Faith, Religion and National Direction

Thankyou Krashid but I am still in Pakistan :)

When I said ``good to see that the return to US means return to Chowk`` I was talking about Aisha .... she is back in San Jose ...

:)

Yasser

In response to satyavadi (Reply # 109)
Dear Satyavadi:
I am somewhat sympathetic to the main trust of your post. I am also aware of the strengths of India vis a vis the weaknesses of Pakistan. Yet, I cannot share your (relative) optimism concerning the provision of justice (procedural or otherwise) in India. Both Indian and Pakistan societies are far from being fair/egalitarian in one way or another. In his book, “Development, Ethnicity and Human Rights in South Asia, Ross Mallick (1998: 308-9) writes: “Because India continues to be one of the most inegalitarian and hierarchical societies in the world, there is a lot of room for misrepresentation of uncomfortable realities by [both] nationalist and Marxist intellectuals claiming to represent the people.”
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

The Constitution of Iran:
http://www.persian.com/aboutiran/constitution.htm

Karakoram #47 :

i was expecting that somebody would quote this news... people had been moving into pak controlled kashmir from the indian side of the loc all through these years in trickles... but both india and pakistan consider them as ``internally displaced`` due to conflict... its because of this, the ICRC - and not the UNHCR - assists with the displaced people.

Nevertheless, the news item that you have quoted is significant in the sense that it is perhaps for the first time the displacement had been attributed to ``the brutality of indian security forces`` by a larger group... did you notice the amazement that this incident had caused among the indian higher-ups ?

(wonder why the pakistani establishment did not attempt to score any significant propaganda points on this issue as feared by the indians... for a comparison, consider the frenzy created over the incident wherein a group of indian commondos were alleged to have intruded into pak side of loc and hacked a set of villagers...)

Now the whole Chowk knows YLH is back with ``a bang``. Chowk will never be so `quiet and boring` again.:)

Not that I am complaining. I missed all the ``chillana`` and ``naarebaazi``, for a while.

Satyavadi

Satish #56:

Your posts have been very educating and informative. One question: What is the prevailing opinion among historians, indologists and anthropologists regarding the AIT? Has it been discarded, become one of the many ``plausible`` theories or still the ``most plausible truth``?

Satyavdi

bahmad #51:

I was specifically talking about minority rights in my last post and that was the matter in discussion. And my contention was that, its unfair to group India with Pakistan as far as minority rights are concerned, since Pakistan unlike India doesnt even provide de jure equality to its minorities. Acheiveing de jure equality by itself, specially in an Islamized environment can be a herculean task. Though India is deficient when it comes to teating its minorities and in general all common citizens, its much better off than a legally proclaimed Islamic country that excludes minorities from the top positions in the country and delcares a heretic sect of Islam as non-Muslims, thus interferring in the religious beliefs of its people.

Hope this helps. And I do accept that India is lacking in providing ``distributional`` justice as you put it, so there is no argument on that. However, I guess you would agree that providing procedural justice, though not an end in itself, is an important milestone towards the end, and Pakistan is still far away from there.

Satyavadi

Re: doctrinal aspects of Islam are not open to re-interpretation, the question is Why Not ? It looks like the brainwash succeeded in at least one case.

What brainwash ?

To use the words of Professor Leila Ahmed :

Interpretation is of necessity part of every act of reading or inscribing a text...To question whether the body of consecrated Islamic law does in fact represent the only possible legal interpretation of the Islamic vision is surrounded with awesome interdictions.

That its central texts do embody acts of interpretation is precisely what orthodoxy is most concerned to conceal and erase from the consciousness of Muslims. This is understandable, because the authority and power of orthodox religion depended on its claiming a monopoly of truth and on its declaring its version of Islam to be absolute and all other interpretations heresies.

-arun gupta

Pankaj #101, ``Every religion contains some thoughts( or beliefs) of that particular founder which were good in a particular region and at a

particular time. So most of the religions are static. With time certain values which are universal should be preserved while those

which get outdated should be discarded. Religion is a private thing, and every individual should make a judicious choice of what tenets to accept and what not by his own reason and free will. ``

I COULDN`T AGREE MORE. Unfortunately many people, especially the fundamentalist Muslims don`t realize that.

If everyone in the world read your post, understood it, and accepted it, we wouldn`t have as many problems in the name of religion.

With regard to Pankaj`s assertion (#101) on the origin of religion -- there is no one founder, no one deity and no one common religious philosophy in the religion called Hinduism.

Anyhow, in exactly the same sense that I am justified in considering my mother the best in the whole world (without jeopardizing your belief in your mother being the best in the whole world), I am justified in thinking that my religion, my beliefs, my country is the best in the whole world. Thus, the problem is not caused by religion.

It is caused by the proselytizing people who feel it is their right and their duty and who are often willing to use any means necessary, including violence, to convince me that my belief in my mother is a false belief, that unless I renounce that belief I will suffer the wrath of their mother, the only true mother is their mother, and so on.

The institution of religion does not in general call for this kind of idiocy -- it is only two religions out of so many in the world that have done this.

So, there is no need to denounce and renounce religion because of this. When people do not behave correctly, point this out and that should be enough.

-arun gupta

Welcome back to USA. Yasser Lateef Hamdani.

According to my understanding, Khamnaei group has more support from villages, and Khatami from cities.

Siagalph #235

It is not that whoever is Anti American is pious. That is wrong logic. Neither same can be said of pro American.

The job of Governemnt is to look after its people and provide them with education, job opprtunities etc. How a country does it with the support of its people is a matter of choice. Compare Nigeria where western influence has never let it grow and left its people poor inspite of rich oil source. Or compare Arab countries, (who have recetly realized this) who spent all their hard earned currency in products from US and Europe instead of investing on its own people.

Why a democracy in Turkey is better where no party can work until it bends to the will of army and America, than Iran, where people are struggling and have a bright chances of success.

Democracy does not mean interference by America in the internal affairs of a country. But decisin by its own people to determine their course. But unfortunately democracy has become synonymous with American interest. And any country not following this is undemocratic. I don`t understand this logic that only Governemnts in which American interest can be safeguarded are democratic otherwise not.

Why was the Government of Arbakan in Turkey toppled, although he was playing by democratic rules. Why were election annuled in Algeria where anti-American group was poised to win. If you can answer these questions regarding the highly sacred democracy or more appropriately highly sacred American interest, I can review again my thoughts.

Sigalph re:96

(these well-meaning folks honestly think that whoever is anti-America must be good. Never mind the absolutely medieval barbarism often practiced there.)

I don`t think that anti-Americanism is the basis for the support of Iran and its democracy.. but that while imperfect, and facing many challenges in terms of the conservatives, democracy seems to be attempting to bring Iran away from the practices that you have mentioned. While it finds itself frequently hobbled by the Islamists, the government is made up of liberals who are attempting to challenge the old guard in terms of freedom of information etc. Indeed, the very triumph of those liberals, in the face of determined opposition by the entrenched conservatives, is probably what has made people suddenly so supportive of Iran and its democracy. Had someone akin to Khomeini still been running the show, in terms of power-distribution, the name of Iran would probably not even come up.

Overnight changes are difficult in societies that have travelled along the path such as Iran and Pakistan.. and while in Pakistan (in the cities at least) women are freer to dress as they like, Iranian women have a better deal in terms of rights and education. Not knowing the intricacies of Iranian society I can`t say much else (I was born there, as my father was in Tehran on behalf of the PNSC, but we left when the Revolution came, and I never took up the option of claiming my Iranian nationality.. :-) ).

Re to SameerJB

``The ``Islam in its truer sense`` is no solution; it is the root cause of most problems. ``



Very well said. I would like to add that not only Islam but also Hinduism, Christianity and all other major religions of the world are itself a source of problem rather solution. The cause of inception of most of the religions lies in the need felt at that time by some leader

1. To unite people under a common faith,and prevent infighting in the name of Gods.

2. To lay down certain rules of social conduct to resolve conflicts between people and promote peace and prosperity.

3. To emphasize certain universally accepted moral values and to incorporate them in the lives of common people by setting up a tradition.

4. To develop a common religious philosophy

I do not believe that there is anything like true religion or that it is dictated to humans by God. The truth should be acknowledged that the religion was thinking of just another human albeit a noble one. Every religion contains some thoughts( or beliefs) of that particular founder which were good in a particular region and at a particular time. So most of the religions are static. With time certain values which are universal should be preserved while those which get outdated should be discarded. Religion is a private thing, and every individual should make a judicious choice of what tenets to accept and what not by his own reason and free will. Follow your own religion. Muhammad Sahab( or Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Hindu rishis) did that and I am sure if these wise people had been present today, they wuld have altered some of their own teaching in favor of more just rules, be it the caste system of Hindus or keeping four wives in Islam. And afterall they being humans had their own share of prejudices and failings. It is the foolish people like us who fight others or perpetuate social evils in the name of religion that are to blame. So be wise, form your own set of beliefs founded on reason, and stick by them. And religion should not be mixed with politics lest chances of its abuse should increase.

Krashid #84 Bhutto did do some positive things like make it easier for anyone to get passports. However, I think he did cause the Pakistan economy to badly derail. I dont think we should base our future on something as nebulous as ``national will``. Hitler relied on such metaphysical concepts to win the war against Russia and learnt that God is on the side of the bigger battalions. Iran is hardly a great society to live in (otherwise you would find Pakistani youth in search of a future lining up before the Iranian embassy for visas, rather than e.g. the US embassy), and the reason China is developing is due to a combination of past investments in education and heavy inflows of capital and technology - nothing to do with ``national will``. In fact, if we see the world as it is today and as the direction it is headed, the very concept of nation is passe. We should be thinking in terms of the people of Pakistan and what can be done to help the next generation live a better life than the current one, and forget about slogans of national solidarity and so forth (the sloganeers are often the first ones to steal whatever little our people have).