The Ultimate Betrayal

Incest is the dark reality that no one wants to face. Since it is one topic which no one wants to face, there hasn`t been alot of research done on it in Pakistan. Even if it IS done, general masses know nothing about them. I am sure there is a psychological explanition as to WHY people indulge into something so HEDIOUS and WHAT drives them to the lowest lows of sickness a human can possibly fall to. What are the causes of incest? How can we identify them and then remove them so that our next generation does not fall victim to such sickness.

Thank you Sajal, for encouraging discussion on another extremely important subject, sexual abuse of children, and specifically incest. This article is presented in an effective way, because it shows that for the victim and the sex offender, because of confusion and distortion, sometimes there is a fine line between sex, child sexual molestation and incest.

A lot of people don`t even want to talk about child molestation by strangers, let alone incest. It`s a very taboo subject. When the molester knows that the victim is not likely to tell anyone, it encourages his criminal behavior even more.

It is a very realistic article. And the sex offender does not stop. The element of God and religion also hints at loss of faith, which feels like abandonment by God, making the victim feel even more powerless and even suicidal. The damage done by child sexual molestation and particularly by incest, breaks the person in ways which usually cannot be healed in one lifetime. I have seen people able to remove such pain from the roots, at http://higherpurpose.com where I have been a volunteer for a dozen years

FWIW, Pinky Virani’s Bitter Chocolate: Child Sexual Abuse in India may be relevant to the stuff discussed here. I haven’t read it – just saw it in a bookstore, am passing it on.

So this is how the seculars out-number the religious folks.

Is it a secular flaw or religious that seculars never thought religious nuts could figure it out?


RD, the dead meat was dead to begin with, and that was the whole point. You can still have the last word if it makes you feel better.

:-)~~

Sorry for late reply

miriamk (#322)

Dear sis, I think in your haste you didn`t pay proper attention to the story.
1. US law is not purely secular in its current form, as several have demonstrated here
2. the boy never accused his father of neglect or abuse or anything. please try to see the source of his dilemma
3. he didn`t WANT authorities involved lest he was separated from his remaining parent
4. the father did not commit any crime to justify forced rehabilitation by state

Pakistan: under the tutelage of Great White Sharks, Pakistani judiciary is like the haathi k daant - khanay kay aur, aur dikhanay k aur. The Shar`ia court can be and is overruled by the secular court, not that it is properly used anyway. So you can`t dump the Pakistani ills on Islam either.

Nevertheless, I`m glad to see your acknowledgment that ``we`` (including seculars) have failed the children; you seem to be the only secular courageous enough to accept some blame. On the other hand, I think you`re more conservative than you claim to be. You`re secularly-religious as opposed to some religiously-secular here :-)~~

This board is pretty good representative of global socio-political picture. Please try to see how we`ve failed the children, for that matter women, minorities et al.

We`ve failed them because we believe that our Creator`s Instructions are NOT the best instructions for us, hence deviated from the path He has given us to live this life. We believe that we have enough intelligence to fathom everything about everything on our own, where the reality is that we cannot even tell what would happen in the next minute. We can only guess such a short future. We`ve forgotten that we`re not here for eternity.

Interestingly, when we get on a plane we follow all the instructions for a safe and as comfortable a journey as possible for all aboard. Not all the passengers experience same comfort, or do they?

But when it comes to life, we ignore the Instructions and try to rearrange everything around us to have more comfort and security than already built-in for us. And the result is exploding all over right before us, and there`s nothing we can do change any of that.

In our arrogance we`re only trying to reinvent the wheel of humanity, like so many before us. We`ll also die sooner than we think, just like they did. Only Allah and His Books remain.

Allah knew we could never reach a viable solution without a viable solution for every individual affected by it for the simple reason that He has created us ``unique``. While we`re bickering on definitions and statistics, the women, children, and the less-fortunate continue to suffer.

That`s why He gave us the Instructions; sent prophets to demonstrate to us that the books are meant for humans and the way it should be followed. These Instructions started from Adam (PBUH) and are according to the purpose of every single thing in this life as well as their strengths and weakness. I hope you`ll snap out of this oxymoronic state of secularism and religion side by side. You`re smarter than that, I hope.

The rest is between you and Allah.


hamidm2 (#323):

Based on what you`ve told us about your mamoo, cousin, brother, they`ve only demonstrated an imbalance as was the case with the 13yo boy`s father. If you wish we can discuss each of those cases individually or collectively and inshaAllah I`ll highlight their delinquencies. Meanwhile, I hope you can see that the 13yo boy was failed by system while the three men you`ve mentioned failed on their own.

The only difference between you and Taliban ilk is that they follow whatever little bit they know, and you follow as much as you don`t know. The only thing you do know is to shift the blame on everyone and never accept your mistakes like Dubya.

:-)~~

Romair#368:

``I have no agenda……``

We all have viewpoints/agendas, some more transparent than others. Hopefully, these viewpoints get modified with interaction. Mine have.

``I have mentioned polygamy and polyandry together, in my replies``

I cannot claim to have read all your posts either here or on other threads. Of the sample of several specific examples that I have read, your illustrations are ALWAYS one husband and multiple wives, but I am sorry if I have missed the opposite examples cited by you.

``I am looking at justice, as a philosophy. At a philosophical level, justice should not be affected by any kind of activism that tries to distort the principles it is founded on.``

There is no philosophy set in stone, then it will become a dogma. I do not understand what you mean by activism. It is the job of the legislators and to discuss these things and make changes when needed. Even secularism is not set in stone. The US is secular but there is the ubiquitous ``In God we trust``. India is probably one of the few countries where the word secular is in the constitution but that too is subject to interpretation and amendments; some people think that it should mean a uniform civil code, while others are opposed to it. And the Indian constitution has been amended almost fifty times. Perhaps the only criterion is that justice should be applied equally, and even this is not always true in turbulent times.

``People are allowed to practice anything they want, even if the majority society considers it wrong and deviant. The criteria used is, whether it is harmful to the society.``

This may be the society that you want but I am not aware of any such society.

``In case of Sati, the same criteria should be applied…………``

See, where your logic has taken you? And who is going to decide which religion is valid? Should a religion be considered valid because it has been around for a long time and has a large following? A small group of people may form a cult/religion and call whatever they want their religion. A perfect recipe for anarchy!

NewKid:
not a bad effort at being satirical though you were recycling some pretty dead-meat dead meat.

cheers.

Romairian pearls of wisdom :
``You can live with three women and have sexual relations with all three. But if you marry all three, even with consent, you go to jail.........Go figure!! The exact opposite of the sodomy example........``

The way i was arguing and on that basis You extrapolating, i got this to figure out? OK. Yes, polygamy And polyandry be allowed if the line is drawn on Conesnting Adults. Now, the problem is Only Mormons and women who continue to justify their opressors in the name of Mohammad/Religion/Blah will be going to get into a Polygamous marriage. (this is my speculation).

Answer is: Yes, All types of unions should be allowed and next of kin rights should be granted based on Not what State considers to be an Appropriate Relationship but what Individuals choose on their Own. (ofcourse we draw the line already on consenting adults).

Was that so hard to figure out on your own, Mr. Romair?

PS: USA/Loony-liberals/whatever is irrelevant to this debate.

multiple wives are most certainly allowed in hinduism. most rajas would have multple wivews. however, the example set by ``ideal`` man rama of haveing only one wife is extolled as a virtue.

Re: # 369

I don`t understand why this is a religious issue?

Is any rapist following a religion?

Child abuse and incest happens among all social, ethnic and religious groups. It would be blind to believe that only ``OTHER`` folks have problems

Dost-mittar #365: “You have successfully taken the discussion away from the topic to serve your own agenda.”

There are already enough self-appointed chowkidars on this site, who feel they have a right to decide what should and should not be discussed. I have always found such individuals to be quite arrogant. Please don’t add yourself to that list. I am discussing everything exactly within the factors that I see to be the most important, regarding this issue, i.e. the legal system…….You can skip over my remarks. But do not pass judgement on my intentions. I never pass judgement on yours. Having said that, I believe you addressed me on this thread, first. I wasn’t the one who addressed you…….

I have no agenda…….Though I can tell that some of my comments are making you uncomfortable……….One should not shy away from such discussions. One should confront them……..

“You consistently give the example of more than one wives and not more than one husband.”

I have mentioned polygamy and polyandry together, in my replies. The specific example I gave is because the next challenge to marriage, being prepared, relates to polygamy, not to polyandry…….

“This is only partly true. The justice system is meant only to implement laws impartially, not to make them.”

You are looking at the current judicial systems in place. Based on which your comments are correct. I am looking at justice, as a philosophy. At a philosophical level, justice should not be affected by any kind of activism that tries to distort the principles it is founded on. Whatever those principles maybe, should be followed consistently. Regardless of what the majority thinks…….

“What you say is true only if the religious practices are acceptable to the society;”

Actually, this is not correct. Acceptance of the society, has nothing to do with it. People are allowed to practice anything they want, even if the majority society considers it wrong and deviant. The criteria used is, whether it is harmful to the society. That is what needs to be proven. Along with consent and age. If acceptance was the only criteria, then Ahmedis will never be declared Muslims. In case of Sati, the same criteria should be applied…………

If you can consider the fact that perhaps I don’t have an agenda, I will consider the fact that you don’t have one either. And perhaps we can both learn something……….So, hopefully, no more conspiracy theories, from your side……….

#365 DM you are perceptive ;-)

Romair#363:

``Justice is supposed to be blind. It is not supposed to, by design, be affected by popular opinion. In fact, the whole purpose of an efficient judicial system is to ensure that the individual rights of a person are protected, even against the majority view. Hence, justice systems should have nothing to do with what the majority thinks or does not think.``

This is only partly true. The justice system is meant only to implement laws impartially, not to make them. Judicial activism in countries as varied as India and the U.S is trying to change this, but basically, judicial system is only supposed to interpret laws passed by the majority and if the majority disagrees with its interpretation, it can always change the laws and the judiciary would have no option to go along. For example, when India`s highest court ruled in favour of the Shah Bano case, all the government had to do was to pass a new bill. If tomorrow, Canada passes a law against homosexuality, courts will have to go along.

``Similarly, secularism, as philosophy, by design, is supposed to protect the rights of an individual, along religious lines, regardless of what the majority religion dictates``

Not really! Do you think that a Hindu should have a right to practice sati, even if it was voluntary just because Canada is a secular state? What you say is true only if the religious practices are acceptable to the society; as an example both male and female circumcision may involve mutilation of the body - but the society has decided that one is acceptable while the other is not.

``specifically since, two women living with a man and having sex with him is not considered illegal. At best, it can just be considered deviant behaviour by the majority…… ``

You consistently give the example of more than one wives and not more than one husband. If the society ever legalises polygamy, it will not be according to your religious belief. Your wife, or more likely your son, may also have to live with other husbands.

You have successfully taken the discussion away from the topic to serve your own agenda. As of now, child sex abuse is reprehensible, morally, legally and according to all religious tenets. The question is how can we get the South Asian society to accept the fact that it exists and how to fight it.

slan:

``The only possible compromise is where the state doesnt interfere in religion,and lets people of every faith follow what they think is right for them. i think India is an example``

This is not true. Only Muslims are allowed to follow their civil law and that too in civil matters. Hindus and Sikhs, for example, are not allowed to have more than one wives, although allowed by their religions nor are they allowed to deprive their daughters equal right to inheritence according to their religion and custom.

Re: # 365
DM
Thats news to me.I was unaware that polgamy is allowed in hindu and sikh religions.

Re: # 363
``There is no logical and uniform basis of ethics in the world that applies under all conditions and is accepted by everyone………``
Romair,i think this last line of yours sums it all up.Their can either be a value system based on religion(any) where one has no authority to question the rules,its all laid out and followed,or at the other extreme is a system which will continously change in the light of new definitions of freedom.The only possible compromise is where the state doesnt interfere in religion,and lets people of every faith follow what they think is right for them. i think India is an example(however this system is ridden with its own problems)

Ana, I hope I have not offended you,I only wanted to leave you and everyone else on the board with a thought.

Dost-Mittar/Jang #: Justice is supposed to be blind. It is not supposed to, by design, be affected by popular opinion. In fact, the whole purpose of an efficient judicial system is to ensure that the individual rights of a person are protected, even against the majority view. Hence, justice systems should have nothing to do with what the majority thinks or does not think. On most issues, this is how the justice system works in the West. However, on some issues, as Dost-mittar pointed out, it still sways with the wind. This is a weakness in the system….

Similarly, secularism, as philosophy, by design, is supposed to protect the rights of an individual, along religious lines, regardless of what the majority religion dictates. As an example, if Pakistan were secular, Ahmedis would be considered Muslims, by the State. Even though, an overwhelming majority of the population of Pakistan, at a personal level, does consider them non-Muslims. There isn’t a single political party in Pakistan, which considers them Muslims. However, the courts would rule in the favour of Ahmedis, regardless of what the majority thinks.

The point being, judiciary should have nothing to do with majority opinions……..It is supposed to rely only on proof and on consistently following one principal – whatever that principal maybe (in the West it is secularism and individual rights)……..

Gay marriage and sexual unions of any kind should be legal in the above-mentioned two systems. It is really a no-brainer. In a secular system, one cannot ban gay marriage, incestual marriage, polygamy, polyandry, etc. based on the majority’s religious beliefs. In a system that protects individual rights, one cannot ban them; unless it is proven that they harm the society. So far, on this site, no one has been able to provide a single argument on why they harm society. I cannot provide one either, even though, I oppose both incest and gay marriage. Neither can the 50% of the Canadians and the higher % of the Americans, who oppose it……….Which is why, if consistent judicial principles are followed, and not affected by majority opinions, all of the above would be legal in Canada……..

This brings us to polygamy. If you can prove that it will harm women’s rights then it would be illegal. However, I don’t see how that can be proven. When something is made legal, it doesn’t mean, the State is forcing everyone to practice it. It means that it is allowing the tiny minority, who wants to practice it, the right to practice it, because the practice isn’t harming society, in general.

I read somewhere that individuals in Utah, where Mormons live, are going to push the legality of polygamy, based on the same argument as the legality of gay marriage. Once the courts decide that they can redefine marriage, I think the argument would become valid. Someone would have to prove that two adult women consensually marrying one adult man is harmful to the society. Proof is not based on majority views. Could you highlight how it harms women’s rights; specifically since, two women living with a man and having sex with him is not considered illegal. At best, it can just be considered deviant behaviour by the majority……

Incest falls into the same category. However, I don’t think it will be legal, because hardly anyone is interested in it. Hence no one will push its legalization, on the basis of individual rights. However, there are groups interested in polygamy. Personally speaking, I am against homosexuality, gay marriage, incest, incestual marriage, and polygamy (other than in very minor cases, where the woman may herself want to indulge in it, because she wants to certain legal rights, which she will not get as a divorcee). But if I were to go to a court in Canada, which truly practiced blind justice, I don’t think I could win my case, since I don’t know how I could prove that anyone consensually practicing the above, is doing any harm to me…….

There is no logical and uniform basis of ethics in the world that applies under all conditions and is accepted by everyone………