Dear Mr. Chaudry,

In response to my comments in post # 70, you have been generous enough to part with some useful advice. I thank you for the kindness and will comment on it as follows (I have reproduced your comments in bold and in quotes).

1. Your first remark is :

« It appears that you have not kept up with the discussion on this topic ».

In my comments (# 70), I am only discussing the last part of your post # 67 which you have added as « a news item » along with your comments in the last paragraph. For this I do not have to « keep up » with all the discussions going on this topic. Perhaps, you think that without reading all the previous  N  statements on the topic I can not undrstand your N+1 post. If you persist in your way of thinking, I will suggest that you start all your posts with a notice that « this post is only for those readers who have kept themselves up with all the discussion on this topic ». This will help the curious readers to stay clear of a possible trap.

2. Your second remark is the following two lines :

« In no way, shape or form, I have tried to justify the hooligan acts of one place (or people) while supporting the same, taking place at another location. » 

Yes the above remark is true as it stands. But the exclusion of all ways, shapes and forms does not apply to the statements ( in post # 67) under discussion. These statements are vague and unprecise . They are neither true nor false but both. 

3. The paragraph in queqtion is :

« Obviously, the uneducated Pakistani mob does not have a monopoly over torching the cars when protesting against some thing they don’t like, the ‘Civilized Western’ people also do that when they feel like. But they have one advantage over Muslims, their faith will not be held responsible for it. I am sure we will keep the Christian mob separated from Christianity. Had they been the Muslims doing it, every one including our westernized Pakistanis would say, “Aha, didn’t I say there was some thing wrong with Islam” ». 

It is not obvious, why a Pakistani mob is treated as « uneducated » and a Western mob as « Civilized people ». I suspect you to create a sympathetic opinion for the one and its opposite for the other. It is, evidently, your partial attitude. In the rest of the paragraph you  lament that when the mob is that of Chritians, the religion of Christianity is not mentioned whereas the fault of a Muslim mob is attributed to the religion of Islam. This opinion is entirely wrong and based on your paranoia.

 « Islamic Terrorism » is a term in use nowadays. This term is used for those acts of terror which are comitted by a group of Muslims who claim to act in the name of Islam. Their activities are supported by religious leaders and by a part of Umma. Their activity is called « Jihad » which finds its origin in the Holy Book. These activists form a « Islamic Group » and hence any terror comitted by these people is termed « Islamic Terrorism ». From this you  generalise that every time a Muslim group acts badly, every one including westernized Pakistanis find fault with Islam. This conclusion is wrong and unfounded. Muslims, as a group, are blamed only when they carry out voilent acts under the banner of Islam, not otherwise.

But there are some acts for which Islam may be directly or indirecty responsible. Abdul Rahman in Afghanistan is facing the death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity 16 years ago. If he is condemned to death, Islam will be directly and completely responsible. The Muslim States in general and Islamic Republics in particular fail to establish the democracy because they are seeking the guidence in the Holy Quran. There is no clear definition of  the system of government by the people in the Book. For this lack of democracy in Muslim and Islamic States, Islam is, indirectly and partially, responsible.

4. For your fine pont :

« The point that I have tried to make (which you have obviously missed) is that violence and riots are often the outcome of socio-economic consequences and not necessarily driven by religious ideologies. However, I have also pointed this out that on times, some religious leaders, politicians or local warlords may use religion to exploit the uneducated masses to further their own agendas by causing chaos in the society. »

I will simply say that your point is as big as a filled circle and obviously it can not be missed. Your « socio-economic » ensemble is so big that you can put almost any thing in it but still it is void of  some basic natural sentiments like love, hate and honour which may quite often provoke big trouble in the society.

5. Your next point :

« I have also tried to make the point that when the non-Muslims are responsible for riots, it is just a news about the riots. But, when Muslims are engaged in similar manner, often their religion is held responsible for their actions. Which, I oppose very strongly. »

This point has been already refuted earlier. But in case if it ever happens to be true, I will be with you to protest. I will do it even for any  religion.

6. Your last point :

« In one of my earlier posts under the same topic, I had expressed that if Prophet Mohammad was here to see the controversial cartoons, he would have simply laughed at the whole affair and most probably would have prayed to God for their guidance and His forgiveness. »  

This is indeed very liberal and open-minded opinion. Certainly, there are some other persons who have also expressed some similar opinions. At least there is one that I read before yours in NewYork Times, dated February 8, 2006. In your enthusiasm in the above _expression you have gone one step further to attribute to Mhuammad something which is usually attached to Jesus Christ. Jesus used to pray to God for their (Juda included) guidance and His forgiveness. He would even offor his left cheek if he was hit on the right.

Lastly, I thank you again for your advice : « Please check the earlier posts ».  But, I have already explained that to understand your N+1 post it is neither necessary nor possible to reread your earlier N posts. Already your N stands as 15 !

In the end please allow me to suggest that perhaps you might find, a short course in Logic and Scientific Method at the University of Toronto or any nearby university, helpful in arguing your points effectively.

Regards,

Muhammad Ahsan Khan