Headache and Heartburn

Just one quick question ... . You went to bed thinking about the symapthetic Beant Singh , but what did you do the first thing you got up in the morning ? Did you actually change something in his life ? Sure , it feels good to write an article and see it get published with your name on it , and you sentiments penned in this virtual online ink. But the question remains ... did anything change for Beant Singh: New York City cab driver?

Hi Sameer

Ha, Ha Ha. Man! your previous post was hilarous. Sachche madhupremi(lover of wine) Ghalib aur Harivanshrai Bachchan se prerana(inspiration) prapta kar ek aadh baar mein bhee kosis(attempt) kee thee . Par beer ki badboo aur whisky ki kaduwahat(bitterness or sharpness of taste) mujhse nahin jheli gayi. Shayad sachche madhupremi banane ke liye jeevan mein kaduwahat ka hona zaroori hai.Aur meri kabhi koi girlfriend bhi nahi rahi ki usike bichadne ke gam mein thodi see halaq(throat) ke neeche utaar leta. Nihayat hi rookhaa sookhaa aur unromantic aadmi hoon. Mujhe Harivansh Rai ki madhushala(house of liquor) yaad aa rahi hai. Shayad tumne bhi padhi ho.

``

chhote se jeevan mein kitnaa, pyaar karoon, pee loon haalaa

aane ke hi saath jagat mein, kahlaayaa jaane waalaa

swaagat ke hi saath bidaa ki, hoatee dekhee tayyaari

band lagee hone khulate hi, maeri jeevan MADHUSHAALAA

``

Transliteration:

In this brief life, how much can I love, how much can I drink

Right on arrival in this world, I became `destined-to-go`

Parting and farewell arrangements I have seen just following welcome

Barely upon opening, started to close my life`s wonderful madhushaalaa.

Ya phir

``Laalaa in adharon se jisne, haay nahein choomi haalaa

harshit kampit kar se jisne, haay na chhuwaa madhu ka pyaalaa

haath pakad lajjit saaqi ka, paas nahein jisne kheenchaa

vyarth sukhaa daali jeevan ki, usne madhumaya MADHUSHAALAA``

If one has not yet kissed a ``drink`` with his lips,

And has not yet felt the ``pail`` with delight and trembling hands.

If one has not yet held the hands of the bashful ``bar-tender`` and pulled her towards oneself,

Such a person has totally wasted his life`s wonderful Madhushaalaa.

Aur anta(end) mein

``dharm granth sab jalaa chuki hein, jiske bheetar ki jwalaa

mandir, masjid, girje sab kuchh, toade chuka jo matwaalaa

pandit, momin, padariyon ke, phandon ko jo kaat chuka

kar sakti hae aaj usi ka, swaagat meri MADHUSHAALAA

``

That, whose fire from within, has burnt all holy books of his religion

That, who has demolished all his personal religious structures- temple, mosque or church

That who has freed himself from the clutches of religious priests- Pandit, Imam or Bishop

That alone is today welcome in my Madhushaalaa.

Khair chodo,aur batao. Yeah I read about the exile of NS to S. Arabia. They say, fact is stranger than fiction. This incident happened out of blue. Nobody had an inkling of this event. Does Saudi really wields that kind of influence in Pakistani politics as this incident seems to suggest. I am purposely avoiding the other boards as ylh is back with a bang and ready to flood all the boards with his Gandhi-Jinnah obsesssion.

PS Do you live in Houston?

Pankaj #338:

tum ne bilkul na pee, hum ne jee bhar ke pee

tum bhi mar jao gay, hum bhi mar jaiN gay

Translation: You chose not to drink, I did. In the end we both will die! P.S. Bhai yeh ``gay`` at the end of the verse is different than those at Westheimer Street, Houston.

Whether people puking after getting drunk or coming down with cirrhosis, death will come to all-give and take few years.

By the way, did you hear that NS has been exiled to Saudi Arabia until he performs 21 Hajjs and comes back to Pakistan as the 2nd incarnation of Imam Ghazali.

Dear aicha

Jo nasha aankhon se peene mein hai, woh bechaari sharaab mein kahan -:) Sharab to madad bhar karti hai, asli nasha to kahin aur se hi paida hota hai-:)

On a more serious note, I have seen a lot of my over enthusiastic friends who drink beyond their capacity to take and end up puking! Or wallowing in the mud in street! Its a very repulsive site.

That`s why I say, drink for your pleasure but not to get drunk. Addiction of anything is bad, be it drinking alcohol or posting on Chowk! :) However I do support freedom of choice. People should be made aware of the harms of alcohol addiction, but the choice of exercising so should be left to them.

Cheers!

Fairdinkum, Fuzair, sac #382 Here`s one from the US Civil War: Gen Grant was winning all his battles while the other federal generals were getting beaten, and so was being considered to head the northern armies. People complained to Lincoln that he drank, at which Lincoln said that he needed to know what brand of whisky he drank so he could send some to his other generals as well.

So, maybe we send some whisky to our generals so they can build up the courage needed to put the mullah in his place.

faidinkum: Thanks for posting a very moving narration about Josh Maleehabadi. Gone are the day when governments and Mullahs did not have the unofficial authority to grant people heathen and non-Muslims based on some of the choices people make, like having one or few drinks (not having one too many!!!). To me it is a habit like many others where people must make choices, be it drinking, smoking, eating greasy foods, too much red meat with animal fats or too much sugar. Most people are lot smarter than Mullahs to know better about good and bad.

Thanks also to Fuzair, sac and Tahmad for some good thoughts about alcohol. The story of Josh and the one sac mentioned about income-tax official is very common in Pakistan. Even myself, being a Jamaatia during my college and university years and shouting ``Allah is Great`` or ``Asia is Green`` with other jamaatias during rallies did enjoy Murree Brewary beer and Hunza water during a trip to Hunza valley. I think Hunza water is locally produced white wine but tastes great when enjoyed in the valley sitting beside Indus river. Lately, I heard, they are more careful about producing and serving only to trusted friends because of Mullahism next door in Gilgit and Shiaism across the river in Nagar.

We people have been drinking as long as our history is known. They were producing wine during Indus valley civilization days and Aryans brought their own fermented drink called ``soma``. It is not clearly known what carbohydrate source Aryans used to brew soma. This drinking habit of Indus valley is well mentioned in Mahabharata and I guess, Punjabis love for drinking at Basant (New Year) and particularly at Baisakhi might be a continuation of long historical traditions to feel good at celebrations given the tough life during rest of the year.

scout#281:

``hmmmmmmm....things are coming together....

in other words, man is the weaker sex..``

Men are conditioned to repress their feelings (esp. wrt other men) much more than women are. Though this is certanly regrettable in an age when we don`t need to keep our guard up all the time lest the other male steal our food or women, I`m not so sure this trait makes us `weaker` in any way.

Nice try, though :-)

Re: Fairdinkum #382

I had a v. good Shia friend who would keep every roza during Ramzan, pray religiously and give up alcohol and bridge for the whole month.

I never quite understood this but, hey, whatever, works for you.

Re: Scout #381

Given the longer female life expectancy, higher pain thresholds and higher male:female birth ratios, was there ever any doubt about females being the superior gender? Males have greater upper body strength and, maybe, better spatial skills. The only ones who doubt female superiority are the mullah types and other true believers.

Regards.

re scout #381:

Brilliant deduction Watson. The best argument arguing the superiority of women IMHO is the duration of their orgasms wouldn`t you agree? :)

re faridinkum #382:

I distinctly remember my sixth grade Urdu teacher waxing eloquent about Josh and `Yaadon ki Barat`. Being the precocious nerd that I was I borrowed the book from the school library and spent the whole weekend reading it cover to cover (and some passages many a time!!). Needless to say my moustache appeared shortly afterwards :)

Funny you should mention the drinking habits of income tax officials in the land of the pure. The standard joke in Lahore goes something like this. If you want to bring in anything duty free just call the income tax or Customs hotline. For the mere `gift` of a bottle of Johny Walker or two one can walk away thru the Green channel or the dry-port in a Mack truck no questions asked!!

later

-sac

Fuzair, Sac, Tahmad,
Some anecdotes and random thoughts on drinking.

Joosh Maheehabadi once said that, “sharaab is only haram for those who can’t handle it.”
Josh used to drink regularly after “Maghrib”… immediately after the aazaan he would have two drinks and then say his takbir too… no kidding!! As you guys may know, apart from being a great poet, he was a great Marsiah poet, and a great recitor as well. He was highly regarded in India and Pakistan … In Lucknow, India; he used to recite his Marsiah at Luckonow’s grand mufti’s (of shias) place. This was a regular yearly event… People knew about his drinking habits… he never hid it from anybody. A delegation of “respected” people from the community once went to grand mufti’s house and complained that Josh is a drunkard, and he should not recite marsiah at your place.. Grand mufti took note of their complain and said, “I will make an announcement on the day josh is scheduled to recite marsiah at my place.” People must have thought the mufti sahib is going to humiliate josh in front of all the people and replace him with somebody else… when the day came, the crowd gathered at mufti’s place was four times the normal crowd… sure enough, mufti had invited josh… he was there, and so were all the people who complained about his “character.” To the disappointment of “respected” people of the community, mufti sahib instead of making any announcement, invited josh to recite marsiah… josh (not knowing anything about the complain thing) made his way and was about to sit down at the designated spot for marsiah rectors when grand mufti suddenly got up and asked josh to sit down where he (grand mufti) was sitting… then addressing the crowd mufti said, “ I have received a complain about josh that he has some weakness which renders him unfit to recite marsiah. Well, let me tell you that in the scheme of things josh is a lot higher than me. The reason I have asked josh to sit where I was sitting is to show my utmost respect for this person. Those who don’t like josh for his weaknesses are more than welcome to leave!”
Of course, times were different then… people hadn’t known Zia-ul-Haq or lashkars … otherwise they would have simply shot josh… btw, josh was banned in Pakistan during Zia period… wasn’t he?

You guys should read “yadoon ki barat” … I highly recommend it.

I have known a lot of poets, writers, critics etc. in Pakistan who drink regularly… btw,those who become a nuisance after having couple of drinks are known as “kam zarf.”

On my visit to Pakistan in 1998, I went to visit a person who is an Income Tax Commissioner in Karachi… not that I know many govt. officials… he is know to our family from the days when he was a school teacher… I was escorted by a servant into the living room and informed that, “saab namaz parh rah hai...aap baithain thori dair main saab aata hai.” When Saab came in he was wearing an Islamic cap and looking very solemn… After exchanging pleasantries, he asked me if would care to drink something… when I said coffee… he laughed and said, “aap mazaq kar rahay hain?… theek say batain beer ya whisky?”

Couple of high ranking government officials soon joined us … Interestingly both had outwardly religious appearance… Pakistan is so full of twofaced basta#ds… I wouldn’t be surprised if I found out that most of the leaders of so-called religious parties also drink. But then, alcohol is not suitable for “kam zarf” people… so they may not…

I don`t understan why ``drinking`` is such a big deal? ... even from Islamic perspective taking bribe, violation of human rights, back biting, corruption etc. etc. which are widely prevalent amongst all classes in Pakistan are lot more serious breaches of Islamic law...

sac #379, ``The army is well-known for its drinking proclivity. ....I think it serves as a bonding

exercise.``

Are men so dumb and unsure of themselves that they need to get drunk to ``bond?``

I read somewhere that men are more apt to get more ``touchy feely`` with each other (in an affectionate friendly sense) under the influence of alcohol.

They`re not man enough to be sure of their sexuality, so they have to resort to losing their inhibitions (by drinking) in order to ``bond`` with their peers.

hmmmmmmm....things are coming together....

in other words, man is the weaker sex..

re TAhmed #376:

Just curious, how long have you been away from Pakistan? And please discount your 2-3 week visits to Pakistan every year or so.

re Fuzair #377:

The army is well-known for its drinking proclivity. Zia did a lot to tamper that but it is still widely practised not only at the officer but at the JCO/sepoy level also. I think it serves as a bonding exercise. You are absolutely right in your observations. Except for scattered pockets of lower middle classes, drinking in Pakistan is widespread just like any other country.

later

-sac

Fuzair #377 I dont have a problem with people drinking as long as their drinking is not a problem for others. It becomes a problem when (a) they drink to excess and make themselves a nuisance - or worse - with their drunk behavior or talk; (b) they drink to prove something (these are the only fellows where I think brother Farangi`s ba-ba-black sheep epithet is well deserved).

I dont think one needs to be in very exalted circles to realize that people in (a) and (b) are generally looked down upon in Pakistan. I am sure we can agree on that (Please agree, since I am spending too much time on chowk trying to fix the world).

I agree that for a man to die trying to save another person (per your example) is perhaps the highest definition of class.

So, on that note, shall we say ``cheers`` and drink to that?

Reply 376 - Pankaj



`` Dont drink, and if you drink make

sure you dont get drunk.``

arrey - phir peenay ka mazaa hi kya hai : )

Re: Tahmed #231

Actually, no, that was not my intention. It was simply an example of how widespread drinking is in Pakistan. Its found in virtually all social circles and walks of life. My experience has been that the average Pakistani is a pretty tolerant chap who is willing to accept a little human weakness (for want of a better term) in others. One of the officers who used the liquor license, not my uncle, was one who later on lost his life in the Northern Areas trying to resue one of his men from a crevasse. Now THAT is what I would call class. I don`t know what you would call it: drunken stupidity I suppose. The only ones whom the soldiers despised were the ones who drank to excess. But isn`t any excess to be condemned? Even an excess of virtue? BTW, they also condemned ultra-maulvi type officers.

I have no idea what exalted circles you move in but my experience is very different from yours. The only Pakistanis I know who ``despise`` people who drink, as opposed to despising drunkards, are ones from an excessively religious and/or lower-middle class background--actually the two are just about synonymous now aren`t they?

Most sensible people see it as being a personal lifestyle choice that, within moderation, does no one any real harm. They, unlike you, do not immediately see having a vodka tonic or a beer as a sign of immediate moral degeneracy.

You still haven`t told me how villagers in the NAs fall into the baa baa black sheep category. Now, they were Ismailis so by your reckoning do they fall into the kaffir category? And all kaffirs are baa baa black sheep? I also assume you and Scout lump Mr. Jinnah, whiskey sipping, ham sandwich eating kaffir that he was, in to the same category?

Fuzair #373 So the christian army officer let the muslim army officers have his drinking licence, and the latter jumped for it. If these individuals represent your idea of class, then we obviously have different views on what is class.

Hey all you guys

One of my friend once said,`` Dont drink, and if you drink make sure you dont get drunk.`` Once or twice I tried to give company to some of my friends in the party but somehow I was unable to do so. I particularly hate the smell and taste of beer and whiskey. I always wondered how people can enjoy such drinks. Anyways but it seems some people really have fun drinking.

Cheers

Re: PM #366

Work is the curse of the drinking classes, eh? To quote Oscar Wilde.

Re: Tahmed 321

Sorry, old boy. Don`t know who you have been hanging out with but the only teetotallers to be found in Pakistan are the lower-middle class and middle-class types. Having some experience of the Karachi and Islamabad crowd, I can certainly tell you that the upper-middle class on up certainly does drink, like fishes. I`ve never seen such a group of hard drinkers in the US, for example, outside of a frat party. Years back, shortly after alcohol was first banned, my uncle`s battalion was very happy to have a Christian officer who was a strict teetoller because his alcohol allowance was happily consumed by his brother--Muslim--officers.

Perhaps its different in Lahore or Peshawar but its certainly not the case in Karachi or Islamabad.

Cheers and Lacheim!

pm #366 you write ``I said it was BOTH extremes of the socio-economic ladder that indulged in the bottle. ``

Not the one`s I have seen, and rest assured I have known many people from both extremes of the socio-economic ladder. Those who drink are generally despised in Pakistan, by the vast majority of Pakistanis. I know this is not true in many circles (e.g. street people in the US, poor farmers in Mexico, and so forth), but certainly true in Pakistan for most poor people.

So, I am not sure who you hang out with. Maybe Farangi-Sarangi has a point when he refers to ``ba-ba-black sheep`` - these being the guys who think that drinking is a sign of culture and whom you think represent all of Pakistan.

I don`t know about you Pakis/Muslims but in India, Soma (marijuana I believe) was being smoked way back when during Vedic rituals. Further, it was only under the inluence of some good old alcohol and bhang that the Kama Sutra was written way back when. So there`s nothing Western about an Indian running around tanking a gin & tonic or 2. We`ve been using it for a while...the goras just bottled it, distilled it more smoothly, and branded it. In any case, are we to stop using the light bulb too now because it was a Western invention?

sac (#367)

Ok, you got me. That WAS kind of a dumb generalization... but I DID say ``MOST`` richer folks (not all), and I drew that conclusion from the few parties I`ve been to where one host tried to outdo the other with their offering.

``maybe they jsut frink becasue they enjoy it``... ummm, never quite thought of that. Gotta have a brain scan :)

rgds,

Speaking of indigenous hooch, I have fond memories of excellent Hunza Water up near Sust--truly export quality!--and Shatoot liquor (raw brandy?) that you could use as paint remover.

Of course, these people did not know of alcohol before the Gora Saab came and forced them to debase themselves.

Re: Alcohol and the Class Structure

According to my drinking buddies in Karachi, ones who remembered the pre-prohibition days of legal booze, there is more drinking now then there was then. And now, people drink to get drunk as opposed to having a few to relax, unwind, etc. Also, our drinks are much stronger than the norm in the US (I remember how disappointed I was at the American predilection for weak drinks) and no one in the US has ever heard of the fine old tradition that once a bottle has been opened, it has to be finished.

All this of course has great similarities with the experience of prohibition in the US. Make it illegal, with stiff penalties, and guess what, people abuse it more.

As far as the baa baa cr *p goes, alcoholism has a long history in the subcontinent, far predating the arrival of the Gora Saab. Or did all those Moghuls die of too much prayer and fasting?

re PM #366:

``I will agree, though, that the poorer folks take to alcohol more as a means to numb the very real misery of their desperate lives, while when most wealthy folks indulge, it`s a kind of status symbol.``

wah sain wah. Never saw a more blanket statement. And when someone from the middle class drinks I suppose they are drowning their miseries as well as trying to show off :)

Most people regardless of class drink simply because they enjoy it. I guess its a difficult concept to comprehend for us the chosen ones :)

later

-sac

scout (#363)

``I have to agree with PM on this one. It is the ``upper class`` baba blacksheep engaging in such cultural prostitution.``

I`m afraid you slightly misread or wifully misrepresented my position. I said it was BOTH extremes of the socio-economic ladder that indulged in the bottle.

Incidentally, my use of ``ba ba black sheep`` was strictly ironic (contrasted to the ``cultured`` lower class). Far be it from me to label a whole class of people.

I will agree, though, that the poorer folks take to alcohol more as a means to numb the very real misery of their desperate lives, while when most wealthy folks indulge, it`s a kind of status symbol.

``Cultural Prostitutiom?`` Well, they come in all flavours now, don`t they? Where does bhang, beedee, chaalia and other assorted drug-habits come from?

regards,

chotu #358, ``I concur with F_K and scout, we do not need the western imported tobacco and liquor. We have our own traditional Bhang, Afghani hash, Indian charas (manali variety is excellent, I hear) to keep us in high spirits.``

I`m not advocating any artificial intoxication.

By the way, does anyone know what bhang, hash, and charas are in terms of English equivalents?

I know one of them is an opium derivative and another marijuana. I`ve always wanted to know.

I have to agree with PM on this one. It is the ``upper class`` baba blacksheep engaging in such cultural prostitution.

Unless one changes the desi mind, emulating the Western concept of ``let`s drink to party, party to drink,`` is self destructive and condescending.

Zehra, kya faida? I can celebrate with diet coke :).

re. tahmed321 (#357)

``[the only ones] I can remember drinking and being proud of it were some people from low-income families who got jobs in the civil service and so forth. ``

GET OUTTA HERE!! :-) What are you talking about? Drinking, like all other vices, is a vice enjoyed by both the the `upper class` ba-ba-black sheeps on one end, and the `cultured` underclass at the other. It`s the middle class that seem to exercise more austerity. Been to any New Years` party in DHA (Karachi) lately? :-)

regards,

re. chotu #168

``The impudence of the west is amazing, not only have they declared our traditional intoxicants as harmful, they have the audactiy to declare them illegal``

They have??? Where???

``mard-e daana pee key ahmaque sey kabhee buddtur huaa

aur kabhee bur-ux bee iskay huaa,uxurr hua``

tr:Wise man,after a drink became a spectacle of stupidity

and the reverse too happened,many a time so.

:):):)

who else,but Faiz(translating a russian poet,can`t recall who)

__________________________________________________

wassalaam

scout #347
until then,
peenay dey peenay dey
mujhe jeenay dey jeenay dey
hashar ka din aye ga
jab dekha jaye ga.

(i think ive receited that correctly)

:)
rizvi

Farangi-Kush 347 I believe the massas have started easing off the bottle - I read an article many years ago which gave stats on how per capita consumption of whisky (very high in alcohol), which was common in 19th century US has sharply decreased, with beer and wine (relatively low in alcohol) being taken. Furthermore, there are increasing number of events (including sports events, private parties) which are expressly non-alcoholic. And in fact alcohol is a non-massa invention (the ancient Egyptians had breweries four thousand years ago) anyway. Also, I can count on the fingers of my left hand the number of Pakistanis I have known in the years I have lived in the US who drink - the ones who drink are in fact considered low class among most Pakistanis in the West. Within Pakistan there are similarly, the only Pakistanis I can remember drinking and being proud of it were some people from low-income families who got jobs in the civil service and so forth. So, as far as I think, you are beating a dead horse here.

``Alcohol is next on line for the ``massas`` to finally admit to being a worthless liquid.``

Newsflash: The ``massas`` have known of the dangers of alcohol abuse for centuries, as have their serfs.

``Worthless``? You obviously have no idea of what it can DO for you :-)

(Yes, yes, it can kill you.. but then, so can red meat, MSG, paan and beedee)

I concur with F_K and scout, we do not need the western imported tobacco and liquor. We have our own traditional Bhang, Afghani hash, Indian charas (manali variety is excellent, I hear) to keep us in high spirits.

The impudence of the west is amazing, not only have they declared our traditional intoxicants as harmful, they have the audactiy to declare them illegal. Our slave mentality governments have taken instructions without considering the historical importance these substances have held in sub-continental village and urban life.

Peace.

tahmed321 #354
4 hrs! I commend your patience and good use of your time. I`ve made one futile attempt to see th movie but couldnot get upto where Ms AR first appears. I think you describe it really well :-).

I really really wish Hindi movies would a. go back to being directed/photographed in the normal way vs being choreographed in soft focus for the entire length b. stop using bombastic dialogues loaded with ponderous philosophical pronouncements even in the simplest of situations c. stop using those female banshees wailing in the background in any scene with even a hint of poignancy in it(which we know is every single scene) d. allow the extras to wear some Indian clothes too, at least occasionally. They look to me like they could catch cold :-).

Anyway, happy viewing :-).

Sadhana

Farangi Kush #347,

Agree with you completely on that one.

Alcohol is next on line for the ``massas`` to finally admit to being a worthless liquid.

And when they do, desi`s won`t touch it :).s

sadna you mention Aishwarya Rai, my favorite Indian actress. Self and wife saw her in the new film Mohabbatein a couple of days ago. The movie has no villains (a first for an Indian movie), no violence, and nice photography. Also it is 4 hours long, so it gives you time to take a nap, solve some office problems, and still not lose track of what`s going on. Those who are offended by illogical story lines, absurd morality lessons, one crappy actor (but several good ones, and of course Ms. AR) and so forth should of course continue to stay away from this and all other desi films.

Re: InYourFace

``This will encourage people to be clean:clean bathrooms, clean teeth and overall conciousness about cleanliness. I take any which way to stop looking at those horrid sights of public relieving.``

I couldn`t agree more...that is why South Asia was aptly termed the armpit of the world by someone here...it could even be called the sewage pool of the world.

But ogling beauties isn`t going to solve the problem...building plumbing systems, underground sewers, sources of clean water supply, and indoor toilets will do it...right now most of the population doesn`t have clean water to brush its teeth and shower with.

Sadna,

I agree with scout. Beautiful women`s bodies are not for western commercial exploitation. They are for exploitation only in private harems and bedrooms of the East. That is why he (scout) protests the former so vehemently but says nary a word about the latter.

Women`s physical beauty should be celebrated only by their husbands (exclusive or otherwise), not even by themselves, and certainly not by the general public!! Don`t believe me? Read your (actually MY) scriptures!

RSaxena #: 343:

Hey Saxena! This beauty thing may be false pride but has lot of practical benifits for India.

This will encourage people to be clean:clean bathrooms, clean teeth and overall conciousness about cleanliness. I take any which way to stop looking at those horrid sights of public relieving.

Urstruly:#348

Slave lingo for `masters``.

_______________________

Wassalaam

scout #345
First I need to ask, did you read my entire post #344? :-).

I agree with you about beauty pageants in general. When an Indian company tried to organise one of the international events in Bangalore, India, there were large-scale protests on the count of ``insult to Indian womanhood and culture``. Many other Indians retorted on that occasion, ``why don`t you protest dowry deaths with the same vehemance as insults to Indian womanhood and culture``.

Well, ultimately the company went into the red and there havenot been any international level beauty contests in India since then.

I happened to see a public service TV ad by Aishwarya Rai after winning her own title, on the subject of donation of organs in which she said she was donating her eyes. It was extremely effective, I heard..

Re your article, all I meant was one can appreciate the hard work and success of a cab driver AND the hard work and success of writers or enterpreneurs as well.

Sadhana

RE: F_K #347

What is ``Massas``?

Scout:#345

The practice would stop,as far as the Desis are concerned,when the Massas stop it.

Cigarrettes are bad now.The massaas have said so.

Sensuality(read:public sex) is goodnow.The massas have decreed.When they say it is bad,THEN we will

form our NGOs--[``Drinking is bad for the third world economy---they can`t pay off their debts``]

Drinking is ok.Drugs are bad.Paan is bad.Kaat is very bad.Massas are telling us that.These are POLICIES.Legislated features of democracies & secularism.Individual is not allowed to decide what is good & bad for his/her health.

Moral/societal pressure are bad.Debates,arguments in parliament,by those who know us better than ourselves but can`t manage their own offspring,are the arbiters.If the bible & the Quran are saying the same things:Watch OUT!Anachronisms are here!

(Nudge!Nudge.wink.wink---``we got to look after the cigarette & liquor companies too.It is our MORAL duty to see that no jobs are lost & the economy stays good.Besides,they look after us!what do the practising,honest kind do just give us a piece of paper--their vote.``)

__________________________________________________

``Khirad kaa naam junoon rakh diya,junoon kaa khirad

jo chaahay aap kaa husn-e karishmaa saaz karey.``

tr:Now they have switched the word Sane by the word crazy & vice versa.

You,with your beauty & charisma,indeed perform miracles.

(remember the corruption of words like `gay`,`peace-offensive`,`terrorist`,`fundamentalist`--etc etc)

__________________________________________________

wassalaam

Beant Singh and Uptight Pakistani People!

It`s an excellent article,I really appreciate your concern for Beant Singh. But what I can understand from your article, u did not even look into his eyes and could`nt tell if he was ``fundamental one`` or ``broad minded one``. What kind of relationship u find appropriate between u uptight people and that poor cabbie. U also did`nt like inclusion of religion in this kind of parties, that`s fine but at the same time, u are upset at dancing of poor single guys.What else u were expecting, what would have been your response if they all have started praying together. May be u did not like their dancing style, but this is because they were not professional. They were just showing their `live`spirit and trying to bring hall`gulla to your party.

sadna #344, ``Referring also to the theme of the original article by scout, I think there is no harm in `advancing on all fronts`.``

This whole pageant thing is one front that I DONT agree on. Dropping your clothes for the scrutiny of judges who judge by Western concepts of beauty and male sexual preferences is abhorrent.

What kind of role model is this eighteen year old providing to other desi eighteen year olds?

Why isn`t such explosive media attention given to the Indian/Pakistani female scientists, doctors, lawyers, writers, etc?

This cultural prostitution to the West HAS to stop.

Rsaxena #343
Referring also to the theme of the original article by scout, I think there is no harm in `advancing on all fronts`.

Now whether inspiring a few million young women to aim for winning beauty contests constitutes `advancement` is something I too have doubts about.

Sadhana

Re: sadna

``Then how about those lovely new photographs of Ms Chopra:-)``

I find that these things hurt India as a whole...people get a false, meaningless sense of pride...so what if we can produce a few Ms. Universe winners? It does nothing for the over 500 million poor, illiterate, and sick...fixing their problems is what will make us great, not winning Ms. Universe.

Dear Patrick



You say: ``I am not so sure that the religious teachings concerned with the practical part are more or less common among religions. True, the basic principles that you mention in #337 (truth, honesty, justice) might be found in all, but it is important, I think, to note that the `spiritual part` may go way beyond the attempt to encourage/enforce just these principles``

Infact if you revisit my comment, I said that the practical aspects show considerable variance! However you make a valid point by saying that there may be some ``dogmas`` specific to a religion that defy understanding. Actually when I made such comments, I had the ``set of basic value system`` in my mind and the various practices like usury etc ordained by the religion. In short(since it is 1:30 A.M in the night :) I advocate the adoption of a rational perspective in day to day life in dealing with practical problems, and limiting the role of religion to garnering moral strength for the observation of universal ethics. Religion should never be looked upon as a panacea for all problems. It should be looked upon as an aid towards strengthening belief in basic values.

Pankaj,

ahh, I said to myself, what the heck, this stuff is free, sin`t it? :-) So, my two pice worth:

``If so, what are the forces that lead to the evolution of this value system.``

Survival, more than anything else, I`d reckon. But i would not discount factors such as exposure to other systems, and the search for `something more` either.

``Are we in some kind of metastable phase of social evolution or in dynamic equilibrium?``

Are we gonna speak in English here or Greek? :-)

``Are there any dormant undercurrent forces operating that may provide a perturbation large enough to disturb the present metastable phase of social evolution such that a major shift in soci0-economic values can be anticipated.``

In the West, the most dominant force I can see causing this major shift anytime soon is the growing awareness of the near-catastrophic damage being done to the environment. The sooner it hits home, the better.

In the East, or at east in the less-`developed` countries I think, is growing disenchanment with the present socio-ecnomic status will be the prime shaker.

..... but what do I know?? :-)

Pankaj #337
If I may butt in
`` why there is a remarkable similarity between the different religions/societies when it comes to asserting preponderence of moral values like honesty, truth love for the neighbour, helping the fellow beings, etc``

I`m guessing because such `values`/mores are the rational way of making feasible the survival of any interdependent group. Humans are the same everywhere, no surprise if their problems are similar(across centuries even) and the solutions too.

On the surface it seems we are not as interdependent as earlier, so these values are losing stock.

tahmed321 #326
`policeman`

Rsaxena #330
``too young for that``
Then how about those lovely new photographs of Ms Chopra:-). Better than debating cobwebby stuff like religion.

But seriously, IMO nothing provides all the answers, the world has too many `dynamics` and too much diversity of circumstance for any one `system` to suffice.

Sadhana

re. #336,

Dear Pankaj,

you say:

``1. Religious prescriptions/teachings can be roughly divided into two arenas: the spiritual one and the practical one. Spiritual part is the one that establishes the moral code of conduct by examples, and provides for a concept of judgement day/heaven or hell/repentence for bad karma etc...

2. While the religious teachings concerned with the spiritual part are more or less common among all the religions, the ones dealing with the practical conduct show considerable variance.``

I am not so sure that the religious teachings concerned with the practical part are more or less common among religions. True, the basic principles that you mention in #337 (truth, honesty, justice) might be found in all, but it is important, I think, to note that the `spiritual part` may go way beyond the attempt to encourage/enforce just these principles. Some spiritual values exist with no relation to truth/honesty/justice, as unquestionable dogma. The contrasting ways in which Hinduism and Islam/Judaism treat the cow is a case in point. How does the idea of commonality of truth/justice fit in here?? And how do you reconcile belief in One (and only) god as a basic principle of truth with the acceptance of polytheism (though the latter may not compromise a basic tenet of faith of another religion)??

I remember as a kid often questioning some Christian edicts (like abstinence from meat on Fridays in Lent), since they seemed not to appeal to either a sense of truth or justice (not anymore, anyway). The answer I received was that somethings were just wrong in themselves, with no relation to matters of truth, justice, love etc. Religion (or most religions) seems to actually ADD to that et of basic beliefs. Dogma, we call this, I believe.

Ummm... so maybe it is time to look into natural selection and evolution of basic principles. Bertrand Russell`s `Human Knowledge` is a fascinating book-- lucid and accessible. I recall a coupe of essays in his `Skeptical essays which also dealt with the subject quite brilliantly.

As for your follwing post (#337), I gotta tell you, I`m not much of a right-brain (or is left-) person. Abstractions without examples I have difficulty grasping. That one whizzed right over my head. You asked for my view. I am flattered but would be completely out of my depth there. There are, however, a couple of more erudite occassional visitors to the chowk that I would be glad to pass your post on to via email.

best regards,

Patrick

Dear Patrick

Idle Saturday musings :-)

In life,we take so many things for granted.( like sleeping at 4AM unless you are a nocturnal animal on the lookout for a quarry:-)) Have you ever wondered( or I am the only moron left wondering about such ``useless`` things) why there is a remarkable similarity between the different religions/societies when it comes to asserting preponderence of moral values like honesty, truth love for the neighbour, helping the fellow beings, etc. Are these values timeless, at least in the sense that they appear to be fairly constant across different time scales, various social contexts etc. Does that imply that there is an ``absolute frame of reference`` for these moral values or these values also evolved with time by a process similar to natural selection. If so, what are the forces that lead to the evolution of this value system. Are we in some kind of metastable phase of social evolution or in dynamic equilibrium. Are there any dormant undercurrent forces operating that may provide a perturbation large enough to disturb the present metastable phase of social evolution such that a major shift in soci0-economic values can be anticipated.

What is your opinion on the above questions. In my opinion, a judicious application of game theory as in #228 may give us a valuable insight not only in the evolution of the value systems, but also in the state of compliance with them as manifested by the social behavior.

Cheers

(and dont loose your sleep over it!)

Oops, in #333 I wrote: ``...get some chilly-spiked tandoori chicken...`` ... that wouldn`t taste too good. Try chilli-spiked instead.

Dear PM



You say: ``You are mistaken because, Islam`s laws are presumably timeless, and to suggest that there is any domain in which Islamic law would not be valid is, well, unIslamic``

That`s exactly the point I am trying to make, ie. the laws governing/influencing social interactions in the human society can never be ``timeless``. Well if you call it ``unislamic`` then may be it is, and I am not bothered since I do not believe in ``religious prescriptions for everything``. First of all, let me bring out few salient features of my previous post that could have got lost in my ramble:-)

1. Religious prescriptions/teachings can be roughly divided into two arenas: the spiritual one and the practical one. Spiritual part is the one that establishes the moral code of conduct by examples, and provides for a concept of judgement day/heaven or hell/repentence for bad karma etc to provide for a system of rewards/punishment as inducements to follow the teachings. The practical part is one that lays down rules for socio-economic interactions between intrafaith /interfaith group of peoples.

2. While the religious teachings concerned with the spiritual part are more or less common among all the religions, the ones dealing with the practical conduct show considerable variance. These in my opinion, are a function of the socio-economic order in which the Prophets/rishis existed and hence should change with time.

3. Thus while the spiritual part is more stable having universal appeal(this incidentally prompted me to think if these universal values of truth, honesty etc. were timeless or evolved with time by a process akin to natural selection.I have attempted to address these questions in #228), its the practical part which demands new models to evolve to deal with the new complexities of human interactions. The simplistic solutions good thousands of years back, and that too in some particular contexts, should not be generalised to modern problems of varied contexts and different nature. Concepts when overstretched beyond their original context, and across time may give dubious results.Hints/guidelines may be taken from religion but any attempt to address all the modern problems by the use of religious prescriptions is bound to end in a failure.

Sincerely

P.S I hope I have clarified more than obfuscated the topic.

PM #329 ``Nope, no koran in my closet. The fascination only extends to the psychological hold it has over its adherents.``

Maybe you need to keep one in the closet, and go through it. You will then realize that if the adherents are really as fascinated by it as you think, you as a non-muslim Pakistani would feel as much at home as you do in more civilized countries. I regret the disgusting epithets some chowk people have applied to you as a christian, and believe it is an indication of how far we have to go to become a civilized society.

Re: scout

``How about just being a good person and respecting people`s beliefs? You can have your wine and shoes and other ``superficial`` pleasures and still do that.``

This isn`t about me...I was just trying to bring some closure to the argument between Solitude and his enemies on this board. Solitude won`t accept existing religions, his enemies won`t live without a religion..impasse, no? I thought my solution might help them out.

All these serious people with their knickers in a knot are wasting precious time...so I suggest they all get some chilly-spiked tandoori chicken, open a bottle of beer, find themselves a hot Italian for the evening, pop in some groovy music, and thank their gods for the good time.

Rsaxena #331 aka Material Man,

How about just being a good person and respecting people`s beliefs? You can have your wine and shoes and other ``superficial`` pleasures and still do that.

A possible reconciliation between Solitude and the rest of you (god`s soldiers) is to accept hedonism as an official religion and convert to it. The rules (any good religion must have them, no?): Good food, fine wine, Ferragamo shoes, vacations in Luxembourg (and Goa when there`s time), great sex (use plastic surgery to enhance it if necessary), and overindulgence. Only strict adherence will confirm your first class ticket to heaven.

How about it?

Re: sadhna

``Rsaxena #317

Oh thats who you are! That pot-bellied baton-twirling tthulla roaming around chowk. hmmm. I would recommend the bar instead, somewhat like Urstruly does :-)``

Yup, that`s me...but no pot-belly yet...too young for that. Urstruly is the chowkidar at some bar? I`m not sure I understand. If he is, good for him. He gets to decide which short skirts to let in and which ones to keep out :)

TAhmed,

Nope, no koran in my closet. The fascination only extends to the psychological hold it has over its adherents. That aside, with my heart pretty much still in the motherland, I have a stake in its political future. Hence the desire to point out strategies that I think will not work.

(Which is not to say I`m not addicted to the chow, and don`t get my kicks from debating ad nauseum :-) )

Dear fairkinkum,

``I did not find your reply #287 convincing. ``

Yes, on re-reading my poor choice of words and expression, I am hardly surprised.

My statement:

“fairdinkum, UNDERSTANDING the practices/rituals of a faith may require a comprehensive study of it’s philosophy, symbolism etc., QUESTIONING it’s validity based on observable effects DOES NOT.”

By `observable effects` I meant not so much those that would be considered bad by virtue of their outlandishness (though I am not defender of value-relativism either), but those which beyond reasonable doubt are direct outcomes of a philosophy, whether or not intended.

Take for instance the law of evidence or the requirements for a prosecution on zina (knowing very well how such obnoxious laws came to be written/revealed). By observable effects I simpy meant `direct outcomes` that can be observered easily enough: You have clear injunctions-- Quranic, no less! Now, what I meant was that one does not need falana years of religious study to denounce the law of evidence wrt women as a moral affront in this day and age (though apparently further years of study DO help some see why it is right after all ). Neither does one need to travel to Qumm or Damascus to declare that the requirement for four (male, Muslim, no less!) witnesses for a rape conviction is, well, not a good thing on the whole (though, again, one may be somewhat sympathetic when one learns of the situation that compelled Allah to reveal such a law)

Am I being facetious? Forgive me for feeling nothing but disgust for the lengths to which I have seen many a learned scholar go to defend any- and every-thing.

But really, I didn`t even mean to say `observable effects` in the first place (though I thought that since I did, I woud have to defend my words). What I meant was ...ummm.. something like ``... based on self-evident truths``. Again, what are these self-evident truths? Well, the equal status (and intellect) of women and religious minorities, for instance. I am aware of the Prophet`s Last sermon, and have always been truly moved by it, but the fact remains that those admonitions of equality clearly contradict scripture.

``Religion/spirituality is a complex subject … one should never jump to conclusions based on observable effects of religious/spiritual practices…``

Hope I have been lucid enough this time in explaining why the complexity of religion should not cause one to atrophy one`s independent moral sensibilities. Certain things are simply self-evident in a given day and age. Complexity only seems to arise when we try apply an outdated set of guiding values to a new terrain. (Hey Pankaj, whaddya you know... I`m pulling a leaf out of your book!)

`` Europeans made this mistake when they observed the rituals of natives… To Europeans, they seemed liked superstitions/magic etc. (worthless savage voodoo stuff). Christian missionaries forced the natives to stop believing in their religion, forced them to move away from their spirituality, condemned their rituals as magic etc. and forced them turn to Christianity for salvation…``

fairdinkum, while I don`t wish to defend the general attitudewith with Evangelism was conducted, it seems to me that you rather seem to treat every religious/superstitious practice as valid as the next. And all in the name of religion! Frankly, I find this rather simplistic, even naive. I`d be interested in your views on whether the colonists should have turned a blind eye to the Incas mass human sacrifices on fertility rites, or to the PNG`s(?) child-sacrifices, in both cases to appease the fertility gods. In many cases, these superstitions were just that-- flawed cause-event theorizings. Nothing particularly spiritual about them. Too far from home? How about female genital mutilation rituals and suttee? Do/did the Westerns/Christians have a right to interfer there?

Now THESE are what you might call complex questions, not of the `how-many-angels-can-dance-on-a-pin-head?` variety that relgious scholars often enough find themselves struggling with. :-)



`` In some cases, church even snatched away their children in order to bring them up as “civilized” good Christians. What is the result? The world has lost another way of looking at life.

Yes, very unfortunate. Screw those darn Christians. Feed them to the lions! But wait... I hope you`re not suggesting that there is no way whatsoever to measure degrees of civilization; no higher values to aspire to. For if you do believe so, you will often enough be morally compelled to interfere with the `internal affairs` of others. And the doubt that you feel about the philosophical rightness of your actions will be outweighed by the pressing `need` to do something. You will even get it wrong sometimes, and admit so, but all the same you will risk action in future.

Why? Because to do nothing in the face of what is perceived as wrong, to believe everything as `equally right`, is to believe in NOTHING. To be a true skeptic!

Please note, I am providing a philosophical defense of `interference`, and am in now way condemning or condoning any particular party.

To condemn or condone -- now THAT can sometimes be a complex question. To wit: should the Western WOrld have `interfered` in the Rwandan genocide, or should it have, as it did, view it as an `internal matter`?

These scenarios are played out every day, fom the familial to the gobal stage, aren`t they?

``It is interesting that liberal democracies/western cultures encourage and celebrate diversity, but diversity outside of the framework (THEY have designed for the rest of the world), outside of THEIR vision of “civilization” is not acceptable to them… I don’t understand that either.``

Again, inasmuch as their are norms and values, there HAS to be framework, which, by definition, has it`s limits. The desirable thing is not to have NO framework (again the skeptic`s world) but to expand one`s so as to be more inclusive-- if indeed diversity is desired. Again, the complexity lies in deciding how much diversity may be allowed before one loses what is essentially one`s `character`. Or how far can the line of diversity stretch without compromising on certain basic values an norms.

``Consensus? :) You know, oppression was also accorded consensus on many occasions in the history of mankind.``

Yes, but should that deter us from believing in the absolute rightness/wrongess of ANYthing?

``Well, perhaps you have a point. If a religion or its followers unnecessarily force others to adopt their “morally/ethically wrong” actions and attitudes this should be resisted. ``

That is the point I was making originally. however, your last post has forced me to think and allow for more liberal use of consenus-based resistance: for eg. Shoud `others` in your question above include one`s children??

As for my your response to my rply #316, I`ll leave it for another day, but I will in short...

Thanks for the quotes re. Requirements vs options-- though I do not think it any more comforting to think that (believing) slaves are to be treated as salvation charges. It would seem there were indeed `kuchha` and pukka slaves. So much for the theory of non-condoning!

You ask about my view on the ``Islamic movement of Mohammed on the progress/evolution of mankind`` Whoa! that`s a biggie! With so many variables and so many unknowns, its always going to be hard to tell. And I am no student of history. But if I were to hazard an opinion.... there is no doubt that Muhammed was a man of remarkable character (viewed from his own time) and totally committed to justice, which, at least initially, was what characterized -- and galvanized -- the movement. Impact? Well, there`s the Arab contribution to the sciences in the Middle Ages, but is difficult to tell what role Islam played in it, especially when the stalwarts were often enough at loggerheads with the ulema. I mean, we don`t attribute every Western success to Christianity, do we? In any event, Arab expansionism seems to have hastened the awakening of Europe. However helpful Islam/Arabs may have been in bringing/relaying knowledge to the West, it apparenty wasn`t equipped for the Modern Science Revolution, which postulated certain beliefs that conflict with Islam at a fundamental, though not always obvious, level. Empricism and Rationality replaced a priori reasoning and revelation. And with the Reformation and then Hobbes and Locke, Man has ``attained`` intrinsic `human rights` independent of divine sanction. Islam, for better or worse, has been unable or unwilling to toe esp this last line of change. Therien lies a fundamental conflict. When I say that `True` Muslims cannot get along with the rest of the world without compromising on their beliefs, I am not so much making a value judgement as an intellectual observation. The current swelling of ranks of Muslims in the West owes more, I think, to disenchantment with the logical outcome of Absolutist Rationalism than to anything uniquely Islamic. Contrary to popular assumption Buddhism, not Islam has the highest conversion rate in the West, (not counting for born-again Christians, for which there are no figures). But my source is dated and things could have changed since. I suspect this floor-crossing will last a generation, maybe two, until the thirst for the `other view of life will be irresistable.

And finally....

``We are all self-serving in one way or another. The purpose of my posts, however, is not to impress F_K or anybody else for that matter… I am surprised by your comment. ``

fairdinkum, I was not implying that YOU were the scholar with whom F_K should be impressed. My tongue in cheeck here was meant to say something to someone who suggested on the one hand, that extensive, `deep` study of religion was required for it`s understanding, and, on the other, that such exercises (as the maulana`s) amounted to ``intellectual luddo`` (sic)

Ahh well... takes all types!

best regards

P



PS This reply was typed between 2 and 4am, so please excuse any incoherence. (Yes, yes, I`ve gotta get a life!)

PM I notice a fascination with Islam on your part. You are not a closet muslim are you?

sadna #322 although I can understand a real danger of a pot-belly sitting before the computer for so long, why would you think RSaxena twirls batons as well? and please describe a thulla.

Asad_K #319 You write ``Arrgghh!!``

I feel your pain, brother. Try moving to the left side of the decimal, and breathe deeply. Send your check and letter of thanks to Dr. tahmed321.

Re: PM

Patrick,

Thanks for your responses and Ramazan greetings. I apologize for he delay in responding to your posts.

I did not find your reply #287 convincing.

Your statement:

“fairdinkum, UNDERSTANDING the practices/rituals of a faith may require a comprehensive study of it’s philosophy, symbolism etc., QUESTIONING it’s validity based on observable effects DOES NOT.”

Religion/spirituality is a complex subject … one should never jump to conclusions based on observable effects of religious/spiritual practices… Europeans made this mistake when they observed the rituals of natives… To Europeans, they seemed liked superstitions/magic etc. (worthless savage voodoo stuff). Christian missionaries forced the natives to stop believing in their religion, forced them to move away from their spirituality, condemned their rituals as magic etc. and forced them turn to Christianity for salvation… In some cases, church even snatched away their children in order to bring them up as “civilized” good Christians. What is the result? The world has lost another way of looking at life.

Pat, there are a lot of things I don’t understand. Lots of questions I cannot answer.
It is interesting that liberal democracies/western cultures encourage and celebrate diversity, but diversity outside of the framework (THEY have designed for the rest of the world), outside of THEIR vision of “civilization” is not acceptable to them… I don’t understand that either.

Your statement:

“But not so harmless when it leads to what we (with a consensus) would consider morally/ethically wrong actions and attitudes. No need for examples here.”

Consensus? :) You know, oppression was also accorded consensus on many occasions in the history of mankind. Well, perhaps you have a point. If a religion or its followers unnecessarily force others to adopt their “morally/ethically wrong” actions and attitudes this should be resisted.


Reply #316

Your statement:

“Leaving aside the incredulity of the suggestion that “ there were no longer legitimate wars to be fought between the Muslims and the non-Muslims”, it is obvious that Abdul Razak, or you, or both, are failing to distinguish between Islam the Religion and Islamic history and civilization. Whether or not “the Islamic CIVILIZATION redefined the mode of interaction between nations” – itself a highly dubious assertion-- the attempt to justify a position with the benefit of retrospection, with little regard to original intent, is rather dishonest and seems like clutching at straws. But then, it seems to be the preoccupation of all learned scholars who it would seem spend much of their time indulging in such apologetics”

For me, Islam the religion and Islamic history are inextricably interwoven. I fail to see how I can understand one without the other? Although I do appreciate your point “it is obvious that Abdul Razak, or you, or both, are failing to distinguish between Islam the Religion and Islamic history and civilization.”

How would you distinguish between the three?

Perhaps the assertion that “the Islamic CIVILIZATION redefined the mode of interaction between nations” is dubious… what is your view/assessment of the overall impact/effect of Islamic movement of Mohammad on the progress/evolution of mankind?

“Fairdinkum, perhaps my knowledge of the Quran is limited, but I can only recall verses in which the freeing of a slave is presented as an OPTION (and where are all the holier-than-thous who otherwise cry “objectifcation!!”?) – NOT A REQUIREMENT. I could be wrong, in which case I’d appreciate your correction.”

Here are some of the verses, which explicitly order freeing of slaves as a requirement rather than an option.

4:92 “Never should a believer kill a believer; but (If it so happens) by mistake, (Compensation is due): If one (so) kills a believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, and pay compensation to the deceased`s family, unless they remit it freely. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you, and he was a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (Is enough). If he belonged to a people with whom ye have treaty of Mutual alliance, compensation should be paid to his family, and a believing slave be freed. For those who find this beyond their means, (is prescribed) a fast for two months running: by way of repentance to Allah. for Allah hath all knowledge and all wisdom.”

[Please note that for those who had/have slaves there is not option but to free a slave]

58:3 “But those who divorce their wives by Zihar, then wish to go back on the words they uttered, (It is ordained that such a one) should free a slave before they touch each other: Thus are ye admonished to perform: and Allah is well-acquainted with (all) that ye do.”

Here is the verses which talks about signing of deeds to which our Maulana referred to in his paper:

24:33 “Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them…”

And here is an example of verses in which freeing of slaves is presented as an OPTION:

5:89 “Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths. Thus doth Allah make clear to you His signs, that ye may be grateful.”

Patrick, you must understand that at the time, even great civilizations of Rome, and Iran had no problem with the practice of slavery. Slavery was acceptable practice through out the world. Mohammad’s reform movement should be commended for its efforts (1400 years ago) to eliminate this practice. Let’s call a spade a spade.

Your statement:

“Btw, on the personal side, do you hold Islam to be ‘perfect’ in every sense? If not, why not just accept that it doesn’t have it right on ALL issues and get on with life, instead of indulging in this intellectual origami?

Oh, and if these are the lengths to which scholars go to defend Islam, I’m sure F_K must be truly impressed, huh?”

Patrick, I am a student of religion. I would not say whether or not a religion or a faith is right or wrong, perfect or imperfect. I am simply not qualified to make this judgment. Yes, I find it difficult to understand some issues… why wasn’t slavery prohibited by a decree or an injunction? I am learning… I am making an effort to understand Muslim point of view… Yes, I do want to question some of the practices such as rights of women in Islam… I do want to learn about the society in which Islam was introduced. I do want to know why certain aspects of Islamic movement are so revolutionary whereas on other issues Islam was happy to maintain the status quo. I know very little. But I try :)

We are all self-serving in one way or another. The purpose of my posts, however, is not to impress F_K or anybody else for that matter… I am surprised by your comment.

Rsaxena #317
Oh thats who you are! That pot-bellied baton-twirling tthulla roaming around chowk. hmmm. I would recommend the bar instead, somewhat like Urstruly does :-).

Sadhana

RSaxena 317

Thanks to Mr. Bill Gates, the scroll bar on the right side of your screen comes in really handy.

(re. Pankaj #227)

Dear Pankaj,

I revisited your posts to see if I had perhaps read it in too much haste the first time `round.

You certainly have a gift for `tranfering` learning from one domain to another.

However, as I suggested earlier, that might not so valid when movng from the Cognitive to the Affective domain. The latter is where the best `models` fall short in either describing or guiding.

But even on the purely cognitive level, here is where I believe your understanding of at least ONE religion falls short... you say:

``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``

You are mistaken because, Islam`s laws are presumably timeless, and to suggest that there is any domain in which Islamic law would not be valid is, well, unIslamic.

Perhaps others can throw more light or correct me if I am wrong.

regards,

PM re: 307

{Still, most (even `moderately` inclined) interactors here seem to think that a feeling of indignation at the insult of one hold dear is the prerogative only of followers of organized religion. So the likes of F_K can get away with noisome remarks on all those `` bhangee`` ``liberals `` [and what-not], and claims (effectively) that western education is the ruination of mankind, and not so much of whimper is heard from those quarters now oh-so-offended by Solitude`s ascribing of that role to Islam.}

Well, as I said.. I may disagree with both perspectives. But the one makes me merely roll my eyes and mutter ‘moron’, the other makes me feel very p.o.’d, enough to reply publiclyI cannot explain the specific reasons behind the disparity of my responses and, indeed, there may be little that is ‘rational’ behind it.. but there you have it!

Regarding Ijtehad… your comments do bring to mind something that I suddenly realized I’m not clear on.. which I realized, natch, while discussing things with a non-Muslim (a situation that often suddenly makes you realize that you really don’t know half as much as you think.. well, it makes me do so, anyway). Well and good that many, myself included, bemoan the lack of it in the current Islamic world, talking about it like a magic bullet for all our ills.. but how far CAN it take us? Can Ijtehad go in conflict with Quran and sunnah? Has it ever happened? What are examples of Ijtehad which changed the mindset and practices of the people? As an example, lets look at womens rights of inheritance. ‘Islam in focus’ justifies the differences in inheritance as being there because the woman only has to support herself, while the divorced man has to support most likely a family.. his wife, children etc. If that is a justification, then in todays world does it still hold true? (well, no, of course it doesn’t). Women are independent, they work, they may have children (adopted/from old marriage/from good old hanky-panky – oh, sorry, THAT’S not Islamic!), they may have more people to support.. and as such that would call for a revision of the laws of inheritance.

But would that be going against the Quran?

Would it be ‘Islamic’? (as you ask).

Is it a veiled (or not so veiled) way to say that women should NOT be independent but should be content with a smaller inheritance because their husbands would be supporting them and their family?

Arrgghh!!

Sadna re: 314

Well, I hope you’re no longer tempted to cross the border and do a ‘lashkar’ on me.. ;)

I’m pretty sure that I’ve previously stated my perspective towards those you have mentioned – an effective squishing. I wish they could be talked to – but fanatics, religious or otherwise, cannot be reasoned with. Is that a clear enough comment on my perspective?

My comment about by ‘nonviolent means’ was merely to preempt any responses saying that Solitude has not advocated extermination camps. Perhaps you can tell me how Solitude should be ‘handled’? (and keep in mind that I’ve not called for his head on a platter). I disagree, and vehemently, with him. I see him as a fanatic of the opposite ilk from the jehadis.

And sometimes, nonviolent means can be as dangerous, and certainly more effective, than crude violence.

Sadna,

Calm down. Your posts are getting longer and longer without adding much value to getting your points across.

Fairdinkum (re. #309)

“Given the nature/structure of society in the early period of Islamic movement, TMP was probably a better/more effective strategy compared to prohibition.”

It is odd that there is no compromise on principles, no fancy TMP, wrt to the rights of women –at lest to the extent that they were liberated from the strictures of pre-Islamic norms—something good Muslims never fail to point out.

The good Maulana’s thesis that “Islam, through measures, which dealt with the root causes rather than with the symptom, effectively reduced these sources.” Is terribly flawed on the following counts:

Consider:

“Islam initially permitted slavery from only two sources - slavery through descent and slavery from POWs of a legitimate war.”

And

“The provision of slavery through wars was no longer important after the Islamic civilisation redefined the mode of interaction between nations - from power struggle to peaceful and productive coexistence. Virtually, there were no longer legitimate wars to be fought between the Muslims and the non-Muslims. Indirectly but effectively Islam has closed another source of slavery.”

Leaving aside the incredulity of the suggestion that “ there were no longer legitimate wars to be fought between the Muslims and the non-Muslims”, it is obvious that Abdul Razak, or you, or both, are failing to distinguish between Islam the Religion and Islamic history and civilization. Whether or not “the Islamic CIVILIZATION redefined the mode of interaction between nations” – itself a highly dubious assertion-- the attempt to justify a position with the benefit of retrospection, with little regard to original intent, is rather dishonest and seems like clutching at straws. But then, it seems to be the preoccupation of all learned scholars who it would seem spend much of their time indulging in such apologetics.

“Islam made the act of freeing the slave a part of punishment for any criminal act as well as for non-conformity of the Islamic rituals. There are several verses in the Holy Quran, which specifically mentioned the requirement of freeing the slave as a way of meeting the punishment for wrongdoings.”

Fairdinkum, perhaps my knowledge of the Quran is limited, but I can only recall verses in which the freeing of a slave is presented as an OPTION (and where are all the holier-than-thous who otherwise cry “objectifcation!!”?) – NOT A REQUIREMENT. I could be wrong, in which case I’d appreciate your correction.

“Islam never became a force or a party that promoted and condoned slavery. A balanced analysis of this issue would recognise the wisdom of Islam in managing the heinous practice of slavery and in effectively putting an end to it.”

Perhaps Islam never PROMOTED slavery, and yes, when one reads the Quran and hadith, it is clear that slaves are to be treated ‘kindly’ (though some would say in a benighted manner). However, please read Sura 4:3 and tell me whether or any amount of TMP-thoerizing and intellectual contortion can interpret that ayat as non-condoning of slavery.

Btw, on the personal side, do you hold Islam to be ‘perfect’ in every sense? If not, why not just accept that it doesn’t have it right o