The Not So Rational Beings

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

keshto you should watch your tongue...if you said that in front of me i swear i would beat the crap out of you...

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

PaagalInsaan # 22

I am no more a slave to anyone either. So I have no guilt in appreciating music. :)

Dear Naqshbandi(#21)

Youre true, giving specific examples is not a very good idea because I might be quoting exceptions. But if you go the ``General`` way, I will agree to you that there are certain ``names of virtues`` that are probably universally shared, but what actions should be given the name of that virtue is different for different ways of thinking.

Courage may be a virtue in all nations in some circumstances, or in some nations in all circumstances, but never in all nations in all circumstances. The reason being, what to you is ``courageous`` might be ``reckless`` for someone from another school of thought.

Martyrdom is a virtue in all nations, but some say Z.A. Bhutto was a martyr, others say Gen. Zia was. The name of the virtue is the same, but the application is totally different.

Two people can disagree on a point while they`re both telling the truth. One man`s 6 is another man`s 9. They`re both telling the ``truth`` when they say they`re true, but they`re both lying when they say the other person is lying!



Thanks for the info on Maulana Rasheed Ahmed. I just managed
confused myself about Rasheed Ahmed Gangohi!





Dear NoMoreASlave (#20)

Music is not allowed in Islam. I am a Kaafir, so its obvious I`ll be good at it :) Thats one thing the constitutional-muslims are lesser than me in!

Nice to know you!! Stay around.

PagalInsaan #16

Does it matter these are beliefs of hateful Mullahs or of ordinary Muslims when the country constitutionally declares Ahmedis to be Kafirs? When Kafir are declared to be less than Muslims?

I liked your music but you are since you are a Kafir you are less than a momin.

Is lying part of Islam? Leaders say it is. Zia said Islam allowed him to lie. The policy of deniability is just lying. Zia said he could deny foreign policy adventures because that was for a good cause. He developed policy of deniability which continues. Ordinary Muslims go along with it. What does it do to credibility in others eyes? No trust.

paagalinsaan,

Point taken! But tell me a culture on Earth, in the whole of human history, where courage is not considered a virtue? I am convinced there are SOME ethics which are universally shared.

Even by the examples you have quoted they they are pointing to specific situations and still the ideal and the general rule these ppl believed was that truth is a virtue and better than lying. These are religious rulings relating to a specific matter and do not disprove that Truth is considered a general virtue.

Rashid Ahmad Gangohi sahib was the bani of Madrassah Doeband!

#17:freethinker
Degreed ``educated`` especially `scientified` westernish people congratulate themselves no end and never fail to remind the MAJORITY of the world populace that it (world populace) is `ignorant` and `uneducated`.

This has assumed the status of a belief and religion--except that such terminology somehow, in their own estimation, taints & irritates them.

Now please tell me how important is the information that the earth is round to a member of a tribe far far more `advanced` and `superior` to us. This super-man has yet not wrecked the ecology, uses just enough resources to feed himself and his family, has no care or worry to hoard to stop others from enjoying the bounties of Providence, has a pharmacy under his footsteps or overhead, and sees no need to develop weapons of self-destruction.

Now I have given this example just to move the discussion and to extrapolate this to understand our concept of `knowledge` and `belief` just for the sake of it. Now why should someone accept a say-so of a `scientist` that the earth IS round . What you are perhaps implying is that this belief is good until something else is `discovered`. As you yourself would concede that Form is nothing by observation from a vantage point . Even a specious argument can be made here whether the earth is really a poorly inflated blimp OR a Perfect Sphere flattened & skewed at various spots.... and does is stay such over a looong period of time. Can we really really call it round or round with provisos. Moving in one direction and returninng to same point is no `proof`...that can be accomplished around ANY form.

I am just trying to prod the discussion from a very un-educated and an extreme lay persons viewpoint, so please bear with me. In my humble search I have discovered that de-educating oneself is a far more ardous task than picking up random & chaotic information---especially now that information has become so abundant and accessible---- hence cheapened.

PS: I am fully aware that my style is kind of offensive but what I really dread is an interaction of mutual-praise. So please feel comfortable to go full blast.

Dear Naqshbandi (#14)

No matter how hateful these mullahs I quoted are, and even if they are not authorities according to you or me, the point I made was ``Truth is not a universal ethical trait``, and the point still holds true.

Btw, sorry about my lack of knowledge, I somehow had a misconception that Rasheed Ahmed is from the Bareli school of thought. Thats why I quoted him, thinking I`m covering Deobandi, Barelwi, and Modudi, all three popular philosophies.

The point however is, that there is no universal code of ethics. I am sure there is not even a single ethical trait that is universally prized.

The questions raised in the last paragraph are interesting. Believing in something doesn’t make that thing true. For instance, many people believed that earth was flat. In spite of their belief, earth remains round. “Belief that dreams are prophetic is a delusion; so is the belief in witchcraft and the ghosts”, (Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy, p.549). Intra-societal differences do not matter much although practicing Universal Human Rights is good and humane.

Whatever contributes to the ‘common good’ of man is good for society. The concept of common good originated some 2000 years back in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and others. John Rawls defined the common good as “certain general conditions that are … equally to everyone’s advantage.” According to http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/commongood.html, “Examples of particular common goods or parts of the common good include an accessible and affordable public health care system, and effective system of public safety and security, peace among the nations of the world, a just legal and political system, and unpolluted natural environment, and a flourishing economic system.``

If a tribal practice contravenes the law of the land, that practice is illegal. If rajm, stoning to death, for instance, is the law of the land, its practice in the way specified by the law, although inhuman, is legal. If such a practice is to be abolished, the law of the land should first be constitutionally amended. Honor-killing is inhuman and should be lawfully abolished. The same goes for rajm, blasphemy, and other similar outdated practices

Solid writing style!

Welcome to CHOWK Anila Alee.

You wrote...

``If, as Muslims we are qualified to slay those who commit blasphemy, even if the convict follows atheism, then in what capacity do we criticize those who commit “karo-kari”?``

Great question. Maybe GhalibZaman......


Ras

Writer,
Interesting questions.

paagal insaan,

those mullahs you quoted are NOT repeat NOT ``pillars of Sunni Islam`` but rather pillars of DEOBANDI Islam which is NOT the same being much closer to Wahabism than Sunnis. I am a SUNNI not a Deobandit and therefore for me and for most of the Muslims of Indo-Pak these people you quoted are NOT authorities. As you may be aware the Imam of the Sunnis of the Subcontinent, Ala Hadrat Imam Ahmad Rida Khan Barelwi quds sirruhu has refuted these heretics in his mastepiece Husam al Haramayn...

As for calling Qaid e Azam ``kafir e Azam`` that too was only the job of the Deobandits and Maudoodites etc. The Sunni ulama on the whole totally supported the Pakistan movement. And the great Sunni leader Hazrat Pir Sayyid Jama`at Ali Shah Naqshbandi contributed greatly to it and in one conference said, ``Qaid e Azam is a wali Allah`` and also that, ``Whichever of my murids do not vote for the Muslim League (and Pakistan) I will not read their namaz janazah.`` This great Sufi Shaykh was instrumental in getting the masses to vote for Pakistan....

***

I agree with most of what u wrote -- Anila -- great column

EXCEPT -- your beginning sentence:

``Man has the capability of thinking-rationally.`` --

I don`t `think` so --

at least --

not the Man who currently ocupies the White House -- by default --

now u CAN be accused of over generalization and `sterotyping` -- MEN

please don`t --

Man -- ``capable ..... of rational-thinking``? -- not in a million years -- neither on THAT god-forsaken subcontinent -- nor on THIS god-chosen continent....

Anila:

Excellent article.

Naqshbandi: Your point is valid as long as it is limited to value systems. What you say about Ishq is equally valid for Sikhism as well, problem arises when other people do not have the same ishq, or at least do not have it for the same object.

Rationality is the only basis for dealing with fellow men. Do you not see the contradiction between Ishq (which is unbound by logic and rationality) and value systems which are based on cultural assumptions and logically constructed from there on.

------- Part 1 Relativity of Ethics


Yes, different societies do have different ethical codes, and most of educated individuals in today`s world subconsciously get tuned to the relativity of ethics. Relativism is not about believing everyone is true, its about accepting the difference of opinions in the world.


When Society A thinks there is an error with the ethical code of Society B, they should preach their views in people-to-people communcation, and help those elements of the Society B who agree to the views of society B, not crossing the limit into ``imposition``. Imposition is against Relativism, preaching is NOT.


I will courage to say there is NO universal ethical code!!! Anybody who claims there is one, and then does not follow it, and still considers himself ``good``, agrees subconciously in Relativism.






------- Part 1 Relativity of Ethics in Islam



No, dear Naqshbani (#4), you will be surprised to know that even the most basic ethical quality, ``Truth`` is not prized unconditionally in every culture, nor is lying despised. Since you`re a muslim and so am I, I`ll prove this relativity by the following examples:


- ``It is good to tell a lie in order to establish (Islamic) faith. However, one must tell the truth as much as possible, if there is no way out, one should lie completely.``
Fatwa by Molana Rasheed Ahmed Gungohy
(Fataawa e Rasheediya, Page 460)


- ``In some conditions, Lying is `farz` and compulsary.``
By Molvi Hussain Ahmed Madni
(Naqsh e Hayaat, page 625)


- ``In practical life, there are some needs for which, not only are you allowed to tell a lie, but in some circumstances, it has been declared compulsary.``
Molana Abul Ala` Modudi
(Tarjumaanul Koran, May 1958, Page 54)



These three scholars I quoted above are the pillars of modern sunni Islam, and I do not need to comment any more on their views. On the other hand, these very scholars would argue that Islam is a complete code of life and it fits practical life for all situations and all ages!!


These are the same scholars according to whose beliefs, Pictures are not allowed in Islam, but they posed for the newspapers to get popularity, and kept bank notes with pictures of Jinnah in their pockets. Jinnah whom they called ``Kafir e Azam``.





------- Part 2 Relativity of Ethics in the Pakistani Society


Lets continue with the ``Truth`` since it is the most basic trait of ``Universal Ethical Code`` as presented by the supporters of the concept. In Pakistan it is sad but:


- An overwhelming percentage of the urban pakistani population belives that Islamic or the social Pakistani ethical code is universal, and following it is the only way to salvation. Yet in a recent road show by the Pakistani news channel ``Indus News``, it was sad to see 90% people accepting they themselves lie for profits in their business, saying there is no way out and the government has made the life hard.


- I belong to the upper middle class and literally all of us have seen a relative go for Jihad, or know someone who`s relative went for Jihad, before and after 9/11, in Kashmir. We are however not allowed to reveal this in local newspapers or write about it in them, because, according to what an Urdu daily`s Editor wrote to me, ``this brings a bad name to Pakistan.`` When our government says nobody crosses the line of control, we stnad by the goverment. We all lie together, as a nation!


- We lied together as a nation, when we attacked on Kargil, saying it wads done by Kashmiri Millitants. We refused to accept Captain Sher Khan`s dead body, who was suggested Nishaan-e-Haider by the Indian Army! Later on we gave him one, but we refuse to answer, and we are not allowed to ask, if it were Kashmiri millitants, what was Captain Sher khan doing with them, and why did we give him a Nishaan-e-Haider?
IF, which I am sure of, someone minds me talking about this here, it will prove that ``truth`` is only judged ethical when spoken for the judge :)









General Zia has been quoted below, saying ``kissi kay aqeeday ko chairo nahiN aur apne aqeeday ko choRRo nahiN``. Yet, during his rule, the most talked about ordinance he brought was the Anti-Qadiani ordinence according to which people belonging to the Ahmedi faith were disallowed to follow their religion. This refutes the first part of his own belief quoted above. The same ordinance also disallowed Ahmedis to preach their religion, which is an acceptance of the fact that the second part of zia`s quoted belief was impractical.
Hence, to gain political popularity OR to serve Islam, for whichever reason of the two, he went against what he had said! Many of us however, praise him for the ordinance. Zia, and many of us believe ``doosray ke aqeeday ko cherrna`` is universally bad, but when it comes to Qadianis, it is GOOD! Relativity of ethics!