Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Bonafide Hustler

Veteran Member
  • Posts

    4,275
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Bonafide Hustler

  1. It must be difficult, hang in there, perhaps contributing to some cause might help you feel better about yourself. Life is testing for a lot of people, even if many do seem happy on the surface, you are not alone. I hope things get better.
  2. Palestinians have an identity because South Koreans have one, because Pakistanis have one and because Israeli Jews have one, we have to deal with realities here. As inherently corrupt the whole idea of a nation state is, Nation states do exist. What you are advocating in principle is what we all stand for, but its a bit utopian given the realities on ground, you would have to take a lot of steps before these politically imposed borders are eliminated and people can live through free association and self governance. Ideally the best solution for the Palestine/Israeli conflict is a no state solution, but that is not practical right away, you would have to first establish a 2 state solution, since the whole world seems to back the consensus, and then perhaps down the road, there can be a no state arrangement. With respects to Palestine you have to be fair, if Israel has a right to exist (as immorally and unjustly as it was created) then so does an independent Palestinian state, that is why the entire world with the exception of US, Israel and 2-3 more smaller countries back a 2 state settlement. The dispute is not settled because the US simply vetos a vote on which it stands virtually alone. The Palestinians are being very generous and compromising, they do not want Israel to be declared Palestine, they are with the overwhelming international consensus of having a small state in Gaza and the West Bank with east Jerusalem as its capital. israel is only interested in expansion. They are 2 very distinct cultures, but I agree that is no reason to separate human beings through imaginary drawn lines, but that is the system that has unfortunately been imposed on us. With respects to most of the Arab states today, you can blame the post war western powers for dividing the people by imposing a brutal nation state system with no regard for their cultures and historic alliances. If you take a look at how they drew up Iraq etc, with total disregard for the different cultures of the region, the Kurds were split across 3 nations, it was bound to be a disaster. The Ottomon empire as brutal and discriminatory as it was had the right idea in a lot of ways, it allowed certain regions within its empire to run independently with a lot of autonomy through self governance, it was a step in the right direction, but we obviously have regressed. It is what it is, in creating Pakistan millions of lives were lost senselessly through migration etc, it really is a game for the men in power. You have the right idea in mind, but first we need people to actually take control of their nations before the these imposed borders can be weakened, that should be our foremost focus. It did not fail because the idea was bad in principle, how can it be bad? It failed because it wasn't the people who tried to come together, it was their corrupt rulers trying to impose a fake sense of unity after having promoted hate through vile propaganda. The idea here though isnt really about Arab unity in the end, it is about human beings irrespective of their faith/ethnicity/language being able to live in peace together without any borders. You already see shining examples in the most multicultural cities of the world, there really is no reason why such societies cannot be extended. It simply is very difficult to achieve these goals within a region run by dictators who tend to profit of sectarian/ethnic divisions that they have helped sponsor/foster, with direct backing of the west of course.
  3. First of all for a lot of people chess is not a waste of time, it helps sharpen ones mind. It is a creative and stimulating exercise. If you find math puzzles are of any benefit, I do not see how a game of chess is a useless undertaking. Useless or not, it really is besides the point. Anyhow I am not here because I love the game to bits, I do not even play it, I have played it previously on a few occasions. This really isnt only about chess specifically, it extends onto a general attitude. The trend to take hadiths independent of their historical context in an attempt to forbid things left and right without adequate justification, I am talking about things which are made haram solely on the basis of certain hadiths with not even a hint of a reference in the Quran. Practices which seem utterly harmless, and in fact beneficial in a lot of ways, unlike gambling or cocaine. If the Quran happened to forbid us from playing chess, I would accept it without reasoning deeply. Rulings derived purely from hadiths, specifically rulings which make no sense should be dealt with more care, with an understanding of their historical context and subsequent contemporary application. Hadiths are not divine words, imams are not around today, hadiths which contradict the Quran are to be rejected for example, not the other way around, the Quran is divine, there is a difference.I already pointed out that Allah himself admonished the prophet for forbidding for himself something which Allah had made lawful, verse 66:1. It is no small matter. It does not have to be chess, this discussion can apply to any ruling which makes absolutely no sense because: What is being deemed haram has no known inherent harm to begin with There is no evidence in the Quran of the activity or similar activities being prohibited
  4. How can you compare wine, alcohol, pot or gambling to chess? The harms associated with them are obvious so their prohibition has some common sense merit. In cases where something is prohibited where our minds cannot seem to deduce any logical explanation for the prohibition whatsoever, concerns will be raised, especially considering they are not outright said to be haram in the Quran. People who argue against the slaughter of animals actually have very strong arguments. As much as I love meat, maybe we will progress one day to the point where we all become vegans, who knows. Anyhow, the size comment was just to illustrate that people who tend to justify chess being haram because its harmful in so and so respects have no leg to stand on. It wasn't meant to be taken literally. Deeming something haram is no small matter, in the Quran, Allah even admonishes the prophet for forbidding for himself what Allah has made lawful, we tend to be obsessed with haramifying things left and right. To say a harmless board game of chess is haram is beyond absurd, especially ignoring the historical circumstances and not being able to point towards any inherent harm with concrete evidence.
  5. They are of the opinion that no common sense or logical explanation/justification is required simply because in certain hadiths it has been deemed haram, that alone should suffice, happens all the time. So we can safely assume that if god forbid certain hadiths called for us to torture pigs, we shouldnt delve much into the matter, attempt to grasp the wisdom behind such an instruction or try to understand its historical context, we shall do like robots because our pea sized brains do not know any better. Speaking of pea sized brains, anyone with one could figure out that there are no inherent harms in the modern game of chess, there are countless obvious benefits, but it simply doesnt work that way. The gambling argument is a joke to begin with
  6. It is hard to draw lines when it comes to these things, but certainly any reasonable and humane person would prioritize given the harsh realities of this world. Travelling is expensive, living in Pakistan, I may want to travel to Zimbabwe, learn a lot from my experience and also contribute socially and economically to its society, but such funds and energy may be better spent building a school in rural Pakistan. Perhaps the balance might tilt towards a trip to Zimbabwe considering the circumstances. It simply depends, certainly we can all agree that our personal interests have to be balanced with our contribution to more selfless causes given the harsh realities around us.
  7. I dont subscribe to that mode of following but that is fair enough. With respects to chess being a gambling instrument, it really is incredibly obvious, there shouldn't even be a debate on this issue. Modern day chess by its nature has nothing to do with gambling, it has as much to do with gambling as me chucking mangoes at my girlfriends face while having you bet that the mango will miraculously miss the target, for dough of course. It works for almost anything.
  8. Oh please, get out of here with that BS. I hereby would like to renounce my syed status simply due to the harm that has been done in its name, blatant discrimination. I suppose that is impossible since my blood naturally remains pure, and living ordinarily amongst the normal people of society is hence out of question.
  9. HAHAHAHAHAAH brother Baradar is on fire, major sports today and gambling is not another discussion, its entirely relevant to the childish argument Mr Modarreesi put forth [Edited]. It is quite simple really, if you want to come out and assert that chess is haram because our religion says so, that's fine, we shall at least leave the NFL out of the discussion. Just do us a favor and not bring the gambling justification into the equation. As soon as one tries to reason with the issue at hand by bringing gambling into play, other sports who also inherently have nothing to do with gambling but are at times associated with gambling are fair play. Chess is the same. Let us not kid ourselves. 600 000 gambling results on google ROFL, are you kidding me?
  10. A lot of people here had a lot of praise for Modarressi, so I checked out a couple of his lectures/speeches, bored me to death. This however just takes the cake, its the peak of irrationality, to speak on this topic with such authority, defending a stance which is wrong if not at least highly controversial is dangerous and utterly stupid. Oh well, its hardly surprising. I hope for the sake of our youth he calms down a bit.
  11. To take a page out of SSS's book: A pity because you were doing so well.
  12. You want your man to dominate you, quite admirable indeed, but you are only willing to go halfway, that is to say only willing to serve chicken strips dipped in water, which is what constitutes the most creative forms of arab cuisine. Why dont you take it a step further, have some damn ambition, if you really want to serve your man, make the mastery of cooking your sole ambition, marry a Pakistani. In simply trying to perfect qorma you would have spent a year or two full time in the kitchen. This means no petty phone calls to your arab girlfreinds, no petty all girl parties and no trips back to your family. Learn to own that kitchen, which is practically impossible trying to perfect arab food. On second thought, maybe you should spare Pakistanis, they would much rather marry women who dont require being put in their place, but rather those wise females who happen to know their place to begin with. Seriously why would you even joke about that, Pakistanis are too preoccupied with Indians to even notice Lebs exist and its not like any of them could spot Lebanon on the map.
  13. :o :o Babybeaver!!!!! I thought our next date was on????? Or do you have new plans for this Jummah? Dude I just removed you off my facebook, I DID NOT reject you. stop being so sensitive. Holla backk
  14. What does it mean to love America anyway? Does it mean to genuinely care for its people, and others around the world? Does it mean to hold your government accountable? Does it mean to oppose your government when it is in the wrong? Surely nothing can be more patriotic. When it comes to the United States, the dominant global super power post the second world war and the leading sponsor of state terrorism and foreign repression, it shouldn't surprise one that there is a heightened level of resentment towards the state. Sure sometimes it is misdirected and irrational, but it is also natural and understandable. The citizens of United States do enjoy unsurpassed protection of freedom of speech and religion etc, but these are rights that have been won over by the people, not gifted to them by their governments, and they are constantly under attack. Also, as hateful as some people might seem, most of them still contribute a lot to the US economy through undervalued labour and taxes, which is what the state is mostly concerned with anyway, it couldn't care less about love/emotional pronouncements. States are not moral agents and human beings are not inherently full of irrational hate. Most Canadians for example are full of praises for the relatively more socialized system in Canada, but when they observe Canada's active participation in the Afghan war, they cant help but be furious, it is only human. The matter isnt so black and white, you would be hard pressed to find individuals who outright despise everything cultural, economical and political about these societies, their resentful attitude is a product of a complex understanding and experiences (sometimes of their loved ones back home), usually under some form of direct US meddling etc. These people are constantly told by radio talk show hosts to pack their bags and be on their way to their rotten homelands which are in many case rotten in large part due to power play of global powers. They are labelled anti American, or unpatriotic, which is ridiculous, these are terms you would expect to come out of a totalitarian state. Prior to US involvement in Iran in the 1950s for example, Iranians had a very favourable attitude towards the United States. It was the same in Pakistan. The extent of western repression through colonialism and recently through American hegemony has deeply influenced peoples attitudes. To add to this, islamophobia is on the rise, and muslims are bombarded with news of one drone attack after another. Most muslims are severely critical of their puppet governments back home aswell. The growing anger and resentment is understandable, what do you really expect? it would be better if it could be followed by some concrete action but mere recognition is always a start in societies where the general public is severely misinformed. Freedom of speech is protected in the United States beyond any other country in the world, this includes all the other western states, this is a fact, it even extends to US law, it was mostly won over through the civil rights struggle. US on the other hand also takes a lead in granting and extending rights to corporations, far beyond rights accorded to human beings of flesh and bones (those evil Mexicans). We shouldn't be naive in dismissing everything, the people of US have fought courageously to win over these rights, although they are constantly under attack and there is a long way to go. It is a relatively free society, if you challenge the system here, you maybe isolated, have your job taken away, might even end up in jail for civil disobedience, but you will not have your head chopped off, or your family members tortured. There are opportunities here to fight for your rights and also to fight for those who are subjected to US dominance. That should be our focus.
  15. Slavery: Immoral and wrong by definition... I am sure we all accept this, if by some miracle you do not, come forward and present your arguments. I would strongly urge against it since a 10 year old today could refute them. Slavery is an accepted institution in islam, although many scholars today wouldnt permit such practices. Theoretically speaking it is a part of sharia/islamic theory if I am correct. Now if you were to look at this as a historian, one would totally understand why islam came to accept slavery and even institutionalize it. Slavery was a big business back in those days, even today it remains so to a certain extent, hence it would have been totally impractical to abolish slavery outright. This is one justification a lot of people give when trying to justify islamic institutionalization of slavery. I find this hard to digest, wrong is wrong. If a prevalent immoral practice would be difficult to eradicate strictly by shutting it off completely then one should implement more modest practical measures to deal with the problem while still condemning the very nature of the practice in question. Slavery should have been denounced outright, and then adequate practical measures should have been implemented to remove the practice all together. Instead it was institutionalized by islam and abused to the core in subsequent centuries by muslims as justification to violate some of the more elementary human rights, especially of women. In any case one must not lose sight of the fact that islam did profoundly alter the conditions and treatment of slaves, their rights were extended, they were to be treated much more humanely etc etc, but it still failed to denounce the concept in principle, which should puzzle a believer. Instead it was given further legitimacy by being institutionalized. Even in relatively favourable conditions that islam provided for slaves, a slave remained a slave, still being able to exercise far less fundamental rights than its owner. It is wrong and immoral by definition, I do not see how any sane human being can come to defend such classification of human beings. The following is a quick glance at some of the rights islam did provide for slaves: Got these off wikipedia, so correct me if I am wrong. The slave is entitled to receive sustenance from the master, which includes shelter, food, clothing, and medical attention. It is a requirement for this sustenance to be of the same standard generally found in the locality and it is also recommended for the slave to have the same standard of food and clothing as the master In Shiite jurisprudence it is unlawful for a master of a female slave to grant a third party the use of her for sexual relations etc etc The following are some restrictions Slaves are allowed to marry only with the owner's consent Slaves are not permitted to possess or inherit property Masters may sell, bequeath, give away, pledge, hire out or compel them to earn money slaveholder was entitled by law to the sexual enjoyment of his slave women etc etc It is obvious that islam went a long way in reforming an immoral institution in a way which was quite remarkable for its time, the whole notion of treating your slaves in a humane fashion was almost alien in such societies. It has to be said though that as believers who believe that our religion was complete by the time of the prophets departure and that islamic morality was well established, it is quite surprising to see that slavery was not condemned and denounced at least in theory outright. As I have said before, as a historian looking at the mode of development given the circumstances of the times, one can totally understand why it wasn't, but as a believer who believes in divine law, a law supposedly for all times, it becomes very difficult to digest. For the last time, anyone here who makes a moral argument for slavery simply does not have a leg to stand on, even scholars today believe that islams goal was eventual total abolishment of slavery, because it is that elementary, its simply common sense, it is wrong. If we do accept this, I suppose we accept that islamic law in certain respects is to evolve overtime? Even if it means adopting contradictory positions given the circumstances and how human thought has evolved?
  16. Arabs are witness, there has never been no rivalry as epic as the Bhutto khandan vs the Gandhi farmhouse These Khandans and their paidawar take centre stage again, in Mohali of all places Its going to be the unpredictably brilliant, mercurial and audacious carnivores vs the hard working, soft spoken statistics gathering herbivores. Historically, Pakistan has dominated India when it comes to the gentlemen's game, here are the statistics: As of 23 March 2011. Tests ODIs Twenty20 Matches played 59 117 2 Won by Pakistan 12 67 0 Won by India 9 46 2 Draw/Tie 38 4 0 India has beaten Pakistan though in all 4 world cup encounters : ( Hopefully the old pros will be back at it again: To witness Indian agony live please refer to : http://www.indiancricketfans.com/forumdisplay.php?f=8 To join the Pakistanis in jubilation, please share your warn feelings at: http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/forumdisplay.php?f=9 AHAHAHAHAHHA I CANNOT WAIT, I AM OVER THE MOOON HAILA YAALLAH MUFEEDADATAN RABBI KHO KHO FEHAN MALUSH QABILTU NAAAAAA3M
  17. I cannot for the life of my understand why women complicate things so much and seek out deficiencies where they do not exist, stop with the what ifs, or fear of further what ifs down the road. For me, our inner content and peace should be based on the sincerity behind our actions and the fulfillment of our duties and commitments to our loved ones and humanity in general. That should be the basis, not whether he is able to floor you repeatedly till the floor seizes to exist and you are spun into a spiral of petty spins which you are subsequently (not inherently) and deservedly incapable of snapping out of. If this brother is decent enough, it would be silly to just let him go, who knows, you may never be satisfied no matter who you end up with next, in fact that is all the more probable if you are so bent on letting this go without a proper change in attitude. Even if you are happier elsewhere, we all can be trust me, how would you feel not having had given this man another go? Surely he will be heartbroken, if he sincerely likes you that is. You seem to be making things too difficult for yourself, the real benefit of marriage is that it gives us profound lessons in humility, compromise and patience, and these are the qualities which foster love in the real sense. I do think he needs to be more motivated, there shouldn't be a compromise on that front, but I feel he will come around provided that he cares about you. Obviously I do not know the details, but this pattern seems all too familiar to me even though it is somewhat understandable given how stupid women can be, I would hope that you commit to him unless you have a very strong reason not to, in which case you should do otherwise and not worry about the cultural implications around you. At the end of the day, if this man is a good man, then without a shadow of a doubt, you should be able to love him and also be happy with him. If we are willing to block out certain variables, I can assure you, it is not hard to get ourselves to love a decent human being, in fact it should be the easiest and the most natural inclination in the world, we all have it within us, you can accomplish this as well provided that you are able to fundamentally alter your outlook on things. If you feel you are not capable of seeing things differently and undertaking a more positive and grateful approach, it would be best to let him go. Spacing modified for brother Jackson
  18. Iran is independent, it has been so since the revolution, whether you admire the Islamic republic or not, Iranians from all sides do recognize that the revolution has brought Iran independence. UN sanctions became irrelevant ages ago, US corporate sanctions have suffered the same fate more recently. Apart from avid Shah supporters which are an extreme minority, most opposition supporters still hold Iranian independence as a primary condition and are in no way interested in selling out to foreign interests. I am not a fan of Dabashi, he seems like one of those intellectuals who refuses to on purpose acknowledge the complexity of the situation given the urge to stand firm within the narrow confines of political extremes, but you tend to find that with most intellectuals deemed Ivy league material, one would begin to think something has gone horribly wrong if one was to observe otherwise. He did however comment on wanting the US to stay away from the green movement. In any case, the Iranian people (those who aren't the most fervent fans of the IR) know better than to waste their time condemning the sanctions, they wisely call for a more representative and open society in Iran. They are a diverse lot, it is quite naive to label them all green, a lot of them do not even support the lauded opposition leader or call for a total dismantlement of the current regime but there are commonalities among all these groups, which should be the basis for unity in Iran and subsequent reform. I mean when grown and mature men in parliament of all places are calling for peoples heads, something just isnt right.
  19. Relax, Iran cannot get involved in this militarily speaking, that would prompt direct US intervention, we do not want a world war here, the best we can do is to simply force our governments to apply pressure on the monarchies, at least to withdraw their support temporarily. That really is our best hope, Bahrainis will loose more lives, people always do when fighting for their rights, let us hope the monarchy will come to realize the inevitable sooner than later.
  20. Yemeni anti-government demonstrators chant slogans during a demonstration celebrating the resignation of Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak and demanding the ouster of their own president, in Sanaa, Yemen, Feb 12, 2011 A prominent member of Egypt’s officially-banned Muslim Brotherhood’s Guidance Council has “sharply” denied his organization wants an Iranian-style administration, after anti-government demonstrations forced long-time President Hosni Mubarak to step down following 18-days of protests. Esam Alarian, spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood, told VOA members of his organization are only interested in participating in parliamentary elections, not the presidential vote, as speculated by some international media organizations. “Absolutely wrong; that is (a) false allegation. This is not true. We are calling for a civil state, moderate state, (and) a democratic state, equality, prosperity, justice for all and freedom for all citizens. All are equal. Egypt is not Iran. Egypt can build its own model of democracy according to its culture and Islamic preference.” The Muslim Brotherhood has been officially banned as a political party in Egypt, but holds parliamentary seats through “independents.” Alarian said the accusations against his organization are, in his words, completely false. He also said the Muslim Brotherhood is not in favor of what he described as foreign interference. “We are against any international or foreigners interfering in our domestic or internal affairs. And for all foreigners, Americans and non-Americans, we are asking them not to intervene in our affairs, not to impose any orders or anything to the cabinet or the parliament. We are equal (and) we are looking forward to mutual relations with all people,” said Alarian. “Foreign policy is done by the president and it is supervised and monitored by parliament, and we are not targeting to have a majority in parliament. So, the Egyptian people can decide, not (the) Muslim Brotherhood. The new Egypt is not by (the) Muslim Brotherhood alone; it will be made by all Egyptians, Muslims, and Christians, liberals, socialists, nationalists and Islamists.” Egypt's military has dissolved parliament and suspended the constitution meeting two key demands by pro-democracy demonstrators. The military leadership that took control when Mr. Mubarak stepped down Friday issued a statement Sunday saying it will temporarily govern for six months or until presidential and parliamentary elections are held. They are currently scheduled for September. The statement was issued shortly after Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq said the top priority of his military-backed Cabinet is restoring security and a normal life in Egypt. He also said several Cabinet posts remain vacant and promised that any new appointees will be thoroughly vetted to ensure they are satisfactory to the public. The news conference was the prime minister's first since Mr. Mubarak stepped down Friday and handed power to the military under pressure from mass protests against his nearly 30-year rule. Mr. Mubarak appointed Mr. Shafiq as prime minister on January 29th four days after the protests began. Egypt's new military rulers also attempted to restore normality to Cairo Sunday sending troops to dismantle a pro-democracy protest camp in the capital's Tahrir Square to make way for traffic to resume through the focal point of the uprising. http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/--Muslim-Brotherhood-Spokesman-Egypt-Not-Iran--116135244.html
  21. I have always liked Ron Paul, however when it comes to economic policy, listening to him is no different from listening to Milton Friedman or Ayn Rand. He is for abolishing all kinds of governmental departments/agencies that offer (or should offer) vital social services to the masses. Apart from this, he wants US to opt out of the United Nations, he opposes welfare for illegal aliens and he is a staunch constitutionalist, we all know the American constitution has its flaws. Credit must be given where credit is due though, he comes off very honest, blunt and sincere, his stance on American foreign policy is admirable and there is a lot of overlap in what most people to the left advocate and what Ron Paul libertarians do. It is just that some of his solutions are outright recipes for disaster. Now all this anti government talk from his camp sounds good to start with, it is quite convenient to channel ones frustration in this fashion, however, here is the essential difference between government and private power: government as it stands right now generally is not a source for good, however with government, there always is potential for it to be just that provided it is truly democratically established and held accountable. It is extremely difficult to hold private power accountable. Ron Paul has a lot going for him, but he really could do with a more balanced approach.
  22. You cannot compare Iraq to Germany, middle eastern nations like Iraq sit on an ocean of the greatest natural discovery in human history, given such resources, they can embark on a path towards economic prosperity on a much faster pace than say a nation like South Korea or Pakistan. In someways, Iraqis obviously have it a lot better under the US occupation as they did under Saddam, but the occupation has brought on dangers far more profound than if Iraqis had been allowed to overthrow Saddam more organically without US intervention. Iraq had a relatively more unified national movement during the Clinton years, which was well on its way to overthrowing the brutal dictator, if it wasn't for the harsh sanctions imposed by Clinton, they would most likely have accomplished their goal. As it stands right now, the occupation has severely increased the risk of terror, further militarized various factions within the nation, and also unearthed a deep sense of hostility which can have extremely grave consequences once the US pulls out. We can only hope that cooler heads will prevail once the occupation ends, but the situation can potentially be very explosive. The national movements within Iraq have been quite remarkable, as it stands right now however , mild infrastructural gains and temporary decrease in terror rhetoric etc are besides the point, the focus should be on the political makeup of society, economic/political independence and the irritated leadership within various Iraqi groups. I frankly fear the worst but do harbor a hint of hope due to the remarkable resistance capacity and patience the Iraqi people have demonstrated.
  23. All the experts have written Pakistan off, they are all morons, Pakistan has as much of a chance of winning this as India. They definitely should have picked one of Mohammad Yousuf or Shoaib Malik as they are amazing against spin in the subcontinent.
  24. Oh please, Sistani isnt all that bad, quite a lot to admire about the way he has handled certain situations, but please stop needlessly stomping on your already battered self esteem, you can do better then that, we all can, have some damn faith.
×
×
  • Create New...