From Tribalism to Humanism
Khalid Sohail January 9, 2007
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#18 Posted by Minhaj on January 9, 2007 6:26:20 pm
Dear Dr. Sohail,
At a very early age we are taught to work against each other. In a class room the teacher will often ask a question by saying, ``Okay so who can tell me the answer to this question...``. Usually some eager idiot who knows the answer will stretch out his hand and win the approval of the teacher but also earn the envy and hatred of his classmates. Look at the word ``Best`` it means that the ``best`` student is ``better`` than the majority. This encouragement to sort of defeat and leave others behind is highly destructive and probably leads to craziness violence and shootings. When I was in class 3 the principal stood on the stage and announced the names of the monitors, one girl and one boy for each class. These lucky kids went on the stage and all of us were forced to clap for them. And then as the majestic morning sunlight filled the assembly hall, From the very hands of the principal they recieved their monitor badges which they wore with pride. Was I happy for them? Did I delight in their glory? Did I say to myself, `Yes I am so happy for Ali and Sanya. I hope they become more successful...` No. Instead I dreamed of wearing that badge and prayed for their downfall.
Now I realize that the principal should have called all of us on stage. And announced loudly, `Each and everyone of you is special. You are all monitors.` Isnt that what humanism is? By the way Ali grew up to be a successful doctor and Sanya grew up to be very attractive. So things worked out for them. But a lot of negative feelings were generated and this I think leads to tribalism. We need to find a way to make everyone feel special and not just those two.
At a very early age we are taught to work against each other. In a class room the teacher will often ask a question by saying, ``Okay so who can tell me the answer to this question...``. Usually some eager idiot who knows the answer will stretch out his hand and win the approval of the teacher but also earn the envy and hatred of his classmates. Look at the word ``Best`` it means that the ``best`` student is ``better`` than the majority. This encouragement to sort of defeat and leave others behind is highly destructive and probably leads to craziness violence and shootings. When I was in class 3 the principal stood on the stage and announced the names of the monitors, one girl and one boy for each class. These lucky kids went on the stage and all of us were forced to clap for them. And then as the majestic morning sunlight filled the assembly hall, From the very hands of the principal they recieved their monitor badges which they wore with pride. Was I happy for them? Did I delight in their glory? Did I say to myself, `Yes I am so happy for Ali and Sanya. I hope they become more successful...` No. Instead I dreamed of wearing that badge and prayed for their downfall.
Now I realize that the principal should have called all of us on stage. And announced loudly, `Each and everyone of you is special. You are all monitors.` Isnt that what humanism is? By the way Ali grew up to be a successful doctor and Sanya grew up to be very attractive. So things worked out for them. But a lot of negative feelings were generated and this I think leads to tribalism. We need to find a way to make everyone feel special and not just those two.
#17 Posted by TOLKININ on January 9, 2007 6:03:24 pm
Iqbal Sacraine....is a coservative blair camp of muslim.....Rushdie every one knows advocates change......The Right Time for An Islamic Reformation
The Right Time for An Islamic Reformation
By Salman Rushdie
Sunday, August 7, 2005; Page B07
When Sir Iqbal Sacranie, head of the Muslim Council of Britain, admitted that ``our own children`` had perpetrated the July 7 London bombings, it was the first time in my memory that a British Muslim had accepted his community`s responsibility for outrages committed by its members. Instead of blaming U.S. foreign policy or ``Islamophobia,`` Sacranie described the bombings as a ``profound challenge`` for the Muslim community. However, this is the same Sacranie who, in 1989, said that ``Death is perhaps too easy`` for the author of ``The Satanic Verses.`` Tony Blair`s decision to knight him and treat him as the acceptable face of ``moderate,`` ``traditional`` Islam is either a sign of his government`s penchant for religious appeasement or a demonstration of how limited Blair`s options really are.
Sacranie is a strong advocate of Blair`s much-criticized new religious-hatred bill, which will make it harder to criticize religion, and he actually expects the new law to outlaw references to Islamic terrorism. He said as recently as Jan. 13, ``There is no such thing as an Islamic terrorist. This is deeply offensive. Saying Muslims are terrorists would be covered [i.e., banned] by this provision.`` Two weeks later his organization boycotted a Holocaust remembrance ceremony in London commemorating the liberation of Auschwitz 60 years ago. If Sir Iqbal Sacranie is the best Blair can offer in the way of a good Muslim, we have a problem.
The Sacranie case illustrates the weakness of the Blair government`s strategy of relying on traditional, essentially orthodox Muslims to help eradicate Islamist radicalism. Traditional Islam is a broad church that certainly includes millions of tolerant, civilized men and women but also encompasses many whose views on women`s rights are antediluvian, who think of homosexuality as ungodly, who have little time for real freedom of expression, who routinely express anti-Semitic views and who, in the case of the Muslim diaspora, are -- it has to be said -- in many ways at odds with the Christian, Hindu, non-believing or Jewish cultures among which they live.
In Leeds, from which several of the London bombers came, many traditional Muslims lead inward-turned lives of near-segregation from the wider population. From such defensive, separated worlds some youngsters have indefensibly stepped across a moral line and taken up their lethal rucksacks.
The deeper alienations that lead to terrorism may have their roots in these young men`s objections to events in Iraq or elsewhere, but the closed communities of some traditional Western Muslims are places in which young men`s alienations can easily deepen. What is needed is a move beyond tradition -- nothing less than a reform movement to bring the core concepts of Islam into the modern age, a Muslim Reformation to combat not only the jihadist ideologues but also the dusty, stifling seminaries of the traditionalists, throwing open the windows to let in much-needed fresh air.
It would be good to see governments and community leaders inside the Muslim world as well as outside it throwing their weight behind this idea, because creating and sustaining such a reform movement will require above all a new educational impetus whose results may take a generation to be felt, a new scholarship to replace the literalist diktats and narrow dogmatisms that plague present-day Muslim thinking. It is high time, for starters, that Muslims were able to study the revelation of their religion as an event inside history, not supernaturally above it.
It should be a matter of intense interest to all Muslims that Islam is the only religion whose origins were recorded historically and thus are grounded not in legend but in fact. The Koran was revealed at a time of great change in the Arab world, the seventh-century shift from a matriarchal nomadic culture to an urban patriarchal system. Muhammad, as an orphan, personally suffered the difficulties of this transformation, and it is possible to read the Koran as a plea for the old matriarchal values in the new patriarchal world, a conservative plea that became revolutionary because of its appeal to all those whom the new system disenfranchised, the poor, the powerless and, yes, the orphans.
Muhammad was also a successful merchant and heard, on his travels, the Nestorian Christians` desert versions of Bible stories that the Koran mirrors closely (Christ, in the Koran, is born in an oasis, under a palm tree). It ought to be fascinating to Muslims everywhere to see how deeply their beloved book is a product of its place and time, and in how many ways it reflects the Prophet`s own experiences.
However, few Muslims have been permitted to study their religious book in this way. The insistence that the Koranic text is the infallible, uncreated word of God renders analytical, scholarly discourse all but impossible. Why would God be influenced by the socioeconomics of seventh-century Arabia, after all? Why would the Messenger`s personal circumstances have anything to do with the Message?
The traditionalists` refusal of history plays right into the hands of the literalist Islamofascists, allowing them to imprison Islam in their iron certainties and unchanging absolutes. If, however, the Koran were seen as a historical document, then it would be legitimate to reinterpret it to suit the new conditions of successive new ages. Laws made in the seventh century could finally give way to the needs of the 21st. The Islamic Reformation has to begin here, with an acceptance of the concept that all ideas, even sacred ones, must adapt to altered realities.
Broad-mindedness is related to tolerance; open-mindedness is the sibling of peace. This is how to take up the ``profound challenge`` of the bombers. Will Sir Iqbal Sacranie and his ilk agree that Islam must be modernized? That would make them part of the solution. Otherwise, they`re just the ``traditional`` part of the problem.
The writer is a novelist and essayist whose works include ``The Satanic Verses.``
The Right Time for An Islamic Reformation
By Salman Rushdie
Sunday, August 7, 2005; Page B07
When Sir Iqbal Sacranie, head of the Muslim Council of Britain, admitted that ``our own children`` had perpetrated the July 7 London bombings, it was the first time in my memory that a British Muslim had accepted his community`s responsibility for outrages committed by its members. Instead of blaming U.S. foreign policy or ``Islamophobia,`` Sacranie described the bombings as a ``profound challenge`` for the Muslim community. However, this is the same Sacranie who, in 1989, said that ``Death is perhaps too easy`` for the author of ``The Satanic Verses.`` Tony Blair`s decision to knight him and treat him as the acceptable face of ``moderate,`` ``traditional`` Islam is either a sign of his government`s penchant for religious appeasement or a demonstration of how limited Blair`s options really are.
Sacranie is a strong advocate of Blair`s much-criticized new religious-hatred bill, which will make it harder to criticize religion, and he actually expects the new law to outlaw references to Islamic terrorism. He said as recently as Jan. 13, ``There is no such thing as an Islamic terrorist. This is deeply offensive. Saying Muslims are terrorists would be covered [i.e., banned] by this provision.`` Two weeks later his organization boycotted a Holocaust remembrance ceremony in London commemorating the liberation of Auschwitz 60 years ago. If Sir Iqbal Sacranie is the best Blair can offer in the way of a good Muslim, we have a problem.
The Sacranie case illustrates the weakness of the Blair government`s strategy of relying on traditional, essentially orthodox Muslims to help eradicate Islamist radicalism. Traditional Islam is a broad church that certainly includes millions of tolerant, civilized men and women but also encompasses many whose views on women`s rights are antediluvian, who think of homosexuality as ungodly, who have little time for real freedom of expression, who routinely express anti-Semitic views and who, in the case of the Muslim diaspora, are -- it has to be said -- in many ways at odds with the Christian, Hindu, non-believing or Jewish cultures among which they live.
In Leeds, from which several of the London bombers came, many traditional Muslims lead inward-turned lives of near-segregation from the wider population. From such defensive, separated worlds some youngsters have indefensibly stepped across a moral line and taken up their lethal rucksacks.
The deeper alienations that lead to terrorism may have their roots in these young men`s objections to events in Iraq or elsewhere, but the closed communities of some traditional Western Muslims are places in which young men`s alienations can easily deepen. What is needed is a move beyond tradition -- nothing less than a reform movement to bring the core concepts of Islam into the modern age, a Muslim Reformation to combat not only the jihadist ideologues but also the dusty, stifling seminaries of the traditionalists, throwing open the windows to let in much-needed fresh air.
It would be good to see governments and community leaders inside the Muslim world as well as outside it throwing their weight behind this idea, because creating and sustaining such a reform movement will require above all a new educational impetus whose results may take a generation to be felt, a new scholarship to replace the literalist diktats and narrow dogmatisms that plague present-day Muslim thinking. It is high time, for starters, that Muslims were able to study the revelation of their religion as an event inside history, not supernaturally above it.
It should be a matter of intense interest to all Muslims that Islam is the only religion whose origins were recorded historically and thus are grounded not in legend but in fact. The Koran was revealed at a time of great change in the Arab world, the seventh-century shift from a matriarchal nomadic culture to an urban patriarchal system. Muhammad, as an orphan, personally suffered the difficulties of this transformation, and it is possible to read the Koran as a plea for the old matriarchal values in the new patriarchal world, a conservative plea that became revolutionary because of its appeal to all those whom the new system disenfranchised, the poor, the powerless and, yes, the orphans.
Muhammad was also a successful merchant and heard, on his travels, the Nestorian Christians` desert versions of Bible stories that the Koran mirrors closely (Christ, in the Koran, is born in an oasis, under a palm tree). It ought to be fascinating to Muslims everywhere to see how deeply their beloved book is a product of its place and time, and in how many ways it reflects the Prophet`s own experiences.
However, few Muslims have been permitted to study their religious book in this way. The insistence that the Koranic text is the infallible, uncreated word of God renders analytical, scholarly discourse all but impossible. Why would God be influenced by the socioeconomics of seventh-century Arabia, after all? Why would the Messenger`s personal circumstances have anything to do with the Message?
The traditionalists` refusal of history plays right into the hands of the literalist Islamofascists, allowing them to imprison Islam in their iron certainties and unchanging absolutes. If, however, the Koran were seen as a historical document, then it would be legitimate to reinterpret it to suit the new conditions of successive new ages. Laws made in the seventh century could finally give way to the needs of the 21st. The Islamic Reformation has to begin here, with an acceptance of the concept that all ideas, even sacred ones, must adapt to altered realities.
Broad-mindedness is related to tolerance; open-mindedness is the sibling of peace. This is how to take up the ``profound challenge`` of the bombers. Will Sir Iqbal Sacranie and his ilk agree that Islam must be modernized? That would make them part of the solution. Otherwise, they`re just the ``traditional`` part of the problem.
The writer is a novelist and essayist whose works include ``The Satanic Verses.``
#16 Posted by philosopher on January 9, 2007 3:59:22 pm
Re: # 13bjkumar says;
[I would rather wait for the good doc to attempt to answer my simple question]
you really need doc sohail[psychatrist].
[I would rather wait for the good doc to attempt to answer my simple question]
you really need doc sohail[psychatrist].
#15 Posted by drsohail on January 9, 2007 3:57:53 pm
Re: # 11
dear bj kumar....knowing a little bit of history of chowk readers who are very passionate
about pakistani and indian conflicts and their political leaders, i do not want to step on a
minefield.
in my humble opinion it was ironic that gandhi and jinnah could not resolve their political
conflicts and negotiate with mountbaten in a way to prevent massacres of innocent muslims
and hindus and sikhs. it was one of the biggest tragedies of 20th century. i am a writer and
a therapist not a politician. as a teenager my introduction to humanistic philosophy was by
saadat hasan minto, the short story writer, creator of a masterpiece like toba take singh.
minto wrote ` do not say 100 muslims went to heaven and 100 hindus went to hell. say we
lost 200 precious human lives` for me such thinking separates tribal thinking from
humanistic thinking.
in my book ...prophets of violence, prophets of peace,,,, i have discussed the differences
between triangle of gandhi, jinnah and bountbaten from mandela, butulezi and de clark of
south africa. white south african governement was going to divide south africa in 8
bantustans based on tribes. mandela did not want that so he said...we do not want to
divide south africa in bantustans like india got divided in pakistan and hindustan. mandela
went to see butulezi and swallowed his pride and told him we can prevent the
massacre....butulezi agreed and both leaders made peace and then negotiated with de
clark to prevent break up of south africa.. i wished jinnah and gandhi could have resolved
their conflicts and saved innocent human lives.
while i was reviewing their biographies i was also surprised as a psychotherapist to read
that gandhi disowned his son as he became a muslim and jinnah disowned his daughter as
she married in another faith....both leaders disowned their flesh and blood as they left the
tribe.....how sad...sincerely sohail
dear bj kumar....knowing a little bit of history of chowk readers who are very passionate
about pakistani and indian conflicts and their political leaders, i do not want to step on a
minefield.
in my humble opinion it was ironic that gandhi and jinnah could not resolve their political
conflicts and negotiate with mountbaten in a way to prevent massacres of innocent muslims
and hindus and sikhs. it was one of the biggest tragedies of 20th century. i am a writer and
a therapist not a politician. as a teenager my introduction to humanistic philosophy was by
saadat hasan minto, the short story writer, creator of a masterpiece like toba take singh.
minto wrote ` do not say 100 muslims went to heaven and 100 hindus went to hell. say we
lost 200 precious human lives` for me such thinking separates tribal thinking from
humanistic thinking.
in my book ...prophets of violence, prophets of peace,,,, i have discussed the differences
between triangle of gandhi, jinnah and bountbaten from mandela, butulezi and de clark of
south africa. white south african governement was going to divide south africa in 8
bantustans based on tribes. mandela did not want that so he said...we do not want to
divide south africa in bantustans like india got divided in pakistan and hindustan. mandela
went to see butulezi and swallowed his pride and told him we can prevent the
massacre....butulezi agreed and both leaders made peace and then negotiated with de
clark to prevent break up of south africa.. i wished jinnah and gandhi could have resolved
their conflicts and saved innocent human lives.
while i was reviewing their biographies i was also surprised as a psychotherapist to read
that gandhi disowned his son as he became a muslim and jinnah disowned his daughter as
she married in another faith....both leaders disowned their flesh and blood as they left the
tribe.....how sad...sincerely sohail
#14 Posted by jang on January 9, 2007 3:54:22 pm
thank you drsab for writing a very relevant article for indian subcontinent, specifically the issue of religious conversion. the hindu tribals feel that christian tribals from abroad have a colonial agenda in supplying cash for conversion, and there will be a new TNT. so hindu tribals are going to tribal areas and setting up tents and hindu revivals.
#13 Posted by bjkumar on January 9, 2007 3:29:52 pm
#12 Philly yaar
I would rather wait for the good doc to attempt to answer my simple question before I even take a crack at understanding your legalese-like stuff.
You are not a lawyer, by any chance?!!
#12 Posted by philosopher on January 9, 2007 3:08:44 pm
Re: # 11bjkumar
is it fair to say that gandhi`s ``humanistic approach``was an attemt to make people of sub-continent submit to colonial their colonial masters and oppression and jinnah`s ``voilent mindset``made the oppressed people of india fight against the ``double standard of shanti philosophy``and their colonial permoters?
regards
is it fair to say that gandhi`s ``humanistic approach``was an attemt to make people of sub-continent submit to colonial their colonial masters and oppression and jinnah`s ``voilent mindset``made the oppressed people of india fight against the ``double standard of shanti philosophy``and their colonial permoters?
regards
#11 Posted by bjkumar on January 9, 2007 2:59:48 pm
Dr. Sohail,
Is it fair to say that Mahatma Gandhi symbolized a more humanistic thought process whereas Mohammed Ali Jinnah symbolized a more tribal mindset?!!
#10 Posted by drsohail on January 9, 2007 2:14:30 pm
Re: # 9
dear philosopher....i am sorry if i could not clarify my point. what i am trying to say is that
we all have multiple idnetities. my name is sohail. i was born in a muslim family in
pakistan. now i have a choice. i can identify as a muslim and a pakistani. my folks told me
that because i am a pakistani muslim ...indian hindus are my enemies and we need to have
jihad against them. for me to rise above such tribal mentality i believe that hindu men and
women from india are my bothers and sisters. that is how i can resolve my persoanl and
collective conflicts. i feel leaders of religious and political organizations and parties need to
rise above the partisan politics. today in america genuine politicians have to rise above
democratic and republican politics.....alongside the political and historical dynamics there is
a psychological dynamics....every human being who kills another human being has to take
responsibility for his tribal mentality and not be swayed by the charismatic cultish
leader....who is willing to die and willing to kill for his ideology. it might seem simplistic
philosophy but it is the starting point. every soldier of an army and every member of an
extremist religious and political party makes that choice. when you meet people in your
living room, within a few minutes of passionate discussion the tribal mentality surfaces and
a family meeting turns into a war.....you can see that when people decide about their
own or their children`s wedding. how many people marry because of character how many
focus on the tribe...? i believe each one of us has to rise above hundreds of years of
conditioning if we have to evolve as a species.it might sound idealistic but i think it is a
reality of our day to day social and political lives. visible minorities pay more price than
others for such tribal mentality and prejudice.thanks for your comments....sincerely sohail
dear philosopher....i am sorry if i could not clarify my point. what i am trying to say is that
we all have multiple idnetities. my name is sohail. i was born in a muslim family in
pakistan. now i have a choice. i can identify as a muslim and a pakistani. my folks told me
that because i am a pakistani muslim ...indian hindus are my enemies and we need to have
jihad against them. for me to rise above such tribal mentality i believe that hindu men and
women from india are my bothers and sisters. that is how i can resolve my persoanl and
collective conflicts. i feel leaders of religious and political organizations and parties need to
rise above the partisan politics. today in america genuine politicians have to rise above
democratic and republican politics.....alongside the political and historical dynamics there is
a psychological dynamics....every human being who kills another human being has to take
responsibility for his tribal mentality and not be swayed by the charismatic cultish
leader....who is willing to die and willing to kill for his ideology. it might seem simplistic
philosophy but it is the starting point. every soldier of an army and every member of an
extremist religious and political party makes that choice. when you meet people in your
living room, within a few minutes of passionate discussion the tribal mentality surfaces and
a family meeting turns into a war.....you can see that when people decide about their
own or their children`s wedding. how many people marry because of character how many
focus on the tribe...? i believe each one of us has to rise above hundreds of years of
conditioning if we have to evolve as a species.it might sound idealistic but i think it is a
reality of our day to day social and political lives. visible minorities pay more price than
others for such tribal mentality and prejudice.thanks for your comments....sincerely sohail
#9 Posted by philosopher on January 9, 2007 1:54:50 pm
Re: # 5
dr sohail.
the philosophy of live and let live is very simplistic and and highly superficial.when we look into historical process we find that clash is something that is inherent in human beings.it is invetable.why are we always reluctant to accept this obvious fact.every ideaology on this earth is expansionist.democracy ,islam christianity and communism fascism.they all are expansionist.so why should we blame a certain ideology for being expansionist or admire other for being less expansionist.why do we develop our thesis and give judgment on the basis of this rediulous and superficial criterion.human history or society itself is the evidence of human nature.this kind of approach just destroy the seriousness of the issue under consideration.what we should do is to look into the philosophical and technichal grounds of those ideology and then give judgment not the basis of being less violent or extremly violent.
regards
dr sohail.
the philosophy of live and let live is very simplistic and and highly superficial.when we look into historical process we find that clash is something that is inherent in human beings.it is invetable.why are we always reluctant to accept this obvious fact.every ideaology on this earth is expansionist.democracy ,islam christianity and communism fascism.they all are expansionist.so why should we blame a certain ideology for being expansionist or admire other for being less expansionist.why do we develop our thesis and give judgment on the basis of this rediulous and superficial criterion.human history or society itself is the evidence of human nature.this kind of approach just destroy the seriousness of the issue under consideration.what we should do is to look into the philosophical and technichal grounds of those ideology and then give judgment not the basis of being less violent or extremly violent.
regards
#8 Posted by drsohail on January 9, 2007 1:33:35 pm
Re: # 6
dear nasah...thank you for your kind comments. they reminded me of martin luther king`s
comments that if we follow the principle of an eye for an eye....soon the whole village with
be blind....all the best....sohail
dear nasah...thank you for your kind comments. they reminded me of martin luther king`s
comments that if we follow the principle of an eye for an eye....soon the whole village with
be blind....all the best....sohail
#7 Posted by nasah on January 9, 2007 1:21:27 pm
Shore qaum-o deen meiN zikr-e rawaadaari sohail
keya sunnaee day hameiN tujh jaisay deewanay ki baat
keya sunnaee day hameiN tujh jaisay deewanay ki baat
#6 Posted by nasah on January 9, 2007 1:16:51 pm
Amen! Sohail sahib -- alas -- humanism is being replaced by the religion of chauvinism -- no more: shia hai aik aankh to sunni hai doosree....great piece!.
#5 Posted by drsohail on January 9, 2007 1:02:07 pm
Re: # 4
dear urstruly...it might seem from your letter that we disagree but from your comment
` i don`t think that any method of living is superior or inferior from the other` reflects we
are closer in thinking. the problem in history is not that one group (tribe) thinks their
ideology and lifestyle is better, they even want to enforce them on others. america
today wants to enforce her ideology on the third world.....in the past christians and muslims
and communists tried to conquer other countries and tried to colonize them.....
we have not evolved to the philosophy of live and let live,,,thank you
for your honest comments....sohail
dear urstruly...it might seem from your letter that we disagree but from your comment
` i don`t think that any method of living is superior or inferior from the other` reflects we
are closer in thinking. the problem in history is not that one group (tribe) thinks their
ideology and lifestyle is better, they even want to enforce them on others. america
today wants to enforce her ideology on the third world.....in the past christians and muslims
and communists tried to conquer other countries and tried to colonize them.....
we have not evolved to the philosophy of live and let live,,,thank you
for your honest comments....sohail
#4 Posted by Urstruly on January 9, 2007 12:29:18 pm
I fail to see how and why tribalism is bad and how humanism is a better alternative. Any social structure, in fact, comes into being because of certain demands of internal and external factors that bind a group, circumstances, group dynamics and probably technology. Man will always live where he is more comfortable and safe as long as the circumstances permit; and he will adopt to the changing circumstances; causing the old system to be modified and changed. That is how human beings have evolved in the past 1 million years.
I don`t think that any method of living is superior or inferior from the other; the only difference that counts is the ideology and principles by which a society and individual live by. I fail to see why a tribal society cannot practice humanist attributes (which in your opinion are somehow superior) or conversely why a humanistic society (if one will ever exist) would not bear tribal attributes.
I do not see any merit in your thesis.
I don`t think that any method of living is superior or inferior from the other; the only difference that counts is the ideology and principles by which a society and individual live by. I fail to see why a tribal society cannot practice humanist attributes (which in your opinion are somehow superior) or conversely why a humanistic society (if one will ever exist) would not bear tribal attributes.
I do not see any merit in your thesis.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- xeron: good luck with the... Yet Another Immigrant Story
- truth100: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/2058670/Blind-seven-year -old-beaten-to-death-for-failing-to-learn-the-Koran.html#continue The parents of... Muslim Ghettoisation
- xeron: I studied in shimla... Farewell to Shimla
- truth100: Re: # 134 Tahir, As I... Muslim Ghettoisation
- tahmed32: tahir #127: truth hurts,... Muslim Ghettoisation
- truth100: The reason behind todays... Muslims in America
- _arjun9: so muslims are the... Muslim Ghettoisation
- Eklavya: hamidm2 wow! So Islam-ridden people... Muslim Ghettoisation
