Chowk, Jay, a Ditch and I
anNy August 18, 2001
#935 Posted by hobbyty on September 9, 2001 8:12:16 pm
Hamidm, Zafar, YLH, Urstruly, Tahmed, Eklavya, PM, Saminashah, Asif Naqshbandi, Faranghi Kush - anybody else who is interested:
Awaken! Rejoice!
From ``The News International`` - Sept. 10, 2001
``Ijtihad and science
Prof Khwaja Masud
The writer is a former principal, Gordon College, Rawalpindi
For three hundred years, the doors of the tavern have been closed
--Iqbal
Why is it that for the last three hundred years, the Muslim world has been so deficient in producing philosophers, scientists and scholars? Why is it that even now when the Muslim world commands such immense resources, we lag so far behind the West in science and technology? The answer is clear. For three hundred years, the door of ijtihad ie creative thinking has been closed. Almost one-ninth of the verses of the Qur`aan stress tafakkur (thinking) and tadabbur (creative deliberation), yet, by and large the Muslim world pays no heed to them ie they turn their back on critical and creative thinking.
Instead, we love platitudes. We are fond of cliches. We bask in the glory of the past. We dread the new, the original and the novel. We revel in interpretation and re-interpretation, but we flinch from creativity. We are good at repeating moth-eaten, time-worn thoughts, views and traditions.
It is ingrained in our psychology that correct answers already exist, and are to be found in the books or from authorities, religious or secular. Teachers dispense truth, parents are always right and leaders are omniscient. They act like philosopher-kings, often uttering unchallenged banalities. Questing authority is disrespectful tantamount to apostasy. It is time to reconstruct, following the true Qur`aanic spirit of iconoclasm.
Science and philosophy cannot flourish in an atmosphere vitiated by obscurantism, dogmatism, fanaticism, intolerance and irrationalism. Science needs an intellectual environment whose keynote is enlightenment with rationalism, humanism and pluralism as its driving forces.
Historically it was the Renaissance which prepared the ground for the emergence of modern science. The Dark Age which preceded the Renaissance in Europe was dominated by scholasticism with philosophy as the hand-maiden of theology.
D`Alembert called scholasticism ``the so-called science of the centuries of ignorance.`` The scholastics used to discuss such ``profound`` problems as the number of angels who could dance on the tips of a needle. Bacon compared the scholastics to the spiders, content to weave cobwebs, ignoring the universe and what was happening around them.
Scholasticism suffered from: (i) indifference to facts (ii) arguments from authority (iii) undue emphasis on verbal subtleties (iv) reasoning in matters which observation alone could decide (v) blind faith.
The Muslim philosophy carries all the deficiencies mentioned above.
Modern science had to make way by routing scholasticism. It was Descartes (1596-1650) who performed this task. He was not only the founder of modern philosophy, but, along with Galileo and Newton, one of the creators of modern science. Descartes started off on his philosophical odyssey by the dictum: ``In order to reach the truth, it is necessary, once in one`s life, to put everything in doubt``.
Modern science has flourished in an atmosphere marked by philosophical scepticism. It does not take anything for granted. It puts to doubt all dogmas and all certainties. The beliefs of a scientist are tentative, not final. They are not based on authority, but on evidence. Modern science is iconoclastic in dealing with convictions based on tradition or authority. As opposed to scholasticism which believes in order to understand, modern science understands in order to believe.
Science demands an inquisitive spirit,( SO DOES THE SCIENCE OF RELIGION) of a pioneering zeal and an enterprising elan. Any dichotomy between theory and practice spells disaster for scientific progress (AND RELIGIOUS PRACTICE). The Greek science withered away, because it wholly and solely depended on deduction. Though the Greeks scaled the sublimest heights of speculative thought, their aversion to experimentation and manual work, closed the door for further scientific advancement.
Induction was a great gift of Islam to humanity. ``Neither Roger Bacon nor his later namesake has any title to be credited with having introduced the experimental method,`` says Briffault in his book Making of Humanity and adds, ``The experimental method of Arabs was by Bacon`s time widespread and eagerly cultivated throughout Europe.``
According to Iqbal, ``For purposes of knowledge, the Muslim culture fixes its gaze on the concrete and the finite.`` When Iqbal emphasises the concrete and the finite, he exalts the scientific spirit at the expense of speculative flights into meta-physics.
By giving examples of Ibn-i-Khaldun`s view of history, Ibn-e-Maskwaih`s theory of life as evolutionary movement and Musa al-Khwarzami`s shift from arithmetic to algebra, Iqbal concludes: ``All lines of Muslim thought converge on a dynamic concept of the universe.``
(NOTICE ``DYNAMIC`` - AS IN CHANGING, EVOLVING, REASONED, CRITICAL)
Thus Islam rejects a static view of the universe and regards it as always changing and evolving. According to the Qur`aan, change is one of the greatest signs of God. It is explicitly implied in the verse. ``Every day has its own glory``.
The Islamic principle to keep pace with the changing world and an evolving universe is ijtihad (exertion to form an independent opinion). Creativity is the essence of ijtihad. The driving force of the scientific technological revolution is creativity, developing new ideas and sailing in uncharted seas. In order to usher the scientific technological revolution, we must take the following steps.
Firstly, our educational system must be geared to strengthen mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology and information technology. Up to the 12th grade, all these subjects must be compulsory.
Secondly, our method of teaching must change emphasising the intelligent grasp of the subjects rather than memorising formulas and theorems.
Thirdly, our mass media must be mobilised to popularise scientific thinking ie rational, critical and creative thinking. The mass media must help create a new world outlook suffused with rationalism, humanism and pluralism.
Fourthly, our scientists must be made to feel that Pakistan needs them. They must be freed from the stranglehold of bureaucracy, and obscurantist priests.
Lastly, what is urgently needed is the political will on the part of the government to regard universal literacy and primary education as the topmost priority. Unless education is given the same importance as defence, because defence nowadays depends on education, no breakthrough is going to take place so far as the STR is concerned. By giving education the first priority, China has successfully ushered in the STR.``
Awaken! Rejoice!
From ``The News International`` - Sept. 10, 2001
``Ijtihad and science
Prof Khwaja Masud
The writer is a former principal, Gordon College, Rawalpindi
For three hundred years, the doors of the tavern have been closed
--Iqbal
Why is it that for the last three hundred years, the Muslim world has been so deficient in producing philosophers, scientists and scholars? Why is it that even now when the Muslim world commands such immense resources, we lag so far behind the West in science and technology? The answer is clear. For three hundred years, the door of ijtihad ie creative thinking has been closed. Almost one-ninth of the verses of the Qur`aan stress tafakkur (thinking) and tadabbur (creative deliberation), yet, by and large the Muslim world pays no heed to them ie they turn their back on critical and creative thinking.
Instead, we love platitudes. We are fond of cliches. We bask in the glory of the past. We dread the new, the original and the novel. We revel in interpretation and re-interpretation, but we flinch from creativity. We are good at repeating moth-eaten, time-worn thoughts, views and traditions.
It is ingrained in our psychology that correct answers already exist, and are to be found in the books or from authorities, religious or secular. Teachers dispense truth, parents are always right and leaders are omniscient. They act like philosopher-kings, often uttering unchallenged banalities. Questing authority is disrespectful tantamount to apostasy. It is time to reconstruct, following the true Qur`aanic spirit of iconoclasm.
Science and philosophy cannot flourish in an atmosphere vitiated by obscurantism, dogmatism, fanaticism, intolerance and irrationalism. Science needs an intellectual environment whose keynote is enlightenment with rationalism, humanism and pluralism as its driving forces.
Historically it was the Renaissance which prepared the ground for the emergence of modern science. The Dark Age which preceded the Renaissance in Europe was dominated by scholasticism with philosophy as the hand-maiden of theology.
D`Alembert called scholasticism ``the so-called science of the centuries of ignorance.`` The scholastics used to discuss such ``profound`` problems as the number of angels who could dance on the tips of a needle. Bacon compared the scholastics to the spiders, content to weave cobwebs, ignoring the universe and what was happening around them.
Scholasticism suffered from: (i) indifference to facts (ii) arguments from authority (iii) undue emphasis on verbal subtleties (iv) reasoning in matters which observation alone could decide (v) blind faith.
The Muslim philosophy carries all the deficiencies mentioned above.
Modern science had to make way by routing scholasticism. It was Descartes (1596-1650) who performed this task. He was not only the founder of modern philosophy, but, along with Galileo and Newton, one of the creators of modern science. Descartes started off on his philosophical odyssey by the dictum: ``In order to reach the truth, it is necessary, once in one`s life, to put everything in doubt``.
Modern science has flourished in an atmosphere marked by philosophical scepticism. It does not take anything for granted. It puts to doubt all dogmas and all certainties. The beliefs of a scientist are tentative, not final. They are not based on authority, but on evidence. Modern science is iconoclastic in dealing with convictions based on tradition or authority. As opposed to scholasticism which believes in order to understand, modern science understands in order to believe.
Science demands an inquisitive spirit,( SO DOES THE SCIENCE OF RELIGION) of a pioneering zeal and an enterprising elan. Any dichotomy between theory and practice spells disaster for scientific progress (AND RELIGIOUS PRACTICE). The Greek science withered away, because it wholly and solely depended on deduction. Though the Greeks scaled the sublimest heights of speculative thought, their aversion to experimentation and manual work, closed the door for further scientific advancement.
Induction was a great gift of Islam to humanity. ``Neither Roger Bacon nor his later namesake has any title to be credited with having introduced the experimental method,`` says Briffault in his book Making of Humanity and adds, ``The experimental method of Arabs was by Bacon`s time widespread and eagerly cultivated throughout Europe.``
According to Iqbal, ``For purposes of knowledge, the Muslim culture fixes its gaze on the concrete and the finite.`` When Iqbal emphasises the concrete and the finite, he exalts the scientific spirit at the expense of speculative flights into meta-physics.
By giving examples of Ibn-i-Khaldun`s view of history, Ibn-e-Maskwaih`s theory of life as evolutionary movement and Musa al-Khwarzami`s shift from arithmetic to algebra, Iqbal concludes: ``All lines of Muslim thought converge on a dynamic concept of the universe.``
(NOTICE ``DYNAMIC`` - AS IN CHANGING, EVOLVING, REASONED, CRITICAL)
Thus Islam rejects a static view of the universe and regards it as always changing and evolving. According to the Qur`aan, change is one of the greatest signs of God. It is explicitly implied in the verse. ``Every day has its own glory``.
The Islamic principle to keep pace with the changing world and an evolving universe is ijtihad (exertion to form an independent opinion). Creativity is the essence of ijtihad. The driving force of the scientific technological revolution is creativity, developing new ideas and sailing in uncharted seas. In order to usher the scientific technological revolution, we must take the following steps.
Firstly, our educational system must be geared to strengthen mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology and information technology. Up to the 12th grade, all these subjects must be compulsory.
Secondly, our method of teaching must change emphasising the intelligent grasp of the subjects rather than memorising formulas and theorems.
Thirdly, our mass media must be mobilised to popularise scientific thinking ie rational, critical and creative thinking. The mass media must help create a new world outlook suffused with rationalism, humanism and pluralism.
Fourthly, our scientists must be made to feel that Pakistan needs them. They must be freed from the stranglehold of bureaucracy, and obscurantist priests.
Lastly, what is urgently needed is the political will on the part of the government to regard universal literacy and primary education as the topmost priority. Unless education is given the same importance as defence, because defence nowadays depends on education, no breakthrough is going to take place so far as the STR is concerned. By giving education the first priority, China has successfully ushered in the STR.``
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#934 Posted by Banjaara on September 9, 2001 8:12:16 pm
Gowardhan # 1613
``I agree partly. Devil is partly right also. For thousands of years continuous trickery of Islamists has been to kill and burn all local culture, local language, local festivals, local dress, local names by calling them unislamic, dirty, and evil. After all local input is destroyed people become ENSLAVED FOREVER.``
If your contention is right,logically, there should not be a single hindu left in India,in view of the muslim rule by absolute muslim monarchs for a few centuries.Care to explain?
Regards.
``I agree partly. Devil is partly right also. For thousands of years continuous trickery of Islamists has been to kill and burn all local culture, local language, local festivals, local dress, local names by calling them unislamic, dirty, and evil. After all local input is destroyed people become ENSLAVED FOREVER.``
If your contention is right,logically, there should not be a single hindu left in India,in view of the muslim rule by absolute muslim monarchs for a few centuries.Care to explain?
Regards.
#933 Posted by rsaxena on September 9, 2001 8:12:16 pm
Re: sigalph
I tried to find some of the New York Times articles from the past few years which explicitly state India has won all 3 wars against Pakistan, but ran into a technical glitch. It appears that accessing archived articles from their web site requires a premium paid subscription which I do not have.
And I don`t have the time to go to a library to do a microfiche search on this for you.
Any ideas how I can access historical articles from the newspaper? Else, we will have to leave this as unfinished business for now. Sorry.
I tried to find some of the New York Times articles from the past few years which explicitly state India has won all 3 wars against Pakistan, but ran into a technical glitch. It appears that accessing archived articles from their web site requires a premium paid subscription which I do not have.
And I don`t have the time to go to a library to do a microfiche search on this for you.
Any ideas how I can access historical articles from the newspaper? Else, we will have to leave this as unfinished business for now. Sorry.
#932 Posted by PM on September 9, 2001 8:12:16 pm
Hobbyty: On Contexualizing Law
That laws and commands can and should not be judged detached from their historical (mainly cultural and phenomenological) contexts is really a no-brainer. But it is quite a leap from there to suggesting that revised or ‘foreign’ law cannot and should not be ‘imposed’ upon a people whose knowledge or understanding of matters leads them to a different morality and laws from our own.
You seem to suggest that such imposition will just not work; that law, as it were, must be subservient to morality. I think you are treading on thin ice here.
I agree for the most part that Law should reflect morality (which in your estimation is evolving-- or even relativistic?), but there are situations in which Law must damn well bring Morality under its command. Where? In cases where reason (ijtehad, if you will) can be serviced to show that prevailing morality-- whatever its phenomenological basis – offends the LAW. The LAW I speak of are those ‘truths held to be self-evident’ etc. etc. etc. (It maybe be that the best we can do is have civilization-bound ‘self evident’ law, but nonetheless, some sense of a superseding set of ‘basic principals’ to which all law must conform and be consistent with.
Too abstract? Hamidm reaching for the bottle yet? Ok, let’s go concrete: Cultures might have had accorded a protective, if benighted attitude toward women. As long as the loss of freedom of the woman could be justified as a necessary evil to uphold the ‘virtue’ of protecting the ‘weaker’ members of society, , society could be said to be in moral equilibrium. (This is not to deny that such a situation could give rise to undesirable power imbalances and abuse - opportunity) Now with the passage of time, the original rationale for the ‘protective’ status all but forgotten, women so far from being protected, are victimized for asserting themselves. What if local understanding, morality AND law promote this victimization? Should those outside the particular ethical system eschew interference on ground that law must always be subservient to morality?
In effect, this is exactly what the Lahore High Court has done by refusing to condemn ‘honor’ killings. In the context of ‘tribal’ morality, a ban on honor killings would indeed be an externally imposed law, an anachronism. Hobbyty, if I have read you correctly, you suggest that such imposition is not desirable?
To demonstrate that Law may in fact be imposed on an incongruous morality with desirable outcomes, one has only to look as far as the Abolition Act in the US. Is there any doubt that it flew in the face of the accepted morality of the anti-abolitionists? Yet, relying on an ascendant morality, Honest Abe was able (and willing!) to impose a law that many in the South were unready for. Can it be doubted that ‘morality’ gradually came around as a result of this imposition?
In summary, so long as an impose law can appeal to a higher set of principles that the prevailing morality, it may be imposed with some lasting meaningful success. (Of course, it SHOULD be imposed regardless of the likelihood of success—simply because it is held to be of a higher order of rectitude.
(Next weekend: a further examination into ‘higher order’ principles, basic values and other ultimate thingamajigs – girlfriend permitting, of course.)
--------
Hobbyty, or anyone who cares, on another, not completely unrelated note, would the prescriptions in the verses quoted by Gowardhan be considered the husk or the hull? Would appreciate a thoughtful reply, as such issues seem to me extremely problematic.
Rgds,
PM
That laws and commands can and should not be judged detached from their historical (mainly cultural and phenomenological) contexts is really a no-brainer. But it is quite a leap from there to suggesting that revised or ‘foreign’ law cannot and should not be ‘imposed’ upon a people whose knowledge or understanding of matters leads them to a different morality and laws from our own.
You seem to suggest that such imposition will just not work; that law, as it were, must be subservient to morality. I think you are treading on thin ice here.
I agree for the most part that Law should reflect morality (which in your estimation is evolving-- or even relativistic?), but there are situations in which Law must damn well bring Morality under its command. Where? In cases where reason (ijtehad, if you will) can be serviced to show that prevailing morality-- whatever its phenomenological basis – offends the LAW. The LAW I speak of are those ‘truths held to be self-evident’ etc. etc. etc. (It maybe be that the best we can do is have civilization-bound ‘self evident’ law, but nonetheless, some sense of a superseding set of ‘basic principals’ to which all law must conform and be consistent with.
Too abstract? Hamidm reaching for the bottle yet? Ok, let’s go concrete: Cultures might have had accorded a protective, if benighted attitude toward women. As long as the loss of freedom of the woman could be justified as a necessary evil to uphold the ‘virtue’ of protecting the ‘weaker’ members of society, , society could be said to be in moral equilibrium. (This is not to deny that such a situation could give rise to undesirable power imbalances and abuse - opportunity) Now with the passage of time, the original rationale for the ‘protective’ status all but forgotten, women so far from being protected, are victimized for asserting themselves. What if local understanding, morality AND law promote this victimization? Should those outside the particular ethical system eschew interference on ground that law must always be subservient to morality?
In effect, this is exactly what the Lahore High Court has done by refusing to condemn ‘honor’ killings. In the context of ‘tribal’ morality, a ban on honor killings would indeed be an externally imposed law, an anachronism. Hobbyty, if I have read you correctly, you suggest that such imposition is not desirable?
To demonstrate that Law may in fact be imposed on an incongruous morality with desirable outcomes, one has only to look as far as the Abolition Act in the US. Is there any doubt that it flew in the face of the accepted morality of the anti-abolitionists? Yet, relying on an ascendant morality, Honest Abe was able (and willing!) to impose a law that many in the South were unready for. Can it be doubted that ‘morality’ gradually came around as a result of this imposition?
In summary, so long as an impose law can appeal to a higher set of principles that the prevailing morality, it may be imposed with some lasting meaningful success. (Of course, it SHOULD be imposed regardless of the likelihood of success—simply because it is held to be of a higher order of rectitude.
(Next weekend: a further examination into ‘higher order’ principles, basic values and other ultimate thingamajigs – girlfriend permitting, of course.)
--------
Hobbyty, or anyone who cares, on another, not completely unrelated note, would the prescriptions in the verses quoted by Gowardhan be considered the husk or the hull? Would appreciate a thoughtful reply, as such issues seem to me extremely problematic.
Rgds,
PM
#931 Posted by rsaxena on September 9, 2001 8:12:16 pm
Re: ylh
Here`s what Encyclopedia.com says about the 1947 war. Note the last sentence - ``India moved quickly to consolidate its position in Kashmir, PUSHING PAKISTAN`S VOLUNTEERS BACK.``
``The first war arose over Kashmir, in NW India, in 1947 when Muslim subjects revolted and were supported by Pakistani troops. The Hindu ruler appealed to India for aid, agreeing to cede the state to India in return. India moved quickly to consolidate its position in Kashmir, pushing Pakistan`s volunteers back.``
Here`s what Encyclopedia.com says about the 1947 war. Note the last sentence - ``India moved quickly to consolidate its position in Kashmir, PUSHING PAKISTAN`S VOLUNTEERS BACK.``
``The first war arose over Kashmir, in NW India, in 1947 when Muslim subjects revolted and were supported by Pakistani troops. The Hindu ruler appealed to India for aid, agreeing to cede the state to India in return. India moved quickly to consolidate its position in Kashmir, pushing Pakistan`s volunteers back.``
#930 Posted by rsaxena on September 9, 2001 8:12:16 pm
Re: ylh
``If you can bring 2 or 3 articles, I can bring you many more saying that Pakistan defended itself well in 1965 and the 1971 war was a victory for India only because there was an uprising within Pakistan itself.``
The difference is my sources will be mainstream foreign newspapers while your`s will be Pakistani newspapers and some obscure foreign journals.
``If you can bring 2 or 3 articles, I can bring you many more saying that Pakistan defended itself well in 1965 and the 1971 war was a victory for India only because there was an uprising within Pakistan itself.``
The difference is my sources will be mainstream foreign newspapers while your`s will be Pakistani newspapers and some obscure foreign journals.
#929 Posted by Gowardhan on September 9, 2001 8:12:16 pm
anarayan
You are suggesting self respect to someone who has never had such a thing. Pakistan has had three masters, Americans, Arabs, and Chinese. When one of them kicks their ass they run to another. Fourth master Kabul is waiting for them like wolf with big flowing beard and sharp teeth. It will eat them within 20 years. They got a country without fighting for freedom. That is why freedom never came to them. Without freedom there is no self respect. If Yeagar is not God, it will be Al Gazebo. If Al Gazebo shows them the door, it will be Ching Fart Dung ruling over them. This circus will continue for some time. Then oppressed real nations of Sindh, Baloochistan, Pakthoonwa will get freedom and Punjabis will be able to be real punjabis with pride in their culture and language.
Pakistan is an absurdity that is not helping anyone. The sooner it is thrown into the toilet the better for everyone.
You are suggesting self respect to someone who has never had such a thing. Pakistan has had three masters, Americans, Arabs, and Chinese. When one of them kicks their ass they run to another. Fourth master Kabul is waiting for them like wolf with big flowing beard and sharp teeth. It will eat them within 20 years. They got a country without fighting for freedom. That is why freedom never came to them. Without freedom there is no self respect. If Yeagar is not God, it will be Al Gazebo. If Al Gazebo shows them the door, it will be Ching Fart Dung ruling over them. This circus will continue for some time. Then oppressed real nations of Sindh, Baloochistan, Pakthoonwa will get freedom and Punjabis will be able to be real punjabis with pride in their culture and language.
Pakistan is an absurdity that is not helping anyone. The sooner it is thrown into the toilet the better for everyone.
#928 Posted by rsridhar on September 9, 2001 8:12:16 pm
Re:Reply #: 1601
ylh
Your attempts at projecting Gandhi as being against women`s rights will not wash. You have to also quote the URL and the exact context in which those words you quoted were spoken.
Gandhi was a champion of women`s rights. But he also believed in role of woment in fostering family values and in bringing up children: in short being a good home-maker. There is nothing wrong in that. My sister was an Engineer working for Pepsi in Connecticut but once she had kids, she gave up her job and became a home-maker. She did this by her own choice. Does being a home-maker mean being weak. When Gandhi said ``WOMEN who should be the queens of the house hold wander in the streets or they slave away in factories`` he was talking about the broken families and the living conditions of many women who had to slave in factories to make a living. In a society that cares only for money and where individuals are like a piece on chess board, the hardest hit have been women. The plight of single mothers in US is the worst. Gandhi wanted to preserve the unique culture that gave its women its rightful place at home.
The champions of women`s rights in America who were vocal in the 60s and 70s are nowhere in picture. Many of them today openly acknowledge they were wrong. You need not learn any culture from the West which has no culture and where the society is highly individualistic. Women fought side by side with Gandhiji during the freedom struggle so much so that India had its first M.P right at its inception. Rajkumari Amrit Kaur became the first woman cabinet minister of free India. Even US had to wait for 2 more decades when it could select first woman senator.
So, Jinnah believed women should not be shut up within the four walls. Good for him. But unfortunately his Pakistan has not lived up to his expectations. In India, middle class women are forging a career for themselves, shorn of all restrictions and men are helping them achieve that. We are living by Gandhi`s ideals. Gandhi never said anything that he did not put into practice. He was not an armchair theorist. I hope you stop this comparison between Jinnah and Gandhi to prove a point. The whole world today believes Gandhi to be a saint. If you do not like him, that is your opinion but your attempts at comparisons is pathetic.
Sridhar
ylh
Your attempts at projecting Gandhi as being against women`s rights will not wash. You have to also quote the URL and the exact context in which those words you quoted were spoken.
Gandhi was a champion of women`s rights. But he also believed in role of woment in fostering family values and in bringing up children: in short being a good home-maker. There is nothing wrong in that. My sister was an Engineer working for Pepsi in Connecticut but once she had kids, she gave up her job and became a home-maker. She did this by her own choice. Does being a home-maker mean being weak. When Gandhi said ``WOMEN who should be the queens of the house hold wander in the streets or they slave away in factories`` he was talking about the broken families and the living conditions of many women who had to slave in factories to make a living. In a society that cares only for money and where individuals are like a piece on chess board, the hardest hit have been women. The plight of single mothers in US is the worst. Gandhi wanted to preserve the unique culture that gave its women its rightful place at home.
The champions of women`s rights in America who were vocal in the 60s and 70s are nowhere in picture. Many of them today openly acknowledge they were wrong. You need not learn any culture from the West which has no culture and where the society is highly individualistic. Women fought side by side with Gandhiji during the freedom struggle so much so that India had its first M.P right at its inception. Rajkumari Amrit Kaur became the first woman cabinet minister of free India. Even US had to wait for 2 more decades when it could select first woman senator.
So, Jinnah believed women should not be shut up within the four walls. Good for him. But unfortunately his Pakistan has not lived up to his expectations. In India, middle class women are forging a career for themselves, shorn of all restrictions and men are helping them achieve that. We are living by Gandhi`s ideals. Gandhi never said anything that he did not put into practice. He was not an armchair theorist. I hope you stop this comparison between Jinnah and Gandhi to prove a point. The whole world today believes Gandhi to be a saint. If you do not like him, that is your opinion but your attempts at comparisons is pathetic.
Sridhar
#927 Posted by ylh on September 9, 2001 8:12:16 pm
The picture from the medieval backward closeminded
Country that people claim Pakistan is:
http://www.pakistanlink.com/photodujour/photodujour.html
Country that people claim Pakistan is:
http://www.pakistanlink.com/photodujour/photodujour.html
#926 Posted by id on September 9, 2001 8:12:16 pm
To my fellow Indian Chowkies :
Time and time again I have noted that a most Indians on this forum have an extremely anti-Pakistan point of view. At the same time, some of you claim that India does not care about the nieghbouring ``banana`` republic. The mere fact that some one calls another a banana republic shows the bias and hate in their point of view.
You quote Cowasjee, and call him great because he writes against the PAKISTANI establishment. But you forget to see that he himself is an extremely patriotic pakistani. What ever he writes he does so because HIS country is facing problems, and he wants to like any other patriotic PAKISTANI try to correct the situation. But all you Indians want to do is to quote him and show us how bad our country is. Really that is quite shameful.
The mess that the british created is having its tolls even now. Why do you think muslims felt threatened in the Subcontinent? Surely you have to agree that it just didnt come without any reason? The british have always used extremely effective ruling ideology : divide and conquer. Thats what they did in africa and thats what they did in india.
I have had a few discussions with indians outside chowk. Some of them actually think that west came in and enlightened us, and all the misery and suffering we went through was only a process that left us enlightened. I hope you Indians here do not think that way, though your entire current economic system is based on the west. Just like ours. Sooner or later it is going to catch up to us. Loss of cultural identity that you did not have wioth your muslim rulers is surely gonna happen with the western system you implement. I think Indian culture is one of the greatest in the world, but too bad its gonna be lost by the ways of the west, the way it was not lost in the era of your muslim rulers.
You talk about Muslim threat, take the western threat a lot more seriously cuse you cant even see it coming. I my self am a product of the western education system, and I really appreciate the thought involved, but that same thought has destroyed our ideologies and our mentalities, and if you dont see that as a threat then may god save you.
Time and time again I have noted that a most Indians on this forum have an extremely anti-Pakistan point of view. At the same time, some of you claim that India does not care about the nieghbouring ``banana`` republic. The mere fact that some one calls another a banana republic shows the bias and hate in their point of view.
You quote Cowasjee, and call him great because he writes against the PAKISTANI establishment. But you forget to see that he himself is an extremely patriotic pakistani. What ever he writes he does so because HIS country is facing problems, and he wants to like any other patriotic PAKISTANI try to correct the situation. But all you Indians want to do is to quote him and show us how bad our country is. Really that is quite shameful.
The mess that the british created is having its tolls even now. Why do you think muslims felt threatened in the Subcontinent? Surely you have to agree that it just didnt come without any reason? The british have always used extremely effective ruling ideology : divide and conquer. Thats what they did in africa and thats what they did in india.
I have had a few discussions with indians outside chowk. Some of them actually think that west came in and enlightened us, and all the misery and suffering we went through was only a process that left us enlightened. I hope you Indians here do not think that way, though your entire current economic system is based on the west. Just like ours. Sooner or later it is going to catch up to us. Loss of cultural identity that you did not have wioth your muslim rulers is surely gonna happen with the western system you implement. I think Indian culture is one of the greatest in the world, but too bad its gonna be lost by the ways of the west, the way it was not lost in the era of your muslim rulers.
You talk about Muslim threat, take the western threat a lot more seriously cuse you cant even see it coming. I my self am a product of the western education system, and I really appreciate the thought involved, but that same thought has destroyed our ideologies and our mentalities, and if you dont see that as a threat then may god save you.
#925 Posted by ylh on September 9, 2001 8:12:16 pm
Aey Watan Piyaray WATAN, Pak Watan:
The year of the Quaid e Azam is going to start paying dividends....
Lower income class Women protest Taliban in Lahore...
http://www.paknews.com/pictorial.php
Women March for Literacy in Islamabad
http://www.paknews.com/images/picofday/p09.jpg
``No nation can rise to the height of glory unless your women are side by side with you.We are victims of evil customs. It is a crime against humanity that our women are shut up within the four walls of the houses as prisoners.``
(Barrister Jinnah 1944)
The year of the Quaid e Azam is going to start paying dividends....
Lower income class Women protest Taliban in Lahore...
http://www.paknews.com/pictorial.php
Women March for Literacy in Islamabad
http://www.paknews.com/images/picofday/p09.jpg
``No nation can rise to the height of glory unless your women are side by side with you.We are victims of evil customs. It is a crime against humanity that our women are shut up within the four walls of the houses as prisoners.``
(Barrister Jinnah 1944)
#924 Posted by hobbyty on September 9, 2001 8:12:16 pm
SaminaShah
Dear Samina
I completely understand about the volume of work for school and can wait for your reflection.
About the hounding, well in a way, I sympathize, I have my own cross to bear on thses boards.
Just ignore it. Persons who wish to engage you in a civil manner are those you should concern yourself with.
Good luck with the school work.
#923 Posted by hobbyty on September 9, 2001 8:12:16 pm
Hamidm
Hamid if you read other equally tedious posts you would have noticed a pattern - let me summarize, because I fear you have not read it correctly.
In the ``Text in Context`` post - we made the point that any observation is theory laden - that is when we observe anything, we bring to it presuppositions and previous knowledge - We then go to suggest that we review Islamic knowledge in that light. From here we go to the position that Islamic knowledge is a human endeavor. We then say, that Islamic knowledge has fallen into decadence, because we no longer use outside, nonreligious sciences to assit us in understanding the text and in understanding the theoretical contexts of previous Islamic knowledge. We then posit that what is essentail to Islam has been obscured in such a manner that persons can no longer seem to tell the difference bewteen Islam the religion (the word of God) and Islamic knowledge (human endeavor).
We then go to the position that Islam need to rid itself of the ``husk``, these man made laws, conceptions, based on previous knowledge to arrive at the ``kernel``, essential Islam.
About women as objects of mystery and myth - The point being made is that many social commands concerning women in Islamic knowledge have a strong element of myth and mystery. That the interpretations we have are a reflection of the knowledge of their times. That these interpretations and social constructs are now in conflict with our perceptions of womanhood. This conflict makes these laws (husks) a burden to society and we should get rid of the non-essential. We point out that the position of women in society is a function of how women percieve themselves, how they percieve men and how men percieve themselves and how men percieve women. In order to effect a change in the relationship between men and women, it is these perceptions that must change.
Far from being an Insult to you, your wife and daughters, the point of view I have pointed out will serve to protect and serve them in the present and in the future.
I do wish you had read all the posts. Yes, I will grant you, that if the interest does not exist, it will seem tedious.
#922 Posted by ylh on September 9, 2001 8:12:16 pm
I am still confounded baffled and confused about Bong Dongs` stupid argument... I think I quoted an Indian Statistician who seems like a Hindu and provides facts for Bharat Rakshak.
Bong Dongs I am not defending the PAF nor am I saying that one Muslim = 1O Hindus... indeed if you look at the list there are christians and Parsis on both sides.
I am stating the obvious, which even according t the facts and figures provided by your countrymen
is that PAF (as in the words of Yeager) whipped Indian rearsides in the sky.
ACES HIGH
http://jaganpvs.tripod.com/aces.htm
Jagan is the same jagan who provides facts for Bharat Rakshak.
Bong Dongs I am not defending the PAF nor am I saying that one Muslim = 1O Hindus... indeed if you look at the list there are christians and Parsis on both sides.
I am stating the obvious, which even according t the facts and figures provided by your countrymen
is that PAF (as in the words of Yeager) whipped Indian rearsides in the sky.
ACES HIGH
http://jaganpvs.tripod.com/aces.htm
Jagan is the same jagan who provides facts for Bharat Rakshak.
#921 Posted by ylh on September 9, 2001 8:12:16 pm
PS There is debris of Indian Planes at Karachi Musuem for Pakistan Air Force... now if they are excluding the planes that the Americans took with them... then we sure as hell shot down your entire Air Force didnt we?
#920 Posted by ylh on September 9, 2001 8:12:16 pm
Anarayan,
The point is that whether we were conned by the US or not, the truth is that Yeager wrote his Biography 15 years afterwards... hence your theory that he said good things about Pakistan to conn Pakistan is untrue and dishonest rambling of a man who is jealous of both Pakistan Air Force and Yeager.
-YLH
The point is that whether we were conned by the US or not, the truth is that Yeager wrote his Biography 15 years afterwards... hence your theory that he said good things about Pakistan to conn Pakistan is untrue and dishonest rambling of a man who is jealous of both Pakistan Air Force and Yeager.
-YLH