Welcome to the Dark Side Jay

If u want to thrash isalm and jihadis, there r more than 1000 ways objective and reasonable to do that. but what u did in ur zeal, has just backfired.

I saw many Indians in USA, changing their names to suit `English climate`. Same goes with Pakis. What is then so unique about Arab ppl chaging names of other ppl, just out of affection?

My roomamate was born in California of Egyptian parents. His name is Nadir, which is either Persian or Arabic, and it means `unique`. He writes his names as `Nadder`, and pronounces it as `Nid-er`. I always call him `Naa-dir`, just out of reverance to his original cultural name.

what is the big deal?

if u want to tell us instances of intolerance, u better come up with some good examples: like what is happening in Afghanistan, etc.

dont shoot urself in the feet.

Welcome to the Dark Side Mr. Irfan Hussain

it is universal fact that press is exploited by big wigs, and vice versa. Look at Diana case. She exploited press the way she wanted, against her husband, and against the royal family. And when press eploited her sex extra marital affairs, she started shouting for privacy and bad journalism. although journalists were not doing anything illegal (as in Pak), yet the whole setup of exploitation reaks of immoral and unprofessional ethics from both sides. Similarly, lobbying has always been a main source of income in US politics for the politicians and their parties. No one can deny that media companies have definite roles in this. And this is all according to the law!!

Similarly, press in Pakistan is exploited and in turn, it exploits ppl at high level. Unlike western countries, the money changes hands under the table. In a corrupt country, this is supposed to happen, what is the big surprise? Now u talked about false evidences in Zardari case, and media involvement in it. Tell me what would happen if that false evidence is not created? Would justice be served given the state of professionalism and honesty in Pakistan`s judicial system? If Bhutto or Nawaz govts were to be thrown out, army`s involvement was necessary. It was not the public opinion which caused their govts to be thrown out. Off course the public opinion was manipulated by all these false stories, but the army`s involvement against these conspiracies was the first motivating factor for all to come into action.

I often see ppl making side issues so big that the main issue gets out of the main focus.

The main issue in Pakistan is the strong presence of army in all state`s insititutions. Be it any civil govt, they were always interfering in all insitutions. That is why Pakistan has a weird law of ``Law of Necessity``, which defies common sense, as to what is the necessity of constitution with this law, which is so vague that any interpretation can be made out of it.

What needs to be agreed to, is the fact that unless Pakistan`s army relinquishes its strong control on Pakistan`s internal affairs, and unless the non-development expenditures (mainly on army) is brought down, we can never see a free environment for any state institution (bureucracy, justice, journalism, etc.) to grow and be established. This has been the case for 50 years.

I often think what is the way out of this perpetual menace of army? I dont see any. May be it is my pessimism, but i think only an economically default state of Pakistan can make this army out of its fierce control, or a huge military defeat as happened in 1971 (too unfortunate Bhutto could not make use of it). I dont see Pakistani people, enough motivated to kick army out of civilian affairs.

Paki Students in the US: a Female Perspective Now consider, the following statment of Freud:

``From that point, the girl can go in a couple of directions. She can deny that she has no penis, and persist in thinking she does--this can lead to psychosis in adult life.``

I suspect this psychosis (which by defeinition is: A severe mental disorder, with or without organic damage, characterized by derangement of personality and loss of contact with reality and causing deterioration of normal social functioning.) is the writer`s problem.

The Cling Effect Asif Naqshbandi:

y weep over Saleem Qadri? if he was innocent, he would be in paradise, f/king the brains out of 70 whores (or `hoors`?). Good for him, isnt it?

Paki Students in the US: a Female Perspective klutz:

Freud`s explanation of ``Penis Envy``:



The following may explain the irrational behavour of adolescent and young women (specifically the writer of this article) towards men:

In childhood period, the girl notices that boys have penises and that girls don`t. Freud says that girls instantly recognize penises as the superior counterpart of the clitoris, and fall victim to PENIS ENVY. ``She has seen it and knows that she is without it and wants to have it.``

From that point, the girl can go in a couple of directions. She can deny that she has no penis, and persist in thinking she does--this can lead to psychosis in adult life. She may fixate on the idea of someday getting a penis, by whatever means possible. Or she can take the ``normal`` route, which is to accept ``the fact of her castration.`` If she accepts this ``fact,`` she develops a sense of inferiority to the male; she decides her lack of a penis is punishment for some wrongdoing (probably masturbation); she gets furious with her mother for not giving her a penis, and for not having one herself; she feels contempt for the entire female sex which is without such an important organ. Also, she feels the clitoris to be so inferior that she gives up masturbation entirely; F. says clitoridal masturbation is entirely masculine and her recognition of her lack of a penis makes her repudiate all her masculine activities (and to feel greater disgust at idea of masturbation).

An important consequence of her penis envy, and consequent acceptance of the ``fact`` of her castration (aside from the internalized inferiority Freud insists on) is a loosening of the bond with her mother. On discovering that her mother doesn`t have a penis, and didn`t give her one, the girl takes the libidinal desire she (like the boy) felt for her mother and turns it into anger and hatred for not giving her a penis. This moves her toward the necessary shift to taking her father as libidinal object.

The girl then decides that, if she can`t have a penis, she`ll have a baby instead, and takes her father as her love object with the express purpose of having a child by him; her mother then becomes solely the object of jealousy and rivalry.

At this point, Freud announces, ``The girl has turned into a little woman``. This is the Oedipus Complex for girls (in Freud`s early works, called the Electra Complex; in later works, called the feminine or negative Oedipus Complex). It starts when the girl begins to desire her father.

Paki Students in the US: a Female Perspective The paki society is so divided along the gender lines that paki women and men want to play doctor-patient games when they r in mid or early 20s. If the lack of communication has produced such 5 extremes in men as the writer `psychobabble` has beautifully discussed, then there r perhaps as many (perhaps less) categories of paki women too. If u talk to a paki woman (no matter u r in Pak or in LA), the first thing she would do is to categerise u in one slot. After that it is very difficult to make any inroads. See `Categorization` is a very easy step if you yourself do not believe in communication. It is a normal gender-wide behavour, and provides a good defensive mechanism.

It would be best if we avoid characterising ppl till the time they become pain in the ass. If they behave rudely, let them have an opportunity to see how socially-inept they r.

Study in Black hi

it is my frist post on this `wondersful` article.

I am sick and tired of so-called liberals and feminists who think that they can re-interpret Islam to support their modern tohughts. who r they befooling? not me and not you, just themselves.

It so happens that all religions, created centuries ago, have been and are used to protect the status quo. Islamic laws were intended to

protect male-dominated societies. period. If u belive that Islam protects equal sex rights in marriages, inheritance, etc, then may be u should create a new sect, or re-write another holy book of ur liking. Things would be more thresting then, rather than being `hilarious`, because of their weird interpretaion of Quran.

Quran was mostly about a male-dominated society at that time. It was and have never been in the context of a society in which women are educated and socio-economically independent. A woman`s right to good sex was never discussed in it, but regulations have been discussed for such men`s right. Whenever the topic of women are discussed, it is often in the context of resolving men`s conflicts over women. Just like material property. The soora Nisa is all about that thing.

It is high time, that Ms. Bina Shah, and her like-minded, so-called feminist friends see the light of the day. Leave the task of distorting Quran to so many sects that Islam has. Lets adopt a rational and realistic approach towards Islam (and other religions), and trash them away.

Lets Destroy The Bamiyan Buddhas! Much has been said against or in favour of Taliban, on the premises of respecting cultural heritage, religion, etc. All this is bullshit. Western countries r as dumb as Talibans r. Many ppl fail to understand the real factors behind this incident.

To me, the psychology of a neglected child seems to be at work: the child wants attention, and nobody gives a damn, so he starts throwing things here and there in the hope that the people, out of concern for ``these things``, would try to take care of the child. Simply speaking, ``Attention deficit disorders``. Nothing to do with Islam and Hindu or Budhist heritage.



Taliban has done its ``best`` to be accepted by the world as a legitimate power in Afghanistan. But for some reasons (not to speak of revival of medieval history), nobody has accepted them except the governments who installed them in Afghanistan thru their monetary and military power: Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. It is this frustration that is driving Talinab crazy. But China was also not accepted either by the west, and we did not see chairman Mao play havoc with other civilizations and religions. What they did in the name of cultural revolution was for the perceived sake of their red revolution, and not to draw western attention.



So what can be done: Better ask a child psychologist rather than foreign policy experts, as we are dealing with rationalized abnormal behavour here. But my two cents: Leave Taliban alone in the confines of steep hills of strong rocks, ignorance, and sadistic derive for self-destruction. Maybe it is too late for psychotherapy.

What Constitutes Blasphemy? First of all, I am Moid, not sir or Madam (why care about my gender, when we are not discussing something romantic?). Regarding mark of respect, I suppose it is a remnant of British imperialism, even now nobody says sir or madam.

I am not going into the debate whether Mohammed infact ordered some killings because of some blashphemey. History can be interpreted (read `distorted`) as one likes to believe. And such debate is usually useless. But I am surprised that on one hand it is said that Mohammed was such a soft-hearted person that he once went to ask about an old woman who used to throw garbage on his way, when he found out that she was ill. On the other hand, when blood-thirsty intentions are to be served, another cruel and blood-thirsty picture of Mohammad is painted (read ur last reply). Again, as I said earlier, distortion/interpretation of history, as one likes.

So the question arises what should be the premise of such debates, if history is to be set aside? My fried, Barrister Amir, would stick to his guns of interpreting Islam the way it is `interpreted` from history and Quran. Even Quran is interpreted the way one likes. No wonder why we have so many sects. Tell me one thing, what will ur Khilafat do with so many sects? Kill them all until one sect of ur liking remains? What if some person has different opinion from that of the so-called Khalifah? No wonder why Khilafat ran out of its logical age in 1924. I think it outlived it a bit more. There is no point in blaming English for that.

History and Quran should better be left to a common persons to interpret, without any central and dictatorship leadership to impose their version on others. If Quran is for all human beings than no one should be worried about its misinterpretation by any person. As far as state laws are concerned, they should be secular and impartial towards any religion.

If you are a barrister, then name one civilised country (not Sudan, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia type barabric countrues), in which the penalty of insult is physical punishment, much less than death. Such criminals are asked to pay as penalty, publicly apologise, or serve jail terms. That`s all. You have named ``italy, russia, israel, philiphines``. Please minus the last 3 countries (their human rights records are perhaps worst than Saudi Arabia). I dont want to discuss them. Yes, can u be specific about Italy? And can u name one country in the west (the main `Islamic foes` like UK, USA, France, etc?)

Lastly, I have not called Mohammad a `pathological liar``. Read my answer carefully. There is no need to suffer more from `persecution syndrome`. What I wanted to say that any statement (like Islam) if true, is independent of who has made that statement.

regards

What Constitutes Blasphemy? Hi

I take exception to the statement that any attack on Mohammed is attack on Islam. This is not the case. I do not have to invoke present day moral standards to prove that. Even the Mohammad did not castigat people in his life who vilified against him (this so, when he was in power and full control). Islam is a way of life, as it is claimed, and Mohammed is the person who brought the ``message of God`` to the people, as ``desired by God``. So this religion is itself a separate entity nothing to do with the messanger. Lets consider a case: if a pathological lier says that God is one, should we reject or decline his statement? If we agree to one statement, then its being truth has nothing to with the ``carrier`` of the statement. Having said this, there is no denying the fact that Mohammed`s contribution to the spread of Islam is huge.

Yes, West has double standards. Even in Britian, Blashphemy against Christ is considered legally wrong. But should it make us deny some true and humane values which Wast asserts to?

Off course, this moral standard (not vilifying a dead man) can be made a law if people may wish so, but violent physical punishment is wrong, against something which is not violent, and does not lead to anything violent. Spying is different in the sense that state`s secrets expose its vulnerability to the enemy, and may lead to annihilation of the entire state. Although, I must say that I am against capital punsihment in all cases.

Now, the second point: u said:

``Rather if there is any disccussion, it should be on the authencity of the law, and questioning, if need be, whether it truly is from islam, and not whether it is justifiable and compatable with western albeit secular capitalist notions of liberalism.``

Well, gone are the days when a law is inrepreted and applied, without questioning its benefits and rationale. This is where human evolution has brought all of us. Any islamic law, no matter when it originated, has to prove its rationale before being applied anywhere in this world. May be, in obsurantist and dictatorial countries like Saudi Arabia and Sudan (even Iran, despite headed by obscurantist is out of this class), the ruling class may make it an excuse to strengthen its rule on poor people. But elsewhere, people are more rational then ever. And all this because of the fact that we have more control over many dangers threatening our existence. So the fear has subsided, and hence the blind hold of religion.

What Constitutes Blasphemy? Hi

Let the discussion take its original course--that is, What constitutes Blashpemey

To say something against a person, who has no opportunity to defend himself/herself is morally wrong. Yes, we can always attack his/her ideas and opinions, to any extent possible. This should be the premise to discuss further on this issue. If someone as some other opinion on it than please come forward and attack this premise.

Moving on, people who belive in Islam should not have nay problem if Islam`s main tenets are attacked with reasons. This can not be attributed as blashpemey.

What happened in NWFP is unfortunate in the sense that a letter castigating a dead person (without reasons) was published. What happened against such publication, with the state`s connivance is equally, if not more, condemnable. Any person vilifying some other, will have to made responsible to the society for his words. This is enough reason for every person in the society to act responsibly.

The extermist and obscurantist parties usually thrive on the `persecution syndrome` of the people they claim to represent. And this sort of violent incidents would just help them widen their enrollments.

If Islam is the most peaceful religion, then reasonable discussion on anything non-violent should be the only resort. The wrting and publication of the letter, blashphemosu, as it may be, was a non-violent act. Violence against such acts just indicate the weakening founding pillars.