Inzi Post-Bob: An Interview

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: # 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)

Re #113 by bulleya on March 27, 2007 12:47pm PT
``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. ``

Are you as dumb and simple as you write? What you see is what you get? (WYSWYG)
Why do you simplify everything to your level of understanding and make a fool
of yourself? Why dont you ever think that there maybe more to this world
than your puny mind can grasp. About gay issue being socially ethical or
not you can easily see both the view points. Some peope would think of
traditional marriage as an institution providing stable, secure environment for the future
generationas and consider it sacrosanct and anything affecting it as socailly
unethical just like any other crime that can disrupt socail fabric. Are you too
into yourself that you can see beyond your nose?

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.

``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: # 116

I think you were not paying attention to what I wrote. I wrote that values are constant. They never change. What changes is our behavior as an individual and culture as a society. Value and culture are two different entities. When an individual or society deviates from a value; the value remains as it is, it is our behaviour towards that value that changes. For example, the ethical value of sodomy remains unchanged in Islam even if the whole Muslim society engages in that act.

On the other hand, an atheist society since have no moral values of their own, they take whatever their current cultural practices as their values. So in an atheist or secular society if today child pornography is frowned upon, tomorrow no one will even care. And in that society no one would ever give a second thought that they are actually doing something wrong. because everybody is doing that. It becaomes a new cultural practice.

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.

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

Urstruly:

Maybe neither of us seems to be paying attention to what the other is saying.

The point I was making was that the people had values long before religions, unless one takes the position that Hazrat Adam was the first prophet and he brought all these values with him. And if one does take the position that Hazrat Adam was the first prophet, then one has to accept the fact that, at that time the values included marrying one`s offspring and/or sibling, which changed over time.

The secular position would be that man evolved laws of social living as he evolved socially. Organized religions and their leaders mostly took the existing laws and gave them a religious seal of approval. Let me give an example from the subcontinent. Secular scholars believe that the inhabitants of the subcontinent were at one time great beef-eaters, so much so that the cattle-based agrarian economy was severly threatened as people foresaw an extinction of animals necessary for their economic survival. They than made it a taboo to kill cows and eat beef, which was later incorporated as a religious tenet of the people.

Urstruly,

You’ve been hanging around losers too long.

Recently, on another board you are criticizing “western propaganda”. And here you are engaging in propaganda against Ahmadis. What goes around comes around. No?

I have often asked you to validate your wild claims against Ahmadis. Only once did you cite your source, which turned out to be people you had talked to!!!

Like I said, you have hanging around losers too long. And it has rubbed off on you … that’s all.

pathetic

Urstruly: #111 While I realize you are a busy man, I hope you will pay your valuable attention to that measly little post I wrote suggesting you...horrors!!...look at the world through your own eyes, not rely on what other people tell you it is about.

So, again: How many atheists do you know? And how do you know of that their morals dont match your own high standards?

Also, there is that little matter of the catholic priests who were caught with their pants....I mean morals...down. And and then there was your own article salivating ...er...discussing...something about women`s foot, complete with a picture of a foot. I assume one would need to memorize Bokhari or the Bible in order to explain these strange things that our lying eyes show us and which run totally counter to what you so assuredly tell us in your post.

Dost Mittar: I think what you are saying is that values are driven by social need. Thus, your example of the beef prohibition in hinduism being driven by the social need to maintain herds of cattle. Indeed, chinese religions are far more focussed on social relations (respect for elders and so forth) than infernal/blissful visions of the next world. Similarly, it is clear that things like physical courage are so highly valued in human society because of the need for security.

This brings me back to the point I keep repeating: the importance of seeing things the way they are (not the way we would like to believe they are) and of using one`s common sense. A moral (or normative) framework built on this solid foundation would then require only keeping in mind the following phrase: treat others as you would have them treat you (this phrase is of course stated more elegantly and completely in Immanuel Kant`s Categorical Imperitive, but I think this simpler phrase is good enough). To relate this to the Quran, having seen that this moral framework is in fact supported quite clearly in the Quran.

But as should be clear from this discussion - one need not be a muslim to apply this normative framework...and thus meet the high moral standards that urstruly expects of everyone. :-)

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........

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.

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.