Inzi Post-Bob: An Interview

#132 by Zeemax

Yikes!!!

Just wondering if that is the peoples ``dominant discourse`` in western countries.

Of course, desis are awesome self righteous people to do anything like that.

What is puzzling in all this is, inspite of their desis living in their own wealthy countries ( due to their rich self righteous rears ), they seem to jumping in joy at the first chance of boarding a Boeing or Airbus planes destined for debauchered western countries.

zeemax #132 that is bad. of course in pakistan we only have first cousins getting married. :-)

Nadeem nice work ...awesome man .....
and u`ve won a gift hamper with some Pans having katha and chunna
what u have to do chew those pans write intresting articles n spit pan others main gate .
keep posting intresting things and soon u get a sponsership by Papu Pan Shop courtesy of Bahi jan panshop.

Nadeem nice work ...awesome man .....
and u`ve won a gift hamper with some Pans having katha and chunna
what u have to do chew those pans write intresting articles n spit pan others main gate .
keep posting intresting things and soon u get a sponsership by Papu Pan Shop courtesy of Bahi jan panshop.

#118 by Urstruly,

Interesting discussion. After successful induction of gay marriage into `values`, `human rights`, `freedom of choice` etc., this is next for the same arguments. And why not?

A German brother and sister take their fight for the right to a sexual relationship to the country`s highest court.



Good luck :)

Bulleya and anil ji, even today, Islam does not have `institutions` like the Catholic Church, or a priestly class. Mullas surely are no institutions (particularly in the Sunni world and urban areas). And madrassas don`t determine and constrain public life in the manner we usually think of institutions.

So how do you see Islam becoming an institutional religion, or a large victim of institutionalization?

Re: # 131

Kaalchakra & Khurram:

An institution creates an advantage to generate values (good or bad) that otherwise cannot be accomplished. If it is to leverage education, then it is educational institution, and likewise it is to realize economic value or trade then it can be a corporation. Religion in my definition is a belief system. Something you cannot question, but must accept, however emotional or questionable it may be, unlike in other institutions. Now therefore, when religion is institutionalized it creates advantage to exploit questionable ethics and emotions, just as well it can promote good values of the religion. Separating such use from misuse is important.

It is my opinion that Islam today is being challenged to reform itself. I find that in Islam there are concepts, like Fatwa and Jihad, that can be used by a group of disgruntled to create ``institutes`` (or extreme words - killing machines) as if their acts have divine sanctions and all of their acts therefore, are justified. I am surprised why believers of Islam cannot see it, and see that it is doing more harm than good to their belief system - Islam.

Kaalchakra, the ferocity, intensity of suicide bomber is captured in the institution of suicide bombing. Many madarassas who teach such concepts are institutions. Hooded Jamia Hafsa girls in today`s news kidnapping the pimp in Islamabad looked no less fearful than KKK. These girls took law in their hands, in the name of Islamic injunction. This is a creation of another institution. Not all institutions need to be as large as Roman Catholic Church.

I can give you examples of institutions in other religions including Hinduism too. My thesis that it is very dangerous to institutionalize emotions and beliefs holds, unless you want to create mental asylums. Institutionalized religions are very dangerous, and have always been. They have served their purpose of expansion through deliverance of believers.

Dost Mittar writes: [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.]

Dost sahib, that just proves that Bush and the regime he represents are media savvy, whereas mullahs are not.

Bush can unleash circumstances that result in the deaths of 700,000 people, yet he is sophisticated enough to not use rash words like ``crusade``. Osama however, who has allegedly killed only 3000 people, is unrefined in his use of media and habitually uses words like ``holy war``. Yet it is Osama and the religion he belongs to that gets the pouncing from enlightened folks like dost mittar.

Ariel Sharon, that butcher who is responsible for the killings of thousands of Palestinians, was media savvy enough to use the word ``peace`` a few dozen times each time he made an appearance on media. Hamas on the other hand, which has killed far fewer israelies, is unrefined and uses extreme words in its language. And so it is Hamas that is branded as an extremist organization, while Sharon is called the “man of peace”.

Henry Kissinger, who was in the top decision making echelons of Washington power when US killed 2-3 million Vietnamese using every lethal means possible (agent orange etc), receives Noble peace prize. Yet Saddam Hussein, who even by the wildest estimates was guilty of far less, is labeled as ``butcher`` and is hanged.

So it is quite clear that the side that is doing the most killings are more media savvy also. As I have come to learn in life, it is not what you do, it is how you explain it that makes all the difference. Indeed, perception is much more potent a force than reality.

Anil #126: ``When that boundary is crossed into institutional religion even at personal level things like confusion and fear may set in to be exploited by people trying to create, build or maintain the institutions.``

I agree with this. This is one boat I am definitely on. I am totally against institutionalised religion. I am totally against religious bureacracy. In fact, I am totally against the Church (not to mean Christianity here, but institutionalized religious hierarchies).

Infact, one of the reasons for the decay of Islam is that it, as a religion which eliminated institutionalized religions as its founding concept, has, ironically, now become a large victim of it.

One of the items which has attracted me to Islam is that it does not recognize instituitonalized religions, hierarchies, scholars etc.

Dost-mittar #127: ``Why is it so hard for some people to recognise that secularism is nothing more than the state not using any laws based on religion and not distinguishing its citizens on the basis of their religious beliefs?``

Yes, this is exactly what secularism is. I am recognizing that. What I am highlighting is the fact that this is not practiced anywhere completely. And now that there is a movement towards practicing it completely, it is resulting in an uncomfortable situation for people who like secularism, but only upto where it does not break their personal, ``ethical`` boundaries.

Marraige sits at the center of the above debate. It is the basis of govt legislation and social setup in all societies. I hope you agree that marraige is a religious concept. Getting, ``married`` in no way affects one`s biological, intellectual, ethical faculties.

Now, since marriage is a religious concept, how can the govt. legislate on it? How is legislating on marraige any different than legislating on whether everyone should go to a mosque, temple or church? If the majority population thinks everyone should go to a church, should that be a law? If they majority population thinks only men and women should be in marraige, should that be a law?

One can, thus oppose gay marraige in their personal life, but how can they oppose it in public life, under secularism? The obviously cannot. The fact that people have been able to do so, through votes etc. is a clear indication that the church has been mixed with the state, due to the personal religious beliefs of people.

The basis of any legal system in the world (at least the secular world) is not the ethical beliefs of a majority of the people. It is the protection of the rights of an individual, i.e. if an individual or two are doing something that is not impacting anyone else, they cannot be discriminated against and have to be treated equally.

So, first and foremost, marraige - a religious concept - should never even be discussed in the public legal discourse. The state should have nothing to do with it in the public space. It should be indifferent to it. However, if it is hell-bent on legislating on it, then, in a secular society, it has to recognize all unions, of any type, as legal and equal. Between man and woman, man and man, man and five men, women and ten women, women and ten men, etc. Using the criteria that, marriage is personal business. Not public business. As long as all parties are consenting, in a secular society, the state should have no interference in it.

Infact, other than religion, name one thing that defines a union between man and man to be unethical? Under what basis is it unethical? If two men get married and are not bothering you, why is it unethical to you?

Re: # 128 Bulleya

``...I hope you agree that marriage is a religious concept. Getting, ``married`` in no way affects one`s biological, intellectual, ethical faculties....``

Marriage if defined as `an interpersonal relationship with governmental, social, or religious recognition` precedes organized religion. Humans have had monogamous relationships for time immemorial with social sanction before there was organized religion. You don`t think that there was marriage before Islam in pagan Arabia? Ditto for every other religion.

The rest of your argument breaks down because it is built on a weak foundation.

If you get the time, check out this
book. It will explain to you chapter and verse how human behavior and physiology has biologically evolved to promote monogamous relationships. You won`t find any linkage to religion, and why monogamy is essential to human survival. You will learn that while men are naturally inclined to be polygamous, women have evolved pretty clever mechanisms to counter such behavior! There is no morality/religion in play here - pure survival of the species.

Re: # 157

PewResearch

You raise the question:

``You don`t think that there was marriage before Islam in pagan Arabia? Ditto for every other religion.``

I raise a counter question:

Do you think there was no religion in Arabia before the advent of Mohammadan Islam?

Re: # 158
Don`t know. But is it relevant to this discussion?

Re: # 160

Certainly: as Inzi, Yuhanna, etc., are degrading Islam by displaying their paganistic ritualism to promote their profession which is anti-Islamic like prostitution.

tahmed32#123:

I agree that Kant`s categorical imperative can serve as a moral compass for most purposes. [and a belated thanks for welcoming me back:)]

bulleya#125:

``The world is very grey. You and Urstruly and various others seem to have discovered your black and whites. I think it is because all of you have convinced yourself that there is no grey in your respective stances........``

Far from it. Being secular, in my opinion, has nothing to do with whether one sees things in black and white or otherwise. Why is it so hard for some people to recognise that secularism is nothing more than the state not using any laws based on religion and not distinguishing its citizens on the basis of their religious beliefs? To the extent that the societal values are influenced by the ethical values of the dominant religion, those values may be reflected in the societal laws also.

As I said earlier, there is no contradiction in opposing Gay marriages and being secular. You might be confusing between Canada`s Charter of Rights and the secular position. Yes, the Canadian courts have upheld Gay marriages as a fundamental right, but that is an interpretation of the Canadian constitution. The Canadian Prime Minister and most of the MPs that supported Gay Marriages are, in fact, quite religious people, the PM of that time being a practising Catholic. I believe that these marriages are illegal in most of the U.S, except in a few places like the Massachusetts. And despite the power of the Religious Right in the US, if the majority of Americans want to support Gay marriages, they too can go the Massachusetts way.

You may be right about religion; if the religion has prescribed everything in black and white, than a theological state would have fewer degrees of freedom in deciding what is right and what is wrong. But if a religion does not think of itself as immutable, then even religious people can change its values; for example the Church of England considered slavery to be okay two hundred years ago but is now thinking of giving reparation to the descendants of slaves.

Dost-mittar #116: ``Here is a simple question for you: Which do you think came first - ethics or religion?``

This is a question you would need to answer before I. For the simple reason that you seem to have found the answers, while I am still searching for them. There is, however, an even more important question:

What is the basis of ethics? Why is something correct and something incorrect? Why do you think gay marraige is wrong? And if you do think it is wrong, what right do you have to enforce your views on others?

The whole purpose and basis behind secularism was to ensure that a majority was unable to enforce its religious (and its ethical views) onto minorities. This worked fine, as long as the minority kept quite. However, what happens if the minority speaks out? UK was a secular state, when it virtually banned the marriage of, ``Englishmen`` to native Indians in the late 1700s. The children of such marraige were considered second-rate by the govt. One could justify that also.

If one starts using the majority definition of ethics, as you are doing, then basically, you end up violating secularism. This is the contradiction I was talking about. This is the contradiction that the western socieities are coming to terms with. It is the slow unravelling of secularism, either towards religion or athiesm (or lets say less and less religion in personal life).

The above is the contradiction of secularism. While the contradiction of religion/shariah is that whose interpretation of sharia should one agree to (along with, which religion is the correct religion).

The world is very grey. You and Urstruly and various others seem to have discovered your black and whites. I think it is because all of you have convinced yourself that there is no grey in your respective stances........