Science and Enlightenment: East and West

Log on to www.baytunur.blogspot.com. One of the Islam Seminars, held annually in Lahore at Iqbal Academy Pakistan, was on Science of Islam.

The Heart of a Whore ...Re: # 114 T32 {"... Quran was written by scribes, not God ... Quran['s] ... "value added" ... individual responsibility to distinguish right from wrong ... I dont ... claim that the Quran is Edited by God ..."}

Thanks T2... thanks for making it (partially) clear. I use the parenthetical caveat because you brilliantly -- in your classic T2 style -- circumvented the core issue of belief, i.e., a faith in the divine origin of the 'content' of Quran. Did the content originate in the human mind or was there a 'supernatural' medium of information transfer from the divine? That was the core issue to which I alluded, and you very delicately danced around it.

You cleverly claim that scribes wrote the Quran, not God. This is 'lawyer speak'... You can pass the admissibility test of a secular Western trial judge as well as agrue your defence with some success before an inquisition held by a Taliban kazi.

It reminds me of the common tactic used by the go-go dancer who brushes past an engaging client, lightly stroking his cheek with her finger nails, but pretending not to have noticed his out stretched lips.

T2, you have the heart of a whore. I shall ask you no more.

...SR

SR #113 Thanks. While one can evolve one's views over time (and indeed that is a strength, not weakness!), in this case I dont see any conflict. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to not use my common sense and say that Quran was written by scribes, not God (and I have never claimed otherwise). And the scribe was not the prophet, but individuals having second hand knowledge of what the prophet relayed. And indeed, the Quran is as much the Hazrat Usman Version as the Bible is the King James version. Why I dont have a problem with the Quran though is that upon reading it carefully, I found it in fact reinforces rather than weakens my basic instincts concerning individual responsibility to tell the difference between right and wrong. So - just as the King James version of the Bible retains what is considered to be the "value added" by christianity to the earlier judaic believs (i.e. by promoting the concept of a loving God, and of the importance of love for other humans), so does the Quran retain the core "value added" by islam (i.e. the importance of individual responsibility to distinguish right from wrong, and the purpose God put created man).

Thus, while believing that the prophet did have a spiritual influence of some kind in the cave, and while believing that he carried out his duties as messenger faithfully, I dont need to be intellectually dishonest and claim that the Quran is Edited by God or any other such nonsense promoted by maulvis.

Re: # 108 T32 [" ... "religion" ... is ... a racket ... playing on human fears, emotions, superstitions. ... using common sense to put "Islam" in proper perspective.

... "religion" is riddled with internal inconsistencies ... even if one accepts that the prophet had had some kind of a relgious experience in the cave - God tuned out after that. So ... "learned men" ... who have authored ... traditions related to "Islam" are no more divinely-guided than Dr. Seuss..."]

Well said, T32... But now I am a bit confused. Wasn't it you who, in the past, insisted that the Quran was a divine book which the prophet merely recited after it had been narrated to him by a winged agent of the book's actual ghost author: namely, the Creator of the Universe Himself?

Did I miss something during the recent years? Did you evolve your beliefs and joined the heathens? There may be hope for you after all. Mohammad Hameed ji and Dr. Cheema ji better be quick and grab you into their camp before you fall under Urstruly's spell once again and join Mard-e-Mujahid Tahir ji on the front lines of Islamic Jihaad.

...SR

Re: # 47

bulleya

Btw, what do you mean by religion? Jews call Jesus as 'bastard' because he was born of the mother who was not married under the Judaic law. What would you call the Muslims who are the progeny of the parents not married under Islamic laws or not married at all, being born by slave mothers (and slave father, also, perhaps)?

Here a couplet from Ghalib comes to my mind:

"Ham mawaahid hein hamaara kesh he tarke rasoom
Ummatein jab mit geyin juzwe iimaan ho gayein"

I have been thinking about this couplet all my life but could not fathom it. It is perhaps talking of relation between culture and religion. You need religion to regulate sexual relationships but do you need religion to regulate traffic, which is no less important to our social life. The best treatise on this issue, in my view, is the Bhagwat Gita.

Re: # 104

Tahmed shaib:

I am happy for you, if you are concept of God is even beyond imagination. How would someone study, may be this concept is beyond study, and just acceptance.

Regarding sprituality, my point is that it is very personal. Even though there have been and are purveyors of sprituality to people at large. I do not believe in any of those purveyors, even if it is a book, messenger or guru. Since to me belief system delivers spiritual value to me, and hence there is no need to project it beyond myself. This was my point.

echotwit #109 on great public demand...or on great itch in your behind caused by my post??

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

#107 Tehsin: This is how I have delinked "religion" (in my mind only, far be it for me to try and change the dearly held fears of my beloved fellow Pakistanis) as the only venue to pursue God (or indeed to make sense of anything) - treat what passes for "religion" for what it is, namely a racket to wield power and extort money by playing on human fears, emotions, superstitions. (as you obviously recognize). Then take a fresh look using common sense to put "Islam" in proper perspective.

Swat has been a wake up call for a lot of Pakistanis on the true nature of the mullah - although many are happy to simply proclaim the taliban to be US agents and go back to sleep.

The reason I think is because truth requires some courage to face - e.g. the truth is that "religion" is riddled with internal inconsistencies that people find much easier to swallow rather than critically and honestly try to resolve. And the truth is that even if one accepts that the prophet had had some kind of a relgious experience in the cave - God tuned out after that. So all the gazillions of "learned men" (who of course grew up thinking the world is flat) who have authored the various write-ups and traditions related to "Islam" are no more divinely-guided than Dr. Seuss.

I have been harping on this theme for 10 years on chowk, so I think I will give this a rest at this point.

The main issue then is how to delink religion as the only venue to pursue God. Most if not all think that if you don’t believe in religion then you must be an atheist. Far from it; philosophy has answered questions about metaphysics a lot better then any religion has. The fact that religions continue to be able to peddle their disinformation and allow the ayatollah or the pope exercise power over people is just because of the state of ignorance that their agents perpetuate. Philosophy as a discipline has been decimated in Muslim lands. There is not even a single decent department of philosophy at a Pakistani university which used to be there at the time of partition but onslaught of religion has continued to diminish them. More then that though is the absence of any Department of Classics, I don’t think there is even one in any university in Pakistan and I would be curious to know if there are any in another Muslim country. In the West though a Department of Classics continues to remain an essential pillar of a liberal arts education, because this is where all the moral basis and ethical standards for the society are established.

Tehsin #98 "God is beyond truth and thus beyond our ability to fathom HIM. "

we have the same concept here I think (see #104 below). That is why I say we leave God to playing God (rather than trying to bend His will by begging for small favors and offering bakras and chanda to mullahs as bribe to accompany the begging..I mean prayers). Better to have focus on the point we started with - what is in the broader interest of mankind (of which we are just a tiny, temporary part). And hopefully what is in the best interest of mankind wont be in conflict with God's business.

#100 Riaz sahib: true that crimes have been committed under more guises than that of God only. Right now of course, the enemy facing Pakistan fights in the name of God.

Anil sahib #102 I was merely exploring the concept of spirituality, not defining spirituality or religion for you or anyone else, let alone all.

Thus, I see that you think that God is the "best imagination of man". I happen to think that God is beyond imagination, and yes..this happens to be the concept provided in the Quran (and indeed in Mahabharata and in Taoism as well - "the Tao that can be named is not the true Tao").

Does it give me a stomach ache that your concept of God is limited to the imagination (best or otherwise) of man, while my concept goes beyond that? Not in the least bit, my friend. My what go? My father what go even? (as we say in urdu-english). :-)

Re: # 99

Echo sahib:

"...The journey is inside rather than outside ones self. The moment it is expressed & exhibited its mystique is gone..."

Very well said. Zen had put it slightly differently.

"Life is a journey, and the journey is the reward" I find it very satisfying.

Re: # 97

Tahmed sahib:

You like most are attempting to define sprituality for all. Please just define it for yourself, and derive inner peace, as I do. Those who peddled religion (by the book, or by sprituality) are projecting their subjecting view and interpretation onto others. I do not subscribe to this practice. I am very happy with my question (Is God the best imagination of man, or...., and my set of beliefa that come from this question.

I do not have to ponder if it must have been revealed, guided through a guru, or comes from one's own mind. The most important is what makes the "self" satisfied.

Re: # 99
echo, Einstein did struggle with doubt. So did many others, even Mother Teresa had doubts about the existence of God.
Here's an interesting piece I read by Deepak Chopra on this issue:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/einsteins-god-or-the-ho_b_61970.html
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide

Re: # 97
tahmed sahib, "Human self-interest" can lead to dangerous territory, such as Machiavelli's overriding value of self-preservation being the greatest moral imperative which essentially gives one license to kill any one who is seen as a threat. Sort of like Bush's strategy of pre-emption that has caused tremendous human suffering and hurt the US image badly.

As to the reasons for crimes against humanity, you are absolutely right that many horrible crimes have been committed in the name God and religion. But justification for such criminal behavior is not limited to religion alone. Similar crimes have also been committed in the name of racial superiority, national pride, to bring democracy to the Middle East, etc, etc. In the end, it is some sort of a God (God of religion, nationalism, democracy, free markets, etc.) that people begin to believe in and use to justify their crimes.
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide

anil sahib, riaz sahib

thanks for your input. That is perhaps the most often quoted
aphorism by Einstein used by "spiritualists"..but then there are others by him also which could be used to bolster his "doubts"...best we can say is that they are simply idle musings and should be valued more for their sparks than their wattage. Be it Einstein or anyone they are not so great that they should be taken seriously beyond their domain.

The journey is inside rather than outside ones self. The moment it is expressed & exhibited its mystique is gone.

all the Prime Movers are intangibles, ethereal, spiritual, non-material: words, passions, hurts, love/hate, greed/lust
prejudice/preference, prayers/wishes...etc etc

The Physical motion is simply a manifestation of the above..they are not even movers as such.

hUm sey zamaana khuud hai, zamaanay sey hUm naheeN

My 2 cents:

Just to add my two cents about God. For the longest time I used to say truth is my God, nothing but the truth, but then I got straightened out by my Guru. Truth is not God, God is beyond truth and thus beyond our ability to fathom HIM. He said, God is unknowable but you can feel His presence everywhere. The way he explained it is through a metaphor.

There are two universes, the visible and the intelligible. The visible universe can be seen with the faculty of our eyes but eyes are just not enough, there is an essential condition that needs to be met. This condition is presence of light which allows our eyes to see. Similarly the intelligible universe can only be comprehended with the mind. Like for example doing math which is only concepts in the mind, for these God – {his Grace (rehmat)} is an essential condition to know this intelligible universe. He, is the essential condition just like light is that allows us to comprehend the visible universe. In other word to discern truth from falsehood, to differentiate between what is just and what is unjust etc. This ability in us is only possible because of HIS presence. The more we attune ourselves towards truth and justice the more we are propelled towards him and vice versa.

Anil/Riaz saheban: Spirituality is fine. However, it is so lose and open to so many interpretations - and indeed mischief, the worst crimes being committed in the nameo of God - that perhaps it is better to replace it with something more concrete. Namely "human self-interest" (and, per #80 below, this seems to basically call for a civilized society with emphasis on education and the scientific method). This would end the endless mess made in the name of God - religious rituals, priesthoods, "short-cut" morality. And I am sure God will be fine by it.

Re: # 95

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins161289.html
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide

Re: # 94

Riaz:

Good for you. Like I said we all need a dose of spirituality. Although numerous quotes of Einstein that I am familiar are quite different from what you are attributing to be his quote.

Love to know the reference to this quote, if it is Einstein's.

Re: # 89
I believe in God as a supreme being who has power over the constantly expanding universe and humans are one species among many who inhabit a small speck of dust called earth.

Humans have made progress but we continue strive toward fully understanding and imagining the reality of the vastness of space and even a small fraction of what lies within it.

As we continue to learn the mysteries of the infinite universe, I believe there will always far more to learn than our fairly limited ability to learn it.

That is why I agree with Einstein that science is lame without religion and religion without science is blind.
Humans will continue to strive to reconcile science and faith.

Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide

Re: # 91

Echo sahib:

It was probity and question "Is Man the best creation of God, or Is God the best imagination of Man".

TehsinA #86 One needs to then define "individual self-interest". This could be specified to be "maximizing happiness" and "minimizing distress".

Fitting this into the well-known Maslow's hierarchy of needs, billions of people in the world have already achieved the "minimizing distress" (i.e. roti, kapra, makaan, health etc.) part of individual self-interest to the extent possible by current technology.

Significant further improvements can thus only come via technological advance - notably medical advancements, where the ultimate of course is eternal life and good health (which, as the famous genetic scientist Craig Venter e.g. once noted, could well be around the corner).

With respect to the second aspect of Maslow's paradigm, it is self-actualization through various means that yields happiness. How does one do this? Clearly, this again is done via scientific and technological advance - which gives mankind (and thus the individual) a greater sense of control over nature.

So how is scientific and technological advance achieved? through the scientific method, through education, through a progressive and free environment.

So, one can then say that in summary the highest morality is that which promotes human advancement along the above lines. And that is what makes all these religious/ethnic/nationalist types who make newspaper headlines the most immoral of individuals.

Having solved this problem, time for dinner (which always yields happiness).

89:
"...I have said that it is the best imagination of man..."
=========================================================

o r the imagination that it is the best imagination of man

So when did it dawn on you, or was it revealed to you, that you were Man...are you?.....you seem kind of certain about it.

Actually, given the persecution scientists have suffered at the hands of religious tyranny, it is fairer to say religious people are hypocritical in enjoying the fruits of that same science.

Riaz:

What is God?

I have said that it is the best imagination of man. Not very different from expressions of Einstein, Bertrand Russel to Riga Veda.

Since it is an imagination, it is a concept an abstraction which gives a set of belief where reasoning of science fails, logic fails because current human knowledge cannot by definition have all answers.

Re: # 85
Anil, I agree that there has been an evolution in how people practice their beliefs. But, at the core, most people have a sense of spirituality based on religion and concept God. Even Einstein believed in God, and he tried to reconcile faith and science. He expressed this dichotomy as follows: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide

#75 Posted by bulleya

.....what is the basis of this rational behavior

Knowledge is the basis of rational behavior as well as the philosophical basis of ethics. The majority is usually ignorant of knowledge so it is the ‘wise ones’ that the society goes to, to find how to behave ethically. So it is the knowledge of the ‘elders’ in any society which will determine the ethics of that society. If these elders happen to be religious people then their ethics would be based on religion. If they would be in the US it would probably be determined in the Supreme Court or Universities.

#79 Posted by tahmed32

whose "self-interest" should one have in mind?

It has to be your individual self interest which you extrapolate on to the universe. I was taking an extreme example but it is the mundane where the strength of the principle becomes evident. To litter, to pollute, to break the line, to seek an advantage over others or not etc. if rigorously applied at the individual or home or organization level could have a transformational effect on all society.

Re: # 82

Riaz:

Secular is an abstract construct, just as God can be the best imagination of man. The spectrum of human thoughts has evolved a lot from the days of Ten Commandments, Quran or Eastern Philosophies. In the beginning there was no difference these thoughts ruled. As science evolved freedom to relentlessly probe, question and change, this process separated unquestioned beliefs, whatever they may be – God, a book, a messenger, a guru. For balanced personal life we all need a belief system to keep sanity and bring spirituality, probity of science yield verifiable and provable answers. With its relentless probity comes material wealth. Problem is when personal belief system is projected and enforced on society at large. This is when subjective beliefs are portrayed as laws of society to name the few, and clashes begin. I can write more on this conflict. May be some other time.

#78 Posted by malikrashid

Like I said this is the barometer it allows you to judge what the consequences of a particular action would be and thus gives you a moral basis for it. You can judge and condone it that if the whole society becomes gay it’s ok.

Re: # 81
Tahmed32
You have answered this in your own interact #80. Intense suffering in distant parts of the world could cause a calamity anywhere on the planet. The rough treatment of nature could lead us to extinction. Self-interest of those who implement their will to survive through deliberate actions have made the conquerors in history. There are other dimensions to power besides physical.

Re: # 64
Religion is deeply ingrained in almost all modern, pluralistic societies, in spite of their claims of being secular and their belief of separation of religion and state.

Modern law and ethics as practiced in the West and borrowed by non-western democratic, secular societies in Asia draw heavily from the Ten Commandments to this day, with a few modifications to suit each society and culture, such as the addition of democracy and capitalism as articles of faith.

Denial of God and religion appears quite hypocritical in practice in most societies.
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide

#78 malik rashid: that is certainly a better description of morality than what traditional "muslim" culture has to offer (which is basically stuck at giving the individual carrots and sticks to do the right thing).

The things you mention - alleviating "sufferings", "gainful participation of all", "complex enterprise jointly operated by communiities and groups who distrust each other today" - would certainly be incredibly beneficial - e.g. defense expenditures alone would essentially disappear, making trillions available for "alleviating sufferings", promoting education etc.

I would only add that, I think it is important even here to keep in mind the "whose interest" (per #80 below) aspect on all issues. Since too often the road to hell is paved in good intentions. So - even with the best of intentions for the welfare of the species, we may end up wrecking the planet.

#77 this is actually quite a simple example with an obvious explanation - cross-species fertilization is almost by definition non-productive and so considered repulsive in virtually every culture. just as rotten food is non-productive and indeed injurious, and so considered repulsive in virtually every culture. but this is anecdotal and you need to go beyond kant's centuries old dictum in this way: whose "self-interest" should one have in mind? the "selfish gene"? the individual? the species? life on earth? or the best interests of the cosmos? the last one one can strike out - we dont even understand the cosmos, let alone its "interest".
life on earth seems too far fetched. the species - the "O mankind" - is obviously the best bet.

#77 this is actually quite a simple example with an obvious explanation - cross-species fertilization is almost by definition non-productive and so considered repulsive in virtually every culture. just as rotten food is non-productive and indeed injurious, and so considered repulsive in virtually every culture. but this is anecdotal and you need to go beyond kant's centuries old dictum in this way: whose "self-interest" should one have in mind? the "selfish gene"? the individual? the species? life on earth? or the best interests of the cosmos? the last one one can strike out - we dont even understand the cosmos, let alone its "interest".
life on earth seems too far fetched. the species - the "O mankind" - is obviously the best bet.

Re: # 71
Tahmed32
I said the question is worth exploring but I will take a shot at an answer because you asked for it.
Modernity/rationalism and post-modernity/skepticism have seen actual growth to the level of secularism in our societal existence. Moral rectitude that advances us to the next level must promote alleviation of sufferings and gainful participation of all. The secular has brought us to the point of tolerating and the next level must be purposeful/gainful interaction and integration. The present prejudice and fear must give way to complex enterprise jointly operated by communiities and groups who distrust each other today.
#77
TehsinA
What devastating consequences? Do you think acceptance of gay-sex will destroy the universe?

#70 Posted by malikrashid

Please go back to #61. With this example I was illustrating Emanuel Kant’s ‘categorical imperative’ as the true form of enlightened self interest.

The minute you say some animals or some humans; you are already indulging in exceptionalism, which is breaking the rule. It has to be applied universally to get a clear sense of morality. But once you say that everybody is doing it then the ramications become evident. The practice would have devastating consequences on society. Same would be true with polygamy. Just use this principle and you will find that things become very clear.

bulleya#75:

That quotation is not mine but TehsinA's. You ask what is the philosophical basis of ethics? To me, it is the "lessons learned" in moral conduct by a people on the basis of their historical experiences. I would add that even religious morality is based on those experiences; this is why there is a degree of commonality in the ethics of various religious and secular morality.

dost-mittar #: "This determination when made by people in a rational manner gives an order to everybody’s ethical barometer."

......i.e. majority rule....

what exactly is rational behavior?.....what is the basis of this rational behavior......there was a time when rational behavior, based on majority, declared slavery to be a perfectly ethical act....perfectly rational.....

what is the philosophical basis of ethics?.......a question no one can answer......if it is majority rule, then the majority can support a lot of unethical actions also.......and what if the majority violates the rights of the minority.....what if someone is a model citizen, gives charity, works at the soup kitchen.......but wants to have four wives and simultaneously four husbands.......without harming anyone else.....

echoboom:

I am sorry to disappoint you but I was never a high-up in the civil service, merely part of the government think-tank apparatus.

I believe that bulleya and tahmed are both honourable gentlemen; we all have our "samskaaras".

dost-mittar #: "No, I do not support state terrorism and killings. However, in carrying out its mandate to ensure peace and stability and unity of the state, the state is required to use violence, including killings. It is the job of human rights organizations and the judiciary to ensure that the state does not cross acceptable limits in carrying out that function."

...this is, of course, an incorrect description of what you support.......you, openly support certain occupations and write off the tens of thousands of dead due to state terrorism, under your own set of morals......

same logic that was used by the british, when the occupied india, and killed many people......

this is no different than any justification given by anyone to support state terrorism.......which is my whole point......people define their ethics based on their own comfort zones, which are based on political views, or religious views, or nationalistic views, etc......

DM: see!....
The legtrap never fails.

#68 malikrashid: "whether human conduct needs guidance of moral rules and what those rules are in our pesent day existence"

these are two questions. since you asked, perhaps you have an answer as well. what do you think then are the answers?

Re: # 69
If humans and some animals grow sexual fondness for each other, it might be looked as aversion like gay sex used to be seen. How would it effect the society? That was my question. Your response did not contain any substantive answer. Please enlighten me.

#67 Posted by malikrashid

Go ahead make the argument.

Re: # 64
You make distinction between religion and culture vividly clear. The question whether human conduct needs guidance of moral rules and what those rules are in our pesent day existence, needs exploring.

Re: # 66
You failed to convince, need an argument I guess.

#63 Posted by malikrashid

Great! I love it down and dirty. So lets take this screwing your dog example and apply it universally. So would my wife like the fact that I am screwing the dog, conversely would I like her being screwed by the dog. Better still, how would I feel the dog servicing my daughter? Keep working through the ramifications of this practice through out society and it becomes quite clear whether it or any other practice is good or bad.

DM:
I'm perhaps not wrong to be confident enough to say that you
were fortunate enough to never attend toataa-mainaa schools in slavelands. Am I also correct in having learned that you were one of pretty high-up civil servant in Ottawa and now in the consulting business.

So may I ask you in all earnestness what kind of perverted pleasure do you get to engage the types who originate from the OFFENCE-Kaalonies and UNCIVIL-lines of Pakistan.

Unless ofcourse you love to yank their tails and whirl them as a discus thrower would just to hear their chiaaaooN & tiaoooons?

waiting with salivated anticipation

#62 religion and culture are all inextricably linked - one could even say they are different aspects of the same thing.

the only difference is the basis for anything that flies in the face of common sense is made in the name of "God" (in case of religious scoundrels) or in the name of "Tradition" (in the case of retrograde scoundrels).

Re: # 61
"if you screwed your dog and everybody else did the same would that result in a better world. "
How would it change anything? For better or for worse?

Re: # 47
The secular/atheist morality of our times is the matured version of ancient and medieval ages. An individual, being responsible for their actions, was preached by religions hence retribution was imposed. Religions however became outdated as their message entailed rules that did not apply in face of the changing society. A non-religious set of rules lead the pluralistic society that we live in. Secularism or atheism of our times is not the same as Genghis Khan's godlessness as the right-wing conservatives present it. Eating meat, wearing fur and equity of wealth distribution are all atheistic subjects that must be judged according to scientific and rational rules of communication. Erich Fromm wrote a book titled "You shall be as gods" analysing this thread of individual will/deliberation/responsibility from the ancient religions till present day. The pro-active view that the rights of others must be observed and accomodated while conducting one's business, is morality of present day but the thought and practise has existed for long.

#50 Posted by dost_mittar

Do unto others …. Is an axiom used in some form or another for at least 2500 years but now that you bring in Kant, I think what he called as the ‘categorical imperative’ perhaps lays enlightened self interest into its best form.

“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

In other words no exceptionalism; act only in a manner that if everybody acted the same way the result is good. So lets say you provide alleviation of pain to anybody who is in pain and everybody else did the same would that be good for the world? Similarly taking Bulleya’s example if you screwed your dog and everybody else did the same would that result in a better world. This determination when made by people in a rational manner gives an order to everybody’s ethical barometer.

ellora #55 i dont see how a human rights organization funded by the state can be truly independant.

the real champions of human rights are non-state actors - in Pakistan these being human rights activists like asma jehangir, as well as journalists, and even individuals armed with cell phones. thus, the one you-tube video of the girl being mercilessly beaten in swat was enough to turn the tide of public opinion against the taliban in pakistan. a picture being worth a thousand words. one can only imagine the "inhumanity of man" to one another throughout history before cell phones became prevalent.

tahmed32#57:

It's okay. Happens to the best of us.

it should of course be "not read" in #57.

dost mittar #56 point taken. sorry to have read carefully first time.

tahmed32#54:

I also do not like reminding you again to please read my sentence carefully: "Judiciary is very much a part of the state and, in many countries including India and perhaps also Pakistan, even the human rights organizations are funded by the State.". It's a two-part sentence; the first part re. judiciary applies to all states including Pakistan; it is only the human rights organizations about which I am not sure if they are funded by the Pakistan govt. In both India and Canada, they are funded by the govt. In India, "The National Human Rights Commission was established on 12th October, 1993 under the legislative mandate of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993." In addition to the National Commission, there are also state level human rights commissions funded by state governments both in India and in Canada.

human rights organizations are quintessentially non-state actors.

While it is true the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan is an independent body, the National Human Rights Commission in India is a statutory body jointly funded by the center and the states.

TehsinA #52: very true. it is incredible how much damage is done by not keeping one's true self-interest in mind. instead of harping on fossilized positions that have no bearing on true self-interest.

#51 DM: "and perhaps also Pakistan"

cant get over this "perhaps" when it comes with anything to do with pakistan, dm sahib?? rest assured the supreme court of pakistan is not privately funded. and any doubts of the independence of the judiciary in pakistan should have been laid to rest by the events of the past couple of years.

"even the human rights organizations are funded by the State"

i dont enjoy correcting you - but please think before you write. human rights organizations are quintessentially non-state actors.

#46 Posted by tahmed32

I agree! Confusion only comes with misdiagnosis of where truly your self interest lies.

tahmed32#46:

You are correct. Judiciary is very much a part of the state and, in many countries including India and perhaps also Pakistan, even the human rights organizations are funded by the State. However, their functions are to ensure that the executive does not overstep its functions.

TehsinA#45:

No, I was not thinking of the karma principle while quoting that axiom which, I believe, is attributed to some German philosopher (Kant?). The karma principle, as I understand it, relates one's action to just consequences, if not in this life, than in a future life.

As for swallowing germs, I should refer to the Jains who are the extreme practitioners of non-violence; some of them go to the extreme of wearing a strip of cloth over their mouth so as not to swallow any germs from the air. However, with our modern scientific knowledge, we know that there may be microbes even in water we drink.

There are many theories regarding the origin of the caste system. If the theory regarding the aryans coming from outside India and overpowering the original dark-skinned inhabitants is correct (and it is being vigorously challenged these days), then the most plausible explanation is that this is the original and the most enduring practice of racial segregation to maintain racial purity.

#48 "It is the job of human rights organizations and the judiciary to ensure that the state does not cross acceptable limits in carrying out that function. "

only if you plan to give human rights organizations the same firepower as the executive. and the judiciary is as much the state as the executive - the state is not just the executive, as you imply.

bulleya:

"what about the guy who wants to live and let live (other than incest and animal sex), but is on the forefront in supporting occupations and state terrorism and killings, wherever he feels it suits his personal beliefs (this one applies to you, also)......."

No, I do not support state terrorism and killings. However, in carrying out its mandate to ensure peace and stability and unity of the state, the state is required to use violence, including killings. It is the job of human rights organizations and the judiciary to ensure that the state does not cross acceptable limits in carrying out that function.

anil #: " For example, walking naked in Papua New Papua New Guinea but not acceptable on the streets in Mecca. Problem comes when people insist on switching rules."

...yes, like i said, morality is based on majority opinion....which is why, it is impossible to define an ethical basis for it.....

...everyone tries to find their own comfort spot, and then attempts to devise some ethical justification for this comfort spot.....however, sooner or later, someone challenges that ethical basis......

the reason is that there is no definition of what is ethical and what is not ethical.....people try using different standards, yet then go back on them.....

......if we use the athiestic standard of, "as long as you don't harm anyone else, you should be allowed to do whatever you want," then walking naked and having sex with your dog is perfectly ethical......not to mentione having sex with your grandmother (provided it is consensual, of course)......

........what other concept can be used......let's try secularism......there is no purely secular society in the world......in fact, secularism, as a philosophy, has such a weak foundation, that i doubt it will last too long.....it assumes a God, who knows what is going on in personal events, but got it all wrong in public affairs......not a very knowing God, if you ask me......

......the gay marriage debate will unravel secularism.....because for all its hoopla, the core foundations of secular societies are based on the very religious concept of marraige.....marraige should have no legal existence in a secular society.....anyone who is biologically compatible (be it with any human or animal) should be allowed to cohabitat in a secular society.....yet marraige is legislated heavily as something between a man and an unrelated woman......this is, of course, solely, a religious concept.....

........not only that, in a purely secular society, it is the reponsibility of a secular state to teach everything without prejudice.....hence all public schools should teach kids the above....i.e. if you want to cohabitat with your grandma, consensually, you can......or you can with your girlfriend.......each should be taught equally, or not taught at all......you should be able to bring your gay boyfriend as a date to the prom also.......since you are a taxpayer.....and should have equal rights.....

yet the biggest secular supporters of ahmedi rights draw a line when it comes to gay rights in pakistan......even thought there are probably more gays in pakistan, than ahmedis.....and the biggest secular supporters of gay marraige in canada, draw a line when it comes to polygamy.....and the biggest secular supporters of polygamy in utah, draw a line when it comes to grandma......so on and so forth.......

everyone becomes religious at a certain boundary......

so, what else can we make the basis of ethics?......ethics is nothing but the will of the majority........in some cases, this will is based on religion (as prescribed by an all powerful God), in others it is based on a religion (as prescribed by an all powerful majority).......

we could, of course, reduce everything to its biological fundamentals.....i.e. if my doctor says, it is not going to kill me (or kill someone else) then it is ok........in which case, we can behave like animals, i.e no clothes, no boundaries in mating, etc. etc.......

so what exactly is the basis of ethics, other than majority opinion, forced upon everyone?

#45 the rights of germs are of concern to humans only to the extent those rights benefit humans. "morality" is nothing but intelligent self-interest.

#24 Posted by dost_mittar

"Don't do to others what you don't want to do to you"

That is the Karma principle which to a large extent I agree with, but let me be the devil’s advocate here. Lets say you are a doctor and your job is to make people healthy. But in the process you are annihilating a lot of germs; now you are responsible for this whole sale killing. What should your Karma be for destroying this creation? It has to have its consequences which would probably balance out with the good that you did for all your patients.

The greater point I am trying to make here is that a 360 degree vision only ends up justifying you in your current position, which in fact is what the caste system did in India. What do you say?

Re: # 43

Romair:

"........walking around naked in the streets doesn't seem medically unhealthy......but it is illegal.....on the other hand, smoking is unhealthy, but it is legal......."

This is a different standard, higher or lower is a perspective, than what Dost is saying. Would you not agree? For example, walking naked in Papua New Papua New Guinea but not acceptable on the streets in Mecca. Problem comes when people insist on switching rules.

dost-mittar #: "I would not want any religion to decide what is good or bad for me; I'll let the health experts tell me whether eating beef or drinking alcohol is good or bad for me and let my own ethics decide whether or not I should kill an animal for my food."

....everyone lets health experts tell them things.....however, nearly everyone draws a line at some point.......

to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing medically wrong with homosexuality, incest, polygamy, even what is considered under-age sex....

.....walking around naked in the streets doesn't seem medically unhealthy......but it is illegal.....on the other hand, smoking is unhealthy, but it is legal.......

what is the ethical basis of your views......other than your own opinions......?why should a society conform to your opinions, and not to the opinion of the guy who is healthier than you and wants to walk naked in downtown toronto, with his four wives.......

dost-mittar#: "This is not possible in a morality based on an unchanging dogma."

...actually, morality will always be based on the majority opinion, which is why it is impossible to define an ethical basis for it (or a basis for ethics, to start off with)....

.....what you have seen changing is a change of majority opinion........majority opinion is, thus, a religion of its own.....

the question that needs to be answered is what is the basis of human ethics....what is human ethics, to begin with.....how does one decide what is good and what is bad, in a society.....

societies have tried all kinds of things, but none seems to stabilize.....from religion to secularism......all end up with philosophical loopholes that cannot be addressed......

you are happy with secularism, but the gay marriage couple down the street may not be.......once they become happy, then the polygomist in the next neighborhood may not be......if he becomes happy, then the incestual couple, in the adjoining city, where husband and incestual wife and model citizens, will not be.......and what about the philanthrapist who won the nobel prize, and never bothered a soul, but likes to have sex with his dog......

people pushing religion, find a comfort spot with their views, much like you do with yours.....they think their views are as ethical as you think yours to be....

and we haven't even discussed the ethics of foreign policy....what about the guy who wants to live and let live (other than incest and animal sex), but is on the forefront in supporting occupations and state terrorism and killings, wherever he feels it suits his personal beliefs (this one applies to you, also).......

first you need to define a basis of ethics; only after which one can build a universally acceptable structure on top of it.......

contd...
in overall achievement, the southern states(where effect of Islam is minimal) are far ahead of any region in this part of asia...that says all...
I don't see any other city in moslem countries or other cities in this part of Asia, producing that much intellectual output like Bangalore, Pune and Chennai....They are class apart....

contd...
in overall achievement, the southern states(where effect of Islam is minimal) are far ahead of any region in this part of asia...that says all...
I don't see any other city in moslem countries or other cities in this part of Asia, producing that much intellectual output like Bangalore, Pune and Chennai....They are class apart....

contd...
in overall achievement, the southern states(where effect of Islam is minimal) are far ahead of any region in this part of asia...that says all...
I don't see any other city in moslem countries or other cities in this part of Asia, producing that much intellectual output like Bangalore, Pune and Chennai....They are class apart....

Re: # 35
sha2...
Yeh, Buddhism had made way for islam/barbarism to creep into India...
In modern time too, the "liberal democracy" created path for Islam/Terrorism to spread in Britian and other civilised countries, which is harming those countries....fortunately, Islam in Britain is mostly confined within Pakistani and other arab migrants...That is minor fraction of British population, which can cause bearable burden to rest of British propulation...they may be laggards in education etc...(in civilised areas) and sometimes engaged in islmic activities (bombing etc. etc...) but the society, as a whole maintained the Britishness, and so UK still houses best of the Universities and not turned into Pakistan and other arab countries...If the social discipline was properly maintained, Indians would have been able to repulse urdoo/arabic invaders (those who can stop Alexander, are definitely able people)... and I am sure universites in Nalanda, Kashi, Ujjain would have flourished rather than got destroyed....

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

Re: # 33

You are reluctant christian hesitent to come out in open ....Such cases have been dealt with in many Bengali movies !

Re: # 32

"with spread of Buddhism (which was supposed to be limited within some brahmin and bania circle) all the problem started...Entire social discipline broken down"

And the Islam was not even founded when this self mutilation happened ...LOL kolkata knight rider LOSER

Re: # 24
DM Sb .

If final word is yours ..nothing else


'let my own ethics decide whether or not I should kill an animal for my food.'

NO NEED for
I'll let the health experts tell me whether eating beef or drinking alcohol is good or bad for me and let

Its o.k. to discard science .Mormon forgo Blood transfusion and prefer to die .

In peculiar way science and religion are fraud which ever you prefer to argue for .Miracles and 'studies' are laughable yet they make billions on that notion .

According to Swami Vivekananda, Jesus was ultimate pacifist (close Mahaveera), but the Europeans lead life of Indians of Vedic period...and though Vedas and Vedantas encourages, we practice pacifism and wait for the reward in afterlife or next incarnation....

As per some Indian historian, pacifism started with advent of Buddhism and Jainism (in India)...with spread of Buddhism (which was supposed to be limited within some brahmin and bania circle) all the problem started...Entire social discipline broken down....central asian and arab looters invaded and arab/urdoo culture creeped in...combined effect was deadly (islamic barbarism/narrowness with buddhist pacifism) laid down the perfect way for destruction of Indian supremacy in various field.....
Megasthenes, in his book Indica, described, how Patliputra was way ahead of any city he had seen...Now, it is stinking rathole....

Re: # 23
Science neither opens doors nor sets limits for any one. Science is whatever people want to make it out to be. Some of the most heinous inventions have come from scientists as have some of the most beneficial. Scientists have developed weapons of mass destruction as well as tools of great service to humanity that save lives and sustain human progress to live in peace and harmony.

That's why society needs laws and rules of ethics to harness scientific endeavors. Laws and rules of ethics are often guided by spirituality and morality people learn at an early age to tell the difference between right and wrong.

Societies that reject all spirituality and morality often end up paying a heavy price in terms of social instability, misguided conflicts and economic corruption and great human suffering.
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide

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

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

hamid writes "...... and unlike most of us, who are still trying to get laid, he has already slept with nine hundred"


You are wrong here as well. Just because a person has a few white girlfriends does not mean he has slept with "nine hundred". This is how slaves of the White Man like you think, for them if a white woman finds a desi man attractive he is the king and be all in that department. Get a life and some self respect.

hamid writes "hashim mian,

...... imran khan is doing what any politician would do - he is is saying what the unwashed massses want to hear ...... and unlike most of us, who are still trying to get laid, he has already slept with nine hundred"

That is where you are wrong as usual. IK is saying what he really belives in which is what makes him a bad politician but a good human being. Know that you miserable excuse for a human being...

the author writes "Behavioral science, beginning with the experiments of Pavlov a hundred years ago, has proven that, in fact, behavior can be easily ‘drilled’ by sufficient repetition and motivation"

Einstein pavlov experimented with doggies. People are not doggies, they have reflexivity which the doggies lack. You cannot conclude from natural reflexes to human reflexivity but psychiatrists are ignramuses so I shouldn't expect them to know any better. The Khan is our sher, baaqi is heer pheyr, know that for sure. That said the family is a product of the economic system under which a society operates and once you get capitalism and its shenanigans into the East it will do the same with the family as is happening in the West. In feudal societies family is the be all and end all because production is located within the family but within such a family setup women are considered property while within capitalist "families" they are considered marketable commodities- the Khan doesn't have much info about these issues but the author does not either so it is best for him to shut up rather than make a fool of himself.

The Saab900s.

Re: # 21
Dost
Multiple sources to enlighten on morality is a must. The story of religions(ancient and medieval), philosophic writings (specially modern philosophers and greeks) and a study of contemporary ethical issues must be included in the curriculum. Emphasis on religion only for moral enlightenment leaves a blank in the education process and promotion of a single religion breeds prejudice.

TehsinA#22:

In my view, the eternal value is defined by the axiom, "Don't do to others what you don't want to do to you". Like you, I would not want any religion to decide what is good or bad for me; I'll let the health experts tell me whether eating beef or drinking alcohol is good or bad for me and let my own ethics decide whether or not I should kill an animal for my food.

Re: # 21, thanks for the compliment, sir. One of my favorite quotes by Brecht is "The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom, but to set a limit to infinite error."

Thanks for reading and for the feedback.

Dost Mittar jee:

I think morality, religion, values etc. and change causes a lot of confusion as to what is temporal and what is eternal. One has to make a clear distinction between the two if one wishes to have an orderly existence. Trouble is that religion is the main culprit of this confusion. Let us take a fundamental distinction – Good and Bad. What is Good? Anything that helps us promote well being is Good. Similarly anything that is harmful for us is Bad. This definition of Good and Bad is eternal and has never changed from day one. Same could be said about Justice, Liberty, Wisdom (truth), courage or temperance are values which are eternal. Yes what they mean at a particular time depends upon the level of Wisdom (truth) that we are at but the value itself is unchanging. Religion, because of its reliance on myth to convey its message creates confusion where temporal action gains eternal status.

Hashmi Saheb:

A very good piece, sir! Religion can indeed be a basis of morality, but it can only be a partial source. Human morality is subject to change because societies are changing and so would morality. In a short span of forty years, I have seen dramatic changes in morality here in North America; for example, in matters of sex and sexual orientation, role of females, abortion, etc. Admittedly, some of these changes might prove to be unworkable and the society might modify its morality on a need basis. This is not possible in a morality based on an unchanging dogma.

Scince and religion can coexist. The domain of the unknown will always remain the purview of the religion, at least as long as the science is not able to prove or disprove any of the religous dogmas through scientific methods.

Even in matters of faith, it is important that as long as all faiths are addressing the unknown, all philosophies, including atheism, are considered as equally valid or invalid.

#14 Posted by banjara286

I used to be very skeptical about this till I started reading primary sources and they have definitely won me over. Lets take for example Islamic Historiography – guys like Al Tabri or Ibn Ishaq. For every statement that Al Tabri puts down he gives a copious detail of the source that the information came from. Then when there are more then one versions of the same incident he does not use his ‘judgement’ to figure out what seems most appropriate to him – he just dutifully lists all those versions giving the details of their sources as well. Now what could be more scientific then that.

This is precisely the difference between history and myth. Nobody considers Baburnama, Akbarnama or Firdausi’s Shahnama as history, you can glean some information from them but everything is doubtful as sources and motives of the author are unclear. Similarly secondary sources where people interpret the results of what the earlier authors wrote without providing copious details of their sources loose authenticity, but just like any scientific paper you have to defend your research infront of your peers and thankfully there is a robust community of scholars here who can critique your work.

hashim mian,

...... imran khan is doing what any politician would do - he is is saying what the unwashed massses want to hear ...... and unlike most of us, who are still trying to get laid, he has already slept with nine hundred women ..... now it is time for him to go to haj and, in a different time, he could have crawled into a cave and emerged as a prophet ....... if anyone is to blame for his stupid and outrageous statments, it is the washed civil society and the unwashed uncivlil society of pakistan that doesn't know its elbow from a hole in the ground and yet gets to vote ........ democracy is a dangerous thing in the hands of the wretched and the ignorant ....... it creates monsters like imran khan ....... shame on us for not being able to produce a good dicatator like pinochet or omar ibn khattab .........

Re: # 15 Thanks for the feedback and for taking the time to read the article, vanguard. I had never seen this essay by Imran Khan before (just saw it for the first time a few months ago). I am still a huge fan of Imran's cricketing prowess as well as his work as a social activist (primarily the SKMT hospital. I hear he is also building a university somewhere). I think the simplest reason that people are more critical of Imran is that we expect more from him. I would not bother to write a critique of Zardari, Musharraf etc. because no one expects anything different from them. By joining the political fray, Imran has set the bar higher, both for himself and everyone else. He is probably a little ahead of where Pakistani politics is, at the moment. But that's OK, his role may be more like Ralph Nader, to stir the debate, get people thinking about new ways of doing things and then other people in years to come will have to take it forward.
Also, most of us expect/want change to happen quicker than it actually does. Significant social/historical changes, especially, happen over decades and centuries, not weeks or months. However, we as humans are limited by our brief life spans and cannot help being impatient...:-)

Thanks again for the feedback.

Re: # 12 That does not say good about usa. If you work very hard with work ethics is not bad but not good.I expected some thing more .They say Hard work does not kill you, problem for person like me is I know it will not kill me but why take risk. Hope for few countries where you can advance without hard work , atleast our place is better in this matter.

Make Imran live in Dhravi as in Slum Dog Milioneer .He resounds like Bollywood movies made in the same metropolis..Mere desh ke dharti ..ala Manoj Maine Bharat Kumar .Incidently both these chaps are demagogue deriving Material comfort by these rhetoric .

I am not a follower of Imran Khan but these articles in last couple of weeks have really started me thinking about him.

He did not turnout to be a lota when Musharraf offered him premiership and even admitted that it was a mistake (which the politicians nor the citizens of this country ever do and god forbid if Army ever stoop so low as to even realize that they have committed a mistake), promised to build a world class cancer hospital, not only built it but is also not micromanaging it rather has put in place a system to run it efficiently... That is a huge achievement even by world standards and that says a lot about his character...a feat no other politician nor army has or can replicate...

This is the umpteenth article I am reading about Imran Khan in a fortnight and I am amazed that all of them have the same thing to say...his article of 2002 (could not find anything newer to complain about) and his anti-military operation stance...If you don't like his views, ignore him

Let me count the ways people have criticized Imran Khan in last fortnight on his anti military stance (not on the base of his arguments but on the base of his 2002 article) ...the sheer opposition has made me feel that there is more to it than meets the eyes

1. This pathetic article by the graduate of KEMC and later turned psychiatrist. (Theory of Evolution is a "theory" and not a fact...it might explain a lot of things but still remains a theory and any one is free to reject it as long as it remains a theory....like a big bang theory, superstring theory, inflationary universe theory, steady state universe theory...what is gravity by the way since you raised the issue? do two bodies exert forces on each other? is it caused by gravitons exchange? or by a bend in space-time? or is it something else? A stupid example given to debunk a stupid argument!!!
2. Last week in Daily Times by former Dean of social sciences of Quaid-e-Azam Uni
3. Last week again in Daily Times by Samad Khurram who is undergrad student at Harvard and reached fame by protesting against drone attacks and refusing to be honored by US Ambassador
4. An article on Pakistaniat.com why I dont like Imran Khan
5. An article by Rauf Klasra and Haroon (whats his name) from Daily Jang so oft quoted by Catchy or Cachy and Dawa-i-Dil
6. NFP on his blog as well as article in DAWN directly and indirectly
7. Where I stand article by Imran Khan on Pak Tea House taken from of all the places from a Bangladeshi website
8. This has been quoted a lot in posts and comments: somebody who had it from somebody who had it from somebody that Imran Khan tried to assault Hoodbhoy on live TV once the transmission stopped

All of this in last two weeks. He has really gotten people's goat this time. Or has he become to big to ignore suddenly.

We have so many other people to write about and who actually matter in current scheme of things such as but we are ignoring them...

1. Altaf Hussain (let us not start on that)
2. Nawaz Sharif (who fled to Saudi and still can't come around to admitting that it was a 10 year exile rather than five year despite his signature on the contract).
3. Asif Zardari (Mr 10 percent)
4. Musharraf who build a million dollar home with million pound fixtures (independent.co.uk) in chak shehzad, has not paid his hundreds of thousand rupees electricity bills and the meter that is currently installed at his house charges him FATA rate (the News) and sells Pakistani citizens to CIA for bounty money and when people are massacred in broad daylight in Karachi on May 12, from behind a bullet proof shield in Islamabad proclaims to a crowd collected by promising them food and 300 rupees from all over Punjab that "today we have demonstrated street power in Karachi"
5. The religious lot of MMA

Politicians die their own death when no one listens to them. Left on his own, he would have been forgotten. But these columnists and articles keep bringing him up and breath new life to him...I wonder why??? What has happened in last two weeks to bring about so many articles??? Any ideas

Re: # 5 tehsin sb,
history is, no doubt, a valuable resource. but one can interpret it the way they like to suit their own agenda; a bit like statistics in that regard, don't u think?

A good read. Imran Khan would be better off without publicising his ideas on society and life. I think his decision to join politics and choosing handlers like Hamid Gul landed him in a hardplace. The man is physically endowed with good looks and athleticsm but he has failed as a politician for bad alliances and lack of education.He shows no signs of coming out of this dilemma.

"I see Chinese, Indians and Pakistanis and other Asians with good work ethics outperforming their native white counterparts in almost all fields of endeavor in the United States..." Riaz Haq

That says a lot about your ability to "see".

Ali Hashimi sahib,

Are you using a reverse psychology by introducing a failed person turned politician? Some people could frame this as an "earned advertising," but I wouldn't.

I know, i know, pakis have this uncanny nature of getting acceptance by creating a hulla-gulla atmosphere, even on a web-site.

While I disagree with Imran on his stand regarding the Taliban and his right-wing politics in general, I think there is some truth what he says about eastern values. Having lived in the West for almost all of my adult life, I find that Asians have much stronger family connections, much lower divorce rates, higher education and incomes, an admirable culture of achievement and caring for each other in America.

I see Chinese, Indians and Pakistanis and other Asians with good work ethics outperforming their native white counterparts in almost all fields of endeavor in the United States while maintaining strong family ties at the same time.
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide

Re: # 5, thanks TehsinA. Philosophy, history, the history of philosophy and other such esoteric subjects have been a passion of mine since a young age. Unfortunately, I am now trapped in a psychiatrist's life ;-)
It's not just in 'Muslim lands' that education and knowledge is being progressively narrowed down to the strictly utilitarian i.e. whatever is of immediate use. It also follows logically that in capitalist societies (including the US), utility is defined by whether or not something makes a monetary profit. If so, good enough, if not, it is disallowed/discouraged.

I find it sad that so many young people are being funnelled into learning just about business/finance/commerce etc etc with no encouragement to read the humanities, philosophy, literature, art etc since those can lead to 'dangerous' ideas. I'm just trying to do my humble part in undermining the official dogma.

Thanks for the feedback.

Re: # 3, good point about 'Eastern family life', nb. Also, if one uses the conventional definition of materialism i.e. grasping and thirsting after material things, poorer countries like Pakistan have more people in the grip of this since, as you correctly point out, they do not have their basic needs met. I wrote about this a while ago in another article here. Glad you liked the article.

Re: # 1, thanks zarrar2. As far as 'diagnosing' Imran Khan, I try not to get too carried away with labels. Besides, a person's actions speak louder than any words, don't you think?

A very good article, very factual. I hope Pakistan comes out of its dark ages and shine like the star it is.

Hashmi Sahib:

Very well done! We need more people to take up the cause of history and philosophy, two disciplines which have been decimated in Muslim lands as they directly challenge monolithic indoctrinations essential for religious orthodoxy and regressive regimes.

Imran Khan should have limited himself to cricket and later on his cancer hospital. That would have earned him a lot of respect and perhaps then his musings on life and philosophy would have been taken a bit more seriously. He ventured out on the wrong foot, without his guard and with no idea of what he was aiming at. No wonder the crowd is somewhat uncharitable.

Interesting article. I heard nothing about this article from Imran, but Indians often make these facile and incorrect comparisons too. Imran seems to be fairly narcissistic. He should be on Chowk.
If family life is better in his view in the East, it comes at the price of oppression, particularly that of women, and people find this difficult to accept. If anything, I find Easterners more driven by materialism than Westerners now, which is not hard when you have not had your basic needs met.

Brilliant view sir! I too was a fan and a follower of Mr. Khan. The stuff he says now on national television is only evidence of the fact that the man suffers from a possible personality disorder. Of course you might diagnose better.

Brilliant view sir! I too was a fan and a follower of Mr. Khan. The stuff he says now on national television is only evidence of the fact that the man suffers from a possible personality disorder. Of course you might diagnose better.