Muslims and The West After 11th September

dostmittar

``why can`t we just admit that maybe, just maybe the holy quran was not revealed as a word of God but a slightly revised version of the existing religions of the people of the middle east.``

but that is exactly what it was - it wasnt a new product sortof an upgrade to the existing.

pardon the blasphemy but that is what i understand given the fact that all the faithful at that time had strayed from the right path!!

aicha

Asad/Sattar

thankyou for a most informative post on the ahmedis..iv always been very curious about why your community is shunned like it is..while i may not agree with your beliefs i feel it is budtameezi at its lowest level to make it compulsary for us to sign before being allowed a passport, a statement that we consider you as non muslims or something equally stupid which i dont remember theek sae right now..manhoosiat at the highest level...this way we are all a part of this prejudice and discrimination towards your people..but you must keep talking/writing in that rational and very pleasant manner of yours (no patronizing here) it makes all the diference in how people percieve ones faith..i hope one day things look up for you..one last thing..are there any `easily available` books i can get on the topic? or if not very easy then within reach? i am in karachi and would appreciate any help in this regard

thanks

anNy

``States that regulate institutions of religion can not in any way be said to conform to the definition of specialization in the institutes of eligion and governance; indeed such states are on a path to totalitarianism or stateism. Only political economies that are neutral with regard to religious institutions approximate the definition of specialization of institutions of religion and governance.``

hobbyt, what do you mean?

Recall, it seems like so long ago, when we first conversed on the subject – if there is a separation between “church and state” – how can state regulation of religious institutions be justfied? Indeed, if state regulates or interferes in the affairs of institutions of religion, then it is difficult if not impossible to argue that a separation of “church and state”exists. In any way, I think, we should be more precise in our language and “specialization” of the institutions of religion and governance, I find is more precise and encourage you to think in these terms. I have for some time been arguing that religion is best situated in the cultural realm but that this does not preclude it from venturing into the realm of politics and governance – yet it does so at the risk of corrupting its institution and its intellectuals – that is to say that the ethical and moral compromises that it will have to make, will weaken its moral authority – it risks becoming a religion of ideology as opposed to it’s moral position in culture as institution promoting the ideology of religion. (This is increasingly important as the process of secularization, has historically been associated with the diminishing of the institutional role of religion in society. If the role of religion the promotion of ethics and morality and values for the welfare of man, then certainly, if such were values shaping and guiding society, this would be a more desirable course than the legislation of such. One cannot legislate caring for a fellow human being, but as a moral force in culture, it is certain that such a value can be expressed.)



You have made my argument that “secular humanism” goes hand in hand with totalitarianism. You have also made my argument that “secular humanism” is a force that acts to destroy traditional institutions, in particular the family. I hope you will devote some thought and writing to the kind of “liberation” from traditional institutions. And also to the evidence that despite the injury it has caused, it has not been able to break these institutions.

“Can it be that the Taliban claim of religiosity obscured the humanist vision of so many?

The Taliban was said to have modelled their state apparatus on religious precepts and their claims of divine sanction through Mullah Omar and the Prophet`s cloak seem to have been accepted by-and-large. But without checks and balances such as seeking the Afghans explicit consent and protecting the Afghans freedom of choice and dissent, all this religiosity was a total failure.”

Quel “humanist vision of so many”? More precise language please, specifically, which “humanist vision” are you talking about? Who are the “so many”? Can it be said…? Who is stop us from making such statements? Is such a statement valid? It might be if laid some foundation for it. Keep in mind our focus is “secular humanism” –yours seems to a fascination with the Taliban or if you are focusing on the Taliban as an expression against ``secular humanism” and the definitive expression of traditional religion; therein choosing to make a “Reductio ad Absurdum” argument?(The strategy of this argument form is to show that what follows from a particular claim is false, therefore the claim itself must be false)

– but why not, I will afford you:

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, allow me to demonstrate:

“Said to have modelled”? – you may not know this but a critique of ascribing cultural norms prevalent in one particular country, place or time, to be the same thing as Islam is old news, please refer to “Hojjatollah al-Balaqeh” by Shah Valliollah Delhvi. As to “claims” of divine sanction through Mullah Omar or the Prophet’s cloak – I am unaware that Mullah Omar made any such claim (he would be claiming to be a prohet) – as to the cloak – clearly he meant to associate himself with legitimacy associated with a TYPE of religiosity, not with religiosity itself.

Check and balances – of course, that’s a given – consent, that is to say, Ijma is a given. Freedom of choice? Is a given, dissent, a given – actually, Liberty is a given. (Ijtehad, Ijam and Shura are givens)

“All this religiosity was a total failure”??? that’s a rather broad statement, don’t you think?

Had Americans not decided to unseat them, could such a statement be generalized? What most will agree with, whether American action or not, the TYPE of religiosity, the understanding of Islam, that the Taliban desired to promote was not one that is generally acknowledged or understood to be associated with Islam.

Stay focused. “Secular humanism” that’s the focus. If you have the time and interest, I would like you to respond to my post 473, especially as it relates to the consequences of and modus operandi of “secular humanism”

dost-mittar---488

Your PS. was reassuring.

But it is not that simple.Before casting any doubt on any kind of conception one can always start with ones own.The very beginning of doubt leads to enquiry.Where there is no doubt the question is not raised.So forget about Immaculate conception & for the sake of intellectualism,learning & advancement of science order fresh DNA tests.

[[[Is it any wonder then that on the Day of Judgement Muslims would be addressedby their mothers` names.Even today when credit card is lost one is supposed to give out the mothers, name & dob for identification purposes.Now here no one casts any doubt at all.

Mary was Jesus` mother & that is all there is to know.If one is in a mood to question(& it is a passe question for a lot of people) then one should start by creation of Man(Adam)without mother or father first.Then Jesus` case would be a piece of birthday cake.;)]]]]



But then questions would be raised.Are DNA tests reliable?.The shape of the earth is only such because of vanntage point & perspective.Round or flat are just vocabulary & conventions.Who knows that as we walk the shape changes with us?...sounds crazy,doesn`t it?After all ancient India made lot of progress in science & math when it was explained that ther earth is balaced on the two horns of a cow,the cow,is on a turtle,the turtle is riding a fish--etc etc.

Secular `progress` can always be made with any kind of paradigm & explained away very convincingly by scientists(the modern day priests & mullahs)-------like todays` Darwinism.

tahmed321

hobbyty #477 You write: ``Notice the pattern of attack:``

By whom??

First, allow me to assure you that I do take the time to read posts at least two or three times. Many times, all of us use imprecise language and we tend to allow our focus to stray - recall that our framework is dr. Hoodbhoy’s call for the adoption of “secular humanism” as a foundation of societal organization in Pakistan.

Pattern of attack, by whom? By intellectual circles in the West and by those intellectual circles associated with the West. This attack is disseminated by academics in universities, think tanks and by the media.

“You write ``1. Anything connected to Islam, other than ``quietism`` is negative, a threat to ``humanity``.`` I dont think so. There has been a clear distinction drawn by western opinion makers from the President of the US down between the small number of terrorists and Muslims in general”.

The fact that a distinction is made by some opinion makers has not translated into a general understanding among the masses, nor does it mean that such a distinction is actually true,(I urge you to read more about the evolution of American policy, from no policy to a vigorous position, with regard to Islam) in either case it is irrelevant because we are not talking about the justification of terror or terrorism. – Again recall, I am not referring to terrorism or terrorists, but to the hostility, the total rejection of Islam by the religion of “secular humanism”. “Secular humanists” see tradition itself as a impediment to the “progress” of man and the advance of “humanity” – I am not arguing that certain traditions and attitudes are not irrelevant, they are – such a prevalent notions about the role of women in society – yet, to understand these notions and to seek to correct them, we must begin with the understanding that social relations between men and women, indeed, most all institutions, are a function of what kind of work they do and how and what they perceive their own role and attitude. This is a more complex position and analysis, than simply the total rejection of tradition in favor of life outside the evolving Islamic cosmology.

“And terrorists who try to disrupt social order and attack innocent people by and large are those who claim to be Muslims. This is the undeniable reality. As a Muslim, I consider these animals to be no better than common murderers, hijackers of planes and of Islam itself.”

Interesting that the term “social order” has reared its ugly head again. It is not only deniable, it is malicious and false. Again, please keep your focus, I was not discussing terrorism nor will I accept any attempt to associate terrorists and terrorism with Islam. It is at best faulty reasoning: some who engage in terrorism describe themselves as Muslims, therefore all Muslims are terrorists!

Again, Sir, our focus was discussing “secular humanism” and it’s hostility towards traditional religion. Please do not include me among whose who will give any credence to the association of terrorism and Islam.



“You write ``2. Muslim family institution, the basic building block to be dismembered: Women`s rights. In this guise, it is important (acting on behalf of the ``oppressed`` women) to ``liberate`` them. ``

``Please...tell this to the women in Afghanistan who are able to finally work for a living rather than begging for a living - I think they will chase you out of town if they heard this.”

Clearly you have chosen not to connect the series of my posts and you have chosen to disregard the ideological basis of the hostility of “secular humanism” towards tradition. Please review my post number 473 to Sadna. Perhaps you may want to point out where in my posts I have argued that Afghan or any women should not have the right or liberty to work, study or whatever. If you will follow the series of posts you will see that what I am arguing against is the breakdown of the institution of family and most especially the breaking down of the bonds of obligations and responsibility of individuals to one another.

As to whether I would be chased out of town – well, I offer you the following:

“European nations often used Muslim women to justify their intrusions into Islamic countries. In the late 1800s, the English envoy Evelyn Baring urged his superiors to colonize Egypt, arguing they could do so on behalf of the country`s downtrodden women. At the time, Baring sat on a committee bent on denying English women the vote.”

You may want read the entire article at the following website: http://csmonitor.com/2001/1219/p1s3-wogi.html

``You write ``3. Attack on Islamic institutions of learning.``The ``Islamic `` institutions (madrassahs) have nothing to do with Islam. The madrassahs teach nothing but hatred - after years in a madrassah, the graduate is good only for one thing, namely to commit blind violence. The scoundrels who created these madrassahs should be charged with ruining the lives of so many children from poor families, and treated the same as thugs who kidnap children and maim their limbs so they have no choice but to beg. The only difference is that these thugs have maimed the brains of these young boys.``

A madrassah is a school – Any school dedicated to the instruction and study of Islam or any other traditional religion, is a religious institution. That madares in Pakistan generally impart a shallow religiosity based on emulation and outward appearance of religiosity and are viewed as promoting intolerance in society is not in contention. What is in contention is State control of religious institutions. Please keep your focus: “secular humanism” . If there is a failure here, it is that of the State in abdicating it’s responsibility towards millions of it’s citizens by failing to providing an opportunity to earn an education that will enable it’s citizens to meet both technical and moral challenges that will increasingly characterize the experience of it’s citizens. Madares have also failed, in so far as they have refused to incorporate and impart new knowledge and sciences, within and outside the framework of Islam, yet integral to the struggle to be a Muslim.

“You write ``4. The single most important weapon is still to be fielded, it is being made ready: This weapon will be an assault on the Quran.`` The Quran teaches tolerance and peace. The only ones who have anything to fear from the Quran are the mullahs. The Quran comes out most strongly against these ``intercessors`` who wish to use religion to gain power in society.”

It is clear to me that you have not the knowledge of the attack that is being prepared on the Quran – but soon this will find it`s way into mass media. To those who are strong in their “faith”, such attacks are meaningless, yet, such attacks will certainly effect others who are not as strong in their “faith” – certainly they will be injured – who would want their own to experience injury? Does charity begin at home?

If you are interested to learn more about the content and direction of the attack upon the Quran, please refer to the work of academicians Patricia Crone, Michael Cook, Andrew Rippin, Gerard Hawting and John Wansbrough – all at one time of the “esteemed” university of London, School of Oriental and African Studies – Mr. S. Rushdie was also trained at the same school.

I want to again assure you that I read your post with interest and am conscious of and to your concerns – I hope I have been able to articulate more clearly my position within the general framework of discussing “secular humanism”, its ideological hostility and implications - and have not allowed others concerns which may be related but are not central to this discussion, to flood and obscure our focus.

Trillium (440):

Interesting parallels between the Uncertainty Principle, and “truth vs. clarity” in issues involving human psyche. Those are thought provoking comments indeed.

The tradeoff between “truth” and “clarity” may well come into play while discussing the esoteric … something that an imperfect mind cannot grasp … say, the attributes of God. However, the “truth vs. clarity” tradeoff should not operate when it comes to the issue of Jesus Christ. Just as the HUP does not affect observations of sizable objects … say locating a cow in a farm … the issue of Jesus Christ s simple enough to be understood without compromising the truth of the matter … in my opinion, that is.

I do not know what triggered the mystery around it … maybe it was the virgin birth, coupled with his mysterious disappearance. Combine this with Paul’s genius of a marketing whiz, the sociopolitical climate, and a highly emotional drama … father sacrificing the son … Jesus crying out on the cross the final words … Father, have you forsaken me?

May be it is the emotionally charged paintings that came later … depicting a tall, graceful youth, having a lean, muscular figure … a symbol of Greek beauty and magnificence …with unspeakable warmth in his eyes and resolve in his face … wearing a robe … carrying his own cross as he is beaten by the Roman soldiers … as he fights fatigue and a jeering crowd … as he stumbles over and over … angels descending from the heavens to receive him … the glow on Mary’s face as she watches from a distance … Judas who betrayed his beloved for 30 golden coins by kissing him in a crowd … the ten disciples hiding away as their beloved is crucified.

This mystery was further enhanced as the Muslim scholars added their two-cents by exclaiming that Issa was taken up by Allah and that he will descend later. Blockbuster movies from Hollywood kept feeding the frenzy … Jesus raising the dead … making the blind see … and more. It is no wonder his is the most recognizable face ever. It is no wonder that the most powerful, short sentence of the English literature is … “Jesus wept”.

Buried in all this mess is a lesson worth learning … the steady corruption that a religion undergoes with time … how ideas and interpretations change form, till finally a doctrine emerges that is very different from the original. Each and every religion of God has undergone this change at the hands of the followers. Monotheism is slowly replaced by polytheism. Humans get deified. Super natural becomes associated with mere mortals. Divinity becomes an attribute of humans, who never claimed it, but are no longer around to deny it.

This process of corruption is an unstoppable one. No matter how much a person tries to reverse this process, unless he has divine support, he will inadvertently cause more schisms in the teachings. This is why I believe that God will continue to raise prophets who will purge His teachings from the periodic corruption that slowly sets in … even in Islam. The moment the prophet is gone, gradual decay sets in again … and the ever increasingly difficult pursuit of the divine continues.

Somewhere in all this is buried the mechanism of spiritual development of the mankind … understanding the attributes of Allah, and incorporating them in our own personalities. I am not sure how far along we are, but we still have a long way to go. We should keep our hearts humble, prostrate ourselves in front of Him, and continue to do deeds that bring pleasure to others, since it will surely bring pleasure to Him.

Regards,

Asad

``````KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - Only one-third of the international peacekeepers arriving in Afghanistan will have an actual peacekeeping role and even they won`t have authority to make arrests or disarm Afghans, the nation`s incoming defense minister said Thursday. Across the border, Pakistani forces battled an insurrection by Afghan war prisoners that has left as many as 18 dead.

The comments in Kabul by interim Defense Minister Mohammed Fahim exposed sharp differences with the United Nations - and within the new Afghan government - over the peacekeepers` role. The interim government takes office on Saturday.

Fahim said the peacekeepers` role will be largely symbolic, with 2,000 of the 3,000 peacekeepers on humanitarian aid missions or as a reserve force, out of sight at the Baghram air base north of the capital.

``They are here because they want to be. But their presence is as a symbol,`` Fahim told The Associated Press. ``The security is the responsibility of Afghans.``

Sure Sure. -- “The security is the responsibility of Afghans.`` – and over the years the Afghans have done a great job of it -- as well.

The Northern Alliance will be well advised to put a muzzle on Mr. ``defense minister``.

The International Peace Keepers – all 5 thousands – will be there to ensure peace.

They have the MANDATE from the Security Council to use force – disarm the unruly sodiers -– and to kill -- if they raise their guns – and that includes the soldiers of Northern Alliance.



And there is nothing Mr. Fahim the “Defense Minister” can do about it.

hobbyt #485
``States that regulate institutions of religion can not in any way be said to conform to the definition of specialization in the institutes of eligion and governance; indeed such states are on a path to totalitarianism or stateism. Only political economies that are neutral with regard to religious institutions approximate the definition of specialization of institutions of religion and governance.``

hobbyt, what do you mean?

``And did China not adopt a one child per couple regulation? And were not millions of Indians subjected to forced sterilization?``

hobbyt, China is ruled by a dictatorial regime, not by a dispensation chosen by all Chinese. Forced sterilization in India happened during the only period of dictatorial rule in India when political activism and people`s voice was forcibly stifled, ie the Emergency. Forced sterilization was discontined immediately after the Emergency ended and public outrage at this was a major factor in the overthrow of Mrs. Gandhi. Are you arguing against dictatorial regimes, by quoting these examples? You donot need to, I am also against dictatorial regimes.


Re Taliban `` think it happened because of unrestrained lust, greed and power and it`s justification grounds of religion, to be generous, is entirely flawed``

Yes, precisely. Yet, people all over the world wanted to fight and give their lives to protect this religious government. The religious purity of the regime was touted as an ideal even on chowk. One billion+ Muslims in the Ummah refused to summon up sufficient consent even in five years to protect the Muslim women suffering under this regime in the name of religion.

Can it be that the Talibani claim of religiosity obscured the humanist vision of so many?

The Taliban was said to have modelled their state apparatus on religious precepts and their claims of divine sanction through Mullah Omar and the Prophet`s cloak seem to have been accepted by-and-large. But without checks and balances such as seeking the Afghans explicit consent and protecting the Afghans freedom of choice and dissent, all this religiosity was a total failure.

hobbyty #477 You write: ``Notice the pattern of attack:``

By whom??

You write ``1. Anything connected to Islam, other than ``quietism`` is negative, a threat to ``humanity``.`` I dont think so. There has been a clear distinction drawn by western opinion makers from the President of the US down between the small number of terrorists and muslims in general. And terrorists who try to disrupt social order and attack innocent people by and large are those who claim to be muslims. This is the undeniable reality. As a muslim, I consider these animals to be no better than common murderers, hijackers of planes and of Islam itself.

You write ``2. Muslim family institution, the basic building block to be dismembered: Women`s rights. In this guise, it is important (acting on behalf of the ``oppressed`` women) to ``liberate`` them. ``

Please...tell this to the women in Afghanistan who are able to finally work for a living rather than begging for a living - I think they will chase you out of town if they heard this.

You write ``3. Attack on Islamic institutions of learning.``

The ``Islamic`` institutions (madrassahs) have nothing to do with Islam. The madrassahs teach nothing but hatred - after years in a madrassah, the graduate is good only for one thing, namely to commit blind violence. The scoundrels who created these madrassahs should be charged with ruining the lives of so many children from poor families, and treated the same as thugs who kidnap children and maim their limbs so they have no choice but to beg. The only difference is that these thugs have maimed the brains of these young boys.

You write ``4. The single most important weapon is still to be fielded, it is being made ready: This weapon will be an assault on the Quran.`` The Quran teaches tolerance and peace. The only ones who have anything to fear from the Quran are the mullahs. The Quran comes out most strongly against these ``intercessors`` who wish to use religion to gain power in society.

Please do not react automatically to what I say - what I write may seem harsh, but that is reality. Please reflect a bit on this before responding.

Sadna

“I have been arguing, in both my posts that those who donot want traditional religion in public affairs and those who do, or those adhering to different beliefs can find common cause with each other and retain their essential identity and values just like women can retain their womanliness while living on equal terms with men”

This may well be what you are arguing for – but again refer to post you originally responded to – I have no disagreement to what you written above. Recall that the topic was the rejection by “secular humanism” of traditional religion and it’s replacement by their (secular humanism) religion. If you have paid attention, you will also note that I consistently have articulated a position that calls for the specialization of institutions of religion and governance (indeed I have used these exact words). States that regulate institutions of religion can not in any way be said to conform to the definition of specialization in the institutes of religion and governance; indeed such states are on a path to totalitarianism or stateism. Only political economies that are neutral with regard to religious institutions approximate the definition of specialization of institutions of religion and governance.

“You seem to be assigning negative value judgements to Parliaments, equality of religions, separation of state and religion. Why? Everything is as good as its utility. What is sacrosanct or evil about anything the West does or has done or defines, including secular humanism”

Conversing with is an exercise in the avoiding arguing the negative. Yet, you can help dispel this perception by pointing out where in my posts, I have argued that “parliaments” are undesirable, or that a separation of the institutions of religion and governance is undesirable or “negative” or that “anything the West does is sacrosanct or evil. All other readers would benefit as well.

“you seem to be confusing choice with feelings”

That’s interesting – you articulate it, I quote you and yet it is I and not you, who is confused. I would like to remind, as it appears it is a requirement in this conversation that it was you who articulated that the way we can judge if certain values are “good” is how we “feel” about them.



“How can people live under a dispensation they think is unfair to them?”

I don’t think they can.

“You seem to be saying people should not choose the dispensation under which they are to live. Are you saying they should not vote too?

Again, if you can show me where in my posts I have made any statement to the effect that people should not choose the dispensation under which they are to live or that they should not vote, not only I, but other readers, will be able to follow your line of reasoning.



“And why ask all these hypothetical questions about extreme situations which have not happened and show no signs of happening?”

Sadna, did you not introduce ALL (not most) in the conversation? Are you aware of, have any knowledge of any situation where in ALL members of groups agreed on all aspects of a particular position? Yet, for the sake of your position I accepted such a statement – and responded to the construct, ALL – now, you tell me, I have used hypotheticals and extreme situations ?– So all that stuff about Burkinafasoans was not hypothetical???

And did China not adopt a one child per couple regulation? And were not millions of Indians subjected to forced sterilization? Euthanasia in Holland? Yet, I posed extreme situations? Which have not happened and show no sign of happening?

Recall we were discussing values, ethics, morality, in the context of ``secular humanism`` – I have argued that “autonomous” and “situational” ethics should be rejected, as they dehumanize the individual and society, and instead greater reliance place on absolutes derived from traditional religion, as they are the bindings of not just temporal order but also of a cosmology that gives meaning to the lives of individuals.

“Why not explain why the extreme situations which did occur, did in fact occur? Women and girls in large numbers were raped and kidnapped by the highly religious Taliban, who defied sanctions on this count on the basis that the same women they kidnapped, raped and sold were flowers to be kept safe at home, who must forgo education and the right to livelihood to remain safe. These were people who followed religious laws rigorously who had a VERY solid religious education. Why did this happen?”

Anyone who claims to be a religious person and then engages in rape and kidnapping is an adherent to some religion of which I have no knowledge. I could not see such a person as having an understanding of faith or religious understanding, as is generally understood by adherents of any traditional religional. Any person who would deprive another individual of that individuals liberty or right to pursue an education or earn a living, again, cannot be said to be acting out of any religious understanding, as is generally understood or as I understand it. As to why it happened? I think it happened because of unrestrained lust, greed and power and it`s justification grounds of religion, to be generous, is entirely flawed.

Sattar2/Drumz

You go boyz. Keep it coming..

Sattar

Can you briefly say something about the Ahmaddi ``riots`` in Lahore years ago. The few Ahmaddi friends I had in Lahore lived in constant fear and gave nightmare accounts complete with scars. The `riots` had to be pretty one-sided. What`s life like for the average Pakistani Ahmadiya? Maybe a web site..

Reply #: 470

nasah

I`m seeing a lot of similar articles about the bad treatment of Pakistani Americans. Man, I don`t get it. I live a little west of Detroit and enjoyed a great Eid Party Sun. nite. with Pakistani-American friends. There were over 150 guests - to whom I mostly engaged in (English/Punjabi) chats. There were no negative reports of inquisitions, threats or problems with school, work etc. Very mellow affair. The only people with reported problems were with fake and expired visas. As you may know the fake visa business in Pakistan is huge. A lot of people got nailed in the ensuing dragnet following 9/11 with even more to come. Like the Holy Quran say`s, ``Go not where you are unwelcome.``. You gotta have a real visa, man.

sattar #479,

why can`t we just admit that maybe, just maybe the ``immaculate conception`` wasn`t as immaculate as it was considered to be?

oops, i`m being blasphemous now.

by the way, there has been no known case of human parthenogenesis.

hobbyt #473
I have been arguing, in both my posts that those who donot want traditional religion in public affairs and those who do, or those adhering to different beliefs can find common cause with each other and retain their essential identity and calues just like women can retain their womanliness while living on equal terms with men.

````affect``? ``others`` - why others? ALL is a nation?``

I have already explained what I mean by all. One example is Sunnis, Shias, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsis, Ahmedis in Pakistan. Is it possible to create a dispensation where ALL can be accomodated on terms of complete equality?


``How closely the language of human secularism is identifiable in the totalitarian mind set.``

As I have already said, human beings misuse everything. Hence both the language of traditional religion, and the language of say communism and the language of something you define as `humanist secularism` can be identified in the totalitarian mindset.

``perhaps the same applies to ``colonials`` who model their``parliament`` and other institutions of their former Masters``

You seem to be assigning negative value judgements to Parliaments, equality of religions, separation of state and religion. Why? Everything is as good as its utility. What is sacrosanct or evil about anything the West does or has done or defines, including secular humanism?

Each country and every human has at its disposal all the good things and ideas of all the world, the trick is to choose the most appropriate or to think of something new uniquely fitted to one`s own situation and genius. Whats the problem with a Parliament? We had Panchayats and Majlis/shoora long before the British and whats the problem even if we didnot?

``We make value judgements based on our feelings?``

hobbyt, you seem to be confusing choice with feelings. Choice can be about values, judgement and feelings. How can people live under a dispensation they think is unfair to them? You seem to be saying people shouldnot choose the dispensation under which they are to live. Are you saying they shouldnot vote too?

And why ask all these hypothetical questions about extreme situations whch havenot happened and show no signs of happening?

Why not explain why the extreme situations which did occur, did infact occur?. Women and girls in large numbers were raped and kidnapped by the highly religious Taliban, who defied sanctions on this count on the basis that the same women they kidnapped, raped and sold were flowers to be kept safe at home, who must forgo education and the right to livelihood to remain safe. These were people who followed religious laws rigorously who had a VERY solid religious education. Why did this happen?

Akash #236 I see sir that you have a wide range of imaginative ways to handle VHP thugs. I would be happy to have those who actually committed some crime (like killing, burning, looting) simply locked up for appropriate lengths of time, and the rest reduced to the ``lunatic fringe`` that every society has and needs to merely keep an eye on (to make sure that they do not actually walk their talk). Same for the Islamist thugs in Pakistan.

I am beginning to think in addition to the religious thugs, we probably should start worrying about the nationalists on both sides too. To my mind a nationalist is the opposite of a patriot: the latter cares for his people, the former for the glorification of the state which is generally at the expense of the people. Thus, by diverting resources away from poverty alleviation and towards military expenditures, nationalists have already been responsible for ruining the lives of hundreds of millions of people in India and Pakistan (even though this is not as obvious as the blatant killings and destruction that is the mark of the religious fanatic.

Our Taliban policy in tatters

By A.B.S. Jafri

(Excerpts)

This chapter of our national experience has already inflicted deep wounds all over our existence, including our national psyche. It is simply frightening to calculate the price we have already paid for the Taliban misadventure.

Even more scary to visualize is the cost we are going to pay in the near future. Then, what in the long run?

Thousands of Pakistanis living and working in the United States are under arrest. Many more may be under close, may be also relentless and vindictive, watch. These include students in universities all over the US.

We ought to have the courage to admit that Pakistanis in the US will remain under dark shadows of mistrust and suspicion for quite some time to come, hoping nothing goes further wrong.

Even more appalling is the thought that the doors of higher educational institutions in most of the western world will be all but shut against our young boys and girls. Among those already living, working or studying in the US and west European countries, only the very lucky ones will be able to carry on.

Unless a miracle happens, we may be in for a huge procession of Pakistanis, thrown out of jobs and universities abroad, returning home, deeply humiliated, profoundly frustrated and also empty-handed.

We have already seen what can happen to Pakistani banks in the US.

This discrimination slapped on our banks will instantly mean a severe setback to Pakistan`s trade with the largest and most prosperous market in the world. This cannot but have ruinous consequences for our national economy as a whole.

What the US is doing to us today. Europe will be persuaded to do tomorrow. It is by no means too soon for all of us to be thinking hard - here and now.

Where do we stand in today`s and tomorrow`s Afghanistan?

Our single-minded and utterly short-sighted handling of the Afghan developments from day one to this day has always kept us limping on a limb in Kabul. There has never been any time when our relations with Afghanistan were normal, natural, smooth or only amiable, regardless of the character and composition of the regime in Kabul. This is true of the entire period since August 1947.

Remember Kabul`s was the only negative vote in the UN on our application for the membership of the world body. That was in October 1947 when this country was a two-month-old innocent that could not have caused the Afghans any harm whatsoever.

Recall also the number of times our embassy in Kabul has been under attack as our protege, the Taliban, looked the other way. In trade talks the Taliban regime had persistently rebuffed Islamabad. Our relations with Kabul have remained bereft of even minor courtesies and gestures.

Capping this grim litany is the recollection of the rude response that Kabul made to our advice, later beseeching and begging that the Taliban spare the Buddhist carvings that had been there on the mountainsides for more than two thousand years.

They went ahead with their vandalism, disregarding the entreaties of Pakistan and the sentiment of the entire civilized world. We simply have to carry the ignominy of it all because we were the only ones in this wide world to be patronizing the fanatic Taliban caboodle.

It will be difficult to forget the casual manner in which Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar dismissed this matter, saying ``They (Taliban) are not afraid of us.`` He had no reply when someone asked, ``Then, why are you afraid of them (Taliban).``

Mr Abdul Sattar may not have much of an answer to the inquiry about Islamabad`s almost obsessive fear of the Taliban. This is the question now all of us ought to be asking ourselves. Particularly the likes of Gen Hamid Gul and Mr Abdul Sattar.

Why were we so scared of the Taliban? Who among us pampered them out of their mind - and for what consideration?

Only the insensitive Pakistanis will fail to worry about the damage the Taliban, or our infatuation with the Taliban, has inflicted on us. It hurts us today in the deepest recesses of our national consciousness.

Far more to be lamented is the shame and resultant heartache from our reckless Taliban enterprise. This is a tragedy hardly less difficult to endure than the debacle of 1971. The injuries that we have foolishly inflicted upon ourselves in haste we have no option now but to regret and struggle hard to heal for a long time.

(Dawn)