aalaap_team

Learn From What One Writes, OR From What One Manifests?

A Hard-Hit Homerun with Hypocrisy: A Seamlessly (Pointless)
Self-Indicting Sludge

S Munir I
USA

In response to Mr Yamin Zakaria's [YZ] essay, top titled "A
point-by-point refutation of S. M. Islam's letter". (1) [Subtitled
"Hypocrisy is to contradict ones criterion, rather than ones place of
abode! Should not the subject mater be one of ‘self-hate' and
confusion rather than hypocrisy?"]

I'll start by separating sense from nonsense. YZ seems to thrive by
serving a cocktail of both, presumably hungry to extract intoxicated
admiration from dullards but he also manages to amuse others whose
minds hover slightly higher above his 'hardened' prose. I'll address
his comments in order he had squeaked them out.

First, what does anyone's being famous or obscure have to do with the
quality of his arguments? Yet right at the outset YZ slingshots that
indirect ad hominem; bravo. Hard work, aye, and educational, too?
'tis a good thing scope of those terms can be individually defined,
but their accuracy--who cares!

Let's address the topic of education. YZ must have specialized in
personality analysis of migrant coolies and, possibly as a sideline,
did a mini-paper on extreme right-wing section of "the society." As to
which society that might be his educational net failed to NET: Global,
UK-based or US-based? We missed out on that "education" from him.
Sorry others may not think or work as hard to presume whatever a
'famous individual' implies. (This is the reverse of his opinion of
me, since my obscurity seemed to hit a raw nerve with YZ. I am equally
pleased to presume his global popularity, self-deluded by him or
otherwise notwithstanding.) It is amusing to note that his own
(coding) labor, serving a government whose philosophy he despises
"from within," he considers to be ABOVE "coolie" wages. Perspectives
can surely be relative about that, if a migrant coolie uses the
"coolie" wages of his country of birth (presumably) as his baseline.

Turrets of collectivist mentality can seduce famous individuals
sporting pinecone-heads boiling with "education and hard work" to lay
one layer of presumptive 'oshsho-dimbo' (horse's egg: imaginary stuff,
in a negative sense.) after another. For instance, consider this
quote: "self-haters begging to be accepted by the establishment." Who
makes up "the establishment"? Is YZ referring to the West in general,
or UK, or US or where else? Once again readers are expected to ossify
to his famous "hard" words, no matter how unexplicated remains each
layer of his 'oshho-dimbo' conclusions. Quite likely a hard-ened
trend of "education and hard work," aye?

I challenge YZ to explicate the reference of "sham marriages". Let's
see how much "education" he employed to hatch that 'dimbo.' Perhaps a
little thought-Viagra could have made his "hard work" a bit firmer,
causing it another presumptive and straighter rise after god-knows-how
long, able to actually penetrate the 'soft' intellect of readers. For
the record, I came to the US on tuition scholarship based on merit.
Whether or not I had any sham marriage, I challenge this famous
"individual" to prove. Such inference clearly exemplifies what YZ had
set out to protest: "the persona of a migrant coolie who cannot
differentiate between intellectual dialogue and personal insults". Yet
for some reason I suspect YZ did not wish to serve as the veritable
opposite of his "criterion." Did he lay a pearly egg of "intellectual
dialogue" or might it be a bastard of "personal insult"? The famous
burning flame of intellect forgot to stamp out the darkness of
personal insult-trading it is caught gallivanting with. But of course
one's famous words can be self-deceptive. He probably won't tag it as
"hypocrisy," but then again who's judging?

I can think many million times but his reference of "sham marriages"
flaps well beneath my intellectual radar. Low is one thing but
gutter-low can be quite pathetic and may even be "smell"-y. This
brings to mind a quote from Poet Kazi Nazrul Islam, shared by an
esteemed writer a while ago: "nardomaar keet" or gutter insect. No, I
am not comparing YZ with such 'keet'; heaven forbid! YZ is by his own
confession famous and an epitome of hard work and (evidently by
example) hardened intellect!

Yes, criticizing from "within." That seems good on paper and everyone
should have the power of dissidence. Speaking of alternatives, pray
tell what alternative to democracy YZ recommends? Islamic theocracy,
or what else? Let's have him spill those beans. His hardened
intellect missed the simple fact that democracy or anything he chooses
to criticize as a failure is open-ended. If its assumptions are no
longer relevant, those can be re-tooled for the demands of the present
society. It is not a dogma; therefore, democracy as a consummate
failure may not be a comment of coruscating "education and hard work"
but, more likely, a barf from someone who missed understanding its
non-dogmatic frame. Could it be because he is at hand to defend any
dogmatic frame of thought--perhaps that of Islam the religion--as
consummate success, even though it has continued to delude the
enforcers of Islamic theocracies around the world?

It seems my write-ups have been too "obscure" for this famous
essayist. Perhaps his "education and hard work" have missed the
"alternatives" I have proposed several times on this newspaper as well
as on some eforums. I have proposed reason-based solutions to our
earthly problems that members of all faith as well as the faithless
can help formulate--together. I have proposed that the government and
the judiciary of any country remain separate from religious influence.
Even though religions were perhaps the most 'rational' of their
times, arguably their propositions are 'pre-rational' as we now
understand reason-based rationality. More often than not, they fail to
deliver workable solutions to our daily problems. We do not need an
ignorant clergy or Islamic apologists to 'interpret' what a presumed
deity might have said, when time and again humankind suffers from
their erroneous interpretations that are not open to debate. Sadly and
conveniently, those are always so tagged after the fact. Yet the
bullheaded grunt that the next interpretation is 'the right one'
endures. Comically in godly commandments and their interpretations
hindsight seems to be 20/20; yet we are also told the Commander of
those commandments is equally versed on the past, the present, and the
future. Indeed if we delve into the "hard work" and "education" behind
that insistence its reasonless bottom falls out, due often to the
"hard" "intellectual" argumentative weight of 'It is so because I
believe it to be so.'

I have clarified that, for Bangladesh, we need not only copy western
models of secularism on the constitution but also endeavor to educate
our masses about its benefits, in the face of religionists crying foul
at the thought of separating religion from the government and the
judiciary and using bully power to convince the masses of impending
jahiliah or some such "educated," hard working, faithful albeit morbid
absurdities.

Just as many a faithful suffer cognitive dissonance, it seems that YZ
might be suffering his share of it, thus failing to "smell" the
"alternatives" that I have quite clearly outlined. There was no new
formulations, in fact, that I'd care to share for his edification this
time, for I empathize with his hardened educated ignorance about those
that I have already explicated several times on NFB.

'Heretics' was a pun. And please cut the blather of free speech. My
point, exactly, yet the joke was royally missed by famous YZ, possibly
due to hardwired education on selective 'programming.' This is
corroborative with something a cyber friend recently shared: "A Muslim
friend from India reminds me regularly, Muslims love "secularism and
democracy" where they are minorities but want an Islamic dispensation
for the state where they are the majority." Why does YZ think free
speech is freely curbed in Islamic countries? Why is there a term
'blasphemy'? Why was there a fatwa against Salman Rushdie? Why was
there fatwa against Taslima Nasrin? Free speech is god when YZ is
critiquing "from within," but why is the same right not extended to
others by Islamic rulers? Why couldn't Taslima enjoy free speech
"from within" Bangladesh and why was she kicked out of the country?
Evidently and sadly, YZ missed the pun of my usage of 'heretics.'

"Where" could anyone be kicked out to? I'll be darn if I knew. But
how about to some land shining with the (presumed) glow of Islamic
Deen--a guess--even though economically and socially any such land
might be only as bright as pitch dark August nights! The play was to
demonstrate the ridiculousness of kicking out Taslima Nasrin for her
free speech "from within," for instance. Did any faithful care
"where" she would go? Did anyone suggest any "where," instead of
praying to Allah for Taslima to get killed, expediting her journey to
'habiah dojokh' for speaking out against Islam? (A Muslim die-hard
can only delude!)

So much for speaking "from within," my famous ombudsman!

Whether or not my comments "show" inferiority complex...let me get
this through to YZ. Comments do not "show" unless I was directly


yet-another 'oshsho-dimbo' guess and not facts, as there are no such
facts. I am actually amused that he couldn't differentiate between
"show" and "infer" about something that simple. Quite a manifestation
of "education and hard work" indeed. But what does an "obscure
individual" really know about these matters, right? On the other hand
and in contrast, when the famous persona of YZ pushes out a crate of
sulfuric 'dimbo' it "smells" of "education and hard work," right?

When YZ presumes all these non-facts as to what my comments show or
not, was he indeed addressing something original?

I have no hatred against a likely man-made mythology. Yes, I am
talking about Islam. But I may object to a handful of liars
pretending to KNOW what Allah wants. [Van Halen's 1984 hit "Jump" just
kicked in in the background. Ouch!] Remember, and this goes for all
bleeding-heart faithful who'd shout 'blasphemy' at any such 'free
speech' against Islam. Can anyone prove that his beloved Allah
exists--yes, get Him to certify it; blind belief doesn't cut the
mustard, chef? It is at least equally likely He doesn't exist just as
He is perceived. I am not saying there is no Allah; hence no need to
do cartwheels, anyone. Peace.

All I am saying is there is no REASON for me to BELIEVE the Creator of
the Universe indeed exists in the form Muslims BELIEVE He does, who
came down and blessed Muhammad's marriage to his step son's x-wife,
for instance. I consider this speculation to be my free speech and
criticism from within. Why "within"?? Because if Allah truly owns
everything then I am WITHIN His domain, and I am indeed criticizing
"from within." So pipe down your protest of this, YZ, but re-consider
your argument as to why you must call democracy a failure, while
hard-working from within it and offering it your (presumably) "coolie"
services.

We can identify authorship to men who developed concepts such as
democracy and secularism. No defender of democracy or secularism
would tell you that those are carved in stone and perfect for all
times, a ridiculous claim many Muslims make in defense of not only the
allegedly God-send, the Quran, but also of the Sharia, the Hadith and
all other secondary texts of Islam. That leaves pretty much a
continent of sahara for intellectual "hard work" to gallop about in,
but must it cause a threat to Islam--so much so that Islamic bullies
would gang up to send an intellectual to the gallows, instead? Does
the recent attack on Humayun Azad ring any bells, anyone?

And what extra pile of manure did you manage to scoop up, YZ, with
your "intellectual" comment such as "As to what is sweet and sour
depends on ones pallet, the excrement of a PIG is the sweetest
smelling substance to a PIG"? (A) According to you I am incapable of
addressing "the issue at hand." Might you be holding something in
hand that you may accord the qualitative merit of PIG excrement? I
did not bring it in; therefore, it was not within my notions of "the
issue at hand." You not only did mention it, you also talked about
its "smell" factor. Throughout my "education" and "hard work" over
the years, I never felt as confident as you seem to be in declaring
that a pig considers its own excrement to be "sweetest smelling." I
am glad however that you shared that "intellectual" discovery; who
else could have thought of that?

I thank YZ for clarifying the true definition of "hypocrisy". I
probably did not know that. But now, empowered by YZ's intellectual
and altruistic sharing of its "true" definition, guess what I
discovered? He had started out by stating "a migrant coolie who
cannot differentiate between intellectual dialogue and personal
insults". Let's understand this "point-by-point" as he seems to
generally prefer. By his own definition YZ is a "migrant" but should
he manifest the manner of a "coolie" as per his delineation of its
characteristics? Well, let's see. According to YZ "intellectual
dialogue" includes expressions such as (A). It could not be "personal
insult" even though I do not recall in my writing any hint, let alone
elaboration, of expertise on how pig excrement smells and, moreover,
whether the pig considers it to be sweet. I have sent my last
write-up directly to NFB just as this one, even though it was in
response to YZ's post. Yet YZ sent me a "personal" copy of his
"intellectual dialogue" to which I am responding, before it got
released on NFB. Was that a gesture "personal" and, heaven forbid,
laced with an intent to "insult"?

Clearly, YZ couldn't have better exemplified his own definition of
hypocrisy, as he wrote "hypocrisy is to contradict what one stated
criterion is." In his allegations as to what I did, YZ might have
wanted to set an educated example of it himself. Thanks to his
"education and hard work" however absent in the "hardened" example of
his pointless "point-by-point" "intellectual" peregrinations, we truly
received a boatload of 'what-cha-ma call it'. [That's a "sweet"
euphemism, folks!]

Sometimes sitting on an armchair might be a rational alternative to
placing whatever it is "at hand" and then rubbing noses with a
four-legged 'Ms. Piggy' to learn if she considers it sweet. While his
chutzpah can be chortling, I respectfully request that YZ keep similar
smelling endeavors away from me. Please feel free, however, to carry
a towel or at least a washcloth, YZ, in case your efforts should get a
lump of THAT on your nose.**

Last but not least, it is interesting that, for anyone who brags about
"education and hard work" about himself, he can start out calling his
opponent a "coolie" but, as he closes his "sweetest smelling
substance" he concludes the opponent is a "collie". [Spelling mix-up]
Evidently, YZ made accurate speculation. The issues "at hand" are
not only "hypocrisy" but also "confusion," but those are clearly not
MY issues. These seem to be manifest contradictions from YZ's "stated
criterion". And speaking of "self-hate" I cannot find other,
convincing reason for which YZ would vilify certain personality traits
in others based upon erroneous speculation, when he also chose to
manifest all those traits in his arguments against my comments.
Hypocrisy is indeed to contradict one's criterian, speaking in plural
since YZ listed three characteristics, showing ample possession of
each.

My thanks to YZ for helping others learn from his examples. Charity is
not the only virtue that can begin at home but joint endeavors with a
female oinker--to evaluate each other's bodily discarded "substance"
as well as mentally-manufactured discharges of hypocritical
discards--can also be programmed by one's "education and hard work."
The world is indeed full of such "substance" owners. And the "smell"
of their arguments? You can be the judge. :-)

__________________________________________________ _________________

References:

(1) http://www.bangladesh-web.com/view.p...00000000002525

** [This refers to a deshi story. A smart fellow and a stupid fellow
are walking together when they accidentally step into excrement. The
smart guy takes a look at it, realizes what it is, wipes his foot and
continues walking. The stupid fellow was not so easily convinced. He
pauses on the spot, wondering. Unconvinced, he grabs some of it by
his "hand", thus getting it on two spots on his body. Even though it
looks like excrement, he is STILL not 100% convinced. Hence he draws
his hand to his nose to "smell" it; he trusts his olfactory skills,
apparently. In the process he gets some of it on the tip of his nose.
Now he has excrement on three spots on his body. He smells it
deeply. Now whether it smelled "sweet" the writer of the story didn't
specify, unfortunately. His "education and hard work" to become
convinced it was indeed excrement was "interesting," as a diplomat
would call it. Yet the rest of the world might have a more direct
adjective for him. Perhaps those would be more in the vicinity of
"ignorant" and "ossified brain" than "education" and "hard work." My
reasonable guesses under the circumstance.]