The Good Wife

Sameer: Take notez, this is what happens when strict logicians start making jokez (people take them seriously).

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

Sameer ji:

[Did you realize that it was a joke? ]

--of course i realized it was a joke, as was mine. And I know that Punjabi liberal males do exist..rare occurrence as that may be. And I don`t differentiate between Punjabi and Urdu speaking males..one isn`t better than the other. :)

[Punjab became infested with madrassah and jehadis.]--as did NWFP, Sind and Baluchistan, I`m sure. There are madrassahs throughout Pakistan. Tau kya???

[...when winds of secularism and liberalism take hold of our part of the world.]--no chance of that happening anytime soon, despite our prayers and wishes.

[In this world, nothing comes easy. You will have to struggle and fight for your wishes and rights.]--news flash..been there and done that, and am still doing that!!!

[All you need are determination and understanding of how the system works in modern world and perspiration alone is not enough. At deeper level you must have all your conviction, yet in practical terms playing always against the wind does not guarantee success. Succeed in life first and then work on your convictions is better than other way around.]

--I think I`ve seen just about enough of how the `system` works in the modern world. And I cannot envision succeeding in the world without my convictions.

[Do you think Jesus and Mohammaed would have approved of fooling your own eyes and cheating your own brain? ]

--I can`t read their minds, but probably not. Doesn`t stop us from being slaves to the material world, and killers in their name.

[I wish you all the best]

--And I wish you the same. Although I must add that I hope my fellow Punjabi `parra` tahmed is wrong, and that you were not being insulting to us Punjabis in regards to our language or our persons. And if you were, I`d think you were insulting 5 feet persons and 300 lbs persons as well...and what was intended as a `harmless` joke on your part, and has been taken as ethnic chauvinism has now extended to just mean-spiritedness all around. don`t you think so tahmed?

tahmed: Oh boy! Where did you get this idea of me a Punjabi-hater? The liberalism in Pakistani males is directly proportional to rural/ urban ratio of different ethnic groups. Urdu speaking being mostly urban, have more exposure to diverse ideas and view - a necessity for becoming liberal.

I do not think you have the slightest idea of the depth of my love for Punjabiat. Punjabi is my cultural identity, American/ Pakistani is my national identity and ??? is my religious identity. Punjab is where my heart is. Got it?

The 5 ft stuff was directed against myself instead of anybody else. The average height or weight of Punjabis never crossed my mind when making up a joke about Real Man with putting myself in the middle. Its purpose was simply to make people laugh. It was not stereotypical of any ethnicity but creating a paradox of not being attractive looking but very attractive as open minded individual.

Punjabiat is lot more important to me than you, because it is above religion for me. You want to talk about god, eh?

SameerJB: And about that 5 foot 300 lb Panjabi male you made up: the easily observed fact of course is that the average Panjabi is taller and better built than the average Mohajir. I would not consider this to be a big deal, but height and looks obviously important to you, otherwise you would not use them to try to put down Panjabis. And this also indicates that your hatred for Panjabis is based on an underlying inferiority complex. And this from a man who lives in California and has a university education. It just proves, some things never leave a person, even if you take him out of the environment in which he grew up in.

SameerJB #142 you write ``, you are absolutely right about shortage of Punjabi liberal males compared to Urdu speaking males. It is sad. This is the nature of Punjab.``

Your shameless ethnic chauvinism is of course factually unfounded. All such smug little generalizations shed light on is your own petty, narrow-minded way of thinking.

ana jee: I am glad to make you LOL. That was the only purpose. Did you realize that it was a joke? Did you know that February 29, 2002 did not exist because 2002 is not a leap year? Did you notice Box 666-420 at the end? In numerology, 666 is the number assigned to devil or satan and 420 to fraud.

I guess, I scared Samina so much with my own characterization that she decided not to write ``Sameer Bhaiyya`` lest people get the wrong impression of sister-brother-look-alike. hehehe...

Don`t worry Samina, that was not true and therefore, no need to shy away from calling me bhai.

ana, you are absolutely right about shortage of Punjabi liberal males compared to Urdu speaking males. It is sad. This is the nature of Punjab. They cared little about partition but once on the bandwagon, they became ardent TNT fan. They cared little about Islam but once got into madrassah and jehadi business, Punjab became infested with madrassah and jehadis. I guess they become pragmatic too quickly. Hopefully this nature will persist when winds of secularism and liberalism take hold of our part of the world.

In this world, nothing comes easy. You will have to struggle and fight for your wishes and rights. I have no doubt that you have the capabilities of becoming a good writer. All you need are determination and understanding of how the system works in modern world and perspiration alone is not enough. At deeper level you must have all your conviction, yet in practical terms playing always against the wind does not guarantee success. Succeed in life first and then work on your convictions is better than other way around. Sooner or later it will dawn upon you that we do not live in the world of beliefs but in make belief world. In make belief world, the foundation principles or paradigms are not religious beliefs, moral and ethical values and honesty etc; they are striving for success in the existing world order in all spheres of life. Is it honest to fool your eyes by showing more than 16 pictures per second so that you have the illusion of moving picture? Is it honest to fool the brain chemistry by taking birth control pills or a number of other medicines? Do you think Jesus and Mohammaed would have approved of fooling your own eyes and cheating your own brain? The discussion about god and religions as truths is nothing but bs in which I am also guilty of taking part. Believe me ana, the whole world order will collapse if moral and ethical values according to religions are to be followed in essence. Those values have limited utility in personal relationships, with family and friends.

I wish you all the best.

For those of you in NYC and its environs (and anywhere else :))

Rehan Ansari..haan apne chowk ka Rehan, is teaching a class on Indian cinema, To find out more about it, visit the link indicated below

http://www.nsu.newschool.edu/fall02/comm5.htm#NFLM3441

And sign up, if it strikes your fancy :)

Thanks!

Sameer,

:)

Ana,

We are all feminazis by virtue of being female....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2156975.stm

Sunday, 28 July, 2002, 11:12 GMT 12:12 UK Iran `brothel` plan rejected

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[] Plan has run into trouble with women`s groups

By Jim Muir

BBC correspondent in Iran

A controversial plan to set up what are being denounced as licensed brothels in Iran has been rejected by official bodies.

It`s a euphemism for the official establishment of houses of corruption

Iranian Women`s Social and Cultural Council The growing problem of prostitution in the country has been the subject of mounting concern, but this attempt to find an Islamic solution was not well received in some quarters. The detailed plan for the establishment of what are being coyly referred to as ``decency houses`` was drawn up by the Interior Ministry`s deputy for social affairs. But according to senior police officials, the plan was rejected by the Ministry`s own Social Council, having run into opposition from religious quarters and women`s groups. Medical services The aim of the scheme was to arrange and regulate encounters between men and women who want to have sex but who, for one reason or another, are not ready for full marriage. [] Nearly two million Iranian women do not have

Sameer..

[I, J. B. sameer, do solemnly swear to be a Real Man. As a proof, I have attached my matrimonial add, published previously in India Abroad dated February 29, 2002.}

---LOL. That long ago eh badshao? Any responses yet..or is that just toooo liberal for desis to handle?!?!!!!!

[I am an extremely liberal professional Punjabi male, believing and practicing absolute gender equality at all levels. ]

---Hai rabba! Do such Punjabi males really exist in this universe? Achcha..could you do me a favor and guide one in my direction..I am an extremely liberal Punjabi female (nazi, NOT)..believing if not necessarily seeing in practice, gender equality (does `absolute` exist?), and if he can make all the money, so that I can devote myself solely to the love of writing, volunteer work, and social/political issues, that would be most excellent!!!

I, J. B. sameer, do solemnly swear to be a Real Man. As a proof, I have attached my matrimonial add, published previously in India Abroad dated February 29, 2002.

[I am an extremely liberal professional Punjabi male, believing and practicing absolute gender equality at all levels. I detest poor treatment of women in desi societies. I also believe in women sharing equal respect, power and right to choose in the subcontinent and around the world.

I am looking for a match in thoughts and ideas from a young, 18-25 years old, pretty, fair skinned. slender, tall, feminazi lady to become THE GOOD WIFE. I am a 5 ft tall, weighing 300 lbs, waiste 48 inches, jet black color, totally bald, using thick glasses for 0/12 vision, chain smoker, couch potato with one leg, one hand, one ear and one eye in perfect condition.

I promise to do all the cooking, dishes, mopping floor, doing laundry, making bed, raising children, sharing 10 percent bed and 100 percent salary. Please send your current full size photo with correspencence to: Care of India Abroad, Box 666-420.]

re saminashah #129:

feminazis have obviously upgraded and diversified. I was probably stuck with imitations of the real thing or I need to get out more :)

Waiting with baited breath for your Real man list.....

later

-sac

rsaxena #128 ``...just because we don`t yet fully understand physics at the subatomic level does not mean that we never will``

As our circle of knowledge grown over the past several centuries, so has the perimeter that separates it from what we dont know. So the more we have come to know, the more we have also come to realize how little we know. As such, I dont share your optimism that we will one day know everything there is know about physics - even today, most scientists believe we can never understand what happened prior to the Big Bang 14 billion or so years ago. Or after the Big Crunch which, per current weather forecasts, is expected to occur some tens of billions of years from now.

DRUMZ:

Thanks for the reply. I didn`t consider the bible a historical reference in the strict sense of the word. It is at best historical inspirational folklore. (That, of course, was those folks` idea of history-- objectivity wasn`t a big deal ill the 17th century AD)

``I agree that faith in god can not be argued rationally but not believing in the existence of a being which is by definition some kind of unknowable, imperceptible thing is not illogical and dogmatic.``

Totally agree. I only got into this debate to counter the imbecilic contention that the non-existence of God (whatever that Idea means to it`s holder) was something of a proven proposition.

re rsax

dude you dont respond to my posts are you pissed at me oh well whatever...........ur choice

anyway heisenberg uncertanity principle

PM: 110: No, i wasnt making any arguments, jus showing how the two sides are similar.

103: From what i recal, josephus was the most prominent, not the first. The Bible simply refers to him as Yohoshua bin Yosuf. Since theres no ``J`` in hebrew, a TRANSLATION is Johoshua bin Josef. The word JESUS has nothing to do with yohoshua (its origins give a BIG CLUE to the origins of his accepted personality).

97: I see ur point, however the love i was speaking on was IDEAL love. It would be next to impossible for two people to think about love that deeply and actually meet. It is more of a PERFECT idea of what love IZ. As for ordinary marriages and such, yes love can allow the two to compromise easier.

Krashid: I wasnt trying to laff, I WAS laffing. Gibran spoke of men seeing women with the same eyes they see themselves with, about priests who practiced what they preached - Such concepts embody the complete OPPOSITE of lebanese (ARAB) culture. This is why he kept mocking the orient (IN SO MANY STORIES!!) in its intellectual/moral slumber. His ``Thoughts and Meditations`` contains numerous stories which support this.

ANA: Oh yea, i recall the movie now. I was pissed at her for taking all that sh1t from him. My wife would have handled it differently. I can see it now, four bullets from a sawed off to each knee cap, use the ginsu 2000 to recircumsise him and peel his skin off with a butter knife.... I think Indian movies portray women as being weaker because that is the norm in India. Peace.

PM/Ana etc: IM very bizzy these few days but Ill answer yall soon.

Sac,

Oh well, if you really want to play...sigh...

re: ``a marauding speceis with a voracious appetite commonly referred to as `feminazi`...``

You know, it seems that this term seems to refer to anyone who says, ``Please remove your hand from me NOW!`` on the subway to unrepentant Queen Lesbians....such a spectrum of females (biologically and spiritually); could we say that everybody is a feminazi? Or is it all females and the men who love them?

``.. Maybe you recognize the type.....Lisa Loeb glasses,...``



Mao`s schoolteacher specs are out this season and we just can`t all seem to afford Anne Klein`s streamlined purity.

``... Coach bag, Gucci sandals,...``

Dont know anyone like that.

``.. hand-rolled reefers,...``

Nope. Except for Drumz. And his usage is ceremonial, apparently.

``.. Heidegger in every 2nd (ok every 3rd) sentence,...``

Heidegger`s out. Anne Carson rocks the casbah lately.

``...Hummus...``

My Goddess, man, have you lost your mind? How can anyone resist the chickpea creaminess of hummus, esp. when paired with a spicy fat green chillie? Oh, I am very sad for your lack of hummus....

``.........Sound familiar???...``

Er, actually, no.

I`ll be posting my Real Man list up shortly...

Toodles!

re: tahmed

...just because we don`t yet fully understand physics at the subatomic level does not mean that we never will, or that there is some hoky poky ``god`` behind it all...the caveman couldn`t explain lightening and assumed that it was just god pissed off at him...let`s not fall into the same trap...

MastRam #119 ``not believing in the existence of a being which is by definition some kind of unknowable, imperceptible thing is not illogical and dogmatic.``

Agreed. A belief in the existence or nonexistence of anything as unknowable as God is merely a belief and not a provable fact. As such it is not illogical to hold the belief. Nor is it immoral. Nor illegal.

And yet men fight and kill and do other immoral and illegal things in the name of religion. Maybe they dont understand what religion is all about.

re saminashah #117:

Bibi:

hamidm`s work is pure genius.........Period.

As for that imaginary creature called a ``real man``, it disappeared along with the ``real woman``. Some hypothesize that the disappearance had something to do with plastic containers and a marauding speceis with a voracious appetite commonly referred to as `feminazi`. Maybe you recognize the type.....Lisa Loeb glasses, Coach bag, Gucci sandals, hand-rolled reefers, Heidegger in every 2nd (ok every 3rd) sentence,Hummus............Sound familiar???

later

-sac

dost mittar #123 So looks like we beat this horse to death :-)

Tahmed,

Oh dear....ears? Must be that I didn`t remember :) Your sweetie must have extraordinary memory capacity! I like to make up events; ``Remember how you promised to do the dishes after you lost the bet on that question on Jeopardy? You thought the answer was What is Antidisestablishmentarianism and it was really Pancetta?`` Remember? The contestant was wearing a blue polkadotted blouse and you said it was brave?

Fawad,

Yes, er, keep your mags....they seem to mean a great deal to you...but your friend is wrong about Vogue-its just as stupid...

fawad :)

i see, azizam, that you have returned. Will respond to your question from the other board, on that board..but what havoc are you wreaking here, tauba meri tauba!

[why must women define what a man is ????? i dont go around defining what women should be nor do i care !!!! ]

---Oof, do we need to go dive into an incredibly cold lake??? Why indeed must women define what a man is when men do such a bang-up job of doing that themselves? there are men, and then there are men and then there are MEN

[maxim is about bein a macho guy it makes every feminist opressed man feel good ,,,,,,,,,,,,]

---Feminist oppressed?!!!! Now this is a first..quick where`s my boy monday when i need him to take notes???? (mental note: must keep tighter leash). Oy little one (referring to your youth, of course ;)) did you get too much sun on the brain when you were vacationing from Chowk, or did you walk into a feminist convention thinking they were all sexy `chicks` and felt the fear..ah the horror!!! Pity I wasn`t there. Macho and feminist oppressed in the same sentence-vat vere you theenking?!?!

[let us keep the few things in societies that are truly male preserves without undue feminist interference :porno movies and mags for men .........]

Indeed let us keep the few things in societies that are truly male preserves without undue feminist interference..exploitation of women, misuse of God-given (or vatever you believe) brain, and did I already say exploitation of women?

And please don`t tell me to chill, little one, or I shall have to hunt you down at Starbucks, and bring the feminist troops with me...then you shall truly know what a feminist oppressed male is!!!!

With love from a sometimes vegetarian, male-gazing, Lifetime channel despising, not quite American.

to samina shah lady you need to chill !!!!!!

listen women have their mags guys have maxim I LOVE MAXIM ITS GREAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! all guys who arent gay do!! so what if its soft porn !!!!!.........an article on what a real man!!!! HAH HA HA puuuuuuuuuh leeaaaaaaaaze why must women define what a man is ????? i dont go around defining what women should be nor do i care !!!! why are u ranting and raving about maxim?..........u think men like those stupid quizzes in vogue ....``10 steps on training your man`` i have dated women who read those and they believe that sht,,,,,,,,,,you are an intelligent chick but damn lady seriously maxim is about bein a macho guy it makes every feminist opressed man feel good ,,,,,,,,,,,,

let us keep the few things in societies that are truly male preserves without undue feminist interference :porno movies and mags for men .........

a concerned

red meat ing play boy watching

skirt chasing

american

ana #107 These lessons (i.e. how women are from venus, men from mars) were learnt the hard way (since most of my growing up life was with two brothers). But both of us had to change some habits. In retrospect that was mostly me (and thank God for that).

Of course, many single people live perfectly successful lives (not just materially, but in terms of hapiness, fulfillment), just as many married people do. But if one happens to be married and it seems worth it to remain married, then the tahmed321 recipe for good marital health is recommended.

dost mittar #113 Please read my post carefully, and you will see that I note that the believer ACCEPTS the fact that he believes in God. That is why he is a believer - he recognizes that he holds it as a BELIEF.

And the atheist, contrary to what you say, clearly assumes that there is no God. That is the definition of an atheist, and what you say is the defintion of an agnostic.

The believer is an agnostic who CHOOSES to make the assumption that there is a God, and at the same time ACCEPTS that that is his assumption, his belief.

I thought I made all this clear in my post, but you obviously did not read it carefully.

re Umer Murtaza #116

Not knowing that density of ice is about 92% of density of water and hence a floating block of ice would have about 92% of its volume below the surface doesn`t make you an athiest. It just makes you unfit to navigate in sea with huge floating blocks of ice.

re Tahmed/PM

I agree that faith in god can not be argued rationally but not believing in the existence of a being which is by definition some kind of unknowable, imperceptible thing is not illogical and dogmatic.

Saminashah #104 I believe I was comparing the woman`s memory of emotional outbursts by the man to the memory of an elephant (``On January 19, 1990, at 4:43 pm, at location x degrees and longitude y degrees latitude, you spoke angrily to me``), and not her ears.

MastRam #100 Two differences between the concept of God and that of Santa Claus: (a) Properly understood, we make assumptions about his EXISTENCE and a few (by no means all) broad-based attribtues only. The latter, the believing child knows all the detail about: Santa lives at 1 North Pole, makes toys for a living, flies a sled and so on. (b) The presumption of God`s existence is a matter of faith. That is not the case of the presumption of Santa Claus with the believing child. Also see response to Rsaxena below:

Rsaxena: Far be it from me to speak out against ratinality - we already have precious little of it in the world we live in. However, rationality is relative to a particular context only. For example: In everyday life, no one (literally) feeds off your skin, you cant be in two places at the same time, what goes up must come down. Step 20 miles above earth, and what goes up stays up. Travel a bit more to the center of the milky way, to the edge of the black hole that exists there and the laws of physics are totally rescinded. Come back from the black hole, get a microscope, and you will see zillions of mites sharing your bed happily eating the tiny pieces of dead skin that constantly flake of your body. Get a more powerful microscope to see subatomic particles and you get into an Alice in Wonderland world where something can be at two places at the same time, where particles can change it`s behavior simply because it is being observed. Two parallel lines never meet in Euclidean geometry, right? Not if you add a dimension and the meet: check out longitudinal lines on an atlas to see what I mean. Now add the time dimension to three dimensional space, and throw rationality as per our everyday experience out of the window.

So: One can make an assumption that God does not exist - just as we can make an assumption that the time it took for you to read this post zillions of ghostly particles called neutrinos passed through your body. You can live a perfectly good life without believing in the existence of neutrinos (although scientists have troubled themselves to build huge underground water tanks to capture these little guys). Just as you can live a successful life without believing in God. But that does not mean that the atheist is being rational - he is being rational only in the narrow context of everyday life.

Ana, Hamid-ji,

Not only should you take pillows and a bistarbund, but trot along a few Details and Maxims mags with you...not only will you find ample proof of why Mrs. H- ``MS.`` to you-has more to offer than the oh so ingenues in clothing that just made it thru a paper shredder...and the staff writers are not rocket scientists either...gosh, I recently read an article about, Ana, get this, why its better for married men to frolic with sex workers than have affairs...I mean, it was just not even funny, witty, smart, soulful, but really reaching for the faux urbanity that these boy mags exude...my response? An article on What a Real Man Is...

Sac Sahib,

Methinks you wah! a bit overenthusiastically...pray tell how was Hamid Sahib`s post more well done than his more inspiring work on Pakistan and the mullahmonde?

And really, wasn`t the feminazi line a soupcon of gratuitous?

12 head

Jump in a lake. A cold one.

I believe the captain of the Titanic was also an athiest because he refused to accept that there was far more ice underneath the water than there was above it.

What was his excuse. `I couldn`t SEE anything.`

Umer M

Hey Arjun_m

Whats this Misoginy still going on .....

http://headlines.sify.com/popwin.html

MP woman burns herself on husband`s funeral pyre







New Delhi, Aug 7A 65-year-old woman burnt herself to death by sitting on her husband`s funeral and committing the centuries-old, but outlawed, custom of Sati, the Press Trust of India reported Tuesday.Two policemen had rushed to the village in Madhya Pradesh on hearing that the woman was about to commit Sati, but the locals threw stones at them and did not allow them to enter, the report said.The woman, Kuttu Bai, decided to kill herself on her husband Mallu Nai`s pyre after he died from a prolonged illness. Bai`s two grown-up sons did not make attempts to prevent their mother from sitting on their father`s funeral pyre, police said. Tamoli Patna village became deserted after the incident and police were unable to get further information. The last known incident of Sati was the death of 18-year-old Roop Kanwar, widow of Mal Singh, in the Rajasthan village of Deorala on September 4, 1987, which sparked national and international outrage. The police charged Sumer Singh, Mal Singh`s father, with forcing Roop Kanwar to sit on the pyre with her husband`s body as part of the outlawed Hindu rite. Pushpendra Singh, his other son, was accused of lighting the pyre in front of several people. Kanwar`s father-in-law and brother-in-law were both acquitted by an Indian court in October 1996.Following the Roop Kanwar case, India enacted federal legislation providing the death penalty for anyone abetting Sati.









©AFP 2000. All rights reserved. This material should not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed. All reproduction or redistribution is expressly forbidden without the prior written agreement of AFP.













Breaking News

Kapil injured as speeding golf shot hits foreheadFul

Hey Arjun_m

Whats this Misoginy still going on .....

http://headlines.sify.com/popwin.html

MP woman burns herself on husband`s funeral pyre



New Delhi, Aug 7A 65-year-old woman burnt herself to death by sitting on her husband`s funeral and committing the centuries-old, but outlawed, custom of Sati, the Press Trust of India reported Tuesday.Two policemen had rushed to the village in Madhya Pradesh on hearing that the woman was about to commit Sati, but the locals threw stones at them and did not allow them to enter, the report said.The woman, Kuttu Bai, decided to kill herself on her husband Mallu Nai`s pyre after he died from a prolonged illness. Bai`s two grown-up sons did not make attempts to prevent their mother from sitting on their father`s funeral pyre, police said. Tamoli Patna village became deserted after the incident and police were unable to get further information. The last known incident of Sati was the death of 18-year-old Roop Kanwar, widow of Mal Singh, in the Rajasthan village of Deorala on September 4, 1987, which sparked national and international outrage. The police charged Sumer Singh, Mal Singh`s father, with forcing Roop Kanwar to sit on the pyre with her husband`s body as part of the outlawed Hindu rite. Pushpendra Singh, his other son, was accused of lighting the pyre in front of several people. Kanwar`s father-in-law and brother-in-law were both acquitted by an Indian court in October 1996.Following the Roop Kanwar case, India enacted federal legislation providing the death penalty for anyone abetting Sati.

re. DRUMZ #74:

``Someone who thinks we`re here cuz adam ate an apple is in the same boat as someone who thinks the universe evolved outuva a exploded atom.``

hmmm.. are you making a case for a belief in a higher power/God here? Please elaborate if you`d like. Y`see when I tried using the First Cause argument with my five-year-old niece, she looked at me and asked ``yeah, but who made GOD?`` :)

The point, and MastRam if you`re lissening, is that God can not be argued rationally. Aprticular beleifs about this concept can be, and should be, but there are some matters that are just best left to faith. Oh, the kind of faith that does not fear reason and testing, that is. Ask hobbyty to elaborate.. i`m outta here fopr the next 48 hours.

rgds.

Bina,

Reading this (again)took me back to a story I read by Tahira Naqvi in her collection `Attar of Roses and other stories from Pakistan`. It`s about a woman whose husband gives her a notebook for the sole use of doing `hisaab-kitaab` for household money, and she chooses a cover for the notebook (not just that brown paper we had to use in school, but more colorful with a rose!), and prefers to write verses and stories rather than keep accounts, much to the outrage of her husband! I can`t remember the title of the story although I think it could just be called `The Notebook`. Have you read that by any chance?

Regards

DRUMZy:

re: Why do u think desi movies help maintain the status quo? (by putting ideal marriages out of reach for many people?)

--I`ve reconsidered my response to your view about `the natural longing to correct one of our most backward institutions` (am quoting from memory so forgive me if i`ve misquoted). What I meant by the status quo is that at the end of these movies (perhaps the older ones), the man`s authority..and the woman`s to continue against all odds to submit to such authority was what I understood to be the `status quo`. `Sahib, Bibi aur Ghulam.` to me, has a twist, in that the wife, in order for her husband to love her transforms completely to get his attention (and she hopes, his love), which she thinks he does..only to be killed by him in the end. And KKKG..that scene that I told you about on the other board--brings about a change in the husband, where she has always submitted to her husband`s authority without question in spite of all the pain she`s endured..until she decides she cannot remain silent anymore. So in that sense you are right..there are movies in which that longing to correct the `backwardness` of the institution of marriage is there.

In most if not all of NDN movies..it seems that there is little if any room for the single woman, the independent progressive single woman, because even if one exists, a story develops where marriage is the ultimate that one must reach. According to whom?!? Why is it that when a single woman in her late thirties tells a desi male or female that she is still single, that remark is either responded to derisively or with total disbelief? And before I`m told that this could apply to men as well, I`m sure it does, but I`m writing from the female perspective. This is perhaps what I was referring to as well! Peace and luv!

PM

[wouldn`t you think that the old give-and-take our parents` generations believed in is a sensible and even ennobling way? And puhleez, don`t anyone tell me it was all give on one side and all take on the other!]

--ok, how about if it was more give on one side and more take on the other???!!! or less give on one side and less take on the other, or any number of combinations...and how does that Beatles tune go, `and in the end the love you make is equal to the love you take...`

tahmed--If your marriage has remained successful according to your guidelines (drum roll!), then more power to you..or should I say Mrs. Ahmed?!?!

hamidm--Not only should you take a few extra pillows, but perhaps a `bistarband` just in case its not the couch but the porch!!!

DRUMZy--there are always exceptions to the antithesis, but you know that :). I`ll get to your answer about the status quo in a little bit, promise! Must away for now!

ISLAMABAD (SANA): Former prime minister and the chairperson of Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), Benazir Bhutto, is likely to return to Pakistan on September 6, the Radio Tehran reported.Quoting the party sources the radio reported that PPP chairperson Benazir Bhutto has issued directives to the concerned party officials for finalization of arrangements for her homecoming.

Sources close to Benazir Bhutto said that she has decided to return home during the first week of September instead of August 14 because no schedule for elections has been announced by the military government, the Radio Tehran reported.

Declaring the September 6 as the most appropriate time for Bhutto’s return, her party sources said that thousands of party workers will welcome her at Lahore airport where she will be also be accompanied by foreign media personnel, the radio reported``

Patrick: I am glad that you agree the pitfalls of old concept of rewarding god for good deeds in this life or afterlife. Is this really old? Just look around and see how many people are doing things including killing themselves for the sake of getting a rain check – to be cashed in after the collapse of the universe.

Then you moved on to say that what is being exchanged is energy and not matter. Is there any difference? Both matter and energy are interchangeable according to E=MC[ exp 2] as well as the particle and wave nature of light according to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. I have no problem with calling it energy as long as you agree the interchangeability into matter.

All right! We are part of the same energy being recycled through exchange between everything animate or inanimate. Since new concepts of god often refers to him as the underlying energy of all matter forms instead of old concept of god being source of all energy/ matter and thus creator of everything. The problem is that energy has certain fixed properties, which do not change with time. Energy has been obeying certain laws of nature. The social, moral, ethical and religious changes of the last few thousand years have not changed the properties of energy. No reason to change the concept of god, if he is underlying ultimate energy.

We can think of most recent concepts of god, particularly without the constraint of religions and theologies. There are basically two points of view. One, “god is within everything” and the other, “god is everything”. Both of these statements make god earthier than sky-god of the past. What I said was no different than, god is everything” except I used the term “self”. I do not see much difference in choosing a name for the reality of matter or energy. However, most would not like to say, “I am god”, for being part of same energy whereas I can simply look outside window and around myself and say, “I am”. It is me everywhere and I love it. Even after physical death, my matter or energy will be definitely conserved – thanks to gravity.

Another issue you might ponder when stating, “old or obsolete concept of god” is the rejection of old concept according to Moses, Jesus and Mohammed. I am sure, you would not like to discredit them for sticking to old in olden times and promising rewards through their special relationship with god.

More than half the population of the world believes in god; more than half the adult male population of the world smokes cigarettes too. The number of believers in itself is not a proof of his existence or goodness. It is the result of mostly Islamic and Christian colonialism. The might, coercion, propaganda, marketing, commercialism, advertisement, cheating, trickery and reward have gone into creating a self-propelled momentum for him. Neither Moses, Jesus or Mohammed planned to force the world to follow them and neither did Ray Croc and Sam Walton planned to make McDonalds and Wal-Mart stores to be what they are now, respectively. The conditions for growth are sometimes natural and other times created, by all means. The concept for which, some people like to sweat now, was not powerful enough even in its original and pure form to even impress the neighbors of god’s chosen ones. And what will be left of even the original, if the history associated with it turns out to be myths or fake, as Drumz has cleverly hinted in his post?

I agree that as the world changes, so does the concept of god. Then who is more powerful? The one who forces the other to change is technically more powerful. The changing concepts of god are at the mercy of changes taking place all around us in which scientific and technological developments are playing major roles. Moreover, change in the concept of god is illogical if he is underlying energy of the universe because the properties of energy are fixed and what will be the matter form of this energy. I guess, Hinduism and Idol worshipping is making more sense here because you can see god(s) in their temples as made up of matter.

God is a concept that requires heavy marketing for people to accept it. That is not the quality of inherently great concept. Compare that with democracy, modern medicine, modern communication systems etc. It is more like Coca-Cola or McDonald’s Hamburgers, requiring constant promotions. Counter-marketing against it is equally powerful. The communist China is very successful to thwart the concept of god from gaining converts through counter-marketing. But non-believers are not that powerful or interested in challenging god.

Drumz: Thanks! Good points.

re hamidm #94:

That was brilliant. Ample reward after sifting through self-styled prophets, rationality challenged feminazis and the usual horde of blood seeking cyber-warriors.

Thank you sir.

later

-sac

re: tahmed #95

...dude, i`m not trying to drag your ass to rationality...you`re free to believe what you like...keep on doing whatever you`re doing, and your concorde ticket to heaven will be reserved...

May I ask you how I am expected to let Hamid and Tahmed`s remarks escape uncommented on? Good Goddess, what is a woman to do?

Tahmed,

Are our ears like elephants? How so? I was thinking our ears are more like bobcat`s ears, and I`d pass on what Mr. S said about bobcats, but it was only the other day, and it seems to be far from me....Anyhoo, Mr. S and I were lost driving back from Massachusetts the other day, and he got lost...now, I had been warned that while men and women often lose their ways around highways, it seems to be a big issue of denial with men, i.e. ``I`m not lost. I know where I`m going.`` So that happened, only I couldn`t tell what the hell was going on in Mr. S`s normally brilliant neurons and brain cells, so I asked him if he`d like some lemonade, and, didn`t he think it was time to look into a proper exercise program? Well, he got more vexed, and since I had no idea why, I looked out the window and fell asleep...

Hamid,

Mrs. Hamid? Old rubber boots? Better take a few pillows with you on the way to the couch:)

re. DRUMZ:

[[

PM: ``Hey, las time I checked Roman history, there was a certain character named Jesus (well, translated) who lived circa 20 A.D. But what do I know!?!``

TRANSLATED??? Maybe u should recheck his-story before lecturing others.

]]

Last time I checked, the only HISTORICAL reference to the charachter known as Jesus was by the historian Josephus (sp?), who made refernce to a certain `Christus`. If you know better, please inform.

Er.. who`s preaching?

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

re tahmed #95

Richard Dawkins answers the points raised by you quite well.

``It is often said, mainly by the ``no-contests``, that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic.

At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal`s wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can`t prove that there aren`t any, so shouldn`t we be agnostic with respect to fairies?

The trouble with the agnostic argument is that it can be applied to anything. There is an infinite number of hypothetical beliefs we could hold which we can`t positively disprove. On the whole, people don`t believe in most of them, such as fairies, unicorns, dragons, Father Christmas, and so on. But on the whole they do believe in a creator God, together with whatever particular baggage goes with the religion of their parents.``

Full essay at

http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1994-12religion.htm

ana #88 to drumz: On successful marriage - I think what is required is the same as what is required for any successful human relationship, namely giving the other person what he/she needs. Many marriages fail because of simple misunderstanding of what the other person needs.

And what people need is often very simple. I am therefore pleased to present to you the world reknowned (drum role) tahmed321`s Guidelines for a Successful Marriage:

1. Primarily For Men: Most people (almost always the woman, and sometimes the man as well) need consideration for their FEELINGS. That is, it does not matter WHAT you say or do, as long as you say it sweetly and gently (and you better mean it, since a woman`s intuition is sharp as a razor compared to man). And as long as you say SOMETHING (i.e. pay attention to the spouse, rather than on other weighty matters about international politics). And small gestures to show that you CARE wont hurt. And NEVER lose your cool - a female has an elephant`s memory with respect to any angry outburst.

2. Primarily for Women: Same as above, BUT recognizing that a man`s feelings are closely intertwined with his raging hormones (contrary to popular belief, raging hormones in men dont stop raging...never, ever). So, a small amount of proactivity in intimate matters will do the trick.

The formula above wont fix complications caused by family attachments, financial issues, or combination of the two (the most common problems in marriage). But they will make it easier to tackle them.

And some men will be philanderers no matter what, and some will be plain jerks on a power trip. And some women will be pathologically insecure when it comes to the man`s family attachments. In those cases the above formula wont do any good. But there are no known bad side affects of the above formula, so might as well apply it and see what happens.

rsaxena: ``...one finds a high percentage of atheists amongst the smartest professors...``

Not too smart to make such statements without referring to any particular study to back it up, I think.

And indeed, a bit of thought would indicate that an atheist is as dogmatic as any priest in any religion: An atheist ASSUMES there is no higher consciousness other than man`s, and on the face of it, this assumption is no better founded than the assumption of such a higher consciousness, aka God. And in fact it is even less logical: whereas in religion one explicitly affirms one`s BELIEF in the existence of God, atheists do not affirm their corresponding BELIEF in the lack thereof. They simply assume they know it all, when in fact they know no more than those who believe in God but who recognize this assumption for what it is.

Also, common sense and today`s knowledge of the mind-boggling macro- and micro-level complexities in the universe would indicate that it would be quite unlikely that man`s consciousness is the only game in town, or that what we know today (which stretches 14 billion years back in time and about the same light years across in space) is more than an insignificant fraction of 1 percent of all there is to know. This point of course is not necessary, since the previous para. is enough to indicate atheism equals dogmatism.

Re. DRUMZ

``[Before two people get married, they should agree on what each thinks is the most important aspect of their relationship. If they are in general agreement on that thing (how to raise kids, where to live, love), then their marriage will be successful. ``

and

``Love can make a priest outuva a drug dealer and i know a lotta drug dealers.``

Wouldn`t you then say that as long as both parties were mature enough to know what love is about, they would be able to work things out without having to agree completely on even things like how to raise kids,w here to live, love etc. After all, if love can make a priest outuva drug dealer (er... was that a postiive or negative transformation, btw? :) ), why can`t it help two persons who respect each other come to some mature agreement on philosophical matters?

To the extent that total agreement even on these matters is going to be difficult (though perhaps not now with the internet and the the wider market for interest-matching it affords), wouldn`t you think that the old give-and-take our parents` generations believed in is a sensible and even ennobling way? And puhleez, don`t anyone tell me it was all give on one side and all take on the other!

DRUMZ #77

I don`t see why are you trying to laugh.

Short stories and short long stories of Jibran definitely are rooted in Arab and Lebanese culture.

Even the message of prophet is deeply rooted in that culture.

The reaction or so called revolution which is not only against injustice, but humanisn is all derived from it.

If you think otherwise, express your opinion.

(Even if I don`t remember the names of his books, I can definitely recall stories. If you can come up with something otherwise)

... love is like the old pair of boat shoes that i have out in the garage .... i have had them for years, they look terrible, one leather lace is missing and the dog chewed on the other one, but i still can`t throw them away ...... i have used them to slog through muck and snow and used them to wallow in the mud.... i really should throw them away - but i can`t, i simply can`t ........

even now i am not ashamed to put them on and to go shopping in nordstrom and look at all those nice new shiny boat shoes - bass, rockports and timberlands ........ but they are not the same - i think i`ll keep mrs hamidm around ........

.... isn`t that romantic ? ...... of course, if it hadn`t been for lorena bobbit i might have been tempted to look at some new shoes !

re. SameerJB:

Sameer sahib,

No problems with the part of RSaxena`s post about our ultimate destiny as stardust. But you would have to be specially stupid to go from there to claiming that there is no Ram, Muhanmed or Jesus, or for that matter, God.

Your own understanding of the Judaeo-Christian concept of God and the reason for doing good seems as frozen in antiquity as that of any obscurantist. What`s more, it is also factually (as opposed to merely conceptually) incorrect. There were and are certain Jewish sects (the Sadducees for one) who do not believe in the after life, so there goes your theory of necessary self-interest in religion, or the idea that religion has always encouraged reward-seeking in return for good deeds. Needless to say, there are few churches and priests today that preach goodness for anything but it`s own sake. About Islam, I regret not being well-enough informed to comment.

What`s really interesting is that the old scriptures can often lend themselves to new interpretation from which the modern may find meaning and driection, which, in the end is what religion is all about for many folks. (The generalities, or what hobbyty calls the method, are constant and eternal, though the specifics, or forms, may change. This is true for the concept of GOD itself) But one would have to be willing to explore, not dismiss, to find this out. (Also, granted, many of the passages from these scriptures may hold no meaning at all, unless one is really called upon to take on the enemy army with swords and scythes)

Not random thoughts, and I dare say you`d do well to read as as you can into them. :)

rgds,

PM

P.S. re, ``All atoms, all molecules in a person are constantly exchanging with everything and everybody around you and at distance with decreasing probability though.``

er, technically, Sameer sahib, it is not the molecules in a person which are constantly exchanging with everything and everybody around [it]. It is the energy that comprises the atoms that is exchanged. So, really, it`s not really aluminum molecules I am exchanging with my motorbike when i affectionately kiss its tank.

re. RSaxena:

[[[

{Hey, las time I checked Roman history, there was a certain character named Jesus (well, translated) who lived circa 20 A.D. But what do I know!?!}

...yes, and his father the lord is waiting in heaven for all the believers, who, upon dying, will fly the concorde to heaven...the rest of us will take a greyhound bus with leaking toilets to hell...you`ve convinced us...

]]]

Jesus Christ!! You knew all this and STILL tried to sell us that ``there was no Jesus line``. Okay, now, come clean.. what is it you`re trying to tell us? Keep it simple. It should be easy enough for someone as stupid as yourself, no?

PM: ``Hey, las time I checked Roman history, there was a certain character named Jesus (well, translated) who lived circa 20 A.D. But what do I know!?!``

TRANSLATED??? Maybe u should recheck his-story before lecturing others.

Ana: It goes without saying that Desi culture is the very antithesis of what weve been speakin on.

PS: Why do u think desi movies help maintain the status quo? (by putting ideal marriages out of reach for many people?) PEACE.

Sameer: I take back my statement on ur knowledge of religionz. 80-81 are near flawless and reveal an unparallel knowledge of GOD, as seen on chowk. I often wonder what idea pops into the mind of a muslim when she says ``allah.`` Saying God is love should not be offensive to an athiest. The Equation equates God with love, thus God is nuthing but love. Not a judger, warrior or any of that religious sheep nonsense. Of course it would be the next step to say only ``Love is Love`` but that would go above too many headz. And To act based on unconditional love is FAR GREATER then acting out of fear or in search of a reward-as Rabia said.

PS: You would love the ``anacalypsis`` by Godfrey Higgins or ``the worlds 16 crucidied saviors`` by kersey graves (the latter is available online).

Tahmed: Of course it would have taken days to compare egypt with islam, so i just left it there in case u wanted to probe further. When I speak on religion, i assume that the other person is well versed in other religions (itz a waste of time to talk to someone who is X simply cuz his parents are X).

Egypt and namely the GREATER MYSTERIES have influenced many religions and schools of thought. The osirus story about dying on a tree, the virgin birth plus the stories of horus relate directly to christianity. The milatu Ibrahim (AB-RA-HAM) were the egyptian rites given to abraham, many islamic duties are egyptian in origin. Have u read the EMERALD TABLETS OF THOTH? Thousand of years ago they broke down the relative nature of time/space, spoke on gravity and so on. They influenced the western calender and greek philosophy. Their religion is thousands of years older and deeper then anything Islam has produced.

``It is a historical fact that Egyptian pharaohs often married their sisters.``

This is different from saying such marriages were ``OK in that society,`` they were ONLY prevelent among the royalty.

``There is no logical link between this statement and what precedes it in your post.``

U took a SYMBOLIC story literally and suggested it was OK in egyptian society. The main intent of the GREATER MYSTERY schools in Egypt was to say something symbolically so as to give two meanings to the initiates. Taking their marriage literally would be like taking that bowing ALLEGORY literally.

``This post of yours was definitely written on one of your off days.``

I beg u to CUT and PASTE anything I have ever written in my 2 years on chowk which wasnt written on an off day. Sorry, I couldnt resist, PEACE.

Samina,

Thanks for your comments. I had written this after a bout of reading a lot of Fay Weldon books and the dynamic of cheating husband/long-suffering wife was interesting to me, but I wanted to contextualize it to the Subcontinent. This was what I came up with.

I think the answer to your question is that there is no line here. It`s the law of the bloody jungle out here, man. Whenever my father would take us up to the interior, he`d tell us we`d have to cover our heads and faces and that we`d have to keep a low profile, and not even raise our voices in front of the men that worked on the fields. ``But why?!`` we`d shriek. ``This is the 20th century! We want equality!`` ``You don`t understand the way it is out here,`` he`d say.

I know better now. In the interior and tribal areas of this country, women are the currency of power, as they are the soft underbelly of men. If you want to teach a man a lesson, put him in his place, threaten him, keep him in your power, hurt, kidnap, rape, or kill his woman. Most decent men want to see their women respected and protected, but there are a lot of lunatics who believe that women are expendable pawns in their never-ending quest for dominance. There are so many weird customs out here, less blatant but along the same lines, that I could go on for days about it.

This story is a bit of a fantasy of the woman who dreams to redress the imbalance just a little bit.... but probably never will.

re: sameerjb

{When you wash your car or drive it, you actually exchanging millions upon millions of molecules with your car. The molecules going into your body are becoming part of you. Same is true when you smell a flower, talk to a friend and on and on. Therefore loving self means love and respect for every animate and inanimate thing. The only limitation is matter. It has to be matter and not a concept, philosophy, idea, religion etc.}

...exactly...well said...but try explaining that to thick-headed religious nuts who are in ``love`` with their ``god``...

...one finds a high percentage of atheists amongst the smartest professors...i think they are on to something...

DRUMZy:

[Before two people get married, they should agree on what each thinks is the most important aspect of their relationship. If they are in general agreement on that thing (how to raise kids, where to live, love), then their marriage will be successful. Based on this, it is unlikely that ill get married, but time will tell.]

It`s unlikely that I will either..and unlike Mick Jagger who croons that time is on his side..the same cannot be said for me!!!! :)

Seriously though, what you`ve said definitely seems like an ideal that all future married couples should aspire to, but the reality is that such an ideal does not exist with quite a few desis (and others, I`m sure) in that it is not deemed as important what one side of the partnership thinks is the most important aspect of their relationship. What you`ve written reminded me of the `engagement` my ex- and I mutually broke off over a year ago where I felt in the beginning that he respected what was important to me but ultimately it was what was important to him and his family that I needed to be in agreement with, and I couldn`t bring myself to do that. I say this not to belittle him and his family, but to emphasize your point.

[Love can make a priest outuva a drug dealer and i know a lotta drug dealers. ]--yeah the transformative power of the ONE LOVE is truly amazing, innit? Peace and luv!

rsaxena - ``... ultimately, we all die the same deaths and disintegrate into the same molecules...our fate is no different than that of animals...one day, the whole damn planet will disintegrate and scatter us all over as space dust...``

work going taht baaad ??!!

Bina,

Nicely done, absorbing work. Great flow of narrative and shifts of pov. This writing reads quite naturally.

I particularly liked a couple of things: that The Good Wife doesn`t have a name, and that she was resourceful if the occasion warranted it...(I remember attending a lecture on Black Women Writers, and one of the speakers mentioned the justice/response of the fry pan of hot oil over a sleeping husband. Basically, if a husband hit or beat his wives, or was transgressive, a few of them would warn their husbands to sleep with one eye open...the subtext being that the husband would not be able to do so and eventually fall asleep.) Your subtle point, that women do have ``weapons`` and the capacity to protect themselves is well made. I quickly scanned some of the responses, and Sameer`s comment that the wife killing character is applauded for his action by the men (and the maj. of women?) seemed sadly accurate...so, given The Good Wife`s capacity to draw a line, where would that be?

re: spout

{that was lovely, absolutely beautiful....can always count on you to paint a pretty picture.}

...reality is never pretty...don`t like it? go prance around in your powerpuff girls constume...

re: PM

{Hey, las time I checked Roman history, there was a certain character named Jesus (well, translated) who lived circa 20 A.D. But what do I know!?!}

...yes, and his father the lord is waiting in heaven for all the believers, who, upon dying, will fly the concorde to heaven...the rest of us will take a greyhound bus with leaking toilets to hell...you`ve convinced us...

Drumz #72 you write ``Egyptian religion operates at a depth that makes Islam look like childsplay.``

This statement is neither here nor there. Please back it up with what you mean by ``depth`` and how one religion has more of such depth than the other. As it stands, this is a generality that is beneath a man of incisive intellect as you (this last part is called ``flattery``, and how the hell did we end up discussing religion on this board about good wives anyway?)

you write ``Statements like this ``the lovers were also siblings, since this seems to have been OK in that society`` are unfounded.``

It is a historical fact that Egyptian pharaohs often married their sisters, probably in order to keep it inside the family (dont even think of double meanings here).

you write ``If u wanna take that literally, then lets talk about how ``REASONABLE`` Islam is as it ascribes all earthly evil to the act of Iblis not bowing to Adam!``

There is no logical link between this statement and what precedes it in your post. Can we please write coherently on chowk. We do have some standards to maintain, you know.

you write ``And, ur attack on mirza ahmed was also off. The quran doesnt call muhammed the last prophet or the last messenger.``

I maintain that mirza ahmed does not qualify as a prophet per my interpretation of the Quran. This does not amount to attacking him, nor have I have written anything disrespectful about him. You are welcome to your interpretation of the quran on the question of the last messenger. No skin off my back, and trust that you will similarly respect my interpretation of the quran.

This post of yours was definitely written on one of your off days.

PM: Your apologies are unacceptable if you were PM - Pervez Musharraf; otherwise no apologies needed, please!!!

PM, I abtually believe in what RSaxena said in his post. The problem with being outright blunt is that it becomes discussion or debate terminating. I wished to continue the good debate about love and god and marriage. Offering myself intentionally to beat upon little bit is not a bad price to force continualtion of debate. No doubt, I understand that if marriage is love, divorce is not necessarily hate. It could be misunderstanding of love or some other love-2 becoming more important than love-1.

The best love is loving self or becoming one with the self. Now self is explained as one`s place in universe. It turns out that self is same and part of larger self, the universe. All atoms, all molecules in a person are constantly exchanging with everything and everybody around you and at distance with decreasing probability though.

When you wash your car or drive it, you actually exchanging millions upon millions of molecules with your car. The molecules going into your body are becoming part of you. Same is true when you smell a flower, talk to a friend and on and on. Therefore loving self means love and respect for every animate and inanimate thing. The only limitation is matter. It has to be matter and not a concept, philosophy, idea, religion etc.

Actually there is real positive probability that you, no matter where you live, and I are exchanging each other in the form of molecules turning into carbon dioxide, vapors and other minor volatile materials. Thinking this way eliminates the word hate from personal dictionary. This is how one becomes a better human. This is a contious process of reincarnation with everybody sharing everything all the time. That is self beyond the boundaries of one`s body.

The believers in god have to invoke god to connect with the self and love everything. It is difficult to argue that god in the middle of a love between subject and object is better path unless you mention the rewards in afterlife. Once reward business is brought in between, then it is a business or slefishness and not the best quality love. The personal reward part in love decreases the quality of love. The expectation of reward for other than yourself including object(s) of love enhances the quality of love, such as charity work or Abdul Sattar Edhi`s work.

Try to love with only benefit for the object of love in mind. Unfortunately you can not benefit god by loving god because in Judeo-Christian-Islamic belief, god does not need rewards, humans do. You can only please him by thinking in terms of benefiting object of love but then.....when he is pleased, he offers rewards.....

I do not want my mother to reward me anything because I love her. She has already rewarded me by bringing me into this beautiful world and giving me an experience of being alive. My mother is not bargaining anything like god keep throwing offers throughout three thousand years of his history. Even if I accept the belief that he has created me, something similar to my mother, why can`t he expects us to love him simply for that reason, without offering rewards left and right?

Just some random thoughts, do not read too much into them.

tahmed321: Since we were discussing about love, the love part of Isis and Osiris myth was in my mind and not the love of siblings and what not. Isis goes in search of missing Osiris and finds that he was killed. A tree had grown at his burial place. She cuts down the tree and brings the trunk back home in a boat. During the journey, she sleeps with the tree trunk and gets pregnant, later giving birth to Osiris`s son, the first known virgin birth.

I could have mentioned Ram and Sita but I was not sure about the timeframe of Ramayana story as compared to Moses. Similarly there are plenty of religious myths above all kind of loves in Norse, Celtic, Native American, Mesopotamian, Chinese, Indian and other traditions. All the hero worship myths in different traditions deal with love. I suggest to anybody interested in reading a good book, an old one, ``A Hero with Thousand Faces`` by Joseph Campbell.

As Drumz pointed out, the religion meant different than a Blueprint for living 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week and 365 days a year. Earthly matters were meant to be dealt by earthlings and not skylings(?) in non-Judeo-......religions. Rituals were part of living and not living as part of elaborate network of rituals. Love did not need mediation through Third party.

Now we live in the age of Third party meddling between any two animate or inanimate objects. He is right there in the middle when you are in bed with your loved one telling what to do and what not to. It is a scary thought: where sunnat ends and sin begins.

Love demands and expects nothing at all but the terms of endearment of god is quite close to fatal attractions and demanding 24 hour a day following his path.

The beautiful colors of flowers are symbolic of love for survival and reproduction, with love dictating millions of years of evolution. God is only 3-4 thousand years old. He can not be the X in XY plots and plotters. He is Y and comes after X or love. The reason it is not called YX plot or plotter has nothing to do with Y appearing after X in alphabet. X`s supremacy and control of Y is the reason.

Beieving or not believing in god is really not a factor here. For a believing person and saying Love is god could easily mean that love is one of those 99 names of god. For a non-believer it means that the concept of god is smaller/ less important/ less powerful than love whereas god is love is totally unacceptable to non-believers.

I thought we had an understanding here at chowk to treat and respect all religions equally. God is love statement definitely does not treat my religion, i.e., not believing in god, respectfully and equally. It is offensive to my religious belief.

The offer is still on the table. Respect the religions of everybody, else do not expect your religion to be respected. You can not even ask for writing god with upper case G because that is offensive to other gods believers and non-believers. How can you even think of creating a just and plural society if god is love your and Nation’s motto. I can always come back to say that god is love after you sacrifice your life spreading the good news that “god is love”.

Never mind tahmed. It is just a debate for the sake of debate and nothing but debate, so help me love. I am just dragging it to continue debate. You actually never said everyone should accept “god is love”. In fact you clearly said that it is your choice.

Ref Mullah321 #76

Please read my response on another thread.

http://www.chowk.com/bin/showr.cgi?f=asarwari_jul1902&n=10#reply238

As to your threats of not replying to me:

Yaaaaawn!

As to my being a Hindutva-vadi and not a Hindutva Rat, look at the message and not the messenger. I questioned the motives of those who write newspaper reports, the political compulsions of those in power, the facts as reported in ``forensic reports``, etc. If my cynicism makes me a Hindutva-vadi, so be it.

Krashid: A headz up, it is never that easy to break me down. U misread what was written. I said

``I DO mix with all types of people (dudes with new girls every week) and still maintain what i said earlier on love.``

This is about some of my friends, not what I do. It was a reply to ur last post which said ``But when you interact with all sorts of people in day to day living, Jibran will utterly disappoint you.``

You`re other comment was just hilarious. ``HE strongly believe in equivalency of men and women.

And much of his thoughts are rooted in Arab and Lebanese culture.`` LOL are u KIDDING ME???

And I am far from gettin married.

harimau #60 you write ``You called me a Hindutva rat and I called you a Mullah who believes in the superiority of Islam.``

I do call you a hindutva since that accurately describes your views that the Gujrat killings of muslim families were justified because it started with hindus being attached in a train. This is the same rationale that has been used by extremists who attack innocent people, and therefore I believe I am accurately describing you for what you are here.

You claim that you call me a Mullah because I believe in the superiority of Islam. Namecalling by strangers on chowk does not bother me. However, lies about my views do. And, far from talking about the superiority of Islam, I have on countless occassions written to the contrary. See my interaction with KhanSahib on the board on India-Pakistan peace below, for example, where I told him that Dost Mittar - a hindu - had no need to convert to Islam (as KhanSahib was inviting him to do) since Dost Mittar was already on the right track whereas KhanSahib (a muslim, but of the same communal mindset as you) was not.

I did add the word ``rat`` to describe you once, a couple of months ago. That was wrong on my part, and my regrets to you and other chowk posters for using strong language. My opinion that your views concerning communal violence are no better than a hindutva mob remains unchanged. My opinion will change if you reflect upon your views and realize what I am trying to say.

you write ``Didn`t you say that it is your DUTY as a Muslim to correct Mr. Sattar`s Ahmadiyya beliefs?``

I never said that it was my DUTY. I challenge you to cut and paste what I wrote, and suggest that if you cannot you reflect upon this weakness on your part of jumping to conclusions rather than focussing on what is written in black and white.

Unless I change my mind, I will not be responding any more to your posts.

DRUMZ #72

To be frank your last remarks (dude I---) will utterly ashame Jibran. You probably have not assimilated him.

There is a philosophy of life. Some of his stories are love stories.

His message of love is at much higher ideal that ``Wham, Bham, thank you Mam.`` type. Because he not only gives respect to humans but strongly believe in equivalency of men and women.

And much of his thoughts are rooted in Arab and Lebanese culture.

His message is much of a self restraint for higher ideals than other way round.

(I don`t believe in equality for the simple reason. Women demand seperate restrooms)

DRUMZ #72

Are you married yet?

re. SameerJB #61

``mohabbat khuda hai....``

Right. Same difference, when you think about it, isn`t it?

Apologies for misinterpreting the intent of your earlier post.

Tahmed: Egyptian religion operates at a depth that makes Islam look like childsplay. Statements like this ``the lovers were also siblings, since this seems to have been OK in that society`` are unfounded. If u wanna take that literally, then lets talk about how ``REASONABLE`` Islam is as it ascribes all earthly evil to the act of Iblis not bowing to Adam! And, ur attack on mirza ahmed was also off. The quran doesnt call muhammed the last prophet or the last messenger.

Krashid: U get 100 points for putting eloquence in quotation marks. What moves MOST people is obvious and indicative of the current state of world affairs. We`re speaking on a higher calling, something ordinary people dont hear or dont respond to. In ur last post u mentioned how people who read gibran begin thinking ``idealistically.`` Be weary of words which give negative connotations to that which is clearly a positive (thats the work of imams). IDEAL thinking involves thinking on PERFECTION and as such is divine. There will always be people who say Gibran and his ilk have their heads in the clouds. What these people miss is that by listening to our conscous, we can think and usually ACT ideally. And yes, I DO mix with all types of people (dudes with new girls every week) and still maintain what i said earlier on love.

Ana: Before two people get married, they should agree on what each thinks is the most important aspect of their relationship. If they are in general agreement on that thing (how to raise kids, where to live, love), then their marriage will be successful. Based on this, it is unlikely that ill get married, but time will tell. Prayers are powerful things, i know a lotta people who need that prayer more then i do. Love can make a priest outuva a drug dealer and i know a lotta drug dealers.

Rsaxena: Someone who thinks we`re here cuz adam ate an apple is in the same boat as someone who thinks the universe evolved outuva a exploded atom. That said, none of those positions on unknowable concepts will change the way we see marriage. PEACE.