Is Jehad Passe’?

EASTERN ALLIANCE,

there was a news item from an italian agency stating that osama has moved to pok since dec 12. This is a deliberate ploy by the indians. They expect a eastern alliance to take over pok while the US bombs the suspected osama hide outs.

Nobody should believe this report.

CHILDREN OF TNT,

The education system since 1970 has delivered these children with a jihadic world view that even US education seem to have no impact. Jay sorry, jai to YLH, sarwari etc.

`But this fundemantalism is now deeply

embedded in the socio-political psyche of sizeable numbers across ethnic,

sectarian and linguistic divides. And the peculiar world-view spawned by

this religious orthodoxy is not only worrying but seems too rigid to lend

itself to sudden policy shifts.`

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

Re: Romair…..


You have an interesting hypothesis … Let bygones be bygones …. Lets concentrate on the present….. Let look at the current problems plaguing Pakistan…. With the army in absolute control it should make things happen…..

The Current Interior minister proposed a decentralized Police system for the major metropolitan areas – where one would have local police authority under an elected Mayor – ie fragmenting the unmanageable mega-cities of Karachi, And Lahore into much more efficiently managed smaller towns where the police falls under the local mayor…This Issue has vetoed by the army several times over the past several years Why ?? – we all know that the current police is corrupt and incompetent and has been there for several generations… Why not change the system… what seems to be the obstacle??? Why is it a problem for the Corp commanders ???…..Similar systems are in place throughout the world …..

Privatization of the huge inefficient conglomerates and banks…- Why is t taking so long for them to be privatized - the privatization schemes were started in first administration of Bhutto …. Why has it taken over a decade to privatize anything…. Now that most of the said agencies are being run by retd army generals some like the WAPDA have battalions of army men trying to rectify things ….. or making money on the side ??????

Perhaps somebody can shed light on just these two issues for now…..

In response to Romair, #7:

Well said, sir.

-Digit

I am waiting for the day when a Pakistani writes an article in which he blames himself, his ethnicity, his social views, his organization etc. for the faults of Pakistan.

Pakistanis, on this site, generally are very open and critical and introspective about the faults regarding Pakistan. Far more than Indians are about their country, on this site. This is a healthy phenomenon for Pakistanis. For example, Pakistani views on Pakistan`s role in Bangladesh are far different and much more realistic, introspective and honest than Indian views on India`s role in Kashmir.

However, once one descends below the national level of introspection, it turns into a blame game. The maulvis blame the secular leaderships. The politicians blame the military. The military blames the politicians. The common man who never pays taxes, would leave the country in a hearbeat if it were attacked (rather than defending it), is as corrupt at his own level as everyone else, but can write good English, attempts to become the innocent proponent of peace and progress, and blames everyone accept himself, and the organizations he supports.

When the PPP is not in power, it asks the COAS to take over and remove the PML. When the PML is not in power, it does the same in regard to the PPP. Most political parties have n number of factions within themselves. The Muhajirs blame the Punjabis, the Punjabis blame the Afghanis, and the Afghanis blame all of Pakistan. And everyone blames India.

This article is along the same above-described lines. Perhaps what is needed is an article that starts out with stating that it is all, ``my`` (my being the author of any article on the subject) fault.

P.S. I think the influence of violent religious right reached its peak in its demonstrations against the current govt. in the early days of this Afghan war. Since then, it has been downhill for them. Their leadership is running scared of the current govt. The fact that they recieved no support from mainstream Pakistanis should be an indication that they and their, ``secular`` haters had far overstated their importance. This is done by both the religious extremists and the secular extremists to ensure that religion (the reason of existence of both these groups) remains in the limelight as the center of all discussion in Pakistan.

Pakistan needs to leave the religion debate behind, and move onto more pressing debates like economy, education etc. That can only be done if our two set of extremists allow us to do so, and if people get out of the blame game, and start blaming themselves.

Will a secular Pakistani ever write an article highlghting the damage secularims has done to Pakistan. And will a politico-religious supporter ever right an article on the damage religion has done to Pakistan. I doubt it. That would move Pakistanis to the next level of introspection.

`But this fundemantalism is now deeply

embedded in the socio-political psyche of sizeable numbers across ethnic,

sectarian and linguistic divides. And the peculiar world-view spawned by

this religious orthodoxy is not only worrying but seems too rigid to lend

itself to sudden policy shifts.`

Aqil Shah, I TOTALLY disagree with the above statement of yours. I see and hear a lot of people complaining about what is happening - and complaining in the Muslim context. But I`ve never heard anyone offer themeselves to an Islamic party as a solution in the post-sept 11 scenario.

As far as the rigid right goes, a sudden policy shift seems attainable to me precisely because the right is so rigid. I hold the view that the pakistani society has never felt the arguments of the religious right. And it still doesn`t.

On this point I disagree with you. The other points are debatable. I agree that if economics dont improve in the next few years (yeah, i`d say few years rather than the doomsday scenarios so many like to paint), there will can be political ramifications. But again, it won`t be the religious right leading the frenzy.

PAKISTAN`S CHOICE

New York Post; New York; Dec 20, 2001;

Words in Document: 285

Available Formats:

Buy Full Text

Abstract:

Yes, Pakistan`s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, had the good sense to withdraw his country`s support from the Taliban and al Qaeda once it was clear that America meant business in Afghanistan. But Pakistan still hosts, trains and arms terrorist groups like the ones believed to have carried out the attack in New Delhi.

Yes, the Pashtun tribal areas on the Pakistan-Afghan border ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/21/opinion/21KRIS.html

Our Friends the Terrorists

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

E-Mail nicholas@nytimes.com

Just to puncture our hypocrisy for a moment: We`ve been battling terrorism by bolstering backers of terrorism in Pakistan.

Pakistan, our new ally in the war on terrorism, has a long history of supporting indiscriminate attacks in India and especially Kashmir. The latest, headline-grabbing attack was the assault on the Parliament building in New Delhi that now threatens war between two nuclear powers, but many thousands of civilians have been killed over the years by Pakistani-financed terrorist organizations.

All in all, Pakistan`s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency, or I.S.I., is responsible for many more killings than Osama bin Laden.

But however hypocritical it may be to bolster one government that harbors terrorists while overthrowing another, there is no good alternative. The Bush administration is exactly right to be simultaneously supporting Gen. Pervez Musharraf and twisting his arm to fight terrorism, for he may be Pakistan`s last hope to rescue his country.

Pakistan today is not only a catastrophe for Pakistanis but a threat to the entire region. Its economy is quasi-feudal, some 55 percent of adults are illiterate and more than 10 percent of children die by the age of 5. Pakistan now has more drug addicts than college graduates.

In the last 20 years public schooling has been partly replaced by madrasas that preach extremism, the pursuit of nuclear weapons has isolated the government, and foolish policies have crippled the economy. The I.S.I.`s installation of the Taliban in Afghanistan has backfired, and now there is a risk of the ``Talibanization`` of Pakistan, as religious extremists return from their ``crusades`` in Afghanistan and Pashtuns perhaps revive their quest for an independent ``Pashtunistan.``

In Pakistan earlier this month, I flinched whenever I read the newspapers. Guerrillas in Kashmir were ``freedom-fighters`` if they lived, ``martyrs`` if they died. And on The Nation`s editorial page appeared this rant: ``The Christian world has not accepted us [Muslims] as human beings even. These nations are determined to exterminate the Muslims.``

General Musharraf is in charge of this morass, and — under strong pressure from President Bush, and less visible nudging from China — he has acted decisively to pull his country toward reality. He ousted the head of the I.S.I., permitted the entry of U.S. troops to oust the Taliban, and sent troops for the first time into tribal areas to capture Taliban escapees. He has moved to sideline the religious fanatics, close the extremist madrasas and deport foreign religious students. Next he must clamp down on the Kashmiri fighters.

Over the last two years General Musharraf has shown himself capable of brutally tough decisions, and there is some reason to think that he can regain control of the I.S.I. (which may have run the latest Indian attack as a rogue operation), cut off state support for Kashmiri terrorists, nurture a growing market economy — and prepare for democratic elections. The religious parties get less than 5 percent of the vote in Pakistan, and so democracy can delegitimize extremism as well.

When I first traveled around Pakistan as a student backpacker two decades ago, I sneaked into closed tribal areas and visited a village that was a center for heroin and gun-running. One gunsmith tried to sell me a pen that could not only write but also shoot a .22 bullet out the end. Not even a Palm Pilot can do that, and it was only $7! This incredibly nifty gadget enthralled me as a symbol of Pakistani ingenuity — and it`s also apt because Pakistan has squandered its considerable potential and excelled far more at things destructive than constructive.

Now Pakistan is at a moment of maximum danger, threatened by the instability caused by returning Taliban fighters on the west and by the risk of war with India on the east. Similarly, it was at a time when India was near economic collapse, in the summer of 1991, that New Delhi moved decisively toward a path of economic reform — and toward more sensible domestic and international policies across the board.

Pakistan, after so many wrong turns in its history, has tentatively taken a right one in the last few months. Now it must build on that by clamping down on its own terrorists. And, whatever the stench of blood in Islamabad, we Americans must hold our noses and do all we can to help General Musharraf hold his course.

The Pakistani Crisis

2245 GMT, 011220

Summary

With the Taliban withdrawal, the focus is shifting to countries that could next face U.S. military attention, such as Somalia or Iraq. However, if Washington really wants to break the al Qaeda network, it must deal with Pakistan first. It will become increasingly difficult for the United States to avoid taking some action in at least parts of that country.

Analysis

The mood in Washington is one of subdued satisfaction. The war in Afghanistan has been concluded, with the primary strategic objective achieved: the country can no longer be used as a base of operations for al Qaeda.

Secondary strategic objectives, though, have not been attained. The bulk of Taliban fighters have not been killed or captured, and it will not be clear until after winter whether their cohesion has been permanently shattered. The senior commanders of the Taliban have also not been liquidated. Above all, al Qaeda`s leadership, particularly Osama bin Laden, still appears to be on the loose.

However, in any war in which the primary objective is achieved with little cost in lives, there is ample reason for satisfaction. However, there is another sense in Washington that events in Afghanistan have clearly given the United States strategic initiative, and that therefore the next move is up to the Bush administration.

There is a spirited debate underway among policymakers at all levels as to what such a move ought to be. Some argue that the United States should now attack Iraq, while others want to deal with Somalia or Yemen.

The debate itself is rooted in a perception of the world that is dubious. The Bush administration did not choose the war in Afghanistan. It was forced on the United States by the actions of others and by geopolitical reality. Al Qaeda`s decision to attack, its relationship to the Taliban and the geography and politics of Afghanistan scripted the American response.

Washington`s perception of the current situation is that it now has the freedom to choose its next step. But what that will be just isn`t clear, as new issues will force themselves on the United States. The most important issue, one that the United States has been assiduously avoiding, is that of the current role and future condition Pakistan.

Pakistan historically has been an ally of the United States, and it was a base of operations for U.S. and allied efforts to support the mujahideen during the Afghan-Soviet war.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, U.S.-Pakistani relations underwent a transformation. Pakistan evolved politically from a secular, pro-Western orientation until it became a bulwark of Islamic fundamentalism. To a very great extent, the Taliban is as much a Pakistani creature as it is an Afghan one.

On the other side, with the United States no longer driven by the need to contain the Soviet Union, the U.S. government downgraded Pakistan`s strategic importance. Before Sept. 11, the United States was already exploring two new relationships: with the Khatami regime in Iran and with India.

However, after Sept. 11, the United States was forced back into a difficult and complex relationship with Pakistan. U.S. and Pakistani interests in Afghanistan were fundamentally at odds because Islamabad had close ties with the Taliban and did not want them to lose power, especially to the Northern Alliance.

At the same time, the United States badly needed Pakistan. Washington was incapable of containing either the Taliban or al Qaeda inside of Afghanistan. The quantity of forces deployed simply would not achieve that goal.

Therefore, Pakistan`s willingness to use its armed forces to seal its border with Afghanistan became a matter of critical importance. Even more important, the willingness of Pakistan to use its intelligence and security forces to uproot al Qaeda cells, disrupt Taliban control in regions where these cells might find refuge and provide intelligence on al Qaeda operations in the region became strategically critical. So long as Pakistan served as active or passive sanctuary, the Afghan operation could not be conclusive.

The Pakistani government was caught in a serious dilemma. It could not afford to enrage the United States. An outright refusal to cooperate with Washington, or continued active support of the Taliban and al Qaeda, would have made Pakistan an enemy of the United States. Given the evolution of Washington`s relationship with New Delhi, and to a lesser extent, with Taliban enemy Iran, a direct challenge to Washington could have crystallized a strategic alliance that would have doomed Pakistan.

India recognized Sept. 11 as a historic opportunity, and put two policies into motion. The first was to be absolutely forthcoming with Washington, offering it a host of military and intelligence accommodations including the right to use Indian air bases for operations. Second, it proceeded to increase its forces in the Kashmir region in anticipation of evolving strategic opportunities. Iran, with a much more complex internal situation, was of course less forthcoming and less relevant to the equation.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was caught between the strategic threat and domestic reality. He understood he had to cooperate with the United States, but also understood there were severe limitations on that cooperation. Orders to act against Taliban supporters could be given, but whether Pakistan`s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) or other security organs would obey those orders was questionable.

Musharraf faced two problems. First, if he pressed too hard, he could destabilize his government and perhaps lose power. If he did nothing at all, he could get trapped in a geopolitical minefield.

The president`s solution was to act against the Taliban while asking that the United States appreciate the limits of his power. Washington, knowing that if Musharraf fell, it would leave America in a disastrous situation in Afghanistan, permitted the president to tread a careful, middle road.

He acted on behalf of the United States, but not so vigorously as to lose his power base. This meant the U.S. military was able to base only limited forces in Pakistan, receive some cooperation from Pakistani intelligence and have some control placed on pro-Taliban elements in the country.

However, the United States would still have to operate in a nation in which Taliban support was strong and the government was intimately bound up with the Taliban. The ultimate understanding was that the United States would turn a blind eye to Pakistani collaboration with the Taliban, so long as Pakistan cooperated with and never impeded the U.S. war against al Qaeda.

On paper this arrangement seemed fine. Washington cared much more about al Qaeda than the Taliban. The Pakistanis seemed to care mostly about the Taliban and little about al Qaeda. Washington recognized that support for the Taliban and support for al Qaeda came from the same quarters and entities in Pakistan.

Those who were willing to strike at Musharraf were equally unwilling to cooperate in liquidating the Taliban. And since the ISI was a center of pro-Taliban sentiment, the probability of actual cooperation was slim.

Much of this was academic prior to the recent Tora Bora operation, when it suddenly became a burning issue. It is far from clear that bin Laden was at Tora Bora. Why would he choose to go there from Kandahar as the Taliban was withdrawing from the cities?

But it seems extremely likely that he would have tried to make his way into Pakistan, and if he personally didn`t go there, it seems certain that other members of the command cell, as well as less senior al Qaeda operatives, did make their way into the country.

There has been a great deal of speculation as to where they will go from Pakistan, although it is not even clear they would wish to leave the country at all. There are important sectors of the government, especially in the ISI, who are prepared to actively protect them and provide them with infrastructure for movement, communications and even training.

Whatever Musharraf might want -- and he probably wishes that al Qaeda members would disappear from his country so he can get on with his life -- it is not certain that the president will or can act decisively.

One indication of the true status of Pakistan policymaking occurred last week when Islamic operatives attacked India`s Parliament. It is difficult, from Musharraf`s point of view, to imagine a worse development right now. The last thing he wants is to give the Indians an excuse to attack in Kashmir. He does not want to create a crisis in which the United States is forced to make choices at a time when Pakistan cannot fulfill American demands.

Unfortunately, the attack on the Parliament was likely supported by organizations that depend on Pakistani patronage and which clearly want to intensify the crisis between India and Pakistan. They may see their situation inside of Pakistan deteriorating under U.S. pressure, and a conflict with India might increase their power.

First, the United States would be revealed as a useless ally. Second, those Pakistanis who see some accommodation with the United States as necessary would be discredited. Finally, an attack by India would create an atmosphere in which Islamic forces could flourish.

Thus, the attack on India indicates two things. One, Islamic fundamentalists inside Pakistan feel pressure from Musharraf. Two, they have the ability to act in a way that would reveal the president as incapable of controlling his internal forces. And that would drive a wedge between Islamabad and Washington in exactly the way they want.

The core of the problem is this: The next country the United States has to deal with if it wants to break al Qaeda is not Iraq or Somalia. It is Pakistan. The United States cannot begin the process of shutting down al Qaeda globally until their organization inside Pakistan is broken. Al Qaeda was always present in Pakistan, and following the Taliban collapse, its numbers there have undoubtedly surged. Many or even all may stay because Pakistan is a good place from which to operate.

This means that unless the Pakistani government acts directly against al Qaeda, the United States must either begin to treat Pakistan as a hostile power or must abandon its strategic goals. The latter is impossible. It is also impossible to imagine a circumstance under which Musharraf will be able to act effectively to destroy al Qaeda`s presence in Pakistan. There are too many in Pakistan who would have to cooperate with this process who are unwilling and incapable of doing so.

Therefore, the United States is on a collision course with Pakistan, made all the more complex by the fact that the government there is not capable of giving the United States what it must have. If Washington is not going to abandon its goals, it must create a plan of operation in Pakistan. It is difficult to imagine any circumstance under which this will not compel the United States to take some actions against at least parts of Pakistan.

The United States will need regional strategic support. India is ready and waiting. China, on the other hand, is unpredictable. It is wary of U.S. actions, hostile to increased Indian power and has longstanding relations with Pakistan. China does have an Islamic problem, but Beijing`s geopolitical interests do not include the collapse of Pakistan.

As the Bush administration has said, things now get harder. The hardest part is recognizing that the United States has not yet achieved true freedom of action. The menu is still being drawn up by others, and from where we sit, the next item on the menu is Pakistan.

That is the country of refuge for Taliban and al Qaeda fighters. That is the country where support for them is the highest and where supporters deeply influence major institutions. Pakistan must either change or be changed, or the United States must abandon its ambitions relative to al Qaeda. The United States will not abandon its fight, nor can it unilaterally act in Pakistan, although it can manipulate internal affairs as it did in Afghanistan. However, Pakistan is not Afghanistan, and such manipulation could have explosive results. And for India, this is the historical opportunity it has waited for since its founding.

http://www.stratfor.com/home/0112202245a.htm

No body in his/her right mind is rejoicing.

These are hard times for all Pakistan ,Afghanistan,all Afghanis & Pakistanis.

Of all the things gone wrong ,in the last 3 months ,military Rule is not the most damaging of all.What P.M.(parvez Musharaff) did may not be win win all the way ,but no leader ever has had 100% success neither Kennedy ,nor Churchill you name it.Given the situation ,Musharaff had no choice but to go the route he took.Americans despite having burnt us in the past 80-90 afganistan,remain the super power & how else do you deal with one such daunting force . Our 7 times large neighbour hell bent on poisoning U.S.A.against Pakistan 24/7 through there Tunku Vadarajan to Srinivasan all not Indian but like Vidya Naipaul by virtue of DNA consider themselves Indian(origin) & work for India.

Sameer JB, if you read this message, resend me your email address and I`ll forward you article from the Journal of Democracy.

Comments to my article have been varied, from the absurd to the very valid. No I dont see Pakistan as the source of all ills, neither the liberals in that country who are always willing to grab a seat at the table. My case was not in favour of the liberals, but rather at odds with them in their unqualified welcome of Islamabad`s alleged u-turn. I was only expressing doubts informed by my reading of the happenings in the region/PAkistan which erupted finally in the attack on the Indian parliament. the Musharraf regime for all its resolute public posturing against jihadis was caught with both hands in the cookie jar, for their alleged complicity in ``jihad`` if not outright involvement. I hope that jihad of the ISI variety is passe, for otherwise we will end up at the wrong side of the barrel.

Re tahmed (#148):

I disagree with you when you state that in order to have a civilized society, education, character building, and acquiring knowledge comes first.

Logic and rationality are tools for achieving a greater purpose. Without an underlying purpose they become mere exercises. Therefore a goal must be defined before tools of logic and rationality may be employed. Once the goal is defined, the society’s laws, social structure etc. must be designed, logically and rationally, so that this goal is achieved.

I believe Allah Almighty to be the Fountainhead of all that is good and just. Quran states that Allah has created jinn and men so that they may worship Him. Here worship broadly means following divine commandments, fulfilling one’s social obligations, kindness towards others, establishing a relationship with God Almighty, exercising one’s intellect, and more. This is what I mean by “accepting the divine as the focus of one’s devotion”. You may substitute this clause by some other goal and constantly reflect upon this goal to measure society’s success. For me, this goal is clearly outlined by the Quran itself.

Without a destination, motion has no meaning. Without belief in an Absolute Being, morality becomes a relative issue and human life ultimately has no purpose. Without belief in the divine an individual may wonder, “why bother doing good to others if there is nothing beyond the existence of this world?” Of course if one believes in a divine Who is Benevolent, Just, and the Master of the Day of Judgment, the emphasis shifts from callousness and disregard to compassion and patience.

Therefore belief in the Supreme Being is crucial to rationality and logic, if human thought is to be used for the true benefit of the mankind.

Moving on to education and character building …

While these are good sound bites, they require further scrutiny and clarification. What you include in education and character building is tightly linked to your own upbringing, experiences, and deep-rooted beliefs. These ideas vary drastically even among highly rational and knowledgeable people. For example, here in the USA, education and character building implies, among other things, drinking (alcohol) responsibly, teenagers using protection when having sex, and calling your uncle “Bob”. On the other hand a person from a “Muslim background” will likely conclude that education and character building should severely discourage alcohol consumption, sex outside of marriage, and calling your uncle by name.

One may wonder that with so many diverse ideas, which set of ideas should be implemented in a society? What is the yardstick against which human progress may be measured? In absence of divine guidance, it will be a tough call. I would guess that you’d lean in favor of the “Muslim” ideas on this subject. Did you arrive at this rationally or did religion play a part in this decision?

With absence of divine guidance, education and character building become subjective and debatable. People have opinions, and they largely disagree with each other. One may still go to college and study sciences, but without the fear of Allah, he may end up working on projects harmful for the mankind. So what good is such education which fails to remind one of the divine existence in one’s life and lets him wonder about and engage in potentially dangerous practices? How do you build character and values without emphasis on the Divine Being from whom all that is good and praise-worthy originates?

Moving on to prophets …

You incorrectly state that I ascribe divinity to ordinary men. Following prophets does not mean worshipping them, rather accepting them as messengers with divine commandments, respecting and obeying them, and drawing inspiration from them. A student respects, obeys, and emulates his professor … this does not mean he worships the professor.

Quran mentions several praise-worthy qualities of Mohammad and mentions that he is an excellent model for the believers. It also mentions noble qualities of other prophets and commands believers to follow them. Quran also commands believers to believe in all prophets of Allah. Does Quran ascribe divinity to Mohammad and other prophets?



Prophets have been raised in the past to guide people as they go astray. Are followers of Quran no longer in need of guidance? Surely they are. Are they not as corrupt as other nations were when prophets were sent to them? Surely they are. If prophets were sent earlier, why are they no longer needed? Surely it is not the Quran that makes future prophets unnecessary. It has been around ever since, but the Muslims have continued to slide downhill for the past thousand years. Clearly Quran is not adequate … just like Torah was not adequate for the Israelites and more prophets were sent with divine messages.

The need for prophets exists today exactly like it existed earlier. So why would Allah not continue to raise more prophets? Indeed He will … as this is fully supported by Quran as I have mentioned in my earlier post.

On mullahism …

You incorrectly assign to me the views of a mullah. A mullah exploits others by forcing his inhuman interpretation of religion on others. He always persecutes the followers of a prophet to maintain his power base. What I have said is what followers of every prophet have said in all ages … to go back to the original message of Allah, to make winning His pleasure the goal of one’s life, to have love and compassion for all, to use one’s faculties to reason and think. This message has always been disturbing to the mullahs who have always vehemently opposed prophets and their followers.

Sahib … my community is being persecuted by all the mullahs … unanimously … and you state that I am saying what a mullah says! This is most absurd … take a dose of reality. If you still cannot tell the difference, may be you just are not getting it!

Were all the prophets mentioned in the Quran “corrupt mullahs” of their ages, or did the mullah later exploit the message of these prophets? I’d expect an intelligent, educated person to know the difference. A cunning robber may dress and pose as a policeman and fool and rob others. Surely this does not mean that we abolish the police force altogether. Or does it?

Asad

sattar #147 One can only agree or disagree on something specific, not an entire set of posts. You do not accept my summarization of your views. Fine. I will then take the following sentence from your post where I assume you mean exactly what you say and which comes closest to addressing the issue. You write: ``This is illustrated by the fact that I did not rule out education, character building, acquiring knowledge, and thinking rationally. I have always maintained that these strategies must be employed, but only after accepting the divine as the focus of one’s devotion, which includes following prophets periodically raised by the Almighty Allah. ``

I disagree with what you write on two counts: (a) As a practical matter, if the goal is to have a civilized society, education, character building and thinking rationally come first. (b) As a question of interpreting the Quran, you are wrong when you ascribe divinity to ordinary men, as you clearly do in your last phrase: ``but only after accepting the divine as the focus of one’s devotion, which includes following prophets periodically raised by the Almighty Allah.``

On both these counts, you hold the same view as that of the mullahs, regardless of sect, which is what I had said in my previous post. And, on account of these two points too, the issue where you and the sunni mullahs have such heated discussions (finality of the prophethood) is not a material issue. As I also said in my previous post.

Instead of arguing with me and accusing me of putting misrepresenting what your views, I hope you will take the time to reflect on what I have said above.

Tahmed Sahib,

The main reason I declined your offer to disagree was that you incorrectly summarized my position. Such an attempt is somewhat absurd, especially since you have not properly understood my views in the first place. I hope you can appreciate this fine point.

This is illustrated by the fact that I did not rule out education, character building, acquiring knowledge, and thinking rationally. I have always maintained that these strategies must be employed, but only after accepting the divine as the focus of one’s devotion, which includes following prophets periodically raised by the Almighty Allah. Your summary of arguments shortchanged me on this account by suggesting that my position of following prophets is one devoid of reason and rationality.

You display this misunderstanding again in your latest post when you incorrectly associate with me lack of respect for reason and logic. You have not applied your own mental faculties to correctly understand my position. Rather, you seem to have judged my views from your notions of other Muslims, who probably think that following religion entails divorcing rationality and logic from one’s thought process. These biases are your problem and I cannot let you project them on my views.

Now, what a rational person will think after reviewing our interacts … I’d like to hear this from a rational person. Your own biases seem to be getting the best of you here, and I must decline your attempts to “rationally” interpret these interacts for me.

I am still of the opinion that you have not made much of an attempt to address the prophethood issue. On the other hand, the arguments I provided remain unanswered. I am not asking you to spend an unlimited amount of time on this issue … but you are liable for “some” amount of time to explain your position when you contradict someone else’s statements. This is your intellectual obligation, which remains largely unfulfilled. If you disagree, then review my arguments on the first post addressed to you, and see how many points you have responded to so far.

Your not branding me a kafir, or not branding anyone anything, is a trait of civility. In addition, if you think that I am a prisoner of Ahmadi dogma, do not respect views of others, and cannot separate facts from faith, these are your opinions and you are entitled to them. I personally view such thoughts of yours as baseless, against facts, irritating at best, and a reflection of your own dogma. I have used the term “dogma’ here, since you think that your perception of reality is the correct one! ... the rationalist’s paradox …

Now, if you’d like to agree to disagree in our views, feel free to do so without summarizing my position. You seem to have only poorly understood it, rendering you ineffective to intelligently interpret or summarize my half of this discourse.



Asad

sattar2 #144 If a rational observer reviews this latest interaction we have had, I think that person will agree that I have tried to base my discussion with you on a reasonable understanding of the Quran and on common sense. Try to review the interaction objectively, and see if the same can be said for your posts. Since we dont have unlimited time to spend on chowk, I had assumed in my previous post that we could end the discussion by simply summarizing the points we agree or disagree on. You have chosen to portray even this attempt as well as merely a way for me to avoid discussion, rather than providing me the courtesy of disagreeing with you just as I was providing you the same courtesy.

It should by now be clear to you that (unlike some other people on chowk and unlike religious zealots), I will not brand you a kafir on account of your views. Your religious views are your business. However, I do think you are as much a prisoner of your ahmedi dogma as the sunni mullahs are prisoners of their dogma. You share the same ``religion`` as the detractors of your sect of lack of respect for logic and reason, lack of respect for different views, and an inability to see the line that separates matters of fact from matters of faith.