that the Bollywood crew - Johars, Chopras or Khans get. I've seen a couple of masterful hindi movies in the last couple of months. So my perspective on cinema might be a bit biased.)

I would only be glad to see more quality movies like KKL from Pakistan. And from that point of view, maybe this movie could spur more quality movie makers from pakistan.

Then we have fools and intellectual morons like pappu in #17 who because of their bigotry blame Islam, the most noble system of simple morality and justice the world has seen........

NP writes "Also, I think it's time we start addressing irrationally-charged matters like religious fanaticism as a psychological issue rather than an intellectual or an ideological one."

Mian you just throw words around, it is not a psychological issue but a sociological one, having to do with the socioeconomic structure of a society. It might appear psychological in its individual manifestations but it surely isn't so given the numbers as well as variety of religions involved (which makes it a non-ideological issue of course).

The movie in question you talk about gives about the same message as the GWB "The war isn't against Islam" only to be followed up with "Islamic terrorists". The US elite have given a major enemy status to a the frankenstein of their own creation through circumstance and direct indoctrination as well in their previous fight against communism, it then gave them a victory at great cost in that conflict and left them power drunk in that victory, later giving them this status to deflect the actual struggle against them, they have helped mainstream those thugs and helped them develop grass roots support due to their actions of killing women and children and their support of the people's oppressors, the Pakistan Army.

The movie made by the CIA supported GEO, gives the message that if you "non fundamentalists" are not with us in our looting and our killings then you are with the terrorists and we will treat you like them and convert you into Osama worshippers through that treatment, a self fulfilling prophecy! The middle way the way of justice and not letting your hatreds guide your choice, the way of Islam is ignored, the burden of blame in that movie is never on the US, it is always on the other side whose transgressions are deliberately sensationalized and inflated, mullahs of the kind they show are quite powerless in our society unless the Americans with their proxy occupation force the Pakistan Army gives them the power through major enemy status and material support...Its a cat and mouse game of the elite in which hatreds are enflamed and escalation sought by the major player in this game, the US, nevermind the people of all ideological shades get ground....

"Religious fanaticism is a social, economic and psychological problem, or in other words, it is a purely modern human problem rather than only an ideological one. Unfortunately "moderate Muslims" when they address it become as myopic as the fanatics themselves because they get stuck in the quicksand of conflicting ideas, conveniently forgetting that the fanatic may just be a mentally ill human being with serious social problems and that the moderate himself may only be indulging in a navel-gazing tug-of-war of ideas and words to come to terms with his own liberalism in a place where religion is ubiquitously present in everything and everywhere.
"
Lot of words but what does it mean? Are Buddhist/Hindus from Combodia bombing Churches or Mosques? They and Tibetans are economically destitute as Pakistani Muslims involved in terrorism. You may be right it might be psychological. At purfunctory level one could point at the reports in press regarding high deppression among Pakistanis. That might be in turn because of social conditions, family practices and easy Islamic devorce laws. But what is behind all this? Is it the teachings of Koran and Hadiths? What is idealogy?

anyhoo - good write up from nadeem...

I remember a bunch pakis were going ga ga over this movie - it was as if this movie was like best thing since sliced samosa... I wonder what the fuss all about...

[... believed that produced by a group that is partially responsible for the state of affairs in Pakistan; the message could not be credible...]

What the heck is HP talking about?... paki army produced this movie?

“Religious fanaticism is a social, economic, and psychological problem, or in other words, it is a purely modern human problem rather than only an ideological one.�

Well said Nadeem. After a long time you appeared to have finally recaptured your distinct intellectual mojo. The problem of religious fanaticism is not about the Muslims alone. This web site is actually a showcase of what is wrong with the religious fanaticism. We not only have Muslims but Hindus and Ahmedis religious fanatics too. While the Muslims are extolling the virtues of the criminals in the tribal areas of Pakistan, Hindus are magnifying the benefits of caste system and claim that dalits get better treatment in the caste system. For Ahmedis, the innovative use of cusses is the highlight of the Ahmedi message.

The Christian fundamentalists in the US appear to be freshly out of the Cuckoo's nest. The Jewish fundamentalists are promoting only the violent methods of conflict resolutions. Surprisingly, some in a community that barely a few decades ago went through the most horrible and torturous period of its history, promote nuke drops on other people.

This phenomenal rise of the religious fanaticism worldwide is astounding. I am sure in time scholars would begin to look for the causes that are not so obvious now. Unfortunately, Muslims and especially some educated Pakistani Muslims have caught the bug too. It is one thing to see the uneducated youth following a crooked message, but now we see people with some faculty to figure out right from wrong, following a path of destruction.

Couching political demands in religious language is the work of non political actors. When non political actors become the leaders in a community, the solutions offered don’t lead to peace but to destruction.

The society still hasn’t reached a level of sickness that is incurable. So, every attempt to show the pitfalls no matter how feeble is appreciable. In that regard, perhaps, there was some value in the movie. Otoh, can we just continue to tiptoe around the issues?

I haven’t seen the movie but I believed that produced by a group that is partially responsible for the state of affairs in Pakistan; the message could not be credible. Your review just confirmed my thoughts.

This is classic NFP drivel. I cant believe he has only just seen it and was actually bashing it prior to watching it.

It's a superb piece of well-researched, well thought-out and crafted work by ShoMan.

Aanandk i disagree there, the characters aren't black and white at all, Maulana Tahiri was actually quite unpredictable, started off a bit of a charmer. The darker depths of his character were then exposed in subtle layers. Thats just one example, and that makes it quite true to life. Even the 'saintly' character played by Shah got an ear-bashing at some point.

Black and white would've been Fawad Khan's 'Sarmad' having done some muscle-flexing heroics ala Bollywood style, but he remained the bumbling-kid-having-lead-a-sheltered-life throughout.

Sorry guys but cinema couldn't get any better.
Dont just criticise it for the sake of criticising.

Mr. Paracha,

Though I agree with you that the movie leaves a lot to be desired, must say you left out an important aspect of the film in your critic.

The fear on the face of the Pakistani father seeing his daughter resting her head on the shoulder of a gora was the most telling scene of this movie. It reminded me of an interview I had seen of Salman Rushdie. When asked if 'fundamentalism was the root cause of terror', he replied
'no, they both have a common root cause. Fear of sexuality, especially fear of the female as a sexual person in the psyche of some believers.'

akcheema #9 (T)

that is what I was thinking as I just read Majumdar in #9

It is called acting .... and hence entertainment

I think it’s quite offensive to legitimate psychologically unwell people to lump sum religious fanatics with them. That's one sorryass excuse.

Re: # 8; majumdar

he was being paid good money to act the part; he'd have praised the G-spot for the right price! let alone the G-man/J-man

Regards

Oops, sorry..... actually Naseer didn't trash the G-man but praised the J-man. But getting an Indian to praise the J-man is a big achievement anyway.

Regards

Re: # 6; majumdar,
[[a character played by an Indian actor trashed the G-man.]]

You mean Nasir-ud-din Shah? when??

Dash babu,

I have not watched the movie. But one thing that would have appealed to Yasser mian (and me) would no doubt be that in the movie a character played by an Indian actor trashed the G-man.

Regards

NFP - very interesting review. I have not seen it as yet - though I have the DVD with me. Now I will see it. Thanks.

BTW this review and your view is in slight variance to Mantolives gloving review of the same film.

Re: # 3; Taurean

I am not sure if masadi sahib can be lumped together in the same league as brother Zeemax; although Zeemax is perhaps far more radical on-line than what he may be in real life too!......pure speculation (almost wishful thinking!)

Dear NFP
you wrote:

"it's time we start addressing irrationally-charged matters like religious fanaticism as a psychological issue rather than an intellectual or an ideological one"

That is the crux of the discourse on religion, borne out by my own personal experience. I have personally observed that loss of identity (or an identity crisis), sense of insecurity and/or an emotional problem leads to religosity. Now I am not speaking for or against any religious system.. I think all are 'true' as 'constructed realities' of the adherents - because they 'believe' in those systems.

Look at the so called 'Taleban' and their supporters (mostly young, as per anecdotal evidence) in NWFP. There is a strong sense of deprivation, unemployment, tremendous global change dominated by Western culture (symbolised through the global media and transmitted through the dish antenas!!), there is the impotence of teh traditional tribal social structure to create social betterment AND of course there is the spineless government institutions. on top of all that, the rise of the alternative power structures because of the situation in Afghanistan...

Try to understand the symbolism of bombing CD shops, girls schools, providing vigilante justice, even suicide bombing etc... clearly a reaction because of a sense of insecurity. It is a strong sense of fear..albeit subconcious...An anology: when we see an insect 'perceived' to be very harmful, killing it is our knee jerk reaction...

Fearful of the West, steeped in traditional religious ideals, they are searching for an alternative paradigm, a sense of identity... call for 'sharia' is the only thing they know....they dont know Locke, Hume, Jeferson or Martin Luther et al!!! or even Jinnah for that matter...



Thanks

T Khan

p.s. masadi/zeemax/okhla etc... ok now I am ready for your attack!!

Unless the root cause of this fanaticism (religious theology) is taken by the horns, nothing can change...it is all whitewash; underneath it all remains the same, until a few years later it surfaces again, somewhere else.

This sort of "moderate" picture has been brandished around ad nauseum by religious apologetics and their pathetic peers who lack the balls to call a spade a spade and hide behind the facade of political correctness.

KKL was one such pathetic excuse; surely by now we have heard them all, haven't we?

I watched KKL a few months ago and was pleasantly surprised that it was a watchable movie. But unfortunately, the movie dishes out a lot of cliches. There are lots of characters and various viewpoints are represented, but the characters are all black and white - either all goody goody or all evil.

The CIA operatives are somewhat awkwardly used as the "balancing" act in the movie, lest the movie appear too critical of Pakistan alone.