Brahmin and Mullah

A Confession: I have not gone beyond the first few lines of this article.

friend: #409 I think by now you have amply demonstrated the gutter you grew up in.

re. TAhmed:

[Question 1: ``how is it that we (a) allow laws that discriminate (or can be easily abused) agaisnt Minorities.``

Answer: Because those laws (Shariah laws) were introduced by a military dictator (Zia) who did not ask ``us``. duh!! And because neither NS nor BB (nor PM today) were willing to stir up the mullahs on these issues.]

And what were the silent majority doing all the while? What were their elected representattives doing to redress the situation? Difficult? Sure, but was tehre anyone willing to stick his neck out at all?

[You may have noticed that neither Zia, nor NS nor BB are very popular among Pakistanis on chowk, incidentally.]

And what is the reason even chowkwallahs are usually loathe to admit to these injustices, or to raise their voices? (Omar1974 eing one of the exceptions)

[I agree that the shariah laws have no basis in Islam, were created by a dictator for self-serving purposes, and should be done away with.]

Whether they do or don`t have anything to do with Islam is a debate for another day. One wonders why their repeal seems so daunting a task if they indeed have no basis in Islam.

[question 2: `` Why is it that we do not raise a hue and cry about OUR funding of the taliban when they go about killing thousands of their fellow Muslims, and make inroads into our own country?``

Answer: Because people in Pakistan have their own problems to worry about (little things like finding the next meal, finding a job, and so on).]

And do the roughly twenty perrcent of educated Pakistanis also fall into this category? Are all the journalists (barring a few), the policy makers, and teh academia in Pakistan (to say nothing of those abroad) encumbered with the exegencies you mention?

rgds,

PM

hobbyty,

Thank you for your kind and sincere offer to help in the effort to bring about more just laws and their implementation. I will get back to you with names of outreach organizations in a week or so. Am currently travelling.

rgds,

PM

P.S. Apologies if my tone did get heavy handed or offensive.

Reply #: 68

``nameless......Bapuji, I am glad that you ``

Im sorry Nameless, i just saw your comment #68 for mine sarcasm #58

I am happy it turned out to be right according to you.Otherwise i would be very bashfull for saying what i said.

Thanx for letting me know ,that indeed you were not serious about your theory in #53

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

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

Sadhna:

My previous post was addressed to friend.

I neither read your lubmae chaurae saheefae nor do I participate in them. I think you have quite a few on board who can satisfy your *very genuine queries *. So, please keep me out of this nonsense!

You are neither aware of my views nor you have any clue about them. Please stick to your convoluted logic. You are damn good at it!

Beyond that, I have no time to read your lengthy stuff.

Thank You!

Tahmed:

:)

Recently, some regular interactors have started weaing a garb and have been posting nonsense messages right and left as they *lacked * the nerve to do so under their real names. How manly on their behalf!

I think Chowk Staff should take a note of that.

Take Care.

PS: You should not feel bad about anything. It`s not worth it! If I were you, I will seriously look into my earlier suggestion. I am surprised that you are taking so long to get the real picture :(

Zahra #397
I too have a long acquaintance with your views on chowk. I remember at least 2 instances. The first was when a minority religious community(Muslim in India, nonMuslim in Pakistan) was being discussed and you clearly stated your dispproval of arguments for their equal status(if I remember right).

The second instance I remember is your scolding one Mr. Omar Mirza for his stated intention(and call for volunteers)to demonstrate along with minority members of the Pakistani community to protest against separate electorates(in NY on occasion of a UN conference which Musharraf was to attend).

You have a right ot your opinions, but I too have a right to mine. What you may consider an objective and informed article or discussion on Hinduism, I may find ignorant and offensive to my personal faith.

Lastly, I donot respect(or read) many interactors, but I keep my opinion of them to myself instead of proselytizing/converting others to my personal opinion of these posters.

So you see, we have longstanding differences on a number of things(maybe not all) and not just from your side.

Zahra: On your parting post. Good post, written with dignity and staying above the offensive posts that were directed your way. I am sorry if I got you into this mess ...but oh well - another board, another day. :-)

Aum #405 Welcome to chowk. We need all the thoughtful people we can get here. You make good points, so let me try to respond:

``1. Wouldn`t it be more fruitful if you urged the author of the article to ponder over Sadna`s questions and your truthful answers, and wonder what kind of lead he is expecting India to follow?``

Actually I have not read the article (nor do I think I will). I came into the discussion late, and my post #399 was simply to provide answers to questions I was accused of trying to avoid. If the writer has been following the posts, I am sure he/she can draw his own conclusions.

``2. Why not instead ponder over, how to repeal any discriminating laws, implement genuine equality for all, irrespective of any kind of discrimination (religous, gender, various sects) first, & then bother about ``others`` such as India?``

Excellent point. We all need to fight for a just society in whatever way we can. The place to start with is oneself. I dont pretend to be perfect, and certainly agree that it is better to practice than preach. If we take care of the little things (our own behavior on chowk being one such thing), the big things will in time take care of themselves.

Zahra #397

My sweetie-pie,

What a typical ``I am not playing with you now`` post?

``Just a few points:

`` There are many writers from uss-paar that are well regarded by interactors from iss-paar and vice versa. I am a selective reader; I do not want to read everyone. My prerogative!``

My sweetie pie, you exercised your preogative of respondign to Sadna`s post. Now don`t you think you should explain your reaction to that post? Or is it just ``my prerogative to defecate in public wherever I want, whenever I want`` attitude?

`` I do not want to rip it apart and shed some light as I am indifferent.``

If you are indifferent and don`t want to ``rip it apart``, ignore it, why this ``applause`` drama?

`` Religion is a very sacred and personal matter. I am a die-hard believer on one thing; if you are truly in love with your own belief system/have the regard for it, you simply cannot think of disrespecting anyone else`s.``

My dew-drop, don`t insult my respect for your earlier posts on this site by saying that this article ``Brahmin and Mullah`` was not about religion and you were not actively participating and discussing it.

``PS: Last Post on the topic at hand. ``

it is your decision ``not to play``. I will still keep bugging you. I believe Sadna will still keep asking her questions

tahmed321 #399

[[``Question 1: ``how is it that we (a) allow laws that discriminate (or can be easily abused) agaisnt Minorities.``

Answer: Because those laws (Shariah laws) were introduced by a military dictator (Zia) who did not ask ``us``. ...``

question 2: `` Why is it that we do not raise a hue and cry about OUR funding of the taliban when they go about killing thousands of their fellow Muslims, and make inroads into our own country?``

Answer: Because people in Pakistan have their own problems to worry about.... ]]

Dear Ahmek,

Were you really serious when give these replies? Do you belive in your own replies?

You blame everything on Zia. Anything bad that happens in Pakistan is none of your business. Than why do you speak for Pakistan?

I really believe that you (and should say ``YOU GUYS``) are not serious when you write such answers.

Each of many posters :
Thanks, I am honored by your weighing in both personally and on the subject at hand.

Zafar Al-Talib #400
Thanks for your explanation. I did remember your #33. I do apologize if you found any of my statements offensive.

I also remember your term `reactionary` in another post #122 for some trends in radical Islam(if I understood you right). I believe Hindutva is another such ideology, not a drive for reform but essentially reactionary in its intent and hence sometimes quite hollow in its intellectual/theological basis.

I mean, Hindutva-wadis neither make it their main object to fight for social reform like say widow-remarriage or equitable caste relations, they seem to just want to assert that to be Hindu is to be right. It finally reduces to blatant power play at the higher levels, and intimidation on basis of religious affiliation at the street level.

Heres what bothers me, what if less reactionary Hindus yield ground (political/social/religious) to radical Hindutva-wadis` out of ignorance about Hinduism (reading Hindu scripture is not the usual thing among Hindus) or they refuse to take a stand against Hindutva because they donot want to speak any ill of Hindus and Hinduism on any account, then isn`t it a self-goal?

On top of that if Hindus `blame` Islamic tradition wholesale for every evil in Hindu society(quite like Hindutva-wadis do), isn`t that a second self-goal? I do see this trend in some NRI(and other) Hindus and its very disturbing.

The issue is not fully settled in this matter too, btw, but I do believe `moderate` Hindus are in a strong position to see where reactionary Hindutva-wadis are coming from, simply because introspection on the `flaws` in society and religious traditions(and texts) has many precedents. I consider a willingness to introspect and reform to be a self-perpetuating strength of a tradition and not a weakness.

I do hope Islamic society also grows in strength through similar means and not take a self-defeating detour through a prolonged reactionary phase.

Thanks for the references!

Tahmed #399

I am a new comer to chowk. Please allow me to ask a few questions as a logical continuance of your genuine replies to Sadna`s questions.

1. Wouldn`t it be more fruitful if you urged the author of the article to ponder over Sadna`s questions and your truthful answers, and wonder what kind of lead he is expecting India to follow?

2. Why not instead ponder over, how to repeal any discriminating laws, implement genuine equality for all, irrespective of any kind of discrimination (religous, gender, various sects) first, & then bother about ``others`` such as India?

In short, ``Practice before you Preach``.

Aum.

Tahmed, you are being very unfair with Sadhna. Just because she raises pertinent questions that you are not comfortable answering doesn`t warrant you calling her a cockroach.

As she said why do you suppose she is directing her questions to you? She is directing them to the likes of YLH, Klutz and the author of this article. The fact that you haven`t made any sweeping statements against Hinduism doesn`t mean Sadhna has to keep quiet against YLH, Klutz and other bigots on this board.

The questions she raises are very pertinent to this board. In fact let me add a few.

If Pakistan is such a secular society then why are non-muslims not allowed to run for the leadership of the country? Why are non-muslim witnesses treated as being a half of mumslim witnesses? Why are women treated as being a half of men? These are not just prevalent societal practices but, they are ingrained into Pakistani constitution. What kind of a secular society is the author proposing?

Did you raise such questions to the author? I don`t see even one Pakistani ask these very relevant questions. A lot of Pakistanis are allowed to get away with blaming all the ills in Pakistan on Hindus. Is Sadhna not allowed to question such characters?