Mr. Alam:
While your unhealthy fixation with me and Ms. Majid is amusing, if not flattering, this is going to be my last posting with the subject line "Mr. Cyrus and Ms. Farida Majid". I am open to discussing any subject matter with you without making it personal, about you and I. Somehow, I am not getting across the point that the discussion is not about you or me or even Mr. Munshi. You have turned this whole discussion about us, and I have had enough of your distortion of facts, misconstruction of my statements, and out of context ranting about triviality. If you want to discuss meaningful issues, let's talk about the issues and not you and me.
There is a fundamental difference between "loyal opposition" and "juvenile adamancy", and I am finding it increasingly difficult to put your postings in either category. While I admire your persistent and out-of-context opposition to anything and everything that I say or post, I am starting to think that you are simply being antagonistic because you either enjoy it, or trying to change the topic from Mr. Munshi aka Isha Khan's obsession with India and Pakistan. Your antagonism reminds me of that classic exchange: "What are you rebelling against, Johnny?" and Johnny (Marlon Brando) replies, "Whaddya got?" A rebel without a cause, or in your case, an antagonist without a cause, is only romantic on the silver screen, but unproductive in a meaningful discussion.
If you want to show outrage and protest against something or someone, at least make sure that you know the reasons and not fall into the same "red-herring fallacy" that you mention. Almost everything you had said so far is a diversion technique to move the focus away from Mr. Munshi's postings. It's a bit hypocritical to decry "red-herring fallacies" and use the same to change the topic. The day you callously decided to put my name and Ms. Majid's name in the subject line, the topic changed from Bangladesh's economy, politics and our prosperity to you and you alone.
Observing your rather vulgar and uncalled for outbursts where you swear at my mother and question the legitimacy of my birth, I am of the opinion that you are intentionally taking my posts out of context, diverting from the main issues, and making this whole discussion about you and only you. Why do I say that? Here is why:
1. From my first post where I differed with Mr. Munshi's analysis and conspiracy theories about an impending Indian rule and the "Hindufication" of the Muslims in our country, I had made it clear that I am opposed to his views and not him. I don't know him and I have nothing against him personally. I am opposed to his views, as he is entitled to oppose my views. I welcome a spirited discussion. But along came you from the left field, and decided to make this about you and me, and Ms. Farida Majid (as she is guilty by association). See the subject line that was started by you, and you will see my point.
2. Instead of reading the whole paragraph and understanding my texts, you conveniently picked out key words or phrases that would help you spill out your passive aggressive and meaningless rant. You were offended by the phrase "flying rat's anatomy", often used to describe triviality of a certain matter? Really? And you don't think calling someone Hitler, pest, dog, and what not is not at all offensive? You were offended by Ms. Majid's use of the word "hound"? I hope you know that "hound(ing)" is also a verb (check the Webster). You were also upset, at least seemingly, with my use of the phrase "bent over backwards". I believe that I had explained to you the meaning of the phrase in my previous posts. Where do you get this false outrage from? If you want to be genuinely angry at someone, at least make sure that you understand fully what you are angry about. If you are just angry because you think some words or the usage of some words are offensive to you, but decide to be completely vulgar in your response, people just might think that you are being hypocritical, don't you think? Those who are easily outraged by triviality are often silent towards anything consequential.
3. I carefully reviewed the three seemingly intelligent questions that you had posted. Would you kindly point out to me, as well as to all readers, when did I say that YOUR views are "identical" to that of Moududi's? Again, you have conveniently turned this about you and quite characteristically, you are not carefully reading my posts. Unless you are Mr. Munshi himself and "Firoz Alam" or "Isha Khan" are your pseudonyms, my comment was not targeted towards you. Furthermore, I had never said that Mr. Munshi's views are "identical" to Moududi's. I called him a "Moududi wanna-be" because just like Moududi, he is prescribing "doctrines" that have long term consequences in inter-religious and inter-nation relationships. I will get to Moududi's philosophy in a moment, but let's deal with the fact that as of right now, you ARE NOT Mr. Munshi nor have I ever called you a "Moududi wanna-be". I know it's going to be an existential crisis for you, but please try not to lie about what I had said or distort my posts to fuel your baseless rant.
4. I have never called ANYONE a rat or a pest or compared them with any other animal for that matter.. It was you who began to do it. So, would you please stop lying about me and my comments? It's simply stupid and sickening at this point.
5. My statement about Moududi tells you more about me than Mr. Moududi? That goes to show the level of intelligence from where you are operating. Then again, an intelligent discourse wasn't what I expected in the first place. What is "objective" is that Mr. Moududi's name was used as a reference, but he is not the topic of discussion here. That's why I didn't discuss Moududi. You are simply oblivious of the fact that this whole discussion was about Mr. Munshi's statements and analysis, and not Moududi. If you are having "conceptual problems" about the identity and philosophy of Moududi, I would be happy to send you a list of scholarly writings, both in his support and opposition, so that you are able to clear yourself out of the self-imposed "mystery" that I had allegedly created, by "not yielding to nor revealing". Otherwise, feel free to google search Moududi's name and do yourself the favor. I would be happy to discuss Moududi's teachings with you, but this is not the thread nor is it main topic of discussion.
6. Mentally challenged in an "Orwellian Sense"? I hope you know the meaning "Orwellian". I think you are more Machiavellian than Orwellian, but that's just me. I called you "mentally challenged" because you keep misinforming the readers about my statements, suppress the real meanings of what I had said and instead post your wrong interpretations as my comments. More precisely, you seem to show false fury over words and phrases that were neither offensive nor directed at you. Only a mentally challenged individual would show outrage over the word "hound" when Ms. Majid used as a verb and not a noun. But I am not in the business of psych evaluation. I leave that up to your health care providers.
7. Once again, you decide to distort my statements and misinform the readers of this forum about the context. I have never called myself an "intellectual" or "Pundit" in any sense. When you say that I am a "self-declared" pundit, you are essentially proving yourself to be a liar. I am a policy professional and I do that for a living. But I am not in the habit of calling myself an intellectual or a pundit. So, my advise, please look up the word "self-declared" and point out where I called myself an intellectual or a pundit in any of my postings.
Unfortunately, you don't understand the difference between science and your inconsequential questions about Moududi, and that these questions have nothing to do with my profession in public policies. It's like finding a logical linkage between spaghetti, the weather, and life after death. If you want to talk about science, let's keep that separate from our disagreements over Moududi.
Your inflated sense of self is telling you that you are a great examiner in this discourse who is quizzing the intellectual depth of an insignificant "pest" whom you oppose. Hate to break your maniacal bubble, but this ain't no Greek forum, nor are we discussing philosophy here. If you want to engage me or anyone in a philosophical discussion, please put forward your views, show us your depth of understanding, and not just write up drunken hyperbole and cryptic nonsense and hit the "send" button.
If you disagree with my comments about Mr. Munshi and his analysis, which you are absolutely entitled to, please tell us in what context do you disagree. Which part of my comments about his India/Pak obsession do you disagree with? If you are right in your analysis, I would be happy to acknowledge my misunderstandings and correct them. But if you are not right, and just arguing for the sake of argument or out of sheer loneliness in the cyberspace, you are wasting my time. I had a spirited disagreement with Mr. Zaglul Haq recently. While we both disagreed with each other's views, our disagreement was coherent, meaningful, and based on facts and analysis. Neither Mr. Zaglul nor I picked out auxiliary verbs and nouns from our statements and changed the discussion. At the end, we still disagree with each other. But at least I have respect for his coherent argument. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for you.
My invitation to you remains open. If you can get back to the original discussion about the bogus-boo, fear mongering, anti-semite, anti-everything progressive doctrine of Mr. Munshi, I would be happy to engage in a spirited discussion. But if you want to engage in a pseudo-intellectual analysis of auxiliary verbs, metaphors, and analogies, you are going to have to fulfill your lonely fantasy in some other way, for your indulgence is not worth my time.
Thanks,
Cyrus
From: Firoz Alam <afirozny@yahoo.com>
To: alochona <alochona@yahoogroups.com>; Mukto Mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>; uttorshuri <uttorshuri@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 6:07:31 AM
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Re: Mr. Cyrus and Ms. Farida Majid
| Dear Members - Identity of "Moududi" and "Moududi wanna-be" have become recently a popular word or theme for someone who takes it as a self-evident or self-explanatory concept, but conceptual problems, on my part, that I am having with such terms, are not being discussed by the proponent or not yielding to nor revealing as to what the definition of such identity can be constructed with, is, still a mystery to me. If and when somebody is defined as rat-the-pest as was defined by Cyrus, it is not a human being any more: it [sic] has become a pest to be eliminated in gas chambers as was done by Hitler. And this distinction is need to be understood to reflect whether Mr. Cyrus' rat metaphor can be used in the context of Hitler's situation. I don't intend to claim that my dialogue or discussion or debate whatever one may call it, is comprehensive as many areas require or deserve better description or inclusion or emphasis in feasible length but whether the "uses or meaning" of the phrase "moral" is static or dynamic is debatable but my "moral support" would always remain "static" in the context in which I have used it. And whether the "concept of freedom" or the "morality is a static concept" have no relevance, in my view, to those who seek freedom from oppression or tyranny and my "moral support" for their causes. It is a diversion technique or red-herring fallacy. I find the statement [perverted philosophy] of Cyrus about Mr.. Moududi, has no objective content. It tell us nothing about Mr. Moududi. Let me put it differently, Mr. Cyrus' opinion about Mr. Moududi tells more about Mr.Cyrus than about Mr. Moududi. Mr. Cyrus really spell it out with a clarity that is much needed. I am pretty much in agreement with his conclusions, grim as they are! Factual accuracy is the foundation of any analysis so we can all get the proper idea of what makes "moududi-phenomenon " after a thorough review of the facts. Please find below those questions' answers would reveal the mystery of "Moududi-phenomenon ". If and when without knowing these answers make me "mentally challenged" in Orwellian sense, I have no problem whatsoever but without these answers and calling someone "Moududi wanna-be" would make him "mentally dwarf." wouldn't it? 1. What is Moududi's Philosophy? (must provide credible evidences) 2. and what is Cyrus' philosophy (i.e, anti-thesis of Moududi or disagreement with the philosophy of Moududi) that makes Moududi's philosophy perverted? 3. And in what relation my views are identical with Mr. Moududi's that makes me "Moududi wanna-be"? Answering those above questions by him would reveal whether a self-declared "trade-policy- international- affairs-pundit" can and coherently able to teach Science to the so called his version of "mentally challenged" people. Firoz Alam. |
__._,_.___