Just read about half of the Iranian President Ahmadinejad's letter to George W. Bush. Read upto the part where he condemns the September 11th attacks.
Thus far, I agree with him word by word! A nice piece of letter (so far). Clear, direct, and brave. It is all but unexpected that the letter would be dismissed immediately. (You can read the text here). I do think that he is yet to reach any 'agenda' in the letter. Then again, any agenda other than unconditional admission to US allegations would be short of the mark to White House. The points he mentioned in the letter are burning questions inside the hearts of every human being outside of the US and Western Europe. No 'threat' or 'fissure' can be resolved unless these questions are properly answered.
I believe that the world is entitled to answers to the questions in the first part of the letter. After all, it's a tug of war between the hyped and the hypocritical. All we can do is sit back and watch...
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Sunday, April 23, 2006
'Speech vs Violence'
Is it a viable idea to stick to a "no negotiation" stand when it comes to terrorists? Does it make sense to give terrorists more respect than they deserve? Or is it terrorism in the name of counter-terrorism when authorities refuse to talk with 'rogue' forces?
I side with speech.
It is painful. It is frustrating. Its outcomes are subject to exhaustion, not common sense. Agreed. No dialogue is easy. Talking a terrorist out of an act of aggression is just as difficult as convincing your wife of the futility of shopping, or teaching your child to stay away from the cookie-jar, or wooing a hostile board to vote your way. It is but a part of human lore that people don't listen unless they have to.
Here comes an argument in favor of using force. How else can you make someone listen? How else can you corner your opposition? How else can you expedite the process of mutual exhaustion?
Definitely not by force, I would say. Not military force, at least. My refutations lie in the questions themselves.
We need "mutual" exhaustion, not one-sided rampage. Even if the fight is God vs Some-Stubborn-Jerk-Out-There, a true and lasting solution is impossible unless the exhaustion has been mutual. This is required because permanent solution to problems come when people "listen", not when they "oblige." None of these two conditions are met by application of brute force.
It is still beside the point to me, though. I believe in relativity of all but one thing -- human tragedy. It is the only absolution and I see no reason to support anything that spreads it. I do not condone it for whatever purpose one might suggest. Not even for the sake of national security. A bullet in my chest would hurt me regardless of the shooters political alignment. Violence instigates more violence only, it never passes on the message we expect our counter-part to listen to.
Examples should serve well to drive the point home. The IRA and the Basque denounced terrorism and chose to engage in dialogue. An interview in PBS suggests that IRA's case had to do with frustration due to stagnance in the crisis while Basque's was with the thought of disconnecting itself from human suffering due to public disfavor against violence since 9/11.
Britain and Spain continued conversation with these two terrorist groups despite all else. It paid off. Pictures from the rest of the world are at your disposal. I feel it unnecessary to walk you through to the other end of the road.
Had the US ever listened to growing complains from around the world regarding it's foreign policy, I don't think there would have been a 9/11. Still, given that these guys were rogues who cared for nothing good, a little after-thought in the proper direction would have at least left the world a better place to live in.
When people think America/New York, they think The Statue of Liberty, not the Twin Towers. Yet the lady in the sea didn't get hit by an aeroplane. It was a stupid message, but it wasn't entirely irrelevant. The world would be better off without US policing and their ill-motived financial watchdogs such as IMF or WTO. A step in the direction of re-considering these is the only thing that'll win the hearts of the commoners. Not stealth planes, not nukes, not handshakes, not emergency food aids.
I side with speech.
It is painful. It is frustrating. Its outcomes are subject to exhaustion, not common sense. Agreed. No dialogue is easy. Talking a terrorist out of an act of aggression is just as difficult as convincing your wife of the futility of shopping, or teaching your child to stay away from the cookie-jar, or wooing a hostile board to vote your way. It is but a part of human lore that people don't listen unless they have to.
Here comes an argument in favor of using force. How else can you make someone listen? How else can you corner your opposition? How else can you expedite the process of mutual exhaustion?
Definitely not by force, I would say. Not military force, at least. My refutations lie in the questions themselves.
We need "mutual" exhaustion, not one-sided rampage. Even if the fight is God vs Some-Stubborn-Jerk-Out-There, a true and lasting solution is impossible unless the exhaustion has been mutual. This is required because permanent solution to problems come when people "listen", not when they "oblige." None of these two conditions are met by application of brute force.
It is still beside the point to me, though. I believe in relativity of all but one thing -- human tragedy. It is the only absolution and I see no reason to support anything that spreads it. I do not condone it for whatever purpose one might suggest. Not even for the sake of national security. A bullet in my chest would hurt me regardless of the shooters political alignment. Violence instigates more violence only, it never passes on the message we expect our counter-part to listen to.
Examples should serve well to drive the point home. The IRA and the Basque denounced terrorism and chose to engage in dialogue. An interview in PBS suggests that IRA's case had to do with frustration due to stagnance in the crisis while Basque's was with the thought of disconnecting itself from human suffering due to public disfavor against violence since 9/11.
Britain and Spain continued conversation with these two terrorist groups despite all else. It paid off. Pictures from the rest of the world are at your disposal. I feel it unnecessary to walk you through to the other end of the road.
Had the US ever listened to growing complains from around the world regarding it's foreign policy, I don't think there would have been a 9/11. Still, given that these guys were rogues who cared for nothing good, a little after-thought in the proper direction would have at least left the world a better place to live in.
When people think America/New York, they think The Statue of Liberty, not the Twin Towers. Yet the lady in the sea didn't get hit by an aeroplane. It was a stupid message, but it wasn't entirely irrelevant. The world would be better off without US policing and their ill-motived financial watchdogs such as IMF or WTO. A step in the direction of re-considering these is the only thing that'll win the hearts of the commoners. Not stealth planes, not nukes, not handshakes, not emergency food aids.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
'An Islamic Case in Favor of Watching TV!'
Islamic scholars' approach towards television is a matter of confusion to me. Here I share with you an interesting argument against their position regarding televisions.
Despite not being the most pious one around, I do hold strong faith in my religion. It is a faith that is not comparable to any John Doe's* pride in his by-born religion. I believe of Islam to be the most 'progressive' religion out there. It was far ahead of its time when in was preached, it is still ahead of time in guiding our decisions. I praise Islam most for leaving some loose ends for scholars of the latter times to fill-in.
Many Islamic scholars have done well to perform their duties well by coming up with smart and progressive policies. Not in the case of television, though. It is the devil's box. It is a pathway to Hell-fire. It is as far away from Prophet Mohammed (sm) that can be. It is not what the Prophet (sm) did, it is not something he would endorse either, they say.
I always wondered why radio or internet were OK, but not television. I concluded that it is their innate failure to communicate that made them wary of televisions.
A striking argument I heard about it the other day in party was: "Prophet Mohammed (sm) never rode in a car, but we drive Pajeros without least bit of contempt. If this is acceptable, why should TV be rejected only because the Prophet (sm) never took a peek?"
Loved it!!
* John Doe denotes randomness, not Christianity.
Despite not being the most pious one around, I do hold strong faith in my religion. It is a faith that is not comparable to any John Doe's* pride in his by-born religion. I believe of Islam to be the most 'progressive' religion out there. It was far ahead of its time when in was preached, it is still ahead of time in guiding our decisions. I praise Islam most for leaving some loose ends for scholars of the latter times to fill-in.
Many Islamic scholars have done well to perform their duties well by coming up with smart and progressive policies. Not in the case of television, though. It is the devil's box. It is a pathway to Hell-fire. It is as far away from Prophet Mohammed (sm) that can be. It is not what the Prophet (sm) did, it is not something he would endorse either, they say.
I always wondered why radio or internet were OK, but not television. I concluded that it is their innate failure to communicate that made them wary of televisions.
A striking argument I heard about it the other day in party was: "Prophet Mohammed (sm) never rode in a car, but we drive Pajeros without least bit of contempt. If this is acceptable, why should TV be rejected only because the Prophet (sm) never took a peek?"
Loved it!!
* John Doe denotes randomness, not Christianity.
Monday, April 17, 2006
'Staying the Course'
Bush & Iraq vs. Clinton & Sudan.
Since coming to the US and following the words and actions of both these presidents closely, I have come to appreciate charisma and wisdom more than ever.
Both presidents are patriotic and passionate. Clinton towards fast food and fast living, Bush towards conservative agenda and ideals.
Both made horrendous errors of judgement. Clinton indulged in supreme professional misconduct, Bush dragged an ailing nation into a pre-emptive war on fabricated grounds.
Both were friendly to bin-Laden and his men in a personal level. Clinton invited members of current-day "terrorists" to the White House and funded their campaign, Bush shared an oil-related business with the bin-Laden family, allowed safe passage to members of the accused families immediately after 9/11, held the troops back from bombing bin-Laden to death when he was cornered in the Tora Bora mountains.
Both supported the war on Iraq. Clinton supported the war, Bush is the war!
Both had a highly biased view of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Clinton unequivocally vowed to protect Israelly interests, it didn't bother Bush to drain his own country's resources to save Israelly interests by ravaging Iraq under false pretence.
And the list goes on.
The point I wish to make is that Clinton had the wisdom and charisma to turn the tide, to stop where he should, and to accept what he has done wrong.
It took a supremely shameful verdict of the Supreme Court to "elect" Bush to office and a supremely loyal Christian base to keep him in office despite a series of misconducts, while only a candid speech and a nice, wry smile did the trick for Clinton.
To the rest of the world, Clinton is just another US president. To the black people in US, he is the only president to have come close to truly understanding their troubles and their concerns. To the pocket-book Americans, he is the only one to left them a solvent life and a healthy 3-trillion dollars surplus. To the Republicans, he is an "ouch!". To the Democrats, he is a "wow!".
To me, he is a living lesson.
He bombed Al-Qaida facilities in Sudan, only to realize later than the situation didn't require such extensive military involvement. He pulled back! He didn't have to think again, he didn't bother shouldering the responsibilities.
He insisted that Israel's claims be accepted by Palestinians. He realized that the claims were not as justified as the lobbyists had suggested. He pulled back! He insisted that the border of 1967 be re-enacted. Precisely the claims of the Palestinians! (If only Arafat and/or Hamas were a bit thoughtful at those times!!)
He rocked a conservative, Christian nation (trust me, that's the real America. New York and California are populous exceptions only) with sex scandals. He apologized. That part was to save his neck, I agree. But he jokes about it now! He is the one who brings up the topic during fund-raising events and makes fun of himself! If that's not charisma, what is?
I'm not licking Clinton's toes by any means, but the guy has a sense of aura around him that one must appreciate. To me, the problems with the Bush administration is lack of wisdom and charisma. He could learn a lesson or two from his predecessor, I believe.
Staying the course is the motto of Bush Jr. If only he knew that the course he is staying is a wrong one!
Since coming to the US and following the words and actions of both these presidents closely, I have come to appreciate charisma and wisdom more than ever.
Both presidents are patriotic and passionate. Clinton towards fast food and fast living, Bush towards conservative agenda and ideals.
Both made horrendous errors of judgement. Clinton indulged in supreme professional misconduct, Bush dragged an ailing nation into a pre-emptive war on fabricated grounds.
Both were friendly to bin-Laden and his men in a personal level. Clinton invited members of current-day "terrorists" to the White House and funded their campaign, Bush shared an oil-related business with the bin-Laden family, allowed safe passage to members of the accused families immediately after 9/11, held the troops back from bombing bin-Laden to death when he was cornered in the Tora Bora mountains.
Both supported the war on Iraq. Clinton supported the war, Bush is the war!
Both had a highly biased view of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Clinton unequivocally vowed to protect Israelly interests, it didn't bother Bush to drain his own country's resources to save Israelly interests by ravaging Iraq under false pretence.
And the list goes on.
The point I wish to make is that Clinton had the wisdom and charisma to turn the tide, to stop where he should, and to accept what he has done wrong.
It took a supremely shameful verdict of the Supreme Court to "elect" Bush to office and a supremely loyal Christian base to keep him in office despite a series of misconducts, while only a candid speech and a nice, wry smile did the trick for Clinton.
To the rest of the world, Clinton is just another US president. To the black people in US, he is the only president to have come close to truly understanding their troubles and their concerns. To the pocket-book Americans, he is the only one to left them a solvent life and a healthy 3-trillion dollars surplus. To the Republicans, he is an "ouch!". To the Democrats, he is a "wow!".
To me, he is a living lesson.
He bombed Al-Qaida facilities in Sudan, only to realize later than the situation didn't require such extensive military involvement. He pulled back! He didn't have to think again, he didn't bother shouldering the responsibilities.
He insisted that Israel's claims be accepted by Palestinians. He realized that the claims were not as justified as the lobbyists had suggested. He pulled back! He insisted that the border of 1967 be re-enacted. Precisely the claims of the Palestinians! (If only Arafat and/or Hamas were a bit thoughtful at those times!!)
He rocked a conservative, Christian nation (trust me, that's the real America. New York and California are populous exceptions only) with sex scandals. He apologized. That part was to save his neck, I agree. But he jokes about it now! He is the one who brings up the topic during fund-raising events and makes fun of himself! If that's not charisma, what is?
I'm not licking Clinton's toes by any means, but the guy has a sense of aura around him that one must appreciate. To me, the problems with the Bush administration is lack of wisdom and charisma. He could learn a lesson or two from his predecessor, I believe.
Staying the course is the motto of Bush Jr. If only he knew that the course he is staying is a wrong one!
'Blog Links 1'
Here are some blogs of note. I found these blogs quite intersting.
a. The Kirk Report: It has been said in a recent media report that this blog tackles economics issues and predictions better than most. Consider taking a look if you can.
b. Stories in America: A blog to my heart's content. It gives me great joy and confidence to see brave, authentic blogs that address the hypocrisy and foulness of some American policies. Outspoken in protest of an irrational war, crism in surfacing flaws of a sub-standard presidentcy.
a. The Kirk Report: It has been said in a recent media report that this blog tackles economics issues and predictions better than most. Consider taking a look if you can.
b. Stories in America: A blog to my heart's content. It gives me great joy and confidence to see brave, authentic blogs that address the hypocrisy and foulness of some American policies. Outspoken in protest of an irrational war, crism in surfacing flaws of a sub-standard presidentcy.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
'Why Davids Win...'
[Written upon viewing of the Australia-Bangladesh test match at Fatullah, Dhaka.]
... inconfidence. Nothing flashy. No feat or frenzy. No shock of glory. Plain inconfidence. Nothing more, nothing less.
Davids win only because they get their acts together in time. I am yet to see a David that has been victorious by dint of sheer skill or supremacy. Heck, they wouldn't be David, then!
In every human being is the ability of performing every task with precision. I remember reading that you know the solution to every problem you face in life. Being able to discover or recall the solution in the nick of time is a matter of practise and purpose, not labor or genius. I am yet to commit myself to any side of the argument. However, I do agree that leaps of faith can be leaps for the ages.
Similar was the case when Bangladesh embarrassed Australia in the first test at Fatullah, Dhaka. It was minnows rolling the giants over. The reason was two-fold. One was the lack of thought, as in the case of Shahriar Nafees and Habibul Bashar. Other was the abundance of thought, as in the case of Rajin Saleh and Mohammed Rafique.
Indeed, it is the 'no-nonsense' attitude that guides Davids through unfriendly territories. Being against a Goliath is about knowing that even most 'right' acts can bring forth fatal results, let alone wrong ones. This is the only thing that prevents one from committing mistakes and enforces strict adherence to the book of basics. Beginner's luck, after all, is but a figurative expression of all these and the only driving force, unlikely as it might seem, is inconfidence to a benevolent extreme.
... inconfidence. Nothing flashy. No feat or frenzy. No shock of glory. Plain inconfidence. Nothing more, nothing less.
Davids win only because they get their acts together in time. I am yet to see a David that has been victorious by dint of sheer skill or supremacy. Heck, they wouldn't be David, then!
In every human being is the ability of performing every task with precision. I remember reading that you know the solution to every problem you face in life. Being able to discover or recall the solution in the nick of time is a matter of practise and purpose, not labor or genius. I am yet to commit myself to any side of the argument. However, I do agree that leaps of faith can be leaps for the ages.
Similar was the case when Bangladesh embarrassed Australia in the first test at Fatullah, Dhaka. It was minnows rolling the giants over. The reason was two-fold. One was the lack of thought, as in the case of Shahriar Nafees and Habibul Bashar. Other was the abundance of thought, as in the case of Rajin Saleh and Mohammed Rafique.
Indeed, it is the 'no-nonsense' attitude that guides Davids through unfriendly territories. Being against a Goliath is about knowing that even most 'right' acts can bring forth fatal results, let alone wrong ones. This is the only thing that prevents one from committing mistakes and enforces strict adherence to the book of basics. Beginner's luck, after all, is but a figurative expression of all these and the only driving force, unlikely as it might seem, is inconfidence to a benevolent extreme.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
'Attributes of the Modern Muslim :: Liberation'
[First installment of continuous topic -- the modern muslim.]
Nero denied the fire even at the end of his fiddling. Adolf Hitler kept planning to take back oil fields in the East even while Mrs. Magda Goebbels was contemplating poisoning her six children. Chief Engineer Joseph Bell was steadfast about Titanic's perfect design even when the bow began to sink. Begum Khaleda Zia condemned newspapers for coining 'Bangla Bhai' story even after the ambassadors spoke out.
History suggests that true victors never claim victory until it is absolute. True losers don't admit to their failure until absolution, either.
Similar is the case with the muslims of today. We are stuck in the first millenium. We can feel the pain of breathing the thinner, cleaner, smoother air of the 21st century. We stumble upon this reality everyday. We deny it everyday, too.
We claim honesty, yet we shift from opinion to opinion when it comes to real matters. We claim tolerance, yet we crave for fanatic glory. We claim fairness, yet fail to discern between a just cause and a nuisance. We claim freedom, yet fail to stand up for what we know as wrong.
Honesty, tolerance, and fairness would be topics of future installments in this series. We start with liberation today. A modern muslim should understand the following to be able to liberate his mind and practise indepent thinking.
a) Liberation is a state of mind, not a strategic poise. Occupying certain pieces of land or topping a certain number of casualties don't determine liberation. It is in being able to stretch your mind vertically as well as horizontally. It is in mobilizing your mind as well as motivating it.
b) You are the religion. Allah and His Prophet (sm) have left the door open for individual revelations of Islam. You own your religion as much as it owns you. Your explanation of Islam is probably just as good as (if not better than) that of a cleric.
c) Instruction is not the purpose of religion. Rather, purpose is the instruction of religion. Religious instructions are meant to lead us to discover our own purposes.
d) Fear is a means, not an end. Fear of hell-fire is supposed to teach you to speak the truth, to love all creation, to prohibit from bad company, to be courteous and gentle, to abstain from addiction and wastage, etc. Fear of punishment is there to help you stay the course until your mind is ready to take care of itself. Do something good only because it is good, not because doing otherwise would earn you some extra hours with Lucifer.
e) Crusades are unique in the sense that these are wars where most of the casualties are self-inflicted. Every blow intended is a blow at your own soul. Every life taken is a death for the soul.
f) Religion is both honored and rejected by the soul. Nothing physical about it. Ever.
Finding these too hard to grasp? Afraid of your mind getting corrupt? If so, please stop to ponder if you're actually thinking your thoughts or those of someone else's.
Nero denied the fire even at the end of his fiddling. Adolf Hitler kept planning to take back oil fields in the East even while Mrs. Magda Goebbels was contemplating poisoning her six children. Chief Engineer Joseph Bell was steadfast about Titanic's perfect design even when the bow began to sink. Begum Khaleda Zia condemned newspapers for coining 'Bangla Bhai' story even after the ambassadors spoke out.
History suggests that true victors never claim victory until it is absolute. True losers don't admit to their failure until absolution, either.
Similar is the case with the muslims of today. We are stuck in the first millenium. We can feel the pain of breathing the thinner, cleaner, smoother air of the 21st century. We stumble upon this reality everyday. We deny it everyday, too.
We claim honesty, yet we shift from opinion to opinion when it comes to real matters. We claim tolerance, yet we crave for fanatic glory. We claim fairness, yet fail to discern between a just cause and a nuisance. We claim freedom, yet fail to stand up for what we know as wrong.
Honesty, tolerance, and fairness would be topics of future installments in this series. We start with liberation today. A modern muslim should understand the following to be able to liberate his mind and practise indepent thinking.
a) Liberation is a state of mind, not a strategic poise. Occupying certain pieces of land or topping a certain number of casualties don't determine liberation. It is in being able to stretch your mind vertically as well as horizontally. It is in mobilizing your mind as well as motivating it.
b) You are the religion. Allah and His Prophet (sm) have left the door open for individual revelations of Islam. You own your religion as much as it owns you. Your explanation of Islam is probably just as good as (if not better than) that of a cleric.
c) Instruction is not the purpose of religion. Rather, purpose is the instruction of religion. Religious instructions are meant to lead us to discover our own purposes.
d) Fear is a means, not an end. Fear of hell-fire is supposed to teach you to speak the truth, to love all creation, to prohibit from bad company, to be courteous and gentle, to abstain from addiction and wastage, etc. Fear of punishment is there to help you stay the course until your mind is ready to take care of itself. Do something good only because it is good, not because doing otherwise would earn you some extra hours with Lucifer.
e) Crusades are unique in the sense that these are wars where most of the casualties are self-inflicted. Every blow intended is a blow at your own soul. Every life taken is a death for the soul.
f) Religion is both honored and rejected by the soul. Nothing physical about it. Ever.
Finding these too hard to grasp? Afraid of your mind getting corrupt? If so, please stop to ponder if you're actually thinking your thoughts or those of someone else's.
Monday, April 03, 2006
'Education Reform :: Schedule'
[First installment of continuous topic -- education reform in Bangladesh.]
In the heart of the problems of Bangladesh is a mismatch in timing. Given a swing range of two months, the first semester in BUET starts in mid-February. This needs to be moved to either late-August or mid-January to make the system completely synchronous with the Western system.
My suggestion is to start the semester in mid-September, if possible. This would make sure that the final semester would end at around mid-September. This would give the graduating students a chance to apply for higher education from the following Fall. At present, students have to wait as long as two years in some cases. This only serves to take away the motivation and momentum of students.
A more drastic change would be to shift the academic calender from January to August. I consider that to be too radical and unnecessary. There being no clear distinction between Fall and Spring now-a-days and the culture not being one that fosters seasonal trends, the January-December session can be left the way it is until completion of 10th grade.
The timespan between mid-10th grade to the publishing of HSC results can only be termed as 'A Series of Unfortunate Incidents'!
10th grade classes should end by mid-September. SSC examination should be held in early-January. Results would come in by mid-April. Admission tests for HSC should be administered by late-June and classes should begin by mid-July at the latest.
The 18 months of higher-secondary studies would end in mid-January, according to the proposed calender. HSC exams should be administered in mid-April and results should be published by mid-July. University admission should be completed by mid-August and classes should resume by early-September.
Why all the rush? Why bother revising all the established customs to adjust with some foreign system? What ever happened to the freedom to write our own terms?
Such questions are entirely ideological and require persuasion in a completely different tone. That would be the topic for a future installment in Education Reform.
In the heart of the problems of Bangladesh is a mismatch in timing. Given a swing range of two months, the first semester in BUET starts in mid-February. This needs to be moved to either late-August or mid-January to make the system completely synchronous with the Western system.
My suggestion is to start the semester in mid-September, if possible. This would make sure that the final semester would end at around mid-September. This would give the graduating students a chance to apply for higher education from the following Fall. At present, students have to wait as long as two years in some cases. This only serves to take away the motivation and momentum of students.
A more drastic change would be to shift the academic calender from January to August. I consider that to be too radical and unnecessary. There being no clear distinction between Fall and Spring now-a-days and the culture not being one that fosters seasonal trends, the January-December session can be left the way it is until completion of 10th grade.
The timespan between mid-10th grade to the publishing of HSC results can only be termed as 'A Series of Unfortunate Incidents'!
10th grade classes should end by mid-September. SSC examination should be held in early-January. Results would come in by mid-April. Admission tests for HSC should be administered by late-June and classes should begin by mid-July at the latest.
The 18 months of higher-secondary studies would end in mid-January, according to the proposed calender. HSC exams should be administered in mid-April and results should be published by mid-July. University admission should be completed by mid-August and classes should resume by early-September.
Why all the rush? Why bother revising all the established customs to adjust with some foreign system? What ever happened to the freedom to write our own terms?
Such questions are entirely ideological and require persuasion in a completely different tone. That would be the topic for a future installment in Education Reform.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)