Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Paki Come Home!

  1. #1
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    mrityuloka
    Age
    52
    Posts
    3,729
    Rep Power
    337

    Paki Come Home!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Koenraad Elst

    03 September, 2006

    After the timely folding of yet another Islamic terror plot, the public's attention is focused once more on the "Paki problem". Over twenty Muslims have been arrested in connection with the alleged discovery of preparations to blow up a set of airplanes on trans-Atlantic flights starting from London Heathrow. They are mostly holders of British citizenship, born in Britain though of South-Asian origin, and from well-settled families. To their British neighbours, fellow students or colleagues, they must have looked like success stories in terms of integration into British society. And yet, they secretly wanted to terminate the lives of hundreds of anonymous Britons, not excluding those same unsuspecting neighbours.

    This is only one incident, though apparently a very sizable one. We may even concede that the incriminating evidence is not fully in yet, so we shouldn't judge in haste. But then, it is only one incident among many. The German police have just folded a Muslim plot to blow up trains, and worse than the failed terror attacks are all those that have succeeded. Remember the trains blown up in Madrid, the tourist centres blown up in Bali, the murder of Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam, and so many others. Specifically Pakistani connections were in evidence in the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the WTC in New York, on the public transport system of London on 7-7-2005, and in the endless series of terror attacks in India: buses stopped and all non-Muslims shot every other month in Jammu & Kashmir; repeated bomb attacks on trains and public buildings in Mumbai, from the big international trend-setter of 12-3-1993 (many synchronous explosions) to the latest one on 11-7-2006; on a political meeting in Coimbatore 1998; on Parliament buildings in Srinagar and Delhi in 2001; on temples in Gandhinagar, Ayodhya and Varanasi (the details of the latest temple attack in Imphal remain to be discovered); on a Diwali shopping crowd in Delhi, and so on.

    Yes, we know your excuses: that you are millions while the terrorists are counted in dozens, so most of you are innocent and unrelated to terrorism. Still, outsiders will wonder just how many of you are in the know when these "unrepresentative" and "isolated" young men make their preparations for acts of terror. How many of you shield suspects when the police comes looking for them? Just a question.

    And then the big excuse: that "this isn't real Islam", that "this great peaceful religion condemns terrorism", that "terrorists have no religion". We don't believe this convenient plea, but we would still welcome it if it could actually dissuade would-be terrorists from their project. Why do you always address us, the non-Muslims, with those rosy stories about peaceful Islam? Why not go to the centres of militancy and repeat those sermons there? We don't mean some perfunctory "open letter" meant for non-Muslim consumption, but an earnest effort to persuade the militant Muslims, one that doesn't stop until the goal is reached. We suspect you have so far never tried this because in your heart of hearts, you are perfectly aware that Islam does condone these acts. Because you expect the militants to quote chapter and verse from your own Quran to justify their methods, reminding you of how Mohammed's career mainly consisted in armed struggle against the infidels, and leaving you speechless.

    The consequence is that only an extremely gullible fringe of British society can now remain unsuspecting. After this, what Muslim will they trust? Every time the problem of Islamic terrorism raises its head anywhere in the Western world, the public is treated to assurances that "this isn't the real Islam" and that "the vast majority of Muslims abhor this terrorism". Each time the politicians accompanied by camera crews pay visits to mosques to assure Muslims of their lasting confidence in Islam's peaceful intentions, which alas leaves them no time to go and comfort the victims of Islamic terror. Each time, ordinary people including the non-Muslim immigrants force themselvesto keep in mind that "not all Muslims are terrorists", in particular this one and that one with whom they try to stay friends.

    But there is a limit to all this patience and goodwill. If Muslims who could be showpieces of multicultural integration turn out to be discreet fanatics and murderers, who says the friendly Paki news agent around the corner isn't plotting your death? This time around, Paki Britons will notice how the looks in people's eyes have become icy. Their mouths may not yet voice it, but their eyes are completely eloquent about it: "Paki, go home!" Indeed, if I hadn't studied Islamic doctrine and history, I too would by now have renounced all hope of a harmonious outcome and concluded: "Paki, go home!"

    Fortunately, there is an alternative and simpler solution. You must have noticed that natives are far less prone to "Hinduphobia" or "Sikhphobia" or "Parsiphobia" than to what politicians like to call "Islamophobia". Indeed, non-Muslim South-Asian immigrants have authoritatively been praised as Britain's "model minority". If they too sometimes suffer harassment, it is very largely from natives who don't know the difference between all these exotic religions, between a Sikh and a bearded and turbaned Osama bin Laden. This way, you Pakis have made them the indirect victims of the sinister reputation that you yourselves have earned. Still, the performance in education and professional life of the non-Muslim South-Asians must be a matter of envy to you.

    So, why not become one of them? You live in a country with unfettered religious freedom, quite a different situation from the religious oppression in Pakistan. Overnight, you can shed the burden of your Muslim identity and embrace Anglican Christianity, Methodism or Roman Catholicism. You can become an atheist or agnostic or go and congregate with the Druids and New-Agers in Stonehenge. Better still, you can return to your roots.

    Every South-Asian Muslim knows that his ancestors were Zoroastrians or Kalash Kafirs, Buddhists or Hindus. In dramatic circumstances, they converted to Islam as the lesser evil in preference to death or impoverishment or third-class citizenship. Out of inertia or brainwashing, you yourselves have so far chosen to remain in Islam and not to undo their shame. Now that you are facing the consequences of being Muslims, viz. the hostility provoked by never-ending Islamic arrogance and aggression, you have a good occasion to reconsider your religious identity. Drop this erroneous belief system that was forced upon you and come home to your ancestral community, where you belong.
    Bold mine.
    satay

  2. #2

    Re: Paki Come Home!

    I will never understand how people can call for an end to violence in an antagonistic tone.

    For every muslim who is compelled by this piece of writing, five more will be infuriated-- and with good reason.

    Violence will only end when people stop viewing others as rivals that must be bested, but even this "peace maker" is completely incapable of that, so don't hold your breath.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    mrityuloka
    Age
    52
    Posts
    3,729
    Rep Power
    337

    Re: Paki Come Home!

    Namaskar,

    I don't see how calling a spade as a spade is antagonistic.

    satay

  4. #4

    Re: Paki Come Home!

    Here are a few examples...

    Firstly, the use of the pronouns "we" and "you" in the place of "british citizens" or "muslims" is a deliberately polarizing use of language. "we" and "you" implies two mutually exclusive groups, which is not the case. Many muslims are also British citizens.

    "Yes, we know your excuses..."

    Removing this sentence would not change the meaning of the piece, and is deliberately condescending. Even removing the word "yes" would still make this sentence condescending, but the word "yes" followed by a comma is meant to imply tiredness and frustration.

    "How many of you shield suspects when the police comes looking for them? Just a question."

    The first sentence is an accusation, which is antagonistic in and of itself.

    The second sentence here "Just a question" is another colloquially condescending phrase which does not enhance the information being conveyed.

    "We suspect you have so far never tried this because in your heart of hearts, you are perfectly aware that Islam does condone these acts."

    In other words "I think you are lying to hide the fact that you condone murder." More accusations.

    "This way, you Pakis have made them the indirect victims of the sinister reputation that you yourselves have earned."

    Firstly, "You Pakis". Do I need to explain?

    Secondly, this is implying that all Pakistanis share the responsibility, and coupled with the following...

    "But there is a limit to all this patience and goodwill."

    ...is essentially a threat.

    Whether this is all true, I do not know. Though I find that sweeping generalizations, and ideas based purely on "gut" feeling, are rarely of any value. I stand by my statement that this article was written in a deliberately antagonistic tone. Especially if this appeared in a professional news source, because it would mean that the editors bent over backwards not to edit some of those things out. Even if the above weren't inflammatory, they're still examples of poor writing, and extremely poor epistemology.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    mrityuloka
    Age
    52
    Posts
    3,729
    Rep Power
    337

    Re: Paki Come Home!

    namaskar,


    Quote Originally Posted by simex View Post
    Whether this is all true, I do not know. Though I find that sweeping generalizations, and ideas based purely on "gut" feeling, are rarely of any value. I stand by my statement that this article was written in a deliberately antagonistic tone. Especially if this appeared in a professional news source, because it would mean that the editors bent over backwards not to edit some of those things out. Even if the above weren't inflammatory, they're still examples of poor writing, and extremely poor epistemology.
    Interesting take. However, I think the author is asking valid questions.
    satay

  6. #6
    Join Date
    September 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Age
    70
    Posts
    7,191
    Rep Power
    5038

    Re: Paki Come Home!

    I don't usually get involved in political topics but here goes.
    Firstly, I dislike the use of the derogatory word in the title. In my town, the P word is in the order of the N word. Its a racial slur. In my city the % of people attached to the racial slur who had origins directly from Pakistan was 3 %. Clearly it is not the Pakistanis that can be identified as a group here anyway. The latest arrest in the US of persons planning to attack synagogues were all converts to Islam, 3 of them African American. We have Islamic fundamentalists willing to die for the cause from Afghanistan, Morocco, India, etc. There are also fundamentalists who probably would die for the cause or at least would do illegal things for the cause from other religions as well. Take the anti-abortionists willing to shoot the doctors for example.

    Clearly in my mind we need a better definition for those who are causing disharmonious conditions leading to violence, and a lack of respect for fellow man. My personal definition is: young souls.

    Aum Namasivaya
    Last edited by Eastern Mind; 26 May 2009 at 03:13 PM. Reason: spellinf

  7. #7
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    72
    Posts
    3,162
    Rep Power
    1915

    Re: Paki Come Home!

    Namaste.

    1. Certainly, the author Dr. Koenraad Elst has raised valid questions against the Islam and its followers. As with the atrocities of the Christian missionaries towards which the Christian public keeps silent, the Islam public is silent towards the terrorism of a few misguided Muslims. Both these aggressive activities do indicate that something is wrong/lacking/wrongly perceived in both the religions.

    2. The Christian and Muslim public must be made to have the right perceptions about the anachronistic teachings in their religions: that there only that and are no longer valid--in fact barbaric--in today's multi-religious, multi-cultural society, where everyone takes to the comforts of science and technology: be it the gods in the prayer-houses, religious clergies (of even Hinduism) or the commons.

    3. The precepts of god and dharma in the Vedas in life and religious practice have been very well expounded in the Hindu PurANas that have become widely popular and continue to remain so among all levels of the Hindu public, because they are constantly in the limelight of the media that reaches them: in those days, we had street performers and puppet shows, then stage performers, then films and today the small screen, with the all-round support of the print and other forms of written media--all these communication channels have always spread the messages of the PurANas, thus compensating to some extent the absence of Hindu religious teaching in the 'secular' government schools.

    4. Whatever universal/humane/peaceful messages the texts of Abrahamic religions have for peaceful-coexistence of all religions, must be highlighted by old/newly written stories, episodes, urban legends and other forms of teachings and must be spread through the powerful media today among those religious public, to awake their awarness of having the right perspective about their religious teachings and shed the anachronistic teachings. The peace-loving, intellectual, progressive and tech-savvy among the Islam and Christian public should initiate efforts in this direction, which could become trend-setters in the long run.

    Religious unity, nor uniformity, as Kanchi ParamAchArya said, is the need of the day. It is not fair or proper to ask a Muslim or Christian to shed his religion and get back to his roots. Instead, it would be desirable if the person is made to have the right perspective about their religious teachings.
    रत्नाकरधौतपदां हिमालयकिरीटिनीम् ।
    ब्रह्मराजर्षिररत्नाढ्यां वन्दे भारतमातरम् ॥

    To her whose feet are washed by the ocean, who wears the Himalayas as her crown, and is adorned with the gems of rishis and kings, to Mother India, do I bow down in respect.

    --viShNu purANam

  8. #8
    Join Date
    September 2007
    Location
    Luxembourg
    Age
    64
    Posts
    29
    Rep Power
    44

    Re: Paki Come Home!

    Quote Originally Posted by saidevo View Post
    It is not fair or proper to ask a Muslim or Christian to shed his religion and get back to his roots.
    Namaste,

    Koenraad Elst is an intelligent man who perfectly knows that no Muslim will follow his ironical "advice". Judging from my personal experience, many Muslims, apart from not being amused, will be amazed by his reasoning in the first place. Very often, the idea that their attitude might just as well be reciprocated by the infidel is a possibility they have never taken into consideration. When I lived in an Arabic country, I was asked day after day, mostly by people who did not know me: "why don't you convert to islam?". When I answered "why don't you convert to Christianity?", their reaction was shock, although they had not expected me to be shocked by their question.

    Mr Elst is showing them a looking glass. To be honest: I could not help being amused.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    March 2009
    Location
    New Delhi
    Age
    74
    Posts
    200
    Rep Power
    66

    Re: Paki Come Home!

    Quote Originally Posted by simex View Post
    I will never understand how people can call for an end to violence in an antagonistic tone.

    For every muslim who is compelled by this piece of writing, five more will be infuriated-- and with good reason.

    Violence will only end when people stop viewing others as rivals that must be bested, but even this "peace maker" is completely incapable of that, so don't hold your breath.
    Do whatever you might, muslims would always be furious unless they capture political power and convert all to islam.

    But after that they will turn against each other. See Paki muslim-muslim violence.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    January 2010
    Location
    tadvishno paramam padam
    Age
    38
    Posts
    2,168
    Rep Power
    2547

    Re: Paki Come Home!

    Most muslims would get insulted, instead of looking at the truth. But the truth is that their forefathers were forced to become Muslim, either through rape or treat of being murdered. It's similar to the african americans who were enslaved by the Christians, but still practice Christianity. Muhammed Ali became Muslim to protest against this. But if the pakis want to protest to the people who enslaved their ancestors, they should become Hindus or Buddhist.
    Last edited by Sahasranama; 14 September 2010 at 03:27 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •