Marital Rape

PM #257

I empathize with your disenchantment. The issue of rights of religious minorities in Islam/Pakistan is not clouded by smokescreen of `interpretation` – at least for those who have managed to keep sanity… The way Pakistanis and Talibans of Afghanistan treat religious minorities, women and the weak is uncivilised, unjust, immoral, and therefore, un-Islamic.

“I have been studying Islam for many years, and I cannot see any valid reason why this religion and Christianity cannot co-operate. I know that some fanatic men in Islam preach jihad (holy war) against unbelievers and that they try to assassinate their own leaders to foment such war. But no sensible Muslim listens to them. They are today`s equivalent of the hotheaded Christian knights who, in the Middle Age vowed to exterminate all Muslims. Age cures such rashness.

“People of the West will meet numerous problems in the Muslim world. But many of them will be softened by a remark that Muhammad made to his followers: ``You will find your most affectionate friends will be those who say, `We are Christians`.``

James A. Michener’s “How the West sees the prophet of Islam”

Dear Arun#265

Good post. In my opinion optimism and pessimism ae very subjective notions. I liked you following para.

You say

``In any case, an education in physics provides an excellent understanding of the limitations on one`s ability to know what is ``real``. My answer is : ``God`` is as ``real`` as my ``consciousness``; I cannot do any better. E.g., if ``consciousness`` is purely material and is an emergent property of the matter in my brain, then ``God`` is likewise an emergent property of the universe. If my ``Consciousness``, which is subjective, can be ``real``, then so can ``God``. And so on. ``

In fact some of the most exciting and difficult research in present is over conciousness. It is difficult to say if Conciousness is subjective or objective. Can the neural networks be designed based on the stimulus-response type of connections that simulate intelligence. Can a robot equipped with a highly advanced artificial intelligence codes be ``aware`` of his existence, that is conciousness. What are the attributes of human mind that can not be programmed. Emotions form one such attribute. Can everything *rational * and *logical * be coded!What exactly is Conciousness. These are some very interesting debates we often have in my friend circle.(being a student I always find some time for such mindless chat:). To pay tribute to Stephen Hawkings who is presently visiting India, I have started reading his book,``A brief history of Time``. I read some Special Theory of relativity in my undergrads but reading it in extremely simple form was a pleasure.



Sincerely

Mr. Gupta,

I must admit, i have a problem with..

[My answer is : ``God`` is as ``real`` as my ``consciousness``; I cannot do any better. E.g., if ``consciousness`` is purely material and is an emergent property of the matter in my brain, then ``God`` is likewise an emergent property of the universe. If my ``Consciousness``, which is subjective, can be ``real``, then so can ``God``. And so on. ]

Isn`t it that your consciousness is real by necessity? That is, `you think therefore you are`.

how does God, or any other `emergent property of the universe` pass the test of `real` by necessity?

Also, what exactly is denoted by god here?

And finally, if God is allowed by this reasoning, what can NOT be allowed?

rgds,

PM

re. macgupta #264

Arun, excellent, excellent post! Helped me put my own finger on what I find discomforting in RSaxena`s philosopical materialism (a position sameer seems to be leaning towards lately?!?)

Kinda reminded me of a Roger Primrose book that came out in the late 80`s... The Emperor`s new Mind -- essential reading for anyone interested in the subject of consciousness.

Thanks for the succint summary of those ideas.

rgds,

PM

tahmed321 #264

``Is it logical to accuse someone of ``shouting out`` on the internet (I am not even using capital letters, which is the closest people come to shouting on the internet)?``

Forgive me, but I didn`t know we were applying the principles of logic to vocabulary usage (as opposed to ideas). Ever so sorry!

`` Maybe the cool Islam-bashing westernized PM is getting a little worked up??``

I guess we will have to define Islam-bashing, my friend. (please note, `friend` not used here with sound verbal logic- just manner of speaking). Please pick out one statement that you can show conclusively to be Islam-bashing. Caveat: my relating facts from history, with however much sarcasm, does not qualify as bashing.

``OK, I`ll oblige. Go back to my post #234, and read it carefully and calmly. Then go read your own post and read it carefully and calmly and objectively. If you still think that I have not already obliged you in #234 by providing a clear instance of intellectual dishonesty, then I think you are in worse shape than I think.``

I still don`t think you have. Why? because 1) You never clarified which part of hamidm`s post you found so amusing, and b)even you did, I`d have thought your a dork to excuse the quite clear Islam-bashing that hamidm often engages in simply because, unlike Solitude or myself, he is humourous/actually mocks the religion.

On second thought, I take back dork. Osrrich seems to be a more descriptive word.

``Let me also provide an example of lack of decency. You quote me as ``blah blah blah`` above. I hope for your sake that you dont see nothing wrong with this (excuse the double negatives, but maybe this will force you to think a bit despite your rage).``

Ok. Thought it through. Now, if the best you can do in providing an example of my alleged indecency is point to my using `blah blah blah` -- after you bestowed that kindly epithet of bigot upon me-- then, you, my friend, are obviously clutching at straws.

Rage? I think I lost that some 150 posts ago. You seemed to haved found it just about then. But of course, the image of raging mad Islam-basher would fit your schema quite conveniently, wouldn`t it? The idea of someone opposing your beliefs with reason and passion is much harder to swallow.

Guess you got more than you bargained when you asked someone to `go on telling it like it is`, huh? :-)

Yes, I did get carried away, and would probably bite my lip a little if I were to do this again. but then, I`m hardly solely guilty of this misdemeanour.

g`night now,

P.

Sameer #264
Just to clarify I meant the quote from the Gita for ``The likes of Mullah Omar, Mufti Saeed and Maulana Shamzai are rushing in to get the front row seat in the year [A x 10 exp n] of Our Lord.``

Sadhana

PM #249 You write ``You keep shouting out that we are guilty of illogicism...``

Is it logical to accuse someone of ``shouting out`` on the internet (I am not even using capital letters, which is the closest people come to shouting on the internet)? Maybe the cool Islam-bashing westernized PM is getting a little worked up??

You continue ``intellectual dishonesty blah blah blah. However, I don`t recall a SINGLE instance of your actually supporting your allegations with concrete eveidence. Care to oblige?``

OK, I`ll oblige. Go back to my post #234, and read it carefully and calmly. Then go read your own post and read it carefully and calmly and objectively. If you still think that I have not already obliged you in #234 by providing a clear instance of intellectual dishonesty, then I think you are in worse shape than I think.

Let me also provide an example of lack of decency. You quote me as ``blah blah blah`` above. I hope for your sake that you dont see nothing wrong with this (excuse the double negatives, but maybe this will force you to think a bit despite your rage).

#235, RSaxena : no, contrast Richard Feynman, also an atheist and a ``realist`` with Steven Weinberger. Feynman`s writings are about how the universe is this very interesting and fun place, not about its pointlessness, optimism instead of pessimism.

``Realist`` as you used it -- concerned only with what is ``real`` -- in this case means ``imposing one`s own prejudices on reality``. Otherwise, which of Weinberg or Feynman is/was being ``real`` ?

In any case, an education in physics provides an excellent understanding of the limitations on one`s ability to know what is ``real``. My answer is : ``God`` is as ``real`` as my ``consciousness``; I cannot do any better. E.g., if ``consciousness`` is purely material and is an emergent property of the matter in my brain, then ``God`` is likewise an emergent property of the universe. If my ``Consciousness``, which is subjective, can be ``real``, then so can ``God``. And so on.

The limitation of science is that it cannot deal with anything that is not objective. Science maybe can probably measure neural activity and thereby predict that you love your spouse or do not; it can measure all aspects of love; but it still cannot know love. The difficulties with the Turing test show how it would be difficult to demonstrate consciousness objectively; but you don`t doubt existence of consciousness for a second.

An alternative definition of ``realist`` would be one who worries only about things that one can influence, and doesn`t worry about the rest. That definition doesn`t say anything about God either.

-Arun Gupta

Sadhana #260: The motion to kill the resolution condemning karo-kari came from Wali Khan`s party (ANP) who have some reasonable support among the Pushtu speaking population of NWFP. They were in coalition with NS and his PML. But the coalition was not in danger because of this non-binding resolution. The PML went along because they saw in it a defeat of Benazir`s party (PPP) and Asma Jahangir and her supporters. Defeating the opposition above all else seemed to be the motive for PML, some tribal Pathans traditions of karo-kari and a well-known supporter of ANP, being personally involved in the murder of her daughter or daughter-in-law, being the motive for ANP. For most politicians in Pakistan, it was a small potato to worry about. They care little about representing people who elect them. Their eyes are focussed on the bigger prize, the Power.

Not only this, but later general Pervaiz Musharraf was seen (in newpaper photograph) shaking hand during a meeting with tribal elders in Peshawar, with one of the well-known person involved in karo-kari. He did vaguely clarified but the person in question, I believe, is still a free man.

I would rather avoid commenting about Quran or Bhagavad Gita. However, I do not think members of the National Academy of Sciences here in the USA are anything of ``limited understanding``. They have one of the best understanding in their respective fields and they constitute the most non-religious gathering in the USA.

[``O Arjuna, men of limited understanding presume speculative interpretations of the Vedic scriptures, advocating that there is no divine principle in creation....]

I agree that other than religious duty, failure to achieve political power by fair means is also a major factor in the insecurity feeling of religious parties in Pakistan but the push still comes from a desire to go to heaven ultimately. For average Pakistan also, the desire to ultimately accumulate enough good deeds play very significant role in their insecure feelings despite a 97.5 percent Muslim country because there is no way of knowing when your account is in the green. The fear of being in red keeps them working in that direction.

To Chowkstaff,

what`s the point of typing two of my last posts and not my first one. Please get this problem rectified.

regards

Omar Phoenix

Re: Pat,

Your first name not so cryptically suggests the religion you were born into. As given as I am to the affects of the nefarious Brain Cloud, the fact that you sign off as Patrick Masih still failed to elude me. :)

My statement regarding religious states may be obvious to you and I, but there are plenty of scholars here who make statements like, ``Islam is secular`` with equal confidence of it`s obviousness.

Rgds,

Latif

Rsaxena
I suspect you read a lot of `Sarita`. :-).

Sameer #250
Did the senators you mention block the resolution due to their own sincerely held(and well-understood) religious beliefs or some other worldly reasons such as not upsetting their own power pyramid applecart?

`` It is about accumulating good deeds (sawabs) by the kilograms, to be traded in afterlife for a place in heaven with houris (for mullahs) and ghalmans (for Babar et. al). The likes of Mullah Omar, Mufti Saeed and Maulana Shamzai are rushing in to get the front row seat in the year [A x 10 exp n] of Our Lord.``

Again donot discount worldy expedience.

I think you will like this quote from the Gita, though, testifying to the universality and timelessness of man`s venality.

http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-02-42.html

``O Arjuna, men of limited understanding presume speculative interpretations of the Vedic scriptures, advocating that there is no divine principle in creation, full of lascivious desires, aiming to attain the lush heavenly worlds; they glorify only the statements in the Vedas which are pleasing to their senses; performing numerous ostentatious rituals productive of good birth, wealth and power insuring sense enjoyment and worldly pleasures.``

Sadhana

Dear RSaxena + Scout,

During my paperboy days, I used to shop on behalf of quiet a few old ladies and yes, I repressed my desi business nature by not charging them. It made the Christmas bonus that bit sweeter...

I`ll just use one of the examples here but it was applicable to all. Her name was Mrs Murphy...and yes, she was a gin swigging, fag tottin Irish. Her story was typical, one single son who never visited her, one 4 year old grandson whom she hardly had any chance to see. She had an absolutely miserable life because she told me all about it and she died in pain. What’s so painful is that she used to hide her money behind the sofa waiting for her grandson to arrive when she would give him the money. It never happened because she died.

Now I wouldn’t dare label every parent here as miserable and in agony but I’m using purely my experience here and let’s be honest, elders have it better over in desilands than here. What matters at that age is you seeing your progeny in action and your grandchildren running all around you and happiness and noise, not BUPA pension schemes and 100% cotton bandages.

This is a generalisation though but I would suggest anyone to go to hospitals and old people’s homes and see the environment. Of course, the Asian parents pound for pound put a hell of a lot of investment in their children as compared to the others, so you gotta expect some return somewhere.

Take care and best wishes

Omar Phoenix

re. L. Chappu #254

``Seems to me like a state based on religious tenets can only be successful if it`s totalitarian and devoid of religious minorities.``

Now you`re developing the knack of stating the obvious too, eh? :-)

FYI, (in case you`re not aware) I am very much a Pakistani religious minority member.

re. fairdinkum #249

Dear S,

``Given the socio-political situation of poverty stricken South Asia, politics of conflict (whether it be in the name of ideology or religion or secularism or reason or personal conviction) is immoral. The educated and enlightened people of subcontinent should join hands and work for peace and prosperity in the region rather than engage in hate mongering. Positive/constructive debates/discussion with a view to developing empathy for each other’s viewpoint, IMHO, is the way to go.``

Well said! I guess I am guilty of atrophying that all-important element of empathy somewhere between encountering apologetics, relating it personal experiences with rape victims, being labelled an Islam-basher and a bigot, and witnessing so much of pussyfooting on the part of the `educated and enlghtened people of the subcontinent`.

Perhaps I need to develop the skill getting ones point across merely by asking probing questions like a certain someone does so well... However, I honestly feel that that approach may not work so long as we have ostriches with their heads in the sand, about to hide behind the smokescreen of `interpretation` every time something unpleasant is brought up.

If this were all simply a matter of theological intricacies, I couldN`T have cared less about who believes in what. However, one`s attitudes towards these issues, and how to tackle them, impact directly on the levarage that the extremists have over political affairs. I`d like to see how you, or tahmed or any of the non-confrontatioists here would tackle the Taliban, or JUI, on the grounds that their interpretation of 4:34 or whatever is ummm.. outdated. Such folks (the jehadis) THRIVE ON the absence of physical confrontation (give `em an inch...). You think their power rush can be arrested with your nice, `reasonable` interpretations??

Yes, it`s all very well, for us in the West, or Far East, to wax eloquent on how Islam actually protects the rights of the women etc. etc. Given the propensity, however, for those passages to be interpreted differently in `poverty stricken` South Asia, I am disgusted with what IMO is a lack of responsibility (we won`t talk about intellectual dishonesty here).

Folks here are engaging in lengthy apologetics, or else playing the ostrich, with little regard to how realistically enforceable their liberated views of Islam is in those regions. Ironically, the source of my disenchantment is the same as yours... that is, the real issue of how to tackle Pakistani rape laws is not realistically addressed.

Am I confrontational? Well, yes... though I hardly think I`m doing it for the pleasure of seeing others cringe. If it takes a bit of poking and prodding, a bit of `confromtation` to wake some folks up to their pussilamainty, then confront I will.---lest we end up having these curious occurences of folks being merely `amused` by the humorous element of hamidm`s post, while comfortably ignoring the unfunny parts.

But then, content in the comfort of their new three-bedroom home in suburbia, with their 2.5 children safely isolated from those jehadi elements in Pakistani schools and curriculum, they can `safely` and happily expound on the virtues of `true` Islam... if only interpreted rightly.

Nothing generally wrong with that... except that in the context of this board.. it`s all, IMO, irresponsible.

here`s something from that virtuous icon Madonna:

`` `Make love not war they say`

It`s easy to recite

But it don`t mean a thing

unless we`re gonna fight ....``

Hopefully, we can keep the fighting limited to words!

Best regards,

P

Of course, it then sounds hypocritical for lets say me to criticise someone else`s religion and beliefs. Do I really have the right to judge XYZ`s beliefs and ask...naah, again I`m going to stop. The point being, let`s stay from religios talk when most of us can`t even work out our taxes.

This sort of thought obviously leads to 2 things. 1) You spend you whole life working out these things so that you can answer someone on the internet. B) You can ask the guy posing you the question, what do you represent, and then fire back their sh *t at them. Of course, here`s the genius bit. When someone clainms to be a part of your own religion, how do you answer them back? This would then lead you to become (1). And what seems to be stopping you...your vey own laziness. Of course it seems impractical for everyone to follow this path. Therefore more communication and education is required and that dabble of niyat...something that this article and the posts lack...which then somehow leads back to the original spot.

Let me ask you guys a questions, how many of you are actually ever going to do anything about marital rapes, about the sanitory problems, about education, about emancipation of the sexes blah blah. This is all biatch talk, yap yap yap. Do something constructive for Gods sake.

Omar Phoenix