Taliban : An Analysis

re: rajanjua # 271

From what I can tell, you and I belong to the same religion..and that religion is...respect the tradition you were born in (because it shows respect for your parents)...keep an open mind about things...don`t be suckered by any one who claims revelation...examine things for yourself...respect all those who are willing to respect you...and do what seems rational and proper to you.

I was particularly struck by your comment that Hinduism is just like any other religion...There is a lot of hocus pocus that the unexamined mind swallows in the name of Hinduism...some very evil stuff that should never have been there, but a ton of fabulous thinking...and principles (not instructions) for living.

The fact of the matter is that our religion is always the one WE create...WE pick our heroes...WE pick our devils and our dreams...We are our own Gurus, our own guides, our own maajhee.

Not an easy path, this. It requires a completely different way of thinking than when one is willing to let factors external to him/her lead them by the nose all their lives.

Regards.

Dear AnNy: You are darling. A special thanks for describing the latest cultural scene at Karachi. I never had any doubt about the talent we people have, it is just damn limited opportunities. On top of that Pakistani women are a potential untapped emerald mine. It is even more remarkable for women to suceed in our society against all odds. In USA and Britain, diaspora desi women are clearly showing more organizational and leadership talents than guys who are doing better in science and technology areas. I am trying to understand this peculiar differnce in talents between desi male and female. More importantly, can we exploit this natural selection to our advantage in Pakistan?

Please extend my regards to temporal. I was wondering about his absense form chowk. He dodged the Canadian winter. So far it is not terrible in NY. We had couple of snowfalls, actually some flurries last night too. After living for few years in a place, one gets used to it. For a newcomer from Pakistan, NY is pretty cold. Reminds me an Islamabadi joke. East Pakistan or Bangladesh is generally warmer than West Pakistan or Pakistan. A Bengali came to Islamabad for the first time in summer. Here is what he said while washing his hands in the sink:

shala, idhar ka gormi ka shordi aisa hey to shala shordi ka shordi kaisa ho ga (gormi = summer; shordi = winter).

Regards,

Sameer

anNy

Perhaps you are right, maybe it was ``nasty``.

hobbyty:

``that curious, how is it nasty?``

this apeared to me a very catty, auntyish thing to say: ``...his dignity cannot be impuned by me or anyone other than himself...``

sameersaab!

it is a very good thing to be a ghulam of oneself only, something dawning upon me slowly but surely..it is very freaky and scary breaking out of conditioning

khair, latest from karachi is that my cat died after being very ill for two weeks, yasmeen ismail the playright and actress died too, freezing weather and a most brilliant art workshop i had been attending the last 4 days..it was connducted by niilofer farrukh, art critic, curator, educationist..lots of lectures, slide shows, guest speakers..we had two archetects, dr.lashari and dr.asma (of the fake mummy thing..bbc just did this documentary on her findings and she lectures at the PNCA in a week or so..i dragged temporal with me the first day after which he too has been attending religiously).its a bunch of art critics, writers, poets, 5 students and some artists and dancers popping in for a word or two every few hours...yesterday we had a most brilliant. mindblowng lecture on pakistani art with accompanying slides..it was fascinating..so much we have that i had no idea about ..some incredible works coming out of our people..so much to be proud off...i was goosebumping all over towards the end...the place in itself was a beauty...PNCA converted from an oldhouse with a lovely little balcony overlooking jheel lake and some more forestish area where we`d have our lunch and t would smoke :)...

enough rambling..aap theek hain? wahan tau yahan sae bhi ziada thandee hogee

AnNy

``nasty``? - that curious, how is it nasty?

AnNy: tum yahaN back page per kya ker rahee ho. This is stupid man-to-man macho, jingo, ego, male hormones dictated and useless discourse. It is like two women fighting and cursing from their own balconis in Bihar Colony or Lalukhat. Nothing but a blood pressure enhancer for no reason.

Waisey such batao, didn`t you enjoy sprinkling of aromatic (or stinking) spice in between every post. What do you think of ghulam as pride; Bewi ka ghulam, amrika ka ghulam, angrez ka ghulam, allah ka ghuam, mohammed ka ghulam, ali ka shulam, sai baba ka ghulam. Don`t you think it is better to be ghulam of self?

So what is latest from Karachi?

re: prem

``The friend with whom I am staying these days is a strong believer in the special powers of Sai Baba.``

salam prem sahib,

imho, people should be allowed to believe in any hocus pocus they want to, but calling it divine and then imposing it on others for whatever reasons is evil. ayatollah hobbyty, ofcourse thinks otherwise - the great defender of revelation thinks its reasonable for the israelis to claim palestine since god gave it to them (it says so in the holy book - and god said to abraham - take this land .. for you are my chosen people).

as for sai baba - i don`t know much about him except for a very disturbing article i read about him in india today. i find hinduism to be quite fascinating. recently finished narayan`s translation of mahabharata, and was thinking about reading the rigveda (penguin`s abridged version was not enough). apart from the caste system (which i find quite disgusting and which I don`t think existed for the rigvedic aryans-sameer probably knows about this in detail), its just like any other religion.

best regards.

hobbyty:

that was rather nasty

anNy

Do not be distressed - SameerJb and I have a ideological dispute, not a personal dispute - we do not even know one another - but to the extent that it is ugly - I will withdraw, Shake SameerJb`s hand and assure him, the disagreement is ideological - his dignity cannot be impuned by me or anyone other than himself.

sameersaab, hobbyty:

gentlemen, excuse the butting in but this is getting terribly ugly :(

pls smile and make up

SameerJb

Communits international, Can Sameer come out and play? Yes, I only kick him around when he`s intellectually dishonest, isn`t he allowed to be honest? OK, I promise not to kick him around too much. What`s that? he`s doing his ``dialectic``? is that like home work?

Chuae Ki Maut or ``The cat`s meow`` - alright, run away, live to fight another another day; you will project your hate and irrationality - and I`ll bust you - with or without the scotch.

toodles.

Here is an example of irfan (cognitive) or ilham (revelation). The fire in ISlamabad`s 16 story building has not been extinguished yet, but:

[Responding to a question about the possible causes of the fire, SSP Nasir Khan Durrani said it was caused by short-circuiting and ruled out the possibility of sabotage. However, the Director-General Crisis Management Cell of the Interior Ministry, Brig Javed Cheema, standing besides the SSP, said it was too early to jump to any conclusions, and advised to wait for the cause till the fire was put out and an investigation made to ascertain it.]

SSP Nasir Khan Durrani, I suggest you claim your ancestory to the line of Abraham through some lost tribe of Israel ending up in NWFP.

Ayatollah Ghulam Ali Khali-kholi wants to keep playing on the basis of beating the khali-kholi canister and hoping to drown rationality in the noise that is music to his ears. If not for formality, it is quite boring to argue with intellectually barren whose only defense is, ``there are something only Allah knows better and we may never understand them``, as soon as you ask serious question of jinn power, god selecting Moses, David, Jesus and Mohammed from one bloodline and failure to rationalize the existence of god.

Ayatollah ghulam Ali Baqar-khani wants to see a ballgame between NY Yankees and Banori Town Junkees without considering the standards and cheering for Junkees through prayers.

Who has the time to go through five pages long mumbo jumbo about Soroush, when you can relax with a nice scotch after day job. Ayatollah G. A. Peeli-patti Muradabadi, most people have better ways to enjoy and enlighten than to read everything you or I write.

In the meantime, I wish you happy beating the empty canister. While doing it, please consider this: your house may not be the biggest on the block, your wife may not be the prettiest, your husband may not be the most handsome, your children may not be the smartest kids and above all, your religion may not be inferior comparatively or mostly unjustifiable through rationality due to poor reasoning.

See you next time on the front page!!!

SameerJB

Come out and play.

Prem

For your consideration :

From Hobbyty 235

“In any event, religious governments that are based on religious societies will be democratic only when they seek to combine the satisfaction of the Creator and that of the created; when they are true both to the religious and extra religious concerns; and when they equally respect pre religious and post religious reason and morality.

In the elusive and delicate balance between the two realms lies the rare elixir that the contemporary world, because of its neglect, finds unattainable or undesirable.``

“Few dispute, either doctrinally or sociologically, the reality and, indeed, desirability of objective secularization in the sense of a separation of church and state. Some thinkers have even gone so far as to claim that secularization is an integral part of the historical mission of religion. It is the scope and depth of subjective secularization or profanation that is in question. It is clear, for example, that the degree of profanation varies with locations, classes, genders, and cultures. There is, then, an asymmetry between secularization of structures and secularization of conscience. Although subjective secularization or profanation has succeeded in the West more than in any other part of the world, its advance, even in the West, has been checked -- even reversed -- in the recent past.”

Inevitably, the pioneers of reflexive revivalism, come under attack both by the guardians of rejectionist revivalism and the advocates of radical laic modernism. Neither of the last two groups believe in the possibility of secularization without profanation. Both consider profanation inevitable once secularization sets in. The rejectionists, fearing the demise of religion reject the project of secularization without profanation. The laic modernists for reasons of their own agree that the two should not be decoupled.”

Hobbyty 236

SameerJB

Reason and Revelation

“Science is most significant as one of the greatest spiritual adventures that man has yet known” – After all, central to most religions beliefs, that behind the world of appearances, the everyday world of “common sense” and ordinary human observation and experience, there is a reality of a different order which sustains that world and presents it to our senses. Now, it is precisely such a reality that science reveals – a world of unobservable entities and invisible forces, waves, cells, particles, all interlockingly organized and structured down to a deeper level than anything we have yet been able to penetrate.

Rationality and revelation are no longer complementary.

``That implies they once were, what`s changed?``

Understanding and knwoledge, ``mullah ghulam ullah``.

No, I won’t let you off just cause you throw a tantrum – explain yourself: and in particular, how you can maintain that “interpretation” is an invalid notion. There’s no running away – honesty or your ego? Which one will you choose? See paragraphs above.

“Reason is independent of probability.”

Either justify this statement or refute my response – Scientist? Don’t even begin to imagine you can obfuscate this issue by charging the Pakistan army and ISI with this or that. You are busted – all because you CHOOSE not to be honest.

Not so fast scientist – you’re not getting out of this by flattering me with religious titles.

``We have to admit that, strictly speaking, scientific laws cannot be proved and are therefore not certain. Even so, their degree of probability is raised by every confirming instance...``

“I suppose you have doubts with equal proabability about water molecules being a combination of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms and the jinn power.”

Have you ever seen an atom? Didn`t you say we can`t believe in the invisible?? Genius??And What did you say about probability and Reason? You believe atoms and neutron, cosmic rays - yet you have never seen them - I don`t know if there is such a thing as Jinn power, but in principle if unseen phenomenon labeled scientific, natural, can be said to exist - Jinn power becomes impossible to refute - as a matter of fact, I would appreciate it if you would refute it. keep in mind that you are on record saying that empiricism is not science (interpolation and Extrapolation)

Which will bring us to an even more interesting question, junior woodchuck scientist, what are the criterion for the demarcation of science and non-science - If you choose you can deal with this in a separate post -

``According to allama ghulam mustafa, Darwin went to Galapagos Islands to observe after proposing his theory and publishing his book. Newton posposed gravity before observing apple falling from the tree and Mendel stated growing peas to observe after proposing Mendel`s laws of heredity. Wah wah, subhan allah.``

It is a historical fact that communists will change facts to fit their theory, but not accept that their theory needs to be reevaluated, even given up.

If I was to say to you ``Observe`` - the response would be ``Observe what?`` Obviously, the instruction, ``Observe``, would be absurd - ``observation`` is always selective, it needs a chosen object, a definite task, an interest, a point of view, and a problem. Observation itself presupposes a descriptive language, with property words, it presupposes interests, points of view and problems.

(Junior woodchuck scientist, you don`t just go into your lab and ``observe`` - there is an agreement on what it is that you will observe - you have trained for this field - presupposition- and have an interest in a particular given - presupposition - problem) The presupposition is theory, what you observe within the framework of this theory - will test the theory. This means that observations and observational statements of experimental results, are always interpretations of the facts observed that they are interpretations in the light of theories.

After all Darwin, did not just suddenly decide to get on a ship and go about the world ``observing`` - He had a training, a point of view, was already aware of other theories (presuppositions) and his observations allowed him to test these - the anomalies, allowed him to ``fashion`` his theories. To begin understanding, we must begin with asking, “why did Darwin choose to “observe” around the world?” “Did natural phenomena not exist in his country?” Was not Darwin investigating Natural phenomenon, including selection?

Newton did not just come up with his theories because he was bored or that they just happened to him (it`s curious that you still find the myth of his ``discovery`` valid, but not other ``myths`` - perhaps you are being ``selective``, based on your presuppositions)

Newton was already interested in subject, he was aware of the knowledge on the subject, he was aware of the problems or anomalies and he developed his theories in this light.

If you are a scientist you know that this is so. Therefore a difficult question: why would you persist in deliberately forwarding a position you know to be not valid? What`s more important, honesty or your ego?

“…Theory can not be fabricated out of the results of observation, but that it can only be invented” Einstein – “Logik der Forschung”

``Newton`s theories for hundreds of years were the back bone of Western civilization, not just in science, but manufacturing, indeed in culture - for hundreds of years these theories served mankind - till Einstein came along: Did Einstein not observe the same nature that Newton did, then why the different theory? Primarily because of the person of Einstein and because knowledge had evolved further and with new knowledge and with creative imagination, Einstein fashioned new hypothesis that was more resilient to testing, that accounted for Newton`s theories and which also made more accurate predictions and observations of nature. Even now Einstein`s theories are being challenged (``The End of Time``, Julian Barbour) yet, instruments such as satellites that whose functioning relies on the implications of Einstein`s theories still continue to function and serve us. What can we learn from this?

“Wrong again. Einstein did not prove Newton wrong, he advanced the knowledge with respect to relativity. Newtonian mode is still the basis of modern science as well as western civilization. The gravity, boiling point, measuring distances, input/ output ratios and calculation of force, in horse power or other units are all calculated withoout bringing relativity to it. The measure of force in camel power would also be according to Newton model in the future Islamic republics.”

Obfuscation simply will not work – Readers will note I did not assert that Einstein proved Newton wrong –- Einstein accounts for Newton’s theories and allows for more accurate statements about nature to be made. It’s fun busting you, it’s too easy. “Our non-scientist friends may asks, well how can this be? The answer is that we agree that for ``practical`` purposes, to hold these theories as more valid than not, until something better is fashioned, devised.”

“Bravo! Since revelation, according to you, is divine and never be entirely understood:”

Junior, woodchuck scientist, nothing can be ever completely known – it can only be better and better understood. This is the rationale for the evolution of knowledge. There is no man made theory that accounts for everything. As a matter fact, no such theory can ever exist.

“what the future holds for Islamic Republic of Pakistan based on derivation of revelation into state ideology and basis of laws? Isn`t this a solid case for separation of religion and state?”

The point of Sorush’s paper “Reason and Revelation” is to suggest that Reason can accommodate Revelation – not that Revelation is the exclusive source of ideology and laws. Soroush is suggesting that balance be achieved or movement towards achieving a balance between these two be considered. Specialization of the institutions of religion and governance is a given. Or in a simpler language, Separation of religion and government is a given – you again obfuscate – the bone of contention is the separation of religion from culture and conscience - Sumj ahie?

“According to Ayatoaah ghulam mujtaba, nobody should questin Osama Bin Laden because his twited belief in the strength of religion. Let USA, Osama, Pakistan, India act on the bais of each to his own even if your own undermines my own.”

That is why the Islam of Reason, Tolerance, Pluralism and Freedom of Conscience is the future home of ‘Liberals” (in the original sense of the word, read Hume, Hobbes and Locke) – Don’t agree with you, but will defend, with my life, your right to express your opinion. That ring a bell?



``Hinduism is considered successful by the virtue of surviving the onslaught for some seven centuries. It took much less than seven centuries for Muslims to make almost the entire population Muslim from Indonesia to Morocco, except in India. Islam even failed in coversion game in Punjab during the last 4 centuries when compared to conversion to Sikhism because major conversions to Islam took place prior to the rise of Sikhism. Given free hand and 1000+ years, any addiction could become universal.``

A Pakistani Hindutva fanatic? More power to you. By the way, have you ever attempted to become a citizen of India? Are you a Hindu or a Sikh? Or are they the same?

Don’t sad, Don’t be angry, be a smarty and join the Pakistani Hindutva party!

Sameer, it’s been fun – thanks for the entertainment.

hobbyty

Rationality and revelation are no longer complementary.

``That implies they once were, what`s changed?``

Understanding and knwoledge, ``mullah ghulam ullah``. We no longer talk about four corners of the earth or babies being made from frozen clot of blood and their souls existed before conception (lot more souls for poor muslims than europeans now)or going to Jerusalem from Mecca on white horseback. The magic of turning rods into snakes made sense then not now.

Reason is independent of probability.

``Exactly the opposite, junior ``scientist``! All that we call knowledge is of it`s nature, provisional, and permanently so! We can never know the truth, we can only get closer and closer to the truth (while becoming more and more aware of our ignorance of it) and even when we make an advance, we can never know that we have reached our goal``.

My dear maulvi glulam mohammed, Osama also has reason for his action and so do USA to going after him. Pakistan and India both have reasons for their stands on Kashmir. They are not all rational. I just wish, Pakistani military and ISI had calculated probability of success through arming militants, ramifications at home and excessive militray spending before putting reason to observation /test.

does the failed Kashmir policy of using force has still same probability today as it was in 1948 invasion?

``The statement that ``reason is independent of probability`` would be a viable one, if we still believed that theories are developed based on observations and if we still held the validity of induction as method.

The problem of induction, to those of us who are not scientists and hope to be merely intellectually honest, is also referred to as ``Hume`s problem`` - that is to say even if an event A is accompanied by an event B, in a Billion observations, the one time that it is not observed to accompany event A, lays waste to our claims of certitude. Water boils at 100 degrees centigrade - we all have been taught this is the

truth - but it does not boil at 100 degrees C in the mountains, it does not boil at 100 degree C in a closed vessel.

Bertrand Russell, writing in his ``History of Western Philosophy``: ``Hume has proved that pure empiricism is not a sufficient basis for science.``

We know for quite sometime that boining point of water is related to atmospheric pressure. The events defying the enormity of evidence, observations as in the case of having a probability of billion to one are either called exceptions to the norm and unlike revelations, they also have sceientific reasoning. It is not empiricism but the understanding and ability to express natural laws in mathematical terms, thus allowing varying degrees of interpolation and extrapolation credited to Newton.

``That the whole of science, of all things, should rest on foundations whose validity it is impossible to demonstrate has been uniquely embarassing. It has turned many emprical philosphers into sceptics, or irrationalists, or mystics. Some it has led to religion.``

Wrong paths lead to wrong assumption and irrational behavior, Mufti ghulam Ahmed. Wrong answers in claculus or in any other field lead to ``F`` grade.

``We have to admit that, strictly speaking, scientific laws cannot be proved and are therefore not certain. Even so, their degree of probablity is raised by every confirming instance...``

I suppose you have doubts with equal proabability about water molecules being a combination of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms and the jinn power.

``As to the problem of ``method`` - we have all been taught that observation leads to theory - WRONG! Theory preceeds observation - observation tests the theory - generally speaking - counter instances are when one discovers something entirely new (``Structure of Scientifc revolutions``, Thomas Kuhn).``

According to allama ghulam mustafa, Darwin went to Galapagos Islands to observe after proposing his theory and publishing his book. Newton posposed gravity before observing apple falling from the tree and Mendel stated growing peas to observe after proposing Mendel`s laws of heredity. Wah wah, subhan allah.

Observations after the theory are meant to justify, deny, modify, prove, disprove, improve and ultimately gaining acceptance by those who had doubts before, just as Church finally accepting that earth is not the center of universe.

``Newton`s theories for hundreds of years were the back bone of Western cilization, not just in science, but manufacturing, indeed in culture - for hundreds of years these theories served mankind - till Einstein came along: Did Einstein not observe the same nature that Newton did, then why the different theory? primarily because of the person of Einstein and because knowledge had evolved further and with new knowledge and with creative imagination, Einstein fashioned new hypothesis that was more resilent to testing, that accounted for newton`s theories and which also made more accurate predictions and observations of nature. Even now Einstein`s theories are being challenged (``The End of Time``, Julian Barbour) yet, instruments such as satelites that whose functioning relies on the implications of Einstein`s theories still continue to function and serve us. What can we learn from this?

Wrong again. Einstein did not prove Newton wrong, he advanced the knowledge with respect to relativity. Newtonian mode is still the basis of modern science as well as western civilization. The gravity, boiling point, measuring distances, input/ output ratios and calculation of force, in horse power or other units are all calculated withoout bringing relativity to it. The measure of force in camel power would also be according to Newton model in the future Islamic republics.

``Reason existed prior to revelation. Reason as

we understand it is a Greek ``product``, though Drumz would argue, with no small measure of justification, Egyptian - it existed for thousands of years prior to the ``revealed`` Abrahamic religions. Can reason be used to support revelation? is a ridiculous notion. reason does not support revelation, rather it is a man made tool that may be applied to the understanding of revelation. Revelation by definition, Divine, can never be entirely understood or have a permanent human understanding``

Bravo! Since revelation, according to you, is divine and never be entirely understood: what the future holds for Islamic Republic of Pakistan based on derivation of revelation into state ideology and basis of laws? Isn`t this a solid case for separation of religion and state?

``The spirit of tolerance and pluralism cannot deny to those who seek to be guided by their ``common sense`` in social or moral behaviour - by all means, for those who no longer require religion. However, for those who do seek the guidance of religion, codes of social and moral behavior are what religion is about. You may consider religion ``weak`` but you are not being asked, nor should you be asked, to be circumspect towards codes of social and moral behaviour of adherents of a particular religion.``

According to Ayatoaah ghulam mujtaba, nobody should questin Osama Bin Laden because his twited belief in the strength of religion. Let USA, Osama, Pakistan, India act on the bais of each to his own even if your own undermines my own.

``No one prevents you from not being an adherent. It is you who seek to deny the rights of adherents their faith in the invisible, the constant.``

Nobody prevents me frrom being non-adherent but my non-adherent stance is threatened by adherents based practices just as Huddod ordinance, Blasphemy law, right to eat during ramazan, not killing a goat per year, not throwing intestines and stomach out on the street for the sake other creations of god and not growing beard (if I were to be in Afghanistan last year).

``On the other hand whatever one`s justification for their faith is their own business.``

Same response as above. Osama`s actions, Taliban, laws of Islamic Republics` justification based on faith are not just their own businesses and left alone to terrorize people in peace as well as in war.

``Islam universal, Hinduism limited to India - Islam, message of universal brotherhood, Hinduism, message of caste differentiation. Islam, message of redemption and justice, Hinduism, message of cycles of birth and oppression.``

Hinduism is considered successful by the virtue of surviving the onslaught for some seven centuries. It took much less than seven centuries for Muslims to make almost the entire population Muslim from Indonesia to Morocco, except in India. Islam even failed in coversion game in Punjab during the last 4 centuries when compared to conversion to Sikhism because major conversions to Islam took place prior to the rise of Sikhism. Given free hand and 1000+ years, any addiction could become universal.

``You have every right to your opinion and I have not challeneged any opinion other than those posited as scientific fact or philosophy.``

ditto!

SameerJB

You have out done yourself - this is by far the most internally inconsistent of your ``musings`` but I am grateful for it because you, unintentionally I am sure, prove the points I have made, such as interpretation.

``Rationality and revelation are no longer complementary.

That implies they once were, what`s changed?

``Reason is independent of probability.``

Exactly the opposite, junior ``scientist``! All that we call knowledge is of it`s nature, provisional, and permanently so! We can never know the truth, we can only get closer and closer to the truth (while becoming more and more aware of our ignorance of it) and even when we make an advance, we can never know that we have reached our goal.

``The gods did not reveal, from the beginning,

All things to us, but in the course of time

Through seeking we may learn and know things better.

But as for certain truth, no man has known it,Nor shall he know it, neither of the gods,nor yet of all things of which I speak.

For even if by chance he were to utter the fianl truth, he would himself not know it.

For all is but a woven web of quesses.``

Xenophanes

The statement that ``reason is independent of probability`` would be a viable one, if we still believed that theories are developed based on observations and if we still held the validity of induction as method.

The problem of induction, to those of us who are not scientists and hope to be merely intellectually honest, is also referred to as ``Hume`s problem`` - that is to say even if an event A is accompanied by an event B, in a Billion observations, the one time that it is not observed to accompany event A, lays waste to our claims of certitude. Water boils at 100 degrees centigrade - we all have been taught this is the

truth - but it does not boil at 100 degrees C in the mountains, it does not boil at 100 degree C in a closed vessel.

Bertrand Russell, writing in his ``History of Western Philosophy``: ``Hume has proved that pure empiricism is not a sufficient basis for science.``

That the whole of science, of all things, should rest on foundations whose validity it is impossible to demonstrate has been uniquely embarassing. It has turned many emprical philosphers into sceptics, or irrationalists, or mystics. Some it has led to religion.

``We have to admit that, strictly speaking, scientific laws cannot be proved and are therefore not certain. Even so, their degree of probablity is raised by every confirming instance...``

Our non-scientist friends may asks, well how can this be? the answer is that we agree that for ``practical`` purposes, to hold these theories as more valid than not, until something better is fashioned, devised.

As to the problem of ``method`` - we have all been taught that observation leads to theory - WRONG! Theory preceeds observation - observation tests the theory - generally speaking - counter instances are when one discovers something entirely new (``Structure of Scientifc revolutions``, Thomas Kuhn).

Newton`s theories for hundreds of years were the back bone of Western cilization, not just in science, but manufacturing, indeed in culture - for hundreds of years these theories served mankind - till Einstein came along: Did Einstein not observe the same nature that Newton did, then why the different theory? primarily because of the person of Einstein and because knowledge had evolved further and with new knowledge and with creative imagination, Einstein fashioned new hypothesis that was more resilent to testing, that accounted for newton`s theories and which also made more accurate predictions and observations of nature. Even now Einstein`s theories are being challenged (``The End of Time``, Julian Barbour) yet, instruments such as satelites that whose functioning relies on the implications of Einstein`s theories still continue to function and serve us. What can we learn from this? That there is no definitive theory or description of nature, that we cannot know of anything completely, we can only know of it as more true or valid or less true or less valid. That tests allow us to assert posits as valid by virtue of a greater probability.

Now, look at what this means with regard to how knowledge is developed (and interpretation): if Newton`s theories is not a body of truth inherent in the world (as proved by Einstein), where then did these theories come from? Well, of course they came from Newton. These were man made theories that fit all the facts known ``at that time``. Does this make Newton irrelevant? Of course not, it still has practical uses, but clearly it is not percieved as the totality of inherent truth of nature as it once was. Einstein`s theories accounted for those of Newton and allowed for more precise statements to be made about the nature of the world, but even Einstein knew that his theories held anomalies.

``Reason has always existed in support of revelation, otherwise revelation based religions would not have survived.``

Reason existed prior to revelation. Reason as

we understand it is a Greek ``product``, though Drumz would argue, with no small measure of justification, Egyptian - it existed for thousands of years prior to the ``revealed`` Abrahamic religions. Can reason be used to support revelation? is a ridiculous notion. reason does not support revelation, rather it is a man made tool that may be applied to the understanding of revelation. Revelation by definition, Divine, can never be entirely understood or have a permanent human understanding - it`s understanding evolves, is dependent on the application of knowledge and science (reason) of the time (therefore interpretation).

``The reason for revelation was more valid (better probability) some 2000 or 1500 years ago than today.``

That depends on the adherents of revelation - that`s what tolerance is all about - to you it may be entirely reasonable that revelation is not valid - but would you deny that it may be valid to me? Pluralism, junior scientist.

``It is because revelation is a constant whereas reason is a variable that has changed (and improved tremendously) during the last 2000 or 1500 years. Now reason is multi-disciplined and relies on reasoning within discipline.``

A perfectly reasonable statement.

``The reason for secularism or liberal democracy has no meaning for reason in Astronomy or Chemistry.``

Intellectaul honesty - junior scientist:

the reason for secularism...for the reason of Astronomy or chemistry.

In the first part of the sentence ``reason for`` is applied to a field or realm - yet you did not afford the same to second half of the sentence, that is, ``reason for`` Astronomy or chemistry.

Historically, communists have been willing to change facts, not their ideology.

Clearly these are different realms - does that mean ``reason`` itself does not operate in these realms or is exclusive? On the other hand the statement is utterly useless, a tautological statement, the equivalent of ``it will rain``.

Clever by half, little communist scientist.

``In the past, a better probability reasoning existed for religions as well as for Astrology and Al-chemy with respect to Astronomy and Chemistry respectively. Just like reasons for Astronomy and Al-chemy, the reason for religion is weak unless the reason is limited to spirituality only.

``A Chemistry book even in Islamic republic has no need to bring in revelation or religion to understand the concepts.``

A resonable statement.



``Similarly the concept of social and moral behavior based on common sense no longer require religion.``

``Thus spoke`` the scientist. The spirit of tolerance and pluralism cannot deny to those who seek to be guided by their ``common sense`` in social or moral behaviour - by all means, for those who no longer require religion. However, for those who do seek the guidance of religion, codes of social and moral behavior are what religion is about. You may consider religion ``weak`` but you are not being asked, nor should you be asked, to be circumspect towards codes of social and moral behaviour of adherents of a particular religion.

``The reason for revelation based religions becomes even weaker than other religions due to adding an invisible and/ or non-existent constant as the source of everything including revelations.``

Refer to the first two paragraphs and the response above. No one prevents you from not being an adherent. It is you who seek to deny the rights of adherents their faith in the invisible, the constant.

``Now in one equation you have two constants and still one variable - reason. That is why, it has become easy for people like Deepak Chopra to reason the existence of a different kind of god that actually decreases the value of revelation based religions to almost zilch and dropped out of the equation.``

Mashallah -

``Actually, I think, the reason for justification of religion based upon traditions has better probability than trying to justify it on the basis of revelation. The use of right hand, prohibition of alcohol consumption, sacrificing animal once a year and going around seven times around kaaba as traditions could be better argued for than based on revelation.``

You, think? Hey, what happened to ``common sense``? merged into hostility? On the other hand whatever one`s justification for their faith is their own business.

``That is why Hinduism remained a successful religion in comparison to Islam. They justified it on the basis of traditions and multiple deities on the basis of varying local traditions.``

Islam universal, Hinduism limited to India - Islam, message of universal brotherhood, Hinduism, message of caste differentiation. Islam, message of redemption and justice, Hinduism, message of cycles of birth and oppression. Sounds like success to me, but each to his own.

``Trying to search a complementary relationship between rationality and revelation is beyond the commonly accepted methodology of reason. It is not making sense even in the first step in most disciplines except spirituality. Even in individual spirituality arena, revelation based has to compete against non-revelation based spirituality.``

Refer to the first two paragraphs of my response.

You have every right to your opinion and I have not challeneged any opinion other than those posited as scientific fact or philosophy.

Happy trails.

Rationality and revelation are no longer complementary.

Reason is independent of probability. There is difference between a low and high probability reason. A reason just remains reason and does not become reasonable unless probability is improved. For reason to become justification, it has to further improve the probability - or to become rationale. Reason, Reasonable and Rationality are more or less like hypothesis, theory and law respectively in scientific terminology.

Reason has always existed in support of revelation, otherwise revelation based religions would not have survived. The reason for revelation was more valid (better probability) some 2000 or 1500 years ago than today. It is because revelation is a constant whereas reason is a variable that has changed (and improved tremendously) during the last 2000 or 1500 years. Now reason is multi-disciplined and relies on reasoning within discipline. The reason for secularism or liberal democracy has no meaning for reason in Astronomy or Chemistry.

In the past, a better probability reasoning existed for religions as well as for Astrology and Al-chemy with respect to Astronomy and Chemistry respectively. Just like reasons for Astronomy and Al-chemy, the reason for religion is weak unless the reason is limited to spirituality only. A Chemistry book even in Islamic republic has no need to bring in revelation or religion to understand the concepts. Similarly the concept of social and moral behavior based on common sense no longer require religion.

The reason for revelation based religions becomes even weaker than other religions due to adding an invisible and/ or non-existent constant as the source of everything including revelations. Now in one equation you have two constants and still one variable - reason. That is why, it has become easy for people like Deepak Chopra to reason the existence of a different kind of god that actually decreases the value of revelation based religions to almost zilch and dropped out of the equation.

Accepting twisted, low probability reason to justify the pre-conceived acceptance of revelation based hypothesis defy logic and norms of reason-reasonable-rationality path. It is cheating rather than tunneling because tunneling phenomenon actually does not defy reason-reasonable-rationality path both before and after tunneling. The reason for short cut obeys the same laws as typical processes.

Actually, I think, the reason for justification of religion based upon traditions has better probability than trying to justify it on the basis of revelation. The use of right hand, prohibition of alcohol consumption, sacrificing animal once a year and going around seven times around kaaba as traditions could be better argued for than based on revelation. That is why Hinduism remained a successful religion in comparison to Islam. They justified it on the basis of traditions and multiple deities on the basis of varying local traditions.

In the case of Buddhism equation, the invisible and/ or non-existent constant is just non-existent. The equation is simplified and instead of calling it a revealed philosophy, they just call it enlightened thinking or enlightenment.

The low probability reasoning for the selection process of the messengers by third party make third party untrustworthy and in analyzing both third party and his/ her chosen messenger lose credibility. Why would third party so obsessed with the mythical bloodline of Abraham to selecting messengers left and right from this line. On the other hand kept passing the message of equality of all human beings. Decency, honesty and ``ideal`` moral behavior does not run in a line down to 50 generations or more. It is more like hereditary monarchies where charlie might one day have his picture on the currency bills of Britain, Canada, Australia, Newzealand,........ What is so special that Moses, David, Jesus and Mohammed have to be (mythically or in reality does not matter) from the 60 million seeds of Abraham. Only scientific reason would be a genetically pre-disposed towards becoming messenger of invisible force, occurring among males at irregular intervals, in addition to certain other traits.

Trying to search a complementary relationship between rationality and revelation is beyond the commonly accepted methodology of reason. It is not making sense even in the first step in most disciplines except spirituality. Even in individual spirituality arena, revelation based has to compete against non-revelation based spirituality.

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

rajanjua #251
``i am finding it hard to accept that you are actually making sense...``

One solution is 2 Tylenols and one day bedrest but then perhaps it doesnot make sense :)

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

rajanjua # 251

Ah, and also rajanjua, RSS too has as its motto something called ``integral humanism.``

I have never bothered to find out what that means. We judge a person not by the abstractness of their ideas, but their actions, and by the real consequences of applying those ideas in a non-UTOPIAN, complicated world.

Any theory/religion/dogma that expects people to be angels for it to bring peace and happiness on earth, is not worth the paper (or whatever else) it is written on. Communism, totalitarianis, fascism - all Utopias based on forcing others to follow a particular given path - are excellent examples.

rajanjua # 252

Right on, rajanjua sahib.

An example will help less intelligent people of my sort: As you may or may not know, we have a person in India by the name of Sai Baba. Some people believe he has divine powers, others are agnostic about him, while still others - me included - believe that the divine powers belong either to all of us, or to none of us.

The friend with whom I am staying these days is a strong believer in the special powers of Sai Baba. He and I have discussed our respective positions. We have reached the conclusion that what we have here is a matter of personal faith - a kind of faith that is his own. It doesn`t bother me, doesn`t tell me how to live. I do think he is a bloody fool (sorry, A :)) but he is also a hell of a nice guy - one of the best. If he was a woman, I would have married him (see A, I told you NOT to read this) despite his beliefs, and exposed our children to the variety of belief systems - so they could choose for themselves - a real intelligent choice.

Personal faiths can change, evolve, as we learn, as we interact with others and see things for ourselves. So long as my friend doesn`t treat ME any differently than he does to his other (obviously less important) friends, so long as he doesn`t expect ME to do the things he does because of his beliefs, I will continue to spare his butt.

samina:

``semi,rsax,hari,sadna

Apparently you guys missed the post in which the hydra claimed to have worn the burqa on the subcontinent. Really. ``It was uncomfortable`` the hydra wrote. Will the lies ever end? ``

....when he/she/it learns to....actually on second thought, i guess never....

``You are in a similar error as Rajanjua, in thinking that Reason and Revelation are the same in this work - they most certainly are not. Reason (secular), Revelation (ecclesiastic), they can be complementary of course.``

sure - now you have a correspondence with gibraeel and he tells you what i think, eh? - what you consider as revelation might be termed as hallucination by others. what is divine for you might be morally repugnant to others. that`s why religion should stay personal and kept completely out of public. reason complimentary to revelation? nonsense!

Ayatollah hobbyty can beat around the bush, dance in circles or try to hide in `ol weber`s pajamas, but his mumbo-jumbo is no different than that of a fazloo or a qazi. After wasting chowk`s storage space, discussing his theory on the differences between objective and subjective secularism, he wants to train us to become `good muslims`. This is for the general good of the public he assures us- the training will include among other things, an understanding of `the rights of god`. once we have become good muslims according to his interpretations of the divine, we can have a secular govt. ¡V but this is no ordinary secular govt. that he envisions ¡V this particular one is guided by the hand of the Almighty Himself. he thinks that shariati and soroush and other ayatollahs will unite all the ulemas of different sects under his banner to follow the true tareekah on the road to haqeeqah. out of this will come a revised shariah which would be acceptable even to fazloo. how can this revolution take place - the answer may lie in the following masterpieces - `the protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism` and `cultural contradictions of capitalism` - mysterious are the ways of Allah! stay tuned for his next sermon in which he will discuss in detail the differences between `theocracy` and get this -`clergiocracy`.

re: sadna

i am finding it hard to accept that you are actually making sense, especially after nominating you as the most irritating individual - but lets not get too lovey-dovey about this eh? :-) we have a war against terrorism to fight and advani is still on the loose roaming around somewhere in dire need of clozapine.

SammerJB

Khalid Ahmad and you are in error with regard to interpretation. All text are neutral and open to interpretation.

Mr. Ahmad is in error when he lists all the ridiculous injunctions of the council on Islamic ideology, and concludeds that these form the substance of Islam; afterall, the council is not the same as Islam is it?

Both you and Mr. Ahmad are correct, however; in positing that figh and Shariah have attained a position that they were never intended to aspire to, indeed the circumfrence and the center have traded places. Seemingly, Every other sentence in koran begins with words ``Mercy`` and ``Compassion``, such that it is difficult to not conclude that these attributes define God the most and therefore his message of guidance, yet many Muslims, and certainly the council on Islamic ideology, seem not to take notice - can there be a more damaging error?

You for your purposes remain estranged from Islam and find it useful to denigrate it - but then you do no less, no better than the council on Islamic ideology. Which will it be a religion of ideology or the ideology of religion? the council knows not the difference.

hobbyt #248
``First of all reason (secular) and revelation (sacred) are two separate fields``

What if reason says the sacred is less irrelevant or the sacred says reason is less irrelevant?

``we only have reason as our tool for interpretating the sacred``

This depends on ones interpretation of what is sacred and beyond the reach of reason.

hobbyt #246
``What if we disagree about the relevance of revelation``..`` differences of opinion are what ``Tolerance`` is all about. ``

hobbyt, when a law is put in place, people have to OBEY it and the question of tolerance doesnot arise. The guy who has his hands cut off for robbery against his will is not `tolerating an opinion`, he is obeying it.

How to decide which law? is what we are talking of. Can one compromise on ones definition of the sacred in favor of tolerance to different definitions of sacred or even rejection of the sacred?

``If one says that Individuals are free to engage in private enterprise`, it means individuals are free to engage in private enterprise, and if they were free to engage in public enterpises, it would have been made explicit - No? Yes?``

Certainly it can be made explicit what are the scopes of public enterprise and private enterprise, both. btw, I donot know of any secular country where an individual can engage in his religious pursuits ONLY in the privacy of his home, do you?

Allowing an individual freedom to decide on some matters doesnot imply taking away his right of association with others.

Perhaps you are saying, granting an individual rights diminishes his group`s rights over him, namely his coreligionists.

Well, suppose an individual`s religious practice and what is defined as sacred for him is an autonomous groups`s business, instead of the individuals personal choice.

Now when the individual associates in public causes with those outside his group, he incurs the risk of conflict of interest, between himself and his group or between groups. ((say intermarrying between religions or even political activism for say secular education)

He could also incur hostility from his group because there is a value judgement attached to his groups definition of the sacred. How does this advance the cause of religion?

For example if there is a separate Parliament for Muslims agreed to in UK as a result of a reasonable interpretation of the scriptures that a Muslim should live under Muslim law if possible.

Now if any UK Muslim wants to opt out and get into the secular mainstream, since the ``Muslim`` defination was attached to those subscribing to the laws of the Muslim Parliament, does that mean he is now a `lesser` Muslim than they are?

If he now migrates out of UK, perhaps to the US, where there is no Muslim Parliament, he can go back to being fully Muslim. Its clear, for him personally, the legal definition of Muslim seems to have upstaged the sacred definition in importance and his group had more rights over his definition of the sacred than himself and God too?

Also perhaps adherents to different interpretations of the sacred will say, we donot want to buy into these common laws. Now should tolerance to be called for to reach a compromise? Or a reasonable interpretion of each`s set of sacred religious texts would require that various different schools of thought be allowed to have their own parliaments and laws?

Seems that the price for having a public defination of sacred over individual choice, leads to increasing fragmentation of society.

Sadna

Apologies - I overlooked answering an important point you brought out:

``Religion, however, never judges a situation independently; the judgement is refracted through the interpretation of religious texts, a task that falls within the domain of reason, which always harmonizes its comprehension of religion with its other precepts.``

Interpreting religious texts doesnot fall within the domain of reason. There is a religious text and there are precedents and neither are necessarily `reasonable`, the text for instance is likely to be `revelatory```

When Soroush is talking about ``Religion, however, never judges a situation independently... interpretation being a task that falls within the domain of reason`` needs explanation. First of all reason (secular) and revelation (sacred) are two separate fields - yet we only have reason as our tool for interpretating the sacred (after all if we had the sacred as a tool, would it need to be interpretated?)

And when Soroush says of reason ``which always harmonizes its comprehension of religion with its other precepts.`` - here, the other precepts of reason are of course all the sciences and knowledge developed by the methodologies of reason.

Again, I`m sorry, I overlooked this.

I have always maintained that blaming the failures in Islamic societies and nations on misinterpreted Islam is a myth. Most of the acts of Taliban are to be found among various Islamic literature about giqah, shariah, hadis etc. It is almost impossible to condemn Taliban on the basis of Islam. The best avenue and hope for a world according to Islam is a complete upside down of all achievements of last 500-1000 years resulting from a godsend or natural disaster or a total destruction of current principles and pillars of pluraistic societies.

To say, Islam is being misinterpreted, misrepresented and misunderstood (by the West) is just whitewash - due to belief in the infallability of scripture and scripture-inspired disciplines and principles. Now even in Pakistani print media, such voices are being heard. Here is one from the latest edition of TFT.

The myth of ‘misinterpreted’ Islam

Khaled Ahmed

There is a common fallacy that Islam as enforced in Pakistan is misinterpreted and somehow there exists a true religion of Islam which should be revived. At least Masud Mufti in Dawn (29 December 2001) seems to imply that. The truth of the matter is that under the prevailing principles of interpretation, what we have is the correct interpretation of Islam. The ‘rational’ Islam of Sir Syed Ahmad was rejected in his lifetime by all schools of thought among the Muslims, Deobandi and Barelvi alike. In Egypt the reformist spirit of Muhammad Abduh has been challenged and set aside by the Islamists of the 21st century including the ulema of Al-Azhar. There is an emphasis on fiqh under the principles of ijtehad (reinterpretation) . Not many people know that Islamic law is based on fiqh and that ijtehad is allowed only on matters not decided by fiqh . Allama Iqbal once tried to write on ijtehad and corresponded with Maulana Salman Nadvi, asking him tough questions on points where fiqh actually supersedes the Quran, to which the maulana made no reply.

The verdict on riba by the Supreme Court Shariat Appellate Bench in 1999 shocked many, but it was according to the standard application of fiqh . Right after that, the Federal Shariat Court also abolished the old Family Law Ordinance and allowed men to practice polygamy without the permission of their first wives. In an effort to make the verdict rational, the Court said it was good for Pakistan because there were more women here than men! After that the wife of Dr Israr Ahmad, the famous Lahore cleric, said that she would not mind her husband taking another wife. Famous leader of Lashkar-e-Tayba Hafiz Saeed never stopped saying that democracy was against Islam and that those who believed that Islam allowed parliament were ullu (owl). Only the army liked what he kept on saying, but he was right. The Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) and the Ministry of Religious Affairs should not be blamed for issuing outrageous Islamic proposals (the latest being that all banknote be withdrawn and the photo on them of the Quaid-e-Azam be erased) because they are following the rules of accepted interpretation in Islam.

Most people think that extremism comes out of a misinterpretation of Islam. This is wrong. Extremism and violence occur when people do not accept what the Islamists regard as the irreducible crux of Islam in the shape of shariah . (What is shariah may differ from country to country). The mood among the clergy and the Islamists is aggressive since the turn of the 20th century and violence is normally resorted to when a literalist version of fiqh-dominated Islam is not enforced. That is where extremism starts. As for the practicability of literalist Islam, many laws in force have either produced malpractice or have simply lain dormant, as in many cases of dyat (blood money) and qatt-e-yadd (cutting of hands). In such cases the stand of the Islamists is that only they will enforce them correctly when they come to power through aggressively isolationist policies in the manner of Mulla Umar. Below are produced some of the ‘strange-sounding’ statements issued by institutions and individuals charged with the task of enforcing Islam in Pakistan:

Blasphemy to apply to Allah

According to daily Jang , Council for Islamic Ideology will soon hold its session to recommend that anyone blaspheming against Allah too should be punished. It will also recommend that no woman be allowed to marry without the permission of her wali (male guardian). It is expected to ban kite-flying, organ transplant and smoking.

Religion ministry okays Taliban idol-bashing

According to Khabrain , the ministry for religious affairs in Islamabad gave its verdict on the destruction of ancient statues in Afghanistan by saying that the Taliban were right in doing so. The Foreign Office had asked the ministry about the status of this destruction in shariat . Thus Pakistan had now to support the destruction of the ancient Buddha statues in Afghanistan, although it was not made clear what should be done to such statues ion Pakistan.

Objection to Christian hangman

According to Khabrain , the Council for Islamic Ideology had become seized with the question of Christian jallad (hangman) executing Muslim convicts in Pakistan. Among issues taken to the Council by the religion ministry was the issue of girls marrying of their own choice.

Closure during namaz

According to daily Din , religion ministry had given the task of preparing a draft ordinance for the enforcement of namaz in Pakistan. Its directive was that all businesses should be closed down five times during namaz and during Friday namaz, and no one should be allowed to break this law. The entire country will have the same namaz and azan (call) timings.

Religion minister against Punjabi Conference

Quoted in daily Insaf , federal religion minister Mehmud Ghazi said that the Gandhis of Pakistan were trying to raise the slogan of Punjabi to undermine the Islamic ideology of Pakistan. He said that the Punjabi Conference held in Lahore was an Indian scheme, which emphasized the region at the cost of Islam.

No songs on PTV, please!

According to daily Jang , the federal ministry for religious affairs headed by Mr Mahmud Ghazi had sent a recommendation to the ministry of information that all songs and dances shown on PTV be banned. The ministry’s letter said that PTV was involved in emulating Indian TV channels and was showing women shaking their bodies.

Ideology Council recommends ‘wali’

According to Khabrain , Council for Islamic Ideology (CII) announced that nikah of a girl without the permission of wali (male member of family) was un-Islamic and those girls getting married of their own choice should be punished under law. A verdict undoing such a marriage at Lahore High Court was set aside by the Supreme Court not long ago, but the CII favored the earlier verdict. The other enlightened opinion of the CII was that co-education should be banned, that all lotteries like prize bonds should be banned and the paper used for printing the Quran should not be recycled.

Ideology Council critical of Supreme Court

According to daily Din , chairman of the Ideology Council of Pakistan (CII) criticised the Supreme Court for postponing the removal of bank interest for another year. Its chairman Mr S.M. Zaman said that it was not an economic issue but an issue related to the Quran and the Prophet PBUH. CII had earlier endorsed the destruction of Afghanistan’s archaeological heritage by the Taliban and criticized the Hanafi laws of letting girls marry without the permission of the wali. According to Nawa-e-Waqt , the Council also rejected religion minister Mahmood Ghazi’s plan to use zakat to allow the poor to invest in businesses by saying that zakat could not be used for investment of any kind.

Namaz defaulters to be punished

According to Khabrain , religion ministry had sent the draft of a new law called Amr bil maruf wa nahi anal munkir Ordinance to the cabinet for approval and enforcement. Under this law everyone will be required to say namaz , all government employees will have to lay aside work during namaz timings and will be fined if they didn’t say namaz. At all levels, ulema committees will see to it that non- namazi Muslims are punished. All those who refuse to say namaz after three warnings will be fined.

Insurance is un-Islamic

According to Khabrain , Council for Islamic Ideology (CII) ruled that insurance of all kinds was against Islam and should be abolished forthwith. Instalments paid into a policy should be given under mudaraba (leasing) to make insurance Islamic. Mudaraba business did not do well in Pakistan.

Non-alcoholic beer un-Islamic

According to Jang , the Council of Islamic Ideology came to the conclusion that soft drinks sold as non-alcoholic beer were not jaez (allowed) in Islam. The Council said that any drink which is not sharab (alcohol) could not be called sharab or that the name beer should not be put on it. It said preparation and trade of non-alcoholic beer inside or outside Pakistan was haram (prohibited).

Kalima for the flag

Daily Khabrain reported that despite the passage of 23 years since the Council of Islamic Ideology made its first proposal about it, the government had not changed the flag. The recommendation was that kalima tayyaba be inscribed on the Pakistan national flag along with Allah Akbar. It was a pity that such a good scheme for Islamising the national flag was not accepted so far.

No women in ads, please!

Quoted in Jang , the Council for Islamic Ideology (CII) said that women should be disallowed from appearing in ads and that only men should be used to promote products through photographs. It said that women were allowed to work as air hostesses but they should wearing burqa or hijab on board. Also, no darzi (tailor) should be allowed to sew the clothes for women and that only women darzi should be used for women. According to the daily, CII also recommended that ACRs of all state employees should contain sections indicating religious observance and those not saying namaz should not be promoted.

Jehad is no defensive war!

According to Jang , the Council for Islamic Ideology in Islamabad declared that it was wrong to label jehad as a defensive war alone. The truth according to CII was that jehad could be offensive as well. According to Nawa-e-Waqt , the CII stated that Western propaganda against jehad had pushed it into the background, but everyone should be grateful to Afghanistan for having revived it. It said that the greatest act of piety was participation in jehad and one cause of the decline of the Muslims was their abandonment of it.

Currency will be banned

Daily Jang magazine quoted Lashkar-e-Tayba chief Hafiz Saeed as saying that when Islamic government is imposed on Pakistan currency will be abolished and gold and silver coins only will be legal tender. He said that the constitution too would be abolished, as there was no need of a constitution in the presence of Quran. According to Khabrain , an insulator of the Prophet PBUH was sentenced to death in a Lahore Sessions Court because Yusuf ‘Kazzab’ had claimed to be the khalifa (appointee) of the Prophet PBUH.

Get rid of ‘bainamaz’ officers

According to daily Pakistan , the Council of Islamic Ideology recommended to the government that it should fire civil servants who did not say their namaz, and that areas where people said their namaz should be selected for concessional development funds.

Against Sunday holiday

According to daily Pakistan, Islamic Ideology Council (IIC) resolved in Islamabad that Pakistan should revert to Friday as weekly holiday for Islamic blessings, which supported a similar demand made by some shopkeepers in Lahore. However, two members of the CII, not member Afzal Haider, insisted that instead of reverting to Friday, the government should ensure that people said their Friday prayer.Jail against Islam

Prison not allowed in Islam

According to Khabrain , Council of Islamic Ideology declared that sending anyone to prison was against Shariat and recommended that prison sentences be abolished. Early Islam had no jails, no police, and no banks. Thieves used to have their hands cut.

Sadna, Saminashah

You are in a similar error as Rajanjua, in thinking that Reason and Revelation are the same in this work - they most certainly are not. Reason (secular), Revelation (ecclesiastic), they can be complementary of course.

What if we disagree about the relevance of revelation? To what? for argument`s sake, everything except reason (for if we disagreed with absolutely everything, then we would be in a polarized paradigm war - which only a recourse to public opinion or political violence, might offer resolution) - differences of opinion are what ``Tolerance`` is all about.

``If one says about privately-owned businesses `Individuals are free to engage in private enterprise`, it means individuals are free to engage in private enterprise, not that the state owns all public enterprises``

This a statement of extraordinary clarity! in an Orwellian sense. Please reflect further on this.

If one says that Individuals are free to engage in private enterprise`, it means individuals are free to engage in private enterprise, and if they were free to engage in public enterpises, it would have been made explicit - No? Yes? - After all, the fact that they free to engage in private enterprse has been made explicit.

Indeed, when some on these boards posit that Religion`s practice should be limited to the private, personal sphere - they are in effecting setting a boundary, a arbitrary limit. The balancing of the secular (Reason) and the Revealed is the ``elusive Elixir`` Soroush is referring to - and which you and I have discussed since we first conversed on these boards. I have repeated stated that the problem is not the specialization of the institutions of religion and governance - the problem remains the lack of neutrality of the insitutions of goverenance with regard to the institutions of religion (``religion to be private, personal``) . Yet this lack of neutrality was supposed to have been attenuated by the independence of the judiciary - that is possible only if the hostility toward religion is not institutionalized.

Samina, I want to agree that communism is far from ``dead`` as a political and cultural force. Marx had predicted and predicated his work on communism as a post industrial phenomemon, yet it`s emergence, thus far, has been in what were agricultural societies. Clearly chialistic sense of mission and salvation remain potent forces in the hearts and minds of men.

SameerJB,

Just read your post; I had a poli. sci prof. who once insisted that Communism is dead-he was a brooding German Marxist on top of that...Cuba, China, Kerala; he predicted were not pukka Communists because they were to some extent dependent on the capitalist hegemonies...

regards

semi,rsax,hari,sadna

Apparently you guys missed the post in which the hydra claimed to have worn the burqa on the subcontinent. Really. ``It was uncomfortable`` the hydra wrote. Will the lies ever end?

Rajanjua

There are so many ideas and themes to discuss in the works below - I am surprised that you cannot rise above your ideological commitment and simply discuss issues - instead you reduce me to ridicule - OK- I am ridiculed, don’t I feel silly for respecting you enough to engage you seriously? Yet, I will respond to the points you have raised in the hope that you will engage more seriously:

“The learned ayatollah hobbyty (ra) thinks that ‘objective secularism’ under the guidance of a revamped shariah has the answers for the Islamic Ummah. His premise is that religion is divine and eternal and reasonable arguments should be based on this one absolute truth. The ayatollah is a shining example of enlightenment and, for him Sai baba’s lingam has the same divinity as the koran.

You misrepresent or misunderstand – The Divine, the Eternal and the reasonable are two separate sets of argument – There is no exclusivity here. read with care. With regard to the “absolute truth” – yes, to its adherents. It seems in your zeal, you overlook the components: pluralism, tolerance and the freedom of conscience and democracy. Secularism without these components is but totalitarianism. Just as the Koran is divine to me, The lingam to Sai Baba’s adherents may be divine to them (pluralism and tolerance) Ayatollah Hobbyty, Maulana hobbyty, Prof. Hobbs, what do these have to do with the material? Have I or anyone else, used your name to define the content of your thinking?

“Maybe the learned scholar is trying to sell the Iranian version of theocracy to Pakistanis disgruntled by the Sunni nonsense of Qazis and Fazloos and Sami-ul-haqs. One can say for sure that he wants us to know that he has read Weber and knows how to spell bourgeois.”

Historically a defining feature of communists has been their willingness to change facts, but not ideology – not only am I not calling for Iranian style Clergiocracy, rather am actually rejecting it - Reading Weber or using a spell checker are not social evils. Ignorance is a certainly an evil – Had your reading and comprehension skills been exceeded by your fear and ideological commitment, you may have ventured to ask, “which work of Weber?” – This would be an indication that you at follow the postion and seek to understand my position in relation to the discussion of Rejection and Rebellion. please refer to “The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism” – you may also want to refer to “Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism” Daniel Bell.

“ The answer lies in a Shura (that means assembly we are informed by the learned scholar) and he is kind enough to include anyone in it (unlike the Fazloos and Qazis) but the decision-making is reserved for “informed Muslims” – what information these special Muslims should have? That probably has something to do with Tareeqah and Haqeeqah and Aqeedah, etc. (reading Marx and Weber is optional) – his intellect can be fully expressed in his own words, “This you suggest is as it should be. So why are you mistaken in taking such a position: indeed, your position can be both right and wrong, depending on the interpretation one adopts”.

Decision making for “informed Muslims”? – You either choose to deliberately misrepresent my position or misunderstand it – Ijetehad is not merely decision making, but the process of debate, to arrive at decisions– Decisions arrived at by Ijma (consensus) institutionalized in Shura (assembly) - DEMOCRACY, at the very least persons who are required to make decisions should be informed, Muslims or not.

I find it curious that among the many proponents of “secularism” on Chowk– there exists a strong, expressed desire for a single all embracing idea –I think this is the outward expression of the authoritarian instinct, so powerful among certain persons at Chowk, and in my opinion, your thinking thus far have shown an affinity for that group.

“And then there are gems like “In fact, in order to make the intellectual and emotional journey to Objective secularism (which you describe accurately) the conscious Muslim one must first traverse this territory - that is, he or she must first bring their ethics and morality in tune”, i.e., only true Muslims and Muslimahs who have gone through the extensive literature of different ayatollahs will be able to appreciate “objective secularism” (which is his fancy way of saying secularism - for definition please consult the scholar).”

Can there be a better example of Rejection and Rebellion? Ranjanjua, did someone not train you? Your teachers, your university instructors, your co-workers, supervisors? If you are a business manager, did you not train; do you not refer to the work of others? Do you not seek to learn from others? Of course you do – this in itself is negation of your position here, that there is no need to consult scholars, academics and specialists.

If you train to be an engineer, are you not required to gain learning and understanding in the field? Similarly, if an educated and informed Muslim is an individual and public good, why should one not train to be a Muslim? – This is what I am referring to in “intellectual and emotional journey”.

hobbyt #234 #235

Souroush says
``Religion, however, never judges a situation independently; the judgement is refracted through the interpretation of religious texts, a task that falls within the domain of reason, which always harmonizes its comprehension of religion with its other precepts.``

Interpreting religious texts doesnot fall within the domain of reason. There is a religious text and there are precedents and neither are necessarily `reasonable`, the text for instance is likely to be `revelatory`.

Reason and objectivity can play a role only at the last step, namely that of logically and reasonably extending the content and intent of the texts and precedents to judge the current situation.

Moreover, what if some donot believe in the relevance of revelation in the current situation. How would one decide `objectively` between points of view who do consider revelation to be relevant in judging a situation and those who donot consider revelation to be relevant ?

And how would one decide `objectively` between Souroush and one who disagrees with him?
------

You say #234
``Diversity of religions is not a problem, the definition is decided by the adherents and by general or normative understanding of the religions, NOT by the STATE!``

Yes, but to for these definitions to be `publicly` applicable, they would have to have the approval of the state, no? If the state is not directly involved, then the state would have to approve the existence of autonoumous legal systems for each set of adherents, is it not? Theres your definition by the state then.

``To say that ?religion is a matter of the private sphere? is to say nothing; equivalent to saying that, light illuminates a dark room but it becomes meaningful only in relation to the premise: That all that is public is the sphere of the State``

No `All that is public is the sphere of the state` is not the premise of `religion is a matter of private sphere`.

`Religion is a matter of the private sphere` just means the state has no stated position either way in matters of religion and that individuals, groups, organisations are free to do as they please in this respect within the framework of the state.

If one says about privately-owned businesses `Individuals are free to engage in private enterprise`, it means individuals are free to engage in private enterprise, not that the state owns all public enterprises.

``Why would anyone willingly become a slave of the state?``
Noone does. One doesnot become a slave of the state by asserting that he has individual unimpeachable spheres of influence too.

the learned ayatollah hobbyty (ra) thinks that ‘objective secularism’ under the guidance of a revamped shariah has the answers for the islamic ummah. his premise is that religion is divine and eternal and reasonable arguments should be based on this one absolute truth. The ayatollah is a shining example of enlightenment and, for him sai baba’s lingam has the same divinity as the koran.

maybe the learned scholar is trying to sell the iranian version of theocracy to pakistanis disgruntled by the sunni nonsense of qazis and fazloos and sami-ul-haqs. one can say for sure that he wants us to know that he has read Weber and knows how to spell bourgeois. The answer lies in a shura (that means assembly we are informed by the learned scholar) and he is kind enough to include anyone in it (unlike the fazloos and qazis) but the decision-making is reserved for “informed muslims” – what information these special muslims should have? That probably has something to do with tareeqah and haqeeqah and aqeedah, etc. (reading Marx and Weber is optional) – his intellect can be fully expressed in his own words, “This you suggest is as it should be. So why are you mistaken in taking such a position: indeed, your position can be both right and wrong, depending on the interpretation one adopts”. And then there are gems like “In fact, in order to make the intellectual and emotional journey to Objective secularism (which you describe accurately) the conscious Muslim one must first traverse this territory - that is, he or she must first bring their ethics and morality in tune”, i.e., only true muslims and muslimahs who have gone through the extensive literature of different ayatollahs will be able to appreciate “objective secularism” (which is his fancy way of saying secularism - for definition please consult the scholar).

re: aamir 12-head retard

{Chuteye}

...i guess you picked that up at home, while growing up as a child...did your parents use that term frequently?...

Rajanjua, Sadna, Drumz, Prem, Sameerjb - Everybody at Chowk

``Let the occasional chalice break:

Abdolkarim Soroush and Islamic liberation theology

Dr. Mahmoud Sadri

Abdolkarim Soroush has emerged as the foremost Iranian and Islamic political philosopher and theologian. His sprawling intellectual project, aimed at reconciling reason and faith, spiritual authority and political liberty, ranges authoritatively over comparative religion, social science, and theology. However, it is only by understanding the local context of his intellectual endeavors that one can appreciate the universal significance of his thought.

I. The Local Context:

The Icon

The persona of Abdolkarim Soroush must be examined in light of the iconic tradition of modern Iranian intellectuals. The ``iconic intellectuals`` are the producers as well as embodiments of ideas and ideals, and as such they are held in semi-religious veneration. The main contours of this tradition emerged in the decades preceding the Constitutional Revolution of Iran (1905-1909.) The multiple roots of this tradition account for its unique mixture of what Max Weber called emissary and exemplary prophecy. In both respects, this tradition marks a radical departure from the intellectual traditions before Iran`s turn-of-the-century exposure to the West.

Iran has had a rich legacy of traditional intellectuality anchored in religious seminaries (Ulama), the patrimonial state (Ommal), the rural nobility (Ashraaf), and the traditional bourgeoisie (Bazaar). Because of its marginal status and growing numbers, this last group was able to appreciate the new ideas and ideals that were being imported, along with Samovar and guns, from the Russian and Transcaucasian frontiers. Thus it is not surprising that the lower layers of lay intelligentsia (especially in the northern regions of Iran) quickly absorbed the new ideas and became the carriers of a ``mission`` strikingly similar to that claimed by the Russian ``intelligentsia`` (a Russian coinage, incidently).

Increasingly, modern Transcaucasian, Azeri, and later, Iranian intellectuals emulated their Russian counterparts in their breathless and tenacious quest to Westernize, modernize, and lead the struggle to catch up with the more advanced countries of Europe. Besides the Russian brand of missionary intellectual zeal, the ideal typical Persian iconic super-intellectual evinces an exemplary trait that is French in origin. The postconstitutional generations of Iranian students, who received their higher education in France, were profoundly influenced by the ideals of personal commitment, individual valor and moral courage that shaped the idealized self-image of the post-Dreyfusard French ``engaged intellectuals,`` a term coined during the Dreyfus affair in the 1890s.

It was the convergence of the models of the French exemplary and Russian missionary heroic intellectuality in Iran`s thriving middle-class imagination that produced the hybrid form of the nineteenth-century monavvarolfekr, and later, the twentieth-century ``roushanfekr`` intellectuality. The new self-proclaimed ``enlightened`` leaders laid claim to, and soon acquired a patina of native charisma because of their alleged mastery of modern erudition. Taking as their intellectual heroes such archetypes as Tolstoy and Zola, the intellectual leaders of modern Iran demanded of themselves nothing less than an unswerving missionary activism aimed at national progress and an exemplary ``j`accuse`` - heroism in proclaiming socially relevant truths against entrenched authoritarian regimes. This certainly holds true for the radical Shiite version of ``liberation theology`` elaborated and personified by Ali Shariati in the 1970s. In their various manifestos, the contemporary flamboyant leaders of the Marxist, Maoist, and Guevarist movements of the last quarter of the current century (e.g., the Toudeh party, the Fadaian e Khalgh, and, the Mojahedin e Khalgh guerrillas) consider themselves, among other things, heirs to the mantel of leading super-intellectuality as well.

Iconic intellectuality implies not only the role of the heroic producers of ideas, but also the equally heroic selflessness required of the consumers of ideas. By the same token, mere professionals, scholars, academics, seminarians and literati are excluded from the ranks of iconic roushanfekr intellectuals. Indeed, the roushanfekr is the opposite of Kierkegaard`s ``scholar,`` who builds public conceptual palaces but might live in a private existential doghouse. Private and public lives of iconic intellectuals are expected to merge to allow a clear view of their calling: leading the way toward reform and setting an example for the rest of the society. The iconic intellectuals are by definition at least equal to, perhaps, in the case of some laic thinkers, even better than their principles.

The appeal to a common mission and ideal life style did not imply the uniformity of instruments of achieving the designated goals which depended on individual predilections and intellectual traditions. We will argue that three paths emerged in Iran as the nineteenth century drew to a close. Some advocates, notably, Akhoundzadeh and Taghizadeh, chose the path of total surrender and assimilation, which we designate as ``radical laic modernism,`` while others, such as Aqayev and Talebof chose an accommodative but culturally and ideationally preservationist agenda, thus anticipating the contemporary movement that encompasses Soroush`s position, that is, ``reflexive revivalism.`` Both groups found themselves confronted with a third front: the ``rejectionist revivalism``of nativist, antimodern, and anticonsitutionalist Islamists. This turn-of-the century debate is by no means resolved; indeed, in the current cacophony of Tehran`s burgeoning free media, the continuing currency of such enlightenment ideals as progress, development, and religious reform underscores the abiding relevance of this trilateral debate in fin-de-siecle Iran. Abdolkarim Soroush is an iconic intellectual who represents reflexive revivalism in this dialogue. Understanding this context is critical for the observers in the United States, and some European countries, where the public intellectual is an endangered species.

Let us remember that Soroush started his public career as the highest-ranking ideologue of the Islamic Republic. He was later appointed to the steering committee of the Cultural Revolution by Ayatollah Khomeini. In the last decade, however, he has emerged as the regime`s enfant terrible and, more recently, as its bete noire because of his trenchant criticism of the theological, philosophical, and political underpinnings of the regime. He has been since summarily fired from his job, barred from teaching, discouraged from speaking in public, and periodically prevented from publishing and traveling abroad. He is routinely threatened with assassination and is occasionally roughed up by organized gangs of extremists known as Ansar e Hezbollah. Yet, Soroush`s defiance is not regarded as particularly heroic in Iran. Selflessness and unbending commitment to the socially relevant truth is par for the course of Soroush`s career as a super-intellectual. When he went abroad for a few months in 1996, after a series of violent disturbances in his public lectures and in the wake of persistent official harassment, there were no signs that his public would countenance his permanent departure.

The Iconoclast

To say that someone like Soroush fits into a pattern is not to imply that he is just the latest product of a cultural assembly line. He is an original, by any standard. But his uniqueness has as much to do with his prodigious talents and extraordinary education as it does with the unique stage of the Iranian and Islamic civilization that he represents.

To demonstrate the above it is enough to compare Soroush to some of the earlier links in the chain of Iranian iconic intellectuals. Soroush belongs to the genre of the ``religious intellectuals.`` The Charisma of the first generation of post coup d`etat super-intellectuals like Mehdi Bazargan and Yadollah Sahabi emanated from their mastery of modern exact sciences while maintaining and revising their lay piety in the light of modern science. ``Yes,`` they would aver in words and deeds ``it is possible to be religious, modern, and nationalistic all at once.`` The immense popularity of Ali Shariati, who was Iran`s most celebrated iconic intellectual before Soroush, was due to his powerful fusion of the Shiite tradition of resistance with the revolutionary ethos of the French left in the sixties. Shariati`s elegant and ebullient style of writing and speech was unprecedented and remains unsurpassed in Iran. His nearly hermetic and heroic lifestyle is also in line with that of an iconic intellectual. Although Shariati, like Bazargan and Sahabi before him, was at home with Islamic learning, he was routinely dismissed by the clergy (especially after he challenged their toleration of the vulgarities of mass religiosity) as unschooled in scholastics of the seminary, and when they finally locked horns, he was excoriated as a Western-educated heretic.

Unlike all of his predecessors in the line of religious super-intellectuals, Soroush, thanks to his firm grounding in both traditional and modern learning, cannot be ignored by the clerical establishment. On the contrary, he occasionally uses his mastery of the seminarian language of critical discourse to win followers among scholars at the holy cities of Qum and Mashad. Besides his undisputed claim to the mantle of a roushanfekr intellectual, Soroush wears the charismatic halo of a serious traditional scholar. Even the ideologically correct scholars of the establishment no longer challenge his scholastic credentials.

The Opus

Like Shariati before him, Soroush is quite prolific. The development of his ideas in the past few years can be traced in a succession of articles that he regularly publishes in Tehran`s monthly literary and critical journal Kiyan. He also remains close to the pulse of social developments through polemical duels, addressing university students on religious and national occasions and even delivering occasional funeral orations. The currents of Soroush`s revisionist Islam flow in three fields: the epistemology and sociology of knowledge; philosophical anthropology and political theory; and ethics and social criticism.

Soroush`s magnum opus, is a tome entitled The Hermeneutical Expansion and Contraction of the Theory of Shari`a. It reevaluates the Islamic Shari`a in the light of insights garnered from the fields of jurisprudence, history of ideas, hermeneutics, epistemology, philosophy of science, and sociology of knowledge. In this book and in his other writings, Soroush poses such question as, ``What can we as mortals hope to know about the mind of God, and to what extent ought we take the edicts deduced by Islamic Juristconsults as literal and immediate divine commandments?`` The clergy who have posed similar quandaries, do not object to these discussions as such. They are, however, outraged by Soroush`s recklessness for exposing the laity to such sensitive subjects. But this issue is itself a bone of contention between Soroush and the seminarian establishment. Soroush criticizes the practice of protecting humanly developed dogma by forbidding ``scandalous questions`` (Shobheh).

Soroush`s philosophical anthropology starts with the question of human nature. In his rather pessimistic view of human nature Soroush appears to have been inspired by a modern tradition that starts with Hobbes and finds expression in the ideas of the framers of the American constitution. But his treatment of this tradition is quite refreshing. In his essay Let Us Learn From History, instead of engaging in philosophical guesswork about human nature or dismissing the question as hopelessly abstract, he takes a direct and empirical rout: there is nothing mysterious or abstract about human nature. It is revealed to us in history:

``We must warn against the false belief that human history could have been more or less virtuous than it has turned out to be . . . Our definitions of humanity need to be soberly and somberly reexamined in view of the amount of greed, cruelty, wickedness, and ingratitude that they have caused - all of which they have done willingly and by their nature, not because they have been coerced or perverted.``

Here Soroush gives the sober liberal view of human nature an empirical, collective basis. Combining the bare-knuckle realism of liberal philosophers with mystical, theological, and theosophical arguments, he softens the pessimistic edge of this view with verses from The Koran and the poetics from Hafez:

``At the dawn of creation, the angels accurately divined that human society could not be devoid of depravity and bloodshed. Nor did God fault them for this judgment, only advising them that their knowledge is incomplete. Hafez restates the protestation of the angels but meekly and with infinite grace.

``How can we not lose our way in the midst of so many harvests of creed

When Adam was led astray by a single seed!

There is no escape from blasphemy in love`s bower

If `Bu Lahab` is absent, whom can the hell`s fire devour?

Where the Chosen Adam was struck by the thunderbolt of insolence

How would it behoove us to profess our innocence?``

Soroush believes that the Rousseauesque idealism (shared by anarchists, radical Marxists, and Islamic fundamentalists), based on the assumption of the innate goodness of mankind, has the potential of underestimating the staying power of social evil and of fostering the false hope that it can be extinguished. This miscalculation could lead to disastrous projects of social engineering of the kind undertaken by the socialist regimes.

Soroush`s political philosophy remains close to the heart of the liberal tradition, ever championing the basic values of reason, liberty, freedom, and democracy. The main challenge is not to establish their value but to promote them as ``primary values,`` as independent virtues, not handmaidens of political maxims and religious dogma. In his Reason and Freedom, Soroush is at pains to demonstrate that freedom is itself a truth, regardless of its performance as an instrument of attaining the truth:

Those who shun freedom as the enemy of truth and as a possible breeding ground for wrong ideas do not realize that freedom is itself a ``truth`` . . . The world is the marketplace for the exchange of ide