Is it Really Our War?

Since we are about to inaugurate a giant wall around the Kings palace, and all those kings helpers who feel they are insecure, I thought it would be good to gauge whether we all think that that the current troubles which have spilled over from across the border into our peaceful city are actually Our War – as the govt has defined it – or are we fighting Someone Else’s War…. if so then how do we fare as citizens of Islamabad and Pakistan. Your 1rupee please..

56 Comments so far

  1. ڈفرستان کا ڈفر (duffer) on October 16th, 2008 @ 6:54 pm

    پہلے یہ اشتہار چلتا رہا کہ
    یہ ہم نہیں ہیں
    اور اب چلتا ہے
    یہ جنگ ہماری جنگ ہے
    aas far as wall building is concerned, not a single penny to generate power but 8 billion for surrounding this red zone elite area
    why do they think k this way they can be save?
    _________________________________
    http://www.dufferistan.com


  2. kabirdas on October 16th, 2008 @ 10:10 pm

    Fighting militants and extremists who want to impose their version of Islam on a majority and fighting terrorists who want to achieve such objective through extremely violent means is simply our war. How can it possibly be somebody else’s war.


  3. IUnknown (iunknown) on October 17th, 2008 @ 9:41 am

    Fighting against USA and india backed militants from wazistan? How can it be our war?

    AND

    Who has brought them in pakistan?

    Its OUR WAR who has brought them inside our homes else they were busy teaching our enemies, the lesson.

    And ours and whole world’s economy is crashing due to Riba but who cares. Only who have eyes can see it. Not a single line on print and electronic media, I have read or heard that this is all happening due to war with ALLAH (as Riba initiates war with ALLAH).

    Same kind of crash already has occued in 1929 but since we dont have eyes, we will call it XYZ, blah blah but will not turn to ALLAH and repent.


  4. riaz on October 17th, 2008 @ 11:07 am

    Pakistan was always teh next target and not india of the mujahideen,taliban after afghanistan. they will always brag abt it in tribal areas n frontier that next is pakistan. the reason no body cared abt that was that those helping these talibans ( PPP n then PMLN) thought that this is a pathan’s issue n they thought that "dilli hanooz duur ast".
    but now after a couple of bombs in lahore n a few more in isloo the beautiful, all of a sudden everybody says its "our war".of course it was our war from the begining. the very day we set up training camps in miranshah for the mujahideens,it became our war.
    i m happy that the elite in lahore n isloo is as frightened as we in the villages n hamlets of frontier are.previously there would b suicide attacks in frontier only, now we have in the middle of our isloo the beautiful.at least on one account we are equivalent to the capital.
    it took a long time for these talibans to establish themselves in these areas n is going to take even longer to uproot them. till then,enjoy the bombs n living in fear.


  5. wkhang on October 18th, 2008 @ 12:07 am

    Its not ours, its not yours,
    Where this come from ?
    Who created ?

    People honestly I want you all to look inside of you, read your brain, heart and feelings, that what we all are doing ? we are killing our world, we have created materialistic world in our surroundings and we are killing the natural things…

    Even our families are becomning materialistic e.g hey dad what the hell you are saying ?, hey lets do adverture ? rob the bank or what not. Our life is destablized, we all need money, fame and power…

    oh lets end these all thoughts with this forumla
    " You care me and I care You ".


  6. calyps on October 18th, 2008 @ 2:04 am

    I would say may be we can do something like what this lady tried doing to get several billions of USD ??

    http://www.geo.tv/10-18-2008/27143.htm


  7. kaami on October 21st, 2008 @ 8:55 pm

    IUNKNOWN please keep on repenting on everybody’s behalf. Yes the crash happened in 1929 but the world didn’t end and it wont now, the progressive nations will come out of it even stronger.

    Now coming to the question is it really our war? So here is my rhetoric:

    1/ It was our war when Russia invaded Afghanistan and we along with our friends in the US, Israel and Saudia Arabia fought that war with the then Mujahideen.
    2/ It was our war when after the Russian retreat we sided with Jamaatee warlord Hekmatyaar and a fierce civil war ensued in Afghanistan.
    3/ It was our war when we created the Taliban in the false hopes that they will stabilize the country so that we could benefit from the billions in pipeline revenue.
    4/ It was our when the crack pot Osama came back to these lands and setup terror camps all over the place.
    5/ It was our war when certain zealots in our military and intelligence agencies became complicit in exporting a very sinister form of Jihaad all over the region.
    6/ It was our war when in the Nineties the off shoot of these religious terror groups, set about on the path of sectarian murder and killings. It was when the conflict between Iran & Saudia Arabia was fought in our urban centres.
    7/ It was our war when terrorists trained in Afghanistan and FATA were exported all over the world.
    8/ It was our war when after 9/11 we as people sympathized with terrorists but our govt thankfully had to get rid of them.
    9/ It was our war when the first suicide bombing was wrongfully given religious justification.
    10/ It was our war when our very capital was attacked by our own Frankenstein’s.
    11/ It was our war when our ex-PM was murdered and hundreds of innocents bombed to their deaths.

    The fact of the matter is that whatever has happened in the region in the past three decades, we as a nation have to take responsibility for that. Nobody, forced our hand to do what we did. Altough we convinced Saudia and US to finance the war in Afghanistan but, we had operational control. After the Russian retreat, we did not work to stabilize the war torn country but instead took sides in the civil war. We created Taliban and unleashed those brain washed souls on the people of that country. Finally, when we were juggling governments Mr. Osama took over the Pastun Belt and Taliban and now he wants to take over Pakistan.

    So my friends we cannot now pass on owner ship of our own short comings and say, “Hum to masoom hein, haemin tou kuch pata he nahein”.

    This is indeed our WAR and this is indeed our MESS.


  8. kabirdas on October 21st, 2008 @ 11:01 pm

    @ Kaami

    May I take the liberty to add to the second sentence of your first para which you wrote in response to iunknownto to read as follows:

    Yes the crash happened in 1929 but the world didn’t end and it wont now, the progressive nations will come out of it even stronger BECAUSE THEY WOULDN’T SIMPLY SIT ON THEIR HAUNCHES , REPENT AND PRAY BUT USE THEIR HEADS AND ACT TO IDENTIFY AND RECTIFY THE FAULTS IN THE SYSTEM.

    I am impressed by your write up about whose war is it. Before this I was of the view that only part of it was our war. The rest of it was America’s war. After reading your write up I have been constrained to think that perhaps this is wholly our war all the way.

    Excellent piece of writing. Keep it up.


  9. kaami on October 22nd, 2008 @ 12:01 am

    @Kabirdas

    Thank you for your kind words and apt addition to the first paragraphs, I couldn’t have said it better.

    The point is, when it comes to dealings between nations, every nation keeps its national interest foremost and then it negotiates, trades or goes to war. When we take the recent history of our region, I agree with those that say that it was in our interest to resist the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, otherwise we would have become sandwiched between a super power and a regional power. True, but there are those who say that we should not have had bad relations with India and Russia in the first place. Anyway, to our credit we ran a brilliant campaign, convinced Saudia and America to finance and arm the mujahideen and defeated Russia. But what happened next is a major screw up. Zia-ul-Haque and later his prodigy Nawaz Sharif had dreams of becoming Ameer-ul-Momineen and zealots like General Hameed Gul wanted the jihad to continue and engulf the whole region from Uzbekistan to Kazakhstaan and from Iran to China. Poor Kashmir was caught in the no mans land.

    What happened next is no secret, the equation had too many variables, hence too many possibilities, which combined with whole sale availability of arms, Osama’s billions and political instability in Pakistan became a very dangerous mix. Unfortunately, our influential media infiltrated by extremist sympathisers added fuel to the fire and tried to wrap the whole situation in one anti-American blanket which was convenient but not the right thing to do.

    Now it has become engrained in the national psyche to pass the buck on America or somebody else thus avoiding taking responsibility of our own actions and live in an state of perpetual in-action.


  10. riaz on October 23rd, 2008 @ 9:19 am

    Excellent kaami.thats all i can say.


  11. majad (isl_majad) on October 23rd, 2008 @ 1:31 pm

    I contest that this current "War on Terror" which we are dedicating our time, money and military to is not "Our War" as the govt has conveniently defined it, but has been thrust upon us by the US since after 2001 – just like the Afghan-Russia conflict previously was thrust upon us during the 80s. Although i agree with much of the analysis of the previous entries that our political/military establishment actively created a violent militant movement in our country to fight in Afghanistan – this was not without the active financial, political and strategic helm of the US and her allies who wanted to see Russia bloody-nosed in Afghanistan. We just rented out our country for the purpose. Charlie Wilsons War is a good dramatisation of that active involvement.
    A previous comment was: "The fact of the matter is that whatever has happened in the region in the past three decades, we as a nation have to take responsibility for that."
    Why should the entire nation take the burden for the ill advised decisions of a few generals or politicians? Nobody asked the people of Pakistan if they wanted to make their sons into militants – the govt setup special camps to manufacture them during the 80s for the Afghan war and then during the 90s for the Taliban, they went to train in the Scottish mountains with the help of UK SAS, American commandos showed them how to handle complex weapons. There was no Taliban before that period – some general decided it would be in the strategic interests of PK to have Afghanistan under our control – it was not a collective decision – intelligent people objected then and they object now.
    Again another comment which i disagree with "Nobody, forced our hand to do what we did." YES they did. When Mr Musharaff received a call in the early hours getting an ultimatum immediately after 9/11 "Either your with us or we’ll bomb you back to to the stone age" – if thats not forcing your hand then i dont know what is. Again a decision was made by a handful of generals/establishment that PK should do a complete U turn and follow US dictates in the Afghan policy – and we’ve ended up in this current financial, political and security crisis. There is now no more money to sustain this war, we are not winning, the US is making ever more demands and surprise surprise none of our "Friends of Pakistan" – a group of representatives from the US, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Britain, France, and Japan, among others do not want to help bail us out and give us an immediate cash injection of $5billion which is desperately needed.
    The past three decades we have been USED, HIRED, RENTED out to fight other peoples wars in the name of National Interest. The handful of generals/politicians/establishment who decided these damaging policies should take responsibility for killing an entire nation – it was their fatal decisions not the peoples choice.


  12. majad (isl_majad) on October 23rd, 2008 @ 2:18 pm

    Sorry a small correction – it was Gen Mahmud that recieved the phone call from Sec of State Richard Armitage as detailed here by Eric Margolis:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis52.html

    "I met with Gen. Mahmud, before 9/11. He and Lt. Gen. Mohammed Aziz were Pakistan’s top military officers who put Musharraf into power. After 9/11, they were ousted under US pressure for being “too Islamist.”

    After 9/11, I learned indirectly from Mahmud that Armitage indeed delivered an ultimatum to him threatening war if Pakistan did not swiftly bow to US demands.

    Pakistan’s efforts to make the Bush Administration understand it was supporting Taliban to maintain order in Afghanistan, keep the Russian-backed Afghan Communist Party in check, and to block Indian and Iranian influence there, fell on deaf ears.

    So did ISI’s insistence that Taliban had no knowledge or part in the 9/11 attacks, and bore no ill will towards the United States. Quite the contrary, many Taliban commanders were originally armed, financed, and trained by CIA in the 1980’s. But enraged Americans were demanding revenge for 9/11. They wanted targets, not explanations.

    I’ve heard various versions of Armitage’s exact words. But I know whatever he said put the fear of god into Pakistan’s military leadership.

    ISI sources say the Bush Administration threatened to bomb faithful old ally Pakistan, cut off its oil, collapse its banking system, and call in its loans. More frightening, Washington also threatened to “unleash” India against Pakistan, either allowing India to conquer the Pakistani-held portion of disputed Kashmir, or give Delhi a green light to invade all of Pakistan, possibly with American assistance.

    Leaked cabinet documents from 10 Downing Street show three months before invading Iraq in 2003, President Bush told British PM Tony Blair that once he finished off Iraq, he planned to “go after” Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Pakistan was in America’s cross hairs."


  13. kaami on October 23rd, 2008 @ 10:48 pm

    So what’s new? We indeed had multiple choices before 9/11 viz a viz Afghnistan and the region but after 9/11 we had none but one, and we did the right thing.

    You have given reference of “Charlie Wilson War”. I have also seen the movie and, Charlie’s interview on BBC as well as on American networks.

    Even in the movie it is well documented that the Republican US govt. at that time was satisfied by humanitarian support to the Refugees and tit-bits of millitary support to the Mujahideen, enough to keep Soviets tied up in Afghanistan. However, it was successful marketing by Zia, ISI and “our friends” in Washington who sold the idea of full fledged support to the way we wanted the war to progress. And when the money and weapons flowed in, it was “our ISI” which had operational control. Also, as a nation, we would have to take ownership of whoever our rulers were at that time, be that Zia or any body else. Elected or not elected. And look at what the elected ones did. PPP through Naseerullah Babar/JUI created Taliban’s and tried to sell the notion of stability in Afghanistan as a justification. US might have supported it to certain extent but never whole heartedly and neither did the rest of the world. Also, didn’t Mr. Sharif (another elected rep.) and our ISI received cash from Mr. Osama to oust the first BB govt? And didn’t our intelligence and govt sponsored camps were terrorists were trained for Kashmir. They soon wrecked the indigenous Kashmiri intefada, branched out to killing shia’s within Pakistan and culminated in the lal Masjid episode. The blood trail is littered with bomb blasts, hijackings, mosque attacks and burning of minorities. Did any body force us to create and then feed these maniacs? We let our territory to be used as a base for blood thirsty religious fanatics / terrorists, it was our choice and everyone is complicit. If you justify a wrong doing against an adversary then you have no cause to complain when the same happens to you. So whats the standing of the nation towards Al-Q / Osama? Why cant we openly condemn and criticize them? Why cant we call an evil “Evil” Why cant we work with others to eliminate it.

    You have talked about the present financial predicament that we have. Isn’t it our own making via the democratic process? Didn’t we pay all our loans to IMF / World Bank in 2004? Weren’t we looking in good shape at the start of 2007? Why did we have to de-stabilize our own country through senseless movement mongering and chaos? Aren’t the educated classes in the media, the unruly lawyers and the so-called civil society responsible for all this mess? We could have dealt with energy problems and inflationary trends, as long as people were ready to invest in our country and the middle class was ready to stay put. We had a good banking system, a strong treasury, so why did we have to turn the apple cart and hand over the country to known thieves and incompetent fools? Why did we have to scare away the money and the talent? In the name of what? Civil Liberties and Justice? Didn’t we get enough in the past decade? Why couldn’t we listen to our friends in Turkey and Malaysia by staying on the path of hard work rewarded by progress? If now the so called “Friends of Pakistan” would not agree to a cash injection of 5 billion dollars then so be it, its what we deserve. They know the rap sheet of our leaders.

    Personally, in a strange way I think 9/11 was a blessing for Pakistan, otherwise, given a year or two the religious fanatic lot would have further established itself in our society. Furthermore, if a fanatic General was able to get hold of our military and its nuclear assets, the consequences for Pakistan and the world would have been devastating.


  14. IUnknown (iunknown) on October 24th, 2008 @ 11:49 am

    @kaami: (a.k.a @kabirdas,@balma etc etc)

    Stop playing theatre here. Afghanistan was in our control when taliban were there. I have already written abt it several times here.
    Yeah it was our war when russia was there and it can be our war if we fight AGAINST USA, rather than with usa, killing our ppl.

    U have the habit to write long useless posts to spew ur frustration. I dont think any body has time to read those.


  15. IUnknown (iunknown) on October 24th, 2008 @ 11:51 am

    So what’s new? We indeed had multiple choices before 9/11 viz a viz Afghnistan and the region but after 9/11 we had none but one, and we did the right thing.

    Yeah mmushraaf was teh coward like u and u can see now, the after effects of "mushraffanization". The stock going down and couunry in deep trouble.


  16. IUnknown (iunknown) on October 24th, 2008 @ 11:54 am

    sorry, forgot to write that

    untill we sincerely repent to ALLAH, we will not be able to get out of this situation, no matter how brainy we are, how much technologically advanced we are.

    Read the history for it and u will get to know when Sahabah were at war with iran and syria( usa and russia of that time), they were way far behind technologically BUT

    Wat happend to IRAN and Syria? They were doing the same things as mushraff did and put unncessary taxes , army ppl raping their own girls and all other unlawfull activities were being carried out.

    Their "roshan khayali" led them down.


  17. IUnknown (iunknown) on October 24th, 2008 @ 11:57 am

    "ISI sources say the Bush Administration threatened to bomb faithful old ally Pakistan, cut off its oil, collapse its banking system, and call in its loans. More frightening, Washington also threatened to “unleash” India against Pakistan, either allowing India to conquer the Pakistani-held portion of disputed Kashmir, or give Delhi a green light to invade all of Pakistan, possibly with American assistance."

    Isnt it all happening rite now? despite of taking part in "war for terror"?


  18. kabirdas on October 24th, 2008 @ 8:53 pm

    @ IUnknown (iunknown) on October 24th, 2008 @ 11:49 am
    1. Will you please give ref of your posts here which you claim to have written. If at all you did write something it must have some kind of suggestion to pray and seek God’s marcy.
    2. Your thinking is wrong. Many people who feel concerned with the current situation and would like to find a solution for it other than praying do spare time to read these posts.


  19. kabirdas on October 24th, 2008 @ 8:54 pm

    @ IUnknown (iunknown) on October 24th, 2008 @ 11:51 am

    Sir, what then would have been the situation if Musharraf had not been a coward. Have you ever thought about it ?? Stock would have been flying in the air and country out of trouble??? Is that what you think if you think at all??


  20. kabirdas on October 24th, 2008 @ 8:57 pm

    @ IUnknown (iunknown) on October 24th, 2008 @ 11:54 am
    1. Sir, we have been praying for last 1400 years but unfortunarley have not much to show for it except backwardness. We have had enough of that. No use waiting for Allah sitting on our haunches. It is time to get up, think and act.
    2. Sir, you will do a fine job as professor of history at some maddrassa that is if you are not already doing this job. Your knowledge of history which may not be any better than your knowledge of religion leaves much to be desired.


  21. kabirdas on October 24th, 2008 @ 8:58 pm

    @ IUnknown (iunknown) on October 24th, 2008 @ 11:57 am
    No, that is not happening except perhaps in your imagination. Can you please tell us the source of this quoted statement which you should have done in the first instance ?? Even if someone has made this statement you should look around and see if it is true or not or have it varified through other independent and reliable sourses.


  22. IUnknown (iunknown) on October 25th, 2008 @ 7:03 am

    We are not going to get our glory days back untill we repent

    @kabirdas (a.k.a @balma, @kaami etc): did u re-read all ur comments? they are so lame. We have ruled over 1000 years during last 1400 years all over the world , untill ppl like u came into ruling.

    From iran to Sindh, from turkey to western europe i.e. spain and then to africa, it was all muslim rule untill they were "musharrafanized" and got theirselves in drinking and women. All happened due to running away from religion.

    Read the history LAMER.

    "Sir, what then would have been the situation if Musharraf had not been a coward. Have you ever thought about it ?? Stock would have been flying in the air and country out of trouble??? Is that what you think if you think at all??"

    Duh! They knew he is coward thats is why they gave his call like that. He must have done pee in his pants after that call.

    Aren’t Stocks flying these days after taking part in war? isnt our country in deep trouble after taking part in "war for terrorism"?

    Now when will your write as @kaami?


  23. kabirdas on October 25th, 2008 @ 10:29 am

    @ IUnknown (iunknown) on October 25th, 2008 @ 7:03 am

    I will get back to you on various issues that you have raised in the referenced comments. However, before I do that I will like to know your response to my queries vide my comments of 24 Oct 08 8:53 PM at serial 1 and 8:58 PM in regrd to references. In the mean time you may please continue to repent for your ignorance and pray for forgiveness of the same.


  24. kaami on October 25th, 2008 @ 7:46 pm

    @IUNKOWN, you said,"We are not going to get our glory days back untill we repent"

    Well let me put forward some facts about the so called glory days:

    On the political side from Khulifa-e-Rashedeen till the last Mughal Emperor we do see some sparks of brilliance, but where the Muslims and for that matter other civilization have always lagged behind is the peaceful transition of power from one ruler to another. All Muslim dynasties failed miserably in this regard. The greeks were the ones who gave the concept of democracy which was later improved upon in Europe,the progress and continuity we see in the present day world is all due to that. The other achievement of Europe was effective separation of Chruch from State.

    In the areas of knowledge, science and technology again the Arabs after conquering Syria came in contact with Greek philosophy and sciences. they were very much impressed and while at that time west was in a state of decay, the Arabs continued the good work. But the great majority of Greek impressed Arab free-thinkers, the flag beares of the glory days, like Ibn-e-sina and others were labelled as Kafirs, liberals, heretic and were persecuted by the so called Ulema of that time, and so were the Sufi’s.

    Baghdad under Ummiyad was not destroyed by Changez Khan because it was too liberal or pro-science but because Ulema of that day did not allow the Khalifa to join forces and help Kwarzam Shah to fight the mongols because he was a Shia and Baghdad was Sunni. And guess what the Mongols did, they burned the libraries, like the Talibaans who like to burn schools and books.


  25. kabirdas on October 25th, 2008 @ 11:24 pm

    @ kaami on October 25th
    So in the light of this Iunknown may well be right. We have got plenty to repent in our history and therefore must pray now: Oh God make us banday ka putar at least in the 21st century. At least that’s what I do.


  26. IUnknown (iunknown) on October 25th, 2008 @ 11:51 pm

    u badly lack history mister @kami (who also writes as @balma and @kabirdas and as @sceptic).

    Almost all of the european historians have praised muslims for their work in every field,except some racists and ill-minded persons like u

    WHat you have written abt greek philosophy is almost totally wrong. Muslims continued their work and translated their books BUT wat muslims achieved was not that which could have only be done by just translating the books only. They laid the foundation of modern sciences. It was not the "spark of brilliance" rather than "spark of non-brilliance in a sea of brilliance".
    And the bottom line of their success was the Shria, which was enforced at that time. Law was equal for rich and poor. That was the reason hindus and chrisitians were crying when Mohammad Bin Qasim was leaving Sindh.

    READ HISTORY first and then write here Mr. Atheist, but not from wikipedia.

    http://www.muslimheritage.com

    "The other achievement of Europe was effective separation of Chruch from State."

    Yeah, and you want ur son to rape ur daughter. dont u?


  27. kaami on October 26th, 2008 @ 5:23 am

    Oh Bhai @IUNKNOWN you have got me confused with lot of people, adding one more confusion to your already bewildered life.

    Who says Arabs did not contribute to the development of human thought and intellectual development. The fact is after Islam they united, conquered lands and from jats became civilized. Their contribution is inline with contribution by ancient Egyptians or Greeks. Scientific thought has been around since the earliest civilization, even the fact that the Earth is round and the calculation of its circumference was done Alexandria 2500 years ago. Not only Egyptians or Greeks, even Inca’s, Maya’s and Hindus made astronomical discoveries and made their contribution.

    A lot of names mentioned in the heritage site that you have provided were declared Kafirs during their time, because they were scientist and free thinkers. And you know what (this is way off topic)science and religion are in an eternal conflict. Because there is no room for divine truth in science, every thing is to be investigated, critically examined or proven, whereas, in religion there is no room to challenge divinity. Science is not art of Manjan making or mixing of chemicals, its a thought process which is in direct conflict with religion.


  28. IUnknown (iunknown) on October 26th, 2008 @ 9:42 am

    Can u plz provide me the names of some kafir scientists?


  29. kabirdas on October 26th, 2008 @ 7:46 pm

    Hey, IUnknown: Despite my reminder you have not quoted the ref for two statements that you made earlier on. Will then will it be incorrect to assume that the two referenced statements were simply concoted to serve your purpose ??? I am not surprised at your telling lies. I often meet ‘followers of God’ like you who are very proficient at telling lies.

    You know the moment I read your comments on this post I had the funny feelings that I have heard you before also somewhere. The encyclopedic ignorance and bigotry sounded so familier. So I thought hard and found out where and how I first met you. I first met you when KMB posted the following news item:

    Murder most foul
    By cyril April 12th, 2008 @ 7:26 PM Uncategorized
    The murder of factory worker, Jagdesh, who was attacked and killed by his colleagues on April 8 in Korangi Industrial Area may have been done in the presence of the police who did nothing to stop this from happening, eye witnesses told The News.

    Jagdesh Kumar was murdered on suspicion that he had uttered blasphemous words, in the process enraging his fellow workers who beat him to death. ———

    (The News)

    And you a ‘follower of God’ advising repentence and prayers was the first one to comment on this as follows:

    IUnknown (iunknown) on April 12th, 2008 @ 9:53 pm
    nicely done fellows!
    very deserving.

    To which I reacted as follows:

    kabirdas on April 14th, 2008 @ 2:21 am
    1. This was a most disgraceful act of which we all should be ashamed of ourselves.
    2. I am more ashamed of those who have have written above comments in support of this most despicable act.
    3. If this is what Islam teaches then I am ashamed of calling myself a muslim.
    4. We muslims, particularly the muslims of this land of the pures (read impures), are the hpocrites of the highest order.
    5. No wonder the rest of the world treats us with such contempt.
    6. Shame on you so called muslims (those who committed the act and those who support it). You are disgrace to humanity. You are nothing more than subhumans ! Call me what you will. I do not want to be part of you bigots.
    7. Jagdesh Ram, my fellow human being, please forgive us for we know not any better. Your crime, if at all it was any crime, could no way have been worse than the crime we have commited against you and against humanity. I don’t know you from Adam but you will live in my memory. I will avenge your death in whatever way I could. I will write to expose the hypocrisy of Pakistani muslims and their blasphemy law.
    8. Oh, Allah save me from your followers.

    I have reprodused the above to show to the subscribers of this blog in general and Kaami in particular what kind of a person you are. I wouldn’t say you are no better than a Talib. That will be insulting the Taliban. I would say you are worse than a Talib.

    I may not know much about whose war is it (the one under discussion) but I know like hell what my war is. My war is against bigots like you and I am going to fight it to the hilt till you and your ilk are cured of your bigotry or I die which ever comes first.


  30. kabirdas on October 26th, 2008 @ 8:28 pm

    @ IUnknown (iunknown) on October 17th, 2008 @ 9:41 am

    You have decreed:
    And ours and whole world’s economy is crashing due to Riba —this is all happening due to war with ALLAH (as Riba initiates war with ALLAH)—–
    but since we dont have eyes, we will call it XYZ, blah blah but will not turn to ALLAH and repent.

    To this I am sure Isaac Asimov would have said:

    "If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them."


  31. kabirdas on October 27th, 2008 @ 12:48 am

    IUnknown (iunknown) on October 26th says:
    "Can u plz provide me the names of some kafir scientists?"

    Although answer to your query falls within the purview of Kaami I would like to give you the names of two such top class scientists. They are Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd.

    In this regard I will like to draw your attention to what Bertrand Russel had to say about the consequences of their free-thinking:

    Russel on Religion
    Selections from the writings of Bertrand Russel
    Edited by Louis Greenspan and Stefan Anderson

    Mohammadan Culture and Philosphy

    Page 233

    Arabic philosphers, in general, are encyclopedic: they are interested in alchemy, astrology, astronmy, and zoology, as much as in what we should call philosphy. They were looked upon with suspicion by the populace, which was fanatical and bigoted; they owed their safety (when they were safe) to the protection of comparatively free-thinking princes.

    Avicenna (Ibn Sina). From the twelfth to the seventeenth century, he was used in Europe as a guide to medicine. He was suspect to the orthodox, but was befriended by princes on account of his medical skill. At times he got into trouble owing to the hostility of Turkish mercenaries; sometime he was in hiding, sometimes in prison. He was the author of an encycolpedia, almost unknown to the East because of of the hostlity of theologians, but influential in the West through Latin translations.

    Averroes (Ibn Rushd) (1126 – 1198) This ruler [Caiph Abu Yaqub Yusuf) took him into favour; in 1184 made him his physician, but unfortunately the patient died two years later. His , Yakub Al-Mansoor, for eleven years continued his father’s patronage; then, alarmed by the opposition of the orthodox to the philospher, he deprived him of his position, and exiled him, first to a small place near Cordova, and then to Morocco. He was accused of cultivating the philosphy of the ancients at the expense of the true faith. Al-Mansur published an edict to the effect that God had decreed hell-fire for those who thought that truth can be found by the unaidd reason. All the books that could be found on logic and metaphysics were given to the flames.


  32. kaami on October 27th, 2008 @ 5:25 am

    Thanks kabirdas! I owe you one. I had a busy weekend and my family would have better of me if I even touched the computer, not to mention indulging in yet another off topic duel with Mr. IUNKNOWN

    However, my answere would be simply this, go to a library and dig up some history books. Find out for yourself, what the Arab intellectuals were discussing during the hey days of Baghdad, Damascus, Morroco, Qurtaba and Undlus. You will discover plenty of heretics, quite easily to add to what mentioned above, here are a few: Ibn al-Rāwandī, Al-Ma’arri,Abū Bakr al-Rāzī and ofcourse as mentioned above Ibn Rushd and Ibn-e-Sina.

    Here are some quotes from Al-Razi one of the greatest physicians of his time:

    "Custom, tradition, and intellectual laziness lead men to follow their religious leaders blindly. Religions have been the sole cause of the bloody wars that have ravaged mankind. Religions have also been resolutely hostile to philosophical speculation and to scientific research. The so-called holy scriptures are worthless and have done more harm than good, whereas the writings of the ancients like Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, and Hippocrates have rendered much greater service to humanity.

    Another one:

    "The people who gather round the religious leaders are either feeble-minded, or they are women and adolescents. Religion stifles truth and fosters enmity. If a book in itself constitutes a demonstration that it is true revelation, the treatises of geometry, astronomy, medicine and logic can justify such a claim much better…"


  33. roundthecorner on October 27th, 2008 @ 12:36 pm

    We are paying for our past mistakes, having harbored, nurtured, trained and supported the very militants that have turned on us for our own financial and strategic gains. Its a question of chickens coming back home to roost. The truth is that now, as in the past, we are dependent on others for our economic survival. We will have to keep doing their bidding until we find a way to stand on our own feet. It is our war as long as we are dependent.


  34. kabirdas on October 27th, 2008 @ 1:19 pm

    @ kaami on October 27th

    I felt all your above comments like a cool fresh breeze in a desert. You know talking to bigots like IUnknown is a pain in the neck alright but talking to some of our better educated lot who can’t rid themselves of the myths put into their heads by the local Mulla when young is a bigger pain. They are too lazy to find out the truth for themselves.

    We did digress and went off topic but in the end I would say we are reconnected to the original topic. If you think about it you will find that this war boils down to fighting bigots like IUnknown and as such it is no one else’s war but ours and ours alone.

    By the way I had lot of ammo ready to fire at this guy and was waiting for him to come within my sights which he didn’t. Anyway he will pop up somewhere else again where I may catch him again and shake him so hard that he will really repent having encountered me.

    I liked the quotes of Al-Razi and have noted them down for use in future. For these quotes now I owe you one which I am going to repay to you straight away as follows:

    There is this guy named Harun Yahya, a so called turkish Muslim scholor, who produces dozen of books on most glossy paper with beautiful pics. I believe each of these books are published in some 28 languages are so. You will find many of his books in almost all book stores. Sometime back I flipped through one of his books titled: THE QURAN LEADS THE WAY TO SCIENCE

    On page 72 of this book while highlighting the contribution made by many Muslim scientist to various disciplines of science makes a number of tall claims some of which are as follows:

    "Al Kindi (Alkindus) introduced relative physics and the theory of relativity some 1100 years prior to Einstein."

    "Thabit ibn Qurrah (Thebit), who lived in the 9th century, invented differential calculus centuries before Newton."

    "Battani, a 10th century scientist is the first developer of trigonometry."

    I know these are preposterous claims to change the history to bring it close to his heart’s desire. I call these claims preposterous because I not only know these subject fairly well but have also read a fair amount about the history of science, history of mathematics and history of the Theory of Relativity.

    This is just for your info. Now I think we have paid back whatever we owed to each other :-)
    Take care and keep the good work going. It was pleasure knowing you.


  35. IUnknown (iunknown) on October 27th, 2008 @ 1:58 pm

    @kaami, i dont know how u get so much time to write using different names on IMB and KMB.

    As far as bigots are concerened, we all know who is the bigot.

    @kaami: Lol.. Bertrand Russel ???? Can you send me Any thing authentic and welll known?

    ur unable to provide me the solid proves of kafir scientists. This shows that u have garbage in ur brain and nothing else.

    Finding truth requires some brain and some luck as well. u didnt get any of them. Cant help u really. U will get wat u deserve.


  36. kabirdas on October 27th, 2008 @ 7:38 pm

    And pray who are these ‘we’ who know who is the bigot? Looneys, cuckoos and whackos, the self proclaimed followers of God and Thakedars of Islam??!!

    Sorry, did not realize you will find Bertrand Russell not well known and authentic. Will you find Hitti and Gibon well known and authetic if I quote from the history that they have written about Arabs and Islam. How does Will Durant sound to you ??

    It is rather funny that some one who believes in comforting myths asks for ‘solid proof’for something that goes against his wishful thinking. Anyway what do you mean by solid proof?? Can you illustrate it by giving one in support of what you are saying???

    By the way you have not yet provided me the references I had asked for at the beginning and for which I accused you of lying ???


  37. kaami on October 28th, 2008 @ 2:36 am

    @Kabirdas – All I can say is that I am in awe, what powerfull writing! but lets not make it a "Mutual Appreciation Society"

    The Jagdesh incident that you have quoted is an reflection of the degradation of our society in every respect. Even the Medieval muslims were better, atleast they invited christian and jewish priests to their courts and bazaars for open discussion.

    @INKNOWN

    "Waham ka Ilaaj tou Hakeem luqmaan ke paas bhi nahein thaa" You have confused me with so many persons, and you know what I dont mind it, atleast they are the ones I can chill out with any time. For you I can only prescribe humming of this famous song atleast 100 times a day:

    "Jis taraf aankh uthaoon teri tasvee-raan hein"

    A wise man once said, "There is is no use playing flute in front of a Buffalo". How true. You asked for names, Kabir and me provided more than half a dozen, that too with quotes, yet you still ask for SOLID PROOF. This tempts me to hit you with something solid, only then you will come to your senses, just like in old Pakistani movies.


  38. riaz on October 28th, 2008 @ 9:43 am

    I have been quitely reading these posts going back and forth between kabirdaas/kaami vs iUNknown for last few days.
    I want to make few points here.
    There is NO conflict between Islam and Science as Al-Raazi said (refer to post of Kabirdaas). i dont know the context in which he said this,but a plain reading of whatever he said seems wrong. Its something an athiest would say and not someone who follows a religion.Al Raazi is right when he says that religion (and also many other things like science itself)has been used for political purposes but that does not mean there is something wrong with the religion. we must differentiate here.there is a difference in what religion tell u n what ppl implement it.
    As for the ulemaa and science are concerned, yes i agree they r 180 degree opposite to each other. poor Ibrahim lodhi lost against Babar because he was told by ulema of his time that he cannot Jihaad with guns(bandook- a new invention at that time) as they are un-islamic (Babar didnot listen to his Ulema advice n used the guns)and lost the battle.then came the issue of printing of Holy Quran and ulemaa issued a Fatwa against it.Then there was a fatwa against Azan on loudspeaker.Also there is still a fatwa against Tv. The point I want to make is that there is a built in inertia amongst the ulemaa to new things. they dont want change.but once they know how useful the change is;they stick to it so tightly that its difficult to get them untangled from it. (bandook, loudspeaker,printing and TV are the examples i gave for the same purpose).


  39. kabirdas on October 28th, 2008 @ 11:21 pm

    @ riaz On October 28

    Welcome to the club. Before I comment on your referenced post I would like to draw your attention to following few facts:

    1. The credit for the quotes of Al-Raazi goes to kaami and not to me though I wish I could claim this credit.

    2. Please note that I agree with about 99% of what Al-Raazi has said in these two quotes and mind you my overwhelming agreement with him is on the basis of my own research and reading of History (History of science, history of mathematics, history of philosphy, history of civilization, history of Islam and history of religion), Universe (Special Theory of Relativity, General Theory of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics), Life (Theory of Evolution, genese and genetics) and of course Quran (English translation) not once but many times. I have been reading about these subjects since 1995 for about 6 to8 hours a day. You may well call me jack of many trades but master of none. However, I did study some of these subjects to the level whereby I started writing two books; one I named as ‘ Evolution for Ulma’ and the other ‘ Relativity for Poets’. As you may be aware Relativity and Evalution are two well covered subjects. My aim was to explain Relativity to persons who don’t have nuch knowledge of mathematics. My aim to write ‘Evalution for Ulma’ was to explain evalution to religious lot and reconcile Theory of Evalution with the teachings of Quran. Unfortunately for health reasons both these works could not be completed. I have said all this not to impress you in any way but so that you listen to me carefully and only then let me know if you find some flaws in my thinking.

    3. I am myself not sure in what context Al=Raazi said all this. I will try to find out more about this. However, in this instance the context seems to be fairly obvious. He seems to be fighting back to his detractors, the rigid orthodox. It may be pertinent to point out here that at the time here I quote BR: "There was a sect of completly orthodox theologians, who objected to all philosphy as deletrious to faith. One of these, named Algaze, wrote a book called ‘Destruction of Philosphers’, pointing out that, since all necessary truth is in Quran, there is no need of speculation independent of revelation. It was in response to this book that Ibn Rushd wrote a book called ‘ Destruction of the Destruction."

    4. Now without going into the detailed reasons I would say that I am in full agreement with each and every word of referenced two quotes of Al-Raazi with the exception of just the first part of the sentence where he says: "The so-called holy scriptures are worthless."
    I believe the holy scriptures have not been totally worthless and did play a positive role in reformation of mankind and societies. In the absence of education on a large scale I think this was the only way the societies could be reformed when most of these religion came into being. I will even not object to his use of words ‘ The so called holy scripture’ in this part of the sentence.

    I will now proceed wih my comment on your referenced post in my next post, hopefully tomorrow.


  40. riaz on October 29th, 2008 @ 6:50 am

    1) Religions have been the sole cause of the bloody wars that have ravaged mankind.
    The two world wars were fought based on all reasons except religion.The only documented religious based war is the Crusades. The view that Religion is the biggest/sole reason for wars is factually incorrect.Yes, during war ppl will use religion (amongst other things like nationalism etc) to boost the morale of their soldiers,but one cannot blame religion for starting the war.

    2)Religions have also been resolutely hostile to philosophical speculation and to scientific research.
    This is very much true about the people who profess to be the champions of their respective religions,but not the religion itself.You can find such ppl in every region of the world who believe in this or that religion. A difference needs to be made b/w what the religion says and what ppl professing that religion say.They are not always the same.

    About the second quote of Al-Raazi now

    "The people who gather round the religious leaders are either feeble-minded, or they are women and adolescents. "
    Not neccessarily. Religious leaders attract everyone. to some extent its true that people who have weak beliefs or little knowledge of religion would either swing 100 percent towards the religious leaders or away from them.but again it depends.its not an absolute statement.

    Religion stifles truth and fosters enmity.
    Factually incorrect again. its based on the premis that religion cause war.No.its the people who cause it n then try to use religion to justify their acts.

    If a book in itself constitutes a demonstration that it is true revelation, the treatises of geometry, astronomy, medicine and logic can justify such a claim much better…"

    Not sure what exactly he meant by this, but over the top it looks right.
    We can prove religious revelations by science and not the other way around.,coz scientific theories/facts change all the time, while TRUTH doesnt.

    3) The so-called holy scriptures are worthless and have done more harm than good, whereas the writings of the ancients like Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, and Hippocrates have rendered much greater service to humanity.”
    Again incorrect. This is based on the premise that religion caused wars.


  41. IUnknown (iunknown) on October 29th, 2008 @ 5:49 pm

    I was too busy to write any single word here for pastcouple of days.

    @kaami ( who also writes as @kabirdas,@sceptic, @balma): how can i believe u and bertrand russel who themselves dont beleive in anything? :D

    Interpreting a verse out of context can make any one, an atheist. Perhaps that is why you have quoted ibn-rushd as kafir.

    "Religions have been the sole cause of the bloody wars that have ravaged mankind."

    Well, not actually religions, its being non-religious who have always initiaited wars. Doesnt matter if they have disguissed themselves as popes. Right now, the wars going on all over the world have been initiated by non-religious persons, in the disguise of chrisitianity. They all beleive in money , money and money.

    What could i be without U @balma :D

    @riaz: leave him. He is a frustrated person jis ki ghar main bhee koi nahi sunta :D


  42. kabirdas on October 29th, 2008 @ 7:45 pm

    @ riaz on October 28th,
    @ kabirdas on October 28th

    As promised my sentence- and parawise comments on your referenced post in addition to my above referenced post are as follows:

    1. " There is NO conflict between Islam and Science as Al-Raazi said."

    Al-Raazi did not specifically mention Islam as having a conflict with science. His exact words are : Religions have also been resolutely hostile to philosophical speculation and to scientific research. He talked of religions in general which of course includes Christianity and Islam as well. The hostility of Christian church to speculation and scientific research is well known and well documented. Burning of Bruno on stakes and the incident of Galileo’s inquisition are just two of many examples of it. The state of affair prevalent in 10th and 11th centuries in the Islamic world was no different as has already been high lighted by me above. The same state of affair has been existing ever since the Muslim took to science and technology.

    2. " i dont know the context in which he said this,"

    I have already commented on this vide para of my previous post.

    3. " but a plain reading of whatever he said seems wrong."

    Plain reading may well be deceptive particulary to a person who is borne and committed to a certain school of thought merits and demerits of which are under discussion. To come to the right conclusions will require a certain amount of unbiased research. If we don’t have the ability or the time to do the research on our own we must pay attention to the opinion of those who do such research. After having read many such people I have no doubt in my mind that what Al-Raazi said is absolutely correct.

    4. " Its something an athiest would say and not someone who follows a religion."

    I am not sure what is that ‘something’ you are alluding to? Do you mean the entire statement or some part of it? Will you please elucidate and elaborate what is ‘something’ which only an athiest would have said.

    5. " Al Raazi is right when he says that religion (and also many other things like science itself) has been used for political purposes but that does not mean there is something wrong with the religion."

    Please reread the two quotes again. You will find that Al-Raazi has not said anything of the sort. However, I may agree with you that religion has been ‘misused’ for political purposes and that does not mean there is something wrong with the religion except that a religion is prone to ‘misuse’ whereas it is not the case with science.

    6. I agree with the second para of your post except when you say:
    "The point I want to make is that there is a built in inertia amongst the ulemaa to new things."

    The question I would like to ask you: Where does this inertia come from? You can’t just shrug it off as something built in as if it is gentically hard wired into them as an instinct. Ulma share the same genetic pool as the rest of us. How come, only Ulma have this inertia built into them? This inertia comes from the basic article of a religous faith that holy scriptures are immutable. And this is particulary so in the case of Islam than anyother religion.

    I would now like to hear your precise views about the various observations of Al-Raazi that he has made in the referenced two quotes before I comment on them.

    In the end please allow me to quote BR just to show generally what kind of philosphy a religion may permit to flourish. What he has said about Aquinas is true for all our Islamic philosphers and scholors except the likes of Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd et al who were persecuted by orthodox. Request read it carefully:

    " There is little of the true philosphic spirit in Aquinas. He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an enquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophise, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he only to fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosphy, but special pleading.

    (BR- Histtory of Western Philosphy)


  43. kabirdas on October 29th, 2008 @ 8:12 pm

    @ riaz on October 29th.
    I would have appreciated if you had waited for my comments on your post of 28 Oct particualry when I had promised to do so vide my post of 28 Oct. Any way I have forwarded my comments on your post of 28 Oct as promised. In the light of this post would you like me to reply to your post of 29 Oct or would you like to add or delete something from it. I wait for your reply before I proceed any further.
    Please bear in mind for this kind of discussion one has to remain strictly focused and within the scope of the discussion otherwise the discussion can go haywire without any meaningful result.
    As I understand right know we are discussing each and every thing that Al-Raazi has said in his two referenced quotes and nothing else.


  44. IUnknown (iunknown) on October 30th, 2008 @ 7:01 am

    Again, repentence is all we need to get back our glory and get rid of ppl like @kaami from being our leaders.

    May ALLAH bless pakistan (ameen)


  45. sceptic on October 30th, 2008 @ 6:35 pm

    First thing first. I hereby declare that I have never used Kabirdas or Kaami as my nick on any blog; that I am not related to these gentlemen and that I have not known them at any stage in my life. However, I greatly admire Kabirdas and Kaami as voices of reason and sanity amongst the cacophony of the ignorant and the unknowing (pun intended).

    I agree with a fellow commentator that ‘repenting’ is the way forward and there is no other way left for Pakistanis. The moment the faithful stood up shoulder to shoulder in a national spasm of repent and atonement, all ills afflicting the country would disappear. The nation would wake up next morning with its exchequer overflowing with the green currency notes and the biggest worry surrounding Mr Tareen would be which hedge fund to choose from to invest and how quickly to think of infrastructure projects to absorb the excess liquidity coming out of every Pakistanis ears. That fortunate post-repentance morning there will not be single soul who would have to work or beg for food as all sudden the Jabir Allah would turn the most merciful and the most compassionate by arranging an uninterrupted supply of man-o-salwa as it appears in many fairytales, oops, “revealed” manuscripts. Everyone on the street would be supporting nice following beards or flowing burqas. The national repenting would also absolve this God-given country from the petty chores such as cleaning, washing, cooking and whatnot. Earthquakes would stop; cars would run on water; national power grid would be linked direct to holy clouds for an uninterrupted supply of electricity; birds and animals would build bridges, roads, underground train network; Kashmir would become an Independent country, Pakistan’s capital would shift automatically to Delhi with Lal Qila as the headquarter of Ameer-ul-Momineen, etc.

    The biggest question would be what to do with the spare time that everyone would have on their rich but holy hands. Naturally, for men the fruits of the repenting would be incomplete if they do not get a harem full of virgins to kill the time. Only Al-Lah knows what would be in the store for the women of our great land.

    A cynic may say that a mere act of repenting cannot realize such radical results. However, he/she may not be aware that it was repenting repeated over and over which led to the ascendance of civilizations of past, the Romans, the Greeks, the Persians, the Arabs, the Ottoman, the Spaniards, the British, and so on.

    Now, the dear reader would say: Have not we heard it all somewhere? I wish if dreams could come true.


  46. kabirdas on October 30th, 2008 @ 7:50 pm

    It was my belief (and being a belief not supported by evidence) that I can write better than any one who writes faster than me and I can write faster than any one who writes better than me. Now after having read your post which you have written better than me my belief in my own writing ability has been somewhat shaken. So what do I do now but to believe (to keep my ego intact) that I can write faster than you though I will not accept your challange for it.
    You have beautifully enumerated how all our needs will be met if we repented. You seem to have missed out the need for our defence. Should I assume that for this an army of Ababeels will be detailed and our own existing army will be sent on furlough :-)
    At the end you have asked the question :" Have not we heard it all somewhere?"
    Sir, the answer to this question is in affirmative. We hear it from the Mulla of our local mosque 5 times a day, evry day of the week and every week of the month and so on and so forth. And you will be surprised to know that most of us who enter the mosque, like a good Muslim leaving their wit with their shoes at the entrance gate of the mosque, do believe him when he says all this.


  47. kabirdas on October 31st, 2008 @ 11:59 pm

    @ riaz on October 29th, 2008 @ 6:50 am
    1) Religions have been the sole cause of the bloody wars that have ravaged mankind.
    You say:
    The two world wars were fought based on all reasons except religion.The only documented religious based war is the Crusades. The view that Religion is the biggest/sole reason for wars is factually incorrect.Yes, during war ppl will use religion (amongst other things like nationalism etc) to boost the morale of their soldiers,but one cannot blame religion for starting the war.

    I say:
    Please note that the two World Wars had not taken place when Al-Raazi wrote these worlds. He obviously took stock of the wars which took place before his time. Still it will be incorrect to assume that religion had nothing to do with these two wars. It was a factor in a way. Also it is incorrect to assume that Crusades were the the only religion based wars.

    History has recorded so many wars that were caused by religion, that it is impossible to enumerate them all. One would probably require numerous tomes just to annotate the names of all those conflicts.

    In the early stages of human existence, during the Paleolithic and Neolithic periods, tens of thousands of religious wars were fought. However, we will never know a thing about them because they went unrecorded due to the absence of writing in those archaic times.

    The first clash between Judaism and Christianity took place two thousand years ago, but soon the new religion consolidated its power in Europe and since then it instigated official and unofficial pogroms against the Jews. The most costly in human lives was the Spanish Inquisition in the fifteenth century. That inter-creed confrontation experienced no respite and continued into the twentieth century, when Nazi Germany pursued to exterminate the Jews and the Vatican showed sympathy for what the fascists were doing. The Orthodox Christians were hardly any different from their Western counterparts and in Russia there were numerous religiously inspired anti-Jewish pogroms.

    The first confrontation between Christianity and Islam occurred in 645, when the newly formed Muslim armies tried to overrun the Byzantine Empire. Then came the Muslim invasion of the Iberian Peninsula, then the Crusades, then the conquering drive of the Ottoman Turks into the Mediterranean, then the push of Czarist Russia into Ottoman territories, then the imperialist drive of Europe into the Middle East, and then the War on Terror.

    Since the death of Prophet Mohammed in 632, Muslim armies systemically expanded the territories under their control and in the early sixteenth century they took over northern India. That obviously translated into a clash with Hindu armies. The warring among Islam and Hinduism continued in the following centuries and not even when Britain ruled the subcontinent, did it stop. That is why in 1947, when the British granted independence, the Muslims demanded that India be broken up so that they could have a nation of their own. Despite the territorial partition, as soon as the British withdrew, a war erupted and in the decades that followed there were two others.

    Hinduism and Islam are the two largest religions of South Asia, but there are others and violence among them has also been regular. In India, there have been constant clashes throughout the centuries between Sikhs and Hindus, Animists and Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs, and in between other confessions.

    In Sri Lanka, Buddhists and Hindus have fought for centuries and since 1983 a brutal civil war has claimed tens of thousands of lives.

    Recently a survey was carried out the internet wherby respondent were asked if religion has been the cause of all wars. They wer to answer Yes, No Sometimes or as Unsure. The result of this survey was as follows:

    Yes————59%
    No————-19%
    Sometimes——15%
    Unsure———7%

    Must admit it was not a very scientifically conducted survey but it does show the trend of the general opinion in this regard which can’t be ignored altogether.

    TO BE CONTINUED


  48. kabirdas on November 1st, 2008 @ 1:03 am

    Now let us see what my Guru has to say in ttis regard. In ‘THE ESSENCE AND EFFECTS OF RELIGION’ Bertrand Russel goes on to say:
    Quote
    The ‘native religions’ handed down from the earliest times differ from the ‘historic religions’—-the great religions of the world such as Buddhism, Islam and christianity. For one thing, the various native religions could not be compared because they were limited to one culture and simply handed down from generation to generation. But each of the great religions claim that only its own faith is true and that all others are false. It is scarsely possible for the Chinese to conceive that different religions sometimes cannot coexist because, in China, Buddhism, Confusianism and other creeds can be believed in simultaneously and each is tolerent of others. Westerners, by contrast consider their religions to hold absolute truth as soon as they believe in it. Alien religions are rejected , and as a result of rival creeds failing to coexist, there have been many religious wars.

    Among the old religions only Judaism was intolerent of other religions. But its influence spread to Christianity and Islam both of which have used the same methods. Even the intolerent side of insttutional religion not only has its own customs but also treats other religion as ‘heresies’, and wants the whole world to believe that it is the sole repository of truth while all other are false.

    Now is this kind of religion useful? Usually when we ponder the usefulness of a social institution, we question whether it is valuable for national survival? Its so-called survival value means that it can be used as a justification for killing others inorder to preserve one’s own life. That is why institutions useful for killing have been considered important and respectable. They are praised in poems and championed in education. Religions have been extremely effective in promoting wars in the past; indeed they have played a lethal role throughout history!
    Unquote
    NB: I will comment on the second item in my next post.


  49. kaami on November 3rd, 2008 @ 7:30 pm

    @kabirdas and @sceptic, what powerful writing! I took a break from the web and you guys really had a ball. Sceptic I love your take on “repentance”, WOW what a retort. And kabirdas, you are a scholar, you indeed have in depth knowledge / study about the subjects that you write about, I really envy you, for now I could only wish to return to my old friends “the books” with a similar enthusiasm.

    @riaz, I did not have any intention of to delve in a debate on religion / science or religion and wars. I was just responding to some absolute statements made by Mr. IUNKNOWN. The lines that I have quoted from Al-Razi are quite mild in tone; I deliberately did not quote some very strong words from him as he was pretty severe on prophets and Holy Scriptures. I agree that not all wars are motivated by religions but quite a few have been. The engine that has always driven the war machine has either been a belief system, a kings desire to conquer using faith or race as a motivator, plain and simple greed, fear of the unknown and a tendency of the martial races to snatch the wealth generated by the civilized ones. Ironically, through out the history when a nomadic martial race conquers a civilized one, it eventually settles down and embraces arts and sciences until it has to face a similar scenario. However, in the present era the tables have turned, Knowledge is not only driving the socio-economic engine of a developed civilization, it is also keeping its military machine far more superior than any un-civilized one. So the have-nots don’t have the option of conquer and snatch. Anyway, war in the traditional sense is rapidly becoming un-economical and out of fashion, the real wars are being fought in the fields of trade, commerce and inventive ideas. Unfortunately, Muslims of our region who by the way have produced most progressive thinkers in the history are once again being preached that it is their duty to spread their belief by the age old method of invitation, jazia and jihad. Since, military confrontation is out of scope; hence acts of terror are being justified and promoted as instruments of war. This philosophy has a built in flaw and that is, it triggers a self destruct process (driven by in-tolerance / stubbornness) within a society that promotes it, engulfing it in multiple inward conflicts, burning it to the ground while the others can only watch.

    Thats my take on it "kabirdas" is far more eloquent and resourceful. I am eagerly awaiting his post


  50. kabirdas on November 4th, 2008 @ 9:35 pm

    @ kaami on November 3rd

    Thanks for your most gracious and flattering comments about my write up. I am not really much of a writer as such as I am a voracious reader who has consequently fallen into the lazy habit of thinking. I suppose ‘Dil say jo bat nikalty hay asar rakhti hay’

    I have subsequently found out more about Al-Raazi and also came to know about the other two quotes of his about the holy scriptures and the prophets which you have in mind. I don’t know what you think of those two additional quotes but I have no qualm in confessing that I fully agree with him about what he says in regard to the holy scriptures and only partly agree with him about what he says in regard to the prophets.


  51. kabirdas on November 4th, 2008 @ 9:58 pm

    @ riaz on October 29th,

    2)Religions have also been resolutely hostile to philosophical speculation and to scientific research.
    This is very much true about the people who profess to be the champions of their respective religions,but not the religion itself.You can find such ppl in every region of the world who believe in this or that religion. A difference needs to be made b/w what the religion says and what ppl professing that religion say.They are not always the same.

    The line of argument that you have chosen is just to defend the religion and pass on the blame for its flaws to its followers since it is less risky to blame the followers than the religion itself. How dare we criticize our religion when right from our childhood our faith has been drummed into our ears and rammed down our throat by our parents and priests et al. We have actually been indoctrinated with the most comforting thought that we belomg to a group of people with superior knowledge who alone have a private wire to the office of Almighty, all others being less unfortunate than ourselves.

    After having studied, in my later years because of my compulsive inquisitiveness, both the religion and mdern science and their histories I have come to a firm cnclusion that science and religion are inherently incompatible and antagnostic. In this regard I would like to quote Paul Davies who in his famous book ‘God and the New Physics’ states my point so aptly as follows:

    "For greater part of human history, men and women have turned to religion not only for moral guidence, but also for answers to to the fundamental questions of existence. How was the universe created and how will it end? What is the origin of life and mnkind? Only in the last few centuries science bagan to make its own contribution to such issues. The resulting clashes are well documented. From its origin with Galileo, Copernicus and Newton, through Darwin and Einstein modern science has cast threating light on many deep-rooted religious beliefs.

    The scientist and the theologian approach the deep questions of existence from utterly different starting points. Science is based on careful observation and experiment enabling theories to be constructed which connect different experiences. Regularities in the working of nature are sought which hopefully reveal the fundamental laws that govern the behaviour of matter and forces. Central to this approach is the willingness of the scientist to abandon a theory if evidence is produced against it. Although individual scientists may cling tenaciously to some cherished idea, the scientific community as a group is always ready to adopt a new approach. There are no shooting wars over scientific principles.

    In contrast, religion is founded on revelation and received wisdom. Religious dogma that claims to contain an unalterable ‘Truth’ can hardly be modified to fit changing ideas. The true believer must stnd by his faith whatever the apparent evidence against it. This ‘Truth’ is said to be communicated directly to the believer, rather than the filtering and refining process of collective investigation. The trouble about the revealed truth is that it is liable to be wrong and even if it is right other people require good reason to share recipients’ belief."

    So you see the hostility of religion to scientific research stems from its so called revealed ‘Truth’ which can’t be questioned but is questioned by scientists most of the time. ‘Theory of Evolution’ or ‘The Big Bang Theory’ which now stand as facts are the classic examples of being the cause of religion’s hostility towards science. The poor ‘champions’ of religion have no option but to support the myths of religion otherwise they will no longer be able to call themselves as ‘faithfuls’. What the followers are doing is performing their duty as is required of them by their respective religions.

    NB:
    1.I will discuss your other observations in my next post.
    2. Paul Davies is professor of Theoratical Physics at the University of Newcastle. His research has ranged across much of fundamental physics and cosmology. He has acquired internation reputation as a science popularizer. Beside this one he has written about 18 other books. Some of these books titled ‘ Other Worlds’, ‘The runaway Universe’, ‘The edge of Infinity’ and ‘ The Mind of God’ have received world wide acclaim.


  52. kaami on November 5th, 2008 @ 8:17 pm

    RE: Al-Razi quotes.
    You have read the right ones and like you I am in full agreement with him.

    Also I fully endorse what you have enumerated about science and religion. Science is not just a method of mixing chemicals or burning rocket fuel. It’s a way of thinking which is contrary to religious thought and beliefs, as mentioned in detail in your above post.


  53. kabirdas on November 6th, 2008 @ 12:45 am

    @ Kammi on November 5th

    Sir, I am not sure how Al-Raazi would have felt about your agreement with him but your agreement with him has certainly made my day. It is so pleasing and gratifying to come across some one, once in a while, who is prepared to make use of the faculties with which the nature has endowed us and is brave enough to say ‘Aqil’ is better than ‘Naqil’ and thus not be deluded ‘by the beards of the goats’.


  54. kabirdas on November 6th, 2008 @ 12:50 am

    @ Riaz

    Al-Raazi says:
    "The people who gather round the religious leaders are either feeble-minded, or they are women and adolescents. "

    You say:
    "Not neccessarily. Religious leaders attract everyone. to some extent its true that people who have weak beliefs or little knowledge of religion would either swing 100 percent towards the religious leaders or away from them.but again it depends.its not an absolute statement".

    I and host of other great minds say:
    There is general consensus among all leading philosphers that fundamentally the basis of religion is fear. Lucretius said it as far back as some 2500 yeras : ‘It was fear that first made gods in the world.’ Voltaire said it much later : ‘If there was no God we would have to invent him.’ In recent times Will Durant said it rather differently in ‘God and Imortality’ (perhaps with tongue in cheek): ‘Every soldier is religious until he is promoted to the rear; all generals are athiests.’ Bertrand Russel is of the same view. In ‘ Why I Am Not a Chriatian’ he says: ‘ Religion is based , I think primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown, and partly the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of whole thing—-fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death’. And then in his discourse on’ Human Society In Eithics and Politics’ he makes the statement: ‘There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who can’t face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dare not face this thought!’
    Bertrand Russell also seems to hold a similar view as held by Al-Raazi when in ‘ Bertrand Russell Speaks His Mind’ says: ‘I say people who feel they must have a faith or relgion in order to face life are showing a kind of cowardice, which in any other sphere would be considered contemptible. But when it is in the religious sphere it is thought admirable, and I cannot admire cowardice whatever sphere it is in’.
    Sir the point I am trying to make is that indeed, as Al-Raazi said, feeble minded are more prone to get attracted to religion and thereby gather round religious leaders to listen to the comforting myths which help them to overcome their fears and face the perils of life. I believe in the same context Al-Raazi also said which I find rather amusing and true: "as a result of [religious people] being long accustomed to their religious denomination, as days passed and it became a habit. Because they were deluded by the beards of the goats, who sit in ranks in their councils, straining their throats in recounting lies, senseless myths and "so-and-so told us in the name of so-and-so…".

    To be continued


  55. kabirdas on November 6th, 2008 @ 11:16 am

    @ Riaz

    Al-Raazi says: Religion stifles truth and fosters enmity.

    You say: Factually incorrect again. its based on the premis that religion cause war.No.its the people who cause it n then try to use religion to justify their acts.

    I say: I do not see any link whatsoever of this statement with the statement that religion cause wars. That was a separate issue. However, It does have connection with the statement: ‘Religions have also been resolutely hostile to philosophical speculation and to scientific research’ which I reckon I have shown above to be true to a great extent.
    Riaz, you don’t have to go very far (dark ages of Europe when heretics used to be punished most serverly and even burned at stakes) to see the verasity of this statemet. In our case most unfortunately it holds good even in this century. Our Blasphemy laws are a classic example of it. The enmity and hatered between Shias and Sunnis and Deobandi and Bralavi etc is another example of it. Don’t you hear the Fatwas of the bearded goats against not only those people who hold different opinion than theirs or against each other for the same reason for that matter. So and so is Kafir. So and so is Murtid. So and so is Wajibul Qatal. So and so’s Nikah with his wife has become null and void. If you go a bit deep in to the cause of such Fatwas you will find that the reason for this is nothing more than the fact that the guy has expressed some views about some matter which are not approved by our socalled religious scholors or Ulma-e-Karams who are no better than an ordinary Mullah of a mosque. The only difference between a Mullah and an Alam-e-Din is that former remains buried in his Hujra and the latter in his relgious books written by equally ignorant Ulama-e-Din. Both are frogs of a deep well. The latter is more dangerous than the latter. The former is actually the mouth piece of the latter. I am actually shocked by the statements of these self proclaimed pious men which I often find blesphemous.

    It may again be relevant to quote BR in this regard:

    ‘Owing to the idientification of religion with virtue, to gether with the fact that most religious men are not the most intelligent, a religious education gives courage to the stupid to resist the authority of educated men, as has happened, for example, where teaching of evolution has been made illegal. So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence; and in this respect ministers of religion follow gospels authority more closely than in some other". (Education and the Social Order)

    It may also be pertinent to mention two other interesting quotes which I read somewhere but unfortunately don’t remember their exact words and authorship.

    a. With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

    b. If, instead of being a Christian or a Muslim or a Hindu or a Jew, we were all athiests, this world would be a much better place to live in.

    To be continued


  56. kabirdas on November 8th, 2008 @ 1:01 am

    @ Riaz

    Al-Raazi says: If a book in itself constitutes a demonstration that it is true revelation, the treatises of geometry, astronomy, medicine and logic can justify such a claim much better…"

    You say: Not sure what exactly he meant by this, but over the top it looks right.
    We can prove religious revelations by science and not the other way around.,coz scientific theories/facts change all the time, while TRUTH doesnt.
    I say: What Al-Raazi means is that if only the contents of the book are taken as an indication of its being a true revelation then the scientific books are more jistified to make such a claim. His statement is particulary true for such scientific doscoveries and theories which were not the child of their times. Works of many scientists appear to be intuitive and give the impression as if they have been revealed to them by some supernatural being. Democritus a-tom (uncutable) theory of matter is a classic example of this. His a-tomic theory of matter expounded some 450 years BC still astounds the modern day particle physists. He is probably best known for two of the most scientifically intuitive quotes ever utterd by an ancient:

    " Nothing exisits except atoms and space; everything else is opinion."
    and
    " Everything exisiting in the universe is the fruit of chance and necessity."

    Yes, science can either prove but or disprove many religious revelations. The classic example of the one revelation, a very important one, that has been so thoroughly disproved by science is that of Genesis. How The Theory of Evolution and Big Bang Theory have shaken the very foundation of religion is a well known fact. These theories have now been accepted by the Christian church also though with some reservations like the mechanism of evolution, Natural Selection and Gene Mutation, have been set in motion by God. Even then these theories contradict the Genesis story as described in holy scriptures.

    The socalled TRUTH doesn’t change indeed and that’s the whole tragedy of religion. It becomes obsolete and out of phase with times even if it wasn’t so at the time of its birth.

    Sir, you have made a very loose statement : " coz scientific theories/facts change all the time,"

    Please first note the difference between a fact and a theory. This example will help you to understand the difference. Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.

    Stephen J. Gould, one of the top biologists of the wprld, has put this as well as anyone else:

    "Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

    The theories do change and thus improve and come closer and closer to the TRUTH. Had science been static like religion we would have still continued to believe that the earth is flat.

    To be continued



Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.