Muslims and The West After 11th September

Re Drumz (#439):

Virgin birth of Jesus is indeed an interesting topic, surrounded by mystery, religious zeal, scientific paradox, and cloudy history. Here is my explanation of the matter … i.e. an Ahmadi-Muslim point of view.

Pregnancy of Mary without the apparent agency of a man caused Jews to charge Mary with fornication. Quran has defended Mary against such charges and asserted that Mary was indeed a righteous and pious lady. My understanding is that Quran supports the idea of virgin birth of Jesus. The question is … how is this possible? And, if this is not possible, doesn’t this raise questions about the authenticity and divine origin of the Quran. These concerns are valid and deserve to be addressed.

At the risk of sounding like a quantum-magnetic-energy kinda guy who has watched way too many episodes of the X-files ... here’s something to consider. One of the possible explanations of “virgin birth” is through a rare natural phenomenon of “perthenogenesis”. Here, a kind of tumor known as “arthenoblastoma” found in female pelvis or lower parts of the body, can generate male sperm cells and can potentially result in conception, even in the case of a virgin woman. This type of self-fertilization is an extremely rare phenomenon, but it provides a plausible explanation. The book I have here (Jesus’ Second Coming, by Shah Mustafizur Rahman) refers to Encyclopedia Britanica under topics of “Virgin Birth” and “Anomolies and Curiosities of Medicine”; W.B. Saunders and Co., London, for more discussion on the topic.

I myself have not looked up these references but would like to point out that … as I understand it, medical science supports the idea that such a rare phenomenon (i.e. perthenogenesis) can result in the birth of a female child only, and not a male one. But I am not too concerned about it. In the last 2000-or-so years, science has progressed enough to discover the possibility of a female child being born without a biological father. Given some more time, science may well discover some lesser-known phenomenon (say, a special case of perthenogenssis) that can result in the birth of a male child.

On the issue of authenticity of Quran … I firmly believe in its divine origin. I say this for many reasons … the way it describes future events, scientific facts, historical accounts, and more. One of my favorite, simple arguments is that Quran declared that Allah is the guardian over this Book. From what I understand, Arabic text of Quran has not undergone any changes across the globe, throughout the history of mankind, and it exists in its original form. Even scholars who harbor anti-Islamic sentiments more or less acknowledge this. Without divine support, I cannot imagine Quranic text staying uniform throughout the ages and all across the globe.

But the catch is that … followers have to make earnest efforts to understand it, and not try to force their own interpretation on it. Unfortunately Quran has been all too often incorrectly used to justify social absurdities and more. Its message of compassion, human brotherhood, inter-religious harmony, and worldwide peace has been overlooked, often deliberately, for political gains for those involved. This has alienated a lot of non-Muslims, and even well meaning what-would-otherwise-be-Muslim individuals, from Quran and Islam.



And that is the real travesty of Islam and Quran … Best regards,

Asad

Sadna, Urstruly, Shammi, and everyone.

There is an inner muslim/islamic contradiction.

A week or two ago, they were showing clips of afghanistan when russians were there and the reporter did a piece tracking a mujahadeen group.

One leader said this and this was translated:

He said that when he goes to paradise, he gets to enjoy women, boys, beautiful garden and wine and he added that a lot of these things are forbidden in this earth.

If that is the case, then isn`t there a contradiction to seek sin in paradise while denouncing the same in earth.

Thanks

Tahmad

Notice the pattern of attack:

1. Anything connected to Islam, other than ``quietism`` is negative, a threat to ``humanity``.

2. Muslim family institution, the basic building block to be dismembered: Women`s rights. In this guise, it is important (acting on behalf of the ``oppressed`` women) to ``liberate`` them.

3. Attack on Islamic institutions of learning. Not only are they poor in resources, they are the nursery of enemies of ``humanity``. The State must intervene in such a way as to gain control of these institutions, by ``regulating`` them. The State must not seek a dialogue, but must impose it`s will, or rather the will of the foreigners (for the best interests of the believers).

4. The single most important weapon is still to be fielded, it is being made ready: This weapon will be an assault on the Quran. Mark my words. Indeed, it is essential from their point of view that the legitamcy of the Quran be brought into question, the legitimation of this attack will ofcourse be ``science``. If this Central pillar can be weakened (since it cannot be destroyed - there are reasoning Muslims, they they understand the nature of ``faith``) - the entire soical and moral structure of Islam can be brought into question and totalitarianism will gain new source of sustainance.

Prof Hoodbhoy: The reason u dont address people when they ask u questions is______________???

-Not enough letters after their name?

-Everyone else is stupid?

-Whats the deal Doc? An elitest professor, I must be imagining things...

Chowk Staff: The reason you all continue to censor me like Im Larry Flint is___________?

That last post didn`t even have swear words in it, whats the deal?

Trillium: U may wanna check out the forgotten children thread.... Before I reply, juss wanna run something buy u, this is new to me (my boy just upped me on it an hour ago)...

There`s a lotta evidence that indigenous people know a great deal about the universe and numerous sciences. They credit this knowledge to the hallucinatory drug called ``Ashaninca`` in Peru. The natives said that hillucinations resulting from the use of that drug told them a great deal about the DNA of plants... Scientists rarely addressed the ecological knowledge of natives cuz the natives had ``absurd`` explantions for their wisdom... The natives believe that nature speaks in SIGNS and that noticing similarities in shape/form are crucial to understanding nature.

After taking the drug, u usually see black snakes intertwined together in the exact shape of DNA. They somehow communicate to the subject that they are from another planet and came to earth millions of years ago - also, that they are the buildingblocks for ALL life...

In shamanism, two snakes symbolize the male and female energy, water/land -other opposites (the exact same as the egyptian ANKH and the Christian CROSS). Shamans believe they communicate to DNA and get answers from it. Damn, sorry for writing this but I gotta-to remember it. This sh1t is crazy, it ties into everything (T.O.E?).

If u look at DNA it resembles a ladder. This ties into shamanism world wide - their concept of men climbing the spiritual stairway to the gods... (jacobs ladder). DNA emits photons, shamans say the snakes communicate to them. This would explain why most religions have a serpant figure... Also the good bad (satan/God) duality...

If DNA is vibrating, and its the source, thats probably why the Bible says ``In the Begining was the word.``

Trillium, ill get back to u tommorow, gotta explore this sh1t further.

Peace...

``What does Spielberg`s alleged religion has to do with guilt or innocence of the Nazis? Or do you buy into the `jews control everything` nonsense?``

Had too many mirchis with your food? Where in the hell did I say that? You think Nazis were innocent?

``It is sad that so many ifs and buts and nuances have to be negotiated before a simple truth can be admitted after sixty years of the most brutal religious genocide in recent history.``

Read again old chap and you won`t find any ifs or buts in my statement. And lets not get into semantics ``most brutal religious-genocide`` - The fact is that many people have suffered worst fates - And that was my point - BTW this simple truth (jewish holocaust) is not only accepted but must have been reiterated six million times by now if not more (with the slogan ``never again``). Did`nt stop the slaughter in Rawanda though and nor does it stop the demolition of Palestinian homes. Does the ``never again`` applies to the Jewish people only - I thought it was for humanity in general.

Re semipreciousme (#453):

Regarding the truthfulness of Mirza Sahib, who claimed to be the Promised Messiah, the Mahdi (divinely guided one) of the age, and a Prophet of Allah, here is some thoughts …the post is a bit lengthy, but I have tried to briefly highlight some of the points …

For starters ... in several places Quran states that `` ... Prophets have been raised from among you ...``. One of implied meaning of is that due to the commonly known truthfulness and honesty of the claimant, his claim of prophethood should be given serious consideration. This explains why Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) asked the people of Quraish if they`d believe if he told them there is an army behind the mountain. People affirmed that they know Mohammad to be honest and truthful, and then the Prophet proceeded to give them the message of Allah. It was this personality of Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) and understanding of the scripture that made Abu Bakr (ra) accept the Prophet (pbuh) immediately as a true prophet without any further arguments. Mirza Sahib, as admitted also by his opponents, had a very truthful and pious nature. Actually he was considered to be a champion of Islam as he defended Islam against other religions through writings and debates. It was only after he claimed to be the Messiah and a prophet, that the mullah started to oppose and revile him. One should do his own research and not take the word of a ``believer`` like myself. Read the account of Mirza Sahib`s life, the criticism from his opponents, and the answers.

So, does this mean that any pious and honest claimant of prophethood is a true prophet? A truly pious and honest person will never make a false claim, esp. associating a lie with Allah. In any case this issue requires more consideration.

Regarding Prophet Mohammad (pbuh), Quran states in Chapter 69 (Surah-e-Haqqah) that ... if he had uttered lies in Our name, We would have surely grabbed him by the right hand and cut off his lifeline, and no one could have stopped Us from doing this… Here Allah has established a principle that false claimant of prophethood will suffer humiliation in this world. There have been several individuals who claimed prophethood throughout the history of Islam. None was successful ... none could live up to their claims of divine support. On the other hand, at the time of Mirza Sahib`s death in 1908, four hundred thousand people had accepted Ahmadi-Islam. This community has continued to spread all across the world in spite of severe opposition from others. Allah had promised Mirza Sahib that Allah will spread his message to the four corners of the world. Today, this jamaat has centers all over the world and a worldwide satellite network (MTA, for Muslim TV Ahmadiyya) which broadcasts Islamic and educational programs in various languages … Urdu, English, German, Bangla, French, African languages … to name a few … for a global audience. It is financed solely by jamaat donations ... no Jewish or British conspiracies here, as charged by the mullah. Another sign of the divine support is the fact that three kings, namely King Faisal, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, and Zia-ul-haq, who severely persecuted this community, were killed mercilessly. I clearly see the hand of God in this, but than again, I am an Ahmadi. One should himself investigate this and arrive at his/her own conclusions.

Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) had prophesied the coming of the Massih, the Son of Mary in the 14th century Hijri (

Sadna

I did substitute woman for Muslim and men for non-Muslim - My post to which you originally responded to was about the religion of ``secular humanism``. What is your post about? Are you arguing that Muslims do not seek to live with non-Muslims or is that non-Muslims do not seek to live with Muslims - Would Islam or any other religion gain from another? yes certainly - yet how is this related to my post you made reference to? Or should I treat it as a seperate piece?



``Yes, they may do so but if there are Christians and nonChristians who differ, then their contention that the Church is meant for all does not hold true for all, hence a dispensation other than the Church has to be thought of by all. All means everyone who wants to create a dispensation which will affect others as well and the affected others too.``

``affect``? ``others`` - why others? ALL is a nation? a group of nations? the entire world? how would you account for a nation or group of nations who may be quite satisfied with their ``dispensation`` and not want any part of another dispensation?

``Things are not so difficult as you seem to think. These days `all` is defined by the geographical boundaries of a nation or citizens with influence over each other. If one groups of `all` WANTS to have a common dispensation with another group of `all`, who WANTS it, too, you get entities like the EU.``

Sure, sounds reasonable, informed individuals, making free, informed choices. Where is this going? So?

``If those against traditional religion(or any other ideology) can find common cause with those in favor of traditional religion(or any ideology), THATs the common dispensation one is looking for, and should settle for. Where is the question of any hostility ?``

Huh? Ok. What are you talking about?? I have read your post over and over again - Lets say that those against traditional religion make common cause with those in favor of traditional religion (we will overlook that by definition it is an impossibility [for/against] however, common ground can be found between religion and that definition of secularism that seeks the specialization of the institutions of governance and religion and is neutral towards religion - not with secular humanists) - Ok, so THAT is the common dispensation? Whatever THAT is? and should settle for? and if not? the implications for personal and group safety and liberty would be...??? How closely the language of human secularism is identifiable in the totalitarian mind set.

``There is nothing revelatory in this settlement of common cause. For every group of

`all`, this common cause fianlly settled upon would be uniquely defined. Mauritius is not constrained to model itself on the Filipino defination of common cause. When Burkina Faso -ans set out to find common cause with other Burkina Faso`ans, they donot need to care about what is done in Saudi Arabia or the Christmas Islands.

Sounds reasonable, perhaps the same applies to ``colonials`` who model their ``parliament`` and other institutions of their former Masters - yes, certainly they could take a lesson from these burkinafasoans, that should not cause harm, if a group so desired it - wouldn`t you agree?

``In either case or in any case, both positions are ``value laden`` are they not?``

Yes, all human dispensations are value-laden, namely a choice between something and something better, even readings of the already value-laden revealed scriptures are not free from human contribution by the readers. How to judge? The good values are those which are likely to make ALL(not most) Burkina-Faso`ans feel they are getting a fair deal.``

We make value judgements based on our feelings? This is genuine secular humanist thinking - Tahmad could not have asked for better examples of the implications of this kind of thinking - So we judge things by how we ``feel`` - Right and Wrong are ``autonomous`` (subjective), can the individual be other than ``SELF-righteous? mix that with ``scientific method`` (inductive)and boom, you get to make larger moral and experiential propositions, in a seemingly scientific qualifier - And what if ALL (not most) [is such a thing possible?] Burkina-Faso`ans agree that the Koran can only be understood literally? Whatever values they based their decision would be ``good`` values? What if, Indians having agreed with some Pakistanis, that there are too many Indians in the world and instituted a policy of one child per couple only and that other successful fetus would have to be aborted, regardless of term? - would those values also be ``good`` values? would they be good values if the fetus was to be aborted not later the first trimester? would it be OK to ``murder`` some persons, if we ALL (not most) agree to do so? would it be ``murder``?

perhaps the focus should be on values and morality - rights and obligations would fall under this rubric. What does individual freedom(s) mean? freedom to commit suicide?, for instance. and Why not? Why not tenneage pregnant unwed mothers? Because they are a burden on the state and their families? then why not be rid of them and reduce the burden? The rest of society will ``progress`` will it not, with out the burden?``

``Thats for ALL Burkina-Faso`ans to decide what values and morality and how much to focus on it. If Burkina-Faso`ans donot in general like teenage pregnancies as a social evil, it can take measures to REDUCE its incidence as a social evil without infringing into an individual`s personal autonomous sphere. Again what constitutes an individuals personal autonomous sphere, depends on ALL Burkina Faso`ans.

``Individuals personal autonomous sphere`` - what is this? is it natural? or is it granted as a right in return for obligation/responsibility?

That`s right it`s for Burkinafasoans to decide not secular humanists.



You seem to be arguing that if one doesnot explicitly invoke adherence to religion in human affairs, this constitutes granting too much freedom which will be misused. Well, the Ten Commandments or which Penal code havenot succeeded in eliminating the individual inclination to commit murder and adultery, they just keep this widely-accepted social malaise is check. And perhaps you notice that human beings tend to misuse everything, including religion, despite the God-connectedness of Founders or the divinity of the messages. To keep misuse in check is a continuous endeavor as a society, one has to have and grant the freedom to engage in this endeavor, and cannot claim to have more right to do so than others.

Freedom DEMANDS responsibility - all this tripe about freedom and not a word about responsibility?

I am not arguing for adherence to any religion - I was arguing that religion remains a source of ethical teachings and morality - the basis for law (all Laws are in essence, restrictions, rights and obligations): these give order, structure and meaning to human constructs and experience. Your critique of penal codes and social malaise is quite appropriate. I am not a utopian, and am certainly defensive when confronted by non-reason. And I am most certainly arguing against ``secular humanism``.

I am always amused by secular humanists hiding their agendas behind the language of ``freedom`` and ``liberation`` - they, it seems, believe that no one wants freedom to practice their religion - those who find a ``liberation`` behind their burkas are of course servile objects or that no one what liberation from seluarized schools - implicit in the philosophy of secular humanism is the notion that they know what is best for everybody (Thong Burkas for the ``liberated`` women of Afghanistan - secular schools over deeni Madrassahs in Pakistan, not free choices, but the choices of the secular humanists) - secular humanists are a kind of nihilistic plague, in their rejection of tradition moral authority. The result of this ``liberation`` is an individual ``free`` from family, Masajid/Church?Temple/Gurdwara, ethnicity, tradition, culture and nation -``autonomous``, ``atomized``, unconnected, isolated, the SELF, all by itself in a self created, accidental universe - how could the individual himself/herself not be an accident? - not a part of the timeless continuum of the living, the dead and yet to be born, (the reason we are not historical is the fact that we connect to the human condition expressed through out time and space - we read the Greeks and we understand them, we read other ancient works and we see ourselves and meaning of our lives) but now altogether historical, completely broken down, the raw material of totalitarianism. The hostility towards traditional religion and the believer (fanatic, psychologically unhinged) exist because it gives the individual believer a power greater than a State can ever exercise over the believer and this is freedom all totalitarians fear most.

Aware of his or her ``rights,`` unaware of the responsibilities demanded by those ``rights``: personal moral responsibility is systematically undermined by a emphasis on ``rights`` without responsibilities. This most obvious in the sexual mores: abortion on demand, the lack of moral restraint, the viewing of sex as essentially an act devoid of emotional intamacy and emotioanl and psychological and social consequences. The promotion of euthanasia as yet another ``right``, the ``right`` to distribute pornography, the esteem of breaking of any ``taboo``, of going ``beyond`` in the seemingly endless series of sensations. Not all the sensations in the universe will dull the pain of alienation, of unconnectedness, of being historical.

The individual is then easy prey to forces of non-reason, even as it masquerades as reason and uses the language of ``science,`` promising an earthly utopia and prepared to use coercion as means to bring about that earthly utopia. Law is no longer based on a sense of moral rightness but on the demand of ``social order`` and ``progress.`` The state in order to fulfill the demands of social order must become increasingly dictatorial to insure orderly behavior - that`s right, orderly behavior. Those who will not conform, who persist in believing in God, whom the new secular prophets have identified as an obstacle to ``progress``, they must be forced to obey, in the their own best interest and of course in the interest of ``humanity.``

Increasingly academics and policy managers in all public institutions and especially parents (a family is an institution with obligations that binds the individuals to one another and to the larger society), are increasingly aware that ``secular humanism`` is but an empty promise and a mortal danger to freedom, intellectual inquiry and the dignity of man. Increasingly thinkers and policy managers are coming to the conclusion that the era of the unrestrainted self, of ``disenchantment`` must be brought to a close. The new paradigm seeks institutional specialization, even as it seeks rebuild the ethical, moral and social binds that can bring meaning to the lives of persons: ``The pursuit of happiness,`` that is to say the ``struggle`` to be happy, not the ``right`` to be happy. Believers all over the world understand the import of this, for the struggle to be happy, the struggle for a better world, will only be completed in God, His Message of redemption and infinte love, compassion, His Grace.

Tahmad

Eid Mubarka and happy, healthy new year to you as well

Atheism is central to secular humanism - it would have to be, not just by their writings, their philosophy, but it is inherent in the name they give themselves.

A very ``liberated`` view of sexual behavior is also central.

Secular humanist find traditional morality oppressive - they seek to ``liberate`` the individual from family, religion, culture, ethnicity and nation - for them man is the measure of all - God`s gotta go!

But each of us can arrive at our own conclusions about the meaning of, and the effect, consequences of secular humanism. You may find my post to Sadna of interest.

re shah

``You sometime demonstrate logic of lower than jr.high school kid.``

And you demonstrate none at all.

Of course I don`t mean that but it is said only to demonstrate that I too have the ability, but no desire, to use personal insults.

That said, I am not excusing anything. Re-read my post. It is pretty clear, it seems, that I am asking for criticism of ALL atrocities against Palestinians not just the ones allegedly committed by Israelis. I have also mentioned that ISarelis are far more humane to the Palestinians than almost any other neighboring country. I stand by both statements. You may or may not agree but it is in rank poor taste to bring my age (you`re way off on that buddy), George Will, or my attire into the sqabble. Oh, generally I don`t prefer bow-ties-just regular conservative(small c) neckties.

Lets keep interacts within decorum.

Drumz, Sattar2, Trillium - #various

Thanks for your beautiful posts on variety of subjects and ignoring the usual indo-pak or hindu-muslim bashing nonsense.

There is hope for the sub-continent.

Regards.

Re: Amit 449

``...The stick is that if they (Pakistan) continue with proxy wars, we (India) also launch proxy wars and covert actions...``

That is a policy that hurts the average person more than the elites/government. That is why, I am not in favor of this policy. A sea embargo (call it `quarantine`) designed to weaken the government, but spare the common person is perhaps more humane. As regards nuclear weapons, and threats of their use, they are not acceptable for use. If Pakistan uses them, it must also know that it is finished as a nation state. That is a sobering thought for any Pakistani general.

Semiprecious: ``so, can you tell me more about this mirza ghulam?…i think there are some signs to the coming of the messiah, right?…``

I know sattar will answer that Q better, but here`s my 2 cents anyways. Its a fact that Muhammed never claimed to be the final messenger, thus there`s a likelihood that X can be the next messenger... BUT, so what? Queen, if ur the sun, WHAT can u follow? You follow you`re own orbit. The religious headz will belittle us by claiming that people are worse than animals. Unable to THINK for themselves. (For a rebuttle see ANY religious society...)

Socrates said that there is no such thing as NEW knowledge. Everything ``new`` u learn is something u agreed with before. (Jews/Muslims: say God put his breath in us before creation).

Consider this, everything u agree with needs CONTEXT. You can`t say Jordan is the best baller if he`s the only one on earth. We need context. Similarly, u need context to find a religious belief ``DEEP`` or ``AGREEABLE.``

For it to make sense to you, u must have always known it to be true. U dont need books to tell ya killing is wrong (Its INHERENT). They`ll have u believe that u need to follow X to find it, but truth be told u always had it.. can always get it.

The more ya learn about yaself, the more u learn about God. Follow the path of life and more will be revealed, u just gotta pay attention...

Time to leave religions with the ``religious.``

Snoopy,

I am not sure what you are asking me, nor am I sure why I was, along with Mr.FK and Mr.Urstruly, accorded this honor of being confronted with whatever absract your question is. In any event, kindly clarify if you want a response from me otherwise please hold your silence. I have great respect for Mr.FK and Mr.Urstruly. However it is apparent that both of those gentlemen and myself differ on more than one issue, so I`d also like a clarification of why you grouped us together.

Sincerely

YLH

hobbyt #458

Substitute woman for Muslim and men for nonMuslim.

`` A ``dispensation meant for all`` - what does this mean? Christians may argue that the Church is meant for, that a church based dispensation is meant for ``all``?

Yes, they may do so but if there are Christians and nonChristians who differ, then their contention that the Church is meant for all doesnot hold true for all, hence a dispensation other than the Church has to be thought of by all.

``All`` whom? Is that a valid question to ask?``

All means everyone who wants to create a dispensation which will affect others as well and the affected others too.

Things are not so difficult as you seem to think. These days `all` is defined by the geographical boundaries of a nation or citizens with influence over each other. If one groups of `all` WANTS to have a common dispensation with another group of `all`, who WANTS it, too, you get entities like the EU.


``Can a political/social dispensation hostile to traditional religion be accepted as ``meant for all``? - again, ``all`` whom?``

If those against traditional religion(or any other ideology) can find common cause with those in favor of traditional religion(or any ideology), THATs the common dispensation one is looking for, and should settle for. Where is the question of any hostility ?

There is nothing revelatory in this settlement of common cause. For every group of `all`, this common cause fianlly settled upon would be uniquely defined. Mauritius is not constrained to model itself on the Filipino defination of common cause. When Burkina Faso -ans set out to find common cause with other Burkina Faso`ans, they donot need to care about what is done in Saudi Arabia or the Christmas Islands.


``In either case or in any case, both positions are ``value laden`` are they not?``

Yes, all human dispensations are value-laden, namely a choice between something and something better, even readings of the already value-laden revealed scriptures are not free from human contribution by the readers.

How to judge? The good values are those which are likely to make ALL(not most) Burkina-Faso`ans feel they are getting a fair deal.

``perhaps the focus should be on values and morality - rights and obligations would fall under this rubric. What does individual freedom(s) mean? freedom to commit suicide?, for instance. and Why not? Why not tenneage pregnant unwed mothers? Because they are a burden on the state and their families? then why not be rid of them and reduce the burden? The rest of society will ``progress`` will it not, with out the burden?``

Thats for ALL Burkina-Faso`ans to decide what values and morality and how much to focus on it.

If Burkina-Faso`ans donot in general like teenage pregnancies as a social evil, it can take measures to REDUCE its incidence as a social evil without infringing into an individual`s personal autonomous sphere.

Again what constitutes an individuals personal autonomous sphere, depends on ALL Burkina Faso`ans.


You seem to be arguing that if one doesnot explicitly invoke adherence to religion in human affairs, this constitutes granting too much freedom which will be misused. Well, the Ten Commandments or which Penal code havenot succeeded in eliminating the individual inclination to commit murder and adultery, they just keep this widely-accepted social malaise is check.

And perhaps you notice that human beings tend to misuse everything, including religion, despite the God-connectedness of Founders or the divinity of the messages.

To keep misuse in check is a continuous endeavor as a society, one has to have and grant the freedom to engage in this endeavor, and cannot claim to have more right to do so than others.

hobbyty #437 This is my third response (the other two are below) to you post. Sorry for responding in this fragmented fashion. However, I did check out a few more websites on secular humanism, and I see that it in fact does lean towards atheism or agnosticism and is also quite easy on sexual mores. And I found this gem too: ``TORCASO V. WATKINS, October 1961, US Supreme Court:

Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.``

So I will retract the criticism I made earlier that secular humanism has nothing to do with atheism and sexual perversions. However, the US Supreme Court statement notwithstanding, and based on what I read in different web-sites, it does seem to me that the term secular humanism is used differently by different people, and that atheism and sexual license do not seem to be a central part of the message (after all, how can one call for freedom of religion and at the same time insist on a ``religion`` of atheism?).

And unless you know where he specifically says otherwise, I will assume that Prof. Hoodbhoy is using the term in the literal sense along the lines indicated in the web-site I cut and paste from in my previous note.

hobbyty #437 One more thing to my previous note: You indicated something about expecting your ideas, not yourself, to be evaluated. That is a fair statement, and I am sorry if my post appears at times to evaluate you rather than your ideas. I hope you will see that as an indication of how strongly I feel about the issue, and not an indication of lack of respect or regard I have for you as an individual.

Wishing you a belated Eid Mubarak and an early Happy New Year.