|
#12: Rashid Mughal,
While it is true that so called
Muslim fundamentalism have caused havoc and Muslims should take
responsibility for their own problems, do you think it is the only reason
why Muslim find themselves in this mess? Do not international politics and
economic slavery and West’s support of draconian dictatorships have to do
anything with the current state of affairs? Who funded the madrassas in the first place?
The issue of separation of
religion and state is not an easy one. I believe it is possible to come up
with a solution which can satisfy the Muslim religious thought as well as
liberal and secular thought. However, this is a separate topic and should
be reserved for a separate forum, maybe the next one, on FOH.
#11: Akbar Hussain,
No doubt pinning hopes on Obama because he
was originally born in a third world country and may have Muslim lineage is
simple-mindedness and naivety at the least and psychological delusion at
the worst, however, his promise of change include peaceful engagement with
enemies (like Iran) in a meaningful dialogue. Moreover, his posture that he
wants to rise above traditional approaches to solve the problems, have
given rise to hopes that he may search for the peaceful solutions to the
present conflicts. I wonder if such
hopes are realistic or even those are delusional considering that he may
not be able to change the fundamental course of American foreign policy
part of which is to ensure hegemonic presence in the oil rich strip of the
central Asia.
You have correctly stated that
fundamentalism did not start with 9/11. But you forgot to mention that how
it really intensified by American backing of Taliban against Russians. Fundamentalist
streaks within Muslims have been there right from the beginning, from Kharjis and such, however the
present intensification is mainly the result of Imperialist policies. Any
thoughts on this aspect?
#10: Rashid Mughal,
You say “scientists tell us,
that if you and I can change our mind, we can change anything.” That
sounds to me religious sermon more than a scientific truth. And in the next
sentence you contradict it by saying that we are hard-wired. Then if the ability
to change our mind is determined by our conditioning then how the change
will occur for which you argue in the rest of your post?
#06: Jawaid V. Chaudhry,
yes, the hope maybe dashed due to the hard realities of
politico-economic interests, however, we cannot discount that election of a
first Afro-American president in itself have huge significance. Drivers for
this change may be many, but let’s not forget that all these drivers
indicate the need in the American society to make this symbolic change.
Let’s say it is just that: a symbolic
change. But we must not forget the importance of symbols. The symbols have
represented the deepest currents running in the psyche of human race. This
symbolic change, even if his presidency fails, will endure in the psyche of
common people. My poem was inspired by this fundamental psychological
truth. I know first hand and by others how so many have felt the
significance of this change in terms of its impact on our new generations.
And our new generations are our future.
Poems are not always just an emotional
outburst as many take them to be. Poems rise from the psychological depths
when a soul is stirred by external or internal events.
#05: Tariq Bhatti,
Sir, the change is effecting a
large population of coloured people in the West.
As I implied in my response to J.Chaudhry, this
change, even of symbolic nature has brought a new colour
to the landscape of Western society. Let us not discount its impact on you
and me. We may not have just realized it fully.
#04: Najeeb Kazmi,
You seem to be hoping (in your
second paragraph) that this change actually may lead to long term basic and
fundamental changes in US
society. Is that not hoping too much? Personally, I think though it seems
as socialism is taking place in US—Nationalization of big financial giants
maybe construed a step in that direction plus Obama is considered a suspect
socialist, at least in view of right wingers—however, he won’t make a
fundamental change, unless a disaster struck such that there is no way left
out of it without making structural changes.
He seems to be very pragmatic savvy and
will not antagonize the establishment. Look who he chose as Chief of Staff.
No change from Clinton
administration. Much to be seen. But you seem to have carried away by the
emotional ambience of the moment.
Also, I do not think that after
this symbolic change in US, other countries are not open to such change.
That is the significance of this historical moment.
#03: MUZAFAR SHERAZ,
Germany is aligning more with Russia
due to the basic contradiction which exists between European and American
interest. Remember France’s
initial hesitance to join the Bush coalition. Only Tony Blair was a poodle.
The
hopes are created by Obama’s rhetoric (In Bill Clinton’s word ‘biggest
fantasy’). Lot to be seen but yes, we can – hope. At the same time we
cannot discount the importance of this historical moment.
#02: WARIS SHERE,
Thanks for your informative
article. Your observation that Obama’s campaign was more of a social
movement is apt and is appreciated. However, Obama’s rise comes with a big
question mark. What really is possible for a President of United States to
achieve within the current system?
By the way, there are two
technical difficulties in your article if I may respectfully point out:
First, the end quote marks for
King’s speech are confusing. It is hard to figure out where it stops, especially
when you have inserted the Obama’s age thing in between.
Second, continuation of this
sentence, “America's
standing in the world has been damaged during the George Bush's presidency.
He has inflicted massive direct harm to many parts of the world through his
military actions.” to this one, “His leadership and vision for the future
has fascinated people …” implies that “His” is referring to Bush. Reader
has to do some mental gym to clarify the thought.
|
