God is a Metaphor

Re: # 5,

This is a poem by alberto caeiro/fernando pessoa.

Samar

I always have abhored the concept of religion, inspite of my fanatically religious upbringing.

Some questions continue to intrigue me :

Why is that we continue to brainwash our children, that too systematically, into believing in God, whether we may or may not believe in it ourselves?

How is it that even if we `grew up` enough to stop believing in ghosts, we do trust in God?

Why is that the western countries, supposedly `pure and godless`, continues to finance conversions in poorer countries like Africa and India?

How do we trust in religion, (which claims to be pro-peace) when it has been proven time and again to be more violent than any political organisation? (whether or not the church disowns Hitler)

When lies told for the sake of religion are so blatant, ( Mother Therasas miracles for eg.,), we still continue to trust in the church`s miracles?

How could we end up in this believing mess?

Have we lost our sense of rationality, or has it been robbed from us?

Prathab, it`s a matter of faith. Even non-believers get into situations that warrant them praying for miracles sometimes.

People fight, negotiate, form ideological groupings for one reason or another. If not for god then for race, if not for race then for culture, if not for culture then for money, if not for money then for women; or something else. That`s in our blood. It`s like an animal instinct. May be that`s what it means to be a human afteral.

As for belief in god, god may be a metaphor for imaginary or material things around us but it`s also true that until we uncover all the secrets of universe we will always attribute the unknowns to the god or some divine power.

Dr. Sohail
Another good contribution. You are right in saying that its pointless when an atheist and a believer argue against or in favor of God. To me statements like these are meaningless, for which there is no way of proving either right or wrong. This is the view held by the school of logical positivists, like A.J.Ayer and to a large extent by Russell as well.
Obviously one cannot apply the ``theory of correspondence`` to verify the existence of God. Even the ``theory of coherence`` cannot help us understand the concept of a personal God. Science fails us as well for there is no way of knowing, what happened before the singularity as all know laws of physics breaks down.

In spite of all the above discussed problems, I think an atheist and a believer are quite similar as neither can come up with a way to verify there respective positions. Therefore I think the only reasonable alternative is being as agnostic and keep searching for the truth
Regards

Brampton. Canada

God, metaphor or not, has been the focus of attention of mankind since ancient times. The more objectively one thinks about God, the more he starts believing that it indeed is a metaphor created by human imagination.

The center-piece in Newsweek (April 9, 2007) is about God. It includes a piece captioned “The God Debate” between the Christian pastor Rick Warren and the atheist Sam Harris who is the author of “The End of Faith.”

Homer wrote, “All men need God,” (ca 800BC). And Plato wrote, “A certain portion of mankind do not believe at all in the existence of gods,” (ca 400BC). We have Homers and Platos in our societies but thank God (pun intended) no one is put to death for blasphemy these days. In Pakistan and in some other Muslim countries, some blasphemers were sentenced to death but the sentence was not carried out on any case.

To a question from the mediator, Warren replied, “If you’re asking me do I believe in evolution, the answer is no, I don’t. I believe that God, at a moment, created man. I do believe Genesis is literal, but I do also know metaphorical terms are used.” He also said, “..there are clues to God. I talk to God everyday. He talks to me.” Warren however did not specify if this dialogue between him and Him is literal or metaphorical. Does God speak to him in English?

There will always be believers and non-believers. The important thing is that they should be able to converse with each other peacefully.

Going by our recent history, it appears that our religious beliefs will give way to and accommodate our scientific discoveries. The number of Galileos will increase with time.

Mohammad Gill

Sohail:

Essentially, people find it difficult to deal with uncertainty. Much more difficult is the issue of unawareness. Bayesians have dealt with uncertainty in a way that most people will be uncomfortable with. For example, subjective probabilities are defined in a state space which is KNOWN. Even when probabilities are replaced with non additive measures, the state space is KNOWN. And this is the best that mainstream mathematics has been able to do (all these works are based on the foundations developed by Kolmogorov). My point is that uncertainty and unawareness as people perceive them is difficult to model in mainstream logical systems. So the gap, if you allow me to use the word, is usually filled in by beliefs which transcend logic. These beliefs could be those of a Believer, atheiest or an agnostic. Since these beliefs have to be formulated they could indeed be based on languages. And languages, as far as I know, are not confined to the bounds imposed by logic. Thus, I agree with you. However, I disagree that these and only these beliefs drive people to war and violence. Without perceived economic gains there would be few wars. But many would disagree with me. And it is from this set of people that the fodder of war is drawn, often in the name of some of the BELIEFS that I talked about earlier.

Re: # 6

Zee:

Though your question is directed to Sohail, do let me hypothesize that non-endogamous groups evolved at the expense of endogamous groups. So it may have had very little to do with religion. Moreover, following Sohails thesis, some people realized this and codified it in their religions.

Re: # 6

Zeemaz your arguement is patently absurd. As a physician I can assure you that the societies where incestous marital bonds are most rampant and the genetic consequences most deleterious are in Islamic societies. Here is a link on consanguinity:

http://www.parapundit.com/archives/003130.html

The preponderance of first cousin marriages in the Muslim world is astonishing. I know you might think this is vastly different from this brother and sister but you fail to understand the these first cousins are often themselves the product of first cousin marriages. It doesn`t take a scientific genius to figure out that after a 2-3 generations it is akin to marrying your brother or sister which is precisely what happens in many Muslims societies. The phenomenally higher rate of recessive inherited disorders among such communities is well documented. Recently the British Health Minister appealed to the Pakistani community in England who comprise 3.4% of all births but ~30% of all inherited recessive disorders to basically stop marrying their relatives. Saudi Arabia is a goldmine for pathologists for the same reason. What has not been well studied is the effect of all this inbreeding on intelligence but I can assure you it has been speculated although not publicly argued the the often poorer academic performance of Muslim communities compared to other Asian and Europeans might be attributed to this. In spite of ample evidence showcasing the genetic problems associated with consaguinous marriages there is little public advocacy for reform in Muslim communities. Partly this stems from the fact that it is sanctioned in the Quran. I wonder if you are equally disturbed by this phenomena which is real, prevalent and not one anecdotal case from Germany. What you featured is not the ``norm`` what I am describing is.

Hi Dr. Sohail,
I loved this essay. I disagree with one thing you said. You mentioned that Hazrat Mohommad was using metaphors and people took those things literally. In my opinion, he was being literal. I think when he spoke of fire and maidens in heaven these were not metaphors. Even back then the Arabs were into excellent poetry and literature. So I think they could make the distinction between metaphors and literal claims. People dont die for metaphorical statements. They die to gain actual eatable rewards like honey and grapes and things they can feel like cool breezes and gorgous companions. But I whole heartedly agree with you that to fall for such claims is not the act of a bright man.

God is NOT a metaphor.

But, we can only talk about God metaphorically. We think of God as a Supreme Being - a being with extreme supernatural powers. That supreme being is a metaphor (or a symbol).
But beyond the symbol there is a Reality that is being pointed to by the symbol. That `God beyond God` is not a metaphor.
A person who takes the symbol literally would think that there is actually a person with God-like powers in some corner of the sky. That would be a mistake. But you are making the opposite mistake - denying the reality behind (or beyond) the metaphor.

As Ghalib said,
Parey Sarhad-e-Idrak say hai apna masjood
Qiblay ko ahl-e-nazar Qibla-numa kehtay hain

#14

I`m talking about real brother and sister from the same mother and father, not cousins. Cousins is not incestuous.

#13 by GT,

See my post below. I`m not talking about Endogamy. Endogamy is about marrying within a social group, like Parsis, or Ismailis. No problem with that. I`m talking about marrying your own sister here. According to wikipedia, T``he caste-system of India is based on an order of (mostly) endogamous groups.``

This question is highly disturbing for secularists, not me as another interactor has alleged. I know it is wrong. Why it is so disturbing to secularists is that if moral values are determined by evolving societies, and not by religion, as has been the case in legitimization of same-sex marriage in order to preserve human rights and liberties of a lifestyle choice in a practice which is socially acceptable, then by the same token why outlaw brother/sister marriage? After all, if this German couple wins the case (which I think they will because they`re fighting it on the same grounds as same-sex marriage), then it will become socially acceptable.

My question to Dr. Sohail is whether he supports the couple`s struggle? If he does, why? If he doesn`t, why not?

I`m awaiting an answer.

Re: # 17

Actually first cousins who are raised together like brother and sister and are themselves progeny of first cousin marriages are just as incestous to most people in the world and extremely distrubing. Just because YOU are ok with it and your culture/religion sanctions it doesn`t mean its is healthy or rational or desirable for societies to choose marraige partners solely from their immediate family members.

Dear Mohammad Gill....choicest greetings! Its been a while since we communicated. I hope you are faring well.

You are probably not aware that there is as yet an unresolved and quite vicious death threat against me and the charge is none other than blasphemy. Furthermore, people are slaughtered by fanatics almost daily in countries like Iraq and Pakistan if they are perceived as following the ``wrong`` brand of Islam.

Any way, that`s not why I am writing. I read Sohail`s article with interest. The notion or belief in God however, is not going away because of the fear-mongerring around the concept. Reducing God to a metaphor in my opinion will not serve the purpose, though it may defintely convince a few enlightened souls! What God might do to people in a hearafter is what drives these fears. Maybe Sohail shoud write another article to address some of these irrational fears.

#18 zeemax, I read somewhere about this german couple that most of their children were born with special needs and sick. even if half of children or even 25% of children from such relationships are born retarded or sick, society does not need religion to decide that it is not good practice. any relationship that produces such a large pecentage of sick offspring will get outcasted, outlawed or become a social stigma. Its is commonsense.

BTW there was an 1 hour 20/20 show on this subject few weeks ago. there was a mother who had given up his son at birth and met him after 20 years or so when he was grown up. she was sexually attracted to her. other cases were similar to this German case. The conclusion was that close relations when grown up away from each other and not meeting for years, can feel a sexual attraction to each otherwhen they finally meet and live with each other.....particularly when they don`t have any other close relations alive.

#21 by dullabhatti,

Yeah yeah ok. I wonder why so many people are answering on Dr. Sohail`s behalf. Why doesn`t he answer it himself? Too tough a question?

Why so many `khwajey dey gwah duddoo`?

Yes, it is a very tough question. But Dr. Sohail just won an award, didn`t he? So he should be able to answer it convincingly.

#20 by farzanahassan

Its been a while since we communicated.

Sure. For an interactor who joined on the 9th April 2007, it`s been a while since you communicated with Mr. Gill. Right....

Another gillster nick? We can do without that.

chall yaar ohday ton sunn laiN jawaab...par toon mann`na phir vi nai.:) jatt wali aRhi.

If god ever ever turned out to be anything like the muslim allah..I will personally punch that bizzatch right in the mouth..

now that the obvious has been stated for Masadi and Peemax`s consumption, you do bring an interesting point dr. Sahib...that is the inability for adults to get over Allah ala the tooth fairy. I think the reason is that tooth fairy was a loving entity..she left a dollar for each tooth and her governance over her domain was universally applied. She rules with love. allah on the otherhand rules with fear and exclusion. ``Verily those that equate him with monkeys should be beheaded`` etc etc... If allah ever stopped being a petulant little biyatch, maybe she would get the same love from all that the tooth fairy gets.

Re: # 22
dear zeemax....you like winning arguments and i do not mind losing.

if i have nothing important to say i act on my grandmother`s advice

ik chup tay sau sukh

especially when other interaters have answered your question more eloquently

than i can answer. so sorry to disappoint you

all the best in your search for truth..... sincerely sohail

Dr. Sohail -

So, God is a metaphor for what ?

Re: # 27

dear zahraj...God is a metaphor for human fears and desires and dreams....projected on to

self created image of unknown mystery ....sincerely sohail

Over here, I find ourselves confined in the mind space. What about the contact of that mind with the heart to create a connection ? It seems that we are living on a planet where we only function based on our mind`s leanings. I did not say that I disagree with that direction, but I am curious to learn why our hearts are disengaged in the process.

Re: # 29

dear zahraj...i am a student of human psychology. it is my impression that children are

conditioned by their families and schools and communities and are asked to have blind faith

in certain traditions. as adults they have the choice to question those beliefs. unfortunately

most people not only accept the faith of their parents but also die on those faiths. i think

time has come for people to question those ideologies and let their own hearts and minds

guide them based on their own observations and experiences and reasoning rather than

blindly following their ancestors. that is the beginning of enlightenment and wisdom. such

wisdom not only leads to freedom of religion but also freedom from religion.....

sincerely sohail

Re: # 30

Dr. Sohail - Is it proven that those who follow and die following their ancestors` religion or leanings are less content than those who find their own path?

Finding one`s own path is a huge undertaking in itself. Requires a lot of committment and drive. It`s not an easy investment for many worldly beings.

{i think time has come for people to question those ideologies and let their own hearts and minds guide them based on their own observations and experiences and reasoning rather than blindly following their ancestors.}

I partially agree with you. I have a very sweet old friend who did explore his own religion. He was raised by a Muslim father and a Christian mother. He came across a woman during his university years in California and started visiting her church. He felt more at peace in the church than what he was taught while growing up. He decided to change his path from one religion to another. He did not give up on the concept of God, but he was looking for peace and serenity that he expected religion to provide to his soul. He has three kids now. He is a very loving father, a kind man and a good husband. In this case, his exploratory journey steered him from one religion to another. He was still searching for the God he could connect with. His father was very upset with him for years, but being the fact that he was the only son and they lived on different continents he could not completely write his son off. My point is that one`s search may bring one back to God. I respect the journey since it`s a very personal thing, but I do not necessarily agree that it`s our fear or dream or desire that has created an illusion -- God. I believe it is in us to either accept the presence of a higher being or deny it. I am not a ritualistic being from any angle. I strongly believe in being the sponge to let the spirit soak in and soul embrace the concept. Keeping that in mind, I am not in concurrence with the concept of illusion. I am not trying to conduct a literal interpretation of a ``metaphorical`` concept. You may have referred to illusion in a methaphoric sense.

You have discussed the miracles of Jesus and Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). I am surprised you did not include Moses and Solomon (my favorites). King Solomon had everything in life one could ever imagine, desire and pray for. He never denied the presence of a supreme being. In fact, some of the stories from his times can easily make one fall in love with myths, folk tales, human goodness, blessed hearts, wisdom, and character.

The concept of God is a very personal thing. I agree that as we mature and evolve that concept has a different significance for each of us on an individual level. I am not sure if it`s a blonde moment or I guess I have not yet been there where parallels are easily drawn between a concept and an illusion of this level.

Re: # 27

Of the Sun:
Helios (Greco-Roman)
Mithras (Roman)
Ra (Egyptian)
Amaterasu (Japan)
Tonatiuh (Aztec)
et al.

Of the Moon:
Diana (Greco-Roman)
Artemis (Greek)
Coyolxauhqui (Aztec)
Khons (Egyptian)
Ix Chel (Maya)
Sin/Nanna (Sumerian)
et al.

Of Thunder:
Thor (Norse)
Raiden (Japanese)
Jupiter (Roman)
et al.

Of Kings or Rulers:
Alexander the Great (Greek)
Augustus Caesar (Roman)
Jehovah (Hebrew) ``our Elohim, King of the Universe``
Jesus (Greek) ``King of Kings``
Allah (Arabian) ``Malik (King)``
Stalin (Russian) ``Red God``
Kim Il-sung (Korean) ``In place of a god, Juche substitutes Kim Il Sung, who`s called North Korea`s ``Eternal President``...``
et al.

Are you sorry that you asked??

#22 Zee

I think Dr Sohail is not answering because he hasnt come back to read the inter act yet. I am looking forward to his comment/reply, because I think it will be most entertainting. In the meanwhile.... may I say a word.

Why do all answers to the issue of incest relate to marriage and reproduction ? Can we simplify please ? Is there anything wrong with the sexual act itself ?.... assuming that no offsprings are produced and no disease is transmitted ?? As for myself, while I do not feel attracted to any of my brothers/sisters or parents etc (sexually) I dont have a problem with others having that attraction and consumating it......(i am not touching other issues, like free consent, adulthood since i think they remain constant whether its incest or not....but i am assuming we are talking about consenting adults).

Also, marriage between maternal cousins amongst muslims is ok...not so in certain christian sects... so even between religions this incest thing doesnt look like its of universal application....or agreement....

oh sorry... i didnt notice. he (dr sohail) has indeed come bacak and chosen not to answer. what a shame !

#26 by drsohail,

...especially when other interaters have answered your question more eloquently...

Hehe ... Dr. Sahib you`re a slippery fish. Which interactors have answered my question?

My question can only be answered in a simple yes or no. No further verbosity required.

Are you willing to answer it? Or guide me to the `other` interactor who has answered it?

wasif2,

Hehe .. what did you expect?

.... #35 ....

Just a small clarification in case you start off on the wrong track:

The German brother/sister couple is fighting for the right to a sexual relationship and NOT the right to have children from that sexual relationship.

Now please respond.

Thanks.

drsohail,

Any comments on post #16?

Re: # 38

dear khurrum....i enjoy reading your responses but i do not want to get into intellectual

debate. we agree on most things and disagree on some. i respect people`s truth based on

their own experiences and reasoning. some truths are subjective while others are objective

and can be experienced by others. i have not seen or experienced God. I had accepted him

as a blind faith. later on i realized that such blind faith was shared by millions of other

religious people. now i read holy books as part of the mythology and folklore. i was

fascinated when i read old testament and realized that how many stories of quran and old

testament were the same as they were all part of middle eastern mythology. when i

translated world folktales in urdu i saw the similarities in different cultures and realized

that before sciece, psychology and philosophy became popular people followed their

religious traditions and did not question or criticize as it was prohibited in their culture. i am

aware that you have come to different conclusions than mine. i am sharing my ideas and

my philosophy. some might agree with me, some might disagree and for some it might be

an inspiration to explore further. i am not here to convert anyone. i am here to share.

thank you once again for your keen interest in the article and a thoughtful response. my

main point is that we can read holy books as wisdom literature and not make them into

cook books and make laws in a theocratic state and then persecute others who do not

agree with our literal interpretations. people have the right to believe in whatever they wish

as long as they do not impose on others. for me God is a metaphor, if you have

experienced HIM / HER / It i would love to hear your encounters with GOD...sincerely sohail

Re: # 37

Zee:

I am a bit confused here. These guys are asking the courts for the RIGHT to have a sexual relationship? I never thought that you need the court`s permission to have sex! Now `marriage` could be a different matter as one may want to get it `certified` for reasons pertaining to taxes, childrens` education, punishments in the case of `infidelity`, bequests etc.

Re: # 32

Thank you for sharing a list of your gods. I think you misunderstood my question. It was in reference to the writer`s perspective. The writer has clarified that for me. No worries :)

#40 by GT ,

No no. They were married and registered as husband and wife. Then the Marriage Registry Clerk found out they were actually brother/sister and canceled their marriage license, due to anti-incest laws. Now they`re fighting to get that back to maintain a licit sexual relationship.

But Dr. Sohail will never respond. He doesn`t have an answer and everyone knows it ... :)

Re: # 37

////////////
#37 by zeemax on April 10, 2007 5:33am PT
.... #35 ....

Just a small clarification in case you start off on the wrong track:

The German brother/sister couple is fighting for the right to a sexual relationship and NOT the right to have children from that sexual relationship.

Now please respond.

Thanks.
////////////


I posted this question long back on some other board. Pl do respond Zeemax.

Allah/Jehovah/Jesus created this world and gave life to Adam and Eve. How they multiplied?? Any idea????

The ONLY plausible combinations are:

Adam`s children haveing `it` with with their parents OR the siblings having `it` among themselves.

Since u are not a Ganga Ram but descendent of a true Muslim u must answer as to how the mankind multiplied to over 6 billion people?

P.S: Hindu mythology is far behind! Yama and Yami (siblings) had incestious relation.

My opinion on Gemrany`s odd `couple`:

The case u r asking came into news becoz, it`s not a normal incident. Germany doesnt allow such relations by law.

This world is full of surprises. There are people with three hands, 11 fingers (Hritik Roshan), two heads & there are people who had no head i.e You.

#43 by Folio

... how the mankind multiplied to over 6 billion people? ...

I don`t know. Do you know? If you do, and your obvious conclusion is that it must be through incest, then you support the couple. Right? But then, I thought you just said in your previous post that incest (even cousin marriage) results in retards. So by the same token, the entire six billion population must be all retards. No?

I think it`s better if you let Dr. Sohail answer the question. This question is not in your league (neither is it in his, but never mind). I`m just having fun ...... :~)

Re: # 44

Dr. Sohail is a learned man who makes valuable contributions to his community. He does not have time to interact with dimbulbs who have too much time on his hands and and is just biding his time on Earth till he goes to Jannat and frolicks with 72 virgins. In the meantime he must rail against sexual improrieties.

Paul Tillich from Systematic Theology,

``projection always is projection on something--a wall, a screen, another being, another realm.... The realm against which the divine images are projected is not itself a projection. It is the experienced ultimacy of being and meaning. It is the realm of ultimate concern``

Re: # 44

dear zeemax....you spelled it out....`i am just having fun`....you are insisting for a response.

what would i do if i find out that someone who is an adult is having sex with a sibling or a

parent. what would you do? put them in jail. stone them to death. penalize them and give

them 100 lashes.

for me sex is a private matter between two consenting adults. i am not a judge. nor a qazi.

i do not represent law nor religion. i follow my own ethics and my conscience and let others

follow their own conscience. what that man and woman do is their business. i do not make

it mine. you seem to be interested in their sex life. and now insisting that i give a verdict

and a fatwa. what you are trying to prove is that secular humanists and atheists are

immoral people and only religious people are moral people. as a psychotherapist i know

that religion and ideology are poor reflections of personality and behaviour. religious

people as well as atheists can be moral or immoral people. i respect people who have

character and are sincere to their philosophy.

dear zeemax....you keep on insisting to get an answer from me so that you can have fun. i

hope you are happy now. i am amused by your persistence...sincerely sohail

ps....now you tell me what would you do with this couple who had incest?

It`s jsut a matter of time before liberal democracies, taking the cue from South Asian societies, will legalize not only marriage between first cousins, disgusting as that seems to 95 percent of Westerners today, but also between siblings, which is disgusting to 99% today.

And ten years from now that will raise only as many eye-brows as gay unions and polygamy-in-Pakistan do today.

Learn to live with it like mature adults now!

Dr Sohail,

Zeemax would probably suggest appropriate punishment would be stoning of them. He is a good Muslim and afterwords will enjoy deflowering his 72 virgins.


Dear Zeemax,

Just a reminder raping a kafir or slave girl is A-okay!

God is a metador (that old wagon) that everyone wants to ride and take advantage of.

if Adam and Eve story is to be believed, one of adam`s sons screwed one of his sisters ....so this whole humanity is nothing but paennchodaN da kabila.

I feel that the answer to our sexual desires is answered in Darwin’s Natural (sexual) Selection. Our bodies are survival machines for our genes. In order for the genes to continue they have to move out of the host machine and a build a new one which is where sex comes into it. So sex is really a process for our genes to continue like that has in all of us. For those of us reading this our gene string ha never been broken from the being of life on this planet. Now that said there really has never been a rule as to what age sex should be permitted but incest yes since inter breeding has shown us the problems which evolve. Even most plants avoid it. Now society has religion and laws have created guidelines for us to live by and follow in order to build a functional society. We see in today’s world a clash of such laws and beliefs as to what the right age is and who with etc. Today societies put more pressure on humans which requires education and maturity that it makes sense to wait to later years for having children. In times when all there was to do was farm to survive for example maturity seemed to come at a younger age it seemed. Now with the need for better education and more wealth times adjust and conflict surfaces. Today with hormones in foods we eat are just one explanation for earlier development in children and attraction to the opposite sex can be notice in a draw to younger people. It is wrong naturally wrong to find a young person under the age of 16 attractive? not at all but in our society we have to understand the consequences of our actions and respect and act according to what is right for the society we live in.

#52 truemind,
The bulk of the society`s (admittedly confused, shifting-rationale) opposition to intergenerational sex and even to sex between minors, is rooted at least ostensibly in concern for the protection of minors, who are deemed incapable of making reasonable and safe decisions the pleasurable use of their bodies.

The opposition, as it may be, to sibling sexual relationships is not characterized by similar concerns. The opposition is plainly irrational, and biology is only disingenuously invoked. See, if biological imperative, as understood, were to be the basis of our `body-politic`, homosexuality would have remained illegal for much longer than it did. After all, from a strictly biological standpoint (not anthropological, though) homosexualty would appear to offer no benefit to the survival of the species.

The fact is biology is not God anymore.

Dr. Sohail, why are you even replying to zeemax - lol. Please read his other posts and you will know what and who he really is.

Re: # 44

Zee,

I am not saying that all the 6 bio people are having it in a wrong way. If ur religious text didnt give a clear answer abt the multiplication of mankind from time of the first couple then make ur own conclusions.

Inbreeding is common in ancient times. Ur own ancestors (since u r not a descendent of Ganga Ram) i.e arabs did inbreed a lot. The literature of Hindu mytholgy didnt give detailed record of any incestous relations except that of the Yama and Yami (in the previous post I meant to say that Hindu religion is not far behind; `not` is missed in that post). Even in Old Testament there`s a ref to a daughter giving wine to her father and sleeping with him.

We in 21st century are all past those events....German couple is an exception. Pl treat that incident as an exception.

P.S: Instead of having fun with learned people here, why dont u go to Happy Valley, Stanley Village, Lantau Island or Macau?

#45 by eastmwest,

Screwing your own sister is a sexual impropriety?

#47 by drsohail,

...for me sex is a private matter between two consenting adults...i am not a judge. nor a qazi. i do not represent law nor religion. i follow my own ethics and my conscience and let others follow their own conscience.

Thanks. I have my answer. So for you sex is a private matter in between two consenting adults even if they`re brother/sister, and I assume you would legalize it since you`re neither a judge nor a qazi nor do you not represent any law. So you support the brother/sister in their fight to have a licit sexual relationship because they`re following their own conscience.

Very good. You`ve been honest and I salute you for that.

ps....now you tell me what would you do with this couple who had incest?

It`s kind of strange you ask what I would do, after having said you do not represent any law nor religion and you follow your own ethics and your conscience. I would do the same.

So then we agree after all!

As to what I would exactly do, I would kick their butts for destroying the entire institution of family and marriage and kids to raise in a social set-up, and not in a set-up of monkeys and hyenas in a jungle. Wasn`t it you who had said that humans have `evolved`?

But I have my answer, and I thank you again for that. Thankfully, it wasn`t as esoteric as I had feared :)

:~)

Re: # 56

To most people yes. But I am certain you have done worse. Just a hunch. First to always cast stones, judge others etc...

Besides to you screwing your sister should be no big deal to you. You never answered my post about first cousin marriages across generations that results in sibling like marraiges. Alot of these first cousins grow up like brother and sister and are genetically related like siblings. Yet because is is sanctioned in Islam it is okay. Make a family tree of it and show it to most people. They will want tp throw up. Besides isn`t it also okay for you to marry your niece? Most people/cultures globally would find that abhorrent but again coz its santioned by Islam it is okay for you. What`s you next beef? Lemme guess Pedophilia? Please we don`t have to go there do we...

#55 by Folio

Pl treat that incident as an exception.

:) Same sex marriage began as an exception too. Now it is a socially accepted norm. This case is in the highest court in Germany. This will be a norm too in due course. Will you be happy with it?

I suppose the more sisters one has, the more they will support it ... all in the family ... you know .. :)

Re: # 57

So you would kick their butts huh? Most people would lynch a fiftysomething guy having sex or screwing a nine year old but it sounds good to you.

What don`t you shut up with your hypocritical moralizing. Most socieites thinks a family is ONE man and ONE woman not one man and an assortment of women he sleeps with. Yuck! But it is totally normal to you.

Re: # 59

Too funny comeing form a guy who believes Allah approves of sex with multiple virgins in hte afterlife and a prophet who promises young boys as beautiful as pearls...

It never ceases to amaze me of how oblivious people like you are to normal family values.

Re #58,
``...Besides isn`t it also okay for you to marry your niece..``

Nope. That is not allowed.

Re #39, drsohail,
``...i do not want to get into intellectual debate...``

As you wish :-)

But, one last question,

``...some truths are subjective while others are objective ..``

Is your statement, ``God is a metaphor`` an objective truth or subjective one?

Thanks

Re: # 63

dear khurrum....i am impressed by your perceptions and enjoy your intelligence. to answer

your question honestly GOD IS A METAPHOR is my subjective truth. i also think that all

poems and stories and scriptures and folktales created by mystics and poets and prophets

were also their SUBJECTIVE TRUTHS.

as a poet and a writer all my truths are subjective truths. i asked you if you care to share

your encounter with GOD and then tell me whether it is a subjective or objective truth. i

will take it seriously even it is a subjective truth as i believe you are an honest person.

sincerely sohail

Some perspective on cousin marriage.

From http://www.members.aol.com/ruqaiyyah/articles/index.htm
Scroll on the left to find ``Some Thoughts on Cousin Marriage``
It`s a LOOONG article! Some excerpts,

``In fact, throughout history moderate inbreeding has always been the rule, and not the exception, for humans. Robin Fox, a professor of anthropology at Rutgers University, concluded that it was likely that some 80 percent of all marriages throughout history have been between second-cousins or closer.``

``Inbreeding is also commonplace in the natural world, and contrary to our expectations, some biologists argue that this can be a very good thing. It depends in part on the degree of inbreeding.``

``First-cousin marriage does not necessarily result in congenital defects. An argument can be made that marriages of first cousins descended from strong stock can actually produce exceptional children, and increase their strengths. A founding couple could pass on advantageous genes.``

``A team of scientists led by Robin L. Bennett, a genetic counsellor at the University of Washington and the President of the National Society of Genetic Counsellors, announced that cousin marriages are not significantly riskier than any other marriage. The study determined that children of first cousins did face about a 2 to 3 per cent higher risk of birth defects, and a little over 4 per cent greater risk of early death, than the population at large. But putting it another way, first-cousin marriages entail roughly the same increased risk of abnormality that a woman undertakes when she gives birth at 41 rather than at 30. Banning cousin-marriages therefore makes about as much sense, critics argue, as trying to ban childbearing by older women.``

``The consequences of inbreeding are unpredictable and depend largely on what biologists call the founder effect. If the founding couple pass on a large number of lethal recessives, as appears to have happened in Bradford, these recessives will spread and double up through intermarriage. But whereas it is true that marriage among close kin can increase the chances of pathological recessive genes meeting up in some unlucky individual with dire consequences, the problem is not that of cousin-marriage per se, but rather how many such genes are floating around in that particular family’s pool. If the pool is pretty clean, the likelihood of genetic defects resulting from cousin-marriage is low. If the founding couple hand down a comparatively healthy genome, their descendants could safely intermarry for generations - at least until small deleterious effects inevitably began to pile up and produce inbreeding depression, the long-term decline in the well-being of a family or a species.``

``Any danger can these days be minimized easily with genetic testing. Science is increasingly able to help people look at their own choices more objectively. Genetic and metabolic tests can now screen for about 100 recessive disorders``

``It would be good practice to have a blood test before marriage``

#65 khurram,

This is what I would call `bending over backwards` to be a religious appologist. I can tell you my first hand experience that about 1 in 4 children have died in my father`s family who live in a large haveli usually marrying internally. And I not taling about a sample of 4 kids but about 20 of them. They see all this happenning but religious endorsement is so strong that they keep doing it.

Also, it looks like your experience of god not being a dellusion begs some explanation. Would you bless us with some?

Daktar

As usual, you built up the logic systematically to reach the final cresendo. What you say makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Scripture & religion have proven to be quite a bit of nuisance when used by nit wits.

I wonder how those two brothers of Jama Hafsa would respond to your line of thinking?

Fatwa - behead - Murtid - suicide attack?

Poor Minister Nilofar who did a Paragliding jump has been fatwaad because an elderly person patted her!

I think the Hell is not yet to come - it is already here.

regards

NHK

nazarhayatkhan, malikjahanzeb

Wah, wah, two uncommon visitors blessed with uncommon, astute minds seen at the same board one after another. Only khalid sohail`s high-powered draw could make that happen :)

eastmwest #61

The promise and prospect of 72 houris waiting in Paradise, though a tad unfair to straight women and gay men, is in no way a inconsistent with a more prudish sex ethic for us while we`re earthboud. Islam recognizes, and rightly so, that for social stability, man cannot have his every wish fulfilled. Islam opposition to certain sex does not, like in Christianity, have an erotophobic basis. It is purely utilitarian: Sex is good; but not if it`s gonna upset the social apple cart.

That said, your exposing of Z`s hypocrisy in #60 is both valid and complete! Well done!!

mailk, re. #66
Would it be fairer to say that you`ve presented a case against extened-family set-ups as opposed to cousin-marriages?

Or are the two tied up in some way? Please explain if so.
Thanks.

#62 by khurram,

Since you have the proven ability to decipher Dr. Sohail`s complex thought process, which I don`t, could you kindly advise me if my following reading of #47 is correct?

1) ... for me sex is a private matter between two consenting adults.

It appears from the tone of this that Dr. Sohail is prepared to `condone` the practice but does not encourage it either as being fully natural.

2) ...what you are trying to prove is that secular humanists and atheists are immoral people and only religious people are moral people.

My question didn`t raise any issue of morality, but only of legality. However Dr. Sohail raises the morality question. Why? This is really confusing. To my mind the above statement asserts that secular humanists and atheists are as moral as religious people. But to meet that condition, wouldn`t it be necessary for both sets to regard brother/sister sexual relations as immoral? With the only difference being that the former group condones the practice while the latter group does not? Read together with (1) above, which reinforces this conclusion of the captioned statement, it would appear to be true.

But if the foregoing was true, then although it is clear that the religious people`s morality springs from scriptures, but it remains murky regarding from where the same morality of atheists/humanists comes from. But still, wouldn`t it be curious in that case that the both sets of moralities, irrespective of where these spring from, converge at this point?

Thanks in advance for your comments.

Dr. Sahib,

Glad to know there are other secular humanists in this world and particularly in this chowk community. Would love to read more of your stuff and share some of my own.

Re: # 72
dear zarrar....welcome to the creative dialogue ...you can send me your creations
welcome@drsohail.com
and can see my other creations on
www.drsohail.com
sincerely sohail

Re: # 65

Khurram I am afraid you are confusing two very different situations. Incidental first cousin marriage is not disastrous and the risk of genetic abnormality is minimally increased. What I am talking about is completely different. It is the preponderance of first cousin marriages over generations. The risk here is phenomenally higher for genetic disease. Pakistani`s acount for 3.4% of live births but 30% of recessive genetic disorders in Great Britain. As a physician it has baffled and disturbed me how even educated Muslims are not alarmed by this trend. Do you honestly think such a tendency has not had negative impact on intellectual faculties.This has not been adequately researched. Is it not possible that the poor academic performance of Pakistani students is affected by this? The article you quote is about the ``occasional`` intermarraige but likewise there a numerous jokes about the limited faculties of inbred people in the south of the US. Saudi Arabia is the most telling example. It has one the highest rate of birth defects in the world. The gov`t is not going to go on a public health campaign anytime soon. It is distressing for me as a physician that innocent children pay the ultimate price for this misguided mentality. Here is an article in the BBC:

risks of cousin marriage

By Justin Rowlatt
BBC Newsnight


Many people would find the idea of marrying a first cousin shocking, but such marriages are not unusual in some British communities.

CLICK HERE TO SEND US YOUR VIEWS ON THIS STORY



Watch the report
It is estimated that at least 55% of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins and the tradition is also common among some other South Asian communities and in some Middle Eastern countries.

But there is a problem: marrying someone who is themselves a close family member carries a risk for children - a risk that lies within the code of life; within our genes.

Communities that practice cousin marriage experience higher levels of some very rare but very serious illnesses - illnesses known as recessive genetic disorders.

Open debate

Now, one Labour MP is calling for an end to the practice. ``We have to stop this tradition of first cousin marriages,`` Keighley MP Ann Cryer tells Newsnight.

Family events are really nice because my in-laws and his are related

Neila Butt
Mrs Cryer believes an open debate on the subject is needed because - despite the risks - cousin marriage remains very popular.

Mrs Cryer`s constituency is in the Bradford area, where the rates of cousin marriage are well above the national average. It is estimated that three out of four marriages within Bradford`s Pakistani community are between first cousins.

The practice remains so popular because the community believes there are real benefits to marrying in the family. Many British Pakistanis celebrate cousin marriage because it is thought to generate more stable relationships.

Strong unions

Such unions are seen as strong, building as they do on already tight family networks.


``You have an understanding,`` explains Neila Butt, who married her first cousin, Farooq, nine years ago.

``Family events are really nice because my in-laws and his are related,`` she says.

``You have the same family history and when you talk about the old times either here or in Pakistan you know who you are talking about. It`s just a nicer emotional feel.``

But the statistics for recessive genetic illness in cousin marriages make sobering reading.

British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population - they account for just over 3% of all births but have just under a third of all British children with such illnesses.

Indeed, Birmingham Primary Care Trust estimates that one in ten of all children born to first cousins in the city either dies in infancy or goes on to develop serious disability as a result of a recessive genetic disorder.

Variant genes

Recessive genetic disorders are caused by variant genes. There are hundreds of different recessive genetic disorders, many associated with severe disability and sometimes early death, and each caused by a different variant gene.

My skin is really fragile, and can blister very easily with a slight knock or tear

Myra Ali
We all have two copies of every gene. If you inherit one variant gene you will not fall ill.

If, however, a child inherits a copy of the same variant gene from each of its parents it will develop one of these illnesses.

The variant genes that cause genetic illness tend to be very rare. In the general population the likelihood of a couple having the same variant gene is a hundred to one.

In cousin marriages, if one partner has a variant gene the risk that the other has it too is far higher - more like one in eight.

Myra Ali has a very rare recessive genetic condition, known as Epidermolisis Bulosa.

Her parents were first cousins. So were her grandparents.

``My skin is really fragile, and can blister very easily with a slight knock or tear,`` she says.

Myra has strong views about the practice of cousin marriage as a result. ``I`m against it, because there`s a high risk of illness occurring``, she says.

Denial

We all have to get involved in persuading people to adopt a different lifestyle

Ann Cryer MP
According to Ann Cryer MP, whose Keighley constituency has a large Pakistani population, much of the Pakistani community is in denial about the problem.

She tells Newsnight that she believes it is time for an open debate on the subject: ``As we address problems of smoking, drinking, obesity, we say it`s a public health issue, and therefore we all have to get involved with it in persuading people to adopt a different lifestyle``, she says.

``I think the same should be applied to this problem in the Asian community. They must adopt a different lifestyle. They must look outside the family for husbands and wives for their young people.``

Re: # 71
dear khurrum...congratulations for being asked to be the advocate for zeemax...smiles.....sohail

Re: # 65

Khurram, also it seems that the artcile you have quoted is from and Islamic website probably trying to justify this heinous practice. What I am quoting is actual facts on the incidence of birth defects. Anecdotally though I personally know a number of Pakistani families in Canada whose children have learning disabilities, development delays etc... whose parents are first cousins from a long line of intermarriages. These children are NOT counted at birth! I can also forward you educational testing from Britain that when controlled for socioeconomic status and parental education Pakistani children do the worst academically among other South Asians. I really want to understand how this can persist when it is universally accepted that most parents want the best for their child. Why is the the medical community of Pakistani doctors not more vocal about this? Although I do know several who are personally very opposed to this trend.

#75 by drsohail,

Dear Dr. Sohail,

I`m not asking Khurram to be my advocate, but only to clarify your position on the issue, since you tend to be very evasive when confronted with direct questions :)

In fact, asking Khurram to be my advocate would be disrespectful to his far superior intellect to mine.

Re #75 drsohail,
I thought I was being asked to be your advocate ;-)

Re: #66,
``They see all this happenning but religious endorsement is so strong that they keep doing it. ``

religious what? There is no religious mandate or even encouragement for cousin marriages.
It is just not outlawed. The article I referred to makes the point that an outright ban on cousin marriages per se is not necessary. Moderation and rational behaviour is required.

Re: #79

A common man usually trusts religion on questions he has less knowledge about. If I were an average religious guy, this is how I would think:

`If there is something really wrong with it, allah would have forbidded it already. Hence there is nothing wrong with it`.

I know the primary reason for cousin marriages is not religion per se but by all means, Islam fosters such an environment by limiting and discouraging intra-family interactions between males and females (the primary method for couples to know about each other) and creating a paranoia around this whole sex and honour thing. As a result, family marriages become the default and convinient choice.

Yes, I can`t find a hadis saying `marry thy cousins`, but you gotta take practical things into account..... makes any sense?

Re: # 70 PM

Speaking of my intentions, my case was indeed against cousin-marriages only. But since you reminded me of its ties with joint families living together, I have to admit that the later will have very hard time to sustain without the help of the former. This is my practical experience, again from my paternal family that an outsider girl is more likely to drag the husband out of the joint. Actually, my mother did this to my father. :-D

I don`t know how good or bad extended family system is, but it always sounds like a fun idea to me. Whenever you go there, you have so many people to socialize with.

Re: # 68 kaalchakra,

For us slackers, its always a pleasure to find you here and a previlege to be remembered by you.

I like to say that I have liked this cultural aspect of hindu people that extra effort is made to carry out marriages between virtually perfect strangers. If only they could get circumcised too.......... (kidding)

Re: # 78
dear khurrum....
your humorous comment about advocating on zeemax bahalf or me reminded me of ghalib`s two couplets

poochtay hain wo kay ghalib koan hay
koi batlao key hum batlain kia

badal kar faqeeron ka ham bhais ghalib
tamash-e-ahl-e-karam daikhtay hain

have fun....sohail

Re: # 68
dear kaalchakra,

readers like nazarhayat khan, malik jahanzeb, mohammad gill, rafi aamer and khurrum

makes it all woth it....thanks for your inspiration....sohail

Re: # 81


Joint family living does not necessitate consanguinous marriages. Various Hindu, Sikh, Chinese families live in such arragnements. When everyone is on the same page you are correct there is a lot of warmth and support. However there are plenty of disaster stories as well.

Btw not all Muslim communities have high rates of intermarriage. Ie Turkey esp western parts it is uncommon and among Persians it is fowned upon by educated classes. Defn orthodoxy and social constraints are highly correlated with is incidence, Saudi Arabia the most obvious. In Great Britian there have been honor killings punishing girls who have found their own partner (even if he is a Pakistani Muslim) as opposed to going along with a pre-ordained arranged match with a cousin back home. I recently was at the house of an acquaintance and there was this very sweet elderly Pakistani lady talking about her grandchildren, I couldn`t follow what she was saying because she was talking in Punjabi. Later my friend explained that she was sizing them up to see how to match up her grandchildren as potential partners.

I am not sure why this is not taken up by the sizable Pakistani medical community and public health initiative developped to address this. It is easily addressed by seeking alternatives to cousin marriages. What Khurram is really addressing is not having the need to ever forbid cousin marriages which is okay for societies where they are an anomly but most defn not for societies where they are common place.

Dr. Sohail,

I see Khurram has declined my request for clarification of your position. I respect his decision.

would you care to clarify? Or if you do not, we can end this discussion right here.

Regards.

Re #86, zeemax,
I didn`t decline. I was busy.
So, here it goes.

drsohail was pretty clear that he would not interfere in the personal decision of 2 consenting adults to have an incestous relationship. So we can safely assume that he would support their legal right to have this relationship. If he wouldn`t interfere, surely he wouldn`t want anyone else(the state, for example) to interfere.

A good follow-up question would be , if drsohail would consider incestous relationship immoral for himself [no disrespect intended here] . Is it consistent with his `subjective truth` ? If yes or no, then why? maybe he will care to explain.

As for his defensive reaction regarding morality, I think he was assuming that you were about say that since he doesn`t believe in God he has no foundation to base his morality on. That is a whole `nother discussion.

Re: # 86

dear zeemax...the reason i do not answer your questions is because i would like to have

mutually respectful dialogue. in the past you made comments about my writings that were

not respectful. i am aware that you are an intelligent man. if we have a difference of

opinion... you being a believer and i non-believer.. is not an issue. i have many believer

friends with whom i can have an intellectually stimulating dialogue and learn from them. it

is our mutual attitude. if you promise to have a serious dialogue with me about any

subject....God or Sex....I am willing but when you want to throw some trick questions and

get an answer from me that you can use for your next debate and