Blasphemy Law: An Academic Investigation
Urstruly August 6, 2002
#613 Posted by DRUMZ on August 27, 2002 4:33:31 pm
PM: Ur welcome over anytime. Everything is Temporary, even disagreements. We leave the past in the past.
Prem: I see what ur saying. It seems the common denominator between talking about the historical problem and talking about the current problem is that only talking is being done. Wise is she who conquers herself. If the caste system is rooted in suppression, then the wise should make it an obligation to find and eliminate the oppresion they commit over others in their own lives. An elimination of larger systems will naturally follow.
Prem: I see what ur saying. It seems the common denominator between talking about the historical problem and talking about the current problem is that only talking is being done. Wise is she who conquers herself. If the caste system is rooted in suppression, then the wise should make it an obligation to find and eliminate the oppresion they commit over others in their own lives. An elimination of larger systems will naturally follow.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#612 Posted by hobbes on August 27, 2002 3:13:00 pm
PM
Your post requires a considered response. (the quality of the consideration, you be the judge of)
re. hobbes, who wrote:
``Hobbes, I`m curious. Why does the luxury of interpretation through the lens of history belong only to religious propositions? ``
PM, you are critical reader, recall the discussion was of interpretation of religious propositions - but not just religious propositions, history itself is interpreted, it cannot but be interpreted - recall, facts are facts only IF we choose to recall them. - witness your next statement and consider interpretation of history:
``Many would believe that, whether or not a religion claims divine revelation as its
ultimate source, in actuality, amongst other things, a reflection of the power dynamics and -struggles over the ages. Many would claim that this `revelation`, though often enough inspired by the highest human ideals of love and compassion, was tempered, or sometimes overrun, by altogether temporal exigencies and what we can universally agree are the `lower` motives of (wo)man.``
An interpretation of history as the dynamic of power - followed by an interpretation of history by the analysis of feminism
`` And no, an interpretation of history does NOT preclude the postulation of universals-- unless you believe that man innate nature has changed since the beginning of history.``
Whenever you get a chance to read ``Ethics of the gods`` - you will note a most interesting discusssionof the same. I wish you would read this and help me understand this paper and I will do the same for you. I do not suggest that absolutes do not exist for those who would adhere to them - and I (hobbes, is a clue) most certainly do not believe that if there is such a thing as ``human nature`` - that it can change. In fact, I think we can see ``human nature`` reflected in history (again Hobbes, is a clue) Have there been more sinners or more saints? Then on the other hand there is civilization.
``I suppose you regard the perpetuation of some peoples belief that they are divinely of a higher breed of mankind, and the corollary requirement of other men to act in an inferior manner``
You are in error, to think that since I say caste solves a problem, that caste is `solution``, that it must by definition mean, it is a ``good`` - Why are all you people so fired up about trying to prove that you are more self righteous than the obscuritanist? The characterization of ``solution`` as ``good`` is not one that I have used - it one that you use - why am I responsibile for the characterization of ``solution`` as ``good``???
``...but even this grant does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the PERPETUATION of those beliefs necessarily solve any problems,``s...``
Ok - we agree that caste is kaka - we agree that it`s perpetuation is undesirable - how do we get rid of it? We have tried to outlaw it - still, like a weed in ``Gulistan``, it persists. Prem has concluded that it must be met with righteous indignation, in the same manner as urstruly has decided that the insult heaped upon person of the beloved messenger of God. CERTITUDE, this self assurance of the righteousness of our selves - do we need it to confront caste? Not at all, in my opinion. If one argues that caste is primarily a question of values - well where do people get their values from? On the other hand, is it really just a question of values, can we really imagine that having separated the problem into different components, that then we can deal with one aspect (values) and that this will solve all the other components as well?
``Again, I am surprised at your failure to dig deeper into the motivations men (and I am almost being gender-specific here) have in acceptance of `divine` revelation to solve their problems.``
Patrick, ``Faith`` in God is specific to the three desert faiths - Hinduism does not have any concept such as faith - be carefully, you are perilously close to the chasm of ``all paths the same``. On the other hand, I would agree that religion is related in a fundamental, integral way, to the understanding of man`s mortality, to the ``human condition``, to the understanding that man seeks a continuum between the living and the dead in which to place himself in.
`` If anything, the discourse on this board has proved (most lately by Asif N`s `abrogation doctrine`-- thank you Sattarbhai) that invocation REVEALED truth is so much of a power plays employed (and when convenient, un-employed) by a self-serving group. There is little or no reason to believe that the REVEALED was accepted as such for reasons not self-serving or for political advantage.``
Rubbish! - what it does show is what Mr. Naqshbandi understands. Verses of the Quran cannot be aboragted, only their understanding can change.
`` In this view, the `revealed` faiths should enjoy no benefit of interpretation over the non-revealed.``
Certainly, that is a interpretation of history and a skewed understanding of egalitarianism - All paths are not the same - if they were, would you be a Christian? If so, why?
``I am afraid you have an optimism in the `original` motives of the revealers/revealed to, which not all of us share.``
I, on the other hand am delighted to not share a misunderstanding. I do not think it proper to imagine that sharing a understanding, makes that understanding right/wrong, correct/incorrect, valid/invalid.
``But if we understand that, whatever the context in which it existed-- whatever that worldview-- it is nevertheless OPPOSED to our own set of basic principles and presents a clear and present danger (Asif and Co. after all, would have anyone `blaspheming` or anyone committing apostasy, meet his maker) then of WHAT value is the understanding of the historical/contextual roots in which the problem first presented itself (except purely academic or an attempt at Nirvana)?``
I got it - ``Opposed`` - like Good/Bad, Day/night? How is your position different from Asif`s? Asif too is acting out of his own basic set of principles and does see PM and co. as clear and present dangers - Has Mr. Nasqshbandi`s understanding of issues not evolved? Does he now lose the abilty to be reasoned with? You are much too harsh.
The value of understanding historical contex(s) is that it helps us understand how a particular problem was created - as soon as we solve it, we will have created a new problem - that`s why ``All life is Problem Solving``. Why do we understand something, in this case a social or religious proposition, as a ``problem``? Was it always a problem? A social or religious ``problem`` in infused with historical context - it is inherent in the articulation of it as a ``problem``
`` Do you propose to find some common ground on which to construct a ‘reasonable’ argument by which to defeat Asif`s belief that these folks should be summarily executed?``
First we do not seek to ``defeat` anybody`s ``belief`` - and yes, we seek to only present arguments that can be supported by a foundation of reason. The argument Mr. Nasqshbandi has forwarded fails both the muster of Quranic understanding and of reasoning (we grant that there are a number of interpretation of Quran and we grant that reasoning, similarly has not remained static, that it too has evolved over the ages). But of course, we understand that the argument Mr. Nasqshbadi has forwarded resonates among those who out of their devotion and love for the beloved messenger of God - sometimes do fail to temper their love, their devotion, with reason. The eddifice on which Mr. Nasqshbandi has structured his argument relies primarily on hadith - we do not grant that hadith have any standing before the majesty of Quran.
Quran, in every Surah, begin with Merciful and Compassionate - the beloved messenger of God, by example, leads us to consider the power of forgiveness. It is indeed sad, that we must await the understanding of Islam as a faith of Redemption. Allah is Merciful and Compassionate, Allah forgives, who and what is man to not forgive? I find it interesting that hadith are employed over the Quran - the Word of God is not consulted, but the a hadith (So and So was heard to have said, as recorded by, told to and such rubbish) - Quran is the Word of God, hadith is the word of men recorded many times in third, forth Nth person - I disregard it in general, that is I find little use for it, as guidance.
``What would be your argument against Hitler’s Aryan Supremacy theory? (Ah now, wait... let`s see what PROBLEM that solved for the fascist... yes. there was the `problem` of large scale economic insecurity compounded by one man`s ``problem`` with Transference of his early childhood experiences with a nasty Jewish nanny, further compounded by the problem of collective German need to regain lost national pride. Oh yeah, hobbes, this understanding/contextualization does help sooo much better see why we need to condemn Nazism as a consummate evil. Hell, I`ve been trying to convince Yitzhak Goldstein here of this need for proper historical interpretation of history but the damn Jew keeps muttering something about `historical antipathy`, `will to power` and (astagfirullah!!!) `Innate evil!!`.``
You take a liberty with me that good will does not justify and I will ask you to reconsider. It is not my understanding of the issue you describe, but one you ascribe to me - and in doing so, do me an injury. I am open to any challenge of reason - character assasination, I am not game for, regardless of from whom it comes.
Once again, I will explain more clearly (mo`bettah): Hitler and his clique viewed Jews as a problem, genocide was their solution - The fact that a problem had been identified (jews) was not news in the German/EUROPEAN CONTEXT - indeed nor was the solution - it was the method of the solution that was ``novel`` - Now just because a problem had been identified (the ariculation of the problem, itself held the key to the proposed solution - consider Vermin/extermination) and a solution proposed does not make the solution a ``good`` - notice the problem was not articulated as a ethical problem, that we may look to it with the tools of ethics and morality - it was articulated as a ``infestation of vermin``, the targeted group was dehumanized - When next you choose to respond with emotion, to friend or foe - recall your characterization of those who disagree with you as representing ``clear and present danger`` and fear, indeed recoil from that kind of anger (vermin, too were a clear and present danger) . The essence of civilization is the awareness of and the employement of self restraint, as a ``good``. You may have seen and experienced a great deal of injury to your own and the dignity of others, do not imagine that being such a witness affords you to act in kind.
Your post requires a considered response. (the quality of the consideration, you be the judge of)
re. hobbes, who wrote:
``Hobbes, I`m curious. Why does the luxury of interpretation through the lens of history belong only to religious propositions? ``
PM, you are critical reader, recall the discussion was of interpretation of religious propositions - but not just religious propositions, history itself is interpreted, it cannot but be interpreted - recall, facts are facts only IF we choose to recall them. - witness your next statement and consider interpretation of history:
``Many would believe that, whether or not a religion claims divine revelation as its
ultimate source, in actuality, amongst other things, a reflection of the power dynamics and -struggles over the ages. Many would claim that this `revelation`, though often enough inspired by the highest human ideals of love and compassion, was tempered, or sometimes overrun, by altogether temporal exigencies and what we can universally agree are the `lower` motives of (wo)man.``
An interpretation of history as the dynamic of power - followed by an interpretation of history by the analysis of feminism
`` And no, an interpretation of history does NOT preclude the postulation of universals-- unless you believe that man innate nature has changed since the beginning of history.``
Whenever you get a chance to read ``Ethics of the gods`` - you will note a most interesting discusssionof the same. I wish you would read this and help me understand this paper and I will do the same for you. I do not suggest that absolutes do not exist for those who would adhere to them - and I (hobbes, is a clue) most certainly do not believe that if there is such a thing as ``human nature`` - that it can change. In fact, I think we can see ``human nature`` reflected in history (again Hobbes, is a clue) Have there been more sinners or more saints? Then on the other hand there is civilization.
``I suppose you regard the perpetuation of some peoples belief that they are divinely of a higher breed of mankind, and the corollary requirement of other men to act in an inferior manner``
You are in error, to think that since I say caste solves a problem, that caste is `solution``, that it must by definition mean, it is a ``good`` - Why are all you people so fired up about trying to prove that you are more self righteous than the obscuritanist? The characterization of ``solution`` as ``good`` is not one that I have used - it one that you use - why am I responsibile for the characterization of ``solution`` as ``good``???
``...but even this grant does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the PERPETUATION of those beliefs necessarily solve any problems,``s...``
Ok - we agree that caste is kaka - we agree that it`s perpetuation is undesirable - how do we get rid of it? We have tried to outlaw it - still, like a weed in ``Gulistan``, it persists. Prem has concluded that it must be met with righteous indignation, in the same manner as urstruly has decided that the insult heaped upon person of the beloved messenger of God. CERTITUDE, this self assurance of the righteousness of our selves - do we need it to confront caste? Not at all, in my opinion. If one argues that caste is primarily a question of values - well where do people get their values from? On the other hand, is it really just a question of values, can we really imagine that having separated the problem into different components, that then we can deal with one aspect (values) and that this will solve all the other components as well?
``Again, I am surprised at your failure to dig deeper into the motivations men (and I am almost being gender-specific here) have in acceptance of `divine` revelation to solve their problems.``
Patrick, ``Faith`` in God is specific to the three desert faiths - Hinduism does not have any concept such as faith - be carefully, you are perilously close to the chasm of ``all paths the same``. On the other hand, I would agree that religion is related in a fundamental, integral way, to the understanding of man`s mortality, to the ``human condition``, to the understanding that man seeks a continuum between the living and the dead in which to place himself in.
`` If anything, the discourse on this board has proved (most lately by Asif N`s `abrogation doctrine`-- thank you Sattarbhai) that invocation REVEALED truth is so much of a power plays employed (and when convenient, un-employed) by a self-serving group. There is little or no reason to believe that the REVEALED was accepted as such for reasons not self-serving or for political advantage.``
Rubbish! - what it does show is what Mr. Naqshbandi understands. Verses of the Quran cannot be aboragted, only their understanding can change.
`` In this view, the `revealed` faiths should enjoy no benefit of interpretation over the non-revealed.``
Certainly, that is a interpretation of history and a skewed understanding of egalitarianism - All paths are not the same - if they were, would you be a Christian? If so, why?
``I am afraid you have an optimism in the `original` motives of the revealers/revealed to, which not all of us share.``
I, on the other hand am delighted to not share a misunderstanding. I do not think it proper to imagine that sharing a understanding, makes that understanding right/wrong, correct/incorrect, valid/invalid.
``But if we understand that, whatever the context in which it existed-- whatever that worldview-- it is nevertheless OPPOSED to our own set of basic principles and presents a clear and present danger (Asif and Co. after all, would have anyone `blaspheming` or anyone committing apostasy, meet his maker) then of WHAT value is the understanding of the historical/contextual roots in which the problem first presented itself (except purely academic or an attempt at Nirvana)?``
I got it - ``Opposed`` - like Good/Bad, Day/night? How is your position different from Asif`s? Asif too is acting out of his own basic set of principles and does see PM and co. as clear and present dangers - Has Mr. Nasqshbandi`s understanding of issues not evolved? Does he now lose the abilty to be reasoned with? You are much too harsh.
The value of understanding historical contex(s) is that it helps us understand how a particular problem was created - as soon as we solve it, we will have created a new problem - that`s why ``All life is Problem Solving``. Why do we understand something, in this case a social or religious proposition, as a ``problem``? Was it always a problem? A social or religious ``problem`` in infused with historical context - it is inherent in the articulation of it as a ``problem``
`` Do you propose to find some common ground on which to construct a ‘reasonable’ argument by which to defeat Asif`s belief that these folks should be summarily executed?``
First we do not seek to ``defeat` anybody`s ``belief`` - and yes, we seek to only present arguments that can be supported by a foundation of reason. The argument Mr. Nasqshbandi has forwarded fails both the muster of Quranic understanding and of reasoning (we grant that there are a number of interpretation of Quran and we grant that reasoning, similarly has not remained static, that it too has evolved over the ages). But of course, we understand that the argument Mr. Nasqshbadi has forwarded resonates among those who out of their devotion and love for the beloved messenger of God - sometimes do fail to temper their love, their devotion, with reason. The eddifice on which Mr. Nasqshbandi has structured his argument relies primarily on hadith - we do not grant that hadith have any standing before the majesty of Quran.
Quran, in every Surah, begin with Merciful and Compassionate - the beloved messenger of God, by example, leads us to consider the power of forgiveness. It is indeed sad, that we must await the understanding of Islam as a faith of Redemption. Allah is Merciful and Compassionate, Allah forgives, who and what is man to not forgive? I find it interesting that hadith are employed over the Quran - the Word of God is not consulted, but the a hadith (So and So was heard to have said, as recorded by, told to and such rubbish) - Quran is the Word of God, hadith is the word of men recorded many times in third, forth Nth person - I disregard it in general, that is I find little use for it, as guidance.
``What would be your argument against Hitler’s Aryan Supremacy theory? (Ah now, wait... let`s see what PROBLEM that solved for the fascist... yes. there was the `problem` of large scale economic insecurity compounded by one man`s ``problem`` with Transference of his early childhood experiences with a nasty Jewish nanny, further compounded by the problem of collective German need to regain lost national pride. Oh yeah, hobbes, this understanding/contextualization does help sooo much better see why we need to condemn Nazism as a consummate evil. Hell, I`ve been trying to convince Yitzhak Goldstein here of this need for proper historical interpretation of history but the damn Jew keeps muttering something about `historical antipathy`, `will to power` and (astagfirullah!!!) `Innate evil!!`.``
You take a liberty with me that good will does not justify and I will ask you to reconsider. It is not my understanding of the issue you describe, but one you ascribe to me - and in doing so, do me an injury. I am open to any challenge of reason - character assasination, I am not game for, regardless of from whom it comes.
Once again, I will explain more clearly (mo`bettah): Hitler and his clique viewed Jews as a problem, genocide was their solution - The fact that a problem had been identified (jews) was not news in the German/EUROPEAN CONTEXT - indeed nor was the solution - it was the method of the solution that was ``novel`` - Now just because a problem had been identified (the ariculation of the problem, itself held the key to the proposed solution - consider Vermin/extermination) and a solution proposed does not make the solution a ``good`` - notice the problem was not articulated as a ethical problem, that we may look to it with the tools of ethics and morality - it was articulated as a ``infestation of vermin``, the targeted group was dehumanized - When next you choose to respond with emotion, to friend or foe - recall your characterization of those who disagree with you as representing ``clear and present danger`` and fear, indeed recoil from that kind of anger (vermin, too were a clear and present danger) . The essence of civilization is the awareness of and the employement of self restraint, as a ``good``. You may have seen and experienced a great deal of injury to your own and the dignity of others, do not imagine that being such a witness affords you to act in kind.
#611 Posted by hobbes on August 27, 2002 3:13:00 pm
Prem, DRUMZ, Krashid
First thing first, Do you seek to look to understand the problem of caste and find a solution of a number of solutions or do you wish to inform me and other readers that you think caste is evil, bad, Kaka? You imagine that I`m defending caste - you are mistaken. Each of you has spoken against caste, as have I - but the problem is not whether we speak or write or act against it - the problem is ``why does it persist`` ? It is in an effort to arrive at some sort of answer to this that I suggest that it ``solves`` some problem. Intellectuals may well be a bunch of idiots spending their timeon Earth concerned at about examing silly propositions - but common folk, who use common sense in their everyday lives, continue to keep the caste system in business, so to speak - why? - This question is key, in my opinion, in our search for answers. I have suggested that caste solves some problem - this does not mean that today it solves the same problem that it may once have - neither does it mean that because it solves a problem that it is inherently, a ``good`` - PM has raised the point about Hitler and genocide - the fact that, that particular clique found a solution in genocide, does not mean that we think that the ``solution`` was a ``good`` - let us spare each other our characterizations and our ethics - we all agree that caste is odious to us, today - if we want to be rid of it we must examine why it is not odious to others (for instance, when will Brahmins, not be brahmins) - simply saying that these ``others`` are not as ``good`` as us, will not lead us to a solution
First thing first, Do you seek to look to understand the problem of caste and find a solution of a number of solutions or do you wish to inform me and other readers that you think caste is evil, bad, Kaka? You imagine that I`m defending caste - you are mistaken. Each of you has spoken against caste, as have I - but the problem is not whether we speak or write or act against it - the problem is ``why does it persist`` ? It is in an effort to arrive at some sort of answer to this that I suggest that it ``solves`` some problem. Intellectuals may well be a bunch of idiots spending their timeon Earth concerned at about examing silly propositions - but common folk, who use common sense in their everyday lives, continue to keep the caste system in business, so to speak - why? - This question is key, in my opinion, in our search for answers. I have suggested that caste solves some problem - this does not mean that today it solves the same problem that it may once have - neither does it mean that because it solves a problem that it is inherently, a ``good`` - PM has raised the point about Hitler and genocide - the fact that, that particular clique found a solution in genocide, does not mean that we think that the ``solution`` was a ``good`` - let us spare each other our characterizations and our ethics - we all agree that caste is odious to us, today - if we want to be rid of it we must examine why it is not odious to others (for instance, when will Brahmins, not be brahmins) - simply saying that these ``others`` are not as ``good`` as us, will not lead us to a solution
#610 Posted by Prem on August 27, 2002 3:13:00 pm
re: krashid # 636
``smartness` and power-control. A shudra who did not believe in that casteist crap and made his/her disagreement known was made to suffer physically, emotionally, socially!
That is exactly how religious discrimination works; religious discrimination is another name for human slavery.
True, at some time, caste-system must have done some good (though, the question to ask is - good for whom? surely not for the sudra). However, that good is not visible anywhere for miles now. What is visible - clear as daylight - is the evil. And that is what it should be called.
``smartness` and power-control. A shudra who did not believe in that casteist crap and made his/her disagreement known was made to suffer physically, emotionally, socially!
That is exactly how religious discrimination works; religious discrimination is another name for human slavery.
True, at some time, caste-system must have done some good (though, the question to ask is - good for whom? surely not for the sudra). However, that good is not visible anywhere for miles now. What is visible - clear as daylight - is the evil. And that is what it should be called.
#609 Posted by sattar2 on August 27, 2002 3:13:00 pm
Naqshbandi Sahib,
The first time we discussed the issue of blasphemy (on another board), you insisted on killing blasphemers. When I mentioned verses in Quran that clearly negate your position (4:140 and 6:68) … you brought up the issue of abrogation of verses in Quran. This led me to believe that you are abrogating the specific Quranic verses addressing blasphemy (4:140 and 6:68.
I objected to your position … and stated that in view of clear Quranic commandments on dealing on blasphemy … you cannot abrogate Quranic commandments. YOUT DID NOT RESPOND.
On this board … in my post #539 … I raised the issue of Quranic verses dealing with blasphemy. Once again, instead of acknowledging the position of Quran on blasphemy … you agree that some Quranic verses are abrogated.
Here`s a question for you ...
If you do not want to abrogate 4:140 and 6:68, why bring up abrogation of Quranic verses every time these verses are mentioned? And … on top of that … you have not acknowledged the fact that Quran clearly contradicts your position on blasphemy.
Btw … since you asked … I am an Ahmadi-Muslim. Mullahs call me a kaffir, wajib-e-qatal, Quadiyyani , heretic … to name a few accolades.
Urstruly MiaN … still keeping a tight lip on your failing position ?
The first time we discussed the issue of blasphemy (on another board), you insisted on killing blasphemers. When I mentioned verses in Quran that clearly negate your position (4:140 and 6:68) … you brought up the issue of abrogation of verses in Quran. This led me to believe that you are abrogating the specific Quranic verses addressing blasphemy (4:140 and 6:68.
I objected to your position … and stated that in view of clear Quranic commandments on dealing on blasphemy … you cannot abrogate Quranic commandments. YOUT DID NOT RESPOND.
On this board … in my post #539 … I raised the issue of Quranic verses dealing with blasphemy. Once again, instead of acknowledging the position of Quran on blasphemy … you agree that some Quranic verses are abrogated.
Here`s a question for you ...
If you do not want to abrogate 4:140 and 6:68, why bring up abrogation of Quranic verses every time these verses are mentioned? And … on top of that … you have not acknowledged the fact that Quran clearly contradicts your position on blasphemy.
Btw … since you asked … I am an Ahmadi-Muslim. Mullahs call me a kaffir, wajib-e-qatal, Quadiyyani , heretic … to name a few accolades.
Urstruly MiaN … still keeping a tight lip on your failing position ?
#608 Posted by fawad79 on August 27, 2002 1:35:22 pm
samina,
my rxn wasnt based on his daughters .......it was based on his characterization and the blanket statement that all observant pakistani male muslims are ``god-crazed mullahs`` ........i know mullahwannabes are a drag esp to women........i have one such extended family member who tells me im a ``traitor`` for my pro-indian views .........what did he mean? this guy said we will speak arabic in paradise ........then i said i might as well go to hell cuz i dont..........well i mean there are people like him ..........but there is a friend of mine who has a beard and prays who is the sweetest man you will ever meet ........is he ``god-crazed`` perhaps ............but he is nice.,,,,,,,,,is edhi a ``god-crazed mullah`` i dont know but he has done great good.........i dont know samina it was religion that first said man is 1 and it is religion that divides man..,,,,,,,,what can we do? ban religon? even though i dont practice islam or even believe in it anymore the ``homo islamicus`` in me manifests itself...........i admire women like you ,,,,,,,,,,cuz u have maintained your religuous belief but u have accomodated modernity with it .......how do you react to observant muslim women? or hejabis? is it possible to be a hejabi and feminist?
im interested in your views on traditional islam and feminism......is islam as practiced lets say in a tradition sense compatible with the full realization of womens` rights? do you think hejab is opression? what do feel about places like iran or turkey?
these maybe the kind of questions that guys like me wonder about but applied in a male sense,,,,,,,every person of south asian muslim origin has a different rxn.,,,,,,,,,its ok to say islam scks cuz of x y z.......its ok not to prefer ur daughters to marry muslims..........but its not ok to say that any guy who practices is islam is inherently bad ............
my rxn wasnt based on his daughters .......it was based on his characterization and the blanket statement that all observant pakistani male muslims are ``god-crazed mullahs`` ........i know mullahwannabes are a drag esp to women........i have one such extended family member who tells me im a ``traitor`` for my pro-indian views .........what did he mean? this guy said we will speak arabic in paradise ........then i said i might as well go to hell cuz i dont..........well i mean there are people like him ..........but there is a friend of mine who has a beard and prays who is the sweetest man you will ever meet ........is he ``god-crazed`` perhaps ............but he is nice.,,,,,,,,,is edhi a ``god-crazed mullah`` i dont know but he has done great good.........i dont know samina it was religion that first said man is 1 and it is religion that divides man..,,,,,,,,what can we do? ban religon? even though i dont practice islam or even believe in it anymore the ``homo islamicus`` in me manifests itself...........i admire women like you ,,,,,,,,,,cuz u have maintained your religuous belief but u have accomodated modernity with it .......how do you react to observant muslim women? or hejabis? is it possible to be a hejabi and feminist?
im interested in your views on traditional islam and feminism......is islam as practiced lets say in a tradition sense compatible with the full realization of womens` rights? do you think hejab is opression? what do feel about places like iran or turkey?
these maybe the kind of questions that guys like me wonder about but applied in a male sense,,,,,,,every person of south asian muslim origin has a different rxn.,,,,,,,,,its ok to say islam scks cuz of x y z.......its ok not to prefer ur daughters to marry muslims..........but its not ok to say that any guy who practices is islam is inherently bad ............
#607 Posted by krashid on August 27, 2002 11:32:00 am
Prem #615
Hobbes is the right person to ask.
His approach is because it existed in history therefore there must be some good reason for it.
Judging from humanistic point of view. Caste system puts the entire progeny in perpetual elite or perpetual degradation position. And nothing could change their destiny because he was for example born Shudr.
For me it only reflects the utter cunning and opportunistic way of ruling elite to perpetuate their control.
How they were able to do it for so long only reflects their smartness.
Hobbes is the right person to ask.
His approach is because it existed in history therefore there must be some good reason for it.
Judging from humanistic point of view. Caste system puts the entire progeny in perpetual elite or perpetual degradation position. And nothing could change their destiny because he was for example born Shudr.
For me it only reflects the utter cunning and opportunistic way of ruling elite to perpetuate their control.
How they were able to do it for so long only reflects their smartness.
#606 Posted by PM on August 27, 2002 11:32:00 am
DRUMZ:
Hey, your #631 prompts me to ask if there is a DRUMZY fan-slub I can sign up with. :)
Hey, I`m in the GTA for the week/end. Still feel like calling you and ass though. Still wanna make good on yer promise? :)
Hey, your #631 prompts me to ask if there is a DRUMZY fan-slub I can sign up with. :)
Hey, I`m in the GTA for the week/end. Still feel like calling you and ass though. Still wanna make good on yer promise? :)
#605 Posted by PM on August 27, 2002 11:32:00 am
Damm, Prem!!! Gotta learn to do it in ten-lines-or-less like you did! :)
Nicely summarized!
Nicely summarized!
#604 Posted by PM on August 27, 2002 11:32:00 am
re. hobbes, who wrote:
``Prem, do you or do you not understand that religious propositions CANNOT be viewed without the lens of interpretation and the interpretation of history? Why the heck do some people seem to have such a problem with this? Is it the comfort of an absolute they miss?``
Hobbes, I`m curious. Why does the luxury of interpretation through the lens of history belong only to religious propositions? Many would believe that, whether or not a religion claims divine revelation as its ultimate source, in actuality, amongst other things, a reflection of the power dynamics and -struggles over the ages. Many would claim that this `revelation`, though often enough inspired by the highest human ideals of love and compassion, was tempered, or sometimes overrun, by altogether temporal exigencies and what we can universally agree are the `lower` motives of (wo)man. And no, an interpretation of history does NOT preclude the postulation of universals-- unless you believe that man innate nature has changed since the beginning of history.
``You say that caste no longer solves problems - you are in error, you insult the intelligence of readers. Are we to understand that hundreds of millions of peoples are mindless, that they adhere to caste system because it solves no problem in their lives??``
I suppose you regard the perpetuation of some peoples belief that they are divinely of a higher breed of mankind, and the corollary requirement of other men to act in an inferior manner-- you regard this as a `problem`, to which we must expend our psychic and intellectual energies to get to the root of, in order to solve. And don`t snicker-- You may as well replace `some people` up there with `men` and `other people` with `women`-- if the same `method` is applied to non-caste Religions.
We may even go so far as to grant that the formulations of structures such as caste and organized patriarchy provided the best solution to a problem at some point in time-- though this is has far from being established, given the operation of power dynamics and a general application of the law of the survival of the fittest in times gone by-- but even this grant does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the PERPETUATION of those beliefs necessarily solve any problems, unless, as I said, you define problem in the loosest of terms, in which sense it really ceases to have a meaning that is significant to this discourse.
``On the question of interpretation - In my opinion, as Hinduism is not a revealed religion, that is it is not among the desert faiths, Judaism, Christianity and Islam - my approach to the question of interpretation in Hinduism, is that I see little justification for taking this approach or rather that there is little justification in fashioning an approach that the desert faiths have employed, after all, interpret what? Which texts of God, as one would in desert faiths?``
Again, I am surprised at your failure to dig deeper into the motivations men (and I am almost being gender-specific here) have in acceptance of `divine` revelation to solve their problems. If anything, the discourse on this board has proved (most lately by Asif N`s `abrogation doctrine`-- thank you Sattarbhai) that invocation REVEALED truth is so much of a power plays employed (and when convenient, un-employed) by a self-serving group. There is little or no reason to believe that the REVEALED was accepted as such for reasons not self-serving or for political advantage. In this view, the `revealed` faiths should enjoy no benefit of interpretation over the non-revealed. I am afraid you have an optimism in the `original` motives of the revealers/revealed to, which not all of us share.
(hobbes to DRUMZ):``To solve any problem, one has to understand WHY, the problem is a problem. And that means to go back and trace the root. You see DRUMZ, every problem hold in itself or in it `s articulation, that is to say, it`s understanding, the seed of the solution. The endeavour is to understand the problem as fully as presently possible, for that you have to trace its root, which means understanding its context.``
But if we understand that, whatever the context in which it existed-- whatever that worldview-- it is nevertheless OPPOSED to our own set of basic principles and presents a clear and present danger (Asif and Co. after all, would have anyone `blaspheming` or anyone committing apostasy, meet his maker) then of WHAT value is the understanding of the historical/contextual roots in which the problem first presented itself (except purely academic or an attempt at Nirvana)? Do you propose to find some common ground on which to construct a ‘reasonable’ argument by which to defeat Asif`s belief that these folks should be summarily executed? What would be your argument against Hitler’s Aryan Supremacy theory? (Ah now, wait... let`s see what PROBLEM that solved for the fascist... yes. there was the `problem` of large scale economic insecurity compounded by one man`s ``problem`` with Transference of his early childhood experiences with a nasty Jewish nanny, further compounded by the problem of collective German need to regain lost national pride. Oh yeah, hobbes, this understanding/contextualization does help sooo much better see why we need to condemn Nazism as a consummate evil. Hell, I`ve been trying to convince Yitzhak Goldstein here of this need for proper historical interpretation of history but the damn Jew keeps muttering something about `historical antipathy`, `will to power` and (astagfirullah!!!) `Innate evil!!`.
``Prem, do you or do you not understand that religious propositions CANNOT be viewed without the lens of interpretation and the interpretation of history? Why the heck do some people seem to have such a problem with this? Is it the comfort of an absolute they miss?``
Hobbes, I`m curious. Why does the luxury of interpretation through the lens of history belong only to religious propositions? Many would believe that, whether or not a religion claims divine revelation as its ultimate source, in actuality, amongst other things, a reflection of the power dynamics and -struggles over the ages. Many would claim that this `revelation`, though often enough inspired by the highest human ideals of love and compassion, was tempered, or sometimes overrun, by altogether temporal exigencies and what we can universally agree are the `lower` motives of (wo)man. And no, an interpretation of history does NOT preclude the postulation of universals-- unless you believe that man innate nature has changed since the beginning of history.
``You say that caste no longer solves problems - you are in error, you insult the intelligence of readers. Are we to understand that hundreds of millions of peoples are mindless, that they adhere to caste system because it solves no problem in their lives??``
I suppose you regard the perpetuation of some peoples belief that they are divinely of a higher breed of mankind, and the corollary requirement of other men to act in an inferior manner-- you regard this as a `problem`, to which we must expend our psychic and intellectual energies to get to the root of, in order to solve. And don`t snicker-- You may as well replace `some people` up there with `men` and `other people` with `women`-- if the same `method` is applied to non-caste Religions.
We may even go so far as to grant that the formulations of structures such as caste and organized patriarchy provided the best solution to a problem at some point in time-- though this is has far from being established, given the operation of power dynamics and a general application of the law of the survival of the fittest in times gone by-- but even this grant does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the PERPETUATION of those beliefs necessarily solve any problems, unless, as I said, you define problem in the loosest of terms, in which sense it really ceases to have a meaning that is significant to this discourse.
``On the question of interpretation - In my opinion, as Hinduism is not a revealed religion, that is it is not among the desert faiths, Judaism, Christianity and Islam - my approach to the question of interpretation in Hinduism, is that I see little justification for taking this approach or rather that there is little justification in fashioning an approach that the desert faiths have employed, after all, interpret what? Which texts of God, as one would in desert faiths?``
Again, I am surprised at your failure to dig deeper into the motivations men (and I am almost being gender-specific here) have in acceptance of `divine` revelation to solve their problems. If anything, the discourse on this board has proved (most lately by Asif N`s `abrogation doctrine`-- thank you Sattarbhai) that invocation REVEALED truth is so much of a power plays employed (and when convenient, un-employed) by a self-serving group. There is little or no reason to believe that the REVEALED was accepted as such for reasons not self-serving or for political advantage. In this view, the `revealed` faiths should enjoy no benefit of interpretation over the non-revealed. I am afraid you have an optimism in the `original` motives of the revealers/revealed to, which not all of us share.
(hobbes to DRUMZ):``To solve any problem, one has to understand WHY, the problem is a problem. And that means to go back and trace the root. You see DRUMZ, every problem hold in itself or in it `s articulation, that is to say, it`s understanding, the seed of the solution. The endeavour is to understand the problem as fully as presently possible, for that you have to trace its root, which means understanding its context.``
But if we understand that, whatever the context in which it existed-- whatever that worldview-- it is nevertheless OPPOSED to our own set of basic principles and presents a clear and present danger (Asif and Co. after all, would have anyone `blaspheming` or anyone committing apostasy, meet his maker) then of WHAT value is the understanding of the historical/contextual roots in which the problem first presented itself (except purely academic or an attempt at Nirvana)? Do you propose to find some common ground on which to construct a ‘reasonable’ argument by which to defeat Asif`s belief that these folks should be summarily executed? What would be your argument against Hitler’s Aryan Supremacy theory? (Ah now, wait... let`s see what PROBLEM that solved for the fascist... yes. there was the `problem` of large scale economic insecurity compounded by one man`s ``problem`` with Transference of his early childhood experiences with a nasty Jewish nanny, further compounded by the problem of collective German need to regain lost national pride. Oh yeah, hobbes, this understanding/contextualization does help sooo much better see why we need to condemn Nazism as a consummate evil. Hell, I`ve been trying to convince Yitzhak Goldstein here of this need for proper historical interpretation of history but the damn Jew keeps muttering something about `historical antipathy`, `will to power` and (astagfirullah!!!) `Innate evil!!`.
#603 Posted by Prem on August 27, 2002 3:23:33 am
DRUMZ,
Right on all counts.
Caste system is but one evil. As you mentioned, gender discrimination, religious discrimination, racial discrimination - these are all symptoms of the same disease - our human need to lord over and suppress other human beings. And the wise use of our time consists in focusing on the problem of now, rather than debating about what was at some remote point in history.
However, Hobbes is not defending the caste system, DRUMZ. Neither does he have anything to do with yin and yang. He is merely defending his right to defend what he considers ``revelation`` no matter how irrepsonsible doing so may be.
More later :)
Right on all counts.
Caste system is but one evil. As you mentioned, gender discrimination, religious discrimination, racial discrimination - these are all symptoms of the same disease - our human need to lord over and suppress other human beings. And the wise use of our time consists in focusing on the problem of now, rather than debating about what was at some remote point in history.
However, Hobbes is not defending the caste system, DRUMZ. Neither does he have anything to do with yin and yang. He is merely defending his right to defend what he considers ``revelation`` no matter how irrepsonsible doing so may be.
More later :)
#602 Posted by DRUMZ on August 27, 2002 1:35:34 am
Prem: Yea hobbes is cool, Ive always liked where his head is at.
That a Muslim is defending the caste system should raise eyebrows. It should go without saying that he is as aware of its evils as u and I are. He is simply adding to the discussion by making us look at it deeper (by adding the yin to our yan). I find such methods to be of good use when one is trying to develop an analytical and wise mind.
Yet there are levels to all understanding. Do we who call the system evil, also see with the same eye ALL its manifestations (class systems, gender prejudices, racial systems etc)?
As for his outlook, on certain levels, asking WHY is fruitless. Asking unanswerable questions about why the world is as it is often results in a cloudy understanding of reality. This is why buddha found commenting on God to be a waste of time. The answer to that and Hobbes ``why`` will do nothing to change the suffering some deal with. Asking such questions has its time/place but it is hardly an all encompassing method. For SOME instances it is more wise to use a method which only looks as far back as is relevant to the current situation. PEACE.
That a Muslim is defending the caste system should raise eyebrows. It should go without saying that he is as aware of its evils as u and I are. He is simply adding to the discussion by making us look at it deeper (by adding the yin to our yan). I find such methods to be of good use when one is trying to develop an analytical and wise mind.
Yet there are levels to all understanding. Do we who call the system evil, also see with the same eye ALL its manifestations (class systems, gender prejudices, racial systems etc)?
As for his outlook, on certain levels, asking WHY is fruitless. Asking unanswerable questions about why the world is as it is often results in a cloudy understanding of reality. This is why buddha found commenting on God to be a waste of time. The answer to that and Hobbes ``why`` will do nothing to change the suffering some deal with. Asking such questions has its time/place but it is hardly an all encompassing method. For SOME instances it is more wise to use a method which only looks as far back as is relevant to the current situation. PEACE.
#601 Posted by hobbes on August 27, 2002 1:35:34 am
fawad79, You say
``hobbes in the arab world islam is flourishing in the non arab muslim world it is declining care to explain?``
First of all, what evidence do you suggest we evaluate when you say that in the non arab Muslim world Islam is declining? I would suggest the exact opposite is true and has been for last several centuries. Look at the example of the US, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the US and it attracts adherents from all the ethinic groups that exist in the US. Look at the situation in Africa, where once Islam was a phenamenon of North Africa, today, East, West, Central Africa are increasingly in the Islamic orbit and look to Southern Africa, look to the adherents Islam has attracted in the last thrity years. You may find the following instructive:
``ISLAM BLOOMS IN GENOCIDE`S WAKE
Rwandans jump to faith they view as tolerant
Laurie Goering, Chicago Tribune, 8/5/02
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0208050150aug05.story
Long before the call to prayer begins each Friday at noon, Rwanda`s Muslim
faithful jam the main mosque in Kigali`s Nyamirambo neighborhood, the
overflow crowd spreading prayer rugs on the mosque steps, over the red
earth parking lot and out the front gate.
Almost a decade after a horrific genocide left 800,000 Rwandans dead and
shook the faith of this predominantly Christian nation, Islam, once seen as
a fringe religion, has surged in popularity. Women in bright tangerine,
scarlet and blue headscarves stroll the bustling streets of the capital
beside men in long white tunics and embroidered caps. Mosques and Islamic
schools are overflowing with students....``
The case for Hispanic in US and Central Ameica and South America is the same. You will be genuinely surprised at the numbers that are being attracted in these locations.
In East Asia, Muslims are a growing force in once unfiormly Buddhist Thailand, as they are in Vietnam.
As for Islam in Arab lands, I think we can say with some justifcation, that Islam has been in decline - the poverty of Islam in Arab lands and in Pakistan, though it is not Arab, is that it seems to have so little to do with Faith in God, instead it is a religiosity of Certitude. Salvation is a certitude in faith whereas in a religiosity of Certitude, salvation is an after thought.
Prem
If you care about persons daily problems, then understand method. DO you understand what method is?
``Do you think the caste system was, at least for the last thousand years, an evil; or is that, in your opinion, just a matter of the method and interpretation?
And if we refuse to make that clear judgement, how can we address the problems (or the solutions) the values of caste may be generating in the wider economic system? Could slavery be eradicated before people gathered the intellectual honesty and moral courage to call it evil?``
Prem, do you or do you not understand that religious propositions CANNOT be viewed without the lens of interpretation and the interpretation of history? Why the heck do some people seem to have such a problem with this? Is it the comfort of an absolute they miss? And if the answer yes, they miss the comfort of an absolute, well, why then disagree with obscuritanists?????
Your original question was in essence, Caste ``how do we deal with it``?
I invite you again to consider the question of METHOD - There was once a method, in which caste made sense, it exists even today (if uneasily) - There is an alternate method which has gained ground in the last two hundred years in the consciousness of the Hindu. This alternate method is infused with values that find caste unsupportable. My post to you was to examine these two methods - that`s all.
On the question of interpretation - In my opinion, as Hinduism is not a revealed religion, that is it is not among the desert faiths, Judaism, Christianity and Islam - my approach to the question of interpretation in Hinduism, is that I see liitle justification for taking this apprach or rather that there is little justification in fashioning an approach that the desert faiths have employed, after all, interpret what? Which texts of God, as one would in desert faiths?
You, in my judgement, want to be as sure footed, as self assured as the obscuritanist; ``if we refuse to make clear judgement...intellectual honesty and moral courage to call it evil`` - Yeah, Sure but will we have addresed the problem? What is the problem? How did it get to be this problem? We ought to careful, we are talking of applying temporal values to a religious proposition - and it seems to me that we cannot do that with out recourse to method.
You say that caste no longer solves problems - you are in error, you insult the intellegence of readers. Are we to understand that hundreds of millions of peoples are mindless, that they adhere to caste system because it solves no problem in their lives?? How different is this argument that laws are fine but the people unworthy of them?? You have not bothered to investigate this line - you may disagree with the contention, but to dismiss it, you need to examine it, investigate it.
What makes caste work? What problems is it solving? What understanding of religiosity is at work here? How is religiosity imparted? What values, which ethics, which morality, constitue this religiosity? How ought it be imparted? Is ther room for discussion of these understandings? If there is why not enable a national dialogue, ``WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A HINDU``? This is the focus of investigation in my opinion
See this approach is so similar to the approach of nincompoops who keep suggesting that secular-ism is a solution to sectarianism - All we have to do is pass a law and boom, next thing you know problem solved - consider carlefully: Is social tranformation characterized by a reordering, a repriotizing of values? Is Secularization exactly such a process? Now, is secular-ism the same process? Is it even a process?
How sad it is indeed that hundred of million of human beings, reknown in the world for both their worldliness and their intense spiritual attachment and search, should come to a understanding that one half of the equation that has characterized their civilization, should be judged as empty, as ``useless``.
A digression - How many times we have discussed these inter-related ideas? ``Indians and Pakistanis are the same`` The same as what?? ``They are humans`` - DUH! - Had we looked at over differences, we would once again have an opportunity to rediscover each other - we would have realized that we really do not know one another - it is exactly the understanding that we know each other that has us locked in this coming death embrace.
What is method? What is the method in Hinduism?
DRUMZ
``Hobbes: Im curious, why did u not make an attempt to Understand Prem? To understand the social conditions of his time/place? To understand why he would think the way he does before judging and labeling him as this and that?``
Justify! On what bas do you claim that I have not made an attempt to understand him? I disagree with him on a fundamental level - I understand why he thinks the way he does and I find that kind of ideological commitment to be responsible for the death and misery of a scale previously unimaginable,
``Perhaps this build would be more effective if it was understood that u are dealing with understanding something in its historical entirety while he is dealing with understanding something in its current shape. None of those METHODS (there is no perfect method) are right or wrong.
Excellent and erroneous. Agreed that there are no ``perfect`` methods - actually no human construct can by definition be perfect - right?
``One can easily say that it is a waste of time to understand something in its historical entirety IF she is more interested in changing its form as it appears NOW.``
Now, can we understand the present if we do not understand the past? Drumz, read the previous questions a couple of times, let it sink in. I`m in a world of doodoo - what do I do about it? Do I act? so what do I do? - wait a minute let`s go back to the problem? OK, WHY is this (whatever ``this`` may be) - problem?(think about it a while) - Can one state that a problem exist and at the same time deny that problems only exist in a continuum? (think of the `WHY`` before you disagree )To solve any problem, one has to understand WHY, the problem is a problem. And that means to go back and trace the root. You see DRUMZ, every problem hold in itself or in it `s articulation, that is to say, it`s understanding, the seed of the solution. The endeavor is to understand the problem as fully as presently possible, for that you have to trace it`s root, which means understanding it`s context.
Change something as it appears NOW, you say, where does the understanding that somethings form needs to be changed come from? Values, ideas, convictions - do these exist with history?
``hobbes in the arab world islam is flourishing in the non arab muslim world it is declining care to explain?``
First of all, what evidence do you suggest we evaluate when you say that in the non arab Muslim world Islam is declining? I would suggest the exact opposite is true and has been for last several centuries. Look at the example of the US, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the US and it attracts adherents from all the ethinic groups that exist in the US. Look at the situation in Africa, where once Islam was a phenamenon of North Africa, today, East, West, Central Africa are increasingly in the Islamic orbit and look to Southern Africa, look to the adherents Islam has attracted in the last thrity years. You may find the following instructive:
``ISLAM BLOOMS IN GENOCIDE`S WAKE
Rwandans jump to faith they view as tolerant
Laurie Goering, Chicago Tribune, 8/5/02
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0208050150aug05.story
Long before the call to prayer begins each Friday at noon, Rwanda`s Muslim
faithful jam the main mosque in Kigali`s Nyamirambo neighborhood, the
overflow crowd spreading prayer rugs on the mosque steps, over the red
earth parking lot and out the front gate.
Almost a decade after a horrific genocide left 800,000 Rwandans dead and
shook the faith of this predominantly Christian nation, Islam, once seen as
a fringe religion, has surged in popularity. Women in bright tangerine,
scarlet and blue headscarves stroll the bustling streets of the capital
beside men in long white tunics and embroidered caps. Mosques and Islamic
schools are overflowing with students....``
The case for Hispanic in US and Central Ameica and South America is the same. You will be genuinely surprised at the numbers that are being attracted in these locations.
In East Asia, Muslims are a growing force in once unfiormly Buddhist Thailand, as they are in Vietnam.
As for Islam in Arab lands, I think we can say with some justifcation, that Islam has been in decline - the poverty of Islam in Arab lands and in Pakistan, though it is not Arab, is that it seems to have so little to do with Faith in God, instead it is a religiosity of Certitude. Salvation is a certitude in faith whereas in a religiosity of Certitude, salvation is an after thought.
Prem
If you care about persons daily problems, then understand method. DO you understand what method is?
``Do you think the caste system was, at least for the last thousand years, an evil; or is that, in your opinion, just a matter of the method and interpretation?
And if we refuse to make that clear judgement, how can we address the problems (or the solutions) the values of caste may be generating in the wider economic system? Could slavery be eradicated before people gathered the intellectual honesty and moral courage to call it evil?``
Prem, do you or do you not understand that religious propositions CANNOT be viewed without the lens of interpretation and the interpretation of history? Why the heck do some people seem to have such a problem with this? Is it the comfort of an absolute they miss? And if the answer yes, they miss the comfort of an absolute, well, why then disagree with obscuritanists?????
Your original question was in essence, Caste ``how do we deal with it``?
I invite you again to consider the question of METHOD - There was once a method, in which caste made sense, it exists even today (if uneasily) - There is an alternate method which has gained ground in the last two hundred years in the consciousness of the Hindu. This alternate method is infused with values that find caste unsupportable. My post to you was to examine these two methods - that`s all.
On the question of interpretation - In my opinion, as Hinduism is not a revealed religion, that is it is not among the desert faiths, Judaism, Christianity and Islam - my approach to the question of interpretation in Hinduism, is that I see liitle justification for taking this apprach or rather that there is little justification in fashioning an approach that the desert faiths have employed, after all, interpret what? Which texts of God, as one would in desert faiths?
You, in my judgement, want to be as sure footed, as self assured as the obscuritanist; ``if we refuse to make clear judgement...intellectual honesty and moral courage to call it evil`` - Yeah, Sure but will we have addresed the problem? What is the problem? How did it get to be this problem? We ought to careful, we are talking of applying temporal values to a religious proposition - and it seems to me that we cannot do that with out recourse to method.
You say that caste no longer solves problems - you are in error, you insult the intellegence of readers. Are we to understand that hundreds of millions of peoples are mindless, that they adhere to caste system because it solves no problem in their lives?? How different is this argument that laws are fine but the people unworthy of them?? You have not bothered to investigate this line - you may disagree with the contention, but to dismiss it, you need to examine it, investigate it.
What makes caste work? What problems is it solving? What understanding of religiosity is at work here? How is religiosity imparted? What values, which ethics, which morality, constitue this religiosity? How ought it be imparted? Is ther room for discussion of these understandings? If there is why not enable a national dialogue, ``WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A HINDU``? This is the focus of investigation in my opinion
See this approach is so similar to the approach of nincompoops who keep suggesting that secular-ism is a solution to sectarianism - All we have to do is pass a law and boom, next thing you know problem solved - consider carlefully: Is social tranformation characterized by a reordering, a repriotizing of values? Is Secularization exactly such a process? Now, is secular-ism the same process? Is it even a process?
How sad it is indeed that hundred of million of human beings, reknown in the world for both their worldliness and their intense spiritual attachment and search, should come to a understanding that one half of the equation that has characterized their civilization, should be judged as empty, as ``useless``.
A digression - How many times we have discussed these inter-related ideas? ``Indians and Pakistanis are the same`` The same as what?? ``They are humans`` - DUH! - Had we looked at over differences, we would once again have an opportunity to rediscover each other - we would have realized that we really do not know one another - it is exactly the understanding that we know each other that has us locked in this coming death embrace.
What is method? What is the method in Hinduism?
DRUMZ
``Hobbes: Im curious, why did u not make an attempt to Understand Prem? To understand the social conditions of his time/place? To understand why he would think the way he does before judging and labeling him as this and that?``
Justify! On what bas do you claim that I have not made an attempt to understand him? I disagree with him on a fundamental level - I understand why he thinks the way he does and I find that kind of ideological commitment to be responsible for the death and misery of a scale previously unimaginable,
``Perhaps this build would be more effective if it was understood that u are dealing with understanding something in its historical entirety while he is dealing with understanding something in its current shape. None of those METHODS (there is no perfect method) are right or wrong.
Excellent and erroneous. Agreed that there are no ``perfect`` methods - actually no human construct can by definition be perfect - right?
``One can easily say that it is a waste of time to understand something in its historical entirety IF she is more interested in changing its form as it appears NOW.``
Now, can we understand the present if we do not understand the past? Drumz, read the previous questions a couple of times, let it sink in. I`m in a world of doodoo - what do I do about it? Do I act? so what do I do? - wait a minute let`s go back to the problem? OK, WHY is this (whatever ``this`` may be) - problem?(think about it a while) - Can one state that a problem exist and at the same time deny that problems only exist in a continuum? (think of the `WHY`` before you disagree )To solve any problem, one has to understand WHY, the problem is a problem. And that means to go back and trace the root. You see DRUMZ, every problem hold in itself or in it `s articulation, that is to say, it`s understanding, the seed of the solution. The endeavor is to understand the problem as fully as presently possible, for that you have to trace it`s root, which means understanding it`s context.
Change something as it appears NOW, you say, where does the understanding that somethings form needs to be changed come from? Values, ideas, convictions - do these exist with history?
#600 Posted by Prem on August 26, 2002 11:30:38 pm
re: DRUMZ # 626
Hey, DRUMZ, where have you been, bro? :)
Hobbes is a gentle soul, and I have been deliberately cussed. I don`t blame him for losing patience.
But I hope there is a purpose to my cussedness. I am willing to trash anything that does not pass the basic test of basic human decency, even if people make claims of revelation about such things. The mere fact that the caste system was ``revealed`` to some people does not save it from being labeled pure evil, if that is what it became over time.
I am a religious man. But interpretations, methods, or revelations for revelation`s sake hold no interest for me. Instead, I care about the very real problems of very real people. And, while real people like me are having a time of our lives (I have been very lucky), others are being killed, maimed, deprived of their rights in the name of other people`s beliefs and religions - which, btw, all claim to be revealed. I will feel very guilty if I spent all my time talking about the method while such pure evil roamed the earth.
Each one of us has a limited amount of time. We have to each make a decision. We can either prattle endlessly about methods and interpretations, or take a clear stand, and using God-given wisdom, call a spade a spade, and evil evil.
To my mind, that is the only way progress can occur.
Hey, DRUMZ, where have you been, bro? :)
Hobbes is a gentle soul, and I have been deliberately cussed. I don`t blame him for losing patience.
But I hope there is a purpose to my cussedness. I am willing to trash anything that does not pass the basic test of basic human decency, even if people make claims of revelation about such things. The mere fact that the caste system was ``revealed`` to some people does not save it from being labeled pure evil, if that is what it became over time.
I am a religious man. But interpretations, methods, or revelations for revelation`s sake hold no interest for me. Instead, I care about the very real problems of very real people. And, while real people like me are having a time of our lives (I have been very lucky), others are being killed, maimed, deprived of their rights in the name of other people`s beliefs and religions - which, btw, all claim to be revealed. I will feel very guilty if I spent all my time talking about the method while such pure evil roamed the earth.
Each one of us has a limited amount of time. We have to each make a decision. We can either prattle endlessly about methods and interpretations, or take a clear stand, and using God-given wisdom, call a spade a spade, and evil evil.
To my mind, that is the only way progress can occur.
#599 Posted by ana on August 26, 2002 11:30:38 pm
Samina,
[You`ve GOT to check out sawnet!]
--already have! on the mailing list :)
[You`ve GOT to check out sawnet!]
--already have! on the mailing list :)
#598 Posted by saminashah on August 26, 2002 9:37:02 pm
PM
re:``...Are you suggesting those referrred to as `welfare queens` were NOT predominantly back/Latino, unmarried, with more kids than they could support (or was responsible to conceive) and had more conjugal partners without protection than the average woman working her behind off to help pay the mortgage after taxes and sending her 2 to school and day care?
Not everything is right just because idiots say it`s wrong!``
Not sure what you mean...please explain...
Fawad dear,
I know you are a nice, intelligent young person and all; I just didnt understand your reaction after Hamid`s comment about his preferences of not having mullahwannabes as son in laws....I would have thought you`d support him in that....and speaking as someone who has at least 2 mullahwannabes in her in law and extended family, they are QUITE the drag....they`d strangle the life out of your vibrant fledgling mind and their`d be no room for Ulysses and so forth (Joyce rocks!)...trust me on this one- Joyce`s gobbledygook is more transcendant and humane than the mullahwannabes`.....
Hobbes
Once again, I appreciate your efforts in telling me how things should be done, but I don`t agree with several of your premises, your goals nor do I trust that we would agree on the results of a methodology. I am quite aware of who my friends and foes are, thanks again.
ana,
You`ve GOT to check out sawnet!
re:``...Are you suggesting those referrred to as `welfare queens` were NOT predominantly back/Latino, unmarried, with more kids than they could support (or was responsible to conceive) and had more conjugal partners without protection than the average woman working her behind off to help pay the mortgage after taxes and sending her 2 to school and day care?
Not everything is right just because idiots say it`s wrong!``
Not sure what you mean...please explain...
Fawad dear,
I know you are a nice, intelligent young person and all; I just didnt understand your reaction after Hamid`s comment about his preferences of not having mullahwannabes as son in laws....I would have thought you`d support him in that....and speaking as someone who has at least 2 mullahwannabes in her in law and extended family, they are QUITE the drag....they`d strangle the life out of your vibrant fledgling mind and their`d be no room for Ulysses and so forth (Joyce rocks!)...trust me on this one- Joyce`s gobbledygook is more transcendant and humane than the mullahwannabes`.....
Hobbes
Once again, I appreciate your efforts in telling me how things should be done, but I don`t agree with several of your premises, your goals nor do I trust that we would agree on the results of a methodology. I am quite aware of who my friends and foes are, thanks again.
ana,
You`ve GOT to check out sawnet!
Interact Index
<