Fundamentalism and Violence

Re: # 57
dear tahmed 32...thank you for a thought provoking letter. in my opinion human species has reached adolescence and for the first time in history we are able to commit collective suicide or homicide because of nuclear weapons. humans used to get involved in tribal wars and kill a few hundred or thousands with arrows and guns but now they can wipe out the whole race.
at this cross-roads humans can regress to tribal mentality and kill each other...sunnis killing shiites...hindus killing muslims...muslims killing jews...etc etc
or realize that we are all part of the same family.
we need to evolve from violent consciousness to peace consciousness and that was the goal of all religious, spiritual and secular traditions but they all failed so far.
i believe it depends upon human psyche and personality...if we evolve to that stage that you are hinting and accept ''cooperation'' is better than 'confrontation'' then we can learn to have a peaceful dialogue in our families and communities and countries and cultures otherwise we are proceeding on the road to destruction.
the present conditions in the world with
muslim...christian...jewish...hindu fundamentalism the future looks bleak but being an idealist i hope that we have a critical mass of people in the world who has political power to create a new United Nations....where only 5 superpowers are not the only to have veto power rather there is COLLECTIVE WILL that we want peace not war and abolish all national armies...
it seems unrealistic because the world economy has become war economy and people like me are perceived as idealists and are in minority.
presently the world is going towards an existential breakdown. i just hope that individually and collective we as human beings experience a breakthrough..otherwise we will all kill each other in the next couple of centuries and justify our killings and wars by our political and religious and economic ideologies...sincerely sohail

drsohail,
Yes, I am the same person. There is no khurrum on chowk.
Did you get a chance to read Dynamics of Faith?

dr sohail: recent research shows that over the past 5000 years, humans have started evolving several times faster (measured in terms of dna changes) than early on. much of this seems to have to do with the success of the human species as a result of "civilization" that allowed it to spread across the globe from africa starting 30,000 years or so ago. thus, about 10,000 years ago, there was virtually no racial difference among humans. since then, africans have developed resistance to malaria (flip side - sickle cell anemia) and europeans have lost melanin (to better absorb vitamin D from sunlight).

if evolution has speeded up past 5,000 years, it seems that in this century and the next it would be virtually exploding - given the vast increases in intermingling of populations due to globalization, advancements in medical science.

The questions then are - will we see the human psyche to adapt to these changes by replacing "competition" with "cooperation" as the strategy for survival? are the religious fundamentalists the last group of individuals that still see the world as it was for for our ancestors for billions of years and until a mere few decades ago when humans stopped needed to kill one another to survive and prosper?

Re: # 55
dear thinking storm....the chowky che guevara...i like your energy...your passion...your crazyness....your cynical wisdom...i feel that way sometimes and write passionate articles and provoke a lot of criticism...and sometimes i feel serene and sober and peaceful.... like other writers i also have changing moods that reflect in their actions and writings.
i have written a spicy article that i will send to chowk editors next month and see if they like it....have some suspense for a while...your friendly and humourous comments are always welcome...all the best...sohail

dear khurram,

Saint Augustine was a great beleiver and supporter of "Just Wars". Please read up on his work to gain inspiration on the topic.

Dr. Sohail, I know you are busy and all, but I did craft a nice suggestion for you in my first interact on this board :)
with much respect,
thinking storm

Re: # 53
dear khurram...i smiled when i read your simple but profound question. while i try to ponder over your question can you share what you mean by 'just war' and do you believe in it. i can see this question starting a passionate dialogue among readers......sohail
ps...i sometimes confuse between khurram (with an a)...and khurrum (with a u) are you the one who exchanged some private emails with me about the psychology of fundamentalist and humanist personalities and suggested i read paul tillich's book about Dynamics of Faith?

drsohail,
do you believe in 'just war' ?

Re: # 38
dear ijaz gul...the issue of violence in humans is quite complex
those like lorenz who focus on instincts focus on the animal part of humans and show that in certain conditions the animal part in humans dominate and they become aggressive and violent
those like eric fromm who focus on psychological, social and economic aspects highlight that human beings develop a certain personality based on their family and cultural conditioning
eric fromm has written a wonderful book....the anatomy of human destructiveness...in which he shares that in animals aggression is BENIGN...animal is hungry...kills to satisfy his hunger ....and then leaves
in humans the aggression is MALIGNANT (humans are the most dangerous and violent animals on earth) because humans associate vilence and aggression with a meaning....whether revenge...ideology....or justice...
and then RATIONALIZE their aggression. i wanted to share how human beings JUSTIFY their violence and certain material and social conditions
religion
or
economics
or
politics
can be used to dominate and control other human beings and nations. Whether it is religious domination or economic control of the world....different religious and political leaders use those reasons to rationalize their aggression and violence. Since most theories are either sociological presented by sociologists or psychological presented by psychologists or economic presented by economists we are still struggling to have a unified theory....eric fromm is one of those who tried to build a bridge between sociological and psychological theories as he was well read in theories of Freud and Marx. His book The Sane Society is wonderful as he compares the capitalist and socialist societies. In the contemporary world we need a new integrated theory that is still missing as we are lacking an integrated approach to life.
thank you for your interest...sohail

THIS IS FOR MASADI


Lashing the victim

By Irfan Husain

TRY this for a scenario: a young woman is gang-raped in, say, the US. The rapists are given a few months, while the victim is sentenced to three months in jail as well as 90 lashes. And when her lawyer appeals for a stiffer sentence for the men, it is her sentence that is doubled.

We can imagine the worldwide uproar had such a grotesque travesty actually taken place. Except that it has, in Saudi Arabia, not the US. In much of the Muslim world, this horrifying episode has been virtually blanked out of the public consciousness, with the media maintaining a discreet silence.

And to compound this judicial farce, the judges have also barred Abdalrahman al-Lahim, the defence lawyer, from appearing in their court. According to them, by going public with this horror story, both the victim and her attorney have attempted to influence them.

The tragedy began last year when the unnamed 19-year old woman got into a car to discuss a professional matter with a male colleague. Two other men entered the car, and forced them to drive into the desert where they were joined by the rest of their gang. Here they gang-raped the woman, and attacked her male companion as well.

When the traumatised woman and her husband reported the matter to the police, she was accused of being in the company of a na-mehram (an unrelated male), a crime in Saudi Arabia. On this charge, she was sentenced to three months in jail, and 90 lashes. And when she appealed, the sentence was doubled.

The whole sickening episode casts an unflattering light on what passes for justice in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Archaic laws, interpreted by judges with little or no formal legal training, form the backbone of jurisprudence. Although termed ‘Islamic’, in reality they are a vague collection of tribal customs and rules imposed by men who seldom bother to refer to precedents. Far too often, they are arbitrary and harsh. And invariably, they are anti-women.

When incidents like the Mukhtaran Mai gang-rape are reported in Pakistan, international outrage puts pressure on the government to act against those responsible. True, many such cases never make it to the international media, and victims suffer in silence in a male-dominated, archaic society. But at least, there is a theoretical recourse to justice.

In Saudi Arabia, public opinion counts for very little. As the planet’s biggest exporter of petroleum, and with coffers bulging from soaring oil prices, the Saudi ruling family does not have to care what the rest of the world thinks of them.

Even White House spokesmen, normally so ready to criticise human rights violations around the world, are reduced to mumbling about ‘cultural differences’. Surely no system anywhere allows the victims of crimes to be punished.

And within the Islamic world, there is a tendency to ignore excesses committed by Muslims against their fellow-Muslims. Thus, when believers blow up, behead, torture, maim and slaughter their brethren, a conspiracy of silence comes into operation. Rulers can jail and torment opponents, steal elections (when and if they are ever held), and invade their neighbours with scarcely a word of criticism from fellow-Muslims.

So nobody in the Muslim world protests when Hamas gunmen kill Fatah foot-soldiers or vice versa. But when the Israelis join in, there is a wave of outrage. Similarly, when Iraqi militias slaughter other Iraqis, none of us protest. But when Americans kill Iraqis, we are rightly incensed. In Afghanistan, far more innocent Afghans are killed by other Afghans than by Nato forces.

As moral human beings, it is right that we should raise our voices against illegal occupation and invasion. But who has invaded Pakistan where daily, terrorists kill innocent people in the name of Islam?

The truth is that we are very selective in our condemnation of violence, reserving our criticism for the West. But this hypocrisy is apparent to the rest of the world. When we defended the Taliban, we invoked their peculiar tribal customs to justify their vicious practices. In fact, had 9/11 not occurred, they would still merrily be flogging women for inadvertently showing an inch of skin.

And when the Lal Masjid insurgency erupted in the heart of our capital, there was more sympathy for the armed militants and the crazed students who were killed than there was for the soldiers and policemen who died to restore the writ of the state.

In part, these double standards are caused by an unspoken ‘them versus us’ syndrome that rests on the notion of a Muslim ummah encircled and victimised by the West. So we tend to overlook the horrors that are committed daily across much of the Muslim world. But this quest for a united front proves elusive when placed in the crucible of self-interest.

The reality is that this whole notion of a vast Islamic brotherhood stretching from Morocco to Indonesia does not bear close examination. Over the years, despite much bombast and tall claims about Islamic unity, Muslim countries have done exactly what suited them, without any consideration of what was good for the ummah.

The reason this polite fiction is kept alive, in public at least, is that Muslim rulers can exploit such popular sentiments when it suits them. So although there were no public protests in the Islamic world when Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, or Kuwait in 1990, many Muslims did stage protests against the American-led invasions of Iraq in 1990, and then in 2003. But it should be noted that the massive demonstrations in western capitals against the second Gulf War were far larger than those organised by Muslims.

So we can see that we are very selective in deciding how we react to actions carried out in the West and in the Islamic world. These double standards rob us of the moral high ground. By applying one code to judge fellow Muslims, and an entirely different one to pronounce on the West, we have lost the right to be taken seriously in the counsels of the world.

Thus when human rights violations take place in Pakistan, we look to the West to apply pressure on our rulers, not to our fellow-Muslims. In any case, for the latter, official thuggery is the norm, not the exception.

Very informative Dr Sohail Sahib. Not only in matters of mental health, but in all matters, integrated approaches are way to go.

#25 Posted by krashid1961 on December 10, 2007 5:40:52 pm


For the interest of all.
Pakistan rich list. Top ten is interesting.


yup..interesting in that it's fake. the billionaires don't show up on the forbes list or anywhere else.

Re: # 47

Infact Islam is the most "other wordly" cult where people are all the time fearing that they would miss the birth in heavens if they do not follow the "Islamic principles".

Demolish the metaphysics of heavens and you have better muslims who work for the betterment of the real world!!

What is fundamentalism? Believing that Mike Jakson is the greatest singer on the planet earth or that Bugs Bunny is the real Islamic Allah is my unshaken belief.
I am a fundamentalist!!

But I do not intend to kill others or myself over others not believing in what I believe.

The issue is not whather fundamentalism per se is bad- the issue is whether you consider your fundamental beliefs to be more precious than a human life!!

Islam does not believe in sanctity of a non-muslim life in particular. That is why it is responsible for the cult of blood thirsty Allah that seeks blood sacrifices in the form of Shahadats of human beings and those ghastly id sacrifices of goats and cows!!

Re: # 45***** Sorry Dattu bhai , main nay Agha Ji ka baat kia .Quetta main meray classfellow thay. sorry.waisay dil ka kharab aadmi nahin hai woh.bas daroo ziada peeta tha.

Re: # 44 is Sohail or the naqshabandi you talking about here TIGRAM?

I mean you have been studying Pavocavalry now for a better part of a decade, and now you have added another...the world is way too small for you friend (T)

Re: # 43LL- Bhai Jan Iss Aadmi ko main janya hoon,Quetta main meray school main parhta tha.Yaih to iss ka khat hai.Sachai likhee is nay iss liay yeh pakistani logon ko bohat takleef hua jai.