Headache and Heartburn

Dear Farangi_Kush# 232

You said:
///There are lot of internet-scholars being spawned these days.What others learn in 20/30 years or even more at Madina or Qumm or Damascus madressas,these poor souls want to digest it in a pill of a few hours.What they mistake as knowledge is simply jig-sawed information and concoctions (because that is what they are looking for--with a mission & agenda tucked in their smelly armpits).No wonder their brain crashes on such `crash courses`.////

Sir you are merciless; you hit `em where it hurts the most. Well keep at it, I am enjoying every bit of it.

FARANGI_KUSH #236

``Analysing,comparing,debating are as good activities as playing chess,luddo,or cross-word.Certain subject should never be reduced to such trivial pursuits``

Are you saying people of different faiths must not talk with each other about each other`s religions except in terms of abuse? Because I donot remember seeing so many objections or so much indignation when the `trivial pursuit` of insulting the other guys beliefs is frequently indulged on this board.

To each his/her own norms of interaction.

Sadhana

tahmed321 #235

Thanks again for your reply. Sorry I ascribed more to you than you impled.

I need to clarify one point, though. You say ``Similarly, things like interest-rates are an issue as result of attempts by mullahs to stake out a political presence, when in fact mullahs themselves have no place in Islam. If you view, e.g. the interest-rate issue in light of Islamic principles as I described in my previous post, your would find that it is in fact loan-sharking that are abhorent to Islamic principles, and to think that guaranteed interest that provides a steady income to small savers is unIslamic represents a lack of appreciation of the principles of Islam.``

tahmed, you maynot be aware that the Pakistan Supreme Court? since NS`s term set in motion transition to a interest-free economy sometime next year(am I mistaken, anyone). As far as I know, interest was declared unIslamic by the highest legal authorities in Pakistan.

Its difficult to leave religion out of `zina/hudood` ordinances and laws against heresy, you would agree? If motivated mullahs are behind these unIslamic practices, well then the army of sincere motivated believers/defenders should be busy running those mullahs down, at least for their misinterpretations of one`s dearly held beliefs, if not for their illegitmate tactics of intimidation.

To your great credit you donot consider questions and issues to be a threat to your faith. Thanks.

Sadhana

Sadna #218 You ask ``How about specific questions like personal habits say like alcohol, coexistence with nonbelievers and their beliefs, status of women, prescribed punishments for religious transgressors, what constitutes religious transgression, duties to the community, moral/religious authority granted to religious leaders, belief in interest-free economy, etc etc? Are these allowed to be matters of individual interpretation and choice, too, freely accepted as such by others ?``

The Kalima (along with it`s obvious implications as described in my previous post) provides the basic frame of reference, the basic principles. If something is contradictory to these basic principles, it is contradictory to Islam. While much evil (persecution of women, harsh punishments, destruction of places of worship) is done in the name of Islam, these are in fact against the principles of Islam and due to other factors like cultural backwardness, kingships and/or political repression, and so forth. And indeed, similar cultural backwardness and abuse of the weak by the strong - of men against women, of police against prisoners - can be found in countries like India as well - so let`s leave religion out of this and focus on the real problems of backwardness. Similarly, things like interest-rates are an issue as result of attempts by mullahs to stake out a political presence, when in fact mullahs themselves have no place in Islam. If you view, e.g. the interest-rate issue in light of Islamic principles as I described in my previous post, your would find that it is in fact loan-sharking that are abhorent to Islamic principles, and to think that guaranteed interest that provides a steady income to small savers is unIslamic represents a lack of appreciation of the principles of Islam.



You say ``I find noone answering Solitude`s points on these, rather I find them questioning his right to question and credibility as questioner.``

I was responding to your questions, so I dont know why you think I am putting down Solitude one way or another. I have read only one of his earlier posts, to which I responded negatively not because of the substance of what he was saying but the way he was putting down another chowk poster (check it out for yourself, I think it is earlier on this thread). I have not read his other posts (I have been spending too much time on chowk as it is), so I dont know what these issues are or where you find me attacking his views whatever they are.

re. sadna (#221 & #222)

Excellent points and questions.

Could I have some of that succintness? :-) Maybe it`ll help keep me from being fired.

re. Lubna (#208): ``But then [Solitude] attacks the ones who`ve ``compromised`` as well! He rants on about how they`re being hypocritical, how they need help to cross the path completely and blah blah blah. Why is it a problem for him if people choose to follow a tailored version of their religion? If they`re happy with their version of their beliefs, and if this doesn`t affect him in any way, why is he so bothered? ``

re. Solitude`s `ranting`: Funny how no one uses that word to describe the vitriol that spews from, say, Farangi_kush --whom I guess I am indebted to for presenting a view the opposite of Solitude`s. (No disrespect meant to Solitude, who at least attempts to back up his arguments with reason rather than selective and out-of-context poetry).

My point in bringing up this Farangi_kush character here is this: When he has spoken in much less measured words about the `cow-piss-drinking Hinuds`, the `bhangee Brown Sahibs` and the `graceless` (and what-not) liberals, I don`t recall many `moderate Muslims` (your term) on the chowk raising a hue and cry or accussing him of hate-crimes. (Indeed, some of them seem to be in the proverbial bed with him of late!) But that`s okay. Hate, after all is an impotent emotion in cyber space (assuming we`re all mature enough to not be influenced by it).

So all these recent complaints about Solitude`s supposed hateful motivations really seem irrelevant. The question, to me, is, should his motivations detract from the validity of his arguments? Some interactors here seem to be obsessed with his upbringing and the alleged source of his animosity. That seems to be the modus operandi here when up against the wall of reasoned argument and supportive evidence: The majority of opposing reactions have been either ``Oh poor chap, he had it really bad as kid, so just take his `rantings` with a pinch of salt.`` or ``He`s a rabid, hateful individual, and so cannot possibly have anything to say that is worth listening to``. But feigned pity and ridicule are nothing if not nice masks for contempt.

What I see more than anything else here is moral indignation. Not unlike that exhibited by Solitude himself. The difference is that while he is willing to back up his assertions with `evidence` (though I am not saying they are bullet-proof), his opponents are content with analysing him, labelling him and caricaturing him -- all of which they can only conveniently do from behind the safety of numbers.

WHERE ARE HE REBUTTALS?? The fact that many continue to read and react to him would indicate that they feel he`s got something to say.

Again, why should his motivations detract from the validity of his arguments? The lives of those that have made a significant change in the world (for the better or worse, admittedly) have almost alwyas been marked by tragedy or turmoil (often early in life). Perhaps we need to be burned by the fire to be shaken out of our lives of mediocrity and `compromise` that looks no further than the immediate effects of our value systems.

``... But just notice the way Solitude attacks the ``moderates`` for being so moderate about their faith.``

Solitude attacks those moderates who claim that `moderation` is possible in Islam. To repeat what I said to scout earlier, respect of others` beliefs, or even their right to them, is not really Islamic. In this Farangi_Kush is at least devoid of contradiction. He says it like it is (which is why I love him so much!).

Lubna, you say: [Why are some of us so hell-bent on proving the beliefs of others as being ``wrong``?! Believe in the ``rightness`` of your faith ALL you want but don`t come around preaching me on how ``wrong`` I am about MY beliefs.]

I haven`t been able to understand this impatience with someone `preaching` yet. Don`t we all preach in our own little ways (whether through actions or didaction). As long as someone is not depriving you of your right to believe what you might (say, by declaring a fatwa against freethinking, or by brainwashing you from infancy :-) ), why should you mind if he/she preaches the pants off Billy Graham? You and scout repeatedly voice that patently western liberal ethic, `to each his own`, yet fail to recognize that freedom of speech is intrinsically linked to that.

It`s a little odd decrying the `preaching` of someone on a forum where a click of the mouse can effectively tune you off the preacher. It`s even odder if one should do so without equally decrying the preaching of fire and brimstone through blaring loudspeakers. So, what is it that really irks? I fail to see how preachiness by itself could arouse so much disdain.

Of course, no one is condoning slander and libel while exercising one`s freedom of speech. But in none of Solitude`s rants, abrasive as they may be, have I come across unsubstantiated accusations or false evidence. If the conclusions that he draws from these premises are uncomfortable, simply rebut or ignore them. Why is that so hard to do?

`` Let others believe in whatever they want to and how ever much they want to. We are in NO POSITION WHATSOEVER to pass judgments so confidently as to who is a ``true`` believer (of any faith/belief) and who isn`t.``

Again, liberal political theory misinterpreted. Replace `pass judgement` with `hold and express opinions` and you should have no problem, right? As long as he isn`t passing a `judgement` that, say, calls for your head on a plate, he is within his rights (the same rights you seem to espouse in saying `To each his own``). Calling a spade a spade may not always be a polite thing to do, but it is hardly passing judgement.

``It`s no one`s damn business whether I adhere to my beliefs in the ``correct`` manner and/or to the ``right`` extent or not! To you your beliefs, to me mine! As long as it does not have any affect on me, I don`t care who or what you believe in and neither should you care about my beliefs.``

Now pray tell, what effect does Solitude`s exercise of his right to preach have on you?? Is he blaring his words through a megaphone into your living room? Is he keeping your from praying or observing any other religious duties? Or is the effect more subliminal and worrying because some of his words make sense?

In a sense, the nautre of the opposition to Solitude illustrates his main thesis: Very few are able to tolerate an opposing viewpoint.

Finally, let`s rid ourselves of this puerile notion that beliefs are something wholly personal and don`t affect actions. YOU may, with the benefit of a modern-day education and exposure, and the need/desire to live harmoniously with others, choose and pick your `version` of Islam to suit you, even to elevate you spiritually. BUT WHAT ABOUT OTHERS?

What about those who would , either out of conditioning, fear or a desire to be consistent and honest, choose to follow Islam to the tee, not picking and chosing the way `moderates` do? Would the actions of those rather innocent literalists/extremists be somehow justified by the benefits that following a more liberal (read `pick and choose`) or enlightened Islam bring you?

I this has really been Solitude`s question all along. Perfectly legitimate, unless, of course, you`ve been brought up to never question your religion. If Solitude is biased and fails to recognize some of the more sublime truths of Islam, he nonethelss asks some very pertinent questions about its more dubious aspects. However, even the suggestion that there may actually exist some undesirable aspects seems to be threatening to some.

And so while you visit your nearby mosque in Jersey or Delhi for some of uplifiting, inspiring, khutbas this Ramzaan, somewhere in Karachi, some ankled-high-shalwar clad zealot will be quoting verses to prove that Shias are non-Muslims, that women may be physically abused, and why Christians and Hindus should continue to be treated as second-class citizens in Pakistan.

Sadna:#222

Sadna bibi! ``education`` `parhay likhay` IS THE PROBLEM.Please,spare us the tyranny of those who went to universities(under the western education system).Brought nothing but misery,war,and scourge to those who were really really fortunate to lead simple(the ones we call ``illiterate``) uncomplicated lives .And they got along very well with those of other faiths(the often touted //`tolerated` // `respected` mumbo jumbo is so patronising & reeks of colonialism)

BUT,they were always the victims of the ``educated`` Clintons(Rhodes--no less),Blairs and other thugs & their clones(the westernised philosophy pan-handlers)in the few remaining boot-licking countries of the world......India & Pakistan being the prime examples of those illegitimate cultural-heirs.

We need more ``educated`` ones who walk,talk,and look like those who form the 90% of our population

AND at the same time know enough english(language only please!NO literature) to read through the chicanery of the western thugs.Fortunately,the numbers of such are increasingly coming up through the ranks in both India & Pakistan.

Analysing,comparing,debating are as good activities as playing chess,luddo,or cross-word.Certain subject should never be reduced to such trivial pursuits.Leave them to the western universities who need money to run their education-factories and teach sociology/political science to make you look respectable to the ones you have been taught to look down upon....the `illiterate` of India & Pakistan.

Those ``illiterates`` will soon be teaching all of us ba ba blacksheep a lesson which will have a shelf-life of another 1000 years and this time it will get etched & tattoed on our DNAs.

Unless,of course we mend our ways & be what we really are----their cultural relatives.

__________________________________________________

WASSALAAM

fuzair:#216

If you agree with Lubna more & more,and agree with the likes of PM & Solitude less and less you would soon find yourself de-educated for the better.Muslims fear only Allah`s wrath.

I`ve been there,seen it,done that.As you already know I am a product of the ba ba blacksheep system....perhaps more than most here,you included.

You will come around.Most do.Only very few fall through the cracks.If that fact alone is not a teacher,what is?

__________________________________________________

``Upnee hee zaat mein pusstee kay khudhur miltay hain

Upnee hee zaat mein ikk koh-e nidaa rehtaa hai

sirf iss koh kay daaman mein mayyasar hai nijaat

aadmee varnaa anaasir mein ghiraa rehtaa hai

Aur jubb inn sey bhee ghubraa key uthathaa hai nazar

Upnay Allah kee aur upnay khudaa kee jaanib

-----Ayyu-hann-naas chalo koh-e nidaa kee janib.

(ZEEMAX:where are you?Do you visit chowk now)

__________________________________________________

WASSALAAM.

Re: Zahra

``I do not think the author needs to be thankful to Solitude at all.``

Maybe not. That was just my opinion.

``It is still this article that invoked turbulance in the minds and hearts of many.``

That`s a stretch....

``It seems you have a hard time appreciating a woman`s thoughts.``

I haven`t been smacked by any of my female friends yet, so I don`t think that`s true...I may have a hard time understanding some women`s thoughts, but that`s a different matter.

Ever notice how these perverts(a.k.a free-thinkers) start doing reverse cart-wheels and try to become loveydovey towards their rejected faith.

So you do not find anything good in it,so be happy.Why now going to muslims to seek their blessings and approval?Do you really need proof that you have gone completely bonkers.Send your stuff to atheist/liberal/socialist/commie/humanist/gay-lesbo/pornographic promoting sites.What the hell are you doing among civilised & cultured class.

Some ``christians`` of your kind have already done such sacriligous deeds to that great benefactor to humanity Jesus Christ(Pbuh),Hazrat Eeesa.We muslims can never and have ever uttered the blasphemies even against Raam,Krishan or Nannak despite the fact that we have been at each others` throats for centuries.

__________________________________________________

The good news is that muslims & Islam is spreading exponentially in Europe & US.The younger generation,weaned on western ``philosophies`` is even more devout & firm.They see with their own eyes the vulgarity & obscenity around them.If other faith people want to leave their faiths in the closets,it is their prerogative....but please do not expect your kind of docilty & apology-laden embarrassment from others.

__________________________________________________

There are lot of internet-scholars being spawned these days.What others learn in 20/30 years or even more at Madina or Qumm or Damascus madressas,these poor souls want to digest it in a pill of a few hours.What they mistake as knowledge is simply jig-sawed information and concoctions (because that is what they are looking for--with a mission & agenda tucked in their smelly armpits).No wonder their brain crashes on such `crash courses`.

__________________________________________________

``Thaa kaam jo maira voh tho Insaan nay sanbhalaa

Mairay liyay kiyaa hukm hai Allah -Ta-A`alla.``

from ``Iblees ki faryaad``

by syed Mohammad Jafri.

__________________________________________________wassalaam

rsaxena #214, `` think the author (Iit is a non-gender specific term I believe) should thank Solitude for making this board interesting enough to get over 200 responses...else it would have gotten 15-20 and been passed by without notice.``

Is it such a big thing to get 200 posts that one needs to thank mindless idiots who provide them? Does it really have to do with the author`s talent or lack there of?

Leave me out of it plz. I don`t give a damm.

Re: urstruly

``Trust me, once your name is up there under the article title you dont want that to happen to your thread unless that was what in your mind in the first place. And of course I can only speak for myself.``

I only intended to speak for myself too..maybe the author doesn`t appreciate the diversion. Whatever.

``The worst thing you can do to a lady is to call her ``genderless``. I didnt know you were such an insensitive oaf :) ``

Oh puleeez. All I said was that the term ``author`` is not gender-specific...I said nothing about the author herself. Stop trying to get me into trouble...I can do that well enough myself.

Hi all

Here is an excerpt of a reply given by me to someone on the question of ``Evolution of value systems``. I think this supplements my earlier post. I have attempted to apply the concepts of Game theory to answer this problem.

``Our daily interactions with the society can be broadly classified into zero sum games and the non zero sum games. ``Prisoner`s dilemma`` is a classical example of a non zero sum game

in which the ``welfare`` of both the prisoners is maximised when they choose to cooperate and ``trust`` each other. In general, it is observed that while a ``cooperative approach`` is better suited in non zero sum games, people tend to take a ``competitive approach`` intended to optimise one`s own ``welfare`` at the cost of the other.

Now the so called present ``set of high values`` like trust, honesty, truth etc are favoured by the nature in a ``cooperative approach``, in general and hence their evolution. However ``competitive approach`` in many cases tends to favour breach of trust, falsehood etc. Thus the kind of value system that evolves over time is the result of interplay between these approaches. The equilibrium at any time is determined by the relative frequency of ZSG(zero sum games) and NZSG that an average person encounters in a day-to- day interaction with society. I guess that the evolution of the basic value sets as well as the ``derivative value sets`` may be explained by this hypothesis. However while the time scale that should be taken for basic value set should be larger than the derived set ``

I hope this helps in clarifying some concepts.

Sincerely

To all



If religion be understood as a set of rules that were hypothesised by their originators, to establish a more just society than that existing, we will have little trouble appreciating it. Some of these tenets are with respect to establishing a ``moral code of conduct`` or establishing a ``set of value system`` that was supposed to prevent anarchy and lay the foundations of a coherent, closely knit society by providing justice according to such rules. Then there are other rules that prescribe the dealings between two coreligionist and with people of different faiths. If we take the Prophets/ Rishis to be intelligent people(``divinely inspired`` if you insist) who laid down these rules in accordance with their idea of ``Greater Good`` as perceived by them, then these rules can not be immutable. The ``Greater Good`` as envisaged by them was a function of socio-economic variables,and personal perception of the social conditions. It is well known that all religions emphasize ``spirituality`` or the ``universal ethical values``. I think that is the point a religion should stop dictating people. The laws governing socio economic interactions between people evolve by the forces that are a function of time.( and implicitly of the existing order). The problems arise when people try to overstretch the concept of religion to define all the human interactions by a set of unchanging rules. Whenever a concept is applied outside its domain of validity, it is prone to produce erroneous results. Religion lays down some simplistic rules to deal with the simple social interactions that existed at that time and while inspiration can be drawn for evolving new solutions for the complex interactions in the modern society, the same solutions can not be followed to the letter. The question then is, to what extent the religion should be practiced in day to day life. I would like to draw an analogy with Newtonian Vs Quantum relativistic approach. The Newtonian approach is simple and gives good result when applied within its domain. So although we know that Quantum relativistic approach will give better answers, we continue using Newtonian approach to deal with most of the problems except at subatomic scale where it completely breaks down. Only for those complex situations we have evolved a more sophisticated QR theory. Thus we can continue following religious prescriptions that hold good even in present day scenario but there is definitely a need to evolve a more sophisticated approach for a variety of other problems that we face today.

Sincerely

Re: Hamzad

``They would love Islam when it becomes the dominant power in US & Europe.They won`t have to wait too long.``

The day that happens, the rest of us will either be killed or willingly commit suicide.

Religion had a purpose and a need in the distant past when man knew little about the world around him...we still don`t know everything but we know a lot more. Religion was a good crutch to have...if thunder scared the hell out of the caveman`s family and he had no clue what it was, he could explain that it was god`s way of punishing those who were bad and the family can avoid being fried by it by not being bad.

Now it has less of a need, particularly if we can have economic prosperity and good education in science, art, and math for everyone. People will learn to respect each other without having to be threatened with god`s punishment. Unfortunately, the armpit of the world isn`t ready for this yet.