Inzi Post-Bob: An Interview

Paracha - You are hilarious. Like always. Great one. A little overdone on some fronts but a good read. Timing is important and I guess I published mine at a time when there is a lot going on.

http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00007777&channel=university%20ave

Enjoy - MF

bulleya/urstruly:

Here is a simple question for you: Which do you think came first - ethics or religion?

Urstruly, I agree with you that values change in a society, which is the way it should be. A society can not shackle itself to any given set of values. Yes, it is possible that the society will go overboard in its evolution but it will soon discover the ill-effects of that change and will correct itself. I will illustrate it with an example that most of us will not like. Western societies went overboard in their peculiar version of multiculturalism in which the host society was supposed to bend backwards to accomodate the cultural needs and sensibilities of the immigrant without a similar commitment by the newcomer to conform to the value system of the host society. Now that the effects of these policies are coming home to roost, these societies have started to adjust. Yesterday, a new political party in Quebec scored tremendous gains in the provincial elections, mainly on its leaders campaign to preserve the essential characteristic of the Quebec society and against what its leader called undue accomodation.

``There is, infact, nothing, ``unethical`` about gay marraige. It is only religiously unethical. Not socially unethical.........Hence people pushing secularism and opposing gay marriage etc. are the ones who are riding in two boats. Sooner or later, they will have to decide which boat to get into.``

``U hav come a long way baby`` -- Omair miaN -- that is a great paragraph you wrote -- and I agree with you one 100%.

apparently an open free intellectually honest unshackled progressive Canada where apparently no subject is taboo for a civilized rational discussion -- has done a lot of good to you.

my worry is that you may lose this broad perspective and cool rationality that Canada has provided you with -- once you resettle once more in that land of blind believers of yours.

Re: # 113

I think your comments are fair as long as you are searching for the boat. But I must advise you not to keep your search for too long because you will lose no matter what side you chose. In case you chose the atheism you will miss out most of what Moghul Emperor Babar said ``Babar beh aish kosh keh alam dobara neest`` - meaning that try to have all the fun because this is the only life we have. On the oter hand if you miss out on the boat of Islam, it speciafically tells that this world is just a big examination hall, where man is tested on how he fulfills his responsibility. Sometimes he is tested by having all the material blessings that this world has to offer and sometimes he is tested thru all the misery and pain that this world has to offer. Everytime you stood fast you earn a credit point and everytime you compromised you earn a demerit point. Life is just too short to earn enough credit points. So for your own good, accelerate your search and make up your mind either way. In Iqbal`s words it does not matter which side you take:

Wafadari b`shart-e-ustawari asl-e-Iman hay
maray butkhanay main tou Ka`aba main garo barahman ko

(tr: being steadfast is the key to any belief; a steadfast brahaman who dies in a temple of idols desreves to be burried in Ka`aba)

Urstruly #110: ``You cannot ride on two boats simultaneously and hope to jump aboard the winning side at the last moment.``

I am not riding in two boats simultaneously. I am, infact, in neither boat. I am still searching for a boat. I have found people who push religion and/or secularism, exclusively, to be too biased towards their views. They are both unwilling to study any contradictions in their prejudicely held views.

If you note, on this site, the biggest preachers are those who are pushing a religious or secular agenda. It is impossible to debate anything with them, with an open mind. They are, both, convinced that they know the truth and thus are only busy preaching to others.

Your argument about the basis of ethics is actually quite correct. Though not totally. All ethics has to have a basis. Where does that basis come from? Uptil now, it has come from religion. It used to be religion in public and private life. Now it is religion in private life only, because religion in public life became too bigoted and divisive.

However, now the basis of ethics, through religion in private life are being challenged as well. The concept of marraige in the watershed debate on this issue. Marriage is totally a religious concept, yet it still forms the cornerstone of every secular society`s public policy! All laws, relating to society stem from this religious concept. Which is why I have always felt that there really is no true secular state in the world, since they all legislate on marraige.

This has led to a value system, which defines the boundaries of marraige. Even in secular societies these boundaries are not defined through a separation of church and state, but through personal religious views.

If the core value of secularism is that religious views hold no water in public life, then all kinds of marital unions should be legal. As long as two individuals living together, having sex, etc. are not bothering me, what business do I have to impose my religious or ethincal beliefs onto them. This is where the world is at the moment. I think the legalizing of gay marriage is going to have major impacts on the philosophical discussions around secularism.

I think secularism served as a good safe way to govern for a few centuries. It was (and still is) actually a watered down version of church in state. Not an outright separation. Everyone agreed to it, because they all agreed to the amount of religion they wanted in state. Marraige was desired in all religions, hence it became a part of the State. Gay marriage wa opposed in all religions, hence it became a part of the State. However, now the boundaries are being challenged, as more and more poeople are coming out of the closet.

Once people started coming out of the closet, secularism morphed into a strange system: it was ok to live with five women, but not to marry them (and then live with them), even if all were consenting. It was ok for two men to live together, but not to be married to each other (and then live together), even if both were consenting. Ironically, this turned secularism on its head. People were willing to set aside their Church in personal lives, and accept gay marriage and multiple partners. But they were not willing to allow the State to separate the Church from it, on these issues.......

There is, infact, nothing, ``unethical`` about gay marraige. It is only religiously unethical. Not socially unethical.........Hence people pushing secularism and opposing gay marriage etc. are the ones who are riding in two boats. Sooner or later, they will have to decide which boat to get into.

Re: # 110

And by the way, secularists do not give a shitt about Quadiani issues; they only push Quadiani agenda because in their mind it will weaken their nemesis religion i.e. Islam. Frankly, I have to to admit that their strategy is correct. British invented it but it is a completely differnt matter that it didn`t work out good as they hoped. As Quadianiyat is accepted as a version of Islam, the Islam ceases to exist; because two religions are anathema to each other. It is impossible to say that ``I am a Quadiani and a Muslim`` just as it is ridiculous to say that ``I am a monotheist and a polytheist`` or ``I am pregnant and not pregnant``. These three examples would also suffice to elaborate on how ridiculous it sounds when a secularists claims that Secularism is not Ladiniyat (atheism) or secularism is not anti-religion. Phew!!

Urstruly: You are too boxed in by mullah-talk to see the world with your own eyes. Have faith in your eyes and your mind - these were given to you by God. While mullah-talk is...justthat. You will then see a whole different kind of world than the one you see.

For starters, read some of the things you have written, and see how much of it is based on what you have seen for yourself and how much of it is mullah-talk.

E.g. How many atheists do you know? I would bet not one. And yet you talk with such confidence not just about atheists, but also their morals.

Apply this kind of thinking to the rest of your post - and then re-write the whole damn thing so it reflects what you actually know, and is not merely a repeat of what you heard from someone.

Re: # 109

``Gay marraige will never be supported in Pakistan, even by secularists who are pushing day and night for Ahmedi rights. Even Ahmedis, themselves, in Pakistan will not support gay marriage (or gays in general). ``

This is only partially true. There may not be a widespread support for the gay marriage yet and there won`t be in near future but the corrupt ruling class will enforce it throu the gun; as they have started targeting education and laws that have their basis in the religion. In the past 5-6 years it is a common observance that media has started portraying transexual and transvestite issue and personalities thru their entertainmant programs with an increasing intensity. Almost every play or an enetrtainment related program has at least one such character. In other words, the cultural invasion is being trojaned into the Pakistani society.

Pakistani secularists are no different than the secularists anywhere around the globe. I think you are thinking on the right lines on the issue of secularism vs. religion; but you do not have to to be apologetic on issues that directly effect you and your family directly. You cannot ride on two boats simultaneously and hope to jump aboard the winning side at the last moment.

Secularism itself is the manifestation of a religion called ``atheism``. As almost every religion has an ethical component and the a social/law component, so does the the atheism. If shria (law) is the social component of Islam, secularism is the social component of atheism. This is just as simple as that; why sugarcat?

It is the inherent character of ``atheism`` that it cannot have a value system. As a matter of fact any value can be questioned and discarded thru a series of ``whys`` in atheism. That is the reason atheism defines the current culturtral practices as values. A fifty years ago the cultural practice was to abhor sodomy and hence it was the value at that time; today it is not. Today cultural practices pretend to abhor a father sleeping with his daughter; two to three years down the raod it won`t be a value anymore as one of the recent case in Germany suggests. In other words, a secular or atheist society has no moral compass. The only reality is the present and future will take care of itself. As every action has consequences, the consequences for Secular society are quite obvious - destruction of family structure; a culture of arrogance; people have laws but no previleges etc.

Dost-mittar#105: ``There are many, many, non-religious people who oppose abortion and/or gay marriage. Secondly, once again, you are equating secularism with la-deeniyat;``

Abortion and gay marriage, specifically the later, are all interpreted from religion. There is nothing inherently ethical/unethical about them. The basis of any such ethics, itself emerges from religion. Marriage, itself, is nothing but a religious concept. Hence any opinion on it will be based on religion. For abortion, one could make some sort of an outside comment that it has a non-religious ethical aspect, also. But certainly not for marraige - gay or otherwise.

I am not equating secularims with la-deeniyaat. I am, merely, highlighting the philosophical contradictions which secularism is facing. It worked fine when people were ready to accept certain, ``ethical`` boundaries, which had been placed on society, which actually grew out of religion. However, now those ethical boundaries are being challenged. Gay marriage being one example.

The result is that the secularists are being forced to decide. Do they add more religion to public life or do they take more religion out of personal life. As I have side earlier, what kind of a God is only half correct, i.e He gets it correct in personal life but not in public life! Either there is a God or there isn`t one. The idea that there is One in personal life, but not One in private life is quite contradictory and is nothing more than a way to run a government and a country. It may work well there, but sooner or later its inherent contradictions will require it to evolve significantly, either towards religion (there is a God) or athiesm (there isn`t One).

USA is adding more and more religion to public life, through courts, legislature etc. While Europe (and Canada) are going in the later direction. Gay marriage being illegal in USA but legal in most of Europe and in much of Canada. This is only the tip of the iceberg, more and more religious issues are going to start coming to the forefront. Eventually these will have such huge impacts on everyone`s day to day personal lives that more and more people will have to decide which way they want to tilt.

I don`t think people who have some religion in their personal lives can ever fully separate the Church from the State. It will always be easier for a Christian to become the President of the USA than someone of any other religion, as most voters are Christians. Gay marraige will never be supported in Pakistan, even by secularists who are pushing day and night for Ahmedi rights. Even Ahmedis, themselves, in Pakistan will not support gay marriage (or gays in general).

Dost-mittar #105: ``They openly invoke Islam and jihad in their speeches.``

Bush regularly uses the God in his speeches. As do all US politiicians. Specifically Republicans. They cannot get elected if they do not use religion. Goin to make speeches at religious schools is a main political event. So much so that even John Kerry had to be photographed carrying a Bible. And John McCain has now had to start doing it, as well.......All these, including the speeches of Pakistani religious leaders are actually poltical moves. It is a way to gain popularity and get votes.

I think you are greatly underestimating the power of the religious right in US politics. Evengelicals, according to one estimate, are around 23% or so of the US voting population and the religious right is 40% or so. And the core belief of all these individuals is that if you don`t consider Jesus Christ to be your savior, you are going to hell.....

Now, in Europe (and to a great extent in Canada), God and religion is a taboo subject in politics, generally.......But certainly not in the USA.....I don`t think people realize and undersand the massive rise of the Religious Right of the USA in the post Reagan era......Had it not been for Bush and the Iraq defeat, this Right was going to fully dominate US politics for the coming decades.......It may still do so........

zeemax#106:

yes, I did mean those who know english but, as you know, the meaning of crusade is now not restricting to The Crusades [just as the meaning of jihad for us desis is not restricted to The Jihad].

Thanks for making me realise my `tuassab`. :)

#105 by dost-mittar

[I found that somewhat comical as only anglicised Muslims would know that English term].

DM, you appear to be sliding very fast. Now where did you get that? Do you mean `anglicised` Muslims or `Muslims who know the English language`? If it`s the latter, how many Muslims don`t know that it means `saleebi jangein`?

I hope your `tuassab` is not getting to you.

bulleya#101:

I have to disagree re. MMA. They openly invoke Islam and jihad in their speeches. One doesn`t have to go to Pakistan, they can be seen doing that in the news coverages provided by BBC and other news outlets. On the other hand, Bush never used the word ``crusade`` after he was told of the negative connotation of that term in the Islamic word. [I found that somewhat comical as only anglicised Muslims would know that English term].

``Secularism supports abortion and gay marriage......Religion does not.``

Abortion and gay marriage or ethical issues, not just religious. There are many, many, non-religious people who oppose abortion and/or gay marriage. Secondly, once again, you are equating secularism with la-deeniyat; people who believe in the separation of state from religion can be deeply religious. This is especially true, btw, of Indian secularism where the concept is interpreted more in the Hindu definition of ``equal respect of all faiths``.

Glad to know that your plans for Pakistan are working out. Do give me a call if you plan to be in Ottawa before leaving the country. I too have bought a small ``hibernacle`` in New Delhi and plan to spend my winters there from now on.

Touché. :)

nadeem,
this has to be among the most unimaginative pieces on chowk. forget the poor taste but it reads like something a 12 year old put together eagerly to show his creative writer uncle and then expect a lollypop for his brilliance. utter crud and i`m amazed how the quality at chowk has deteriorated over the years. no fan of the mullahs i`d like to point out that inzi didnt go to a madrasa so why perpetuate a stereotype. you`re quite the moron. sure your name really isnt billy bob from south dakota and you`re masquerading as nadeem paracha?

re: anil # 100

anil ji, inadvertently no doubt, on your part, and it goes without saying, you have only the best of intentions for everybody, but your advice may be unfair to romair.... :(

khair, the two of you have, supposedly, personal aquaintance, so I may be wrong.