Women in India: Are We Better Off?

Zahra!

I went back though my posts. I think it is #62 which you are referring to.

I am not liberal. First. So that I can call a black, black, (and not Afro-American) and still respect him for his qualities and not color.

What I said in that post, I believe to be crude but true.

It does not decrease my respect for women which include my family members also. These things are socially determined, on which we don`t have much control.

Let me tell you my experience.

My wife wears head scarf. Since our Mullahs are so adamant about our women wearing Hijab. I tried to go out myself with Arabian male head scarf. And believe me I could only do it in Muslim shops, and not in other stores. I realized that women must be courageous, with commitment to do Hijab and take scarf.

Any way peace be upon you):

Kresh0d:

Peace ? There wasn`t any war going on. Was there?
I think there must be some misunderstanding on your behalf.

You`ve stated few points in your previous posts, which needed to be examined, dissected and then treated. I think the first two stages were accomplished to some extent, whereas the last one needed some effort. My use of the word `reckless` for your `that` post should not be taken casually, I meant what I said. I think it was a clueless post. That is it! [This is regarding your post where you`ve shown some grudges against women. I don`t have the post number, but your comments needed to be grilled]

Secondly, as far as outspoken tendencies are concerned, as I said previouSly--Hats Off!!!
[Pointer: Just do not get carried away with that]

Allah Baili

Kresh0d:

Peace ? There wasn`t any war going on. Was there?
I think there must be some misunderstanding on your behalf. [

Zahra!

Peace.

Why a poor outspoken simple person is a target of your wrath).

Kresh0d:

It seems my admonishing note went through twice...Koi Baa`t Naheen. The latter one should be seriously taken & the former one should be disssssssssssssregardeddddddddddddddd.

Shu`kriyaaaa`

Kresh0d:

That was extremely kind of you to admit your role in the conspiracy!!! Hats Off!!

[May we have more innocent and outspoken fellows like you, who end up speaking the truth.(Amin)]

On an admonishing note; your previous reckless comment on women seemed as if you were jealous of their inherent sweetness. I mean, you need to watch out here!!! It is never too late to mend your ways [My Guru G`s saying - tribe MM]

What if a woman comes forth and says the same thing to a man ? All the fake ego will be Zameen-Boa`s!!! Your `that` thought was not only distasteful but was also Ha`iraan Kun.

Please make a note of the above Pin`D-O-Nas`aih
seriously.

Thanks
! ! !

dbpaustxusa: I would agree that ``comparisons are odious`` and there is no need to compare ancient Greek vs. Christian vs. any other religion. Indeed, the ``differences`` between religions are complementary, not contradictory, and vastly overshadowed by their common message as I mentioned earlier. For example, Epicurus (referred to in your previous post) is said to have said something about how anger or animosity towards others is a sign of weakness, while a person at peace with himself and the world is strong. This is message is emphasized in virtually every religion in my opinion. Lincoln said something similar and equally profound when he spoke about ``With malice towards none``. As I grow older, the wisdom behind such thoughts (to be found in religious books as well) becomes more and more apparent. (Nietzsche, incidentally, did not quite appreciate this even as he referred approvingly to Epicurus).

I guess I better stop now, before Zehra or someone points out that we should be talking female issues here, and leave these deep thoughts for another day :-).

Peace be on you too.

Kresh0d:

That was extremely kind of you to admit your role in the conspiracy!!! Hats Off!!

[May we have more innocent and outspoken fellows like you, who end up speaking the truth.(Amin)]

On an admonishing note; your previous reckless comment on women seemed as if you were jealous of their inherent sweetness. I mean, you need to watch out here!!! It is never too late in life to mend your ways [My Guru G`s saying - tribe MM]

What if a woman comes forth and says the same thing to a man ? All the fake ego will be Zameen-Boa`s!!! In fact, Sarae` Kus Bul will straighten up! Your comments were not only distasteful but also were Ha`iraan Kun.

Please make a note of the above Pin`D-O-Nas`aih
seriously.

Thanks

Tahmed,

I won`t add to what I said as `improper` in your previous post regarding Greek religious traditions as I think it will be redundant to do so. I have made my point and hope you will see the reason of my doing so even while disagreeing with it, that is all I wish. In any event, I am not at all saying that you were incorrect, what you had written is a widely prevailing opinion in the Western world and is considered `self-evident` and Huston Smith also has sympathies on such a view even though he has always agreed on the most liberal and ideal interpretation of all religious traditions. I absolutely adore his `The World`s Religions` just as you did, it is a inspiring piece of work; however on this point I would argue that the master is wrong. Philosophers from the Christian tradition are the most prejudiced lot. In any event as you lined up a master to substantiate your point, let me try a game of one-upmanship :-). Please read the following comment.

Even today many educated people think that the victory of Christianity over Greek philosophy is a proof of the superior truth of the former - although in this case it was only the coarser and more violent that conquered the more spiritual and delicate. So far as superior truth is concerned, it is enough to observe that the awakening sciences have allied themselves point by point with the philosophy of Epicurus, but point by point rejected Christianity.

- from Nietzsche`s Human, all too Human.

Do you see the futility of such selective interpretation/quotation ? We can line up all our witnesses but the issue will still be there.

In any case I rest my case here, one can only argue so much, the rest is a matter for reflection.

All I wish is that each of us sees all religious traditions with `reverence` and `humility`.

Peace be with you.

D.

Zehra!

If women continue to keep quiet on their own issues, what can conspirators do):

Jay!

I think someone else wrote this post for you):

db #126 on Marco Polo and the Great Khan: I think the Chinese and Japanese tend to be not as uptight about religion as we South Asians (or Italians, I guess, in Marco Polos time at least, and today as well). Even today, a Japanese can be a Buddhist, a Shinto, a Taoist and a Confucian all at the same time, as can a Chinese. There is nothing contradictory in that, since all religions are after all trying to do the same thing: trying to get people to behave like humans and not like animals.

dbpaustxa #126: Thanks for your interesting post. You quote my earlier post as follows: ``Judaism came first and introduced the concept of a God who is concerned about mankind, thus replacing the Greco-Roman tradition of gods who were concerned about themselves only``, and say that this may not represent ancient Greece/Rome in a proper light. Actually, this statement was an attempt at identifying the essence of the difference between Judaism and the Greco-Roman religions. A single sentence of course can hardly provide a complete picture of three major civilizations (Greek, Roman, Judaic), to which our ``global civilization`` today owes such a great debt (as it does to other great civilizations). The above summary (as well as the other one-line summary of the ``essence of the essence`` of other great religions that I presented in my earlier post are not simply my views, incidentally. I am basing them on a summary provided by Huston Smith in his best-selling book ``The World`s Religions`` (I enjoyed reading it this summer): As Smith mentions in that book, while it is quite a short book it is in fact based on a lifetime of study of different religions and rests on sturdy foundations of scholarship.

Wherever there is a mention of Women and their issues, one will find irrelevant discussions being raised to distract the focus. This is either an intentional male conspiracy or unintentional male conspiracy. In short, the common factor is : conspiracy!

Note: I think Chowk has a discussion board where interactors can raise their irrelevant points. I suggest the conspirers should look into it seriously! [ I hope I do not need to spell out the conspirers] :-(

Tahmed, macgupta,pankaj, krashid, et al,

Though I guess the issue has diverged a great deal from the original thrust of this interaction, i.e. women`s status, I nevertheless am happy at the refreshing positive nature and a learning focus of your last few posts and would like to contribute a few words.

But first, a minor correction:

......Judaism came first and introduced the concept of a God who is concerned about mankind, thus replacing the Greco-Roman tradition of gods who were concerned about themselves only (and this had the practical affect of introducing an element of humanity and kindness amidst the cruelties of the Roman empire of those days);....

tahmed, such selective interpretation of religious/cultural traditions after they are long gone is fraught with errors and omissions. I happen to believe after some study that the Hellenic religious tradition was extremely liberal and humanist in character, thus resulting in the great spirit of learning in Athenian democracy and their great advances in philosophy. The point about cruelties of Romanian empire (which is more seen in 200-400AD long after the decline had set in) has little to do with Greek religious tradition or even with Roman one, it was a sign of a decadence of the greatest empire the world had seen thus far. Same points are made about violent nature of Islamic `conquests` in its decadent period. Hence let`s be more open and `proper` (I believe the only attitude human beings ought to have towards any religious tradition is one of reverence and humility)

Now a point was made by macgupta and tahmed about the `marauding Mongol invaders` and its effects on period of Islamic advancement in knowledge, I would like to add to krashid`s post. I think you are confusing two developments, i.e. decline and breakup of Islamic khaliphate(which took less than 150 years to reach nearly 80% of its greaterst reach) and the actual plateuing and decline of intellectual traditions under patronage of the Islamic khaliphate. Moreover the fact that Genghis Khan and his successors had taken over large tracts of the khaliphate by 1200AD (and later became coopted as a part of larger Islamic world) was by no means a `dark age`. One has to see the advancement of Mughal Architecture/poetry and its earliest incarnations in Balkh/Herat to see that there was no `decline` even though these power groups were now in the `dynastical realm` rather than `cultural realms and there was thus more violence/warfare and such.

What I wished to point here was a paragraph from `The Travels of Marco Polo` by MP that I am reading recently and I was pleasantly surprised to see the description of the Mongol state and Kublai Khan even though by that time Islam had started to coopt the Mongols:

..The grand khan, having obtained this signal victory, returned with great pomp and triumph to the capital city of Kanbalu. This took place in the month of November, and he continued to reside there during the months of February and March, in which the latter was our festival of Easter. Being aware that this was one of our principal solemnities, he commanded all the Christians to attend him, and to bring with them their book, which contains the four Gospels of the Evangelists. After causing it to be repeatedly parfumed with incense, in a ceremonious manner, he devoutly kissed it, and directed that the same should bedone by all the nobles who were present. This was his usual practice upon each of the principal Christian festivals, such as Easter and Christmas; and he observed the same at the festivals of the Saracens, Jews and idolators. Upon being asked his motive for this conduct, he said:`These are four great Prophets who are reverenced and worshipped by different classes of mankind. The Christians regard Jesus Christ as their divinity; the Saracens, Mahomet; the Jews, Moses; and the idolators,Sogomombar-kan(??), the most eminent among thier idols. I do honour and show respect to all the four, and invoke to my aid whichever amongst them is in truth supreme in heaven.` But from the manner in which his majesty acted towards them, it is evident that he regarded the faith of the Christians as the truest and the best....

The last sentence is very interesting. Was it real or really tongue-in-cheek, I wonder.

To krashid,

No, not at all TNT doesnt hurt me. I am indignant about the educated of pakistan who refuse to accept the permeance of TNT in every walk of life in pakistan. Many have said here that TNT is no more talked about, it is true, no need to talk about it, it has become part of pak way of life.

Just imagine K for Kafir, in the elite of the elite school. And the educated of pakistan refuse to see it and talk of peace. Jihad, yes I can understand from collective, not peace. The above remarks are purely for the collective pakistan, individual beliefs and views are a totally different matter.

Chowk an open forum is not the place to talk of ones private views, it is down right stupid, falling in love with the masks. Chowk is for talks from steady positions, if not exchange e-mail addresses and quitt. This a battle ground of ideas, to be debunked, plagiarists exposed and above all to play intelectual origamy.

regards and best wishes

Jay.