A litmus test to the heading of this post:
My parents (both 70+ , Pakistan origin) visited with a group of 35 central Damascus last week and stayed there for a week. The moved in and out of Syria via Lebanon commuting by bus.
So, things are well under control when people can safely visit a country, stay and have tourism.
"The Shiah leadership should come out openly asking their followers to completely stop insulting the Sahaba ( Prophets companions), the wives of the prophet and contemplate changing their views on the infallibility of their Imams"
1.respected "pamohamedameen" has asked something to be done by one side and nothing by the other!
2.i am not sure how the infallibility of imams concept can be a cause of hurting unity.
3."insults" can't be justified, however it shouldn't be mingled with difference of opinion or dis-likening. basic tenants of islam no where asked to agree with or like the companions, even the companions fought among each other bloody battles killing thousands.
unity is to learn living with the differences and not to abolish the differences because if differences are no more, what "unity" will mean!
Saudis have also been "history killers" by destroying the all islamic history landmarks one by one. May it be the graves of Muhammad's companions or houses & any other identification that may help validate a historical account, Saudis concept of "shirk (denial of the oneness of God)" do not allow anything to stand as a historical evidence.
The most notable is the last para ... quote "A video posted online by local activists showed a policeman standing over the limbs of the bomber inside the stricken mosque and apparently saying “God rest his soul”, only to get screamed at by residents whose white robes were smeared with blood."..unquote
"But non-Sunni governments should take note that in this era of social mobilization, it is unwise to push large Sunni populations to the wall."
From a practical point of view the above advice is correct. However, theoretically; a) where the non-sunni government is that of shiites (like in iraq), this pushing to the wall can be seen as a natural consequence of what sunni government had been doing for years to the large-shiite population, b) in a longer-term, it is equally dangerous to push the large shiite population, or for that purpose, any segment of the population to the wall, like in Bahrain or Saudia Arabia.
"...The London-based pan-Arab daily, al-Quds al-`Arabi (Arab Jerusalem), published an excellent article today on the differences between the Iraqi Shiite authorities of Najaf, who are neutral on Syria, and the Iranian ayatollahs of Qom, who openly call for volunteers to go fight on the side of the Syrian government...."
Neither the original article nor the professor could give any link to "ayatollahs of Qom, who openly call"!
if khamanei or any noticeable other would have said anything, it would be viral by now.
"...............In contrast, Shiites asserted a dynastic principle..."
I think Professor has erred on this point. Dynastic principle is father-son-son-son & so on & generally the "elder son". However, both historically & more theologically this doesn't fit on shiites. Historically, their first "king" was followed by his elder son, but then the caliphate didn't go to a son of this elder son but instead passed on to his younger brother. then it was son-son-son till no. 12, but the elder son rule wasn't followed on atleast 6 to 7 transition.
Further, theologically, shiites present a list of qualifications required for being "Imam", which, found in who so ever will merit his appointment. As, according to them, pre-requisite qualifications like "infallability" can't be established without divine decree, a position holder, starting from Prophet Muhammad, will pronounce his successor.
Few days back there was a discussion in which someone pointed out the "real problem".
Comparing the british occupation of all these areas (india, afghanistan & pakistan) back in the nineteenth century, what transpired is the efforts British done on understanding the "people" of an area. Their gazetteers are still the best reference about an area.
What Americans seem to know is just one language, the "gun"!
Before their next adventure, they please take just a 10 day training from someone like prof Cole!
Dear professor, if any one cited the comments to this posting before a Pakistani Court, you are most likely to be banned as well!.
Bringing discussion back to Pakistan from the on-going comments upon the nature/necessity of religion, I had apprehensions earlier when you were praising Pakistan Courts for revival of democracy & fight against Musharraf. It was not much more than the media hype. The courts' standard is at the lowest right now.
If you observe closely, the courts, esp. the Supreme Court of Pakistan is acting more & more like a political party which has to go by the "will of the people". Any issue having public interest taken up before the court is bound to be decided in the favour of "masses" irrespective of the justice requirements.
Further, in good old times, a judge wouldn't have even thought to keep his seat if there comes a corruption charge against him, irrespective of the decision about any such charge. But now, the "respected" Chief Justice who was dismissed on "documented" corruption charges is at his seat & and interfering in every issue that will earn him fame without fulfilling the needs of justice.
Sorry for not been able to provide citations in support of my comments, but please be skeptic while observing Pakistan's Courts' actions.
A litmus test to the heading of this post:
My parents (both 70+ , Pakistan origin) visited with a group of 35 central Damascus last week and stayed there for a week. The moved in and out of Syria via Lebanon commuting by bus.
So, things are well under control when people can safely visit a country, stay and have tourism.
"The Shiah leadership should come out openly asking their followers to completely stop insulting the Sahaba ( Prophets companions), the wives of the prophet and contemplate changing their views on the infallibility of their Imams"
1.respected "pamohamedameen" has asked something to be done by one side and nothing by the other!
2.i am not sure how the infallibility of imams concept can be a cause of hurting unity.
3."insults" can't be justified, however it shouldn't be mingled with difference of opinion or dis-likening. basic tenants of islam no where asked to agree with or like the companions, even the companions fought among each other bloody battles killing thousands.
unity is to learn living with the differences and not to abolish the differences because if differences are no more, what "unity" will mean!
Saudis have also been "history killers" by destroying the all islamic history landmarks one by one. May it be the graves of Muhammad's companions or houses & any other identification that may help validate a historical account, Saudis concept of "shirk (denial of the oneness of God)" do not allow anything to stand as a historical evidence.
Please have a read to get some more facts about the bombing:
http://www.dawn.com/news/1183859/saudi-clerics-urge-calm-as-village-hit-by-is-seethes
The most notable is the last para ... quote "A video posted online by local activists showed a policeman standing over the limbs of the bomber inside the stricken mosque and apparently saying “God rest his soul”, only to get screamed at by residents whose white robes were smeared with blood."..unquote
"But non-Sunni governments should take note that in this era of social mobilization, it is unwise to push large Sunni populations to the wall."
From a practical point of view the above advice is correct. However, theoretically; a) where the non-sunni government is that of shiites (like in iraq), this pushing to the wall can be seen as a natural consequence of what sunni government had been doing for years to the large-shiite population, b) in a longer-term, it is equally dangerous to push the large shiite population, or for that purpose, any segment of the population to the wall, like in Bahrain or Saudia Arabia.
Regards
Azeem,
Islamabad, Pakistan
"...The London-based pan-Arab daily, al-Quds al-`Arabi (Arab Jerusalem), published an excellent article today on the differences between the Iraqi Shiite authorities of Najaf, who are neutral on Syria, and the Iranian ayatollahs of Qom, who openly call for volunteers to go fight on the side of the Syrian government...."
Neither the original article nor the professor could give any link to "ayatollahs of Qom, who openly call"!
if khamanei or any noticeable other would have said anything, it would be viral by now.
"...............In contrast, Shiites asserted a dynastic principle..."
I think Professor has erred on this point. Dynastic principle is father-son-son-son & so on & generally the "elder son". However, both historically & more theologically this doesn't fit on shiites. Historically, their first "king" was followed by his elder son, but then the caliphate didn't go to a son of this elder son but instead passed on to his younger brother. then it was son-son-son till no. 12, but the elder son rule wasn't followed on atleast 6 to 7 transition.
Further, theologically, shiites present a list of qualifications required for being "Imam", which, found in who so ever will merit his appointment. As, according to them, pre-requisite qualifications like "infallability" can't be established without divine decree, a position holder, starting from Prophet Muhammad, will pronounce his successor.
excellent read. "contextualize" human thought patterns in a remarkable manner.
azeem
islamabad, pakistan
Few days back there was a discussion in which someone pointed out the "real problem".
Comparing the british occupation of all these areas (india, afghanistan & pakistan) back in the nineteenth century, what transpired is the efforts British done on understanding the "people" of an area. Their gazetteers are still the best reference about an area.
What Americans seem to know is just one language, the "gun"!
Before their next adventure, they please take just a 10 day training from someone like prof Cole!
Dear professor, if any one cited the comments to this posting before a Pakistani Court, you are most likely to be banned as well!.
Bringing discussion back to Pakistan from the on-going comments upon the nature/necessity of religion, I had apprehensions earlier when you were praising Pakistan Courts for revival of democracy & fight against Musharraf. It was not much more than the media hype. The courts' standard is at the lowest right now.
If you observe closely, the courts, esp. the Supreme Court of Pakistan is acting more & more like a political party which has to go by the "will of the people". Any issue having public interest taken up before the court is bound to be decided in the favour of "masses" irrespective of the justice requirements.
Further, in good old times, a judge wouldn't have even thought to keep his seat if there comes a corruption charge against him, irrespective of the decision about any such charge. But now, the "respected" Chief Justice who was dismissed on "documented" corruption charges is at his seat & and interfering in every issue that will earn him fame without fulfilling the needs of justice.
Sorry for not been able to provide citations in support of my comments, but please be skeptic while observing Pakistan's Courts' actions.
Azeem Abbas
Islamabad
Pakistan