Inzi Post-Bob: An Interview

To keep the debate fair, I think it is important to highlight the ethical contardictions in religion also. Secularism came into existence, as a philosophical concept, specifically because of contradictions - mainly religious contradictions - which were becoming unmanageable, in the running of the state.

The concept of religion, obviously, has two contradictions:

- Which is the correct religion. Religions tend to consider themselves correct. Which would imply that they consider other religions to be incorrect. Since there is no religion that domiantes more than 50% of mankind, according to religious beliefs, a majority of the world is inccorect in its beliefs. Some like the Christian Right state that if one does not consider Jesus to be one`s savior, one is going to hell. Others like Islam, give more leeway and allow Poeple of the Book and all others to be considered correct:

``Those who believe (in the Qur`an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.`` (Verse 62: The Cow)

The above verse is the closest thing I have found, in any religion (though I am no expert on world religions), which encompasses all of humanity, and allows, ``everyone`` to be forgiven. If we assume that the word, ``Allah`` refers to God, in general, and not to an Islamic Allah. Does everyone believe in some concept of a Last Day. Kind of, I would say. Does everyone believe in righteousness. Yes.

However, Islam does critique idol-worshippers, on other occassions. Which obviously wouldn`t go down to well with 1.2 billion Hindus. So there are contradictions there also. As there probalby are, in other religions as well.

So what happens to the human rights of individuals who do not follow the majority religion, in a religious state?

2. Who has the right to interpret the religion. This is a problem in some religions and not in others. In Christianity, it is clearly defined who has this right. As it is in Hinduism (not sure?). But in Islam, it is not defined at all. By design, Islam does not define this. It allows every Muslim to interpret religion. If that is the case, then there are bound to be infinite interpretatins of a Shariah. Which one should be followed? Should the group with the majority or with the biggest guns be allowed to interpret Shariah. If Pakistan had a 95% Ahmedi population and 5% Sunni population, there is a good chance sattar2 would be on the offensive and Urstruly on the defensive, on who is a Muslim and who isn`t.

So, as the contradictions in the religious management of government (specifically in Western Christian states, where the theocracy became far too powerful in state) came to the forefront, secularism emerged. It lasted for a while, because it gave breathing space to religious minorities. However, now the philsophical contradictions in secularism, as a form of governance, are coming to the forefront. Instead of separating church from state, it actually watered down the church`s participation in state to a level where the common belief of all religions were allowed in state (opposition to gay marraige), while those that were uncommon were passed on to the personal sphere.

What then is the answer, when both Urstruly and Dost-mittar are totally convinced they are not discriminating against anyone, even though they diametrically opposite view........Neither of which, at least in my opinion, address the above-mentioned contradictions.........

Re: # 143

Religion is little alien concept for the subcontinental simple folks. It is a tool for political, social and economic exploitation. For simple folks of the subcontinent way of life or Dharma is more dear. For them it means ...

Rain on dry land is an extraordinary thing, is it not? It washes the leaves clean, the earth is refreshed. And I think we all ought to wash our minds completely clean, as the trees are washed by the rain, because they are so heavily laden with the dust of many centuries, the dust of what we call knowledge, experience. If you and I would cleanse the mind every day, free it of yesterday`s reminiscences, each one of us would then have a fresh mind, a mind capable of dealing with the many problems of existence.

I wonder if you have ever stopped to observe the marvelous glow in the west as the sun sets, with the shy young moon just over the trees? Often at that hour the river is very calm, and then everything is reflected on its surface: the bridge, the train that goes over it, the tender moon, and presently, as it grows dark, the stars. It is all very beautiful. And to observe, to watch, to give your whole attention to something beautiful, your mind must be free of preoccupations, must it not? It must not be occupied with problems, with worries, with speculations. It is only when the mind is very quiet that you can really observe, for then the mind is sensitive to extraordinary beauty; and perhaps here is a clue to our problem of freedom.

How can one have this creative joy of living, be expansive in one`s feeling, wide in one`s thinking, and yet be precise, clear, and orderly in one`s life? I think most of us are not like that because we never feel anything intensely; we never give our hearts and minds to anything completely. I remember watching two red squirrels, with long bushy tails and lovely fur, chase each other up and down a tall tree for about ten minutes without stopping-just for the joy of living. But you and I cannot know that joy if we do not feel things deeply, if there is no passion in our lives-passion, not for doing good or bringing about some reform, but passion in the sense of feeling things very strongly; and we can have that vital passion only when there is a total revolution in our thinking, in our whole being.

Have you ever wondered why it is that as people grow older they seem to lose all joy in life? At present most of you who are young are fairly happy; you have your little problems, there are examinations to worry about, but in spite of these troubles there is in your life a certain joy, and is there not? There is a spontaneous, easy acceptance of life, a looking at things lightly and happily. And why is it that as we grow older we seem to lose that joyous intimation of something beyond, something of greater significance? Why do so many of us, as we grow into so-called maturity, become dull, insensitive to joy, to beauty, to the open skies and the marvelous earth?

... Jiddu Krishnamuthi

Here is a link to NY times article that talked about ethics and religion?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?em&ex=1175227200&en=69a6eff56315d583&ei=5070

zeemax miaN,

While you are pointificating values versus attitudes … do enlighten us on “Islamic values” of stoning an adulterer to death and executing an apostate – cornerstones of your ullema’s shariah.

And your cousin Urstruly has a problem with pornography. What world are you guys living in ...?

bulleya#141:

``The whole western system is based on the concept of individual rights of a person, i.e protecting the minority against the majority``

This is not my understanding. On the contrary, the whole system is a balancing of individual versus communal/societal rights which reflects a society`s preference at any particular time. I am not allowed to smoke marijuana today in Canada because the society does not want to cultivate a tolerance of that drug, even though my smoking it wont harm anyone. I am not even allowed to end my miserable life if I wanted to because the society does not want to encourage this behaviour. All this could change, as has happened in some other countries. This is the essence of the sovereignty of the people. BTW I do believe that Anglo-Saxon societies have tilted the balance too far in favour of individuals, but as long as the majority does not agree with me, all I can do is try to influence the majority why I think what I think and hopefully, over a period of time, a majority will start thinking in the same way.

``You are, infact, confusing two items. You are looking at secularism as a method of government.``

No, I do not think of secularism as a method of government. Democracy is. A democratic government can decide to have a non-secular laws, as is indeed the case of several Muslim countries, including Pakistan, which have democratically decided to let religion be the ultimate arbiter of their laws. Similarly, dictatorships can be secular as was the case in several communist dictatorships, Saddam`s Iraq and Turkey.

#148 by sattar2

... do enlighten us on “Islamic values” of stoning an adulterer to death ..

Please quote the ayat of Quran where it says this.

zeemax (re #150)

Ask your ullema, and not me. Or you could simply ask brother Urstruly here ...

When Quran contradicts ullema, they shift the discussion to ahadith. When ahadith are shown to contradict them, they cite consensus among scholars to support their views. It`s sorta like blind leading the blind.

Similarly, Quran vests no authority in anyone to declare another non-Muslim either (ahem, ahem). Do you still want to discuss Quran ... or have you had enough?

Referring to #41 by subhashjoshi...Unfortunately what he quoted is ABSOLUTELY wrong...In Quran Chapter 9, verse 11:(this is the general way of reading 9:11)
``But if they repent, perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât) and give Zakât, then they are your brethren in religion. (In this way) We explain the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) in detail for a people who know.``
But if you take it otherwise i.e., Chapter 11, verse 9 then its like:
``And if We give man a taste of Mercy from Us, and then withdraw it from him, verily! He is despairing, ungrateful.``
Source: http://muttaqun.com/quran/e/
NFP, your article left a bad taste in my mouth.

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.

anil ji

As you know, on one hand institutions are absolutely necessary to make life possible and get any work done in any area. Institutions are our great enablers.

On the other hand, institutions can and regularly do lead to all kinds of troubles, as you mentioned.

So, we are back to relying on the ancient wisdom - that wisdom begins with the attainment of vivek - the ability to recognize distinctions across situations and offer appropriate responses to varying situations.

Unfortunately, these days it is hard to convince people that just because things look the same they are not necessarily the same, and that ignoring of distinctions helps nobody.

So good religion, bad religion - its all the same. All bad for (Indian) communists, all good for religionists the world over. How do we get people to the idea that religions could differ, and within every religion there could be good and bad (institutionalized) elements?

Cricket, which was a gentlemanly sport having become a dirty show-biz profession mostly of the scum of the society, at least so far as the Pakies are concerned, why don`t they avoid at least to Talibanize it by showing repulsive faces with unkempt beards.

Nadeem lets out and vents out the anger yet again on Tableeghis. Why not grind Naseem Ashraf who came and exit the scene without a blotch?

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?

Kaptain bahi nice idea
i think we must teach them lesson and tell them how much we love cricket ,so decide the venue and we need some volunteers some body-builders some phaddy baaz and ` mela` party ,and one thing pans will be served after this .
Chowk Sisters can join us aswell esp. ZahraJ ,Sadia Rizwan n Nembu baji
P.S:`
Vote against Inzi . Support KAPTAIN .


PapuPanwari biggest chamcha of Nfp.

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