|
WORDS, WORDS, WORDS. . .
Dear Peter & Family of the Heart:
Your comments are interesting but what are you
trying to tell us?
Allow me to share my urgency about the problem
of unity and division [as in the topic "All secular Muslims (or
Pakistanis) need to unite" -- or do they?], and the renewed interest
that you're trying to generate in this discussion this late in the day by
bantering around with semantics and psychobabble.
Let me cut to the quick.
I contend that the idea of unity breeds
disunity; the idea of love, hate; and so on and on; I also maintain that
regurgitating history with new interpretations of what happened, what might
have been, and so on, does not enable us to see the reality of what is.
Even the idea of God is haunted by the spectre of
Satan.
There is no such thing as "The recent
connotation attached with word 'fundamentalism'. . ." because the word
'fundamentalism' has only one meaning from the day it was included in the
dictionary. Trust me. Everything else is gloss.
"Defining terms can be a useful
exercise," you say, then shy out by saying let's not "get too
concerned about semantics here."
You say "those who have a literal
interpretation of Islam set off more bombs than those who have a literal
interpretation of Christianity."
What kind of distinction is that -- whether as
a generalization, as a philosophy, as a point of view, as a piece of logic,
or as a propagation of your personal understanding of the truth that we're
trying to realize on this forum?
Once we see the truth of what is, we too can
run naked in the streets shouting, "Eureka!"
Why are you talking down from a pedestal?
Rashid Mughal
|