Preventing More Lal Masjids re.
"They lay down their lives for friends unthinkingly without distinction of caste, creed or colour ... that is Islam. "

I'm sure you mean this in the way it is said that something is a very "Christian thing" to do. Not in a definitive way (of Christianity), that is.

Unless you actually believe that such chivalry is unique to Islam or to religion? People are often willing to lay down their lives even without a belief in the hereafter, though in such cases they tend to think more deeply about whether it is worth it.

Preventing More Lal Masjids re. philosopher #887

"Patrick ji...you have just rephrased your questions in this post. Do you want me to rephrase my answers now?"

Philo, the first time 'round my question was asked in the abstract, and your answer was answered likewise. However, abstractions have the danger of taking on a psuedo-life of their own, espeically in cyberspace. That's why I asked the question more pointedly the second time 'round. I'm forcing you to be honest and imagine yourself in a certain situation, making it as real as your mind possibly can. Otherwise this is all so much of intellecto-emotional masturbation.

So, once again: Would you pull the trigger on my apostate friends if I pointed them out to you? Talk is cheap.

Preventing More Lal Masjids re. philosopher #887

"Islam is a very flexible system however this flexibility is always exploited by the ''oons''. In this scenario when criticising Islam is fashions in the world, a lot of ‘‘pseudo Muslim’’ are exploiting it to pursue their own vested interests. Aryan hirsi, wafa sultan, Rushdie only to name a few are worst example of this ''oon' trend. Letting these people get away with this BS is sheer stupidity."

Agreed. But what would be a greater stupidity, in a world that is a marketplace of ideas, is trying to silence them with death. While that may fill your need for revenge, or even imbue you with a nice sense of power, rest assured, you will have ultimately done the Cause more harm than good. Masadi already put it eloquently much earlier.

Preventing More Lal Masjids dang! Double negatives!!

correction: "...and also believe in the import of an Islamic social system, but just don't think that bringing about such a system necessitates killing dissenters."

Preventing More Lal Masjids re 886 philosopher:
"I am not in a position to deal with it exhusatively. My stance on apostasy is mailny of pragmatic nature which i have explained in my posts."

That's quite clear, actually. In fact, it's the 'pragmatism' that I see as the problem (even from a, well, pragmatic standpoint. My next comment will explain why)

You write: "I don't think islamic civilization can survive against this powerful westren new_colonialism if it let apostates and dissenters go that easily."

You have to wonder what type of an ideological society will be built upon fear. Here's a hint: Repressive, dull an ultimately stagnant. Do you really think that a civilization can, in this day and age, or any henceforth, survive on fear? The Soviets tried it, and see how they ended up. (Which is not to take away from the tremendous material progress effected by the Commies through the 50s.)

In any event, not all apostates are Western bootlickers, and many liberoons are in fact devout Muslims (to their own minds, if not to yours.) I'm not sure how killing my apostate friends will in any way lessen the threat posed by the rampant Western oppressive machinery. Methinks you need to clarify who your enemies are, and stop getting high on all this gore-fest, which I know can be very appealing to one who spends too much time with head buried in books. Get out a little, will ya! :)

"The liberaloon muslim are absolutely clueless of the nature of islamic religio-spirtual philosophy and think that it can survive without the feedback of islamic social system (they are living in fools' paradise)."

Or maybe many of them (who you choose to label conveniently) are quite aware of the philosophy at some level (even without having spend years poring through Derrida, Neruda and Iqbal) and also believe in the import of an Islamic social system, but just don't think that bringing about such a system doesn't necessitate killing dissenters. Many of them work quietly bringing about changes in banking and investment, for instance, to bring it more in lines with Islamic teachings and spirit.

Don't be such an arrogant ass, Philo. Take the trouble to look beyond the widest of generalizations, tough as it might be; and fun as Cowboys and Injuns can be!

Preventing More Lal Masjids Zeemax:

I guess I was working on incomplete information, or even disinformation, gleaned from television and newspaper reports. My "understanding", most likely mistaken in the light of what you point out, was that the the parents were being being called in to increase the number of 'hostages'. But the version of the story you present does make more sense and sound more plausible, I will admit.

Thanks for your patience in explaining.

Preventing More Lal Masjids Zeemax, don't be so dim. Focus on the word "CHILDREN". Many of the parents had children in their teens and even pre-teens. Even assuming those children were filled with the jazba of the oldre ones who wanted to stay on, wouldn't it have been the right thing to force them to leave, given that, unarmed, they'd be in tremendous danger in the event of a storming of the place?

In any case, my original point had to do with the question of consent and consentability of children to lay down their lives for the Ghazi.

Preventing More Lal Masjids re. Zafar Abbas article:

"Throughout the crisis the authorities kept giving the impression that most of those inside the Mosque-Madressah complex were hostage to a situation, and if given a chance, would opt to come out and leave the militants alone to fight with the security forces.
All this is fast proving to be wrong. ... Scores of men and women who stayed back with a few dozen armed militants can best be described as highly committed religious extremists."

What about the scores of children whose parents waiting anxiously for them to exit? Were they also in the complex out of a sense of commitment to the cause?

Preventing More Lal Masjids CHOWKSTAFF!!!

Not all of us have DSL/CABLE/Tx connections. This manner of having to reload the entire interact forum each time we submit a post or refresh the page is bloody insane!!

If you don't do something to fix this, I will be forced to quit chowk, which will be a very, very thing, mostly owing to the fact taht I know I won't even be missed. :(

Preventing More Lal Masjids re. Zeemax:
"That is why I call masadi a hypocrite. He considers a petty transitional matter like usurping global resources a crime, which all empires do in their time, while he condones an attack on the entire Islamic faith as personal judgment and advocates looking in the other direction." (emphasis added)

Is this guy for real?? Is he aware of the number of references in the Qur'an to justice and equity in business dealings??

Moreover, isn't it really rich that someone who, not more than two weeks ago, confidently claimed that "Islam does not need protecting by any individual" now finds that an individual, by merely rejecting the Islam he inherited from his parents, poses a threat or engages in "an attack on the entire Islamic faith" !!!

Preventing More Lal Masjids To the interactor who likened masadi to Calvin:

Both Calivin and masadi see their respective Scriptures as divine and the Final Word. The similarity begins and ends there. You do masadi sahib a big injustice in implying that either intellectually or temperamentally his approach is anything like Calvin's nonrational treatment of the Bible.

Preventing More Lal Masjids kaal,

The following post might help clear up my reservations for Philospher's 'total' ideological system. I have no problems with the content, only with the method, so to speak. (and let's no get started with how Method is also part of Content, now, okay! It's too early in the day for that) :-)

re. Philosopher #794:

"The internal structure of ideology will determine what it needs to preserve itself against all other ideologies and systems.At the end of the day its all down to the ''acceptence'' of the basics of that ideology.if you accpet that all your questions are answered."

Yes, the internal structure (obviously) determines what it needs to preserve itself. But preservation, or the requirements for preservation, cannot be seen divorced of externalities, which keep changing. The point I've been trying to make for some time is this: Islam is no longer the nascent, vulnerable socio-political entity of the 7th century. Whether it can ever be a political entity of that kind is quite impossible, in fact, except in pockets of tribal areas and the like. (And thank God for that!) As a social force, it remains a powerful and relevant entity (And thank God for that too!).

What might have been important for its preservation 14 centuries ago will no longer be so. In fact, attempts to follow those prescriptions may result in damage to the ideology, as it gets distorted and distasteful.

In any case, understand this, miaN... attempts to bring about a totalitarian Islamic polity (which is EXACTLY what you seem to be suggesting is a goal of Islamic ideology) will do little more than render you a pariah among even the few progressive, successful, Islamic nations.

Let the first apostate-killing be sanctioned and carried out in Pakistan and then hold your breathe for the fall-out!

In an earlier post, your wrote:

" In this situation Islamic civilization needs a comprehensive ideological system to fight other ideologies which are trying to overcome/penetrate it. If we stick to Masadi's version in this situation we won't be having even this moderate version after a couple of decades."

This need for a comprehensive ideological system to fight other ideologies is not unique to Islam. EVERY IDEOLOGY, by definition, has this need. In the civilized world, even in the less-cvilized world of globalized capitalism, ideologies have to buy their keep through ideas, not coercion. It says something about the sturdiness or vulnerability of your ideology, and the power or powerlessness of the ideas within, if you need to kill the holders of other opinions to preserve your own.

I do not think that Islam is so impoverished and vulnerable in the ideas department that it dissent needs to be put down with harsheness, or that any dissent is to be viewed as a threat to the system itself, a position which you and echoboom seem clearly to hold, though echo in his customary
style is happy to simply foxtrot around the issue.

You write:

"how would we implement islamic family laws if we don't have islamic socio-political system? what if liberaloon muslims like 'irshad manji' start campaigning in support of the lesbian marriages?? how would you stop them? With 'piyaar mohabbat bhaari batain???"

You are muddying the waters here, miaN. Don't put too much on your plate. We're talking about how to handle dissent. How to deal with individuals who try to introduce unIslamic ideas to the political ideology and attempt to stay within the fold is a completely different issue.

Finally, you didn't do justice to my question re. apostasy. I specifically asked you to consider the question in the light of those who never ACCEPTED Islam to begin with. Okay, let me take it out of the purely theoretical realm... I have at least two friends who were born into conservative Muslim families. One is a haafiz, in fact. Both of them, by the age of 18, decided that Islam didn't fit their itellectual or spiritual needs. One is an atheist, the other agnostic. Neither goes to masjid because they do agree that hypocrisy is just wrong. It is only for fear of death that they will sometimes go as Muslims. (Can you blame them?)

Neither of the two engages in denigration of Islam-- to them its as good or bad as most religions; though I have no doubt that, owing to their very generous, caring personalities, they do influence others even in their (non)religiousness. (That's an easy thing to do in over-religionized Pakistan, actually).

So tell me... First, are the Apostates? Neither can be said to have consciously, and in maturity, chosen Islam in the fisrt place.

Will you, like Zeemax, deprive them of their right to choose in the fisrt place? Will you, like echoboom, present a specious arguement, that we don't choose to be born in the first place; so we have no choice in this either-- therby rejecting the whole Free Will deal so important to Isalm?

(We'll deal with those who choose Islam and later change their minds some other time.)

Second, (assuming they qualify as apostates) should they be deprived of their heads by God- and opposition-fearing Muslims were they to be found out, or publicly renounce their religion? Actually, here's the REAL question: WOULD YOU PULL THE TRIGGER,-- assuming there were no legal consequences, which there won't, of course, in your Islamic ideological state? Please answer.

Well, take it from there.

In the meanwhile, you might consider reading Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies if you're serious about seeing Islam sprout a living, vibrant society as opposed to one where, to quote Masadi saheb, " stunts growth and prevents thinking from developing."

rgds,

Preventing More Lal Masjids Also, on the global scale, or in the Middle East, you will see that the liberals do indeed do a little more than merely engage in cheap talk to keep the menacing talons of out-and-out fascism at bay.

Preventing More Lal Masjids re. kaal:
"IMO, it's not liberals "fault," because that would be a value judgement. Just that they have nothing to work on, except their own cheap talk."

Funny, but I'd have sworn that the liberal Musharraf, backed by at least half the nation, went a little beyond cheap talk in taking on the custodians of islamic virtue.

Preventing More Lal Masjids In response to PM, who wrote: "What makes Islam so different from the epitomological standpoint? What gives it the right to coerce through it's social "philosophy"?

philosopher responded:

Ideology doesn't give 'objective'(accpetable for all) justification for its 'right'to dominate other ideologies,

No, it doesn't. But you seemed to rationalizing Islam's right to kill apostates, on the grounds of the need to maintain its integrity. That sounds like an attempt to provide an objective justification. Correct me if wrong.

Also, please do define the word "apostate", esp. with reference to what I said about choice in 'accpeting' the faith in the first place. This is not mere armchair philosophy for me, mind you.

Preventing More Lal Masjids correction:
"When the STATE enforces a law against calling for the death of apostate-killers, watch how, in due time, the FAITH, of the believers in the soundness of death-for-apostates also starts to diminish.