How should India handle Pakistan? - Page 6

Originally posted by: SholaJoBhadkey

A very interesting article that might provide a partial answer to your question bahni! 😛

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/07/22/t he_fundamentalist_moderate/?page=full

The problem is that most of the so-called jehadis quote randomly from the Qura'an, and most of the Muslims are fairly ignorant about their own religion to counter these quotes. Merely reciting the Qura'an is not what Allah (swt) expects of his followers. We are supposed to read, understand, and then apply Qura'anic injunctions. Islam does not have a specificied role for a priest. We are all expected to memorise the Qura'an as much as we can, and then the best amongst us (in character) should lead the prayer. Sadly, Muslims automatically assume that one who has memorised the entire Qura'an is the best amongst us, and blindly follow his words. Allah (swt) has commanded each one of us to peruse the Qura'an - not depend on somebody else to do it for us. The day we Muslims get this concept clear, no one will be able to kill in our name.

what this gets at is a proper understanding of Islam and that's great.

but this in general (not to your post): again, i dont think anyone of us is casting negative aspersions on the religion. the entire issue instead is about the violent elements who claim that their brand of religion is the right one- whether it's the terrorists who think they are fighting for their brethren in JK, or the imams who give fiery speeches and incite violence against others. in other words, we are talking here about the practitioners/ adherents of the religion, not the religion. it is of course great to know from knowledgeable people that such menacing elements are misguided, but how are non-muslims supposed to deal with this fact when practice, which is so much more relevant in our lives, is so often different from theory?

it's also not often enough to say that most people of a religion are non-violent. when it comes to terrorism and violence, even a 10% defect rate is too high. would you go out and spend a hundred grand on a porsche if you knew that 10% of them can be lemons? when it comes to mad cow disease or salmonella posioning, dont we ban entire product lines, even when only very few items are actually spoilt? and here we are talking not just money and cars, but about lives, societies, countries that have to deal with terror that has its roots in camps across the border. what are indians/ non-muslims supposed to do on a practical, not theoretical, level?

and here's where i differ from some others- i think it's pretty naive to believe that a community will be very motivated to self-police itself. it simply does not have stakes high enough to do so. in this case, would muslims in general be really unhappy if the violent elements actually succeeded in bringing more of the world under their ambit? which is why i think that often the motivation comes from the outside.

Originally posted by: SholaJoBhadkey

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/07/22/t he_fundamentalist_moderate/?page=full

The problem is that most of the so-called jehadis quote randomly from the Qura'an, and most of the Muslims are fairly ignorant about their own religion to counter these quotes. Merely reciting the Qura'an is not what Allah (swt) expects of his followers. We are supposed to read, understand, and then apply Qura'anic injunctions. Islam does not have a specificied role for a priest. We are all expected to memorise the Qura'an as much as we can, and then the best amongst us (in character) should lead the prayer. Sadly, Muslims automatically assume that one who has memorised the entire Qura'an is the best amongst us, and blindly follow his words. Allah (swt) has commanded each one of us to peruse the Qura'an - not depend on somebody else to do it for us. The day we Muslims get this concept clear, no one will be able to kill in our name.

This is indeed an eye-opener. 👏👏 Thanks Bansali.

Originally posted by: reeps

[quote=chatbuster]think it's pretty naive to believe that a community will be very motivated to self-police itself. it simply does not have stakes high enough to do so. in this case, would muslims in general be really unhappy if the violent elements actually succeeded in bringing more of the world under their ambit? which is why i think that often the motivation comes from the outside. [/quote]

Umm, muslims are getting sterotyped/scrutinized by the entire world, branded terrorists or interrogated like one even when they aren't.... that should be motivation enough to get rid of rotten apples in the community. Instead, attitude of hatred is taken up towards west/other communities. 😕 Also, protecting sanctity of Islam should be motivation enough if the people care. Motivation is there... maybe nobody wants to utilize it or are not frustrated enough to self-motivate or motivate other individuals. 😕

in all cases listed above, motivation is either not there or imo certainly not as strong as the fella whose state/ country/ life/ property is at the direct receiving end of terrorists. yes, all positive motivation and proper teachings help, but surely outsiders cannot sit back and wait till insiders sort out things for themselves?

even in the case of the NASDAQ and the AMPAA, two organizations that work well and that self-police themselves, the motivation is the threat of external legislation which might curtail their freedom and activities. lot of money is at stake for the institutional members of those entities. very little motivation really comes from self-introspection and from members wanting to be ethical and doing the right thing by themselves. in our case case too, we need a legitimate capability to ensure that people get the message- if they dont vote for positive change themselves, it will be inforced on them. at the least, life would be uncomfortable for them. gaddafi and folks like him did not just find peace and good behavior. he came around because he knew he could be next in the US line of action.

Originally posted by: Kay Kay

Having gone thru the thread, its increasingly veered towards my religion against yours, kind of thing.

rather ironic you say that. you are actually bringing in the comparison now. 😛😕

Someone commented there are no Hindu terrorists, (I stand corrected if wrong), I think the LTTE is an example to this. Infact, they were the first to introduce suicide bombings in the 80's, a concept hijacked by the muslim extremists today.

oh, you totally missed out on what was happening in the palestine/ middle-east then. and in ireland/ great britain. if someone really needed to learn terrorism and suicide bombings, they had better examples than LTTE. actually can go much longer back in history, but none of that including your LTTE remark would be very relevant to the debate.

incidentally, LTTE is more a case of ethnic terrorism. that we have had before with nazi germany. LTTE does not threaten other religions the way certain other folks do. given how the world is divided into 3 or 4 main religions, a fight on religion is necessarily a much bigger thing.

Before one of you comes guns blazing at me, let it be known that, I am a Hindu and proud to be one.

irrelevant to me. i think what might have been more relevant would have been first identifying what the current nature of the india-pakisan problem might be (terrorism imo), and then trying to solve it?

While the world is moving forward there are groups or should I say forces of influence within every religion that want to take the backwards step.

yes. just that there are degrees. some are bigger menaces than others. we dont put a guy who gets 99% at the same level as a guy who gets 10%, do we?

And therein lies the difference. If we can all accept change as inevitable and the way forward, we hopefully will be able to find peace.

not sure how practical it is, to get the nice folks who'd like to blow themselves and others up to "accept change as inevitable"😊

Originally posted by: chatbuster

As far the mid-east conflict goes believe me peace there will always remain a pipe dream. There are forces within the mid-east that need to keep the conflict on-going to safeguard their own interests, agendas and the like.

As far as the current level of relations between India and Pakistan goes I believe that while there has been progress at the people to people level, we are still a long way from achieving tangible peace on the political spectrum and that will take an long and hard effort by the Pakistanis to stop funding the anti-India groups, stop all sort of support, political, economic or religious and agree to the fact that Kashmir was India's and will remain so.

What I said were my thoughts or views and its your right to agree or disagree and I respect that😊

Originally posted by: Kay Kay

Having gone thru the thread, its increasingly veered towards my religion against yours, kind of thing.

Excellent you got the point

Someone commented there are no Hindu terrorists, (I stand corrected if wrong),

I think the LTTE is an example to this. Infact, they were the first to introduce suicide bombings in the 80's, a concept hijacked by the muslim extremists today.

excellent point, can you explain what religious grounds LTTE stands on, or are you just bringing LTTE in to say they belong to a particular religion? Do you for any instance see LTTE going out and blowing away children/women/civilians and saying this is what is our religion tells us?

or are you just bringing LTTE in just to say hey they are Hindu's?

you said you understood the thing about religious terrorism throught the thread in your first line here and you also claimed you are Hindu

so now explain to us, what religious tenet is LTTE propogating by doing terrorism in Sri Lanka?

You are comparing them to Islamic terrorism, so you should see some religous grounds, please enlighten us😉

Before one of you comes guns blazing at me, let it be known that, I am a Hindu and proud to be one.

😆😆😆

While the world is moving forward there are groups or should I say forces of influence within every religion that want to take the backwards step.

forces of influence in religion, now tell us what in Hinduism is being spread by the sword here, that you equate both the instances you stated here?

And therein lies the difference. If we can all accept change as inevitable and the way forward, we hopefully will be able to find peace.

The difference here my friend is

LTTE is a terrorist organization, that claims it is fighting its homeland(that is the cause)

Islamic terrorism spreads b'cos it is claimed as a Jihad against non-muslims, it is religious, yes there are homeland struggles, i.e when in J & K, when in Palestine

When you have people boarding planes and slamming into buildings, it is not for freedom, it is some religious feeling.

That is classic secularism you will find everywhere, on one end justify one form of religious terrorism as harmless, on the other hand claim things that exist in terrorism as having some religious affiliations when none exist, just to brandish the secularists credentials😉

Originally posted by: Kay Kay

Someone commented there are no Hindu terrorists, (I stand corrected if wrong), I think the LTTE is an example to this. Infact, they were the first to introduce suicide bombings in the 80's, a concept hijacked by the muslim extremists today.

Here is an update on LTTE : In 2001, following the September 11th attacks on the United States and the subsequent launch of the War on Terrorism, the LTTE unexpectedly dropped its demand for a separate state, which had never been accepted by the government or the island's Sinhalese majority. Instead, they stated that a form of regional autonomy would meet their demands.

So your one and only example of Hindu terrorism is not valid anymore. 😛

As for other points, Chatbuster and Sareg have given good counter-arguments and I concur with them.