The Bombing

A Nugget from TFT

Shariat Court remarks laughable



Quoted in daily Din, PPP leader Iqbal Haider said that the Federal Shariat Court allowing unfettered rights to men to marry again and again could be challenged because the Court had no jurisdiction in the matter of Family Laws Ordinance 1961. He said remarks given by the judges were laughable. For instance, unfettered polygamy was allowed `because there were more women than men in Pakistan`, meaning that men could marry many times to `fill the gap`.

Here is an intersting “Guide to Comparative Religions”. It appeared several years ago in “Utne Reader” and “Mother Jones” magazines. My intention to reproduce it is mainly for information or entertainment purposes because I do not want people not to know the basic theological differences among comparative religions. I apologize for the use of word sh *t in this post but here it really means evil, bad things or troubles and is not used in literal sense.



Taoism: Sh *t happens.

Confusianism: Confusius says, “Sh *t Happens”.

Buddhism: If sh *t happens, it isn’t really sh *t.

Zen: What is the sound of sh *t happening?

Hinduism: This sh *t happened before.

Zoroatrianism: Sh *t happens half the time.

Islam: Sh *t happens because it is the will of Allah.

Judaism: Why does this sh *t always happens to us.

Catholicism: Sh *t happens because you are BAD.

Calvinism: Sh *t happens because you do not work hard enough.

Protestantism: Let this sh *t happen to someone else.

Southern Baptists: Sh *t happens only to moderates.

Seventh Day Adventists: No sh *t on Saturdays.

Jehovah Witness: Only 144,000 are gonna get out of this sh *t.

Christian Science: Sh *t is in your mind.

Mormonism: This sh *t is going to happen again.

Moonies: Only happy sh *t really happens.

Rastafarianism: Let’s smoke this sh *t.

Hare Karishna: Sh *t happens rama rama.

Existentialism: What is this sh *t anyway?

Hedonism: There is nothing like a good sh *t happening.

Stoicism: This sh *t is good for me.

(Author Anonymous)

sac #136:

(Please read the article I posted in #10 on Jawahara’s board)

If we alienate, knowingly or unknowingly, the spiritual element in us, can we cope effectively with life on any level?

rgds

t

SameerJB #133

Excellent summation and good points raised.


Some more questions:

1: There is a need to define ritual and dogma, universalism as in truth, beauty and justice, and if possible to discuss them from both religious and social perspectives.
2: Qur’an is clear as well as vague. It could be understood by the simple bedouins, as well as the scietific mind down the centuries. Does this underline its inherent flexibility? If the answer is in affirmative, what happened to the flexibility?
3: Are all Qur’anic injunctions for all times? Say, slavery or polygamy?
4: Are Muslims the ‘final’ of the chosen people?
5: Can a person be a good being and not a Musim?

regards,

temporal

temporal #146

No, I am not .... I think I will stick with my day job as a management consultant and demagogue. Thanks for the tip - I ordered the book.

re jay #150:

Yes I owe it all to you my friend. I can now run the 100 meters in 10 seconds flat. Women swoon when I take off my shirt at the beach. With a wave of my hands I can cause all neon signs in Time square to start blinking my name. Depending upon the color of clothes I am wearing, I take out the matching Ferrari from my garage in the morning. I had an audience with the Dalai lama, Bill Gates and George Soros yesterday....And that was only before lunch time.....

How can I thank you enough? I beseech you to come to the US and open an ashram in Greenwich, CT. I`ll publicly renounce my religion and devote the rest of my life to spreading your wisdom. I implore you to do this for the sake of the misguided millions(specially Muslims!!).

regards

-sac

P.S: Not that I particularly care but I don`t drink. Marijuana.....isn`t it a medicine of some sort?

rajanjua #148

Sorry, I still don`t get it. Thackeray`s Shiv Sena began as a Marathi `sons of the soil` movement in the `60s(or late `50s maybe). I have never heard any Shiv Sena politician(whose public utterances I listen to and abhor from a distance) quote scripture or attempt to exert religious influence. In the recent years they have taken upon themselves the additional role of fighting for so-called `Hindu` causes just as any other caste/community based party claims to do. Well, plenty of Hindus have said thank you, but no thank you.

About misuse of religion, yes, I agree with you, both mullahs and Thackeray attempt it. Again, which one of these is being allowed to get away with it? I have never seen Pakistanis repudiate in public, misuse of Islam in political or any other sphere(even in extreme cases calling for condemnation like Afghanistan) or challenge the mullahs without being labelled traitors to the cause of Islam. You will find any number of vocal opponents of Thackeray or any so-called `Hindu` party, and the worst that is said of these opponents is that they are `communists` or `pseudo-secularists`, its never been possible to call someone a `bad` Hindu and make it stick. Can the same be said about being Muslim and opposing mullahs?

I don`t know the situation in Pakistan, but how much of opposing narrow-minded fundamentalists is complicated by their propensity for armed (gun) violence? The situation is less serious in India. Even Dara Singh used bows, arrows and knives, no guns.

Coming to the final difference, how much of current Pakistani public debate is about implementation of Sharia or Islamic law, how much does such debate or or such a unresolved and seemingly-possible paradigm change in Pakistan make mullahs larger-than-life to themselves and others? Thackeray can only plan for the next election, he cannot count on any other method of increasing his influence. Secularism of the Indian Constitution has protected Hinduism, thats the other difference.

Sadhana

We,the alm-seekers at the door of Hope

will return,once these bad days are gone

and,clearing from our eyes some dream-shards

will move on,as before,& build the DREAM,anew

wassalaam

Sac #136,

So my dear friend you had been drinking, that too drinking in the pubs, talking to women, all because of me. Your post contained wisdom, coming out of introspection, not from reading books. You are on the right track, alcohol in some people has the positive effect of lowering inhibition thresholds, even in thinking process. Have you tried marijuana?

Regards and wishes for newer vistas

jay.

To All:

Coming back to the subject.

Kaisa Kaaba,kahan ka Qibla,kaisa harum aur kya ahraam

Uss koochay kay bashindon nay subb ko yaheen sey salaam kya.

Meer Taqui Meer-----practising & orthodox muslim.

So you see nothing is,that has not been said or done before.

wassalaam.

Re: sadna

Mullahs are usually ignorant, narrow-minded fundamentalists and so is Thakeray. Mullahs can and sometimes do abuse religion and so does Thakeray. Get the analogy now?

``BTW, how is religious authority earned, in Pakistan?``

I am not sure, I believe the Shias have some sort of a procedure. I think Fozia described it. I don`t know if there is something similar amongst the Sunnis.

Re: sadna

Mullahs are usually ignorant, narrow-minded fundamentalists and so is Thakeray. Mullahs can and sometimes do abuse religion and so does Thakeray. Get the analogy now?

hamidm:

You would not be this Mohsin Hamid? This is from yesterday`s NYT Book Review.


http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/03/12/reviews/000312.12lahirit.html

rgds

t

rajanjua #137

``The struggle between the conservatives and liberals exist in every religion, chapee. Our mullahs are not more embarassing than that moron named Thakeray.``

Incorrect analogy. Thackeray has never claimed to be a religious leader or tried to peddle religious doctrine or exert religious authority. He will never be given the authority to do so, being recognised by all as a political leader with his own brand of political doctrine, he is not considered by any measure a religious scholar nor even granted the moral authority to offer insights into religious matters.

Extremely important and key difference.

Moreover, even if a swami was actively involved in political activities, if his activities and assertions didnot pass muster with the public, he would only end up losing his spiritual or religious overlordship and without it he would be nothing, however influential, learned or however many armed hordes he controlled. Remember Chandraswami? His influence extended only over those who asked for his guidance, noone else. He had to spend time in jail for foreign exchange regulation violations inspite of his powerful friends.

In any case, there is no formal controlling authority vested with Hindu religious figures that their followers donot grant them primarily by virtue of respect for their moral leadership and scholarship. Without that respect, there is no authority.

Sadhana

BTW, how is religious authority earned, in Pakistan? How does a scholar rise in the ranks of the religious heirarchy? Is it scholarship, or influence and connections in Arab countries, personality power over the general public, political connections, ability to attract funds, control over mosques? Can the authority of any given mullah ever be challenged, either on political basis or theological basis by any individual or group, his peers, superiors, laymen?

SameerJB:#133

1)I did not add or remove anything from fozia`s or amir`s viewpoints.I re-produced the explanation given by the ulema of a certain jurisprudence(fiqh)-------Pl.read my post again.

2)It is true all or most of the concepts existed in pre-Islamic period( both of the book or without & maybe among `heathens` too).But all the science Laws existed before Newton too.Who needs the brain or the age of a sage or scholar to `explain` that a body will not be moved unless moved & will not cease to stop moving unless stopped by someone.But sir,this is taught as the cardinal theology of science & VERY RIGHTLY SO.Sometimes apparently simple things stated with a specific purpose become very profound.So whosoever ENUNCIATED these concepts in a concise & orderly manner is the one to claim the ownership.Now is that not simple & obvious?

As OMAR1974 would be taught in his law class``And that my dear students was a penetrating insight into the obvious``.

Religion & science are not subjects to be treated in a wishy washy manner.They must be approached with a cartain awe & reverrence----mental Ba Vuzoo is one way to look at it!

wassalaam.

In my reply # 138, the last line should read:

``I am sure, you are not asking your audience not to know the differences reasonably well.``

Sameer, I apologize for my sloppiness.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad