The Ultimate Betrayal

Re: # 140
[NOT ONE, NADA, ZILCH, ZERO! ]

HALLELUJAH!!!
nutty IS boomboom...;)

Re: # 167

a lady can`t ever be wrong ...

main vohi hun momin-e-mubtala
tumhen yaad ho no ke yaad ho

#149 by ntsyed

Wow! nt,
I had a little party last night (drinks were good and people were happy) I woke up late and almost dropped my Bacardi O Coffee on my lap after reading your gyrations.
nt, When I agreed with Urstruly about religions being the source of customs that determined incest etc to be unacceptable behaviors in the society. I was merely stating that “as I know it” religion(s) did provide that framework to our society and I just did not feel that it would be right to take that away from religions. (Though, it was I think, Christianity which came out against incest and Islam just amended it to take away the cousin restriction for whatever reason) I don’t read about religions a whole lot now as to me it is a total waste of time. But it does not mean that I have not read about them at all.
I have read JI literature during my college days and then I read some Christian literature too. The political Islam that you and Echoboom preach here is inspired by JI and it was interesting for me to find out that most of the Maulana Maudoodi literature and books were Islamized, urduized copies of Christian Science monitor publications and afterwards, if I needed to know something about the JI stand on some issue, I would just look up the Christian Science literature.

What you say here first, is not original and can be commonly found on different CS books and magazines. Second, you are just assuming that atheist, agnostic, liberals, and secularist deny religion`s existing influence in our society. They don’t.

A long time ago religions were or in your case, Islam was the new kid on the block-Islam borrowed some from other religions and some it developed based on the society it was being preached too. Islam had its share of opposition and Islamic ideas were considered too heretic for the society.
Islam was not alone, Christian ideas and before that Jewish ideas were treated the same way. This world unfortunately, is too steeped in its own ways that new ideas are opposed and rejected right away and often off handedly because new ideas sometimes attack the old belief systems or ask people to think about something they have been set into for a long time. Take for example, the stem cell research issue; all religious scholars vehemently oppose it as stem cell research attacks their basic belief system. Cloning is yet another area that draws immediate howls from the religious community and that includes all religions.

Societies go thru changes and they are inevitable. Things that religions preached are and will continue to be challenged. Changes and new ideas emerge from the old ideas very few have come up with original ideas and people build on existing ideas.

If I accept that religions were first to provide framework for unacceptable behaviors, it does not mean that I endorse a religion or in your case Islam. It was not Islam that determined the unacceptable behavior and , Islam also borrowed it from some other source of knowledge and in this case most likely from the Christianity or Jewish thoughts. (Why not follow the original religion then).

One right idea from religions does not mean that ALL ideas that religions present are accurate and should be accepted w/o question. Not all people follow horde mentality. There are people in this world that would question everything, think of new ideas, reject old ideas and would attempt to create a world which is at least safe for our children.
Religions have no way of preventing incest or child molestation. Religions may say that CSA is an unacceptable behavior but people who may believe in religion or not, are the ones who come up with ideas, punishments, and a system to prevent that behavior. You may call them liberals, secularists, atheist or agnostics or whatever but these are the same people who look to change the society by accepting ideas that lead to human progress. Religions, if they continue to remain a personal matter and don’t interfere in society’s progress are acceptable but the minute religions attempt to impose their often hideous ideas on a society, religions become a political ideology and they will be attacked like any other political thought and idea.

People respect religions but when you bring religion in the political arena to challenge other competing thoughts, attacks on religions are fair game though IMO, still in bad taste.

Re: # 165


hp,

``People respect religions but when you bring religion in the political arena to challenge other competing thoughts, attacks on religions are fair game though IMO, still in bad taste. ``

........... speak for yourself ........ respect for religion is like having respect for pedophilia and fascism - organized religion is an ill wind that does not blow good for anyone or anything ......... in this battle for ``freedom from religion`` we have to learn to drop such niceties l- just like the other side ..............

sometimes if some of us are silent, it does not mean that we have not caught on to a particular post. i think any of us who disagree that a secular value system is completely divorced from tradition or religion is not entirely aware of the value system they embrace. but for 149`s own purposes of reasoning he left out the rest of rahul`s post regarding equity, and ironing out differences. . .

post #149 goes on to describe islam as the most perfect religion, and i have no doubt that it is for those who truly believe. but then he gives a list of things that would not have changed had islam not entered the picture, and forgive me but slavery did not end immediately in islamic societies. racism or bigotry did not, and has not ended in islamic societies. women are still controlled by men in islamic societies. just as all these things were pervasive in christian societies and still are, as well as other societies.

the reason i object to the lot of us being put in a box of being secular and liberal, is because i do not know that i am either of those things. i have said before that my worldview and my outlook on life has been shaped by my christian upbringing, and what i have gotten from studying and at one time practising the tenets of my faith. how i choose to follow what i believe in does not necessarily jive with the more orthodox view perhaps (like elder zosima`s doesn`t in dostoevsky`s ``the brothers karamazov``), but i am not like those street preachers who only come out in fair weather and proceed to tell everyone who does not believe that they are going to be subjected to fire and brimstone. i am not talking about this out of defensiveness, but out of the fact that both christianity and islam from what i understand have this admonition, for lack of a better word, that judgment is not for us to proclaim, that those who pronounce judgments bring judgment upon themselves, and therefore we need to be careful in our triumphalism. now either islam has this, or it doesn`t, but that is what i understood when i sat through islamiyat classes eons ago at school in lahore. and the triumphalism on the part of the ``secularists`` makes me feel no less uncomfortable.

yes, our revulsion at incest, or rape camps, or sexual abuse, or any kind of abuse for that matter is influenced by what we have acquired or learned and no that is not divorced completely from religion. but we all did not acquire this from one religion or tradition or philosophy. as rahul said secular laws are about equity and ironing out the differences between various religions and traditions. . . not about adhering to the one true faith. what those who would seek to impose utter religiosity on their governments and their lands fail to see is precisely the same point the secularists are accused of: that secular laws are not completely divorced from tradition, be it roman, christian, islamic, enlightenment, post-french revolution, what have you, and that the religiosity of the state does not always iron out the differences, it has more often than not rejected and excised difference altogether.

i know that issues of cultural relativism have been raised here, and even that is problematic, because to always give the example of africa or other ``tribal`` societies puts our own ethnocentrism into question, and critiquing or invoking africa for its cultural traditions has applied to both ``secularists`` and ``religionists`` alike.

i think amrita has spoken much more eloquently on this than i have, but suffice it to say that what has come out of this story, which again is not childlove, but CSA, is something that has not been exclusive to secularists, atheists or those some of us confer the title of kafir on. it has also been part of the world of roman catholic priests and muslim maulvis. and calling for the imposition of the one true faith or the imposition of the one true faith is not going to put an end to abuse.

Re: # 160

kisan,

... excellent post .....

..........the notion that without guidance from some supernatural being dwelling in the clouds, and peridocally talking to schizophrenic men in the middle east, mankind would have dengenerated into a pack of incestous animals is downright silly and demeaning .........

...........contrary to the self righteous claims of the rabid religious fanatics, the voice in the clouds has, more often than not, contributed to murder and myhem and incest and child molestation ............ as you have correctly pointed out, the damned scriptures have often provided support for horrible practices like slavery, incest and child molestation............ as adults we ``know`` that it is our duty to protect the children and we don`t need divine revelation to tell us that ...........

#152, #156
Rahul, Amrita

Nicely articulated. There are many persons of faith (myself included) who do not wish to partake of the dogma but are content having a personal relationship with God. We don’t feel we have to brandish our beliefs at all junctures of life.

When any ideology (not just religion) is put forth as a zero-sum game the result is usually exclusivity. And I think, just like diversity, inclusivity is a worthier goal.

Ana
#148

You are absolutely right. Discussion is vital on this issue. I said this in an earlier post and I’ll say it again, ideological differences aside most of us should be able to agree such abuse is heinous. This shouldn’t turn into a values framework/paradigm contest or an interminable “us” vs “them” argument.

Post #52 HP wrote:

``I think you are missing the point urstruly is articulating. His question is fairly simple. Under what value system would you oppose the father and daughter sexual relations? His contention is that only religion(s) provides that framework or the value system, which forbids the incest relationship. Since secular or liberal have no code written or otherwise to guide the society on this behavior. ``

I haven`t read through this full thread yet so I`m not sure what response was given to this point. However this is a standard point from religious preachers I am familiar with and have thought through the answer.
This is the point that unless there is Absolute morality from God then how can there be any standard that applies to all. This is problematic because there are many competing religions all with differing moralities laid out and all claim to be from God and Absolute and complete and that the others are either false or incomplete or abrogated by their religion.
So as final answers to moral questions religions are problematic.
However most major religions outlaw incest it is true. However not all, some cult-leaders build their own religions which they indoctinate their family members to have sex with them using some rationalisation. For example David Koresh is supposed to have been into that.
His cult was also called by him and his followers as a religion.

Anyhow, in regards to how do people not claiming an Absolute Divine religion justify say prohibiting incest and allowing gay relationships?

Quite easily. Adults are different from children for one and incest is generally with children who are not at the age to be mature enough to choose sexual partners and even have sexual feelings. Pedophiles mistake affection as sexual behaviour. Secondly incest is unhealthy for the offspring as they will be genetically inferior. Thirdly it abuses trust and a powerful relationship and is an unequal relationship.
Anyhow these are all reasons without an absolute basis as religion gives. However the general principle behind it is the rule of would you like it to be done to you? This is the principle underlying the conscience of someone who doesn`t take their rules from a religion but from thinking things through.
I wouldn`t like to be enslaved or raped therefore I create laws to make these things illegal. I wouldn`t like to be murdered therefore I make murder a crime. I wouldn`t like to be physically forced or coerced into anything I don`t want therefore violent coercion is made illegal. Children are understood as immature and protected from sexual predators including Dads, Uncles, family friends etc.
Same thing applies with Gay sex. However when mature if members of the same sex wish to have relationships without applying force then in case mutually acceptable we accept that choice. They are adults. If old men want to have sex with underage boys we make that criminal as the child hasn`t reached the age of physical or emotional maturity.
We value avoiding exploitative relationships on ourselves so we make laws to allow that for all children.

Islam doesn`t stress this and marrying a prepubescent girl was the Sunnah set as example. A six year old girl playing with toys found herself married to a 50+ year old man. Keeping slaves was allowed and practised. No empathy guiding law creation rather Allahs arbitrary and self-proclaimed Absolute laws. Having sex with slave women legal but women having sex with anyone other than husband or a master if they are a slave illegal and punishable by stoning to death. Again Allahs arbitrary and Absolute laws which just happened to coincide with the slave owning, slave making recipients of Allahs revelation.
Some don`t believe these were the revelations of the Absolute but self-serving concoctions. In the absence of a big loud voice from the clouds laws created by men and women and the framework they reach by debate and consensus stress rights for all and free choice as long as it doesn`t take away the freedom of others.

amrita:

good post

raw-dust:

and yours sir would qualify you to be called liberal-commie-secular-hellbound etc etc

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

#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.

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

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: # 153

ntsyed,

...... as a late comer to this rather disgusting discussion, i have only one thing to say : child molestation and incest is a sickening practice any way you look at it and does not require any particular religious or secular code to be defined as an abomination ............ children are not adults and the question of consent does not apply to them ............ contrary to the beliefs of the mullahs, a nine or ten year old cannot willingly go to bed with a fifty year old man, regardless of weter he is a pauper or prophet ........ as for incest - temporal has asked a very valid question and if you cannot give a clear yes or no answer to that then you are beyond reprieve ........ i know that in bedouin culture incest is defined rather loosely, but i think we all know the definition ..........

............. i know you guys are trying to defend a religious tradition, but some traditions are not worth defending - so drop it ................