Fading Exclamations

temporal,

You have raised some interesting points … and therefore deserve to be duly punished. It seems that … except spreading fertilizer in the backyard … every issue is generally multifaceted … and is best viewed as such.

The first problem is the ummah itself. As someone mentioned, they really were not much of an embarrassment until two-or-so centuries ago. I guess their decline started when spain finally decided to toss them out of europe. The west went on to have their renaissance … while the ummah went back to breeding camels … while occasionally flirting with the idea of taking a bath every friday.

Now, it is possible … that osama, sadam, were really someone else’s brides … and one day decided to take matters in their own hands … I think khomeni was no exception either … now whether it was the cia, or the lloyds of london, or fox news network … remains debatable. Left on their own … these goat-screwing arabs can’t find their way out of the dessert … let alone acquire working knowledge of walky-talkies, electronics, or any form of ammunition without first blowing themselves up. The fact that osama can operate a camcorder and make a videotape … and the saudis can change oil in their limousines … tells me that there very well may been someone else behind them at some point in time …

The scary part is that … osama has struck a nerve with the ummah … who were sick to their stomachs seeing the white man go to the moon, and rescue chrysler from bankruptcy, all this while daily using mouthwash and fornicating day and night. For the first time in centuries, they are not taking aim at each other … and have identified a common enemy to blame their misery on. But they have to be at least somewhat intelligent before they can be dangerous … and it’s good that time is not on their side … takbeer …

On to the flip side … west is not innocent either … no doubt … it has exploited the ignorance of the ummah … milked them … used them against communism and against each other … and showed them the way of the dessert. Now, I think the british were a lot better at this diplomacy stuff … but americans are still working at it. While they initially created osama and sadams … they did not manage well what transpired afterwards. It is a bit like fighting a twelve-headed monster … you chop off one head, 2 more appear. While jihadis may think of these monsters as heroes … they remain animals … and do not deserve any sympathy. Neither do the forces and personalities that recklessly created them in the first place.

I think a lot of parties in this conflict have dirty hands … and that makes it easy for one to put any spin on the story he desires. Taking things as they appear, osama was a genius, perhaps an unwitting one, who got exactly what he wanted … which was to have west and jihadis go at each other’s throats … and create mayhem of biblical proportions. He very well may have the last laugh. Moving forward, I am somewhat pessimistic … and think that this will bring out the worst from both sides … and the conflict will undoubtedly escalate. Enough has been done already, and it is not possible for the ummah to go back to their tents and quietly watch mtv and fear factor on satellite tvs without scheming for revenge. The equation is severely unbalanced … the technological prowess of the west remains unmatched … and the only recourse for the jihadis is drawn out, urban gorilla-warfare … which, combined with the promise of 70 hot babes, can be somewhat formidable.

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

ahmedzai #41
On #1 Point taken with thanks. I should not have referred to those scum (ben laden and other terrorists) by their ethnicity (Arabs). It is easy, but wrong, to paint an entire community with the same brush that is appropriate to a small group of rascals within that community.

On #2 I beg to differ. That is simply another way of justifying terrorist actions. To make this more explicit, let me provide you an example: Every time someone mentions the killings in Gujerat, our resident hindutva (harimau) comes up with a similar rationale as urstruly does (i.e. that muslims in Gujerat were killed in response to the burning of the train by muslim extremists). Upon reflection, I think you will agree with me that such rationalization of the murder of innocent people is intellectually absurd, and morally abominable.

PS: In the Washington Post today, there is an article about how people across India have been shocked to learn that the recent bombings in Bombay were the work of middle class Indian muslims, and not of Pakistan-based terrorists (as was the case in an earlier set of bombings). The article notes that this radicalization of certain elements in the indian muslim middle class is a reaction to the rise of hindutvaism in India, and particularly the Gujerat killings. The perpetrators of the Bombay bombings were clearly using the same rationalization that harimau and urstruly have done on chowk, and they were just as wrong.

Not only is the rationalization of criminal acts intellectually absurd and morally abominable, but also stupid in a practical sense. Since all it engenders is an escalation of hatreds. So, I hope you will understand why I cannot agree on your second point.

urstruly #38 your post was not addressed to me. but i have just responded to ahmedzai who did address his post to me, and in that i respond to the point you raise as well.

There are eight criteria or elements by which a democratic society can be evaluated or judged according to William Ebenstein and Edwin Fogelman.

1. Rational empiricism

2. Emphasis on the individual

3. Instrumental theory of the state

4. Voluntarism

5. The law behind the law

6. Emphasis on means

7. Discussion and consent in human relations

8. Basic equality of all human beings


1. Rational empiricism. All our knowledge comes from experience with the confidence to apply reason to human relations. Truth is not a given but is subject to change requiring continuous reevaluation and verification. What may seem true today may be altered tomorrow with the input of additional information or by changes in circumstances. Applied to a democracy, all sides must be heard on any issue, or at least as many as possible, thereby allowing for free speech, publication, assembly and association.

A dogmatist believes he knows the truth with absolute certainty and will accuse anyone who opposes his version of the truth guilty of intellectual subversion. Therefore, the dogmatist will not inquire further into matters. The only input he will allow is that information which will strengthen his position. It is this certainty of knowledge that opens the door to fanatic sentiment.


John Locke (1632-1704) believed that all our knowledge derives from experience.

``In this conception, truth ... is tentative, changing, and subject to constant checking and verification.``

It follows that the rational empiricist believes that one never fully arrives at the truth, or the final answer to any question. In fact, the more one may learn about a given subject, the more ignorant one may realize he is. New awareness almost always creates more questions to answers than answers to questions. It is this mode of thinking that allows for scientific progress. In principle, a democratic process allows and encourages all questions and points of view, even those which challenge the principles of democracy, although this is the ideal more often than the reality. When the ideal is the reality, the process remains dynamic. In a dogmatic regime, the process becomes static, even in a supposedly democratic regime. The truth has been declared and no other point of view will shake it or change it.


The Quran makes the point for rational empiricism in short order:


You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them. 17:36

This verse describes the process of gaining empirical knowledge quite clearly. Our knowledge is gained from the evidence of our senses. What we see and what we hear are processed by the brain and become the foundation for what we know. We are responsible for the interpretation of what we see and hear. Generally, no one can ascertain the truth by one observation. If one observation is sufficient for drawing a conclusion it is because reason has been applied to previously gained information. For example, one might never have been an eye-witness to an automobile exploding, yet one’s knowledge and experience may be sufficient to know that if an automobile explodes in the course of impact with another vehicle, the occupants inside will likely come to be harmed, if not killed. However, in another example, a small child will not understand that placing her finger in a fire will burn her if she has never had any experience with fire.

The scientific method requires repeated testing with the outcomes remaining consistent before we can accept the results with any confidence. Likewise, truth can only be ascertained by examining all sides, or at least as many as are available for review. As it is always likely that one may never have all points of view at any given time, it is safe to infer that truth is always subject to revision. So, while we are expected to use our senses to receive information, we are also expected to apply that knowledge in a rational manner, remaining open to the possibility that new information may expand or change our understanding.


2. Emphasis on the individual. Ebenstein and Fogelman contrast liberal democracy with both authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. The latter two view the individual as the servant of the state. The individual lives to serve the state, being only one small part of the whole with the ``concept of citizenship as duty, discipline, and death for the state.`` The state is not to be questioned but is to be obeyed.

Locke first emphasized the rights of the individual when he wrote in his essays that the individual had the right to pursue life, liberty and property; and if the individual was not happy with the laws under which he was living, he should be free to remove himself to a place where such laws could not compel him into compliance. However, he also believed that if a government usurped the rights of the people, the people had the right to revolt and change the government. This thinking became the foundation for what was to become the American Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson, the principle drafter of that document, slightly modified Locke’s principles of individual rights, and Americans have come to accept that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights. Like Locke, Jefferson believed that when a government interfered with these rights, the people had the right to alter or abolish that government and to institute a new one which would better secure their safety and happiness.

Locke’s contention that one should be free to move if one was unhappy with the conditions imposed on him is supported by the Quran, as well the right to revolt against the government if it usurps the rights of the people.


Anyone who emigrates in the cause of God will find on earth great bounties and richness. 4:100

Those who believe, and emigrate, and strive in the cause of God with their money and their lives, are far greater in rank in the sight of God. These are the winners. 9:20

O you who believe, you shall remain alert, and mobilize as individuals, or mobilize all together. 4:71

Those who believe are fighting for the cause of God, while those who disbelieve are fighting for the cause of tyranny. Therefore, you shall fight the devil’s allies; the devil’s power is nil. 4:76

While the Quran speaks of emigrating and fighting in the cause of God, it may seem misleading in the context of politics. No specific mention of government is made. There are several possible explanations for this. One reason is that at the time Muhammad begin reciting the Quran, the Arabs were primarily tribal nomads. Government as twentieth century Americans know it, or as Locke knew it in seventeenth century England, did not exist for them. Another reason that government is not specifically mentioned would be that these passages do not refer only to governments, but also to any conditions that would impose unfair limitations upon an individual or groups of individuals, as within a family, the tribe, the community, or the larger nation state. The fact that the term government is not specifically used does not mean that these passages do not support the right to leave or to abolish the state. What it does imply is a broad application. Tyranny is still tyranny be it on the personal level between spouses or between the ruler and the ruled. When Paine stated that he believed the Almighty would separate America from England because of the latter’s abuses against humanity, it was no less a spiritual plea for divine intervention. The Declaration of Independence states in part:


We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable [sic] Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Forms, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed.


This document equates inalienable rights with God-given rights as stated in the first sentence above.


You may fight in the cause of God against those who attack you, but do not aggress. God does not love the aggressors. You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder...If they refrain, then God is Forgiver, Most Merciful. You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship God freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors. 2:190-193


Does it seem a stretch of reason to apply the previous verses to the human condition of which history abounds with examples of abuse? Jefferson makes the point that people too often accept the status quo and allow themselves to continue suffering under oppressive forms of government rather than stand up and fight such oppression. Are we to assume that fighting oppression has nothing to do with God? If our inalienable rights are God-given as the Declaration of Independence asserts, then what right does a government, a group of individuals, or one individual have to abuse such rights? Are we not fighting in the cause of God when we defend that which we believe is God-given?


Why should you not fight in the cause of God when weak men, women, and children are imploring: ``Our Lord, deliver us from this community whose people are oppressive, and be You our Lord and Master.``

Those who believe are fighting for the cause of God, while those who disbelieve are fighting for the cause of tyranny. Therefore, you shall fight the devil’s allies; the devil’s power is nil. 4:75-76


Paine echoed similar words in his pamphlet Common Sense when


``he denounced the British ruling classes for exploiting the lower classes in America and in England, and urged the colonies to declare themselves free and independent states so that they might establish in America a haven of refuge for the oppressed peoples of Europe.``


Ebenstein and Fogelman state that the historical roots of individualism stem from three sources:


First, the Jewish concept of one God leads to the idea that all men, as children of God, are brothers to each other. Second, the Christian doctrine of the
indestructibility of the human soul maintains that whatever social, economic,
and political inequalities may exist, all men posses a spiritual equality and
uniqueness that no earthly power can override. Third, in the stoic view, the
one principle of action that governs all things is to be at one with oneself, to
know oneself, and to act in conformity with one’s rational principles and
purposes. The true self of man, according to the stoics, is not flesh or bones, but
the faculty that uses them, the reason, the part that more than anything else
characterizes one as human.


At no time, of course, has this individualism been fully accepted, and the counterforces of collective solidarity always threaten it.


Although the Quran is supportive of the Judeao-Christian ideas expressed above, Ebenstein and Fogelman do not demonstrate how individualism has developed from either of the first two sources. That all men are brothers does not clarify the concept of individualism. That all men possess a spiritual equality does not sufficiently support the premise for individualism. The stoic view comes closer to establishing a precedent for individualism and it is this point of view which is supported by the Quran:


Did they not roam the earth, then use their minds to understand, and use their ears to hear? Indeed, the real blindness is not the blindness of the eyes, but the blindness of the hearts inside the chests. 22:46


The blindness of the hearts inside the chest is the metaphorical description of the faculty of reason, and failure to use it is an individual dilemma, although many individuals may be guilty of such failure.



3. The instrumental theory of the state. This is the view that the state is a mechanism to be used for ends higher than itself. In order to accept this theory, one must reject the concept of the state as the ultimate authority. One must also define ends higher than itself. Returning to the Judeao-Christian viewpoint, ``the highest values in man’s life relate to God and that no earthly law can claim to supersede God’s. From the rational-humanist viewpoint, the instrumentalist theory of the state affirms that the ability of the individual to use his reason in discovering what is right and wrong is the ultimate test of political authority.``


The Most Gracious. Teacher of the Quran. Creator of the human beings. He taught them how to distinguish. The sun and moon are perfectly calculated. The stars and the trees prostrate. He constructed the sky and established the law. He created the earth for all creatures. 55:1-10

The heavens and the earth are full of proofs for the believers. We then appointed you to establish the correct laws; you shall follow this, and do not follow the wishes of those who do not know. They cannot help you at all against God. It is the transgressors who ally themselves with one another, while God is the Lord of the righteous. This provides enlightenments for the people, and guidance, and mercy for those who are certain. 45:3,18-20


These verses support the premise that no earthly law is higher than God’s law. He taught them how to distinguish affirms that the individual must use his reason in discovering what is right and wrong.


4. Voluntarism. This principle first meant the freedom to associate religiously with any group the individual chose. It has since come to represent the freedom to associate with any group of one’s choosing, be it political, educational, or economic in nature, to name a few. Generally, it represents an association with a smaller group that is influenced more by localized input and less by a centralized government. As the name implies, association is voluntary, an important principle in the concept of democracy. It is this voluntary association which also has a charitable connotation.


They ask you about giving: say, ``The charity you give shall go to the parents, the relatives, the orphans, the poor, and the traveling alien.`` Any good you do, God is fully aware thereof. 2:215

O you who believe, you shall give to charity from the good things you earn, and from what we have produced for you from the earth. Do not pick out the bad therein to give away, when you yourselves do not accept it unless your eyes are closed. You should know that God is Rich, Praiseworthy.

The following verse makes the point for freedom to associate with whomever the individual chooses.


You are not responsible for guiding anyone. God is the only one who guides whoever chooses (to be guided). 2:272

Any community that believes will surely be rewarded for believing...Had your Lord willed, all the people on earth would have believed. Do you want to force the people to become believers? 10:98,99

The state cannot turn evil into good or wrong into right solely because it possesses the means of physical coercion...in the classical liberal doctrine...the state is to step in only when the voluntary efforts of society fail.``


We then appointed you to establish the correct laws; you shall follow this, and do not follow the wishes of those who do not know. 45:18

O you who believe, you shall remain alert, and mobilize as individuals, or mobilize all together. 4:71

The state is not explicitly mentioned above but the admonition to be alert to changing conditions is apparent and the command, or authorization if one prefers, to take action on the individual level or on the broader level, be it on the state or national level is clear when warranted. Mobilizing is not limited to warfare as in military-style warfare. We may mobilize to bring aid and assistance to victims of earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes or we may participate in a nationwide Great American Smoke Out Day.


5. The law behind the law. This concept stems from the federal view of state and society in classical liberalism which considers society to be basically self-sufficient. The state is an essentially voluntary body with its authority being derived from the consent of the governed. Because classic liberalism has always adhered to the idea that the relations between state and society, between government and individual, are ultimately defined by a law higher than that of the state...the law is not the product of the state, but precedes it.

As stated earlier in the introduction, the Declaration of Independence mentions this higher authority as Divine Providence. The Constitution also discusses this concept in defining due process whereby the rights of all are protected based on the principles of reason. No laws can be legislated that violate those basic rights.


Our God: possessor of all sovereignty. You grant sovereignty to whomever You choose, You remove sovereignty from whomever You choose. You grant dignity to whomever you choose, and commit to humiliation whomever You choose. In your hand are all provisions 3:26

Have you noted those who exalt themselves? Instead, God is the One who exalts whomever He wills, without the least injustice.

Note how they fabricate lies about God; what a gross offense this is!

It is they who incurred God’s condemnation, and whomever God condemns, you will not find any helper for him.

Do they own a share of the sovereignty? If they did, they would not give the people as much as a grain. 4:49,50,52,53

To God belongs the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth. He controls life and death. You have none beside God as Lord and Master. 9:120


The founding fathers shunned the dogma of existing religions when they established the new American government. They considered God the only moral authority to which they owed any accounting. Consider this next verse in light of this thinking:


God promises those among you who believe and lead a righteous life, that He will make them sovereigns on earth, as He did for those before them, and will establish for them the religion He has chosen for them, and will substitute peace and security for them in place of fear. All this because they worship Me alone; they never set up any idols beside Me. Those who disbelieve after this are the truly wicked. 25:55


Today the American people are sovereign with respect to the government. No one religion dominates our society. We have been a melting pot for European and African cultures since our inception as a nation. We are increasingly becoming a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural society with the continued flow of Asian, Middle Eastern and

Indo-European cultures. Tolerance and respect for one another is a two-way conduit; it must take precedence in our relationships within society if our peace and security is to continue.


6. Emphasis on the means. The state does not have the right to achieve it’s objectives by any means no matter how desirable the end may be. This relates back to the rational-humanist viewpoint in determining the use of political authority, where the individual uses his reason to determine what is right and wrong. The state cannot justifiably force an outcome through physical coercion just because it has the physical power to do so. Any ends achieved must be accomplished through due process.

An example is given in the Quran that illustrates its support for due process. King David was asked to settle a dispute:


When they entered his (David’s) room, he was startled. They said, ``Have no fear. We are feuding with one another, and we are seeking your fair judgment. Do not wrong us, and guide us in the right path.

``This brother of mine owns ninety nine sheep, while I own one sheep. He wants to mix my sheep with his, and continues to pressure me.``

(David) said, ``He is being unfair to you by asking to combine your sheep with his. Most people who combine their properties treat each other unfairly, except those who believe and work righteousness, and these are so few.`` Afterward, David wondered if he made the right judgment. He thought that we were testing him. He then implored his Lord for forgiveness, bowed down, and repented.

O David, we have made you a ruler on earth. Therefore, you shall judge among the people equitably, and do not follow your personal opinion, lest it diverts you from the way of God. Surely, those who stray off the way of God incur severe retribution for forgetting the Day of Reckoning. 38:22-24,26,27


Although David questioned his own decision, he was reminded that his personal biases had no place in judging between the disputes of the people. He was admonished to judge equitably. What is equitable? The process demands evaluation of all known

material evidence, the chance to give testimony, the right to an impartial hearing by either a jury or an unbiased judge, and the right to appeal after the judgment if warranted. Another verse addresses the importance of fairness and an unbiased attitude:


O you who believe, you shall be absolutely equitable, and observe God, when you serve as witnesses, even against yourselves, or your parents, or your relatives. Whether the accused is rich or poor, God takes care of both. Therefore, do not be biased by your personal wishes. If you deviate or disregard (this commandment), then God is fully Cognizant of everything you do. 4:135


Another verse supports the rights of the accused:


O you who believe, if a wicked person brings any news to you, you shall first investigate, lest you commit injustice towards some people, out of ignorance, then become sorry and remorseful for what you have done. 49:6

Obviously, not all people who bring charges against other people are wicked. Nonetheless, everyone, including the guilty, are entitled to have any charges brought against them investigated and examined. This verse requires that any information that would be detrimental to any individual or group of individuals be thoroughly reviewed before drawing conclusions.


7. Discussion and consent. Basically this means lay all the cards on the table, discuss the variety of options available, and then compromise if necessary to settle any differences. As stated earlier, truth is not a given but is subject to change. Since it is doubtful that any one individual ever knows all there is to know on any one issue, a democratic society operates on the premise that all individuals have the right to be heard, all available views must be aired followed with the necessary discussion. The reality is such that total agreement among individuals is rare, if not impossible, but discussion and consent allows for an exchange of information and provides for new information to be considered. This is not entirely unlike due process, but due process is more a guarantee for fair treatment under the law in legal situations, whereas discussion and consent is a code of behavior for daily problem solving in all aspects of society, from the House of Representatives to the classroom.

Citing a different example, this time speaking to Muhammad, the need for discussion and consent is addressed:


It was mercy from God that you became compassionate towards them. Had you been harsh and mean-hearted, they would have abandoned you. Therefore, ...you shall consult them. Once you make a decision, carry out your plan, and trust in God. God loves those who trust in Him. 3:159

...Their affairs are decided after due consultation among themselves... 42:38


The Quran has given support for the democratic principle of discussion and consent. When oppression is present and discussion has failed, the Quran has given society the authority to use aggression. Just as Locke suggests that the people have the right to change the government when it abuses their rights, the Quran supports this belief, also.


8. Basic equality of all human beings. This democratic doctrine is frequently misunderstood according to Ebenstein and Fogelman. People are not identical, but they have certain inalienable rights as human beings. The Jewish-Christian tradition states that all people are equal before God; ``God’s challenge to every human being is the same, although individual responses to it vary enormously.`` The Quran states:


Their Lord responded to them: ``I never fail to reward any worker among you for any work you do, be you male or female - you are equal to one another. 3:195

O people, we created you from the same male and female, and rendered you distinct peoples and tribes, that you may recognize one another. The best among you in the sight of God is the most righteous. God is omniscient, Cognizant. 49:13

Tell My servants to treat each other in the best possible manner, for the devil will always try to drive a wedge among them. Surely, the devil is man’s most ardent enemy. 17:53.

O you who believe, no people shall ridicule other people, for they may be better than they. Nor shall any women ridicule other women, for they may be better than they. Nor shall you mock one another, or make fun of your names. Evil indeed is the reversion to wickedness after attaining faith. Anyone who does not repent after this, these are the transgressors.

O you who believe, you shall avoid any suspicion, for even a little bit of suspicion is sinful. You shall not spy on one another, nor shall you backbite one another; this is as abominable as eating the flesh of your dead brother. You certainly abhor this. You shall observe God. God is Redeemer, Most Merciful. 49:11-12

You shall not treat the people with arrogance, nor shall you roam the earth proudly. God does not like the arrogant showoffs. Walk humbly and lower your voice. 31:18-19


Thus basic equality is not the guarantee that all people will have equal property, the same jobs with the same pay, or the same size houses. Equality means that all individuals are of equal worth. The inalienable rights of life and liberty does not mean that no one can take either away. It means that all individuals are endowed with those rights just as each are endowed with the faculties to reason and rationalize, even though many will fail to use those faculties wisely. Individuals may be called upon singly or in groups to defend those rights. It is incumbent upon the individual and the society in which one operates and associates to respect the rights of all individuals and to submit to the higher laws of Creation, to those of the Creator. That many individuals fail to do so does not alter the fact that those inalienable rights still exist and are there for the taking.

Our differences in color, culture, gender, skills and talents are blessings that are supposed to enrich our lives. In the course of two hundred or so years, we have abolished slavery, opened the doors of education and employment to both genders and people of all ethnicity. Furthermore, we are admonished to respect the privacy of individuals. Spying and entrapment, name-calling and other forms of social intolerance are denounced, as is suspicion without any basis.

There is one last point to note before concluding. The U.S. Constitution contains what is called a necessary and proper clause, or an elastic clause. It reads in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:



To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof.


The addition of this clause provided for future contingencies. It specified nothing other than the right to write laws in the future as times and conditions changed. It is interesting to note that the Quran also contains an elastic clause for just the same reason. Islamic scholars have tried to interpret every word of the Quran over the last fourteen hundred years based on the prevailing knowledge and understanding of each successive generation. Thus arose a dogma which is evident today that in no way resembles the true message of the Quran. It is for this reason that Islam is so grossly misunderstood and misrepresented. The Quran’s elastic clause reads:



O you who believe, do not ask about matters which, if revealed to you prematurely, would hurt you. If you ask about them in light of the Quran, they will become obvious to you. God has deliberately overlooked them. God is Forgiver, Clement. 5:101.


Quoting Kassim Ahmad, a Malaysian writer,


``God does not mention some things...because such things concern the forms their principles take at different times and different places. These forms are therefore decided by the society’s council or by customs or by personal preference.``


He cites another writer in his book in the following:


``As Islam discouraged religious practices, such as monastic life, it also prohibited questions relating to details on many points which would require this or that practice to be made obligatory, and much was left to the individual will or circumstances of the time and place. The exercise of judgment occupies a very important place in Islam and this gives ample scope to different nations and communities to frame laws for themselves and to meet new and changed situations.``

It was pointed out earlier in this paper that certain passages from the Quran did not specifically mention government by name in determining the right of the individual to revolt or change the government if it became oppressive. Nor did it say specifically that individuals had the right to emigrate if the government usurped the rights of the people. Fourteen hundred years is a long time for a document to endure. Governments come and go; entire civilizations rise and fall; scientific advances are made. In order for a written guideline to have staying power, it is necessary that it be applicable to as many situations as possible. The U.S. Constitution has lasted for over two hundred years because it is a general guideline which allows for laws to be made or phased out as circumstances warrant. Thus, as one reads the Quran, it is up to the individual to use reason and common sense in applying the principles it supports.

What passes for Islam today is not reliance on the Quran alone. Centuries of myth, superstition and cultural traditions have crept into the practice of Islam, so that a

strict religious dogma based on numerous volumes of theological interpretation apart from the Quran have been established as part and parcel of Islam.

While the Quran might seem to be just another religious book to some, perhaps to many, it is an endorsement for the rights of individuals and a guide to the authoritative allocation of values and resources for a society. It provides a way to deal with conflict without destroying society. It is a guideline calling upon the individual to think things through and use the faculties and the brain before making decisions or taking action. It is not a step-by-step book with all the answers spelled out. It does not tell us by name what type of government to form, but it does tell us how to treat one another, and thereby we can deduce from it what is appropriate and best for all concerned. It may be that one day no government will be necessary. Should that day ever come, the Quran will still be applicable in determining right conduct between individuals and societies.

stuka you asked:
Can you, briefly, explain in layman`s terms the difference between your Islam and Wahabbi Islam?


sure :-) Wahabis take an absolutely literal understanding of the Koran and hadith. Thus they even anthropomorphise Allah eg where Allah`s ``hands`` are mentioned in the Koran they understand that to mean that Allah physically has hands. Such belief is considered heresy by Sunni Muslims. They believe that the Prophets are ordinary human beings liable to error and should be respected too much! Sunni Islam considers that wrong and disrespectful and like the Shias believe all Prophets to be perfect and infallible [masum]. They do not believe the Prophets can have knowledge of the Unseen world. We believe that Allah has bestowed such knowledge and much more on all Prophets and especially on Our Beloved Prophet Muhammad (upon him be peace and Allah`s blessings) whose knowledge is so great that it encompasses the knowledge of what is and what was and what will be (except what Allah has hidden from him). They deny the Prophet also had an angelic aspect to him (noor). We believe he was internally noor and just externally human.
They deny the possibility of intercession between Allah and human beings by Prophets, angels, saints. We believe such intercession (called tawassul) or the ability to help ( istighatha) those in need from near or afar is something Allah has granted to his Prophets and saints. They consider the whole idea of Sufism (Islamic spirituality leading to the gnosis of Allah) as unbelief and Sufis as kaafirs. We consider sufism as the heart of islam, They believe anyone who does not agree with them is a kafir or a heretic and his/her blood is halal to shed. We believe that as long as none of the fundamentals of the religion are denied or understood as taught to us by Allah and His Prophet it is not allowed for to declare someone a kafir[non muslim]. Even when such a declaration is made it must be made by a qualified scholar [mufti] and not anyone unless it is something obvious like denying the prophethood of the Prophet or not believing in Allah! They consider going to the graves of the pious saints and prophets for intercession or blessings as polytheism. We consider it a blessed act.

They do not believe in following qualified scholarship [taqlid] but rather that any Muslim may derive laws for him and herself directly from the Qur`an and hadith. This goes against Islamic traditional Sunni Islam as all Sunnis for over 1400 years have believed that it is compulsory upon a layperson who has not reached the necessary level of scholarship [known as mujtahid] to follow [do taqlid of] one of the 4 legal schools of Sunni Islam.
It has been accepted for over 1200 yrs that the beliefs about Allah`s Attributes and Prophethood etc. ie a person`s doctrine [aqida] must be in accordance with that of the 2 imams of aqida as accepted by all other sunni muslims . these 2 imams are called imam abu mansur al maturidi and imam abu musa al ash`ari. they consider both imams and all their followers to be either heretics or non-muslims! (this includes every single muslim for the past 1200 odd years excluding the shias.) they consider *all* shias to be kafirs too. our ulama do not make such blanket takfir of all shias but rather examine the beliefs of each shia group in detail before deciding. in short when one adds up all these things they declare everyone apart from them as being outside the pale of islam and in fact historically they deemed it lawful to shed the blood of muslims and killed tens of thousands of muslim men and women in madina before the ottoman army ended their slaughter.

this is a very brief answer. interestingly they have been described as being muslim protestants!! thus those who want a muslim reformation have already got it--in the form of wahabism .that is why from the onset of wahabism traditionally sunni scholars so strongly warned ppl of the danger of this sect. indeed Allah`s Beloved told us about them over 1400 years ago in many hadith and where they would emerge from too!

correction: the previous email should have said:

They believe that the Prophets are ordinary human beings liable to error and should NOT be respected too much. (astaghfirullah)

No wonder, we see many of these neo-Islamists are hell bent to establish mosques in every suburb of infidel countries where they have planted their nascent root.
The Islamists started their ‘Dakwah’ (religious invitation) with fervent zeal. Regular monthly meetings were held in mosques and in private houses to spread the beautiful teachings of Islam.
We see them knocking frequently at the doors of many Muslims to invite them to mosques for religious discussions. And what discussions are being held there? Surely, it is not the discussion about the reform of Medicare in india, neither it is a discussion about the impending hike in University fees or anything like that sort-- matters that concern most infidels .
They will invariably deal with Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan….etc. With passionate and tearful speeches they will call the near ‘brothers’(simple confused Muslims whom are object to brainwash) to donate generously in funds to help those distant ‘brothers.’ They have so much of sympathy, love, and tears for those far-away ‘brothers,’ but have no heart for the real sinner infidels who have given them a chance to contribute generously to their Islamic brothers in those places.
Neither do they have any tear left to mourn the merciless slaughter of 52 indian (infidels, of course) in the wake of Mumbai bombing. Sometimes, they will openly declare that emulating the mainstream Indian life is an act of Kufur or unbelief. They will invariably assert that as far as possible, Muslims should deal with Muslims only and have the minimum interaction with the infidels. In support of this ‘religious apartheid’ they will quote from the Qur’an verses freely and blithely such as:
Do not take unbelievers as friends; caution is necessary to befriend the unbelievers...3:28
It is not honorable to take unbelievers as friends...4:139
Do not take unbelievers as friends...4:144
Believers are not to take the Jews and Christians as friends and protectors; if any believer (i.e. Muslim) turn to them then he also becomes a Jew or a Christian...5:51
Real friends are God, His apostle (Muhammad) and the fellowship of pious and charitable believers...5:55
God`s wrath and torments is for befriending the unbelievers...5:80
Whoever seeks the friendship of evil people will be lead to the penalty of fire...22:3
Cannot be on terms of secret intimacy or be friendly with the enemies of faith ...60:1
In my experience, I found the supreme rage of the Islamists is reserved for the way the infidels women dress, work and live. Many Muslim women are subtly forced to wear hijab just to demonstrate to the infidel women the superior chastity of Muslim women. Ten years ago, not so big numbers to find a hijabi woman on streets.
The situation is quite different now(after 9 11) Go to any rail-station, shopping centre, eating stall, college, university, etc., you will invariably notice a hijabi woman standing nearby. Many Islamists openly declare that all Muslim women must cover themselves in (ugly) hijab and cloak no matter what others may think of them.
This is because these Muslim women will become the shining examples or beacon of femininity, chastity, and Islamic beauty to the infidel women and they (the infidel women) will eventually follow the Muslim women and happily wear the Muslim garb. This means that these infidel women, will, one day, surely be covered by Islamic hijab—these Islamists are absolutely certain. Why? Because, Allah has ordained it—one day the entire world will become an Ummah (Islamic community) of some sort. They have no doubt on this.
Most westerners will be deeply shocked and saddened to learn what lies deeply buried in the hearts of these Islamists living in the West. These infidels have openly and warmly welcomed the Islamists in their midst without imposing any of their religious and cultural practices. The Muslims are free to practice their faith openly anywhere in any infidel country.
The Islamists have a completely different understanding of this kind gesture of the infidels. They believe that this generosity, magnanimity, kindness and policy of inclusion are nothing but gifts from Allah. Only Allah is to be praised for this.
This leads one to conclude that they (the Islamists) are thankful to Allah and Allah only and not to the westerners. They will even insist that the westerners must emulate the Muslims instead of the other way round. Let me give an example: the cry for prayer in mosques or the ringing of bells in churches or temples is considered as sources of noise pollution .But this Muslims not tolerated supreme courts order and always problems five times of day for infidels.
Many Muslims were told to keep away their children from the influence of infidel kids. Further exhortations were made to enroll the children in Islamic kindergartens and Islamic Primary Schools.
Then from nowhere came the 9/11 Most infidels wanted an answer for such barbaric and inhuman ‘Islamic justice.’ The mainstream media was hopeless. People were not at all satisfied with what the PC correct mainline electronic and print media wrote about ‘Peaceful Islam.’ They turned to the Internet and found out about the ‘real Islam.’
The bombshell articles they read shattered the myth of peaceful Islam. The infidels, as well as many innocent, non-practicing Muslims were simply stunned and shocked. They could not believe what they were reading about what they always thought to be the most peaceful, non-violent, merciful religion of Allah.
Alarmed by this exposure of the truth about ‘real Islam,’ the Islamists hastily laid out their strategy to combat this ‘Internet apostasy’ and ‘Electronic blasphemy’. Here, I am listing five distinct tactics that the Islamists have, thus far, pursued systematically:
In the beginning, the Islamists arguments ran like: ‘out of context’, ‘selective quotes’, ‘verses not quoted in its entirety’, ‘using incorrect verse’, ‘translation problem’, ‘Qur’an cannot be translated’, ’spelling error’, ‘grammatical and punctuation mistakes’, ‘no fluency in Arabic’, ‘ulterior motive to defame Allah’s Din’ (religion of Allah) and so on.
Afterwards, they started to review the CV of the writers and raised excuses such as: ‘pseudonym writer’, ‘background of the writer’, ‘whereabouts of the author’, ‘the age of the writer’, ’what qualifications the author has’, ‘which University the author graduated from’, ’in which place the writer does his research’,’ who is his supervisor’……….and so on.
When the above-mentioned arguments did not do the trick, then came the following: every religion (actually, meaning Islam) has good points and bad points, why dwell with the bad ones only while ignoring the good ones? Why blame Islam only? Don’t you have time for other activities than ‘bashing Islam? Why waste time discussing Islam when we should talk about industrial development of poor countries? Why not take a long break and refrain from ‘bashing Islam’?
The Islam ‘bashers’ laughed heartily. Why? Those arguments were a clear admission that there are really ‘bad’ elements in Islam, which was, hitherto, sold as the perfect religion of Allah Even Allah admits that He perfected this religion in verse 5:3
This day God perfected the religion of Islam and accepted Islam as the only religion for mankind (last verse revealed)...5:3
How is it possible for this ‘perfection’ of Allah to have some malcontents? Many of us wondered. Do the Islamists realize what they have done to this ‘perfect’ religion by admitting that not everything is fine and dandy with Islam?
Do they recognize that by lumping Islam in the same bucket with other religions, they made their claim of Islamic superiority a laughing joke? Do they grasp that by resorting to such a glib ploy they have rejected the very verse of the Qur’an that says unmistakably that Islam is the only acceptable religion to Allah?
Here are some samples from the Quran:
Can`t worship anything other than God; Islam is the only right religion (the purpose of an Islamic state)...12:40
Islam is the religion of God...3:19
Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable...3:85
Islam is the perfect religion...9:33
God has chosen Islam, it is the religion of Abraham; God has named the followers of Abraham as Muslims…22:78
God proclaims Islam (the religion of truth) over all other religion...48:28
It was not too long before the Islamists realized their fatal mistake. Consequently, they changed their tune abruptly. This time, their argument continued something like this: If you criticize Islam, then, how about Christianity? How about Judaism? How about Hinduism? One should not criticize only one religion (that is, Islam).
You must criticize other religions too…. blah, blah, blah. Quoting many belligerent verses from the old Testament, they started to demonstrate how bad it (i.e. Christianity and Judaism) was, forgetting the fact that by bringing out those barbaric verses from the old Testament, the Islamists were simply reinforcing and authenticating the ‘appalling elements’ of the Qur’an as well. Why?
Because, the Qur’an confirms the contents of those holy Books (i.e. the Old Testament and the Gospel). Here are a few verses where Allah authenticates the what He had written in those scriptures are also parts of the Qur’an:
The Qur’an confirms the old books; Moses was given the law, Jesus was given the Gospel...3:3
Quran confirms the previous scriptures and supersedes them; if God willed He could have made a single people; believers are to compete in righteousness...5:48
Quran confirms the previous scriptures…6:92
The Quran is from God, it confirms the revelations of the past; Quran is a fuller explanation of God’s book; it contains no doubt...10:37
The Quran confirms in Arabic the book of Moses...46:12
Therefore, shall we not assume that by ‘bashing’ the Bible, the Islamists had, inadvertently bashed the Qur’an itself? How funny it can be, come to think of it!
The Islamists, once again, very quickly, realized their folly in resorting to this type of amusing game. So, what is the next ploy?
After arduous and diligent research, the Islamists now came to the conclusion that their methods are silly and has become rather counter-productive. The world, at large, is no longer buying their arguments readily. A new tactic was thus necessary. How about admitting that no one has yet become a ‘true’ Muslim? Once the world realizes that there is truly no ‘real Islam’, no ‘true Muslim’, then no one can attack Islam any more.
How clever this idea is, the Islamists smiled to each other. Thus the theory of ‘Islamic denial’ took shape. Let me explain this theory of denial in plain language. Say, someone says that your brother is a corrupt government officer and you are aware that the accuser is correct. What do you do now? Do you accept your accuser’s complain or reject it? No, do not be so foolish enough to do that.
You simply say that you do not have a brother or that your brother has passed away. If the complainant still insists that your brother do exist, you simply say that your brother is not your ‘real’ brother. See, how simple it is!
This is the essence of ‘Islamic denial’ theory. Whenever ‘awful things’ in Islam are pointed out, all that the Islamists have to do is simply state: this is not ‘real’ Islam and that solves all problems. See, how clever it is!
Let us read some examples:
There is not a single ‘true Muslim’ even though there are 1.2 billion.
There is not a single ‘pure’ Islamic country.
A perfect Islamic state is yet to be founded.
Ayatollah Khomeini was an enemy of Islam.
Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, Nigeria…these Islamic Paradise do not follow ‘real’ Islam.
Saudi Arabian Islam is corrupted.
Not all Sahi hadis are Sahi.
The Quran is an ancient scripture; many of its provisions are not relevant now (the Quran says it is an eternal book, and its provisions are alive forever).
Tyrants and dictators rule Islamic countries; they have no idea about Islam.
Since most of the barbarism of Islam is in the Sha’ria, therefore, Sha’ria cannot be a part of ‘real’ Islam.
The clergy/Mullahs do not know ‘real Islam.’
In Islam, there is no ‘clergy’, so you may practice Islam in your own way.
But for Islam/Muslim/Arab scientists, the west would have never achieved modernity and progress. ‘Real Islam’ civilized the west.
You cannot practice ‘real Islam’ in Islamic Paradises like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Iran…etc. You must not use these countries as examples of Islamic practices.
Wahabism is not ‘real Islam’.
Alqaeda/Osama is not ‘true’ Islam.
Talibans are not ‘true’ Muslims.
Shias are not ‘true’ Muslims.
Sunnis are not ‘true’ Muslims.
Amhedia/Kadiani are heretics, not Muslims but Dr. Abdus Salam (an Ahmedi) was a devout Muslim because he received Nobel Prize in Physics.
Islam means ‘peace’ although the true meaning is ‘submission’ or surrender.
The West hijacked Islam and made their societies more Islamic than the ‘true’ Islamic societies.
Even though Saddam was a secularist and an atheist, we still consider him as a ‘good’ Muslim.
Those are just a few samples of words and sentences that are in vogue with the Islamists of today. After 9/11, and many other Islamic terror/atrocities (read Holy terror), many diehard Islamists find no place to hide even though they are looking for a cover or safe haven of some sort.
They too, are deeply appalled and extremely ashamed to notice the practices of unbelievable inhumanity, tyranny, falsity, terror and barbarisms that are an integral part of Islam as exposed by many writers who dare to challenge Islam. Nevertheless, they could never admit that it is Islam that is the breeding ground of such terror acts. They are adamant that it is not ‘real Islam.’
So, why is there such a sudden change of tune? You see, after 9/11 the infidels have woken up from their deep slumber. The statements from the mumbai bomb suspects(all family with 16 year old daughter) have deeply shocked .
Most Muslims will dismiss claims by these Islamic fanatics as baseless, but not the victims of Mumbai bombing and a major section of Indians. Muslims are now looked upon in a very different way. Although not too hateful, most Indian cannot take for granted that one day the Islamic terrorists will not try to seize power by force to enforce ‘real Islam’ in every sphere of Indian society.
Call it Islamphobia or what you may, the infidels in general and me in particular have already experienced the taste of ‘real Islam’ and we do not want even an iota of it in their lives.
The government is now very concerned about the threat of ‘real Islam,’ not from outside of India but from inside india from the very Islamists whom the Indian didn’t forced to
Leave India same way Pakistani and give them personal law and same rights like other Indians and chance to mix in society
The security has also been beefed up and all sectors of security service are now extra vigilant.
It is now abundantly clear that all those arguments are completely dud and hollow. The world is slowly learning the truth about the ``peaceful`` nature of Islam, previously thought to be similar to any other religion, full of compassion and mercy.
However, the picture that emerges when the veneer of a handful of ‘mercy’ and ‘peaceful’ (actually, there are only three) verses are removed from the Qur’an is terribly disturbing to any one who has the slightest of conscience in him/her. It is impossible to be comfortable with Islam any more. Bit by bit, the world is apprehending that, unless quickly diffused, a potential catastrophic confrontation is looming in the horizon.
It will be a confrontation between the civilized world and the barbarism, a war between humanity and extreme fascism, a fight between freedom and slavery, an altercation between People’s democracy and Allah’s dictatorship. It will be extremely foolhardy to deny this truth.
The world, truly, is about to be divided between the believers and the non-believers, between Muslims and non-Muslims. Those PC politicians must come to terms with this reality. We must face the truth that the present world is really facing a prospective religious war in a wide scale It is Islam versus the world. I do not know who will be the winner in this potential war. But I can tell who will be the loser.
Yes, it will be the 1.2 billion hapless Muslims. It is not that they wanted this war to happen in the first place. A small number of erudite Islamists, imbued with the distorted vision of Pan Islamism and an unrelenting penchant to bring back the seventh century barbarism in the space age of this twenty-first century have pushed these ignorant and innocent Muslims, who have very little idea about Islam, in the precipice of a cataclysm. A few more Islamic bombs and some more Islamic terrorism in infidel lands will make the world lose patience with Islam.
The humanity, no longer will listen to their PC politicians and their kowtowing the Arabs and the Muslim dictators for cheap oil. A time is fast approaching when the people of these infidel countries will demand, with force, a significant change in their constitutions and laws to bar the potential trouble makers (read the Muslims) from reaching their shores.
They may even demand punitive measures for those who abuse their liberal, secular attitude and aim to establish Islamic Paradises in infidel lands and at the same time change the culture of the infidels. You may dismiss my thought as a pure conjecture and a complete utopia or even as a phobia, but do not forget: There is a limit to every tolerance. There is a bound to every generosity. There is an edge to everything. Once that limit is broken, people can, and will do very unpleasant acts like it done in Gujarat when I born.
Let the Islamists get the real message and at the same time get a life!

Sac

``There will be no Islamic resurgence and salvation. The die has been cast. ``

Why not? Why do you think this is a one way street? After all the rennaissance did happen. The hindus were practising Sati a scarce 100 years ago. It only takes one generation for change to occur.

Temporal: Good article. Though the goodness lies more in the pertinent questions at the end rather than the main body of the article.

Naqshbandi:

First, you come across as an extreme Muslim yourself. Can you, briefly, explain in layman`s terms the difference between your Islam and Wahabbi Islam? So far I have been able to differentiate between TAhmed`s version on one end and Urstruly on the other. But I fail to see how your Islam is different from the Wahabi version.

Second:

``It should be noted that Sunni scholars from all over the world have condemned the acts of terror on 9/11 and the acts of terror in Afghanistan and Iraq which followed.``

Even if I accept your version on Iraq, can you tell me what course of action America could have taken in Afghanistan which would have been acceptable to you? After all, the Taliban did provide refuge to Bin Lladen and others. They did refuse to hand them over. What do you think America should have done, aside from passively accepting that it was responsible due to root causes and therefore retaliation is not required?

All these things are off-shoots of the Israel-Palestine issues. That is what needs to be solved. Once that is done, everything will automatically die down, because the political interests off all countries and groups will fall into the domain of sanity.

Religion is only a vehicle through which people do good or bad things. The actual cause of the actions is economics and the politics related to it. Islam could have the greatest revolution in history, but nothing will change unless the Israel-Palestine issue is solved. And vice-versa

What the world does need less of, are cheerleders supporting the OBLs into battle. And cheerleaders supporting Bush into battle. As long as there are people who believe the following, we are in great trouble:

1. The Jews attacked the WTC
2. The USA attacked Iraq to benefit the Iraqis

The greatest silver lining in this whole series of events is the support of the European poeple to the USA in Afghanistan. And their opposition to the USA in Iraq. Finally, we have one powerful group of people in the world, who are willing to see things objectively. Maybe its time, that the Europeans occupied the center-stage in the world, and the Arabs and Americans moved to the sidelines.

tahmed:

I have always respected your views on Chowk. However, here is a humble submission:

1. Let us not curse and abuse all Arabs just because a few scoundrels caused the atrocious attack on 9/11. By the same token then, we should be cursing all `Hindus` just because of Modi of Gujrat and Advani of Babri Mosque fame.

2. I agree with urstruly`s point of Muslim massacre. Can we justify that? In order to take the revenge of 3,000, is it sensible to kill 30,000? Unfortunately, that killing of Afghan Pakhtoons led to Mulla`s winning in the Pakhtoon belt of NWFP and Balochistan (unlike the whole of Pakistan as claimed by sameer jb) on sympathy vote. The inappropriate manner in which the whole Afghan affairs have been conducted, subsequent to routing of Talibans, has also led to pro-Taliban sentiments in Afghanistan and political instability that Pakistan needed the least from an economic point of view.

Godot, Irum, nazarhayatkhan, Maharana
…thanks for spotting the silver lining:)…if the Muslim silent majority does not avail of this opportunity now then am afraid they may be relegated to the dustbin of history...

Naqsbandi
..thanks for Michael Meacher

dost-mittar and sameerJB
quoting me you ask ``Is Islam a religion of peace or violence? Do Muslims support suicide bombing. Does Islam unjustly favours men? How to loosen the Muslim pseudo-scholar’s grip. How to be tolerant of other religions? How to live and let live? `` Isn`t this what is being discussed at chowk all the time?
…this is precisely one of the point am making here…the frequency and the intensity of this questioning came to the fore post 9/11…now the Muslims…specially the younger generation of Muslims everywhere is confronting and asking these questions…and in coming years..20,30, 100 or 200 years these efforts will resolve a lot for them…

hari
yes, at the drop of a pugree we call another non-muslim!…

rafay_alam
yes wires do tend to get crossed…inevitable if you ask me…when the adherents claims this to be a ‘complete’ code of life…their life;)

I confess that, to avoid difficult questions, I diffuse the situation with an off hand “I’m agnostic”. That’s how Osama has changed my life. And I don’t think it’s for the better. Why should I be ashamed of the God I believe in if a few people on this planet have embarked on a political agenda in His name.
…your are dealing this in your own way…the positive thing is you are questioning…and you are not alone…may you get the answers from deep within...

ahmadzai
…thanks for your input…i suspect Mushy and Co. can deliver OBL to the US at an opportune time…they hope for his or their asking price…right now both need a living OBL for their own purposes…(Caveat: this is no conspiracy theory or revelation...just an opinion;))

soundmeister
…thanks for raising the questions…believe have answered them in the two long posts to hamidm2 and tahmed32…

Urstruly
thanks…you are kind in appreciating The Real Jehad

sac
…what more can i say that have not said already in the article and posts to hamidm2 and tahmed32…sorry to disappoint you…

aliasaeed
…well said!…let’s hope this cloud does have a silver lining…please stand by…might need some cyber therapy later;)

ferozk
:)
kem cho bawa-ji? how come you are ignoring yahoo msg?

...thanks everyone who has read or commented...as miller used to say on SNL...``am outta here``...for now:)

rgds,

t

As the second anniversary of 9/11 has rolled by, it is time to ruminate and medidate on the repurcussions. The unintended consequences of this horrific crime, I believe the great mind shift in non muslms was never thought about or even imagined by the OBL and his cronies. After 9/11 Islam was unveiled. In the west there were great misunerstandings about Islam. After 9/11 Islam including quran, hadiths, sharia and other aspects were put under a microscope and analyzed. Islam after being scrutinized was found most wanting and for a logical mind, a fraud. Although Salman Rushdie had started the process in the modern era but now people could study and discuss islam. Thanks to OBL the non islamic world did not have to patronize or fear hurting the feelings of islamists. This I think is a very good for not only the nonislamists but even the islamists because now there is a glimmer of hope that islam can now be reformed. Islam which claimed to be foundation of logic is now being analyzed logically and even the most fundamentalists will have to determine whether everything contained in Quoran is to be taken as it is or some parts should be ignored or repudiated.

The second great benefit that happened for the non islamic people was that during the next two years the bogey of Islamic Nations that were supposed to be rich and powerful has been exposed. The myth has exploded. Afghanistan was conquered in less that three weeks and so was Iraq. Pakistan has become more or less a colony of US. Mushy has to be more careful about keeping his masters in Washington happy than his own people in Pakistan. Most of the Airbases have become out of limits for the Pakis. The FBI and CIA does not even need to disguise itself in the country. The great bulwark of Islam, Saudi Arabia is now deemed totally impotent. No longer can they throw their weight around in Washington. The have to bend backwards at the whim of even the lowest of American officials. The only Islamic country with any remaining dignity left is Iran although it is on verge of an internal revolution.

One hopes the great orgy of self pity and victimization complex will fade from the Islamic countries. Maybe the debate will start within these countries.

tahmad

u didnt answer my question: what about Iraqi and Afghan women children and men. Are they heroes or are they just vegetable.

iamthecheese #28 Agreed they were victims. But they were also heroes. Let me explain:

They were not all heroes in the bollywood (or hollywood) sense of the word. But, nevertheless they were all heroes in a more profound sense of the world: because they were among the best and the brightest in the world - the people who strive to improve their own lives in ways that also lead to the improvement in lives for mankind at large, and for future generations. To take one group, the Bangladeshis who worked in the restaurant at WTC were also heroes: these people had left behind their family and friends in Bangladesh to try and make a future for themselves. The office workers (from 80 different countries) were working at the financial center of the world - their work ultimately translates into a more prosperous world and affects billions of lives around the world.

There were some who were also heroes in the movie sense of the word: The firemen and policemen- e.g. those who walked upstairs while the office workers were streaming downstairs - who died doing their duty were indeed heroes even in the movie sense of the word. And so was the 23 year old pakistani about whom I cut and paste that article.

Reflect upon this a bit, and you will understand why one does not need to be Dilip Kumar or John Wayne to be a hero: the true heroes are the unsung heroes who do their part - however humble - to make this world a little better place for all of us and for future generations.