The facade of the India & Pakistan talk


Very poor cosmetic surgery will never take away the scars and when the cretins in the corridor of Pakistani power tell India that Pakistan is prepared to look to the future and not our history you are so wrong.

Krishna made unacceptable statements about Pakistan and its links to International terrorism and linking the talks to the Mumbai attack before his arrival. He is a diplomatic therefore satisfies all corners of Idnian society and continues charge an innocent Pakistan.

This is a Politician who has no real credible plan for peace and is using diplomacy to jostle for a greater role in Central Asia. It is clear at the back of this facade is America who feels they can make these two countries come together without a real push for a framework of Peace.

Pakistan can never give up Kashmir and India has made it clear she will never give up the occupation of India and the UN resolution will continue to stand against India.

Pakistan is owed so much by India and without India delivering what belongs to Pakistan, these two neighbours can never ersolve their differences and will continue to play the other off in a post American invasion of Afghanistan.

An empty series of meetings, empty promises and the usual cosmetic surgery to hide the scars of partition and 2 centuries of divisions left by the British.

I will say if India has the conviction to peace and give Kashmiris their self determination and remove forces from Siachen, return Sir Creek, Manvadar and Junagadh. At the same time drastically change her Pakistan centric hatefilled media & foreign policy she will have so much to gain.

Pakistan too will then stop her hostile Indian centric foreign policy and Pakistan too will stop supporting separatist movements inside India.

Together Pakistan & india can link Central Asia, North Asia with South Asia & The Asia Pacific. We can make this Asia’s century a region with far more potential than Europe. Instead we will remain fragmented as nations across Asia and non Asian state actors will take advantage of these divides, monopolising on the potential we have as one to make themselves prosperous.

Bold moves will be needed from India if real Peace is to come about & I speak as a Kashmiri and a Pakistani, we in Pakistani will only then appreciate the gesture of friendship which will be reciprocated.

We as a nation had nothing to do with Mumbai and certainly our ISI and government had nothing to do with Mumbai while India continues to arm, fund terrorists from within Afghanistan to kill, main Pakistani men, women and children.

I talk about the sold out Sardars of Baloch that have never represented the proud and patriotic Balochis. I talk about Tereek-e-Taliban and I talk about the attrocities of Indian military in Kashmir.

Why does Pakistan suddenly excuse Indian aggression, attrocity towards Pakistani people. 65 years of aggression, hate for Pakistan and 2 centuries of hatred for the Muslim inhabitants of the Indus sonce the white man set foot on the sub continent.

There will be no movement by India on Siachen, Sir Creek, Junagadh, Manvadar and they will never allow peace and tranquility to flourish in Jammu & Kashmir. Jammu & Kashmir which has seen a rise in attacks on innoent Muslim Kashmiris this year, thousands of year old masjids burnt, desecration of the noble Qu’ran Al Furqaan on numerous incidents across Kashmir.

India has absolute contempt for an Islamic Kashmir and has no intention to give Kashmiris their right to a fere and fair plebiscite as agree through a UN resolution.

India and our contact with Indians winessed daily on this and many sites have contempt for Pakistan and Pakistanis and we have equally returned that favour.

If India really seeks a stable and progressive Pakistan she will have to accept Pakistan as an equal, bring peace to Kashmir and stop meddling in Pakistani politics nor plotting terror inside Pakistan.

If India really seeks a stable and progressive Pakistan she needs to curn her home grown Hindu terrorists and stop defaming Islam and mistreating Muslims which has direct repercussions on her relationship with the Islamic rrepublic of Pakistan.

If India really wants peace Pakistan needs to understand it should stop demonising Pakistanis and control her scavangerous media against Pakistan and Pakistanis.

For us a real sign of Peace is resolving Kashmir, returning Sir Creek, Manvadar, Junagadh to Pakistan. A complete stop of Indian terrorist activities in West & Central Asia aimed at Pakistan.

We do not need bollywood and visas we need conviction and tangible tokens of a real friendship.

Was Musa Ibn Maymun the great Arab Scholar a Jew or was Moses Maimonides a Muslim?


Was Musa Ibm Maymun the great Arab Scholar a Muslim or was Moses Maimonides a Jew. In a great testimonial to interfaith harmony the magnificent Sultan Saladin had appointed many Jews to the highest ranks in his cabinet. Moses Maimonides was one such individual. He was the potent Surgeon General and personal physician with immense powers.

Moses Maimonides is considered the most important thinker of modern Jewish thinking. He is often called “the 2nd Moses” to highlight his importance. However most Arab scholars own him as an Arab thinker. This offers us great opportunity to build interfaith bridges among the monotheist religions. To this purpose we wormed AJMA (American Joint Multifaith Association).http://www. ajma.org

  • Among Maimonides scholars there is a long-standing debate regarding the allegation that as an adolescent he and his family converted to Islam
  • Citing four Arabic sources, Kraemer surmises that Maimonides “practiced Islam in Fez and eventually left and sailed to Acre. We do not know whether he was already a practicing Muslim when he came to Fez.”

Not only did Musa write and work for the Jewish community openly, he is considered the most important writer of Jewish thought who really consecrated Jewish ideas. Now Magid seems to repeat what Islamic scholars have been saying for hundreds of years. Most of the ideas proposed by Moses were hugely influenced by Muslim thinkers and Islamic thought. In this sense Judaism owes Islam a lot. The formation of Kaballah from Sufisim is one such example. Magid lists the “pillars” as another.

  • Once, when discussing passages from The Guide for the Perplexed and Mishneh Torah, a Muslim scholar insisted that Maimonides’ positions were “pure Islam” and that “Ibn Maimun” — as he is known in Arabic — “is a small ‘m’ Muslim,” citing chapter and verse of thinkers Maimonides never mentions.
  • Kraemer’s lights, Maimonides did not simply live and work among Muslims; his entire worldview was infused with Islamic methods, ideas and ideology.
  • The author argues, for example, that the subtle balance in Maimonides’s legal code between “preservation of tradition on one side, and change and progress on the other” stems from his melding of the Talmudic tradition with key principles of Islamic legal interpretation
  • The fact that Maimonides cites some Islamic sources, especially the philosopher Abu Nasar al-Farabi (c. 870-950), is well known. More subtle is the way even his ostensibly Jewish positions, and the methods he uses to reach them, appear to be taken, sometimes verbatim, from the Muslim tradition
  • More subtle is the way even his ostensibly Jewish positions, and the methods he uses to reach them, appear to be taken, sometimes verbatim, from the Muslim tradition. One of Maimonides’ great theological innovations, for example, was his Thirteen Principles of Faith, a list of Judaism’s central beliefs.
  • As Judaism is a religion founded on law and not on belief per se, no such creed had been attempted before. But the notion of principles, or pillars, of faith had existed for some time in Islam, and Kraemer contends that several of Maimonides’s specific articles of faith — including the first (God’s existence), second (divine unity) and particularly the third (God is not a corporeal being) — reflect the influence of such Islamic thinkers as al-Farabi, Ibn Sina and Ibn Tumart, founder of the Almohad movement.

Musa Ibn Maymun as he is known to Arabs wrote all his books in Arabic except one. According to my friend Rabbi Vernon, the lines between the faiths were not so sacrosanct at the time of the ’2nd Moses”. Moses says as much. His one of his letters he says that there are multiple paths to salvation and certainly Islam and Judaism are two of the main ones. His sons were Muslims.

  • Two ironies emerge from Kraemer’s book.
  • First, that the great architect of medieval and modern Judaism seems to have lived for a time, at least outwardly, as a Muslim; whether this was a feigned or true conversion, he was an insider in Muslim culture.
  • And second, that what is often considered original in Maimonides is not very original at all. Throughout the book, Kraemer shows how many of Maimonides’ contributions are derivative, not just of Aristotle andPlato, but also of Muslim thinkers.
  • He notes that Maimonides’s discussion of the five types of speech in Jewish law employs the same five categories contained in Islamic jurisprudence.
  • He shows that Maimonides’s prohibition of using sacred poems for mundane purposes (such as setting them to music at communal gatherings) is taken directly from a commentary on Plato’s Republic by the Muslim philosopher Averroes.

This age old controversy is addressed once again my Magid in a new book

The Great Islamic Rabbi

Did one of Judaism’s most venerable sages live as a Muslim?

 

 

Reviewed by Shaul Magid Sunday, January 4, 2009; Page BW04

MAIMONIDES

The Life and World of One of Civilization’s Greatest Minds

This Story  by Joel L. Kraemer Doubleday. 621 pp. $35

There are few things all Jews can agree on, but one may be that there is no figure in Judaism in the last 1,000 years who is as revered as Moses ben Maimon (1135-1204), better known by the Greek form of his name, Maimonides. Reformers and ultra-traditionalists, rationalists and mystics claim him as their inspiration. He created the template for medieval and modern Jewish thinking on matters stretching from law to science, medicine to philosophy, messianism to politics.

Joel L. Kraemer’s extensive biography Maimonides brings this venerated rabbi and physician to life for a new generation of readers. It is the work of a scholar deeply engaged with Maimonides’ ideas and the world in which he lived; the book is lucid, entertaining and incisive. While many biographies of Maimonides have been written, Kraemer does what few have attempted: He presents the great Jewish sage as deeply embedded in an Islamic cultural, religious and intellectual milieu.

The book is divided into two parts: an analysis of the Islamic context in which Maimonides lived, describing in detail the places he frequented (Spain, Morocco, the Holy Land and Egypt) and the people he met; and a survey of his writings, including volumes of letters and records of his extensive medical practice as well as his 14-volume code of Jewish law, Mishneh Torah, and his philosophical masterwork, The Guide for the Perplexed.

Among Maimonides scholars there is a long-standing debate regarding the allegation that as an adolescent he and his family converted to Islam (either in his Spanish hometown of Córdoba or later in the Moroccan city of Fez) to avoid the ire of the Almohad dynasty, and that he lived as a Muslim until early adulthood. No credible evidence of this exists in Jewish sources. We know, however, that many in his family’s social class did feign conversion to survive the militant Islamic regime that expanded across Northern Africa and much of the Iberian peninsula in his lifetime. Citing four Arabic sources, Kraemer surmises that Maimonides “practiced Islam in Fez and eventually left and sailed to Acre. We do not know whether he was already a practicing Muslim when he came to Fez.”

The Jewish position has been that Maimonides did not convert but rather engaged in “taqiyya” or dissimulation and, at most, lived as if he were a Muslim, something quite common of Jews in that perilous period. As I read Kraemer, that distinction (outright conversion vs. dissimulation) may be important to many Jews, but it is practically irrelevant to this biography. By Kraemer’s lights, Maimonides did not simply live and work among Muslims; his entire worldview was infused with Islamic methods, ideas and ideology. The author argues, for example, that the subtle balance in Maimonides’s legal code between “preservation of tradition on one side, and change and progress on the other” stems from his melding of the Talmudic tradition with key principles of Islamic legal interpretation.

I, too, have sensed the Islamic influence on Maimonides, especially when reading his works with Muslim colleagues. Once, when discussing passages from The Guide for the Perplexed and Mishneh Torah, a Muslim scholar insisted that Maimonides’ positions were “pure Islam” and that “Ibn Maimun” — as he is known in Arabic — “is a small ‘m’ Muslim,” citing chapter and verse of thinkers Maimonides never mentions.

The fact that Maimonides cites some Islamic sources, especially the philosopher Abu Nasar al-Farabi (c. 870-950), is well known. More subtle is the way even his ostensibly Jewish positions, and the methods he uses to reach them, appear to be taken, sometimes verbatim, from the Muslim tradition. One of Maimonides’ great theological innovations, for example, was his Thirteen Principles of Faith, a list of Judaism’s central beliefs. As Judaism is a religion founded on law and not on belief per se, no such creed had been attempted before. But the notion of principles, or pillars, of faith had existed for some time in Islam, and Kraemer contends that several of Maimonides’s specific articles of faith — including the first (God’s existence), second (divine unity) and particularly the third (God is not a corporeal being) — reflect the influence of such Islamic thinkers as al-Farabi, Ibn Sina and Ibn Tumart, founder of the Almohad movement.

Two ironies emerge from Kraemer’s book. First, that the great architect of medieval and modern Judaism seems to have lived for a time, at least outwardly, as a Muslim; whether this was a feigned or true conversion, he was an insider in Muslim culture. And second, that what is often considered original in Maimonides is not very original at all. Throughout the book, Kraemer shows how many of Maimonides’ contributions are derivative, not just of Aristotle and Plato, but also of Muslim thinkers. He notes that Maimonides’s discussion of the five types of speech in Jewish law employs the same five categories contained in Islamic jurisprudence. He shows that Maimonides’s prohibition of using sacred poems for mundane purposes (such as setting them to music at communal gatherings) is taken directly from a commentary on Plato’sRepublic by the Muslim philosopher Averroes.

Kraemer’s subtitle, One of Civilization’s Greatest Minds, is unfortunate, because the book undermines this claim throughout. Kraemer shows that for Jews and Judaism, Maimonides was certainly an innovator, and the depth of his knowledge and compassion was truly astounding. But as a contributor to the ideas of Western (including medieval Islamic) civilization, he did not have much new to offer. ·