The Ultimate Betrayal

ntsyed and romair, its heartening to see you guys trying to rationalize religion,not Islam, but religion. Specially ntsyeds defence of religion has a lot of straw mans, but if religious guys can get off the high horse of ``religion is divinely mandated and who are we to question it`` and ``my religion is best``, and talk about the importance of religion in our life and of that in providing an ethical framework. we will have a lot of common ground than you will realize.This is what I have maintained from my first post on this board. This way you will serve both Gods better,yours and mine.Religion will have a lot of positives to offer, if the fear factor is removed. I know this is where we will differ, but in my opinion it is the fear factor which allows fundoos to misuse religion and atheists to reject it.We will talk about it later,probably on some other board.
Thanks.

dm #293 This is indeed another example of the absurdities prevalent in Pakistan`s legal structure as a result of maintaning two sets of laws (one inherited from brits in the form of the Pakistan penal code, and another from arabs/turks in the form of sharia law) without any application of common sense or responsible judgement has messed up the Pakistani legal system.

This lack of common sense and irresponsible behavior hiding behind a smoke screen of pseudo-intellectual moral relativisms and bombastic but hollow phrases (``Islamic law``, ``National Interest``) is of course Romairism writ large in Pakistan.

HP #278 Actually Adam and Eve were not really siblings, but the question I have was: who the hell did their two famous sons, Abel and Cain marry??

I checked what the Bible (which is more into such details of the lives of prophets etc. than the Quran) had to say about this, and seems gloss over the question of who were these women the Adam and Eve boys married.

Here is what the Genesis (part of the Bible) says:

Genesis, chapter 4


1: Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, ``I have gotten a man with the help of the Yahweh.``

2: And again, she bore his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a tiller of the ground.

3: In the course of time Cain brought to the Yahweh an offering of the fruit of the ground,

4: and Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Yahweh had regard for Abel and his offering,

5: but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell.

6: The Yahweh said to Cain, ``Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen?

7: If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.``

8: Cain said to Abel his brother, ``Let us go out to the field.`` And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him.

9: Then the Yahweh said to Cain, ``Where is Abel your brother?`` He said, ``I do not know; am I my brother`s keeper?``

10: And the Yahweh said, ``What have you done? The voice of your brother`s blood is crying to me from the ground.

11: And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother`s blood from your hand.

12: When you till the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength; you shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.``

13: Cain said to the Yahweh, ``My punishment is greater than I can bear.

14: Behold, thou hast driven me this day away from the ground; and from thy face I shall be hidden; and I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will slay me.``

15: Then the Yahweh said to him, ``Not so! If any one slays Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.`` And the Yahweh put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him.

16: Then Cain went away from the presence of the Yahweh, and dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

17: Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch.

18: To Enoch was born Irad; and Irad was the father of Me-hu`ja-el, and Me-hu`ja-el the father of Me-thu`sha-el, and Me-thu`sha-el the father of Lamech.

19: And Lamech took two wives; the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

20: Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have cattle.

tahmed32:

Section 108 seems to be inconsistent with section 55, in that it suggests that the guardian of a girl child can arrange her marriage which can be terminated by her at puberty.
[I understand that these are only technical matters. Both in India and Pakistan, laws regarding child marriage are routinely broken without any consequence]

dost mittar: I googled, and the results are 16 for females and 18 for males.

55. The meaning of ``child`` for the purposes of marriage is governed by the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 (Annex 7, Appendix XVII). According to this act, a child is a person who, if a male, is under 18 years of age and, if a female is under 16 years of age (sect. 2 (a)). A ``child marriage``, under the Act, means a marriage any of the contracting parties to which is a child (sect. 2 (b)). The Act aims to ban child marriages. If such a marriage takes place, the parties are to be punished with imprisonment or with fine or with both. Persons performing the contract or directing it are to be punished in the same way.

108. Where the marriage of a young girl is arranged by her guardian, she can repudiate the marriage on the attainment of puberty. This provision of Islamic law is called the option of puberty and is incorporated in the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 (Annex 19) as section 2 (vii) and provides an additional ground to a woman on the basis of which she can have her marriage dissolved.

Romair, anyone:

Is there a legal minimum age for marriage in Pakistan? What is it?

Romair
#278 and other posts

I know you’ve addressed your posts to Temp mostly but I hope you don’t mind me jumping in.

From one aspect what you say makes entire sense but when one steps into moral relativism it becomes a precarious philosophy to defend. From the moral relativists stance how can society label anything wrong? By those standards Nazism, Stalinism, Genocide, Slavery, Infanticide, Gendercide may all be permissible according to respective societal mores. But clearly they aren’t because most of the World (probably much too late) clearly saw the aforementioned as atrocities. The pendulum swung the other way.

We can argue until the cows come home why they saw it as wrong but I think more than anything most human beings have a visceral reaction to wrong. In much the same way we have a need to feed ourselves when we are hungry, or seek shelter when we are cold. It is an instinctual need for survival of the species.

I don’t mean to speak for Temp or anyone else (and I hope he’ll forgive me if I’m incorrect) but one of the reasons I think some of us wanted to stay away from the ethical argument was because it would distract us from the matter at hand.

I hope you would agree that even without bringing the ethical argument into play here the issues surrounding child sexual assault are grave. There has to be a practical approach here due to the sheer immediacy of the problem. Sure we can get involved in interminable debates but then what of the kids? I would like to tackle issues like the silence in our community and how to overcome it so some help can be administered to CSA survivors.

Justs some thoughts....hope you don`t mind

liberal east-coast white folks (not the trailer trash veriety) sister-brother incest (and love) is explored in a book by john irving .. i think its the hotel newhampshire. although fiction, its a recommended read for this board.

romair:

good points

you are making an effort like most of us...am leery of those who harp on a single agenda and try to hijack and obfuscate..(raw-dust you were not doing that)...they want a debate on their terms...this is why i keep resurrecting sara`s ghost...then we can perhaps move onto adult-consentual issues...either here or in another thread...

speaking of her...if her abuse stopped at menstruation...what if she was 6 when it started?

and again...not pakistan-specific... more in a universal context

Temporal #271: “diversionary obfuscation……..sara is crying”

I don’t think any of this is diversionary obfuscation. One should encourage debate, not discourage it. One should welcome points of view, which disagree with one’s own; not try to strangle them.

Five people, debating an article, based on mutually agreeable beliefs, isn’t much of a debate. If they are so sure of their views, then they should not feel threatened by anyone who points out a different point of view. Calling others names is not the answer. Nor is accusing them of diversion………

For starters, it is difficult to figure out what Sara’s situation is. If she is 12 or older and lives in Holland, then, apparently, there may not be child molestation involved. It is only incest. If we use the definition provided by Raw_Dust, then, incest, itself, has no business being state-controlled. Then what do we do?

All of this should be debated.

Now coming to the question, on how to protect Sara: It all depends on your belief system, and the legal boundaries of the country you live in. It is impossible to, “protect” someone, if the legal system does not support it. So one should ensure the legal system never goes off the track. If the legal system allows a thirteen year old to get into consensual sexual relationships and fifteen year olds to become prostitutes, legally, then I am afraid there isn’t much anyone can do to, “protect” their child, if such a situation arises.

So, first of all, one has to define a clear age of consent. That, itself is such a fuzzy topic that even two Western countries, with outwardly similar societies, cannot agree on it. Secondly, one should define a principled ethical basis of right and wrong. Not one defined by the whims of one or two individuals. Should the State be involved in deciding what is sexually legal and illegal? Should it decide what an age of consent is? etc. Should the basis of that be religion, common sense, secularism, Aristotle, Plato or what?

I don’t know how much information you have about the lifestyles of sex offenders. In Canada and USA (I assume) there is a database of sex offenders, who are out of jail and live in a neighbourhood. One can access those databases. I have seen shows on TV stations, where the sex offenders have been interviewed. They seem so very normal. There is no way anyone could tell they were sex offenders, if they were one’s neighbours.

Sexual abuse of early teens, by teens themselves is common practice in various schools, in Pakistan; specifically boarding schools. I have class-fellow(s) who were sexually abused by other students – both in their teens. Some went through this, over a period of months, while they were students in their early teens (who knows, maybe even years). And I have class-fellow(s) who sexually abused other younger students, or attempted to, on occasion. The later would fall into the category of child molesters. They have normal lives, today, with wives and kids. There is absolutely no way you could pick them out in a crowd………..

So protecting Sara is not a simple little issue. It is a very complex process, which takes into account a society’s definition of right and wrong. It’s legal system. The philosophical basis of ethics used in the society, used to define consent, incest etc. And an attempt to understand why in the world someone would do something like that…………..

And do keep in mind that many of the people who do something like this are, otherwise, perfectly normal people, who justify it based on certain strongly held beliefs……..our good friend Patrick, being one example………..How would you protect Sara, or her brother Amjad from him, if they are older than 12 and they consent? Patrick’s whole belief system is based on there being nothing wrong with consensual sex between teens and adults. He is the person who gave me the info about Holland and its laws………..

So, kindly let people debate the subject, in all its depths, including any anomaly that may appear………It’s not a simple topic……….It will only seem simple to people, who think the whole world has the same views as them…………

correction or = and in post #285.

dionysus:
Homosexuality or Bisexuality comes under the same assertion (ref: my last post). I am noone`s spokesman and under-noone`s-order to-save-the-world. (this is lifted from a movie).


For the self-appointed Khudai Fojdaars aka. ``moderators`` of this board. Please, put me and everyone else supposedly ``obfuscating`` in your ignore list. I always think Ignore option is one of the biggest achievements by ChowkStaff, lately.

have a good Tuesday.

Re: # 285 Raw Dust

The thing is RD that the liberal lunatics first persuaded us to tolerate homosexuality because `what two consenting adults do in their bedroom is their buisness` . But we`ve gone WAY beyond all that now. Gays are demanding the right to marriage and to adopt children. They want to be able to express affection in public like normal couples. One looney liberal on UP a few months ago anouced that anyone who opposed gays kissing in public was `bigotted` If they get their way we could be sitting in the park with our nephews and nieces having to watch two 6`` 3 body builders tongueing each other. It is no longer a matter of what they do in their bedrooms. But if homsexual couples should have the right to express affection in public why not adult-consentual incestual couples? Where does it all end? Where do you draw the line and why?

Hey, this story is racier than the hapless romance in `Star Wars`.Though, methinks this is a rehashed version of a Reader`s Digest short story on sexual abuse.Who cares?.Let us take a moment to remember the victims of the Karachi mosque shooting and the subsequent burnings.Was it a McDonald`s or a KFC that was burnt to the ground?.

temporal:

i`m afraid it might be too late. . . am operating on very little sleep. . . and thankfully will be away from a computer for hours beginning abhi issi waqt!

thank you though. .
a~

dionysus:

i had a civil discussion with urstruly. . . i understood what he asked earlier, and i chose not to go there. you are not interested in having a bleedin` civil discussion, as you`ve shown already, so forgive me if i don`t respond to you until you do.

regards
the looniest of the liberals and proud of it yeah!