Understanding the Death Fatwa on Taslima Nasreen

Virginia Tech sociopath reminded me of some hateful Indians here on chowk who are busy 24/7 for their hateful propaganda...................

And mind it Taslima is also a sociopath who has a disturbed thought process like Virginia Tech Sociopath who killed 32 innocent kids for no reason................sad fact

#113 by Zeena

Virginia Tech sociopath reminded me of some hateful Indians here on chowk who are busy 24/7 for their hateful propaganda...................

But Zeena ji, aren`t you the one shooting off post after post here, just like the Virginai gunman did?

Oops...Virginia!

Re: # 113,

Come on, Zeena! At least you should appreciate her looks!

Take it easy, this is a friendly advice,...and just a humour!

No Talwarbazi, please!

Samar

Zeena,

U are hating Taslima here. Are u a born again Zeehadi?

Re: # 111


kaal,

........... islam and democracy are two incompatible political systems - they cannot coexist .............. period . !

........... of course, islam, as a set of superstitious beliefs and rituals can exist along with cow worship and shamanism ........

abu has a valid point and therin lies the big problem for islam and others. its immaterial that beef is available in india but if a law against cow-claughter have existed since babars time. now the problem is islamist have this argument of majority-written laws to give a nice protection for intolerance. this is one of the biggest cognizable issues here.

Don`t be so hard on abu. His education was intirely at a madrassah and he only reads the Quran and listens to PTV. That is why he does not know that a big juicy steak is available in India and some Hindus have been known to indulge.

Re: # 111 by kaalchakra

Kaal:

Very well put. I see nothing basically wrong with what abu has written. I wish to make two points:

1. Democracy, or as you say any `cracy`, will be cruel to certain people as long as ALL people do not have same preferences. Consider the world of `economic regulations`, totally devoid of `religion`. Slight changes in regulations, like for example, ``coffins made outside Louisiana will not be subject to taxes other than what local companies have to pay`` can create devastation for certain families in Louis. whose only skill pertains to making coffins - it may lead to moving out of houses, changing schools, letting old parents leave the household or even suicide. From a personal point of view an individual may prefer living under `Islamic Law` over `changes in such regulations`.

Now, many here will say that though certain individuals will be worse off, society may be better off. So how is society to decide? Simple, through democratic voting they say. Below I show that this is not always possible.

2. (The Condorcet Paradox) Consider a society of 3 individuals who have to decide over alternatives: x, y and z. Individual 1, prefers x to y to z; individual 2 prefers y to z to x and; individual 3 prefers z to x to y. Note that majority voting over x and y will have x winning over y; y winning over z, and; z winning over x. As a result society simply cannot choose! (For a general statement see Arrow`s Impossibility Theorem).

This example has nothing to do with advanced or backward democracies. Democracy, in this particular situation, cannot help a society choose - period!

My point is that all advocates of democracy -me included - should realize the drawbacks of the system. The debate between `systems` cannot be boiled down to individual laws like ``blasphemy`` or individual people like ``Taslima``.

Having had my say, I do enjoy debates on individuals - law or otherwise. Even when the debate is carried through the medium of obscene language.

re: GT # 121

Obscene language can be fun. But to savor its joys one has to let others serve it up :)

Yaar, I don`t know what Condorcet arrows you are talking about (hope he didn`t get hurt), but that seems to be pretty much common sense. Glad you ageed. :)

Re: # 118 by hamidm2

Dear Hamid:

Seriously, Islam and democracy can co-exist as long as individuals are allowed to interpret Islam. Do not get too muddled by this. Take any constitution, worth its name, it is always interpreted and reinterpreted. And believe me, such a constitution can be quite suffocating at times for certain sets of people. As an example, take three staunch `believers` - zeemax, urstruly and masadi. Now ask them to come up with a COMPLETE constitution for the ummah based on the `holy` books of Islam. There will be a lot of agreement, but they will not be able to come up with a COMPLETE constitution. I believe, that for most issues there will be disagreements. Even for trivialities, I am sorry deep issues, there will be disagreements. Examples:

(a) Zee and urstruly will agree on the amount of leg that females can display, masadi will disagree; (b) All will agree that the Prophet should not be `ridiculed` but masadi will disagree with almost every definition of `ridicule` that zee and urstruly propose leaving one with a very diluted definition of `ridicule`; (c) there will be no agreement on what should induce capital punishment; (b) there will be no agreement on the economic system except perhaps `interest`, but there will be no agreement on how `interest` is to be defined .... and so on and so forth.

The problem is not Islam, the problem has to do with the types of religious parties that could come to power, aid to terrorists, sanctions etc. Islamic Law and other issues are used simply by groups to beat up on one another. It is simply a medium of democratic discourse, and hence they can co-exist.

Re: # 122 by kaalchakra

Kaal:

It is alway the common sense that is missed in `deep` debates. Could the world be livable if everyone adhered to common-sense? ;)

Regards.

GT sir:
Democracy is not a system unless you define the axioms on which the democratic setup works on. That defines the core. Democracy on its own means nothing just like Expectation or second order moments have no value to it without the ensemble [not very good analogy but i`d stick to it for a while]

Popular definition of democracy kind of implies liberal-democracy in the west rooted in the athens city state. When you will talk to a person from Pakistan, `Democracy` means Bhutto type democracy where a few people in the electorate, less than a decimal point to the right in percentage of total population[Ahmedis, Hindus, Apostates etc.] can be Nazified in the pursuance of the axioms of the pakistani democracy[objectives resolution]. Allah Mian is the sovereign in that Democracy.

GT

More seriously now, The Condorcet Paradox and Arrow`s Impossibility Theorem offer insights into what may NOT happen - the domain of the impossible.

Is there any theorem (like GT`s Iron Law of sorts) that explains how certain things will DEFINITELY happen? Given that the universe itself may disappear tomorrow, a GT`s Theorem of Practical Certainty will be quite useful (and impressive as well :)) in figuring out patterns.

Expectations of second-order moments...

That`s the problem with you Ivy Leaguers, raw. Never talk to the rest of us using simple language and simple ideas. :(

Re: # 125 by Raw_Dust

Raw:

What is with this ``sir`` nonsense? Yep, I agree with what you say. And my point is that you have to have different versions of democracy precisely because majority voting cannot always lead to choice. So, I have no problem with Allah mian being the sovereign head of a democratic state ....... as long as Her opinions on gao mutra, beef, beards, hijab, ummah, oil, sects, Gearge Bush, hamidm2 etc. are vague but re-interpretable over time.

Best.