Wow!!!! …. I was really expecting such a bombastic reply.


Yes ideologically whole Muslim Ummah is one single nation. But practically it is not so. Practical scenario is whole different from ideal state of affairs. If I say that Osama is struggling for his nationalistic ambitions, here I am NOT using the term ‘nationalism’ in its ideological sense. I am using it in practical sense. Practically Arab nations may prefer Indian stance about Kashmir issue, to that of Pakistan’s. Surely, in these types of matters, ‘nationalism’ in the ‘practical’ sense would be at work. USA companies offer more profits. So ‘practically’ it is beneficial for Saudi Arabia to invest its wealth in American businesses. I could not open your link so I am still unable to understand how our unity can make us strong whereas we already have a functional religion based International Organization of Islamic Countries. I think still Muslim countries feel more belongingness for other Muslim countries than any other let’s say Christian country would feel belongingness for any other Christian country. So what else we can hope of unity? If Europe is united today, IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF THEIR COMMON RELIGION. But they do have common practical interests.

Apparent silly attitude of Osama is explainable from both these angles i.e. firstly by just considering him a ‘practical’ nationalist and secondly by considering him ‘indirect ally’. I still prefer 1st assumption on such grounds that at first, Osama was the ‘direct ally’ of USA. Then he turned out to be ‘direct enemy’ AFTER WHEN US ARMY ENTERED HIS OWN TERRITORY OF SAUDI LAND with the view to punish Iraq. Remember that before 9/11, Osama was charged of being involved in bomb blasts in US embassies in African countries. Point to be remembered is that those bombs blasted exact on the day of eighth anniversary of US first attack on Iraq. So it is more likely that ambitions of territorial type nationalism were at work behind those bomb blasts.


I think this ‘indirect ally’ is not different to that ‘nationalist’ Osama which I assume. So I am ready to accept you’re this explanation.


I here do not agree to your point that true Muslim will never kill innocent people who have nothing to do with the war by means of fidai bombing. It may be true that Osama may actually be a hidden ally of USA. But Osama himself is NOT any fidai bomber. He just USES some ardent, fanatic and ready to die ‘fidai bombers’. Can you say that those ACTUAL ready to die fidai bombers are also hidden or indirect allies of USA????? Can you say that those ACTUAL fidai bombers do not kill their own selves for the ‘cause’ of Islam, obviously in their own feelings?????????????

Those who are ready to kill their own selves for the cause of Islam, why cannot be considered to be true Muslims? What I think is that THEY ARE TRUE MUSLIMS BUT THEY ARE IGNORANT MUSLIMS. They are ignorant because they insist on such a strategy for the cause of Islam, which not only is not evident in the light of true spirit of Islamic teachings but also is giving poisonous effects to the real cause of Islam.



There is good informative material in your this paragraph. Thanks for sharing it with us. I think you want to tell where all ‘major nations’ have got their specs? Then you tell that you do not want to wear such specs.

But I did not say that you keep on wearing those specs for all the time, like other major nations do. What I said was just that you just take a tour of this spectacular vision in order to UNDERSTAND why other major nations cannot see anything unethical in the policies and actions of USA.

Your final conclusion is, “bad should be called bad, and stupid should be called stupid.”

Now take this conclusion of yours in your hands and go to any other major nation. What you shall say? You shall say, “America is bad because it is bad”. Believe me, no one shall accept your point of view.

In order to convince others that USA is bad, you would need to show some those aspects of USA, which could not be censored even by those specs of other major nations.

Alternative strategy can be that you successfully provide other major nations with your own specs so that they may understand the facts in a way in which you want them to understand. Until and unless you do either of these two things, OTHERS SHALL GIVE NO IMPORTANCE TO YOUR POINT OF VIEW.



If you try to look deeply into the matters, which you have pointed out in this para, you shall find that it has happened due to some those policies of Bush Administration WHICH COULD NOT BE CENSORED BY THE SPECS WHICH USA’s OWN PEOPLE WEAR. And this is exactly what I wanted to explain. Now it is general perception that what USA did in Iraq was in clear contrast with USA’s own struggle of ‘war against terrorism’. So people are going against their government mainly due to this reason because this thing clearly went against their own value system. What I want to explain is exactly the same. The right effective policy, in my assessment, would be to repeatedly raise and highlight this or any other similar issue (i.e. which could not be censored by specs of other nations) on every international forum with the view to ethically isolate USA in various international matters. I already have discussed in detail, how we can ethically isolate a superpower country in this thread: http://www.cssforum.com.pk/thread3330.html

I agree that for all its international ventures, USA always try to keep whatever real or even fictitious moral ground for its doings. I have discussed this point also in the above-mentioned link.

And yes I do call it as its ‘ethics’. But I also say that this ethics may not be genuine at all. What I am saying is that in case we find any fictitiousness in that ethical moral ground, then it is our duty to RIGHTFULLY project that fictitiousness in every international forum. And I already have described what the RIGHTFUL WAY COULD BE for this purpose. Obviously, we will have to project the matter in a way that could not be censored out by the specs of others.



Yes these are the matters mostly which could not be censored out by the specs of other nations. These things already are giving negative effects to USA’s missions, which you have pointed out in your previous para. But there is need to REPEATEDLY project these matters on every international forum with the view to accelerate the influence of those negative effects which already have started taking place.


I agree though my understanding as to the cure of current ill situation may be slightly different to that of yours.



Well but I do not think that my assertions fall into the category of contrapositivity. As per my memory, what I listened about this thing was that in this method, if we want to prove the truth of an assertion, we first suppose that the statement actually is false. Then we see and evaluate the possible outcome of this supposition. If the so outcome is found out to be quite absurd, then we conclude that our original assumption was wrong in fact. If our original assumption was wrong, it means that original assertion was not false. If original assertion was not false then it means that it was true in fact. In this way we prove the truth of a given assertion.

I have not used this method in my assertions. My method was a simple logic which can be successfully applied in the study of various social phenomena also.


Agree in that the old values in western societies are still in function but to just some extent and also in much modified form. We should promote our own values along with strong rational footings so that others may become able to see the beauty and goodness of our values.


This point of view that westerns have taken all the things from our religious teachings is rather traditional and most of the times, it is promoted just blindly. I can see no solid basis for this point of view. If westerns have taken all the things from our religious teachings then they should not possess those social evils, which they do possess. Secondly if they really have found the true spirit of our religion then we should not have any objection in living under their leadership.

For unknown reasons, our mainstream education system as well as madarassah education system, both intentionally keep us away from knowing this fact that westerns do possess their own sources of ethical outlook of the world, which resembles to that of ours in some respects but the resemblance is just superficial.

Apart from ethical type teachings of ancient religions, the first intellectuals who imparted profound influences on ethical outlook of west were Socrates and Plato. Socrates attempted to elaborate the meanings of virtue, truth, justice etc. Plato came up with his doctrine of objective existence of ethical and moral codes and values/ standards.

Aristotle happened to be more like a scientist rather than teacher of ethics. There was no concept of international brotherhood up till that time. Plato and Aristotle tried to legitimize slavery in their respective styles. But the emergence of Roman Empire in 1st century AD gave a whole new outlook to mankind. Philosophies like Stoicism and Epicureanism emerged in that period. These were ethical type philosophies in essence. It was Stoics who first reacted against slavery and propounded the idea of universal brotherhood of humanity. Epicureans asserted that end goal before individuals should be of getting ‘intellectual pleasure’ which they could get through their thirst for knowledge and wisdom.

That Roman Empire was consisted of various city-states. For the better management of affairs of cities, Roman administrators realized the importance of ‘honesty’ in the inter-relationships of city people. So they adopted this social value of ‘honesty’ because it happened to be PRACTICALLY more beneficial for them.

Apart from the teachings of Bible and Engeal, teachings of many other religious philosophers (better known as ‘scholastics’) also shaped the ethical outlook of west unto a considerable extent. St. Augustine and St. Aquinas developed their own ethical doctrines. Doctrines of St. Aquinas later on became the official doctrines of medieval Europe.

During the renaissance period, many rational philosophers also came up with their own ethical doctrines. Spinoza, for instance, made a theory of ethics based on the principles of geometry. Various types of philosophies such as materialism, idealism, rationalism, realism, nominalism etc. etc. all had their corresponding results about the ethical outlook of life.

Yes it is true that west got many things from the teachings of Islam also but it is just baseless to say that all positive aspects of west originated in the teachings of Islam.

And it is equally important to mention that Western teachings also drew many impressions on the Muslim outlook of ethics. For example Muslim Sufis’ concepts of ‘Ishq-e-Haqiqi’, ‘fana-fi-Allah’ etc. has the roots in 1st Century AD’s philosophy known as ‘Neo-Platonism’.

Allama Iqbal also adopted this concept of ‘Ishq’. Iqbal’s concept of ‘Khudi’ has its origins in the work of German Philosopher Fitsche whose ‘ego’ with some modifications, became ‘khudi’ for Iqbal. Iqbal adopted French Philosopher Bergson’s concept of ‘intuition’ in just as it is form.

So reasons for the backwardness of Muslim societies are that they have left up their thirst for search for truth, knowledge and wisdom. They have been trapped into the habit of worshiping the idea of their glorious past and they are not finding any suitable starting point for meeting the challenges of contemporary world.

And your other post about the failures of US foreign policies is really good, informative and sufficiently elaborative. I thank you for sharing your this crucial analytical work with us.

Thanks!

__________________
Where is the SIGNATURE....????