Fight Hudood, Protect Women

#226 by kaalchakra on March 9, 2007 8:03pm PT

The crux of the matter is that the cutest cuts are those which carry to the core of the crap with considerable kindness.

Re:235

[...A parallel here for Islam - Buddhim is like Islam, which then broke into many schools and many interpretations. Both negate orthodoxy of one form or the other. Extremely simple in their beginnings. They became complex over time, and both esoteric and nebulous over a period of time. ....]

You are describing the typical evolutionary cycle for all major religions. Every religion starts out simple, with a simple message and a simple set of rituals. Early Islam, Vedic hinduism, early christianity or early buddhism were all simple messages. As time goes by, the message splinters into multiple entities. The question is why does this happen?

The main reason is that religion can give you a mental crutch, perhaps a social structure, but it cannot protect you from uncertainty. Consider the Taliban for instance. They felt that they were doing God`s work, and were paragons of virtue. Yet, God didnt stop them from getting thrown out in less than a month in Afghanistan. For all their piety, they are stuck to hiding in mountains and making suicide attacks. So what was all that piety for? Why didnt God help them? If God cannot protect his most ardent believers, why should the rest of us even bother? Decades from now, the Afghans will realize that all that praying and shoving women into burqas led to didly squat difference in their own lives. If at that time, someone offers a new interpretation or a new message, they will listen. That is how religious message s become diffuse - uncertainty is the root cause of people`s disillusion with the existing message.

re: masadi # 58

Those who cry and wail against the Hudood ordinances do realize that they are unequal partners in a society that is based on the notions of an Islamic equality. In a country claimed to be created on the very basis of Islam, it begs the question why there has never been any criteria practiced, which would have identified the nation as Islamic. The women of Pakistan have suffered under the grab of religion, because though the religion of their birth gives the right of justice, the Hudood laws were never created to give justice to women as much as they were to created to legitimize the political ambitions of one man.

In a society, where the women are denied their rights; denied the due process of the law; treated as sub-human chatel; killed in the name of honor by a society that has no honor and is too stupid to realize that there is no honor in murder, the calls of the victim against the trespasses of injustice are never a distraction. Hudood laws are not the distraction, because they are the REAL ISSUE that is enslaving half of the Pakistani population and when the women of Pakistan - its mothers, wives and sisters are being killed and raise a voice, common sense and basic human decency suggests that we should listen to their cries. To suggest that the wails against the Hudood laws are distraction is tantamount to suggest that the person about to be murdered should not resist his/her own murder and when an issue, such as Hudood laws, divides the society and within that society creates more evil in order to stop an evil and when civil society is being brutalized on the basis of a law, the critism of that law is not a distraction but a clarion call to the society`s very own sense of conscience.

The critism Hudood Ordinances do not take attention away from the real issues affecting women in Pakistan, but rather focuses the attention on the REAL ISSUE facing the women in Pakistan, which is the abuse of religion politically to socially victimize the women in Pakistan. It beggers the believe that a person such as yourself, taught to understand social issues and societies, would be so blind to the issues that are tearing the Pakistani society apart and for a sociologist to claim that Hudood laws are distraction, implies that s/he does not understand the reason behind the real issues affecting the society itself. Every issue in Pakistan that affects and effects women traces its genesis to how that religion is used and misused and abused to perpetuate and prolong a sexist-gender discrimination that seeks to politically, economically and socially annihilate the women of Pakistan.

Women are denied healthcare on the basis of religion, for example in NWFP, because male doctors should not treat female patients say the religious reasonings and since there is a lack of qualified female doctors to cater to the need, women end up being denied basic medical facilities and treatment. The end result is more maternal mortality. Women are told that their rightful place is in the home and they should not venture out into the company of men to earn a wage and using religion to deny them their economic rights, the women are made destitute and this is what forces them into poverty and not the machinations of an elitest west and its corporate interests. Women are discouraged to attend educational institutions in Pakistan because of gender segregation and then claims are made, but never fulfilled, to provide them with an equality opportunity to gain an education alongside of the males. When women are forced to ``marry the Quran``, it is not the western lackeys and their corporate mentors who keep alive this barbaric system of fedualism in Pakistan. When women are disfigured with incidents of acid throwings, it is not the mentality of western imperialistic and capitalistic neo-colonialism that inspires acts of acid throwing but the on accepted notions of ``honor`` based on a society`s religious-feudal sense.

Every issue that has discriminated against women in Pakistan or has offered a reason to do so, can be traced to religion and when the real issue, itself, is religion it is an ignorant statement to suggest that it is only a distraction from the real issue itself! When religion is used politically and socially to deny the women healthcare; to deny them education and keeps them in a perpetual state of poverty and when laws are passed on the basis of religion to institute injustice and the society starts to fray socially and politically as the result of its own religious follies, then issues which originate from it are not a distraction but a matter of societal concern and should be openly voiced and debated and not ignored because they are not an issue worthy to be discussed.

It is a facile argument to suggest that rapes go unpunished in United States and so we should not bother about the conviction rates of rape crimes in Pakistan. Women are raped and the rapes might go unpunished in the United States, but the women do have right of justice and the due process of the law in the United States and at the very least, they are not victimized on the basis on religion and are not treated as third class citizens on the basis of a religiously created apartheid of social, economic and political disenfranchisments.

As Pakistani citizens, concerned about the problems confronting our nation, we should not worry too much about the crime or the law and order situation in the United States and debate their failures compartive to our own failures. The argument is not that women are raped in the United States or their rapes are not solved, but why are women raped in Pakistan and more importantly, why are their rapes not punished in Pakistan. The question is not what the Americans are doing or not doing in the United States but what we Pakistanis are doing or not doing in Pakistan. A rape victim does not care of about geographical location of their rape as much as they care about the availbility of justice to address the wrong done to their human dignity and when we start to talk about perpherical issues surrounding the commission of a crime but not the REAL REASONS behind a crime, that my dear professor is the real distraction!

Ciao

#234 Wheel O Time,

that phrase you use in 234 and earlier (which bulleya aka Romair went gaga over, and so did TAHMED32) ``within their own respective contexts `` is the key.

However, I go back to your earlier post, and mine, and ask Is a type of Brahminism on the rise in Islam and amongst Muslims? You did suggest that this was the case.

The internal consistency is vanishing from within Islam itself, which requires multiple interpretation based on hair splitting meanings of words and phrases and contexts etc.

My point, is mono-belief by itself, will in the long run lead to its own demise - the natural equilibrium is always monism. That is the nature of religion perse (not belief in god). Belief in god is a mono concept. But the interpretations given to god are many fold (will be - even in christianty, Islam you see this with sects - how are these sects different from the saivaite, visnavaites, sakti bhakta, shiahs, sunnis, catholics, protestants, luthereans etc). Power and control is the key. Man feels the need for these and there is a desperation to have a hold over your fellow beings. Thus the many interpretation, sects etc.
But the belief in god is personal over arching concept.

A parallel here for Islam - Buddhim is like Islam, which then broke into many schools and many interpretations. Both negate orthodoxy of one form or the other. Extremely simple in their beginnings. They became complex over time, and both esoteric and nebulous over a period of time.

A religion is born every day. An interpretation is created every day. And internal consistency vanishes into thin air for the external observer.

The natural human condition is monobelief in god, but Monistic in its external appearence. It is this which needs to be understood. A failure to understand this leads to more troubles in the name of religion.

ranjit

Both elephant-headed Gods and the bomb-strapping young men/women are more meaningful within their own respective contexts of Hinduism and Islam than they are outside of their respective contexts. More than beauty, absurdity lies in the eyes of the beholder

Anyways, that`s all for now. Good night everyone.

Re:kaalchakra

[..If worshipping a God carrying the trunk of an elephant and riding a mouse does not appear absurd, then what will?!......]

Well, how about strapping a bomb on your body, blowing up innocent people and yourself, hoping someone up in heaven takes notice and eventually getting to have sex with 72 virgins? I suppose all that makes supreme sense. My dear sir, all religions are theaters of the absurd. It is mankind`s pathetic attempts to control its fate after death. Thats all there is to it - a fear of death. Take away death and every religion, especially Islam, will fall flat on its face.

Islam and its cousin Christianity are both quantity oriented religions. It is all about head count for them. 1. Make it very easy to join 2. Entice people or use violence to get them to sign up 3. Make sure, there is supreme pressure against leaving the faith. God only knows what is the benefit of adding millions of people to their faith, but somehow muslims and christians are obsessed with adding new people to their faith. Eastern faiths like hinduism, buddhism or confucianism do not care about head count. It is your own journey - you come alone and you die alone.

At the end of the day, people want to live their life in peace. Islam and Christianity just do not let people live their life in peace. Both these religions are responsible for 99% of religious violence in the past 2000 years, mainly due to their expansionist ambitions for adding headcount. Thankfully the goras have managed to bottle up christianity and convert it into a benign faith that is barely recognizable from the past. The muslims have been unsuccessful, except the Turks, who have shoved Islam under the carpet. No wonder, the Turks are the only muslims who are successful and happy. Otherwise just look at the muslim world today - a bunch of pathetic losers obsessed with mindless violence and sexual repression. If this is the miserable way to get to heaven or God, screw heaven and screw God. Who needs any of it?

tahmed32

Many of the lunacies of Hinduism have been and indeed are lunacies anyway one looks at them. That is not the case with Islam. If one accepts the broad framework of Islam, then almost all of its practices (no matter how unacceptable they are to outsiders) make pretty good sense. That is because Islam has far greater internal consistency than Hinduism does (granted Islam has its own sects and inter-sect conflicts). Hinduism almost decries any emphasis on internal consistency. So much more than Islam, Hinduism can defintely come across as the theatre of the absurd.

(If worshipping a God carrying the trunk of an elephant and riding a mouse does not appear absurd, then what will?!)

#228 by bulleya

“.......due to this abstraction and decentralization, people can find their own comfort zone in islam..........they don`t have to follow any traditions, leaders, fatwas, scholars etc.......i don`t follow any islamic scholar.......i read them and accept some views and discard others.....i have been to a mosque, once or twice in the past ten years..............i spend a lot of time studying islam, on my own hours.....and am interested in getting a higher academic qualifiction in some area of islam.....many scholars would declare me non-muslim and a heretic, if they were to listen to my views........yet i am as much a muslim as the next guy......”

Brilliant Guy! You nailed it. This is the greatest strength of Islam – you define your comfort zone and there is no religious hierarchy who can tell you differently. This allows you to define your own relationship with God with no interference from anybody.

Problem arises when the community, the mosque, the village, the school, the state tries to interfere in that relationship. So that is the apparatus that has to be gotten rid off. Individual God – Secular State.

#226 kaalchakra: also, while i was (in #187 below) differentiating between those muslims who followed rituals and those who followed the spirit of islam - hinduism is far more given to such rituals. so, if ``practicing, believing muslims`` (per your definition) are raving lunatics, then i wonder what you would call the hundreds of millions of your own co-religionists!!

#226 kaalchakra: actually i have found more ``irrational lunatics`` from among hindus (some practicing, some not, whatever) on chowk than among muslims. When the earthquake took place in pakistan, some of your esteemed fellow-hindus were expressed their joy on chowk. When the recent samjhota express blast took place, your rational fellow-hindus were expressing joy again. some extreme cases seemed to be clinically ill with their obsession in trying with pakistan - e.g arjun, jay have nothing to say other than their joy at every real life misfortune they believe falls on them.

but ....dont let me detract from your deep thoughts. :-)

kaalchakra #226: ``For all its supposed ``lunacies`` if we made an attempt to see Islam with the eyes of a believing Muslim, we might appreciate why the religion never stops appealing to so many people no matter what the rest of mankind might think of it.``

....you will see very very few people convert out of islam......including women, about whom the general impression happens to be that they are persecuted in islam.......you will see quite a few people converting into islam.........even today, it is the fastest growing religion in europe and in north america......much of it is due to immigration and high birth rates of muslims.....but much of it is due to conversions, as well.....the whole demographics of european countries are starting to change, based on this......

......the reason for the above is quite simple, and is what i have been trying to articulate here for a while........islam is written in abstracts, because the quran is in abstracts........secondly, no one has religious authority in islam.......

......you have seen it on this site......when one person tries to throw his views and his, ``scholars``` views into an islamic debate, others can and do just tell him to get lost.....and vice versa........

.......due to this abstraction and decentralization, people can find their own comfort zone in islam..........they don`t have to follow any traditions, leaders, fatwas, scholars etc.......i don`t follow any islamic scholar.......i read them and accept some views and discard others.....i have been to a mosque, once or twice in the past ten years..............i spend a lot of time studying islam, on my own hours.....and am interested in getting a higher academic qualifiction in some area of islam.....many scholars would declare me non-muslim and a heretic, if they were to listen to my views........yet i am as much a muslim as the next guy......

.........islam is, thus, a very loosely defined abstract religion, with no religious hierarchy.....which is why it appeals to so many people.........what has however happened is that powerful religious hierarchies have made their place in islamic societies through extra-religious means......some of it is due to force, others have done it through politics, some through pressure tactics etc........and they have, then used that authority to force their own views onto others.........this, of course, is against the essence of islam.......

Re: # 204

``Lastly though, if they had to declare Ahmadi as non Muslim, they have to clearly define what a Muslim is according to the legislature (I don’t know if they ever did that).``

Allah has defined it in His Quran as under:

Aayat 14, soorae hujraat (49) mein Allah farmata he:
``Kaha ganwaron (Arab Awam) ne kih imaan laae ham. Keh nah iman laae tum lekin kaho `Musalman` yehni maghloob hue ham aur abhi nahin daakhil hua iman biich tumhare dilonN meiN aur agar farmanbardari karo allah aur rasool uske ki nahin kam dega tumhaare amloN se kuchh. Tehqiq allah bakhshne wala mehrban he.``

Ghalban yahi wajah he kih ham momin nahiN musalman kehlate heiN kionkih mullah ki khatme nabuwat ke bahd to ham mullah ke maghloob ho kar musalman dar musalman ho chuke heiN aur ghaliban isi lie hamen khatme nubuwat ka halaf nama dakhal karna parhta he jo yih sabit karta he kih ab ham Allah, nabi ya uski aal ke nahin mullah ke farmanbardar hein. Sach aakhan te bhambarh machda.

Is Pakiland mein to sab `Hafi Muslaman` hein. Asli musalman to sub is Halfistan se baahir rehte hein.

I don`t know...there is a tendency among non-Muslims and among some liberated and liberal Muslims to consider practising, believing Muslims to be nothing short of irrational lunatics, violent unthinking barbarians given to ludicrous delusions, products - we appear to be sure - of genetic disorders. In the past I myself might have sympathized with some of those views.

IMHO now, that is a most unfortunate and myopic view. It is based on a complete unwillingness to appreciate Islam`s ability to provide a strong, internally self-consistent, ambitious and powerful alternative worldview - alternative to the Western/democratic or Indian/pluralistic worldviews. For all its supposed ``lunacies`` if we made an attempt to see Islam with the eyes of a believing Muslim, we might appreciate why the religion never stops appealing to so many people no matter what the rest of mankind might think of it.

Even its most `insane` aspects have solid reasons behind them, reasons refined and honed over a thousand years of a very vigorous history. We might want to undersand those reasons, and THEN depending upon our own individual preferences either accept them or reject them.

I personally find Islam absolutely fascinating. It is not for me. But I can understand that it can be for others. And these people don`t have to be crazy, or robotic, or irretrievably evil.

Re: # 223
ooops keyboard and olde age...

I could hammer the heck out of zeemax if I knew who he was for he is a zealot
If I knew the identity of zeemax I would hammer him since he is a zealot
I know who zeemax is and since he is a zealot I should hammer him


and ofcourse should invest in a decent pair of reading glasses.

p.s zeemax - you were just used as an example no offense meant.....(T)

#209 by kaalchakra

``The Constitution would have clauses like no law can be passed which violates freedom of religion.``

``The Constitution should have clauses like no law can be passed which violates the intent/spirit of Islam.``

Very good point! But intent/spirit of Islam is violated if e.g. Abu Sufyan converts from Sunni Islam to Qadiyani. He becomes an apostate and is handed a death sentence. But on the other hand Abu Sufyan is a hero if he converts Christians in America to the fold of Islam. But it gets more convoluted – Qadianis believe they are Muslims so they are not converting.

Sorry – it ain’t gonna work! Both are mutually exclusive.

Re: # 209

O Wheel of Time, the subtle differences, nay nuances of could, would and should are shrouded in mystery.

for example

I could hammer the heck out of zeemax if I knew who he was for he is a zealot
If I know the identify of zeemax would hammer him since he is a zealot
I know who zeemax is and since he is a zealot I should hammer him

are disctintly different in meaning.

However, if they change to

we would hammer the zealots if we can identify them
we should hammer the zealots if we can identify them
we could hammer the zealots if we can identify them

the differences are so miniscule, that they would stretch the patience. Would and should are similar, but subtly different, could is totally different here.

You Wheel O time are a great one for throwing a small pebble and waiting for the ripples to run into tsunamis (how I hate this word). Sometimes, such subtlity violates the senses and makes one to do what arjuna did ala bhisma, only make it more painful!