Nuclear South Asia: An Explanation to America My experience is that at every single gathering of Pakistanis the conversation soon drifts to how bad the US and Israel are, how the US is responsible for every single ailment that afflicts Islam and Muslim countries. And I`m talking about the relatively better-educated segment of our society, both here and back at home.

While what I say might not be beneficial to the PR campaign by the government of Pakistan, it is the plain and simple truth. A majority of Pakistanis do not wish this country well, and have nothing but contempt for the principles of secularism, freedom and liberty as understood in the West.

Rgds
MNI

Nuclear South Asia: An Explanation to America If some of our selfish dictators have towed the US lines in the past, it was not out of friendship, but their own self-interest. The so-called Pakistan-US friendship is nothing but a `you scratch my back I scratch yours` relationship.

The people of Pakistan by and large have nothing but hatred for the US, the West and everything it stands for. They also think of Pakistan as some big time geopolitical player that should attract everybody`s -especially America`s- attention. When we don`t get any (get used to it folks, we are nobody) we either go into the `shikwah` mode, or we start badmouthing America.

For those who say America is the most racist country in the world...how can you say that, when you, a brownie are sipping your coffee in a suburban home, driving cars that you wouldn`t even dream of owning in Pakistan? You are probably smart and competent and got rewarded generously for your talents. And you are fully benefitting from the first amendment that gives you the liberty of condemning this country. Please read the constitution of Pakistan and find out whether you are granted such freedom as a citizen of Pakistan. You are not.

This is the plain hard truth in my opinion, no matter how long we keep running away from it.

Regards
Mohammad Noorul Islam

Letter from Nagasaki My dear Mr.Imam Din:
Not only were the attacks against Islam noticed, but they were also deleted, probably from fear of retaliation by overly-zealous chowk readers like yourself. On the other hand the mean-spirited and bigoted attacks on Hindu religion, that provoked my censored response stay intact for all to read. It must have taken alot of chutzpah to ask `when will you guys take note of attacks on Islam?`.

Chowk staff, my regards to all of you and appreciation for your good work. I understand why you would have to censor my comments. No hard feelings there. But don`t you think it`s only fair to censor Mr.Hassan`s remarks also? If religious sentiments are to be protected then the protection should be extended to every faith and religion in the same manner and to the same extent. Or is the censorship policy driven only by the threat of physical attack by fundamentalist goons?

Regards
MNI

Letter from Nagasaki Re: Mr.Imam Din``If your Japanese Emperor of the time had an equally strong deterrent Ms. Kitano...You and countless others would never have had to bear the scars of that terrible explosion.``Well then let`s distribute nuclear weapons to everyone like you give away sweets. That way, no one will dare attack anyone else and we`ll have peace. Re: Mr.Hassan`s comment:``In any case we try to civilise these barbarians and this is the thanks we get.``Revisionist history taught in our textbooks portrays pre-Islamic India as a bunch of filthy, supersitious and uncultured animals. Little is taught beyond sati, caste system and the like. Hence Mr.Hassan`s singularly ignorant comment. Moreover, just like `civilization` of blacks is no excuse of slavery, the much more dubious assertion that Muslims civilized India is a pathetic justification for aggression, plunder and enslavement. Finally, Mr.Hassan missed the point. If he is justified in inculcating fear of a fundamentalist Hindu regime, why aren`t Indians justified in fearing a resurgence of Muslim fundamentalism, accompanying imperialism and subsequent aggression? While there is little historical precedent of large scale Hindu aggression against Muslims or Hindus taking over Muslim countries, there`s plenty to prove vice versa.

Say No to Indian and Pakistani Bombs Maybe it`s too late to tell them not to explode a bomb. However, I am willing to drive up to NYC to
protest against the explosions. Who else is going?

MNI

Patriot Games Excellent article, Sir.
Thank you

Rgds
MNI

Patriot Games Brilliant, qibla! And very moving. Thank you.

Rgds
MNI

A Letter to the Prime Minister of Pakistan Are you sending one letter with many signatories or are we supposed to send a copy of this to the PM ourselves?

Thanks for the effort in writing this Wasiq sahib.

Regards,
MNI

The Limits on Women’s Lives Dear Umar sahib:
I know very well what Islam teaches, thank you. The difference is that I saw through the apologetic spin a long long time ago.

You didn`t get my point. I didn`t expect that you would. I can say it all over again, but it`d be a waste of time. Kindly read my comments again.

Ibrahim was born of Maria who was a concubine sent as gift to Muhammad from the king Najashi or Abyssinia.

And since you were frank enough to call me a charlatan, let me reciprocate the candor by pointing out that half the time, you don`t even understand what the other side is saying before responding.


Rgds
MNI

Sex Everywhere Hats off to Chowkwallahs for publishing this. And thank you AA for dispelling the myth of ``Pak-istan``. Let those who blame the West for tolerating ``extreme`` pleasure read this and make up their minds whether stoning and flogging people is going to suppress the most primal human instinct.

MNI

The Limits on Women’s Lives Rehan Rizvi`s comments:
``..when we reject God, we are left essentially with animal instincts. Why not follow them when nothing`s stopping us? In this country people
do things that fall into extremely hedonistic categories...``

Old ruse.

After finding out that there is no rational and relevant argument to validate Islam, this irrelevancy is brought in. Either there is divinity or there isn`t. Either Islam is divine,or it isn`t. All these are ONTOLOGICAL questions. It is very strange to bring in ethics, to support a claim about physical (or metaphysical) reality.

First and foremost, what you consider appropriate morality is what your religion considers moral. Adultery, fornication, drinking are all immoral because your religion doesn`t allow it. Then you say that if you abandon religion, you`ll become immoral. That`s eithera tautology, or you have, in the back of your mind, an idea of morality (your `animal` instinct :)) independent of, yet similar to Islamic ethics. Why else do you think people will be threatened bythe specter of widespread ``immorality``?

Morality is based on practical considerations of perpetuating and preserving human society. Of course it`s no accident that the ethics
taught in hundreds of societies has been similar. Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism all teach the same basic morals. There were many thinkers
who formulated rules of morality without any appeal to God or his torture chamber upstairs. Religion has been very much like the
jin-bhoot stories we hear from our parents to scare us into heeding advice. But kids are kids. But religious moralists seem to think of
everyone as a little child who can`t see the utilitarian foundation of ``morality``. Or they`re too lazy to formulate a rational argument
because that needs more work. It`s convenient to invent a story of a policeman up in heaven and scare the population of the fire in hell. And it didn`t stop there. Perverse and sickening moral dogma was invented to further the cause of the religion. Very often greed, ambition to conquer and suppress, also got mixed up in morality. It became moral to kill, plunder, mutilate and enslave other human beings in the name of godly morality.

You say people need to fear god to stay on the right path. If the fear of god is enough to inculcate morals, why the penal laws in Islam? Isn`t the fear of god enough? Fact is that fear of god stops very few people from playing foul. You always need the worldly danda. In fact, when you think you are a part of god`s favorite ``ummah``, you start taking liberties in the hopes that god will forgive. Socratic morality that is univeral, takes a back seat. Pietist morality takes precedence. Hence Mother Teresa goes to hell and the plunderer Mahmood becomes god`s great soldier. Historically, religious societies have hardly been embodiments of moral values. Making religion the basis of morality is a very very insidious lure for the lazy who are unwilling to think and rethink about morality and the nature of it.

Regarding your statement about this country...WAKE UP!! You think nothing ``hedonistic`` happened in Islamic socieities. Let me remind you...Muhammad had NINE wives at one time and at least TWO concubines. You know what a concubine is? You know how Muhammad`s son Ibrahim was born? ``Hedonistic`` things have been happening in EVERY society.
The difference is that a class, gender or race doesn`t get suppressed to keep it all hush-hush.

Re:BG
No Muslims and humanists aren`t mutually exclusive as long as the Muslim remembers that there`s a basis for his ethics independent of god and religion. The probability of that happening is rather low because typically Islamic morality isn`t identical to what you`d arrive at after thinking as a humanist. In a way, this whole women`s issues debate stems from this problem.


Re: Sabrina
``Well...proof was never needed when we were kids...but I need proof that it isn`t the word of god..``

Suppose you, as a kid were taught to believe that there`s an invisible demon that sits on your head. Would you ask for proof? Now tell me
how one can go about proving that such a proposition is not true. I hope you see what I am saying...


Re: SR and Sabrina

It takes a bold step of reason to get off this ``sharaab-e-tahoor`` of faith. It is understandable that people are reluctant to take this step and play mental games instead. I wouldn`t judge such people too harshly. At least they are trying to question. They are inquiring. Quite different from Mr.Rizvi who thinks one shouldn`t even question.
(Somewhere I smell al manqadh min Dalal :))

Re:SR:
You are right. Faith is an intoxicant. It gives you a high. The key to being reasonable (and this addresses AZ`s point a bit) is to realize that faith is a high. Everyone doesn`t and shouldn`t get that high. And any conclusion reached from there is for your own emotional needs. It should have nothing to do with objective reality or universal morality. Maybe such awareness invalidates faith. But that`s the only way I can think of, that you can stay a Muslim, and still be ``secular``.

Rgds
MNI

The Intellectual Imperative AZ sahiba:
Every time I address your comments, I seem to be finding faults. Just telling you that most of the time your comments make alot of sense. There`s no point just repeating them again.

You want to bring in ``Islamic humanism``. ji ye kya shai hai?

``There is an influential philosophical tradition that maintains that ethics is an autonomous field of inquiry, that ethical judgements can be formulated independently of revealed religion, and that human beings can cultivate practical reason and wisdom and, by its application, achieve lives of virtue and excellence.``
[``A Secular Humanist Declaration`` from ``In defense of secular humanism`` by Paul Kurtz, Prometheus Books 1983]

That is humanism. Islam on the other hand considers god as the ultimate originator and authority on morality expressed in his own words in the book called Qur`an. As I see it, there is direct contradiction between these two concepts. I do not see any way in which they can be integrated without contradiction.

I suspect that the reason you came up with this idea is probably an us versus them mentality vis a vis the Western world. You think they have the monopoly over secularism, and you need something to call your own and incorporates your ``Islamic identity``. We had something similar in Pakistan called ``Islamic Socialism`` and we all saw the havoc it wreaked.

As I pointed in reply to ``Return of a desi``, secularism is not the property of the West even if some Westerners think it is. European Union is not a thekaydaar of secularism and Turkey is not a secular state either. Turkey has some disturbing streaks of fascism. Intrusive measures like banning Hijab reek of suppression of individual liberty by doctrinaire Kemalists.

Regards
MNI

The Limits on Women’s Lives My most sincere apologies to Rehan Rizvi sahib for calling him ``Farhan``. I don`t know what I was thinking. Maybe it`s old age.

MNI

The Limits on Women’s Lives Sabrina`s comment:
``..you know very well this line of reasonings will not lead us anywhere except along that circuitous route GSM was talking about earlier.``

Every causal explanation demands an explanation and the chain continues ad infinitum. Therefore everyone who seeks to explain anything is left in this causal limbo. That is the problem of logic. None of us can get around it, a truism that you and I recognize. Our Farhan sahib here thought otherwise. Lest many other lurking believers think too much of his argument, it was important to remind everyone: ``is hammam meiN sab nangay haiN``.

The circuitous route (as per GSM`s comments) is that he believes that Muhammad was a prophet of god. We don`t and therefore can`t argue with him about the merits and demerits of Islam, because his premise is that Islam is divine. He has a point that you didn`t quite understand maybe? We can argue all we want about how Islam is unjust and unfair. But unjust and unfair according to whom? Who sets the standards? You, AZ , BG and others are weighing Islam on your own standards of women`s rights. That makes you HUMANISTS. You have practically rejected god or a holy book as the standard-setter of morality, in favor of your own good sense.

But what`s GSM`s or Farooq sahib`s premise based on? Faith. Hence my comments on this faith thing. Rehan sahib tried to say that science and faith are the same things. It was important that the difference be pointed out. Science operates on skepticism, continuous evaluation and revision. It is not a system of beliefs, but a method of inquiry. Religion is a system of belief: rigid and immutable.

You say we should focus on the Qur`an. Partly, yes. But first, the burden is on the believer to show us that qur`an is the word of god. I haven`t seen anything like that. Have you? Most people have a hard time apologizing for the Qur`an -as you can see right here- let alone demonstrating its divine origin.

The natural position to start with is of skepticism. The burden of proof of this very very tall claim is on the believer. Unless incontrovertible evidence is provided, I will keep on enjoying my martini :).

Regards
MNI

Upon the return of a Desi I wanted to say this for a couple of days but couldn`t get around to writing.

``We are at that stage of this evolution where we have wholeheartedly embraced western products, services and images but we still cling to our own basic eastern and religious values``

I think you have accurately pointed out our misfortune. We rush to adopt a Western lifestyle thereby making Uncle Sam richer and ourselves poorer. And what IMO we should COPY -the foundational principles of Western democracies- we actively oppose. Of course the developed world has an interest in our consuming McDonald`s, Levi`s and coke and they push all of this on us. And they don`t give two hoots about democracy, secularism or any other principle if it doesn`t suit their global interests; the platitudes of the State Dept. spokesmen notwithstanding.

Of course we can`t blame everything on the West. There`s one who fools, but there`s one who is fooled. WE should IMO fix out priorities. Nike is not as important as secularism and democratic principles.

My only objection is that you characterize secular humanism and democracy as a Western value. That is simply incorrect. We do know that there was some form of democracy in other societies. The concept of ``Bai`at`` or ``bai`ah`` in Islamic history is a democratic concept, even if it is flawed democracy. Similarly, many ``Muslims`` were secular humanists (e.g. Muhammad b. Zakaria al-Razi and Abul `ala al-Ma`arri) when they were still burning witches in the West. Secular humanism is a universal value. If we project it as a Western import we`d be wrong about history. More importantly, we`ll raise all those social barriers that spring up out of sheer xenophobia.

Rgds
MNI

The Limits on Women’s Lives Shaytaan-e-Rajeem....I like that. You know I am a fan of Shaytan.
One of our family acquaintances had more than half a dozen boys and she was trying desperately to name them in the same ``qaafia``..writing a ghazal I guess; a very long ghazal ;). When her seventh kid was born, she asked my brother to think of a name in the qaafia of ``aan``..guess what was his answer:).

It`s funny that the discussion started with women`s rights and now we have a full-blown non-believer vs believer argument going.

Has this article set the record for most replies yet?

Rgds
MNI