Growing up an American Muslim
Zehra Rizvi February 8, 1999
#65 Posted by AA on February 12, 1999 2:27:35 pm
RE: BG #54
No doubt in light of the world`s global economy, pin striped devils and free enterprise are just as oppressive as religion. I guess it is institutionalized religion I talk about. As much as I`d like to think that personal belief systems stand in no correlation to institutionalized religion, I think they constantly feed off each other. You are what you see, perhaps. I assume you are not talking about Sufism or other schools within Islam, but personal belief as one makes of it, a hodge-podge of one`s political beliefs with a mish-mash of religious-spiritual inspiration? Everything good minus the Hudood ordinance? I don`t know, you tell me.
Since Gawd embodies the notion of divinity, I guess, he is the jokester.
Unfortunately, the idea of divinity stagnates thought. At times, at least. Take the American constituion for example. At one point, it talked of Blacks as slaves, and then during the Reconstruction period, it introduced the 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments to guarantee personal liberties for all, including Blacks. Not that this is my model of good progression of doctrine, .. just the possibility of change.
Feminists, historians, Muslim women scholars, Engineers and Mernissis, try to put a progressive twist. The change-sters? There are similar trends within Orthodox Judaism. Scholars try to base women`s rights within Orthodox Judaism and fail and (suceed)everyday?
I appreciate such scholars who inform me that the Hudood Ordinance conflicts with Islam. I like reading about the higher principle of equality of the genders in Islam, despite a Quranic verse here or there that may suggest a beating. As a pragmatic approach and as a force to counter the conservative trends of Islamic interpretation, ... yes, maybe. Yes, maybe..`cause we`re so grounded in religious dogma, may as well jump on the bandwagon and blow our own separate horns?
But deep down inside, a fear, a nervousness, and a desire to resist Islamic interpretations of all kinds ..why..`cause perhaps so much of religious battering in the last 2 decades, perhaps because the Question of whose interpretation is legitimate. In all this, whose position does divinity support? A friend and I talked about telling women in Kachi abaadis how Islam gives them certain rights. I say, tell them they have rights, if they don`t know already. If people think these conflict with Islamic principles, tell them no. Hand them mernissi. Of-course very paternalistic. But I mention this example, just to clarify my point. Tell me what you think. (?)
AA
No doubt in light of the world`s global economy, pin striped devils and free enterprise are just as oppressive as religion. I guess it is institutionalized religion I talk about. As much as I`d like to think that personal belief systems stand in no correlation to institutionalized religion, I think they constantly feed off each other. You are what you see, perhaps. I assume you are not talking about Sufism or other schools within Islam, but personal belief as one makes of it, a hodge-podge of one`s political beliefs with a mish-mash of religious-spiritual inspiration? Everything good minus the Hudood ordinance? I don`t know, you tell me.
Since Gawd embodies the notion of divinity, I guess, he is the jokester.
Unfortunately, the idea of divinity stagnates thought. At times, at least. Take the American constituion for example. At one point, it talked of Blacks as slaves, and then during the Reconstruction period, it introduced the 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments to guarantee personal liberties for all, including Blacks. Not that this is my model of good progression of doctrine, .. just the possibility of change.
Feminists, historians, Muslim women scholars, Engineers and Mernissis, try to put a progressive twist. The change-sters? There are similar trends within Orthodox Judaism. Scholars try to base women`s rights within Orthodox Judaism and fail and (suceed)everyday?
I appreciate such scholars who inform me that the Hudood Ordinance conflicts with Islam. I like reading about the higher principle of equality of the genders in Islam, despite a Quranic verse here or there that may suggest a beating. As a pragmatic approach and as a force to counter the conservative trends of Islamic interpretation, ... yes, maybe. Yes, maybe..`cause we`re so grounded in religious dogma, may as well jump on the bandwagon and blow our own separate horns?
But deep down inside, a fear, a nervousness, and a desire to resist Islamic interpretations of all kinds ..why..`cause perhaps so much of religious battering in the last 2 decades, perhaps because the Question of whose interpretation is legitimate. In all this, whose position does divinity support? A friend and I talked about telling women in Kachi abaadis how Islam gives them certain rights. I say, tell them they have rights, if they don`t know already. If people think these conflict with Islamic principles, tell them no. Hand them mernissi. Of-course very paternalistic. But I mention this example, just to clarify my point. Tell me what you think. (?)
AA
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#66 Posted by ferozk on February 12, 1999 2:41:39 pm
Re:Zehra post # 62
Right you`re! Che was the conscience of Eva Duarte (her maiden name) Peron, but in a more metaphorical sense, he was the conscience of Argentina. As to Antonio Banderas playing Che, I am more partial towards Mandy Patinkin (hoped I spelled his name right). I saw Mandy play Che in Ottawa, 1986, and Mandy was just perfect. I think Antonio got the nod in Evita for his sex appeal and I hated the fact that they wrote a new song, ``you love me`` for Madonna...
Another irony was Jonathan Price, an Englishman, playing Col. Juan Peron! Col. Peron was the person who kicked the British out of Argentina...o` the insult, o` the humanity....
Re: AA
Yeah, the flattery may have been too much, but show ne one woman who does not like being flattered!? :)
Right you`re! Che was the conscience of Eva Duarte (her maiden name) Peron, but in a more metaphorical sense, he was the conscience of Argentina. As to Antonio Banderas playing Che, I am more partial towards Mandy Patinkin (hoped I spelled his name right). I saw Mandy play Che in Ottawa, 1986, and Mandy was just perfect. I think Antonio got the nod in Evita for his sex appeal and I hated the fact that they wrote a new song, ``you love me`` for Madonna...
Another irony was Jonathan Price, an Englishman, playing Col. Juan Peron! Col. Peron was the person who kicked the British out of Argentina...o` the insult, o` the humanity....
Re: AA
Yeah, the flattery may have been too much, but show ne one woman who does not like being flattered!? :)
#67 Posted by AA on February 12, 1999 2:48:11 pm
Re: Ferozk
yeah, you`re right. I don`t know any woman who doesn`t like being flattered. Now, you show me one man who doesn`t like being flattered.
AA
yeah, you`re right. I don`t know any woman who doesn`t like being flattered. Now, you show me one man who doesn`t like being flattered.
AA
#68 Posted by temporal on February 12, 1999 7:06:14 pm
Feroz:
Great anecdote---- Che (the bourgeoise, landed aristocracy and all---- staring at the rifle and the medicine bag----that moment, that action sealed his transformation into a revolutionary) was recently re-buried in Santa Lucia, Cuba-- a state funeral.
AA & Feroze:
If I can quote G.K. Chesterton correctly---flattery is the food of fools, yet your man (read or woman) of wit and wisdom will condescend to take it once in a while.
regards
ps---His last name is Paintkin.
Great anecdote---- Che (the bourgeoise, landed aristocracy and all---- staring at the rifle and the medicine bag----that moment, that action sealed his transformation into a revolutionary) was recently re-buried in Santa Lucia, Cuba-- a state funeral.
AA & Feroze:
If I can quote G.K. Chesterton correctly---flattery is the food of fools, yet your man (read or woman) of wit and wisdom will condescend to take it once in a while.
regards
ps---His last name is Paintkin.
#69 Posted by BG on February 12, 1999 8:01:46 pm
re AA
``No doubt in light of the world`s global economy, pin striped devils and free enterprise are just as
oppressive as religion.``
and their followers can be just as dogmatic. and those who are critical of the doctrine of the almighty dollar subject to inquisitions and communist witch hunts.
``I guess it is institutionalized religion I talk about.``
including, as we agreed other dogmas like capitalism and some other doctrines like patriarchy? (there are intersting intersections between all of these)
``As much as I`d like to think that personal belief systems stand in no correlation to institutionalized religion, I think they constantly feed off each other. …personal belief as one makes of it, a hodge-podge of one`s political beliefs with a mish-mash of religious-spiritual inspiration? Everything good minus the Hudood ordinance? I don`t know, you tell me.``
yes, i agree. personal belief systems and religion (broadly defined) are related and interdependent in different ways. i guess the problem with institutionalized religion, which does not exist in `personal` beliefs (however misguided or evil) is that the former, by definition is, or at least can be, imposed on others.
``Since Gawd embodies the notion of divinity, I guess, he is the jokester.``
i think the pin-striped suit wallahs and what they represent is a close, close runner up. maybe have even replaced gawd - certainly in many places (you can probably see my bias with your eyes closed)
``Unfortunately, the idea of divinity stagnates thought.``
yes, the idea of finality, absolute, perfect TRUTH that must not be questioned, the ONE WAY, the ONLY WAY. such perfect, infallible, truth and divinity might exist, but the problem arises when its `followers` or `custodians` prevent criticism and questioning. when they declare they know because they have been told or they believe and you must believe because it is the truth. any criticism is labeled `blasphemy`, `heresy`, `stupidity`, `shamelessness`, `paranoia`, whatever.
``I appreciate such scholars who inform me that the Hudood Ordinance conflicts with Islam. I like
reading about the higher principle of equality of the genders in Islam, despite a Quranic verse here or there that may suggest a beating. As a pragmatic approach and as a force to counter the conservative trends of Islamic interpretation, ... yes, maybe. Yes, maybe..`cause we`re so grounded in religious dogma, may as well jump on the bandwagon and blow our own separate horns? A friend and I talked about telling women in Kachi abaadis how Islam gives them certain rights. I say, tell them they have rights, if they don`t know already. If people think these conflict with Islamic principles, tell them no. Hand them mernissi. Of-course very paternalistic. But I mention this example, just to clarify my point.``
if one is only looking narrowly from a `reformist` point of view, not necessarily to make sense of the world, then it is merely a question of what is the best strategy. but, if the need for reform and for understanding go together, then it`s a tough call: does one struggle for reform (for instance for the rights of women and minorities) within an islamic framework or does one fight for a `secular` framework based on principles of humanism, feminism, socialism, etc? given the centrality of islam to our lives and society, it is a very real question. and the potential for reform within an islamic framework is also quite huge. (this is merely specualtion) but, is one being honest by using islamic reform because it is a more effective strategy, in pakistan for eg., if one doesn`t believe in the divinity of the quran? in all honesty, i don`t know. i am struggling with the same issues, but right now don`t have any reason to decide, so I`m just going along. OK, now your turn! :)
(excuse me for re-organizing your original post just to organize my own response)
``But deep down inside, a fear, a nervousness, and a desire to resist Islamic interpretations of all kinds..why..`cause perhaps so much of religious battering in the last 2 decades, perhaps because the Question of whose interpretation is legitimate. In all this, whose position does divinity support?``
it depends on what is more important to you: your belief in religious doctrine or your belief that women and men are `equal` (however defined; or some other belief that is central to your life). the problem arises when beliefs contradict or conflict with each other. one can (1) agonize over the conflict;(2) reconcile it somehow by deciding which belief is more important and relinquishing or change what is less important or what doesn`t make sense or doesn`t inform one`s worldview; or (3) compartmentalize the beliefs and pretend the conflict does not exist. the abuse of religion, to oppress as has been our experience under zia, may make the decision easier. but then one is making the choice between islam and something else for the wrong reasons; not because of having thought about it and made a choice, but having been forced to make a choice. but if one believes that religion, by definition, involves oppression and abuse, then it is a no-brainer!:)
``No doubt in light of the world`s global economy, pin striped devils and free enterprise are just as
oppressive as religion.``
and their followers can be just as dogmatic. and those who are critical of the doctrine of the almighty dollar subject to inquisitions and communist witch hunts.
``I guess it is institutionalized religion I talk about.``
including, as we agreed other dogmas like capitalism and some other doctrines like patriarchy? (there are intersting intersections between all of these)
``As much as I`d like to think that personal belief systems stand in no correlation to institutionalized religion, I think they constantly feed off each other. …personal belief as one makes of it, a hodge-podge of one`s political beliefs with a mish-mash of religious-spiritual inspiration? Everything good minus the Hudood ordinance? I don`t know, you tell me.``
yes, i agree. personal belief systems and religion (broadly defined) are related and interdependent in different ways. i guess the problem with institutionalized religion, which does not exist in `personal` beliefs (however misguided or evil) is that the former, by definition is, or at least can be, imposed on others.
``Since Gawd embodies the notion of divinity, I guess, he is the jokester.``
i think the pin-striped suit wallahs and what they represent is a close, close runner up. maybe have even replaced gawd - certainly in many places (you can probably see my bias with your eyes closed)
``Unfortunately, the idea of divinity stagnates thought.``
yes, the idea of finality, absolute, perfect TRUTH that must not be questioned, the ONE WAY, the ONLY WAY. such perfect, infallible, truth and divinity might exist, but the problem arises when its `followers` or `custodians` prevent criticism and questioning. when they declare they know because they have been told or they believe and you must believe because it is the truth. any criticism is labeled `blasphemy`, `heresy`, `stupidity`, `shamelessness`, `paranoia`, whatever.
``I appreciate such scholars who inform me that the Hudood Ordinance conflicts with Islam. I like
reading about the higher principle of equality of the genders in Islam, despite a Quranic verse here or there that may suggest a beating. As a pragmatic approach and as a force to counter the conservative trends of Islamic interpretation, ... yes, maybe. Yes, maybe..`cause we`re so grounded in religious dogma, may as well jump on the bandwagon and blow our own separate horns? A friend and I talked about telling women in Kachi abaadis how Islam gives them certain rights. I say, tell them they have rights, if they don`t know already. If people think these conflict with Islamic principles, tell them no. Hand them mernissi. Of-course very paternalistic. But I mention this example, just to clarify my point.``
if one is only looking narrowly from a `reformist` point of view, not necessarily to make sense of the world, then it is merely a question of what is the best strategy. but, if the need for reform and for understanding go together, then it`s a tough call: does one struggle for reform (for instance for the rights of women and minorities) within an islamic framework or does one fight for a `secular` framework based on principles of humanism, feminism, socialism, etc? given the centrality of islam to our lives and society, it is a very real question. and the potential for reform within an islamic framework is also quite huge. (this is merely specualtion) but, is one being honest by using islamic reform because it is a more effective strategy, in pakistan for eg., if one doesn`t believe in the divinity of the quran? in all honesty, i don`t know. i am struggling with the same issues, but right now don`t have any reason to decide, so I`m just going along. OK, now your turn! :)
(excuse me for re-organizing your original post just to organize my own response)
``But deep down inside, a fear, a nervousness, and a desire to resist Islamic interpretations of all kinds..why..`cause perhaps so much of religious battering in the last 2 decades, perhaps because the Question of whose interpretation is legitimate. In all this, whose position does divinity support?``
it depends on what is more important to you: your belief in religious doctrine or your belief that women and men are `equal` (however defined; or some other belief that is central to your life). the problem arises when beliefs contradict or conflict with each other. one can (1) agonize over the conflict;(2) reconcile it somehow by deciding which belief is more important and relinquishing or change what is less important or what doesn`t make sense or doesn`t inform one`s worldview; or (3) compartmentalize the beliefs and pretend the conflict does not exist. the abuse of religion, to oppress as has been our experience under zia, may make the decision easier. but then one is making the choice between islam and something else for the wrong reasons; not because of having thought about it and made a choice, but having been forced to make a choice. but if one believes that religion, by definition, involves oppression and abuse, then it is a no-brainer!:)
#70 Posted by ferozk on February 12, 1999 10:00:05 pm
Re: AA post # 68
Any chance you are related in any way with the American Airlines? If no, have you considered the copyrighted trademark violations you might be causing by using the moniker ``AA``? Get yourself a lawyer and play it safe, no idea who might be cyber surfing around at Chowk!
No, you win...I lose! Can`t show you a man who does not like to be flattered!
Re:Temporal post # 67
Thanks for telling me the correct spelling!
As to Che`s state funeral in Cuba, it was the right thing do and he deserved it! I hope this damn Yankee embargo on Cuba ends, so I can puff a few cohibas! Though I have to admit, cigars have lost their allure for me ever since that damn country redneck Buba in the White House dipped his cohiba into Monica Lewinsky! The correct ritual is to dip your cigars in scotch or some fine brandy and not in some damn Jewish American Princess!!!!!! Why did Starr have to put that tidbit in his report is unpardonable!
Yaar, I envy you Canadians! You people can smoke Cuban cigars, though I bet with your taxes on tobacco, they might be a bit pricy!
Any chance you are related in any way with the American Airlines? If no, have you considered the copyrighted trademark violations you might be causing by using the moniker ``AA``? Get yourself a lawyer and play it safe, no idea who might be cyber surfing around at Chowk!
No, you win...I lose! Can`t show you a man who does not like to be flattered!
Re:Temporal post # 67
Thanks for telling me the correct spelling!
As to Che`s state funeral in Cuba, it was the right thing do and he deserved it! I hope this damn Yankee embargo on Cuba ends, so I can puff a few cohibas! Though I have to admit, cigars have lost their allure for me ever since that damn country redneck Buba in the White House dipped his cohiba into Monica Lewinsky! The correct ritual is to dip your cigars in scotch or some fine brandy and not in some damn Jewish American Princess!!!!!! Why did Starr have to put that tidbit in his report is unpardonable!
Yaar, I envy you Canadians! You people can smoke Cuban cigars, though I bet with your taxes on tobacco, they might be a bit pricy!
#71 Posted by temporal on February 12, 1999 10:55:13 pm
Feroze:
The Cuban lobby has shown some cracks recently----Cuba is ripe for Big Buck invasion. Right now Europeans are investing heavily followed by Canuck investment. American business lobby is itching. Won`t be long when you can buy the Cohibas and Monte Cristos locally. Have a nice supply of those cigars, gotta come here, though. For an aspiring politico you have the right expensive tastes!
Zehra:
Thanks for coming to rescue in the other interact. You`ve warded off the evil spirits for now. And if you are wondering what all this has to do with this piece--- don`t! These interact tend to assume a life of their own. Ask afrasiyab.
regards
The Cuban lobby has shown some cracks recently----Cuba is ripe for Big Buck invasion. Right now Europeans are investing heavily followed by Canuck investment. American business lobby is itching. Won`t be long when you can buy the Cohibas and Monte Cristos locally. Have a nice supply of those cigars, gotta come here, though. For an aspiring politico you have the right expensive tastes!
Zehra:
Thanks for coming to rescue in the other interact. You`ve warded off the evil spirits for now. And if you are wondering what all this has to do with this piece--- don`t! These interact tend to assume a life of their own. Ask afrasiyab.
regards
#72 Posted by AA on February 13, 1999 4:41:32 am
Re: Ferozk
I`m guessing I probably have some limited rights to use my initials on these limited cyberspace interactions on chowk. American Airlines does not have a viable claim against me; first, I am not hawking air flight tickets, deceiving people they are purchasing from a reputed airline and second, I haven`t pirated their domain name of their federally registered trademark, if in fact, AA is their trademark. I just checked with my attorney. And getting back to you immediately on the issue, since you were so concerned about my liability. And by the way, copyrights and trademarks are two different doctrines in intellectual property protection.
Re: bg #69
Capitalist patriarchy and religion go hand in hand. You can`t have one without the other. These are different branches of the same government. Ofcourse there are intersections.
I agree with your differentiation between personal belief systems and institutionalized religion. The latter holds the power of imposition, as you point out. But don`t you agree the imposer is acting upon his personal belief system? When a belief system, however personal, ceases to agree with ones` own, does it seem more and more aligned with the loathed instituion? Are people free agents in adopting personal belief systems? What would personal belief system mean if there wasn`t institution to compare it with, to contrast its shading against? Painting sprawled across background?
You say, ``i think the pin-striped suit wallahs and what they represent is a close, close runner up. maybe have even replaced gawd - certainly in many places``
If these both represent ideas - greed and power -yes maybe. Fear and mortality. Though control and consumerism.. I don`t know. I see what you`re saying, but its early and I`m struggling to find a metaphorical connection between Gawd and pin strips. Exactly.
You struggle with an important question. You say is it ``being honest by using islamic reform because it is a more effective strategy,in pakistan for eg., if one doesn`t believe in the divinity of the quran?`` I don`t know. At some level, as you`ve already figured out, it is. Deceiving oneself for a better future is probably okay. By all means necessary. So why worry of one is only trying to make things better. But, you know, I sense that people can sense the truth. So if you try to peddle progressive politics using religion as a cheap Halloween costume, people will see through. You can, I`m sure. But sooner or later, it may seem tiring and in the interest of not losing one`s energy to the letharhy of deception, why not speak the truth? MAybe that is in the interest of an even better world. Reform And Revolution are fuzzy words. I don`t think I really like them.
So maybe you`ll alienate a whole lot of people. The search for truth isn`t a popularity contest. People`s lives aren`t going to improve in PK if they`re fed any more dogma.
You say ``it depends on what is more important to you: your belief in religious doctrine or your belief that women and men are `equal` (however defined; or some other belief that is central to your life). the problem arises when beliefs contradict or conflict with each other.``
Very true. Thats when you have guilt, remorse, anger, conflict, contradictions, heart failure ...
You say: one can (1) agonize over the conflict;(2) reconcile it somehow by deciding which belief is more important and relinquishing or change what is less important or what doesn`t make sense or doesn`t inform one`s worldview; or (3) compartmentalize the beliefs and pretend the conflict does not exist.
A three part kit to conflict resolution. I like it!! Ofcourse it isn`t that easy. You can rationalize things , yet the conflict never goes.
Your following words reflect your own conflict.
I don`t know, I`m asking. For me, there is no choice. I always thought of religion as one wild extension of our everyday life. I was much more fascinated by the supernatural.
``the abuse of religion, to oppress as has been our experience under zia, may make the decision easier. but then one is making the choice between islam and something else for the wrong reasons; not because of having thought about it and made a
choice, but having been forced to make a choice. but if one believes that religion, by definition, involves oppression and abuse, then it is a no-brainer!:)
Sorry if I am incoherent and conclusory in this message. Hope you think something is worth responding to.
regards, AA
I`m guessing I probably have some limited rights to use my initials on these limited cyberspace interactions on chowk. American Airlines does not have a viable claim against me; first, I am not hawking air flight tickets, deceiving people they are purchasing from a reputed airline and second, I haven`t pirated their domain name of their federally registered trademark, if in fact, AA is their trademark. I just checked with my attorney. And getting back to you immediately on the issue, since you were so concerned about my liability. And by the way, copyrights and trademarks are two different doctrines in intellectual property protection.
Re: bg #69
Capitalist patriarchy and religion go hand in hand. You can`t have one without the other. These are different branches of the same government. Ofcourse there are intersections.
I agree with your differentiation between personal belief systems and institutionalized religion. The latter holds the power of imposition, as you point out. But don`t you agree the imposer is acting upon his personal belief system? When a belief system, however personal, ceases to agree with ones` own, does it seem more and more aligned with the loathed instituion? Are people free agents in adopting personal belief systems? What would personal belief system mean if there wasn`t institution to compare it with, to contrast its shading against? Painting sprawled across background?
You say, ``i think the pin-striped suit wallahs and what they represent is a close, close runner up. maybe have even replaced gawd - certainly in many places``
If these both represent ideas - greed and power -yes maybe. Fear and mortality. Though control and consumerism.. I don`t know. I see what you`re saying, but its early and I`m struggling to find a metaphorical connection between Gawd and pin strips. Exactly.
You struggle with an important question. You say is it ``being honest by using islamic reform because it is a more effective strategy,in pakistan for eg., if one doesn`t believe in the divinity of the quran?`` I don`t know. At some level, as you`ve already figured out, it is. Deceiving oneself for a better future is probably okay. By all means necessary. So why worry of one is only trying to make things better. But, you know, I sense that people can sense the truth. So if you try to peddle progressive politics using religion as a cheap Halloween costume, people will see through. You can, I`m sure. But sooner or later, it may seem tiring and in the interest of not losing one`s energy to the letharhy of deception, why not speak the truth? MAybe that is in the interest of an even better world. Reform And Revolution are fuzzy words. I don`t think I really like them.
So maybe you`ll alienate a whole lot of people. The search for truth isn`t a popularity contest. People`s lives aren`t going to improve in PK if they`re fed any more dogma.
You say ``it depends on what is more important to you: your belief in religious doctrine or your belief that women and men are `equal` (however defined; or some other belief that is central to your life). the problem arises when beliefs contradict or conflict with each other.``
Very true. Thats when you have guilt, remorse, anger, conflict, contradictions, heart failure ...
You say: one can (1) agonize over the conflict;(2) reconcile it somehow by deciding which belief is more important and relinquishing or change what is less important or what doesn`t make sense or doesn`t inform one`s worldview; or (3) compartmentalize the beliefs and pretend the conflict does not exist.
A three part kit to conflict resolution. I like it!! Ofcourse it isn`t that easy. You can rationalize things , yet the conflict never goes.
Your following words reflect your own conflict.
I don`t know, I`m asking. For me, there is no choice. I always thought of religion as one wild extension of our everyday life. I was much more fascinated by the supernatural.
``the abuse of religion, to oppress as has been our experience under zia, may make the decision easier. but then one is making the choice between islam and something else for the wrong reasons; not because of having thought about it and made a
choice, but having been forced to make a choice. but if one believes that religion, by definition, involves oppression and abuse, then it is a no-brainer!:)
Sorry if I am incoherent and conclusory in this message. Hope you think something is worth responding to.
regards, AA
#73 Posted by BG on February 13, 1999 2:24:01 pm
``Capitalist patriarchy and religion go hand in hand. You can`t have one without the other. These are different branches of the same government. Of course there are intersections.``
generally yes, but, there are some conflicts between capitalism and religion sometimes. especially, if the religious nationalism is used to organize against imperialistic imposition of the ``free market`` doctrine. but this is an entirely different and long discussion, i suspect.
``But don`t you agree the imposer is acting upon his personal belief system?``
yeah. i suppose i was thinking of personal beliefs which are not imposed on others. also, am not convinced that imposers, like zia for eg., impose because they personally believe in the doctrine or because it serves their interests.
`` When a belief system, however personal, ceases to agree with ones` own, does it seem more and more aligned with the loathed instituion?``
am not sure i understand this question.
``Are people free agents in adopting personal belief systems?
that is a relevant question. does absolute freedom exist or is it always relative ? (unless the distinctions between belief and believer, creation and creator cease to exist. nirvana or whatever one calls it)
``What would personal belief system mean if there wasn`t institution to compare it with, to contrast its shading against? Painting sprawled across background?``
absolutely.
``If these both represent ideas - greed and power -yes maybe. Fear and mortality. Though control and consumerism.``
that was what I was trying to say (source of oppression, dominance and control)
``I don`t know. I see what you`re saying, but its early and I`m struggling to find a metaphorical connection between Gawd and pin strips. Exactly.``
but God as true divinity, outside of institutionalized dogma of ANY kind, as truth and creation, as life - that is a different thing.
``But, you know, I sense that people can sense the truth. So if you try to peddle progressive politics using religion as a cheap Halloween costume, people will see through. You can, I`m sure. But sooner or later, it may seem tiring and in the interest of not losing one`s energy to the letharhy of deception, why not speak the truth? MAybe that is in the interest of an even better world.``
tend to agree only if the decision has already been made. if one is still confused, open or seeking, one could learn through the process of doing the work. for instance, by actually engaging the women (which includes you and me) whose life one is committed to improving (continuing with the example of women`s rights).
Reform And Revolution are fuzzy words. I don`t think I really like them.
reform has a paternalistic and wishy-washy ring to it. why not revolution? too idealistic?
``So maybe you`ll alienate a whole lot of people. The search for truth isn`t a popularity contest. People`s lives aren`t going to improve in PK if they`re fed any more dogma.``
of course!!! i love it -- the search for truth is not a popularity contest. but, here you seem to imply that re-interpretation, or even information on what the quran says about women is ``more`` dogma. if in fact that is true, and i think it is, then the answer is simple and clear.
`` Ofcourse it isn`t that easy. You can rationalize things, yet the conflict never goes.``
didn`t mean to reduce it neatly to three options, but you got my point. certainly, the conflict will not disappear magically unless one chooses and makes a decision, however difficult, however painful and despite the guilt. just as the search for truth is not a popularity contest, it is certainly no stretch limo ride to the water front. no one said its going to be easy. but to acknowledge, confront and resolve the conflict HONESTLY is the basis of integrity. many people don`t even get to the acknowledgement stage; guilt is a good sign, but there must be a moving forward from there.
``Your following words reflect your own conflict.``
yes, but conversations like this clarify things for me, otherwise I don`t have the time or the stimulation to confront the conflict. i suspect you are also closer to some resolution than you think.
``For me, there is no choice. I always thought of religion as one wild extension of our everyday life.``
an extension that is dispensable? unnecessary? destructive? or the opposite?
``I was much more fascinated by the supernatural.``
like? (genuine curiosity here from someone firmly grounded in the here and now)
``the abuse of religion, to oppress as has been our experience under zia, may make the decision
easier. but then one is making the choice between islam and something else for the wrong reasons;
not because of having thought about it and made a choice, but having been forced to make a choice. but if one believes that religion, by definition, involves oppression and abuse, then it is a no-brainer!:)``
so what will it be, no-brainer?
`later.
generally yes, but, there are some conflicts between capitalism and religion sometimes. especially, if the religious nationalism is used to organize against imperialistic imposition of the ``free market`` doctrine. but this is an entirely different and long discussion, i suspect.
``But don`t you agree the imposer is acting upon his personal belief system?``
yeah. i suppose i was thinking of personal beliefs which are not imposed on others. also, am not convinced that imposers, like zia for eg., impose because they personally believe in the doctrine or because it serves their interests.
`` When a belief system, however personal, ceases to agree with ones` own, does it seem more and more aligned with the loathed instituion?``
am not sure i understand this question.
``Are people free agents in adopting personal belief systems?
that is a relevant question. does absolute freedom exist or is it always relative ? (unless the distinctions between belief and believer, creation and creator cease to exist. nirvana or whatever one calls it)
``What would personal belief system mean if there wasn`t institution to compare it with, to contrast its shading against? Painting sprawled across background?``
absolutely.
``If these both represent ideas - greed and power -yes maybe. Fear and mortality. Though control and consumerism.``
that was what I was trying to say (source of oppression, dominance and control)
``I don`t know. I see what you`re saying, but its early and I`m struggling to find a metaphorical connection between Gawd and pin strips. Exactly.``
but God as true divinity, outside of institutionalized dogma of ANY kind, as truth and creation, as life - that is a different thing.
``But, you know, I sense that people can sense the truth. So if you try to peddle progressive politics using religion as a cheap Halloween costume, people will see through. You can, I`m sure. But sooner or later, it may seem tiring and in the interest of not losing one`s energy to the letharhy of deception, why not speak the truth? MAybe that is in the interest of an even better world.``
tend to agree only if the decision has already been made. if one is still confused, open or seeking, one could learn through the process of doing the work. for instance, by actually engaging the women (which includes you and me) whose life one is committed to improving (continuing with the example of women`s rights).
Reform And Revolution are fuzzy words. I don`t think I really like them.
reform has a paternalistic and wishy-washy ring to it. why not revolution? too idealistic?
``So maybe you`ll alienate a whole lot of people. The search for truth isn`t a popularity contest. People`s lives aren`t going to improve in PK if they`re fed any more dogma.``
of course!!! i love it -- the search for truth is not a popularity contest. but, here you seem to imply that re-interpretation, or even information on what the quran says about women is ``more`` dogma. if in fact that is true, and i think it is, then the answer is simple and clear.
`` Ofcourse it isn`t that easy. You can rationalize things, yet the conflict never goes.``
didn`t mean to reduce it neatly to three options, but you got my point. certainly, the conflict will not disappear magically unless one chooses and makes a decision, however difficult, however painful and despite the guilt. just as the search for truth is not a popularity contest, it is certainly no stretch limo ride to the water front. no one said its going to be easy. but to acknowledge, confront and resolve the conflict HONESTLY is the basis of integrity. many people don`t even get to the acknowledgement stage; guilt is a good sign, but there must be a moving forward from there.
``Your following words reflect your own conflict.``
yes, but conversations like this clarify things for me, otherwise I don`t have the time or the stimulation to confront the conflict. i suspect you are also closer to some resolution than you think.
``For me, there is no choice. I always thought of religion as one wild extension of our everyday life.``
an extension that is dispensable? unnecessary? destructive? or the opposite?
``I was much more fascinated by the supernatural.``
like? (genuine curiosity here from someone firmly grounded in the here and now)
``the abuse of religion, to oppress as has been our experience under zia, may make the decision
easier. but then one is making the choice between islam and something else for the wrong reasons;
not because of having thought about it and made a choice, but having been forced to make a choice. but if one believes that religion, by definition, involves oppression and abuse, then it is a no-brainer!:)``
so what will it be, no-brainer?
`later.
#74 Posted by ferozk on February 13, 1999 5:16:44 pm
Re: AA post # 72
Thanks for telling me the dictinctions between copyrights and trademarks and sincere thanks for humoring me!
Re: ALL
I had meant to say this, but I was distracted by Omer1974`s commentary on hijab. This is just an observation, but I would welcome all comments suggestions inputs on this topic. Since this piece by Lady Zehra is on immigrants and their assimilations, I thought I`d give it whirl..
To me Chowk is like a cyber nation state with many of the same attributes. It has its own peculiar idenity in cyberistan. It has has its own set of founding fathers; Umair, Sawfan et al. They have created its rules and we, who live in it, must be good and obedient citizens and abide by their rules. It has SR as its voice of conscience; Anita, Aliya, Saad and many doctors like them as its rationalists. It has Zehra, BG, Random (I would guess) as the activists who continually rebell against what they see as status quo of Chowkwallahs. There is Temporal, the resident cynic and prophet of doom who looks at us all and wonders that it is still a miracle that we have not killed each other. Then there is me, the politican; the mud raker, the local rable rouser who loves to create strive in this harmonious community and for a a lack of a better term, I am by my interacts what the French refer to as, ``une petit merdé!``
In another way, we, old Chowkwallahs, can be considered as the natives of this virtual cyber nation state. The new interacters, well they can considered as the newly arrived immigrants to this land of hope and glory. They all count on our interacts as a sign of their acceptance into this community and are glad when we accept them, as seen in the posts by Javed Memom on being published at Chowk. Even through we welcome the new immigrants, I still sense a resentment out there, because we old Chowkwallahs, do not like our old ways rocked by these new comers. We have our own immigrant success story: Godot who went from driving cabs to programming the world`s computers. Then there was Shahbaz, according to my spies, who got banned from this cyberistan, because he angered the Great Khan, who though an indulgent dictator, can be ruthless if he disapproves of you! He was called a persona non grata by the Great Khan, who surveys his virtual dominion with a stern gaze, and deported from this land and denied the right to be a citizen of Chowk.
We at Chowk have our own medical social welfare prgrams; our own activist agendas; We have our popular opinion surveys, by which the Great Khan and his civil service determines if the natives are getting restless. We, as free citizens petitiion the Great Khan and wonder why our articles are not being published. The Great Khan, like any ruler is too busy to reply! Every thing in the real world is represented here at Chowk in a mirco sense. We are a small slice of the ugly reality called life.
Anyways, these are just some thoughts I`ve had on Chowk...would appreciate some feed back on this!
Thanks for telling me the dictinctions between copyrights and trademarks and sincere thanks for humoring me!
Re: ALL
I had meant to say this, but I was distracted by Omer1974`s commentary on hijab. This is just an observation, but I would welcome all comments suggestions inputs on this topic. Since this piece by Lady Zehra is on immigrants and their assimilations, I thought I`d give it whirl..
To me Chowk is like a cyber nation state with many of the same attributes. It has its own peculiar idenity in cyberistan. It has has its own set of founding fathers; Umair, Sawfan et al. They have created its rules and we, who live in it, must be good and obedient citizens and abide by their rules. It has SR as its voice of conscience; Anita, Aliya, Saad and many doctors like them as its rationalists. It has Zehra, BG, Random (I would guess) as the activists who continually rebell against what they see as status quo of Chowkwallahs. There is Temporal, the resident cynic and prophet of doom who looks at us all and wonders that it is still a miracle that we have not killed each other. Then there is me, the politican; the mud raker, the local rable rouser who loves to create strive in this harmonious community and for a a lack of a better term, I am by my interacts what the French refer to as, ``une petit merdé!``
In another way, we, old Chowkwallahs, can be considered as the natives of this virtual cyber nation state. The new interacters, well they can considered as the newly arrived immigrants to this land of hope and glory. They all count on our interacts as a sign of their acceptance into this community and are glad when we accept them, as seen in the posts by Javed Memom on being published at Chowk. Even through we welcome the new immigrants, I still sense a resentment out there, because we old Chowkwallahs, do not like our old ways rocked by these new comers. We have our own immigrant success story: Godot who went from driving cabs to programming the world`s computers. Then there was Shahbaz, according to my spies, who got banned from this cyberistan, because he angered the Great Khan, who though an indulgent dictator, can be ruthless if he disapproves of you! He was called a persona non grata by the Great Khan, who surveys his virtual dominion with a stern gaze, and deported from this land and denied the right to be a citizen of Chowk.
We at Chowk have our own medical social welfare prgrams; our own activist agendas; We have our popular opinion surveys, by which the Great Khan and his civil service determines if the natives are getting restless. We, as free citizens petitiion the Great Khan and wonder why our articles are not being published. The Great Khan, like any ruler is too busy to reply! Every thing in the real world is represented here at Chowk in a mirco sense. We are a small slice of the ugly reality called life.
Anyways, these are just some thoughts I`ve had on Chowk...would appreciate some feed back on this!
#75 Posted by BG on February 13, 1999 8:14:28 pm
re ferozek
feroze, since you have put me in the box of rebels, you should have kind of expected this:
``To me Chowk is like a cyber nation state with many of the same attributes... It has has its own set of founding fathers; Umair, Sawfan et al...It has SR as its voice of conscience; ... It has Zehra, BG, Random (I would guess) as the activists who continually rebell against what they see as status quo of Chowkwallahs.``
this is my most humble opinion in response to your:
founding fathers! come on, you gotta know that`s paternalistic and patriarchal. i give them 100% of the credit for the conceptualization of this wonderful site, but fathers? i dont think so.
also, lets not forget all the other people who deserve creadit for making this site what it is: ginni dhindsa who does the technical work on this site, which is tedious, time consuming and absolutely stupendous. a great deal of thought and creativity goes into laying out the site in a way that its easy and fun to navigate and keeps pulling us back to it over and over again. also, the artist -- rad -- who has given chowk its own special look and feel. and all the other editors (Wasiq Bokhari, Radhika Nagpal, Saeed Jaffer, Asad Khan, Shahid Mahmood, Adnan H. Lawai, and Saima Shah) and the associates and the regular and irregular contributors and the featured writers and, yes, the interactors and the readers. even those who read and go away without saying a word. chowk would not be the same without any of these people. it is a collective, a gathering place of minds and people and personas. its in flux, its changing, its dynamic and a cyber nation that you cannot confine in polisci theory ;)
SR is the reasoned, well-thought out perspective, often the fire fighter, nudging us back to civility. but, he is a maverick in his own right. his views are never mainstream or status quo; he just has a less in-your-face way of putting them than some of us more eager to get things off our chest.
(i am flattered that you consider me an `activist`, but i would like to correct that perspective. i just stop by to learn, think and talk. my views happen to be a little non-mainstream that`s all.)
``In another way, we, old Chowkwallahs, can be considered as the natives of this virtual cyber nation state. The new interacters, well they can considered as the newly arrived immigrants to this land of hope and glory. ``
now you are setting up heirarchies and categories that are, well...restrictive. in this virtual space of ideas, words and personas, green cards and passports are not required. lets not build artificial categories of natives and immigrants. if anything, us `old timers` should make the space open and welcoming to others, unlike nation states who guard their borders jealously.
we can afford to be generous because we have only to gain from newcomers. every view point is important. everyone who visits chowk, writes on chowk or interacts on chowk or merely reads chowk is valuable. we all contribute in different ways. lets have a more collective and egalitarian notion of what this space is and keep it open and welcoming for anyone else who might want to stop by for a cup of cyber chai.
``we old Chowkwallahs, do not like our old ways rocked by these new comers.``
please speak for yourself, feroze. many of us like challenge, new ideas, fresh perspectives. the problem with shabaz was not that he rocked the boat, but that his words were destructive to the spirit of this forum.
``the Great Khan, who though an indulgent dictator, can be ruthless if he disapproves of you!``
come on, get real. from founding father to ruler. i hope you are not going to take this to the logical extreme :)
safwan and umair and the editors are truly open and welcoming sorts, that`s why they have created this open space.
``We are a small slice of the ugly reality called life.``
in some ways yes, and in some ways, this is a tea break from reality, a different version of reality, a different slant on reality
``would appreciate some feed back on this! ``
you got yourself a whole lot :)
regards,
bg
feroze, since you have put me in the box of rebels, you should have kind of expected this:
``To me Chowk is like a cyber nation state with many of the same attributes... It has has its own set of founding fathers; Umair, Sawfan et al...It has SR as its voice of conscience; ... It has Zehra, BG, Random (I would guess) as the activists who continually rebell against what they see as status quo of Chowkwallahs.``
this is my most humble opinion in response to your:
founding fathers! come on, you gotta know that`s paternalistic and patriarchal. i give them 100% of the credit for the conceptualization of this wonderful site, but fathers? i dont think so.
also, lets not forget all the other people who deserve creadit for making this site what it is: ginni dhindsa who does the technical work on this site, which is tedious, time consuming and absolutely stupendous. a great deal of thought and creativity goes into laying out the site in a way that its easy and fun to navigate and keeps pulling us back to it over and over again. also, the artist -- rad -- who has given chowk its own special look and feel. and all the other editors (Wasiq Bokhari, Radhika Nagpal, Saeed Jaffer, Asad Khan, Shahid Mahmood, Adnan H. Lawai, and Saima Shah) and the associates and the regular and irregular contributors and the featured writers and, yes, the interactors and the readers. even those who read and go away without saying a word. chowk would not be the same without any of these people. it is a collective, a gathering place of minds and people and personas. its in flux, its changing, its dynamic and a cyber nation that you cannot confine in polisci theory ;)
SR is the reasoned, well-thought out perspective, often the fire fighter, nudging us back to civility. but, he is a maverick in his own right. his views are never mainstream or status quo; he just has a less in-your-face way of putting them than some of us more eager to get things off our chest.
(i am flattered that you consider me an `activist`, but i would like to correct that perspective. i just stop by to learn, think and talk. my views happen to be a little non-mainstream that`s all.)
``In another way, we, old Chowkwallahs, can be considered as the natives of this virtual cyber nation state. The new interacters, well they can considered as the newly arrived immigrants to this land of hope and glory. ``
now you are setting up heirarchies and categories that are, well...restrictive. in this virtual space of ideas, words and personas, green cards and passports are not required. lets not build artificial categories of natives and immigrants. if anything, us `old timers` should make the space open and welcoming to others, unlike nation states who guard their borders jealously.
we can afford to be generous because we have only to gain from newcomers. every view point is important. everyone who visits chowk, writes on chowk or interacts on chowk or merely reads chowk is valuable. we all contribute in different ways. lets have a more collective and egalitarian notion of what this space is and keep it open and welcoming for anyone else who might want to stop by for a cup of cyber chai.
``we old Chowkwallahs, do not like our old ways rocked by these new comers.``
please speak for yourself, feroze. many of us like challenge, new ideas, fresh perspectives. the problem with shabaz was not that he rocked the boat, but that his words were destructive to the spirit of this forum.
``the Great Khan, who though an indulgent dictator, can be ruthless if he disapproves of you!``
come on, get real. from founding father to ruler. i hope you are not going to take this to the logical extreme :)
safwan and umair and the editors are truly open and welcoming sorts, that`s why they have created this open space.
``We are a small slice of the ugly reality called life.``
in some ways yes, and in some ways, this is a tea break from reality, a different version of reality, a different slant on reality
``would appreciate some feed back on this! ``
you got yourself a whole lot :)
regards,
bg
#76 Posted by ferozk on February 13, 1999 11:20:52 pm
Re: BG # 76
I should have put a disclaimer, but then hindsight is always perfect!
That was just some errant musings on my part; I was thinking out aloud. To all and each who contribute to Chowk, I did not intend any disrespect and if such is taken, then I am trully sorry for any hurt feelings since that was not my intention. I was merely wondering, through that interact, how Chowkwallahs saw themselves in this forum! The idea was to elilict a response and judging from your reaction, I seem to have struck a chord! I justed wanted to ``read`` how others viewed Chowk!
BG, yaar, relax and chill with a cool drink! It is the weekend, give the conspiracy spin a rest! :) This was not an attempt by me to forge a process which would have ended up in the balkanization of Chowk!
Unfortuneately, I have to run, but I will be back, minus Sunday, after getting my frustrations out on the slopes! I need a little I`n`I to get over the Clinton Blues! Some Miles Davis with a snifter of Rémy Martin VSOP and a slow buring Davidoff corona...soothes the soul just to think of it!
Tonight, I am gonna give the beat a chance....and talking of the drums will say everything gonna be alright! The far, far starlight say everything gonna be alright here tonight!
Have a nice weekend and Happy Valentine`s Day to all of you love birds out there!!!!
Feroz
I should have put a disclaimer, but then hindsight is always perfect!
That was just some errant musings on my part; I was thinking out aloud. To all and each who contribute to Chowk, I did not intend any disrespect and if such is taken, then I am trully sorry for any hurt feelings since that was not my intention. I was merely wondering, through that interact, how Chowkwallahs saw themselves in this forum! The idea was to elilict a response and judging from your reaction, I seem to have struck a chord! I justed wanted to ``read`` how others viewed Chowk!
BG, yaar, relax and chill with a cool drink! It is the weekend, give the conspiracy spin a rest! :) This was not an attempt by me to forge a process which would have ended up in the balkanization of Chowk!
Unfortuneately, I have to run, but I will be back, minus Sunday, after getting my frustrations out on the slopes! I need a little I`n`I to get over the Clinton Blues! Some Miles Davis with a snifter of Rémy Martin VSOP and a slow buring Davidoff corona...soothes the soul just to think of it!
Tonight, I am gonna give the beat a chance....and talking of the drums will say everything gonna be alright! The far, far starlight say everything gonna be alright here tonight!
Have a nice weekend and Happy Valentine`s Day to all of you love birds out there!!!!
Feroz
#77 Posted by GIKI99 on February 14, 1999 5:48:03 am
Buck up, F.Z.R, we are Muslims first and Pakistanis or Americans etc. afterwards. This feeling is what scares the hell out of these `Westerners` and this`s what`s going to make us Muslims the leaders of the next century.
#78 Posted by Godot on February 14, 1999 5:48:03 am
Re: Ferozk
Feroz, I`ve noticed that your replies have gotten better. Better for me, that is. You are very witty! I like that. I hope you keep this up. I ususlly scroll down real fast from long, verbose replies, catching a word here and there, wondering how the hell these people find time! Some people have just too much time on their hands.
Feroz, I`ve noticed that your replies have gotten better. Better for me, that is. You are very witty! I like that. I hope you keep this up. I ususlly scroll down real fast from long, verbose replies, catching a word here and there, wondering how the hell these people find time! Some people have just too much time on their hands.
#79 Posted by Zehra on February 14, 1999 5:48:03 am
Zed! i loved miss shakir..she was my role model for most of my years in mama parsi. i am beyond intrigued by this blast from the past. who are you? email me at errerr@hotmail.com please.
i noticed you called me fatima which only people in mama school did..no where else in my life have i have been called by my first name. i belive however, ms shakir only taught 3 and 4th grade...
rizvi
i noticed you called me fatima which only people in mama school did..no where else in my life have i have been called by my first name. i belive however, ms shakir only taught 3 and 4th grade...
rizvi
#80 Posted by BG on February 14, 1999 8:52:27 am
re ferozek
have a good day on the slopes. i took it all in good fun. no offence taken or intended. i tried to punctuate my directness with smileys (tho i hate those suckers, they are useful in written communication, when there is no other way of pointing out that one is not grim)but anyway...i am totally chilled.
btw, you started an interesting discussion, so whether or not we agree, a whole lot of credit for that.
valentine`s day makes me puke!
have a good day on the slopes. i took it all in good fun. no offence taken or intended. i tried to punctuate my directness with smileys (tho i hate those suckers, they are useful in written communication, when there is no other way of pointing out that one is not grim)but anyway...i am totally chilled.
btw, you started an interesting discussion, so whether or not we agree, a whole lot of credit for that.
valentine`s day makes me puke!
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- treetop: wonder the nun survived... The Correct Turn
- KaalChakra: hamidm, don't knock Pakistanis... The Correct Turn
- MantoLives: PS you might want... Politics of PPP and
- MantoLives: PS you might want... Politics of PPP and
- hamidm2: Re: # 143 tahmed mian, ....... The Correct Turn
- KaalChakra: NB, at the end... The Correct Turn
- MantoLives: Afat, Marxist historian Hamza... Politics of PPP and
- tahmed32: kaalchakra sahib #140 the... The Correct Turn
