Insurgents at the Gate

Dear All,

Please ignore my post # 67 as the description of the video marginally eludes its hyperlink information.

I would recommend that you all click here and watch The Doha Debates Special Edition the purpose of which is to present before us insights from four leading personalities on how to tackle extremism.

The streaming video is bandwidth friendly, and I hope all visitors will be able to view this video without difficulty and that Muslims and Non-Muslims alike will benefit from it.

Peace!

Dear All,

In addition to the Doha Debates Special Edition, the link for which I`ve posted earlier, you may like to click here and watch a BBC interview with Shaikh Hamza Yusuf for intellectual insights into the events of 9/11.

It is my hope that both Muslims and Non-Muslims alike will benefit from watching and understanding this streaming video which is bandwidth friendly. And I also hope most of the visitors will be able to view this without difficulty.

For more information, you may visit The Zaytuna Institute website.

Peace!

Dear All,

By a fair consensus we can agree that a state sponsored resistance to defend one`s country differs completely than vigilante terrorism which has its roots in extremism. I have heard Shaikh Hamza Yusuf speak on the subject with philosophical and theological perspectives.

I recommend all of you to click here and view an interview of Shaikh Hamza Yusuf make an excellent case on how to tackle extremism.

The streaming video is bandwidth friendly and I hope it wouldn`t be a hassle to most visitors to view this interview.

Peace!

#60 by epiphany

A Muslim brother named Jamal Hasan wrote a well-reasoned article right here on Chowk in 1999 articulating historical views on the Indo-Pak war of 1971 where many innocent Bangladeshis lost their lives.

Yaar Faisal, thanks for pointing me to this link, but it still doesn`t the fact that an overwhelming majority of Pakis shy away from discussing the B`desh genocide and won`t talk about it unless when reacting to someone bringing it up (as happened here).

I did not see your comment at this page.

I wasn`t a member then.

The least you, or anybody else who feels strongly feels for all the lives lost during Indo-Pak conflict of 1971, can do is to leave a condolence note here for all innocents lives lost whether they be Bangladeshi, Indian, or Pakistani.

The reason why I brought it up is because I feel strongly for it. Millions of Bengalis lost their lives simply because they spoke a different language, they were darker, and they tried to resist Paki tyranny. Not even the fact that they were overwhelmingly Muslim could save them.

Also, it is a sign of human maturity not to negatively generalize a nation or a religious creed for the irresponsible actions of a few black sheeps purportedly representing their nationalities or creeds.

OK, but the silence of a majority (this term is actually an understatement) of Pakis at the doings of their Army, even when the Paki Army was not in power (ZAB, BB, NS) during almost 12-15 years of democratic rule lends credence to the fact that Pakis would rather not discuss B`desh. And the fact that not ONE Paki soldier or officer was convicted for their doings only confirms that opinion. Any atrocity on Muslims is hyped up and there are protests all over Pakistan (the recent cartoon controversy for instance), where as atocities on non-Muslims (such as the attack on WTC) are generally ignored, at best explained away with the standard line ``Those who did this cannot be Muslims`` or worse met with a smirk and the line: ``the {insert victim name here} deserved it``.

Re: #64

[In the interest to preserve everyone`s valueable time, effort and human sensibilities, I will not interact to comments, suggestions, or queries that are otherwise. ]

This is not grammatically correct. ``Otherwise`` than what?

And on the ``context`` of this pathetic piece - the insurgent you mention was not a true Muslim - remember old Mo`? He beheaded 700 unarmed civilians - 700! And sold their inncocent and helpless women and children into slavery.

Close your eyes - imagine the gory scene of beheading 10 men - now multiply that 70 times! The blood must have turned the soil into mud.

THEN say to yourself - Islam is a religion of peace.


Peace!

Dear All,

I welcome your comments that are topic and/or context specific.

If you have a related comment, suggestion, or query, please by all means write here. Perhaps you may like to interact with me here, please be context specific, professional in your message delivery approach and quote from authentic and recognized sources to either argue further or to prove your point. Also in the process do respect others` beliefs and do not generalize.

In the interest to preserve everyone`s valueable time, effort and human sensibilities, I will not interact to comments, suggestions, or queries that are otherwise.

I do not mean to be rude, but a discussion has to be on the mark and course specific for the hope to giving birth to means for a constructive outcome to occur.

Have a pleasant day!

Peace!

#62 by epiphany


[I would appreciate it if you are context specific, here. ]

Don`t get too carried away by that ``context specific``. You may like to use it often, but you have to use it correctly.

Here`s the context for my post:

Harish_hyd said:

``BTW, I have yet to see a SINGLE article on Pakistan`s excesses in Bangladesh. ``.

And you said:

``Also, it is a sign of human maturity not to negatively generalize a nation or a religious creed for the irresponsible actions of a few black sheeps purportedly representing their nationalities or creeds. ``

In other words, you were saying that it is immature of him or anyone else to generalize this aspect about Pakistanis.

So I said:

``It IS okay to generalize, if something is generally true - e.g. if the majority of the people support something. Majority of Pakistanis support the terrorists in Kashmir - this is why the Pakistani politicians and Army have been so gung-ho about it for so long. ``


Now WHY is this not context-specific, eh?




[However, with regards to your post I find it convoluted and to drive at the gist of your point would need to pursue a little guess work. ]

Your saying that it is ``convoluted`` does not make it so.

My point is crystal clear.

Here`s how:

1) Harish`s point is:

[Pakis are very quick to shed tears and demand justice for Muslim victims of a non-Muslim perpetrator, but when it comes to non-Muslim victims or where Muslims/Pakis are the perpetrators, there is a deafening silence. Pakistan is another name for hypocrisy.]

[BTW, I have yet to see a SINGLE article on Pakistan`s excesses in Bangladesh. Pakis have written on everything from Palestine to Kashmir to Afghanistan to Iraq and now even global warming, but not even one on the `71 genocide where 3 million Bengalis were massacred?]


So he is saying that IN GENERAL, Pakis are hypocrites about Muslim atrocities.

And I supported his point by saying:

[Actually, harish_hyd makes a very legitimate comment, which you DID NOT disprove by your post. You found only one article. How many articles were there for Saddam Hussain`s atrocities or the Genocide in Bangladesh? Or the murders committed on the innocent Indian villagers by Kashmiri terrorists in India? In contrast, you can find dozens of articles on Chowk about the Iraq war. ]


WHY IS THIS A CONVOLUTED STATEMENT?


Also, your argument:

[ am assuming that your point is about generalization. What does it mean to generalize? You say that most Pakistanis support the terrorism in Kashmir. How do you define ``most?`` Perhaps you could support your accusation using statistics issued by UNHCR, Amnesty International, or the like? Or have you personally interviewed 10 million Pakistanis? What basis do you have to stereotype a nation?

I, for one, would happily accept your claim if you can legitimately prove it or disprove its anti-thesis. ]


I already gave you the proof. Political parties can only thrive on majorities. Their agendas reflect the thinking of the majority, or they will lose their support. The political parties in Pakistan SUPPORT the Kashmiri terrorists. This automatically indicates that this stance is popular with the majority of the Pakistanis.


WHERE IS MY ARGUMENT ``CONVOLUTED``?


I would suggest that instead of conveniently condemning other people`s arguments as ``convoluted``, you try to understand what they are saying, then try to come up with RELEVANT replies.

# 61

krishna_abcd,

I would appreciate it if you are context specific, here.

However, with regards to your post I find it convoluted and to drive at the gist of your point would need to pursue a little guess work.

I am assuming that your point is about generalization. What does it mean to generalize? You say that most Pakistanis support the terrorism in Kashmir. How do you define ``most?`` Perhaps you could support your accusation using statistics issued by UNHCR, Amnesty International, or the like? Or have you personally interviewed 10 million Pakistanis? What basis do you have to stereotype a nation?

I, for one, would happily accept your claim if you can legitimately prove it or disprove its anti-thesis.

I could argue that since about 80% of Indians are Hindus, all of them hate Muslims because where Hindus revere a cow to the likeness of a mother Muslims butcher and eat it. But from experience I know that some Hindus consume beef and dwell in relative harmony with Muslims.

To work towards peace, as humans we have to understand and respect each others` beliefs. Negatively judging an entire nation, culture, religious tradition based on the bad deeds of a few black sheeps only breeds distrust and hate.

Peace!

Re: #60 by epiphany

Actually, harish_hyd makes a very legitimate comment, which you DID NOT disprove by your post. You found only one article. How many articles were there for Saddam Hussain`s atrocities or the Genocide in Bangladesh? Or the murders committed on the innocent Indian villagers by Kashmiri terrorists in India? In contrast, you can find dozens of articles on Chowk about the Iraq war.

It IS okay to generalize, if something is generally true - e.g. if the majority of the people support something. Majority of Pakistanis support the terrorists in Kashmir - this is why the Pakistani politicians and Army have been so gung-ho about it for so long.

# 59 and #58

Harish_hyd,

Your context specific comments relating with this article and its subject matter are most welcome, here.

However, as far as the Indo-Pak war of 1971 is concerned, I am deeply sorry for all lives we have lost be it on the Bangladeshi, Indian, or Pakistani side. Among those killed were people representing many religious traditions.

A Muslim brother named Jamal Hasan wrote a well-reasoned article right here on Chowk in 1999 articulating historical views on the Indo-Pak war of 1971 where many innocent Bangladeshis lost their lives.

You can read it by clicking here.

I did not see your comment at this page. The least you, or anybody else who feels strongly feels for all the lives lost during Indo-Pak conflict of 1971, can do is to leave a condolence note here for all innocents lives lost whether they be Bangladeshi, Indian, or Pakistani.

Also, it is a sign of human maturity not to negatively generalize a nation or a religious creed for the irresponsible actions of a few black sheeps purportedly representing their nationalities or creeds.

Peace!

BTW, I have yet to see a SINGLE article on Pakistan`s excesses in Bangladesh. Pakis have written on everything from Palestine to Kashmir to Afghanistan to Iraq and now even global warming, but not even one on the `71 genocide where 3 million Bengalis were massacred?

#57 by epiphany

The US must bear official responsibility for all the damage it has done in Iraq, formally apologize to the Iraqi people for this blunder, and rebuild Iraq, erect every building, mosque, school, and other it has flattened. And most importantly heal the minds of those whose innocent loved ones were mercilessly killed by the US Army.

Has Pakistan borne responsibility for the 3 million Bengalis it killed in 1971? Has it apologized to Bangladesh for the genocide it perpetrated? Has it played any part whatsoever in rebuilding Bangladesh? What has it done to win the hearts and minds of the Bengalis?

Pakis are very quick to shed tears and demand justice for Muslim victims of a non-Muslim perpetrator, but when it comes to non-Muslim victims or where Muslims/Pakis are the perpetrators, there is a deafening silence. Pakistan is another name for hypocrisy.

Dear All!

Thanks for reading and appreciating this article.

A country was needlessly invaded by ``the champions of democracy`` where this country did not merit such a treatment. Countless Iraqi lives were lost, including the two sons of Saddam Hussein, infrastructure, mosques, and schools were crudely damaged in the process.

The worst damage is the stigmatized mind of a person who needlessly lost a loved one and who must live with an everyday agony.

Invading Iraq was one of the worst mistakes the US government has commited to date where it has lost hundreds of billions of dollars of US taxpayers` money.

Pulling all US troops at this stage will be another mistake if it should happen, given the security and current law and order situation of Iraq. A peacekeeping force must remain in Iraq until a stable goverment starts to function, there. The US must bear official responsibility for all the damage it has done in Iraq, formally apologize to the Iraqi people for this blunder, and rebuild Iraq, erect every building, mosque, school, and other it has flattened. And most importantly heal the minds of those whose innocent loved ones were mercilessly killed by the US Army.

And in the interest of self-sustainance, the United States of America must find out the root cause of their mistake of this needless invasion of Iraq, a country that did not harm the US and offer penance in every sense of the term.

And let us all hope and work for prevalence of peace and justice in our world.

Peace!

#55 ballukhan, not only are you ignorant you are blind as well. Read my answer in #54 again and think about why those changes occurred in Nepal

Re: # 54

``However the part the US is playing is to strengthen those very anti democratic forces in those two nations to make sure that change does not occur. ``

Wow......you mean Mushy couped the democratically elected government on the orders of US?
You mean to say that Mushy exists ONLY because he serves some US fears about Islamist take over of PAki nukes and not because he has an entire population distributing sweets on his successful coup........?

Miyan, look at your own house and set it in order before you accuse the entire neighbourhood of your own short comings!! Your thesis is refuted because it cannot explain why Nepal monarchy could go into the hands of the Maoists but PAkistan dictator has survived so far without any dissent from the PAkistani awaam!!! Does that mean that the PAkistani awaam takes its orders from the US and accepts any dictator who is supported by the US???

Krishna _abcd: Justifications/legitmations were going on in the colonial era as well, that is why Christianity and christian missionaries played their perverted role, just because the nature of justification and brutality (from explicit to implict) has changed does not mean it is not going on.

Ballukhan writes <<< ...............if NEPAL CAN DO IT THEN WHY NOT PAKISTAN AND UAE???

Guys are you listening??? >>>

When the hold of institutions that hold power weaken and lose their legitimacy, like they did in Nepal after the murderous rampage of Dependra, then change will similarly occur in those two countries you mention. However the part the US is playing is to strengthen those very anti democratic forces in those two nations to make sure that change does not occur. Your analysis is based on selective amnesia that looks at events, much like Fuzair and the rest of the thugs (Kulharee is a prime example)around here, detached from their socio economic environment, as if they happily occur in a vacuum. Not so.