Bullhe Shah and His Veil of “Meem”

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Thanks. I have read most of those and I tend to agree with most of the points raised, especially the decline of science in the muslim world. I disagree with the concept of moral frameworks suggested by Eklavya as I always found religious (especially Judeo-Christio-Islamic) concept of morality ro revolve around matters of sexual nature rather than what is really good and evil as far as humanity is concerned. To me, take away the sexualisation of the west, most muslims will not have any problems "assimmilating"; the sexual liberation, especially of women, is the main barrier preventing social integration! I suppose they never gave any thoughts to how all of them managed to grace this planet in the first place!!

I didn't think discussions on religious matters were a distraction at all. I am a surgeon with qualifications and fellowships from the UK and Australia. I have travelled extensively and religion was never something I paid any attention to despite coming from a conservative sunni family (of punjabi jatt background). I told my parents, despite living in Pakistan at the time, that I was an atheist when I was 15 and I didn't have any major social setbacks. I used to have friendly discussions with my parents, siblings, cousins etc (most have a background in science) and nobody minded provided you "knew the boundaries". Since that age, I never even bothered to attend the yearly Eid prayers, let alone any other rituals. I guess, from that point of view, the experience was overall positive.

However, in the last 10 years alone, the atmosphere, at least I felt, got a lot more Islamised. Many of my cousins now support beards and my ususal taunts, that used to either go unnoticed or be dealt with a smile, were treated with suspicion. Perhaps times have changed a bit! And it is these times that call for a different approach to the problem.

I also get the impression that majority of people on these blogs happen to be Pakistanis/Indians living overseas; I hope they become more popular within their native lands so the process is not just confined to the diaspora communities but where it really matters!

"However, in the last 10 years alone, the atmosphere, at least I felt, got a lot more Islamised. Many of my cousins now support beards and my ususal taunts, that used to either go unnoticed or be dealt with a smile, were treated with suspicion. Perhaps times have changed a bit! And it is these times that call for a different approach to the problem."

Just check how many madarassas have mushroomed in last 10 years.........yuo get the answer about the impending Talibanization of Pakistan....

akcheema, before developing a better appreciation of semitic religious frameworks (Judeo-Christio-Islamic), I used to jokingly describe those as "religions of the groin". It seemed to me that that was where all their morality and thinking developed out of, and remained focused on.

But IMHO, I was completely wrong. These religions, Islam in most perfect manner, do provide alternative, comprehensive moral/ethical frameworks, of which sexuality is just one aspect.
--------------------

Thankfully, you yourself acknowledge that so long as you did not cross certain boundaries nobody came in the way of your scientific studies or pursuing whatever research you chose to pursue. Wouldn't it better if you gave the same respect to those who grow beards and not dismiss doing so as a sign of backwardness. Could it be that intolerance lies more within you than within the hearts of your cousins? That is a question, not an accusation.
---------------

True, there need not be, or perhaps there cannot be, much understanding (let alone respect or tolerance) across religious frameworks, but if you as a Muslim need understanding (and respect) from other Muslims, then you probably will have to start by giving other Muslims, inlcluding the bearded ones, the madrassa going ones, that understanding and respect.

laddu, there is nothing wrong with "mushrooming" of madrasas in Pakistan, just as there can be nothing wrong with the mushrooming of paathshalas and shishu mandirs in India. Why do we wish to raise nations of robots with no knolwedge of their own selves?

Looks like you got it all wrong; I get on fine with everyone; perhaps that is the self-contradictory social setup we have in the sub-continent. I respect "their right" to believe in whatever they want, including growing beards etc. However, no ideology has a right to be immune to criticism. I have always welcomed criticism of my own ideas because I find it stimulating; its not reciprocated to the same extent though! My previous encounters used to be more using euphemisms; you can't be explicitly critical of the foundation of the faith, and its founder for example, as that is the boundary!

I don't accept the previlaged position that religious ideology seems to have that gives it immunity to critique. That is where the conflict begins.

Respecting someone's right to do something is not the same as actually having respect for what they do!!

Re: # 68

"Islam in most perfect manner, do provide alternative, comprehensive moral/ethical frameworks, of which sexuality is just one aspect."

What morality are you talking about Mr. Kaale Khan. Go and live in Taliban Land!! If you are in India then you need to be kicked out of here.

In semitic traditions (you can reject those traditions if you can't stand them), the divine, or close to divine, is totally privileged. You are most welcome to criticize people's *UNDERSTANDING* of the divine. Islam in particular gives you the right to argue that nobody ultimately understands the DIVINE. But you cannot directly criticize the DIVINE (specifically, Allah, His Prophet, and His Message) nor blame those for your own or the society's problems.

That restriction is not as pressing as one might assume. On chowk EVERY POSSIBLE position is passionately taken and doggedly defended all in the name of the same Message, and the same Prophet.

--------

Now, if you are the kind of person who simply cannot accept privileged positions, you should simply consider quitting that religio-political framework, without forcing those who have no such issues having to abandon their faith for your convenience.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

laddu bhai, both in Madrasas and paathshalas/shishu mandirs people teach what is important to them, without bothering about our opinions. Now, you and I might want to force our own views on them politically, but that is a different matter, simply fascism.

Kaale Kahn Saheb,

Yeh gol mol baat mat karo. Be specific about issues and what you think. What is it that Madarasa teaches without bothering about your opinion??
Please be specific than try to confuse others with your dhimmi talk.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Eklavya:
The assertion you make, if I phrase it correctly:

Calling oneself a muslim and retaining the right to directly criticize the articles of faith(see below) are not possible simultaneously.

Articles of Faith:

Allah Mian,
His Oneness,
His Fallibility,
Mohammad's as the Sacred Person.


But there is a self-referentiality involved in this because of "Calling oneself a Muslim". Therefore, the argument short-circuits itself because the guy who retains the right to define himself a Muslim hence putting his understanding of the faith can also in the same breath limit the definition of his faith in such a way that it makes it possible for him to brand Mohammad in the vilest of terms (for example) and still see this as not infrgining on his faith.

I think we go over this before, so now that guy in question ad you have to bring an external source to arbitrate on the articles of Faith which means Eklavya has to put the guy in corner and have a debate on scriptures.

But akcheema sahib might not be interested in this. All he (as i figure) might be interested in is only the social aspect of having the space to get the critique going and mullah vigilantism and Allah Mian ki Lathi be eliminated for some reasons dear to him.

raw_ :)

Yes, if defining that 'understanding' is done PRIOR to calling oneself Muslim, and latter association is made explicitly contingent upon that understanding.

Otherwise, temporal and social/public issues arise (choice made at one time constrain choices later, and choice set of x becomes constrained by choice set of y).

Partly, consider the context of BDSM, or the slave-master context of sufism. The slave has a theoretical RIGHT to make his/her relationship contingent upon specific conditions being met, but that has to be done very clearly PRIOR TO entering into that relationship.

Secondly, when there already exist, lots and lots of other slaves, it is a slave's duty to educate himself or herself fully on what kind of understanding these other slaves have with the master, and among themselves.

Because, unless the Master can be repeatedly reached for involvement and saving one's behind, there is no way of knowing or controlling, or even logically opposing, how OTHER slaves will behave, nor can one expect to enforce some standard slave behavior.

Now, one can argue that the decision is not always consciously made as a matter of choice or in full knowledge/acceptance of its implications, and those things do complicate matters....

---------

Sorry, obviously, that is not at all a reasonable analogy (except in the sufi context). Nor was that meant to offend anyone. But at least similar issues arise, IMO.

-------------------

I used to have a cd of the great master nusrat fateh ali in which he sung beautifully of his 'slavery' to medina and mohammad. So again, these words are used with caution and with due respect to normal people who have strong faith.

Look, please don't argue and agree to disagree here. My intention was not to start off a fight here. Let me explain myself with one or two examples:

Albert Einstein was, despite what people might have you believe, openly atheistic but still very proud of his Jewish roots. As a matter of fact, most liberal western Jews have very similar views and tend to retain communal bonds despite not even at times having a belief in god. People would have you believe this is all to do with ancestery; not so I am afraid. There is a communal element to our social structure as humans.

More than 45% of the British population claims not to belong a religion or have beliefs in the super-natural. They don't at once stop celebrating Christmas and Easter etc. They still retain and celebrate virtually all important landmarks of their history without getting ridiculous about it.

Why is it so hard for me to retain some ritualistic elements for the purpose of cultural solidarity and celebrate them as part of my heritage! Why can't I spend Eid day with my family, same as someone with christian heritage on christmas day, and not get all silly about the "faith" element of it. Their is a difference here and I don't think it is that hard to comprehend.

I have "Hindu" friends who are radical atheists; doesn't stop them from celebrating Diwali though! We all enjoy the tales of the Greek and Roman gods; they are all celebrated as an integral part of western civilisation; by the believers and non-believers alike! It doesn't turn people in to pagans, or does it?

If I see injustices in the name of Islam, with clear Quranic verses in its support, I am not going to stand by and just accept it! But I still wouldn't mind sharing "sawayyan" on Eid day cooked by my mother! But I am not just going to see millions of animals being slaughtered on Eid-ul-Adha as comemmoration of Abraham's alleged attempted sacrifice of his son and not comment on the sheer brutality of it all!

I hope people can see this distinction.