Brahmin and Mullah

Reply: Sadna #: 450

Sadna

I am not trying to establish equivalence between political systems here – just making the point that wording can make it easy for people to hive off into discussing the theoretical when you (I assume, correct?) are asking about the concrete, and this is especially true when talking about religion, since then individual understanding and opinions of what is right come into it. (And ok, sati/widows was a bad example.)

I do not defend all the points of view you’ve crossed wordprocessors with on Chowk, far from it. It’s just that when the Hindu/Muslim thing gets going I really think sometimes people talk past each other because buzz words may keep them from picking up on what the question actually is. (And in some cases help them avoid it.)

But that is my op. I agree to disagree.

Zafar

PS I think the Government would fall in case of disenfranchisement because people would recognise that it’s a slippery slope – not just due to the immediately affected party’s objections. Perhaps I overestimate us?

www.thefridaytimes.com
News
Municipal polls in NWFP, etc

``...Meanwhile, female voters in Totalai, Dagai, Ghurghashti and Chingal union councils of Buner district were not allowed by religious and political parties to vote. It was the same in the Dir district. TFT had reported the situation in these union councils before the elections but the government refused to take any action to ensure that the women could cast their votes... ``

Zafar #448
Its tough to argue with you because I mostly agree with you :).

But I have to disagree on this
`` Turning it around, imagine someone writing to you and asking why sati and the mistreatment of widows was allowed in Ram Rajya. You’d probably write to them and explain that they weren’t. If they equate Indian polity with Ram Rajya, however, they’d be convinced that is WAS and that you weren’t being truthful. So you’d be talking past each other, rather than communicating. ``

Zafar, sati is outlawed in India. The death for blasphemy, zina/huddood laws and others laws derived from older traditions of Islamic jurisprudence are very much laws in Pakistan. Didnot Rafiq Tarar write a judgement on cutting off of hands, it was mentioned in a Dawn column. There is an outstanding judgement on riba. There are separate electorates for nonMuslims. The Senate couldnot pass a resolution condemning honor killings.

I donot think sati or mistreatment of widows is a good analogy.

What you said about government falling in India is true. Do you know why? Because a political party/parties which expected to get those hundred thousand votes would have protested vociferously.

But political parties are not being allowed to function in Pakistan, the public is now paying a high price for the parties` past misdeeds in the form of decreased vigilance and activism.

Yet you find many on chowk still arguing against functioning of political parties.

As you said you are free to disagree :).
Anyway, thanks for your replies, it is a pleasure interacting! Have a good weekend.

Reply Tahmed321 #432, #440

Tahmed,

Thank you for increasing my knowledge. You are right about this, and I was wrong. (I am looking forward to being right again, however, because I have learned and have now changed my opinion.)

I agree with Friend’s post #442 – we are all responsible for the injustices which take place in our societies, because we allow them to take place. Morally unarguable, but extremely hard to act on. I haven’t been able to.

Zafar

Reply Sadna #430, 435

Sadna

As per earlier post about ijtihad (sorry to be self referential) I think Tahmed321 (reply # 440) has proved his knowledge of the Koran Sharif and understanding of Islam to be better than mine. It seems I was wrong. Please accept my apologies.

I think it is fair for you to ask for explanations of actual practice in Muslim countries, and I do think that you’re getting the runaround (not necessarily deliberate) when people take your questions at face value (about “Islam” as opposed to what happens on the ground in Pakistan).

Turning it around, imagine someone writing to you and asking why sati and the mistreatment of widows was allowed in Ram Rajya. You’d probably write to them and explain that they weren’t. If they equate Indian polity with Ram Rajya, however, they’d be convinced that is WAS and that you weren’t being truthful. So you’d be talking past each other, rather than communicating.

I’m afraid I’m not sure I agree with some of the things you said in your posts.

“But what if ordinary citizens themselves do not want elections?”

There’s no way of telling that about Pakistan right now. The only thing you can say is that ordinary citizens do not want elections enough to confront a military Government about them.

You also wrote:” Inspite of every physical threat, one is still free to think and have opinions. One is free to assemble and organize with others of similar mind.”

Yes, all true, but there is a heavy personal price for these things. We can wish people were willing to pay it, but unless we’ve been in their situation we don’t know what it’s like, and we can’t even be CERTAIN that we’d pay it ourselves. Like you, I feel fortunate that I grew up in India (for all its warts). Can you and I say with any certainty that we’d be the people we are today if we grew up elsewhere? In fact we probably wouldn’t be. Asma Jahangir is a rare human being.

(And think on this – how many Indians are there currently in our democracy who dare to advocate free and fair elections in Kashmir with independance and merger with Pakistan as options on the ballot? Not many, since these are deeply unpopular options. Perhaps that is our current Lakshman Rekha?)

No comments on the Pakistani intellectual class – don’t know enough of them. (But what proportion of ours went against the Govt. during the Emergency?) And I think you know what would happen in India if 100,000 members of a minority were prevented from casting their vote. The Government would fall. As it should. (Jai Hind.)

Zafar

PS Not questioning your right to disagree with anyone. :)

#440 tahmed

Mr. Ahmed, all very well, but what you`re saying is a non sequiter. One has to do with whether islam assigns a hierarchy to religions, placing itself (naturally) at the top and the other has to do with what happens on ``judgement day``. The first one is more relevant to what happens in the here and now and is very real for those who are not lucky enough to be at the top. Your personal beliefs aside, what do you have to say about the hierarchy thing? Is Zafar Al-Taib wrong?

TAhmed:

[This post is addressed to you and you only. I do not have your email address otherwise I would have emailed you directly.]

Why are you wasting you time on this plain rubbish ? This is beyond my comprehension. You do not have to spoon-feed others with your views till they are fully convinced.

Please do not waste your time here. I think you should look into something real worthwhile: what happened to the UNICEF thing that you wanted to look into? I can give you quite a few references and you should seriously get involved in them. That would be a much better use of your precious time than indulging in a petty discussion.

Hope you will make a serious note of this request.

Take Care.

And tahmed, you should be debating this with your coreligionists, the difference between what you say and what many others say is really confusing.

friend #442
I agree with you, you bet we are responsible.

#441
I was speechless with wonder that some donot bother to read the article even to understand what the persons they are berating are saying.

tahmed321 #440
Your personal beliefs are your business, its not my business to question them, and I am not presuming to do so. If there is such a reading of Quran and you subscribe to it, its to your great credit and I mean it.

I can honor you for that, and all others who think like you do in private and public life, not being stranger to them, having lived among Muslims too.

But while honoring you personally, at the same time I can fault you for not noticing(even on chowk)that many of your noncriminal/nonmullah co-religionists hold a different opinion about the equality of Muslims and nonMuslims, academic or in their personal belief or socially or politically.

Perhaps you donot notice that this perception of inequality is brought into social and political practices of Muslim societies, you have many many examples, can everything be ascribed to reactionary post-colonialism(if I get that right).

Or you donot notice it was a democratically elected leader Bhutto who introduced the anti-Ahmediya rules if I am right. The Federal Shariat Court, the gradual Islamization of the constitution, you cannot ascribe these to mullahs, criminals and extremists. You cannot ascribe the rise of say someone like Rafiq Tarar(whom I remember you calling something impolite) to uneducated unlettered bigots `misinterpreting` religion. And things like the riba judgement..

Basically here is where we differ : while having full respect for Islam and Muslims in general, one can still see trends in Islamic societies around the world, which donot bode well for their future as societies where true pluralism(or equality for all religious faiths) is a primary upheld value.

Even in countries like Turkey, the military guards the states secularism, leading to debates whether secularism is more important than democracy.

It doesnot help to have a moderate population saying there can be no wrong/neglect done by Muslims, except by bigots and criminals. And that for the effects on society of these bigots and criminals they(the moderates) eternally not responsible, its someones else`s job to get a broom and clean up.

If this were the attitude among Indians, we would have had by now Manu-smriti as law in India. Its interesting, btw to see Bangladeshis coping with similar trends, but they donot hesitate to come out into the streets to face down Islamists, especially the women, good for them!:)

Sadna #435 ``Am I a bigot for believing him and not tahmed?``

I am not asking you to believe me. I am asking you to believe the Quran - the Quran clearly says (in Surah Baqarah and elsewhere) that if you believe in God, the Judgement Day and do good deeds, then you have nothing to fear whether you are Christian, Jew, Sabian (like Hinduism, a non-Abrahamic religion) or any other religion. And the concept the Judgement Day has to do with deeds (not beliefs) - the Quran says that on the Judgement Day your lips will be sealed, there will be no one to speak on your behalf, and your hands and feet will do the talking (meaning what you did in life). On matters of faith, that is a judgement reserved by God for Himself, and muslims are clearly instructed (e.g. in Surah al-Kafiroon) not to get involved in these matters. Even the Holy Prophet himself is instructed that he is there to convey a message only, and it`s implementation is not his concern. I could go on, but I think this should give anyone with any sense of fairness some idea on what Islam is. And if you dont believe me, read the Holy Quran with an open mind and find out for yourself.

I agree that all this is very different from the religion that is practiced by the mullah, the king, the taliban, or a dictator like Zia. But this is is the Islam as conveyed by the Holy Prophet and as recorded in a book that has not been changed by one letter over fourteen centuries. This is the Islam that you refuse to accept.

MaheshG #434 I think on reading Sadna`s post #435 you will understand that it is not merely something I have ``got into my head`` that ``the only Islam that you (Sadna) believe exists is the one that is prevalent among Pakistani mullahs.``

I rest my case. I can only conclude that a person is hopelessly bigotted when coming up with such flat condemnations of other people`s religion.

Friend: Actually, maybe I have not explained enough to you - when I belittled Sadna`s IQ, it had nothing to do with her being a woman. I have criticized her before a number of times on chowk, but I ask you or Sadna or anyone else to find one post from me where I have written something which has to do with her being a woman. And I have apologized twice on this board for what I wrote about her IQ.

You, my friend, have post after post addressed to women posters where you berate them in ways you can only berate a woman (for example, by using words like ``ugly`` that are designed to put down a woman in ways you could never put down a man). There is a basic difference here, and you obviously never learnt that in the gutter.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

tahmed321 #432

``Do I start holding all Indians responsible for the burning to death of the two Australian boys a couple of years ago?``

Yes Sir,

I am responsible for that crime. All Indians are responsible for that crime. It will be a crime for any society that lets it happen.

Why I am responsible? Because someone felt that he can get go away after committing all that. What should I do to reduce my guilt? Perhaps, to break my links with groups that supported that crime and vocally oppose them whenever they support such crimes.

What you do in your country in similar situation is your business. If you prefer, close your eyes and ears.

But no, you can`t start a campaign of ``kill the messanger``.

tahmed321 #433

``Yaar, guru you can have my turn. I think I have explained

enough to you.``

I guess you should certainly give your turn to someone else. Filling BAhmed`s shoes is a big task and you didn`t prove your self equal to that.

sadna #431

``friend, I was lost in wonder myself. ``

About what?

tahmed sahab:

:) i dont think ure mean at all..crazy funny most of the times :0)

friend sweetie:

id be bitchy but the weathers lovely...wind and rain...dont feel like dissing...im going to go dance in the rain

byebye

anNy