PDA

View Full Version : Pakistan scrapped as World Cup hosts


bdchamp20
April 17, 2009, 09:16 AM
Breaking news on Sky.

What does this mean for us?

rashed411
April 17, 2009, 09:22 AM
no chance of hosting the WC for us, unless situations get better by 2011

Tigers_eye
April 17, 2009, 09:30 AM
If our name is not mentioned then we are still in it. :)

bdchamp20
April 17, 2009, 09:34 AM
Apparently Bangladesh was the only member to have voted in favour of Pakistan.

cricket_dorshok
April 17, 2009, 09:51 AM
Its only Pakistan.

No World Cup for Pakistan

Cricinfo staff

April 17, 2009

Pakistan has been stripped of hosting rights for the 2011 World Cup because of the "uncertain security situation" in the country, the ICC said, according to Reuters.

"It is a regrettable decision (but) our number one priority is to create certainty and...deliver a safe, secure and successful event," ICC president David Morgan said in a statement.

Pakistan were due to co-host the event with India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka but the deteriorating security situation has posed a serious problem for the PCB. The news came during the first day of the ICC board meeting in Dubai.


cricinfo.com (http://content.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/400154.html)

irteja
April 17, 2009, 09:52 AM
Pakistan has been stripped of hosting rights for the 2011 World Cup because of the "uncertain security situation" in the country, the ICC said, according to Reuters.
"It is a regrettable decision (but) our number one priority is to create certainty and...deliver a safe, secure and successful event," ICC president David Morgan said in a statement.
Pakistan were due to co-host the event with India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka but the deteriorating security situation has posed a serious problem for the PCB. The news came during the first day of the ICC board meeting in Dubai.
More to follow...
© Cricinfo
http://content.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/400154.html

<script language="javascript">//Variables decalred to populate the Site Section2, Site Section3, Columnist ID(Author) and Story Id//These vaiables used in omniture tracking codevar omniSiteSection2 = "News"; //Site Section2var omniStoryId = "400154"; //Story IDvar omniAuthId = "Cricinfo staff"; //Author id</script><style type="text/css">.popup { position:absolute;}</style><script language="javascript" src="/navigation/cricinfo/emailfreind.js" type="text/javascript"></script><!--Include this JavaScript library once in the BODY of your HTML page--><script src="http://widgets.clearspring.com/launchpad/include.js" type="text/javascript"></script>

Tigers_eye
April 17, 2009, 09:58 AM
Apparently Bangladesh was the only member to have voted in favour of Pakistan.
That is great to know. Hopefully we will continue to support others and get better in the field.

Tigers_eye
April 17, 2009, 10:02 AM
Since 2005, some of the BC members are screaming to fix our stadiums. Yet BCB managements (3 boards) paid no attention. Their main agenda is how to please the priminister. Now it is 2009. Yet no jumbrotron, electronic scoreboard, floodlight has not been installed.

Infra structurer kaj kau koray na. :(

yaseer
April 17, 2009, 10:19 AM
It means Bangladesh has the chance to host more matches.........good for us!!!

bharat
April 17, 2009, 10:22 AM
My take ..lets host it in 2015.Hopefully the subcontinent will be a safer place then (who knows may be Afganistan can hold a few matches too then)

Let the Kiwis and Aussies hold it this time.It was their turn to begin with until the BCCI pushed its weight around to get it here.Its 'karma' ...its NZ/Aus turn and they should get it .Its better for us too.

mahbubH
April 17, 2009, 10:24 AM
Since 2005, some of the BC members are screaming to fix our stadiums. Yet BCB managements (3 boards) paid no attention. Their main agenda is how to please the priminister. Now it is 2009. Yet no jumbrotron, electronic scoreboard, floodlight has not been installed.

Infra structurer kaj kau koray na. :(

On another note, we have many stadiums (specially in smaller districts) but not many fields where kids can play. For earning easy money from constructions, our leaders constructed lots of stadiums and don't bother to take care of the fields inside those stadiums. Somewhere I read, only 5% money of the national sports council spends on practicing the sports. They spend those money to construct office building and they can earn money from the rent (seems they are real estate businessmen not sports organisers)... like Dhaka stadium is more familiar because of the shops around it than of the sports played in these days...

nycpro96
April 17, 2009, 10:36 AM
Read it on CI. felt really bad cuz i wanted to head to dhaka to watch the opening ceremonies. oh well. i wonder where it is going to be staged now

Purbasha T
April 17, 2009, 10:54 AM
Read it on CI. felt really bad cuz i wanted to head to dhaka to watch the opening ceremonies. oh well. i wonder where it is going to be staged now

Hey, what are you saying? Dhaka is still set to hold the opening ceremony. It's Pak who's gonna miss out.

HereWeGo
April 17, 2009, 11:27 AM
Apparently Bangladesh was the only member to have voted in favour of Pakistan.


Is BCB stupid or wat? I dare them to go and live in Pakistan for a month.. Preferably in Peshawar.
BCB is currently being run by a bunch of morons. They didnt do **** about ICL before the prothom alo media report that the players were leaving. And now they want to send our players to the most unstable place on earth.....
A@#@$%^&

Rabz
April 17, 2009, 11:56 AM
Good decision. No one was sending teams to pakistan.
Now the question is, are we ready to host few more of those games???
I'd think India would take atleast 7 of those games, mostly from the knock out stage.
The group matches of pakistan would be relocated to BD and Sri lanka.

My bet, we'd get 5 extra games.

auntu
April 17, 2009, 12:29 PM
[বাংলা]স্বাভাবিক ব্যাপার। পাকিস্তানের যেই অবস্থা তাতে ওয়ার্ল্ড কাপ আয়োজনের কোন সম্ভাবনা নেই। বাংলাদেশ হয়তো আরো কিছু ম্যাচ আয়োজনের সুযোগ পেতে পারে যদি না জঙ্গী নিয়ে অর্থহীন জিকির কমে না আসে।[/বাংলা]

bdchamp20
April 17, 2009, 01:37 PM
I'm happy if we get a couple of their games plus the semi-finals. That's better than getting 5-6 Group/Super 8 matches.

Akib
April 17, 2009, 01:50 PM
I thought this was already pretty obvious. Hopefully no teams boycott us.

Murad
April 17, 2009, 02:17 PM
I'm happy to see this news. Pakistan will be like this for another decace or two. Its like worse than Afghanistan now.

Murad
April 17, 2009, 02:18 PM
I'm happy if we get a couple of their games plus the semi-finals. That's better than getting 5-6 Group/Super 8 matches.

I heard/read somewhere yesterday that all the match that was supposed to be played in Pakistan will be played in India.

al Furqaan
April 17, 2009, 02:55 PM
Is BCB stupid or wat? I dare them to go and live in Pakistan for a month.. Preferably in Peshawar.
BCB is currently being run by a bunch of morons. They didnt do **** about ICL before the prothom alo media report that the players were leaving. And now they want to send our players to the most unstable place on earth.....
A@#@$%^&

good move IMO, BCB knew they would be the only vote, hence it was a vote of "principle" only. one of islamic solidarity which is sorely lacking in today's world.

i'm glad they voted the way they did, and even gladder that we don't have to send our boys to that tinderbox known as pakistan.

its a win-win situation. plus we get the PCB on our side, aside from the morally right move of supporting your brother, since they may possibly be upset about us cancelling the last series.

smashyboy
April 17, 2009, 04:09 PM
Bangladesh didn't vote for Pakistan.

Neel Here
April 17, 2009, 11:13 PM
source ?

Surfer
April 18, 2009, 12:04 AM
good move IMO, BCB knew they would be the only vote, hence it was a vote of "principle" only. one of islamic solidarity which is sorely lacking in today's world.

i'm glad they voted the way they did, and even gladder that we don't have to send our boys to that tinderbox known as pakistan.

its a win-win situation. plus we get the PCB on our side, aside from the morally right move of supporting your brother, since they may possibly be upset about us cancelling the last series.

This is something I could never understand. What is Islamic solidarity? I respect the religion a great deal, but I can not understand how this brotherhood works. How can you support whats wrong just because you share your faith?

The question was clear: "Is it safe to play in Pakitan"? The answer Bangladesh gave was "Yes" knowing fully well that the security situations are not right. And Pakistan has been at serious fault for when the situation demanded the best security for a visiting team, they failed badly.

Now my objection is not to Bangladesh's vote. But I can not understand how a vote can be based purely on religious brotherhood. You are not elec.ting your religious leader for god's sake. Its a sports body

i'm glad they voted the way they did, and even gladder that we don't have to send our boys to that tinderbox known as pakistan.

With all due respect sir, that's plain hypocrisy. If you cant say whats you believe in, you are just spineless.

Abid_Khan
April 18, 2009, 01:27 AM
I heard/read somewhere yesterday that all the match that was supposed to be played in Pakistan will be played in India.

It will be good if someone can give a source but if it's true then... it'll suck for Bangladesh

al Furqaan
April 18, 2009, 02:29 AM
This is something I could never understand. What is Islamic solidarity? I respect the religion a great deal, but I can not understand how this brotherhood works. How can you support whats wrong just because you share your faith?


1) islamic solidarity doesn't exist now, and hasn't for a great long while.

2) what is islamic solidarity? it is simply solidarity between muslims, be they individuals, groups, or nations. it is the opposite of islamic disunity.

islamic solidarity does NOT represent an obstacle to the greater human solidarity, nor is it an alliance against non-muslims.

3) the Prophet (SAW) said "Support your brother whether he is being oppressed or is committing oppression."

to this a muslim asked him "how do we support our brother when he is the oppressor?"

The Propher (SAW) replied, "Preventing him from oppressing others is supporting your brother."


The question was clear: "Is it safe to play in Pakitan"? The answer Bangladesh gave was "Yes" knowing fully well that the security situations are not right. And Pakistan has been at serious fault for when the situation demanded the best security for a visiting team, they failed badly.

Now my objection is not to Bangladesh's vote. But I can not understand how a vote can be based purely on religious brotherhood. You are not elec.ting your religious leader for god's sake. Its a sports body


actually, i found out, BCB did not vote for PCB. my comments still stand however.

my argument works like this. suppose PCB got 4 votes in favor, and 4 against, with our vote being the decider. in this case, i would vote against, simply because i don't think its safe for anyone to send any cricketer to pakistan for the forseeable future.

this is not in contradiction of islamic solidarity.

however, apparently BCB's vote was a moot vote anyways, regardless of which way the vote went it was gonna 9-1 or 8-2 with both having the same result. in this case, BCB could say "we support PCB" for whatever reason, be it religious solidarity (BD has nothing else in common with Pak) and even less in common with the other 8 Test nations.

now lets remember that the PCB didn't orchestrate the lahore attacks. they were guilty of the crime of failing to provide adequate security and failing to provide the security they promised. serious crimes, but not the same as actually opening fire on the SL team. hence any support by the BCB should follow the Prophet's guidlines above.

With all due respect sir, that's plain hypocrisy. If you cant say whats you believe in, you are just spineless.

its not hypocrisy if the BCB stated their vote, and their true intentions. its my fault i didn't specify that, but i assumed most posters would understand what i was saying, even if they disagreed.

it may be true for some that religion has nothing to do with sports, but that is not my belief. i believe, and it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, that religion does indeed play a part in everything. for example, i don't leave my religion at the door when i walk into a room. religion is not a coat that you put on only when its cold outside, because if it is, then it ceases to be a religion and starts to be a coat.

Tigers_eye
April 18, 2009, 07:01 AM
...

The question was clear: "Is it safe to play in Pakitan"? ....
If I may can I spin this a little bit?

May be the question would be can Pakistan host Intl cricket in two years time? Now you see if you think 51% yes, not that hard to vote for. :)

So depending on who and what we are asking one can chose different option. :)

Zim issue many times SA, India, WI voted for them. I bet every vote can be justified from their stand point. That is all.

Better yet, even voting for Bangladesh to be a test nation can be justified by some even though at that time it was not correct. Just a single ODI win and they get test status????

Alien
April 18, 2009, 07:11 AM
This is something I could never understand. What is Islamic solidarity? I respect the religion a great deal, but I can not understand how this brotherhood works. How can you support whats wrong just because you share your faith?

The question was clear: "Is it safe to play in Pakitan"? The answer Bangladesh gave was "Yes" knowing fully well that the security situations are not right. And Pakistan has been at serious fault for when the situation demanded the best security for a visiting team, they failed badly.

Now my objection is not to Bangladesh's vote. But I can not understand how a vote can be based purely on religious brotherhood. You are not elec.ting your religious leader for god's sake. Its a sports body



With all due respect sir, that's plain hypocrisy. If you cant say whats you believe in, you are just spineless.

I think what al Furqaan tried emphasise is that its like a show of support to Pakistan cricket that even though its their winter of discontent that they are not alone and Bangladesh would aid them in any way they can to return cricket to Pakistan.

You are right, yes it is very wrong to support it even after what happened but muslim solidarity is where you stand with them in thick and thin, and here BD is showing solidarity in cricket terms where BD is sending a message that it will help restoring cricket in that nation. Not that we support WC or any series being held while Taliban go on their rampage there.

This solidarity doesn't come out of the blue of course. What we have in common with Pakistan is that majority of both country is Muslims, hence Islamic Solidarity. Bangladesh is in a way suffering from same problem. Countries like India (nothing against you) and many other don't want to play a series here or host us and we can feel the pinch it generates when you get avoided whatever the circumstances be, security or crappy performance.

But IMO, a country that cant help itself cant be helped by any other.

Alien
April 18, 2009, 07:20 AM
My take ..lets host it in 2015.Hopefully the subcontinent will be a safer place then (who knows may be Afganistan can hold a few matches too then)


The way its going, I dont think so. Its only likely to get worse if anything. Trying to fix Pakistan or Afghanistan is like trying to cure someone from terminal cancer.

al Furqaan
April 18, 2009, 04:07 PM
well said alien.

also, one thing i forgot to mention. asides from islamic solidarity, who's to guarantee that Bangladesh, India or Sri Lanka won't be the next pakistan?

we're lucky so far. but all 4 of the subcontinent countries have a history of terrorism and potential terrorism. in fact, BD has the lowest number of terrorist attacks, but who can guarantee that?

today its pakistan and the PCB. tomorrow it could be the BCCI, SLC, or BCB in the same boat.

bdchamp20
April 18, 2009, 05:09 PM
http://www.prothom-alo.com/mcat.news.details.php?nid=MTUxNDM4&mid=OA==
BCB wants the semi-final match which was supposed to be held in Pakistan to be relocated to Bangladesh

HereWeGo
April 18, 2009, 07:36 PM
1) islamic solidarity doesn't exist now, and hasn't for a great long while.

2) what is islamic solidarity? it is simply solidarity between muslims, be they individuals, groups, or nations. it is the opposite of islamic disunity.

islamic solidarity does NOT represent an obstacle to the greater human solidarity, nor is it an alliance against non-muslims.

3) the Prophet (SAW) said "Support your brother whether he is being oppressed or is committing oppression."

to this a muslim asked him "how do we support our brother when he is the oppressor?"

The Propher (SAW) replied, "Preventing him from oppressing others is supporting your brother."



actually, i found out, BCB did not vote for PCB. my comments still stand however.

my argument works like this. suppose PCB got 4 votes in favor, and 4 against, with our vote being the decider. in this case, i would vote against, simply because i don't think its safe for anyone to send any cricketer to pakistan for the forseeable future.

this is not in contradiction of islamic solidarity.

however, apparently BCB's vote was a moot vote anyways, regardless of which way the vote went it was gonna 9-1 or 8-2 with both having the same result. in this case, BCB could say "we support PCB" for whatever reason, be it religious solidarity (BD has nothing else in common with Pak) and even less in common with the other 8 Test nations.

now lets remember that the PCB didn't orchestrate the lahore attacks. they were guilty of the crime of failing to provide adequate security and failing to provide the security they promised. serious crimes, but not the same as actually opening fire on the SL team. hence any support by the BCB should follow the Prophet's guidlines above.



its not hypocrisy if the BCB stated their vote, and their true intentions. its my fault i didn't specify that, but i assumed most posters would understand what i was saying, even if they disagreed.

it may be true for some that religion has nothing to do with sports, but that is not my belief. i believe, and it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, that religion does indeed play a part in everything. for example, i don't leave my religion at the door when i walk into a room. religion is not a coat that you put on only when its cold outside, because if it is, then it ceases to be a religion and starts to be a coat.

I am sorry bro, but I cannot agree with you. A term like "Islamic solidarity" represents an intentional bias. The solidarity should be between all groups of people towards common causes. When you talk about Islamic solidarity you are pushing away people from other walks of the society. It is like announcing Islam as the state religion of Bangladesh, you are straight away making Hindus and christians the second class citizens. I am not going to go into too much details since it is a tread on cricket.

Now comes to your second point about voting. When you are voting for Pakistan you are in other words giving a wrong impression about their security situation. Imagine if all the countries cricket board thinks the way u do...than all of a sudden you will have the WC matches in Pakistan. In a professional arena things should never work this way. What you are suggesting is purely hypocritical. Imagine Bangladesh voted for Pakistan and then suppose Pakistan invites Bangladesh to play a series in Pakistan. Would the team travel? If not than, don you think that it would just prove that our cricket board is confused or just a bunch of hypocrites. Is that even professional act?

It is not always a nice idea to involve religion into everything. Religion is a way of life and it should not be forced onto anyone. No one is complaining about your religious believe but you cannot force your belief onto someone else or expect someone to act on your belief. It is a professional world and in an professional environment religion has no part.

smashyboy
April 18, 2009, 09:47 PM
It is not always a nice idea to involve religion into everything. Religion is a way of life and it should not be forced onto anyone. .
That is where all problems begin. But from what i have read Bangladesh has not voted for Pakistan as fans claim. They voted against Pakistan which is the right thing to do. In other words not the dumbest thing. One driver's presence of mind saved the lives of Srilankans. After the incident they not only failed to apologize or resign. They were asking apology from Broad. Why would anyone stand by such an irreponsible, callous organization.

Surfer
April 18, 2009, 11:34 PM
That is where all problems begin. But from what i have read Bangladesh has not voted for Pakistan as fans claim. They voted against Pakistan which is the right thing to do. In other words not the dumbest thing. One driver's presence of mind saved the lives of Srilankans. After the incident they not only failed to apologize or resign. They were asking apology from Broad. Why would anyone stand by such an irreponsible, callous organization.

Precisely. Srilanka toured Pakistan to help them restore cricket when everyone else refused. But the way Pakistan responded, its clear that they themselves are not working in that direction. What signs have you seen from Pakistan or PCB that they really are serious in restoring cricket in Pakistan? The kind of security Srilanka got on the name of presidential security clearly shows the state they are in. The country and its cricket is being run by incompetent people who are not working towards a common goal. So who gives or asks BD (or any other Islamic nation) to act towards restoring cricket in Pakistan? First let them take some actions towards this goal and then help them. Because all they do on the name of restoring cricket is give statements in the media and nothing else.

Besides, scrapping of WC rights are in a way good for Pakistan. They have much more serious issues to address. If you really want to help them, you should say "Forget Cricket, fix your home because its in ruins. Your citizens need protection before you arrange any for foreign teams."

Murad
April 18, 2009, 11:56 PM
Pakistani fans in their forum acting like nothing happend in Pakistan. Its a very safe country to tour..

Man I wonder when will these people learn to accept the truths?

amar11432
April 19, 2009, 02:49 AM
well said alien.

also, one thing i forgot to mention. asides from islamic solidarity, who's to guarantee that Bangladesh, India or Sri Lanka won't be the next pakistan?

we're lucky so far. but all 4 of the subcontinent countries have a history of terrorism and potential terrorism. in fact, BD has the lowest number of terrorist attacks, but who can guarantee that?

today its pakistan and the PCB. tomorrow it could be the BCCI, SLC, or BCB in the same boat.

"Islamic solidarity" is a form of discrimination against people of other faith, as it has already been stated previously. Why make clouded religions decisions when it comes to things like security. Its ridiculous. The best choice would be the most objective one, free from religious bias.

Alien
April 19, 2009, 06:51 AM
I am sorry bro, but I cannot agree with you. A term like "Islamic solidarity" represents an intentional bias.

How?

The solidarity should be between all groups of people towards common causes. When you talk about Islamic solidarity you are pushing away people from other walks of the society.


Islamic solidarity is one of the theory that supports why BD would vote for Pakistan. No one is creating a solidarity here, just stating what is out there. The human solidarity doesn't exist unfortunately, I'd be glad if there exists one but it doesnt. Such is world get used to it.


It is like announcing Islam as the state religion of Bangladesh, you are straight away making Hindus and christians the second class citizens.

Bangladesh is not a Islamic Republic and has never been so. By state religion its means majority (Statistically) are muslims about 80%+ or so. Hindus and Chirstians are not second class citizens and have full rights under Bangladesh law with their rights recognised most of the time and their holidays observed as public holidays which is very rare in any other country.

Elsewhere Muslims get treated like $hit, discriminated and what not. I don't see you complaining about that.

So I dunno where you got the concept that announcing that Islam as state religion sidelines other religions. No one here announced it in first place anyway.


It is not always a nice idea to involve religion into everything. Religion is a way of life and it should not be forced onto anyone. No one is complaining about your religious believe but you cannot force your belief onto someone else or expect someone to act on your belief. It is a professional world and in an professional environment religion has no part.

Who is forcing who? I am lost

HereWeGo
April 19, 2009, 10:09 AM
How?

Do I have to explain this?
Lets say U applied for a job but U are incompetent, U cannot be even trained for that work because of the nature of the job...but u are hired cuz u are Muslim...



Islamic solidarity is one of the theory that supports why BD would vote for Pakistan. No one is creating a solidarity here, just stating what is out there. The human solidarity doesn't exist unfortunately, I'd be glad if there exists one but it doesnt. Such is world get used to it.

And my suggestion is that such theory should not exist. Solidarity should be cause based eg: Not supporting Abortion, against racism etc...I don see wats stopping people to support the causes. I do not know wat u mean by Human solidarity dont exist? but as i said "Support a Reason"...

If Bangladesh should support Pakistan than it would give a wrong signal to the world, it would suggest that Bangladesh thinks that Pakistan is a safe country to travel. Hence it would prove beyond reasonable doubt how inept our cricket bord is.


Bangladesh is not a Islamic Republic and has never been so. By state religion its means majority (Statistically) are muslims about 80%+ or so. Hindus and Chirstians are not second class citizens and have full rights under Bangladesh law with their rights recognised most of the time and their holidays observed as public holidays which is very rare in any other country.

Bangladesh never had a state religion during its inception. It was imposed by one of the subsequent governements ( don want to start a political bickering here, so I am not going to name the party). Your concept of state religion is flawed, I suggest u do a bit more research...got an exam..I will write later if u insist.


Elsewhere Muslims get treated like $hit, discriminated and what not. I don't see you complaining about that.
.

I have been living in canada for the past 4 years...i havent come across discrimination based on religion. Yes it exist in certain quarters, but racism exist everywhere... Rohingyas are treated like **** by some bengalis. Bangladeshi workers are treated like **** by some of their arab masters (infact worst than ****). BTW most bengalis and all Arabs are muslims...


So I dunno where you got the concept that announcing that Islam as state religion sidelines other religions. No one here announced it in first place anyway.


Who is forcing who? I am lost

Bangladesh unfortunately has a state religion...pls check...

Who is forcing who? A state actor is forcing the people of Bangladesh ( including muslim, hindus, christians Atheist) to accept his (state actor) personal religious bias towards Islam.

al Furqaan
April 19, 2009, 11:48 AM
I am sorry bro, but I cannot agree with you. A term like "Islamic solidarity" represents an intentional bias. The solidarity should be between all groups of people towards common causes. When you talk about Islamic solidarity you are pushing away people from other walks of the society. It is like announcing Islam as the state religion of Bangladesh, you are straight away making Hindus and christians the second class citizens. I am not going to go into too much details since it is a tread on cricket.

1) solidarity based on cause is also representative of bias. bias cannot be avoided. everyone is biased. just think of your post. you stated, "i disagree with you bro..." mere disagreement is a show of "bias".

what its important is that bias is never allowed to infringe upon the rights of those who harbor other biases.

2) i won't disagree that non-muslims are treated as second class citizens in BD - thats the case with minorities everywhere, which is not to condone that, being a 2nd class minority in the country i live in myself.

however the declaration of islam as a state religion has zero impact on the state of communal affairs in BD, at least directly. the second class-ness of minorities is rather due to prejudices which have nothing to do with islamic solidarity.


Now comes to your second point about voting. When you are voting for Pakistan you are in other words giving a wrong impression about their security situation. Imagine if all the countries cricket board thinks the way u do...than all of a sudden you will have the WC matches in Pakistan. In a professional arena things should never work this way. What you are suggesting is purely hypocritical. Imagine Bangladesh voted for Pakistan and then suppose Pakistan invites Bangladesh to play a series in Pakistan. Would the team travel? If not than, don you think that it would just prove that our cricket board is confused or just a bunch of hypocrites. Is that even professional act?

None of the other countries voted for Pakistan. As it is, even the BCB voted against.

When a vote doesn't count, one can vote any way with no effect on the outcome. I also clarified my position that BCB should have voted in favor, and even been open about the reasons - which cannot be classed as hypocracy because hypocracy implies hidden motives and ulterior actions. you can't be a hypocrite if you come out and tell everyone what you believe and they can see your action.


It is not always a nice idea to involve religion into everything. Religion is a way of life and it should not be forced onto anyone. No one is complaining about your religious believe but you cannot force your belief onto someone else or expect someone to act on your belief. It is a professional world and in an professional environment religion has no part.

if BCB voted for pakistan, how would that be "forcing" islam upon anyone? i don't get it. i am also not expecting the BCB to act this way, rather i (mistakenly) thought they acted in such a way (although not for reasons of overt islamic solidarity). i am only saying they SHOULD act this way. in fact, i expected them NOT to act they way the SHOULD.

if religion is a way of life, then it automatically means that religion does indeed permeate everything and belongs in any sphere. the only way it makes sense to leave religion outside of public life is if religion is un-essential and/or if religion is a part time hobby. for some people it is, and they are free to live their lives that way. i don't see what your problem is.

i think that you're inherently biased against religion, judging from prior posts. otherwise your posts would be extremely obtrusive. and thats OK...i'm heavily biased for religion. i just hope you realize that since its OK to be unified against religion, that its OK to be unified for religion as well - a point you, rather contradictorily, contested in your first reply to me.

al Furqaan
April 19, 2009, 11:54 AM
Who is forcing who? A state actor is forcing the people of Bangladesh ( including muslim, hindus, christians Atheist) to accept his (state actor) personal religious bias towards Islam.

question is how? and how do you force a muslim to accept his own religion, which by definition he already accepts willingly? your post makes little sense.

which pillar of islam, which islamic cultural practice are they being forced to accept? shahadah? salaat? sawm? zakat? hajj? are they forced to take islamiat classes in school? are they forced to take islamic names? are they forced to defend islam against non muslims?

they aren't. in truth, the state actor is not committing any crimes, its individual people or groups. the only group which the state is acting against are the ahmadiyya, and with the AL in now, thats prolly not the case. but that crackdown would have happened regardless of what our official state religion was?

nepal is officially a hindu state, it doesn't mean the muslims and buddhists there are forced to accept hinduism.

HereWeGo
April 19, 2009, 01:26 PM
question is how? and how do you force a muslim to accept his own religion, which by definition he already accepts willingly? your post makes little sense.

which pillar of islam, which islamic cultural practice are they being forced to accept? shahadah? salaat? sawm? zakat? hajj? are they forced to take islamiat classes in school? are they forced to take islamic names? are they forced to defend islam against non muslims?

they aren't. in truth, the state actor is not committing any crimes, its individual people or groups. the only group which the state is acting against are the ahmadiyya, and with the AL in now, thats prolly not the case. but that crackdown would have happened regardless of what our official state religion was?

nepal is officially a hindu state, it doesn't mean the muslims and buddhists there are forced to accept hinduism.


When I said
" A state actor is forcing the people of Bangladesh ( including muslim, hindus, christians Atheist) to accept his (state actor) personal religious bias towards Islam."

I meant
A state actor (BCB) is forcing the people of Bangladesh (the cricketers) to be on harms way (target of terrorist) just because he feels that islamic solidarity is more important than the life of the cricketers (cricketers include people from different religious backgrounds and beliefs, so u are imposing your belief onto someone else) . As i said before and I am stating it again. In a professional environment one must not take a decision based on his emotions, specially a state actor.


1) solidarity based on cause is also representative of bias. bias cannot be avoided. everyone is biased. just think of your post. you stated, "i disagree with you bro..." mere disagreement is a show of "bias".

what its important is that bias is never allowed to infringe upon the rights of those who harbor other biases.
.

1) You are just twisting words here pal. While u are not wrong with the grammer but u are wrong in your analysis. Let me just give an example, In Cricket if an umpire is intentionally making decisions always in favor of one team than that is being biased towards that team. But if he is following the rule book and making decision accordingly than he is not being biased towards the rule of the game, he is doing his job. To put things furthur into perspective, I will support you when I feel that U are doing a right thing and oppose otherwise (that is supporting towards a cause). But U will always support me irrespective just because I am muslim( a clear bias). I am not Tagore/Nazrul, So i cannot explain any better but i hope u get my point.



2) i won't disagree that non-muslims are treated as second class citizens in BD - thats the case with minorities everywhere, which is not to condone that, being a 2nd class minority in the country i live in myself.

however the declaration of islam as a state religion has zero impact on the state of communal affairs in BD, at least directly. the second class-ness of minorities is rather due to prejudices which have nothing to do with islamic solidarity.
.

If in your factory you employ a person based on his religion rather than skills than u are being prejudiced. If 80% of the muslim population unite for "Muslim brotherhood" than it is bound to scare the remaining 20% of the minority population, think about it. U are straight away creating a prejudiced environment weather u like it or not.

About the second para, if u think it has zero impact than pls ask your bengali hindu friend (if you have any), or do some research.


When a vote doesn't count, one can vote any way with no effect on the outcome. I also clarified my position that BCB should have voted in favor, and even been open about the reasons - which cannot be classed as hypocracy because hypocracy implies hidden motives and ulterior actions. you can't be a hypocrite if you come out and tell everyone what you believe and they can see your action.
.

So what do u want BCB to do?
Make a announcement while voting
" I hereby grant my vote in favor of WC cricket in pakistan provided that atleast 6 out of 9 other members vote against Pakistan since our vote is just to show Islamic Solidarity. Else I vote against Pakistan. :D "

I am saying it is hypocracy because none of the board members will dare to travel pakistan themselves (if they have any grey matter) but they are willing to send our players in harms way.


if religion is a way of life, then it automatically means that religion does indeed permeate everything and belongs in any sphere. the only way it makes sense to leave religion outside of public life is if religion is un-essential and/or if religion is a part time hobby. for some people it is, and they are free to live their lives that way. i don't see what your problem is.

i think that you're inherently biased against religion, judging from prior posts. otherwise your posts would be extremely obtrusive. and thats OK...i'm heavily biased for religion. i just hope you realize that since its OK to be unified against religion, that its OK to be unified for religion as well - a point you, rather contradictorily, contested in your first reply to me
.

U can include your religion into making any decision that effects you but how can you impose your religion to someone else? Publics include everyone from all walks of life and you cannot force the your own biased decision onto the public.

I am not inherently biased against religion. But I don like to include Religion as the factor in determining state activity of Bangladesh. Because this country belongs to everyone from all religious background. We used to pride on our neutral religious views. Hindus died for this land as much as muslims did. I believe in protecting minority rights. The difference between me and you is that u think you are only representing Islam when u are stating all the wonderful Hadiths and talking about Muslim brotherhood. On the other hand, I represent Islam showing tolerance and love for all humanity irrespective of race gender religion.

al Furqaan
April 19, 2009, 02:10 PM
When I said
" A state actor is forcing the people of Bangladesh ( including muslim, hindus, christians Atheist) to accept his (state actor) personal religious bias towards Islam."

I meant
A state actor (BCB) is forcing the people of Bangladesh (the cricketers) to be on harms way (target of terrorist) just because he feels that islamic solidarity is more important than the life of the cricketers (cricketers include people from different religious backgrounds and beliefs, so u are imposing your belief onto someone else) . As i said before and I am stating it again. In a professional environment one must not take a decision based on his emotions, specially a state actor.

i was referring to your allegation that ershad's implementation of islam as state religion - which was done for political reasons rather than that of islamic solidarity per se - is holding minorities back. this was ur direct statement, no mention of BCB, hence implication was BD government:


Bangladesh unfortunately has a state religion...pls check...

Who is forcing who? A state actor is forcing the people of Bangladesh ( including muslim, hindus, christians Atheist) to accept his (state actor) personal religious bias towards Islam.

I meant
A state actor (BCB) is forcing the people of Bangladesh (the cricketers) to be on harms way (target of terrorist) just because he feels that islamic solidarity is more important than the life of the cricketers (cricketers include people from different religious backgrounds and beliefs, so u are imposing your belief onto someone else)

let me clarify again, since initially i made a muddled point:

BCB would NEVER have sent cricketers into pakistan, because even if they voted yes, they would have been over ruled 8-2. i suppose i am guilty of blending actuality with ideality, but this point should still be understood.

i never said that BCB should send cricketers into harms way just to make an islamic point...in fact, i clearly mentioned in my 2nd post that if the thing was tied 4-4 with BCB's vote being a decider (purely hypothetical scenario) then they should have voted against PCB.

1) You are just twisting words here pal. While u are not wrong with the grammer but u are wrong in your analysis. Let me just give an example, In Cricket if an umpire is intentionally making decisions always in favor of one team than that is being biased towards that team. But if he is following the rule book and making decision accordingly than he is not being biased towards the rule of the game, he is doing his job. To put things furthur into perspective, I will support you when I feel that U are doing a right thing and oppose otherwise (that is supporting towards a cause). But U will always support me irrespective just because I am muslim( a clear bias). I am not Tagore/Nazrul, So i cannot explain any better but i hope u get my point.

fine, agreed.

read the hadith...its saying the same thing you're arguing for:

"support your brother when he is being wronged, and support when he is doing wrong by preventing him from doing wrong"


I am saying it is hypocracy because none of the board members will dare to travel pakistan themselves (if they have any grey matter) but they are willing to send our players in harms way.

no one is is talking about sending anyone to pakistan...im talking about the board voting and more importantly standing behind PCB to fix the problems, which btw, could happen in any other asian nation...IPL didn't move to SA for fun.

On the other hand, I represent Islam showing tolerance and love for all humanity irrespective of race gender religion.

if a mother doesn't love her own child, can she love someone else's? its not possible. before a person can love humanity they have to care for themself first. otherwise its just brown nosing like the arabs do to the white people. do you really think they love white people as fellow human beings?

are you trying to tell me that the Prophet (saw) was against islamic solidarity?

Ishtylish cricketer
April 19, 2009, 02:47 PM
nepal is officially a hindu state, it doesn't mean the muslims and buddhists there are forced to accept hinduism.

Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, people of Bahai faiths, don't appear to have a political agenda, are not working on religious expansion and if anything are victims of the big two. Last time I checked, members hailing from those faiths are not instructed by their prophets or wtv to conquor the world and subjugate them to the laws of Allah. Muslims everywhere build mosques yet, in Islamic country like Saudi Arabia you couldn't cast a shadow of a church. You gotta pay tax if you don't convert to Islam thanks to Allah's law-Sharia. I am glad I am not living there because I am an atheist which is worst than being a girl in that country.

This idea of Islamic solidarity, brotherhood, etc sounds more like priciples of a gang not a religion.
I just can't seem to grasp, how can anyone believe that world operates under the might of a saddist called "Allah" or god who punishes people because they didn't practice what a certain messenger, whose words were never verified, preached. Nature works due to the forces of "immutable laws" and the idea spontaneous generation to explain "biology" which is used by all religions is nothing more than wishful thinking. The biggest mistake people make is that religion tells you what's right and wrong. I can teach people what's right and wrong by calling it ethics and not by instilling fear of judgement in front of an imaginary man (except perhaps in the priciples of hinduism where females can be also demi gods but it too works along the same line as the other ones). Religion and especially those ones that parade around trying to recruit more people into their cults are the biggest disgrace to humanity and will efface it given proper oppotunities. IMO, religion especially the violent ones will suffer natural deaths unless they raise their profile by hiring suicide bombers and are ruthless against members of other faiths or no-faith. Unfortunately, their persistence is causing a lot of deaths.

Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, people of Bahai faiths aren't out there to subjugate their "religion" on me, if they did, I would have problems with them too. People are innocent but the ideologies written by men termed "religions" are not.

al Furqaan
April 19, 2009, 02:58 PM
Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, people of Bahai faiths, don't appear to have a political agenda, are not working on religious expansion and if anything are victims of the big two. Last time I checked, members hailing from those faiths are not instructed by their prophets or wtv to conquor the world and subjugate them to the laws of Allah. Muslims everywhere build mosques yet, in Islamic country like Saudi Arabia you couldn't cast a shadow of a church. You gotta pay tax if you don't convert to Islam thanks to Allah's law-Sharia. I am glad I am not living there because I am an atheist which is worst than being a girl in that country.


surprisingly the atheist interprets islam the way bin laden does...which is btw, the logically incorrect interpretation of islam.

can't speak about sikhs, jains, bahai or budhhists, but your scriptural knowledge is fairly deficient for the following reasons:

1) judaism, based on the old testement, would make bin laden's commentary of the quran look like a game of tiddly winks.

2) you included christianity (presumably) under the totalitarian "big two". from a scriptural standpoint, christianity based on the new testement is actually far less tolerant of war than say the bhagavad gita. if hindu's didn't have politcal agendas where did the BJP, RSS, and shiv sena come from? indeed, even apolitical religions like christianity are tied deeply to conservative parties in the US and elsewhere. as for jewish parties, have u heard of Shas or Kach - which is officially banned?

i'd read a few decent translations of the quran/OT/gita/NT before completely mis-categorizing the major world religions as "bad" and "good".

but as a quick homework assignment, i'd like you find and show me the Quranic verses in which Allah asks to "conquor" the world, ban churches in saudia arabia, ect.

al Furqaan
April 19, 2009, 03:08 PM
btw, i ask you for chapter and verse, cuz i have some if you wish...

HereWeGo
April 19, 2009, 03:57 PM
i was referring to your allegation that ershad's implementation of islam as state religion - which was done for political reasons rather than that of islamic solidarity per se - is holding minorities back. this was ur direct statement, no mention of BCB, hence implication was BD government:
?

I never mentioned Ershad, I was totally referring to BCB as state actor in this case.
Sorry I cudnt be clear. However i stand by my explanation on my previous post and copy pasting it again.

When I said
" A state actor is forcing the people of Bangladesh ( including muslim, hindus, christians Atheist) to accept his (state actor) personal religious bias towards Islam."
I meant
A state actor (BCB) is forcing the people of Bangladesh (the cricketers) to be on harms way (target of terrorist) just because he feels that islamic solidarity is more important than the life of the cricketers (cricketers include people from different religious backgrounds and beliefs, so u are imposing your belief onto someone else) . As i said before and I am stating it again. In a professional environment one must not take a decision based on his emotions, specially a state actor.





let me clarify again, since initially i made a muddled point:

BCB would NEVER have sent cricketers into pakistan, because even if they voted yes, they would have been over ruled 8-2. i suppose i am guilty of blending actuality with ideality, but this point should still be understood.

i never said that BCB should send cricketers into harms way just to make an islamic point...in fact, i clearly mentioned in my 2nd post that if the thing was tied 4-4 with BCB's vote being a decider (purely hypothetical scenario) then they should have voted against PCB.


I even answered this...Again copy pasting

So what do u want BCB to do?
Make a announcement while voting
" I hereby grant my vote in favor of WC cricket in pakistan provided that atleast 6 out of 9 other members vote against Pakistan since our vote is just to show Islamic Solidarity. Else I vote against Pakistan. :D "

Just to add to that
Your suggestion cannot be implemented in a professional environment. You either vote "yes" or you vote "no". There are no "if"s involved in voting. The right thing to do is to accept the violence in Pakistan and vote against pakistan as the WC venue, period. Even for your hypothetical scenerio you are only allowed to vote once and voting is done at the same time. No plagiarism involved.





fine, agreed.

read the hadith...its saying the same thing you're arguing for:

"support your brother when he is being wronged, and support when he is doing wrong by preventing him from doing wrong"

We are on the same page as long as your brother can be of all faith.



no one is is talking about sending anyone to pakistan...im talking about the board voting and more importantly standing behind PCB to fix the problems, which btw, could happen in any other asian nation...IPL didn't move to SA for fun.

You can provide moral support to Pakistan by may be organizing a series in bangladesh and donate some of the revenue. Not by some flawed idealistic voting.
I am totally for removing Bangladesh or any other country as a host of the WC if the security is not adequate. BD Pak series recently got cancelled and for good reason.



if a mother doesn't love her own child, can she love someone else's? its not possible. before a person can love humanity they have to care for themself first. otherwise its just brown nosing like the arabs do to the white people. do you really think they love white people as fellow human beings?

are you trying to tell me that the Prophet (saw) was against islamic solidarity?

Lemme ask u this....
Do u have to be a mother to love a child?
Do u have to be a Muslim to love humanity?
Are u telling me the prophet only believed in loving and caring for Muslims only?

Correct me if I am wrong, since u definately know more abt Islam than I do. I heard that the Almighty Allah even decided to forgive a prostitute when she helped quench the thirst of a street dog ( read that a long time back), doesnt that tell u nething abt wat God expects from his followers?

al Furqaan
April 19, 2009, 04:38 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, since u definately know more abt Islam than I do. I heard that the Almighty Allah even decided to forgive a prostitute when she helped quench the thirst of a street dog ( read that a long time back), doesnt that tell u nething abt wat God expects from his followers?

agreed with most of your other replies...except this one.

its true that god forgave a prostitute, he is after all ishtylist's "sadist", lol...

but this doesn't condone prostitution as an acceptable choice...the moral of the story is that one seemingly small good deed can wipe out even a career of terrible ones.

however this doesn't exclude islamic solidarity, nor is it anything against humanity, which we agreed upon.

the prophet (saw) did not care for muslims only, but caring for muslims IS NOT mutually exclusive to caring for humanity. thats all.

al Furqaan
April 19, 2009, 04:40 PM
So what do u want BCB to do?
Make a announcement while voting
" I hereby grant my vote in favor of WC cricket in pakistan provided that atleast 6 out of 9 other members vote against Pakistan since our vote is just to show Islamic Solidarity. Else I vote against Pakistan. "

that would have been great...covers all grounds and is not hypocritical, makes the point sufficiently, and fails to compromise principles. win-win situation, IMO.

Murad
April 19, 2009, 04:49 PM
Who gets what from the ICC Qualifiers
Cricinfo staff
April 18, 2009

As the dust settles on the ICC World Cup Qualifiers - aside from Sunday's rather pointless play-offs - we highlight what each team comes away from South Africa with.

Qualification for the 2011 World Cup
Canada, Ireland, Kenya, Netherlands

ODI status for four years
Afghanistan, Canada, Ireland, Kenya, Netherlands, Scotland

Intercontinental Cup 2009-10
Afghanistan, Canada, Ireland, Kenya, Namibia, Netherlands, Scotland, UAE

ICC World Cricket League Division 1
Afghanistan, Canada, Ireland, Kenya, Netherlands, Scotland

ICC World Cricket League Division 2
Bermuda, Namibia, Uganda, UAE

ICC World Cricket League Division 3
Denmark, Oman

ICC High Performance Programme grant funding 2009 and 2010
Afghanistan, Bermuda, Canada, Ireland, Kenya, Namibia, Netherlands, Scotland, UAE, Uganda

© Cricinfo

HereWeGo
April 19, 2009, 06:24 PM
Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, people of Bahai faiths, don't appear to have a political agenda, are not working on religious expansion and if anything are victims of the big two. Last time I checked, members hailing from those faiths are not instructed by their prophets or wtv to conquor the world and subjugate them to the laws of Allah. Muslims everywhere build mosques yet, in Islamic country like Saudi Arabia you couldn't cast a shadow of a church. You gotta pay tax if you don't convert to Islam thanks to Allah's law-Sharia. I am glad I am not living there because I am an atheist which is worst than being a girl in that country.

This idea of Islamic solidarity, brotherhood, etc sounds more like priciples of a gang not a religion.
I just can't seem to grasp, how can anyone believe that world operates under the might of a saddist called "Allah" or god who punishes people because they didn't practice what a certain messenger, whose words were never verified, preached. Nature works due to the forces of "immutable laws" and the idea spontaneous generation to explain "biology" which is used by all religions is nothing more than wishful thinking. The biggest mistake people make is that religion tells you what's right and wrong. I can teach people what's right and wrong by calling it ethics and not by instilling fear of judgement in front of an imaginary man (except perhaps in the priciples of hinduism where females can be also demi gods but it too works along the same line as the other ones). Religion and especially those ones that parade around trying to recruit more people into their cults are the biggest disgrace to humanity and will efface it given proper oppotunities. IMO, religion especially the violent ones will suffer natural deaths unless they raise their profile by hiring suicide bombers and are ruthless against members of other faiths or no-faith. Unfortunately, their persistence is causing a lot of deaths.

Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, people of Bahai faiths aren't out there to subjugate their "religion" on me, if they did, I would have problems with them too. People are innocent but the ideologies written by men termed "religions" are not.


I like the fact that u question everything, but since u are an educated individual, hence u should also try to find the answers yourself.

First mistake that people make is to judge a religion by its followers. I ask you not to do that. I urge you to read the holy books and than make a decision based on that. There is nothing wrong in being a atheist but it is still ethically (since u talk abt ethics) wrong to insult the belief of someone else, I was like you and I learned it the hard way. God talks abt punishment but it also talk abt the rewards. Dont u think the case is the same for human laws also? His punishment can sometimes sound extreme but so is his rewards for afterlife. And all the God asks u to do for the reward is to be a good human being.

I agree with you on your brotherhood principal although I am not going to go the distance as to calling it like a gang. I don believe in Sects inside religion either(shites, Sunnis etc) but thats just me. Neways bottom line is " do your own reading and don judge a religion by the action of some of its followers"....

Akib
April 19, 2009, 06:36 PM
Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, people of Bahai faiths, don't appear to have a political agenda, are not working on religious expansion and if anything are victims of the big two. Last time I checked, members hailing from those faiths are not instructed by their prophets or wtv to conquor the world and subjugate them to the laws of Allah. Muslims everywhere build mosques yet, in Islamic country like Saudi Arabia you couldn't cast a shadow of a church. You gotta pay tax if you don't convert to Islam thanks to Allah's law-Sharia. I am glad I am not living there because I am an atheist which is worst than being a girl in that country.

This idea of Islamic solidarity, brotherhood, etc sounds more like priciples of a gang not a religion.
I just can't seem to grasp, how can anyone believe that world operates under the might of a saddist called "Allah" or god who punishes people because they didn't practice what a certain messenger, whose words were never verified, preached. Nature works due to the forces of "immutable laws" and the idea spontaneous generation to explain "biology" which is used by all religions is nothing more than wishful thinking. The biggest mistake people make is that religion tells you what's right and wrong. I can teach people what's right and wrong by calling it ethics and not by instilling fear of judgement in front of an imaginary man (except perhaps in the priciples of hinduism where females can be also demi gods but it too works along the same line as the other ones). Religion and especially those ones that parade around trying to recruit more people into their cults are the biggest disgrace to humanity and will efface it given proper oppotunities. IMO, religion especially the violent ones will suffer natural deaths unless they raise their profile by hiring suicide bombers and are ruthless against members of other faiths or no-faith. Unfortunately, their persistence is causing a lot of deaths.

Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, people of Bahai faiths aren't out there to subjugate their "religion" on me, if they did, I would have problems with them too. People are innocent but the ideologies written by men termed "religions" are not.

You clearly do not know history. What happened to the crusades? What about the Hindu Nationalists in India like the Shiv Sena. Or the Sikh terrorism groups. As for the political agenda, what happened to the Jewish Lobby?

Also, I must agree Saudi laws are a bit crazy, but as someone before me said, don't judge a religion by its followers. Remember its the crazy ones on tv, the 1% of us.

Ishtylish cricketer
April 19, 2009, 06:55 PM
First mistake that people make is to judge a religion by its followers. I ask you not to do that. I urge you to read the holy books and than make a decision based on that. There is nothing wrong in being a atheist but it is still ethically (since u talk abt ethics) wrong to insult the belief of someone else, I was like you and I learned it the hard way. God talks abt punishment but it also talk abt the rewards. Dont u think the case is the same for human laws also? His punishment can sometimes sound extreme but so is his rewards for afterlife. And all the God asks u to do for the reward is to be a good human being.

I agree with you on your brotherhood principal although I am not going to go the distance as to calling it like a gang. I don believe in Sects inside religion either(shites, Sunnis etc) but thats just me. Neways bottom line is " do your own reading and don judge a religion by the action of some of its followers"....

Let me make this clear to you, my conviction about the falseness of religions surfaced only after I've read some of the religious books. After reading the Quran, those doubts actually strengthened. I don't have problem with people of faith but I think they are believing in lies written by humans and are glorifying them by calling it divine wisedom.

Ishtylish cricketer
April 19, 2009, 07:03 PM
You clearly do not know history. What happened to the crusades? What about the Hindu Nationalists in India like the Shiv Sena. Or the Sikh terrorism groups. As for the political agenda, what happened to the Jewish Lobby?


Exactly my point. Religion is becoming a political tool.

Zunaid
April 19, 2009, 07:13 PM
:timeout:

Time out.

We need a break y'all.

Go and spend time with your friends and families. Give this a rest for a day or so lest we fall down that slippery slope that beckons.

- Admin

Ishtylish cricketer
April 19, 2009, 07:15 PM
Good call admin.

al Furqaan
April 19, 2009, 07:25 PM
i agree...48 hour recess sound fair to all parties???

i really hope we can keep a reasonably civil discussion in at that time...peace sideways!!!