The Ultimate Betrayal

rahul:

this issue should be seen beyond the constricts of religion...not everyone is a believer...yet a child is affected, physically and pschologically for the rest of his her life when abused by his her wards

Rahul – I was hoping you’d show up! nt sahib touched upon a post of yours that I thought was really appropriate and didn’t respond to because I thought it pretty much said whatever I wanted to say on the subject and besides by then we’d moved on to the actual topic at hand.

Still, it appears t’s need to be crossed and I’s need to be dotted. So here are my two cents, in continuation…

First of all, religion has been around for a really looong time. So it is to be expected that it has affected all of us directly or indirectly. When we talk of a secular society, we are not talking of a society alienated from God. That is the single greatest mistake some people make.

A secular society is one that does not enforce theological law as the law of the land.

As such, it can draw inspiration from manifold sources – for example, it is not illegal to work on Sundays nor can the government punish you for being rude to your father but it still frowns upon robbery and murder.

Secular law can also derive its ideas from non-religious philosophies. The French Revolution, for example, and its war cry of Liberte, Egalite et Fraternite inspired democracies – including the United States. You can say that these people must have derived it from Jesus Christ and the argument can thus go on but those inspired by the FR are not thinking of Christ, they are thinking of those words in particular and what it could mean for them. Similarly the big religious bugbear of Communism.

As a theist, I would credit God with everything in the end because everything was made by him [and pls, before anybody seeks to use my words to further some quasi fight of theirs, pls try and understand the following words as well] but my idea of God need not necessarily be someone else’s and I don’t wish another person to live according to my ideas of Him – everyone should be allowed their own.

Secular society grants you this freedom. You are absolutely free to practice the word of any higher power that speaks to your heart – but there are some basic rules of life in that society, culled from different sources, and you must abide by those.

These rules are formulated so that anarchy might not prevail and so that the temporal [there’s that word!!!] rights of wo/man are protected. So perhaps they might not allow you to practice all the rituals of your religion – you can’t ask your wife to climb on your funeral pyre, you can’t stone someone to death because they committed adultery, you can’t kill someone because they grew two different kinds of crop on the same land, etc. But they will protect your right not to be murdered, to stop a car-jacking, etc.

[Once in a while, secular society allows specific groups to retain some of their laws. In India, for example, Christians have a different inheritance law and of course, much is made of the law allowing Muslims to practice polygamy so you might know that from before. You can say that in such a case, the society is not thoroughly secular. But that is another topic – and this one is enough of a tangent in my opinion. So can we please leave that aside for now? Thank you.]

Now, lets explore the full implications of Urstruly’s contention [as posited by nt] and that of nt as well – which finally comes down to: (1) if you’re not actively religious you have no morals and (2) the best religion is Islam.

There are dozens of people in this world who are a. atheists b. agnostics and c. not Muslims. None of these people act immorally because of these reasons as should be abundantly clear to everyone. There are Muslims who rape, murder, commit CSA and there are atheists who do not and vice versa.

Just as it would be silly to discount the effect of religion on society, it would be equally asinine to discount all those billions who fall outside categories 1 and 2 above.

PS – the “you” as and where it occurs is a general “you”. :)

#153:

i have made my point

ramble on

ntsyed:
``Then, as Ustruly and HP clarified that if the anguish and physical pain are removed from the equation, then there shouldn`t be anything wrong with incest or sex with consenting children.``

Sir, this question implies that there is no Disagreement over the issue of CONSENT (among the people debating) and whether a Child can give his/her consent AT ALL?
So i think, Urstruly is just being his usual jackasstrulyistic self. He used to flame all the way reaching interacts upto 8-900, back in the day. not anymore.

By the way,
The other classic example would be to ask whether a person can give up His right to be Free and become a slave exercising his freedom to make that choice. The only way is to make it axiomatic in a secular system that liberty of a human is not transferrable and he cannot renounce it on his own. (this will work like a first principle of sorts).

regards.

Re: # 147 by temporal

1: As I pointed out earlier, your definition made a 180 and hit you right in your face. Rest assured, it is not difficult for others to use ``generic symbols`` of certain decadent and progressive outlook across secular lines not aimed at any particular YOU. It is only out of common decency that I haven`t done that to YOU, thus far.

2: THE REASON THIS SENTENCE IS BOLD AND ALL IN CAPS IS BECAUSE YOU SEEM TO NEED STRONGER PRESCRIPTION GLASSES. FOR YOUR PERUSAL I`VE PASTED MY ENTIRE POST, #39:

Compliments to sajal on her writing skills!

I think a subject like this could never be sugar-coated, yet should be brought to the foreground nonetheless.

There are, and will always be, people who will sink to such low irrespective of identities. What gets me is: what is going through the mind of a person like Shakeel?

I mean he has a wife, so it can`t be sexual deprivation. If it IS sexual deprivation, then in a Muslim society he can take more wives. In a secular society, today many a women are willing to be one-night stands or just sexual friends without any strings attached. Not to mention prostitutes are in abundance in every society.

Although I`m not sure, but from readings the Pharoas, Roman and Greeks et al bedded their mothers and sisters mostly for power or wealth.

What drives a common person like Shakeel to molest his own progeny - children, grandchildren, nephews, nieces...etc???

BTW Urstruly, I like the question you`ve put forth here. Let`s see how many of them it takes to figure out the question and compose an intelligent answer without starting another tangent. I mean Saminasha and temporal is already getting personal...lol

3: As said before (perhaps in reponse to miriamk), I could not afford to invest time on this issue. This is big issue as you may be able to ascertain from my initial post. And you may have seen my post #149 by now.

4: Au contraire, YOU, dear lad, started this mud-slinging. Below is a proof of your incitement:

``sir:

i recall you mentioning you`re a father of 2 or 3 adolescent daughters... i would be interested in learning your answer to urstruly`s query?

rgds``

Go ahead, take the ``no habla inglés, señor`` line....LOL

Or is it going to be ``ohhh....that.....I didn`t mean it that way....I swear on my healthy mother`s grave``?

You insult to an IDIOT!

Re: # 149
Now the question is:

how could anyone implement the values acquired/borrowed from religion and yet reject/modify the religion simultaneously?
This question is rhetorical.Why not?
In my value system, it is necessary to not have a dogmatic view of religion, or of anything. An iterative process for modification and review is vital. Please note that I am not rejecting religion, but the ``religiosity`` of religion.But thats just me.
Coming back to the issue of csa, I think interactors have given enough reasons why it is wrong even with the pain and risk of pregnancy removed.

Re: # 150
Mr NtFakeSyed, Your attempts at humor as always fall flat and are predictably pathetic.
Nevertheless, I have decided to make peace with you especially in light of Ana`s post.

I offer Peace, and hope civility will reign supreme between us.

Wa alikum us Salam, I wont callyou NtfakeSyed any more.

Re: # 143 & 144 by ShoreSahib

Your desperate brethren in the Madrassahs are fond of the equine variety as well, as well as Bovine asses, and whatever else they can get their grubby paws on.

I see you`ve been taking care of the desperation in some Madrassahs of the devaint mullahs in many costumes and enjoying every inch of it too.

Good for you

LOL

:-)~~

Re: # 122 by rahul_capri

I don`t think anyone caught on to RC`s post #122:

If somebody makes a cursory glance of secular jurisprudence ,(not that it is labelled in this way, but just to differentiate from Islamic jurisprudence of Quran and Sunnah) , religion,custom,tradition and norms are actually the biggest source of laws. So, the basic mistake being made here is thinking of secular value system as totally exclusive from religion.

I think that`s what Urstruly asked, i.e. why does one feel disgusted at such acts and labels it vile?

Then, as Ustruly and HP clarified that if the anguish and physical pain are removed from the equation, then there shouldn`t be anything wrong with incest or sex with consenting children.

They also aptly pointed out that these reactions are not innate, rather they are acquired. For example, recently there was a sex scandal in Pictairn Island. Six men (including the mayor) were ``charged with a string of sex offences, including rape and indecent assault, on girls as young as 12.``
But
``Their supporters had condemned the prosecutions, saying consensual sex with young girls was commonplace.``

Later they were convicted by a court, primarily based on Christian beliefs and laws.

Also, if one studies anthropology, even in 20th century there were (and may still exist) tribes in Africa where the tribal leaders assign young boys to married men in order to control the population growth of a hunter-gatherer society.

That is, it`s not a big deal in those two cultures. Rather it`s a ``normal`` part of their lives.

So the reason WE, as in ALL of us, feel outraged on this issue is because we`ve been trained to feel that way.

However, In their infinite arrogant ignorance, the self-proclaimed enlightened liberals are either completely oblivious to it,

or

failed to make this connection deliberately to defend their liberal/secular/enlightened/whatever-else-kind-of-stupid moral high ground they feel they may be on.

Now the question is who trained us and why?

Some (not amongst the usual suspects, and they know who they are) have already pointed it out that most of us learn these values from our cultures, and cultures are heavily influenced by religions, even the atheist ones.

Because,

before any of the sciences and scientists evolved, GOD told us that such things are wrong....through His messengers (peace be upon them all) - the ones these ``brain-washed dumbos, the aSSpiring neocons`` wantonly discredit whenever it suits their agenda.

The secularly numbed lot CANNOT recognize the reality that the values they claim to hold as ``ENLIGHTENED SECULARISM`` are acquired/borrowed from the very RELIGIONS they denounce as the ``biggest hoax``. And that`s because they understand/project religion as a set of rituals that vary from place to place, not as a WAY OF LIFE.

Read the history for yourselves.

If it wasn`t for the God-sent religion, i.e. Islam – the perfect and most natural way of life from Adam to Mohammad (peace be upon them),

Most, if not ALL, of the women would still be possessions of their sexual masters – MEN of wealth and power.

Some of those women would have a little bit more to spend on themselves but they would have no power whatsoever, except that of their vaginal prowess while they’re young.

If I remember correctly, in the ancient Greek culture, a woman`s age did not start until the day her vagina was bought by a man.

Children and common Man wouldn`t be better off either, and most of them would be expendable slaves – sub-humans if considered human at all.

Men would molest, rape, abuse children with impunity.

Racism and caste systems would still be strong.

In fact these things are happening today, as we speak. The only reason such abhorant situation is rapidly worsening today in every society is due to minimization of faith and religion. The perpetrators, legislators, judiciary, and law-enforcement forget/deny the Existence of God and His Ultimate Justice. They entice the self-proclaimed ``educated liberals`` with wealth and physical comfort to propagate separation of religion and state, when it can`t be. Consequently, the masses are forced to into illiteracy and destitution through various means and into following the man-made laws that benefit the top few and the left-overs are distributed amongst their propagandists who claim to be ``westernized and educated liberals``.

Interestingly, the latter first assists in de-valuing the society by denouncing the religion as too prohibitive, and when the crap hits the fans, this same group tries to bring back those very values albeit as ``non-religious liberal`` ones..........LOL

Anyway, they only kid themselves that they - the seculars or liberals or atheists - are more enlightened than religiously inclined people because the latter appreciates the 7th century Arabian Islam for its practicality. At the end of the day, THE FORMER SHARES THE THE LATTER`S VALUES that BOTH OF THEM learned from prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him). That`s the cause of the knots forming in the former`s stomachs when they read/her about child abuse, molestation, incest, etc. The only difference is that they deny where they learned it from.

For crying out loud, even on this portal they`re afraid to call a spade as what it is. They only know religion-bashing. That`s all. Other than that if one of them says something wrong, their ilk becomes accomplice with their silence. Similarly, they never have the conscience or the guts to applaud whenever a religiously inclined person says something right, which is more often the case.

Now the question is:

how could anyone implement the values acquired/borrowed from religion and yet reject/modify the religion simultaneously?

Does it make sense?

What would be thier point of reference to legislate the laws?

Can they take the “I/we said so” approach?”

The moment that approach is taken, EVERY one is going to try to have his/her ideas imposed on the masses...........as is the case today.

Meanwhile the plight of common person worsens...............as is the case today with this incessant bickering.

That`s exactly my problem with the AJ`s of the Liberal gutter. Everyone is up in arms about her shirt being ripped while NONE, NO ONE...NADA...ZILCH...ZERO of the liberals had anything to say about 12 and 15yo girls being ripped apart by gang-rapists with impunity.

Why?

Because these news are brought here by ``abdul-hates``? And then they have the audacity to berate the abdul hates because they`re not yapping on and on about the delusional remedial thoughts of the liberal kind?

Talk about resurgence of Jahiliya!

True Islam is the ONLY WAY out of this mess.

The wise will believe it and work to solve the problems.

The perpetually lost - maghdhoob and dhualleen - will continue YappING and keep getting even more lost in their abysmal misery they call ``enlightened philosophy/ideology``.


:-)~~

there are interactors on this board who have responded both to what urstruly and HP have said without actually referring to them as ``abdul-hates``, and have given opinions contrary to theirs. since there are those who want to run their fine narrow-teethed combs through these posts, not for the sake of discussing the issues, but for insulting specific interactors, i would suggest reading through these again. the posts that say that incest and CSA are not alien to most cultures, the ones where we have engaged in dialogue with both the above interactors without resorting to giving them labels. i know that i have time and time again objected to this particular label known as ``abdul-hates`` and the interactor who uses this is well aware of it to where i don`t have to hammer a ``tava`` on his head every single time.

if some of us do not respond directly to what these gentleman say it is because there is an ``understanding`` between us to not interact with one another, one that has been established from previous interactions. this has not meant that we cannot interact on the same board and refer to what each other has said in a civil critical manner which is what some of us have attempted to do here.

so yeah circling wagons around interactors, ``friends``, etcetera is fine, but this is not really about temporal, or urstruly, or HP, or should i say this has not been about stroking their egos. the issues here are bigger than all of them and more than a few of us have been cognizant of that. we haven`t had to resort to gross generalizations in jest or seriousness, and we haven`t had to resort to labelling and putting people in a box, and we haven`t come to this board just to insult interactors we have huge ideological disagreements with (in case you`re forgetting who the ``we`` is here it is the more than a few of us, not all of us). giving people a taste of their own medicine does not necessarily affect the person one is giving that taste to, it is primarily for the giver`s own satisfaction. and the givers are well aware of that. there are still interactors on chowk who appear on boards to discuss issues, and if all this sounds like ``liberal righteousness`` then perhaps you are unable to hear the tone of righteousness that emanates from your not-so-``liberal`` (another label i have a problem with) posts.

i have a feeling we have reached a point where discussion has ended and insults will increase as they do on every board, and i hope that is not the case.

#140:

1: i do not call you and others low lifes or names...insecuristas and abdul-hates are generic symbols of a certain decadent and regressive outlook across religious lines not aimed at any particular individuals...

2: no body forced you to interact here... you came here becasue sajil wrote a short story on incest...did you read it?...did you comment on the subject mattert?...you just parachuted to comment on a comment on a comment...and then you merrily started talking about tangents...

3: while taking pot shots at other participants you have studioulsy and for reasons Allah knows best ...refrained and avoided the subject at hand...why?

4: based on your interacts on this thread you are focussed on throwing mud rather than contribute to the discussion at hand hence my conclusion speculating on your irrelevancy here

good day!

t

Escapist,

Careful. Most of us generally ignore Echoboom, Urs and Nyet Sahib because it is clear that they are cartoons.

HP has proven himself to be capable of participating within the realm of reason, even though I found various inconsistancies and inaccuracies in his points. I just prefer not to address every flare shot out.

If you`d like, we can start with your cyber behavior. Were you not posting the real names of chowk interactors online last week?

Please explain to us your ethical framework, coward.

Dotty, lookie here
This piece wouldnt qualify as pornography by any standards.
http://cybertip.ca/en/cybertip/incident_types/
Your point is valid about how to make this more effective, though.

Re: # 143
Actually, correction:

Your desperate brethren in the Madrassahs are fond of the equine variety as well, as well as Bovine asses, and whatever else they can get their grubby paws on.

LOL

Ta Ta

Re: # 141

Mr NtFakeSyed,

Since you are enjoying the idea so much of things blowing up my ass, you better come out of the closet.

and dont give me the Schpeel on you being married and blah blah blah.

Your brethren in the Madrassahs everywhere are very fond of asses, and I am not talking about the equine variety.

Shalom

Re: # 132 by escapist

May Allah bless you for your aim...you always hit the Bull`s Eye.

But don`t hold your breath for a response from these guys.


:-)~~