Cognitive Dissonance & Parental Evil

The only thing that is required for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.....

If one looks at the history of human social advancement, it's the story of people standing up and fighting for that which they deemed to be right and true, be it encouraging emancipation of slaves by Mohammad to a civil war to eliminate its scourge - from elevation of women from property to actual citizens to suffrage to the on-going struggle for equality. As such I believe it to be all of our duty to stand up and fight for what we believe to be right, to push the boundaries of what is permissible , to rail against injustices around us and move the world forward. Not doing so would be an abdication of our responsibility to not only our fellow man but to the generations that follow.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has - Margaret Mead

Growing up, the most important formative influences we have are primarily those of our siblings and parents. What they tell us and how they interact is regarded as gospel. As with most relationships being open to others while leading to deep, long-lasting connections also conversely leaves one open to abuse and manipulation. Being able to view those closest to us objectively is inevitably a struggle.

There is a fundamental disconnect , a cognitive dissonance prevalent among many non-western societies wherein parents are regarded as beyond reproach. Just as priests invoke their divine mandate parents invoke their right for respect and obedience without any factual basis. Like religion this conditioning usually begins at a young age often with the aid of religion itself (Hadith: Heaven lies at the feet of ones mother). Contrast that with other relationships we enter into voluntarily, be it friendships, romantic relationships , marriage or whatever else - the bar set is closer to mutual respect and caring not respect by virtue of the relationship itself. If a friend or husband or wife forced one to follow their will, be it via emotional blackmail, force or other means of coercion it would generally be regarded as an abusive relationship nothing more. Extend the same to the parent-child relationship and more often then not it's justified with 'they do it out of love' or 'they seek to protect us'. Somehow when a parent abuses the trust and respect we place in them we're forced to justify and rationalize their behavior instead of calling it out for what it is.

Paraphrasing Sam Harris simply because someone claims to be or even actually is acting out of love does not by fiat make their actions moral or any less repugnant then other motives. A father may choose to murder their homosexual child out of love - logical from the point of view of someone viewing homosexuality as a path to eternal suffering (hellfire). Even though they experienced love and acted out of it does not take away from the crime they committed, the barbarians they are or the punishment they deserve.

How exactly are grown people controlled by others.. if one were to actually examine the phenomena dispassionately it invariably involves the same themes - themes that are often echoed in emotional abuse scenarios.

Growing up as a child one is taught how sacrosanct ones relationship with their parents is. Obedience to their opinions is invariably expected and required. As one enters adolescence the natural transitions involves establishing self-control over our own lives. If you're even remotely familiar with the methods employed to control others the most crucial aspect is preventing the victim from believing that they can exercise control over their destiny.. thus the appearance of control must be delayed and sabotaged. In an abusive situation often the abuser controls financial power, dictates permissible social interactions (people one can befriend) , so on and so forth. The missive is usually of love (I do so because I love you) but the end-goal of control is anything but.

A significant portion of the associated culture is setup to reinforce this control. The idea of keeping ones children close - most live with their parents, the stigma that is culturally enforced particularly on women striking out on their own. By conditioning a child to accept their parents word as gospel and reinforcing that societally, where trying to establish ones own identity is associated with immorality the open prison they inhabit is further entrenched. The damage this to ones psyche is evident wherein the raison d'etre of life by many young women is considered to be landing a mate... What percentage of these parents have you seen encouraging their children to move out to make a life of their own on their own terms? Consider the growing experiences one has , the sense of confidence one gains by knowing ones capabilities and exercising them instead of being treating as chattel traded from father to husband?

For those that actually choose to stand up for themselves besides the social stigmas hinted at above a deep campaign of emotional blackmail and abuse invariably follows. As shocking as it may seem to consider ones own parents as abusive, please lets call a spade a spade. What is evil is evil regardless of how much we care about those displaying the behavior. Unlike popcorn-fare life usually involves villains that do not believe they are in the wrong, that they in fact are standing up for what is good and true, despite their convictions the definition of evil does not change.

Evil is unspectacular and always human, And shares our bed and eats at our own table. - W. H. Auden

Beyond recognizing bad behavior among those that attempt to control us we also must be aware that we are not responsible for their happiness (repeat after me ... I am not responsible for the happiness of others....), for their life-choices which led to their health problems , for the stigma's they and the culture propagates. We've often seen the formulaic soap where-in a parent at their death bed as a dying wish asks their child to 'obey'... we've also all laughed it off as being idiotic and unreal. On the other hand threats such as these are common place and aren't decried as being nothing more then a perverted and sick attempt at using ones owns life to gain control over another. The level of perversion apparently has no limits. Contrast the behavior of a loving parent with that of a controlling one, if your child was in distress was being forced against their will and you were on your death bed would your instinct be to emotionally beat down the child into submission or to use your dying breath to liberate them and free them of the pain they were undergoing. The definition of love does not involve the words 'obey my wishes' but rather involves a deep empathy where one is literally willing to walk over a river of fire to assuage the pain of a loved one. Consider the situation where you do have that feeling for your significant other but their reaction is how do I manipulate your affection to achieve my goals. Most of us will instinctively revile the cynical and manipulative person involved and be repulsed by them but when a parent exhibits the exact same behavior...

Another aspect of the same is manipulating someone the victim loves to achieve their goals , you can't leave (a bad marriage) because... think of the children? or I will deprive you of the children or I will make them suffer like no other so on and so forth. Identifying the evil inherent in these patterns of behavior is also casual but extending it to a parental situation where they threaten to deprive you of your own family (siblings, mother, father whatever), where a father beats down a mother (physically, emotionally or mentally) to force compliance among a child is given a pass. Instead of recognizing those being used to promote coercion as willing participants or victims that have long since given up on being able to stand up and fight we accept the situation. Consider a younger sibling of yours being treated this way by their significant other, would you not raze down hell and heaven itself to free them of the situation? Why is a father is not treated with the passionate defiance way when he seeks to force his own agenda (at the expense of his own family)?

One of the primary reasons it is hard to break free is the life-long shackles that have been chained upon us since birth. When most realistic possibilities are cordoned off as being immoral, unconscionable and unthinkable when actually standing up and fighting is deemed immoral we enter an Orwellian realm where war is peace... evil is good and control is love.

For those of us in such situations, not only is there a dire need to recognize reality for what it is but to understand that there are no actual limits imposed upon us. Those perceived limits are simply an illusion designed to enslave and control us.

In every cry of every Man,
In every Infants cry of fear,
In every voice: in every ban,
The mind-forg'd manacles I hear.

William Blake

For those wishing to pursue an unorthodox career ranging from Hollywood to Archeology to modeling to whatever else – it is your life to live and not of your society. To those wishing to marry someone that would horrify their families delicate sensibilities again it is your life not theirs. To those that aren't of the mainstream heterosexual proclivities it is your right to live your life free happy and in the open, those that love you will celebrate you , those that don't never will. To those that despise the belief-set of their parents again your life your beliefs... To those that need to get away from regressive families but feel that would be an act of abandonment, you live but once and as a happy, complete and healthy individual can do far more.

In conclusion, by following patterns of control and abuse parents condemn their children to stunted emotional growth, to being in future abusive situations (where one grows up expecting to be controlled, where power resides with another the corruption of that power by and large is inevitable), to living an unfulfilled and bitter life. The moral imperative when viewing injustice, when viewing someone in a position of power abuse others is to stand up and fight for the weak, for the oppressed - not doing so is nothing short of moral cowardice. Too often, those of us that view or experience behaviors that are downright criminal condone it simply because of the supposed sacredness of the parent-child relationship. There is a cost associated with this acquiescence to evil , in human terms as well as in societal terms as we all have far too often seen.

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality. ~Bishop Desmond Tutu

Why I Do Not Believe - Part II

“Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things—that takes religion.” - Stephen Weinberg

Why I Do Not Believe

After spending ones life being a ‘believer’ a religious moderate so to say the very idea of disbelief is somehow anathema. Even while writing this essay, there’s a part of me that’s in denial about where I stand today.

I’ve always held religious conservatives in open disdain being of the opinion that their regressive ideals are a product of a flawed intellectual conclusion, with the idea that they do not adhere to the faith so much as to a dogmatic view promoting a very specific agenda. I still believe that to in essence be true.

Over the past year I’ve been undergoing what I now see as a cathartic experience of rejecting the last vestiges of unreason from my life.

Due to various events I was forced to reexamine what I believed in and what the essence of my faith was. I was doing this with the intention of further solidifying my beliefs and buttress them against conservative forces which I as always thought to be anti-thetical to my belief system.

I beefed up on my reading about theology and Islamic history, one of the best books I read during this period was Reza Aslan’s “No God But God” which proved very illuminating. One of the key points that somehow in my utter naiveté had eluded me was that previous leaders were just like the leaders now “What does any man with power want? More power” and as such were willing to employ any measure at their disposal including corrupting faith at will. Reading about Caliph’s declaring themselves to be the “Caliph of Allah” instead of the more pedestrian “Caliph of the Prophet”. Power grabs even in the metaphysical world J.

There was tension from the very beginning between those that simply believed and those that wanted to understand their beliefs. Early Islamic history is littered with great thinkers, scientists and philosophers. What we aren’t usually told when people look back nostalgically is that all of these thinkers weren’t representative of the mainstream faith but were ostracized. Ibn e Sina one of the greatest muslim scholars if not the greatest had multiple attempts on his life for his so called ‘apostasy’.

The Golden period of Islam wherein the Islamic culture contributed massively to the advancement of the world and preservation of knowledge 'being a product of Islam' was a myth. As today the masses were superstitious and deeply irrational with religious zealots holding sway over them. The only difference being the scholar’s patrons (Caliphs and Royal Courts) allowed them to flourish both by defending them and with monetary support.

Correlation does not equal causation, simply because those advancements occurred during Muslim rule does not by fiat mean that the Conservative narrative of it being the product of Islam is true. The scholars that produced all the amazing feats and revivified science were invariably branded heretics by the religious right so to speak. Most of them drank, questioned the existence of god etc etc. Not to mention the questions they raised traumatized the religious then as they do now. I might be confusing the exact name but I believe Ibn e Sina survived three assassination attempts on his life for being a heretic. The 'golden age' that occurred was in spite of Islam not because of it. The primary reason for that in my opinion being that the 'faithful' did not hold the reins of power at that point.

This flickering light went out with Imam Ghazali almost single handedly destroying rational thought (Fire does not intrinsically burn but only direct action of God causes the burning action…..). The conservative ideal of all knowledge flowing from religion rather than reality gained supremacy. The immediate consequence of this was a wholesale slaughter of all rational thinkers in the Islamic sphere. If you follow the flowering of Islamic scientific discoveries they whither n die within a century of Ghazali (12/13^th century).

Upon further reading various inconsistencies became glaringly obvious. For example for those that adhere to the Hadith , there is a Hadith in Sahih Muslim that expressly forbids the collection of Hadith. Why would a successful businessman married into wealth who actively encouraged literacy among his followers refuse to learn how to read and write? Why would Shia’s still believe in the Imamat when the 5^th Imam died during the lifetime of the fifth (with it being supposed to be passed on generationally). Why was Mariyah never mentioned? The sheer quantity of questions and contradictions that I hadn’t ever encountered reading any classical Islamic text was an obvious indicator of the self-censorship being exerted.

I suddenly found many aspects of the faith to be deeply troubling.

In that vein I had previously discounted the Islamic homophobia as being a cultural issue and that perhaps my understanding of it was deficient. On the one end I was giving God a free pass for homophobia while believing that denying anyone their rights as human beings is a grotesque violation. The idea of a God that would smite down an entire nation for the high crime of sodomy is the very definition of bigotry. The fact that this is prominently mentioned in the Quran makes any excuse of it simple denial. (Ref Sodom n gomora). How is it just and right for a God to create a segment of the population to have differing sexual needs and desires and then punish them for following through on them? Imagine being forced to go against your natural sexual instinct (If you’re a heterosexual imagine being forced to be with a member of your own sex) at the risk of not only being killed in this world but suffering eternal torment in the next.

One of the pillars of my belief was justice, that faith itself wasn’t as important as content of character, I guess you could call it a further extension of the Prophet’s last sermon. The idea that the most important thing in life was not which diety you worshipped but the good you did in this world, people like Mother Teresa, Gandhi, Mandela etc would be judged by what they did not what they believed/disbelieved. I often quoted “Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” - 002.062, as evidence of the same. Anyone with a critical eye will notice the erroneous conclusion I drew. The verse specifically mentions the belief in Allah being a pre-requisite, one if charitable may take that as monotheism but even with that charitable definition, a sizable majority of the world including the Christian Trinitarians (Mother Teresa etc) are condemned to hell. Denying so seems to be denying the Quran itself.

From the same Quranic section when Lot was asked to hand over the angels as sexual fodder for the local heathen population, he defended them as any rational human would but then he runs counter to all moral values wherein he offers his daughters up for rape to save his male guests. Again its worth emphasizing that this is verbatim from the Quran itself which turns the idea of female rights on its head.

Around the same time a friend sent a paper she was working on (for her thesis) which was about a Coptic slave Mārīyah that the Prophet received as a present. The prophet was so taken with her beauty that she became his favorite companion in bed. The altercation with Hafsa mentioned in the Quran was a direct consequence of this. Hafsa walked in on the prophet spending time allocated to her with Mārīyah. Up until this point I was in denial, including a friends explanation about the slavery bits in the Quran being incorrectly interpreted. But on the other hand if the prophet himself had a sex slave all other bets were off (and that’s without going into his wives)

Moving on to the parable of Abraham….

Oh God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God say, "No." Abe say, "What?"
God say, "You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin' you better run"
Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killin' done?"

What parent in their right mind would consent to killing their offspring regardless of what power is presented or what repercussions lie ahead. The very idea of parenthood is to protect ones offspring not to offer them up to the first deity demanding homage. Again this is something that’s usually justified and thought of in the abstract, but why do we afford it such a luxury. Imagine your own niece, daughter, nephew son etc , their faces and imagine taking their life, can you honestly say you can contemplate any scenario where you could do so or where the societal response will be anything beyond sheer horror and revulsion. Why then do we treat Abraham with kid gloves? The same goes to Lot beyond the women’s right issues, this great prophet was not exactly what one would call the perfect parent.

Switching gears for a moment what is the nature of miracles? Is it that which is highly improbable, one in a million chance perhaps? one in a billion? What’s the threshold between improbable and miraculous. Does someone recovering from a terminal illness with a survival rate of 0.1% constitute a miracle? Or is that person just the 1 in a 1000 case illustrated directly by the survival rate.

Looking at some of the miracles quoted in the Quran stretches its credibility to say the least. I personally had been of the view that God did not intervene in the worldly plain but had set things in motion, being an omnipotent omniscient being he had the foresight of knowing what decisions mortals would take, and miracles though extremely improbable did not involve suspension of natural law.

Unsurprisingly examining these same miracles with a critical eye yields a very different result.

Adam for example was supposedly the first created human, on the flip side of which we have a clear evolutionary line of human lineage that dates back over the course of millions of years. Disregarding human evolution we have ample evidence that all life on the planet originated from common origins. How then does one special case human beings without any evidence and disregard all evidence to the contrary? How is that not the ultimate expression of human hubris?

Jesus borne of the Virgin Mary, the infamous immaculate conception (3:47 She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!). Looking at the same through the lens of reason, there Is no known instance of that occurring, and modern history has covered somewhere north of 10 billion people being born and the countless other mammals with no other known instances. At this point the faithful would chime in with yes that is precisely why it was a divine miracle. But we now know that human sexuality is determined by the male genetic contribution, having a female egg simply split providing extra genetic material would result in two X chromosomes and the result would be Miss Jesus. Actually in nature that does happen, there are animals (some reptiles) that can and do reproduce asexually by a process called Parthenogenesis. The problem being that the resultant offspring are all female, notwithstanding the fact that due to the way mammalian pregnancy progresses Parthenogenesis is impossible in humans.

During Noah’s term on earth there occurred a great flood wiping out disbelievers. According to the story the earth was drenched in water killing all flora and fauna in addition those that disbelieved. Due to the scale of the event Noah had to preserve life by preserving the various species along with him. The obvious problem being the ability to collect and preserve the complete species of our planet is impossible. The diversity that we live in is far beyond even all our technical capabilities today. Every day scientists discover new species, new forms of life. Even with all our advancements we have not managed to catalog all life. The idea of being able to preserve it a catastrophic incident is beyond laughable well into the territory of absurd. Ignoring that though an event as cataclysmic as that would have left an imprint in the geological record of the earth or in the fossil record, no such event exists that coincides with human existence.

The tale of Moses and the exodus of the Israelites features prominently in all Abrahamic faiths. The quran asserts the series of Miracles, ranging from plagues to crossing the red sea to divine sustenance and yet throughout that period god was continually doubted by the Israelites, can you imagine the power and awe someone would feel on seeing a sea parted in front of them for their survival while drowning their oppressors, the sheer power of such a god would convince the most cynical minds, yet according to the Quran itself, this was not so. To put this in context, imagine a man doing a feat of that magnitude today coupled with the other miracles, how many would believe his claims despite our current technological prowess.

What benefits do we as a civilization, as a species garner from faith itself?

One of the key idea that is used for justification of faith is Human Morality. Without faith we are told that we would have nothing to anchor us to provide us with a sense of right and wrong. The argument is fallacious; do you believe that if today you were given a blank check by god to do as you please, without any ramifications to your eternal life, you would turn into a serial killer, a child molester? The answer for the vast majority of the human population would be an unequivocal no.

This idea also fails to address the universality of human ideals far beyond the reach of religions. There exists a set of basic ideals, basic principles upon which the edifice of human morality rests. These cross all racial, religious and geographic boundaries. Human beings defend their own; believe that killing their own (group) is abhorrent, that have empathy for others, so on and so forth.

All of these behavior patterns are not unique to humans but are present in higher primates. Chimpanzees have been observed to leap into water to save a drowning member of their group… Chimpanzees are not of fond of water and do not swim. An experiment was conducted on a rhesus monkey wherein it was denied food, the food was available at the push of a button, the associated side effect of this was electric shocks to a companion of the monkey…turns out the hungry monkey chose to starve rather then torture…

Directly equating human morality with primate morality is not completely accurate though, there’s one significant difference, we took these basic rules hard wired in our brain for survival and quite literally ran with them. We infused these with our intellect to create a framework of ethics over the millennia. The code of Hammurabi being a prominent early example.

The corrosive influence of blind faith and the extremes it has driven humanity to are something that is an obvious concern. No the claim that all wars are because of religion and would cease to exist is obviously spurious. On the other hand the appeal to unreason that is an essence of organized religion is something that has held back society for thousands of years. It stunted the growth of Islamic civilization in the 12^th century. Similary Roman and Christian influences destroyed the Greek civilizations march towards rationality.

Similarly today most Muslim countries are stuck in a medieval society simply because of the group-appeal of unreason. These range from the well documented human rights abuses to a certain fatalism about ones fate and control over one’s destiny to the complete lack of a scientific initiative. From Pervez Hoodbhoy’s excellent treatise Islam and Science: Religious Orthodoxy and the Battle for Rationality; Israel with a population of 6 million outpublishes (scientific papers) the entire Muslim world of 1.2 billion put together. Ascribing these massive disparities to external factors is again ignoring the reality of the situation where thinking is not only actively discouraged but feared and condemned. There’s a video available online of Sam Harris talking about his book The End of Faith wherein one of the initial comments is would he able to formulate his thesis and speak about it publicly in a Muslim country without fearing for his life? The thread of intolerance and unreason is something common to all major religions, ranging from the churches condemnation of condoms quite literally ending the lives of millions of believers that as a direct result got infected with HIV in Africa, or the denial of taboo social issues in Muslim countries to the popularity of obscene pseudo-science authors (Harun Yahya et. al) that mislead a pliable audience. Faith is more then just complicit in all this and more it is the primary source of it.

As you may have noticed in all the above one of the ongoing themes was intellectual dishonesty and denial. Happily (or sadly depending on your point of view) that can only last so long. Enter stage left, Richard Dawkins with his documentary on Faith being “The Root of All Evil”. Even though I knew most of the arguments coming from an evolutionary biologist one of the themes that I hadn’t come across was his moral outrage and complete condemnation of religious moderates.

The thesis of his argument was that religious conservatives believe in their religious text and follow it to the letter. Moderates on the other hand fuse secular ideals that have evolved over the past millennia with their religious ideals and pass this off as being the best of both worlds. In reality they filter out inconvenient sections of their religious treatises thus being unfaithful to their religion. On the other hand adhering to a set of beliefs that by definition are resistant to logic, runs counter to reason itself.

What exactly does it mean to be a moderate adherent? By definition regardless of which faith you look at moderates cherry pick what they believe and disbelieve in. On the other hand the idea of faith flowing from divine authority is that right and wrong is ordained from up high. If one was selectively implementing, selectively interpreting verses, sections then one has already made themselves to be the ultimate arbitrar. They themselves are deciding what constitutes right and what constitutes wrong not the divine text itself. In essence the very idea of moderation in faith is bankrupt.

The point itself became evaluating faith from a neutral standpoint, without giving it any free passes on reason. As laid out above, logically questioning the faith leads to the conclusion that the divinity of the message is suspect.

Further, my belief-set is largely inspired by what I believe to be good and true and with hindsight I was projecting the same back onto the Islamic message not the other way around. There is obviously significant overlap between the two due to which I believed for so long, not to mention the formative influence it has had on me. On the other hand treating it as something divine rather then another codex of laws derived from a man that was trying to make the world a better place is an untenable position that I can no longer subscribe to.

There is no evidence of a divine being, of any religion on the planet having any more of a grasp on reality or divinity then Zeus on Mt. Olympia did. The argument of where did the universe originate does not implicitly prove that there is a god but actually raises the question of where did God himself come from? Employing Occam’s razor the probability of a simple uncreated universe is much higher then a complex uncreated god. Not to mention, my opinion of a god is far more just, inclusive, humane and compassionate then what's articulated in the Quran.

The parable of the teapot from Bertrand Russel comes to mind:

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

At the moment I personally hope that there is a divine presence but that is all it boils down to, the human need to belong, to mark ourselves with something less ephemeral then our brief existence on this rock we call home, on our need for justice and equality where we see none. I too share that hope but acknowledge that it is a hope nothing more.

Additional thoughts:
Where in the world did Judas go? If Judas was Jesus one would presume he'd be screaming his lungs out about the switch and people would look around for the actual Judas?

098.006 Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.
Is it me or does the above sound like its condemning all non muslims, even the xtians n jews to hellfire?

Why I believed - Part I

During the course of years at various moments I have had the occasional falling out with god along the lines of why would God create a society as unjust as ours, with the degree of suffering we have to the extra-judicial killing of a cousin to the rampant misogyny to the perversion of the human sexual instinct regarding it as evil, taboo and dirty (in Pakistani society/contemporary Islam, not as much in ancient Islam). But in all these and other instances I fervently believed, I had moments of rage, of anger and perhaps of despondence but the bedrock of Islam held constant until recently. This is my attempt at explaining why I believed and why I no longer can.

Why I believed

Part I

Apologies in advance on the reflective nature of the following…..

Growing up there were numerous competing influences that shaped my perception of the world. Primary among these was the lure of science, about the nature of things and the order of the Universe. In near equal measure was the question of morality which was largely influenced by being raised in a religious environment.

One of my earliest formative memories of Islam was reading a book series on Muhammad and his companions, the passages dealing with the last sermon of the Prophet “An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a black has no superiority over white, nor a white has any superiority over black, except for the content of ones character” and the speech of Abu Bakr on the demise of the Prophet “"O people, verily whoever worshipped Muhammad, behold! Muhammad is indeed dead. But whoever worships God, behold! God is alive and will never die." Followed by his ascent as the first caliph “O people, I have been elected your leader, although I am not better than anyone from among you. If I do any good, give me your support. If I go wrong, set me right…………Listen, you must obey me as long as I obey Allah and His Messenger. If I disobey Allah and His Messenger, you are free to disobey me.”

The above was a strong statement of the Prophet’s place as just another mere mortal, one of us and the existence of the democratic ideal at the inception of Islam. The book actually referenced Lincoln’s “Government of the people, by the people and for the people” in the same section…

There are certain things over the course of my life that I have held to be true, I’m not sure on when they crystallized but the idea of all human beings being equal, the idea of controlling and charting ones own destiny, of understanding the world around us and using that to better ourselves as a species, the corrosiveness of misogyny and misandry(admittedly this came much later), the importance of questioning the status quo and to an extent challenging authority (which could be chalked up to being a youngest sibling), so on and so forth.

There are various passages in the Quran that I felt spoke to the same and I identified strongly with. The Quran’s repeated exhortation to reason, to understand, to seek knowledge and the quintessential one word verse “Read” were all pieces of the same puzzle. The deep connection I felt with science, the language I grew up with further reinforced my faith in addition to making me a pain to some J. Most fundamentalist interpretation on the other hand eliminated the very idea of critical thought which muzzled human creativity destroying all hopes and means for human progress. If a society or mind is not allowed to question the chances of reaching a valid conclusion of discovering new truths, of defending against encroaching evil becomes near impossible.

In every cry of every Man,
In every Infants cry of fear,
In every voice: in every ban,
The mind-forg'd manacles I hear.

My opinion at this point was that this idea of intellectual castration was the anti-thesis of Islam. It may be a theme with all religious fundamentalists regardless of the origin of their faith but it invariably was about control not about faith. Anyone that tried to control how people thought had only the end game of controlling the same.

Like most Pakistani’s I was taught a sanitized version of Islamic History and with little alternative texts available I fell for the traditional lines of the decay of Islamic civilization being a result of distancing from faith, though I took this as meaning the distancing from critical inquiry, the scientific endeavor and basic morality (human rights etc) that was predominant in nascent Islam but absent in contemporary times.

During my adolescence there was an ongoing process of rapid radicalization as a fallout of the Soviet-Afghan war. One key point about that war though was the idea of offensive and defensive wars under Islam with a defensive war being ones solemn duty and offensive wars viewed harshly. There were many that viewed that point of view as quaint otoh there was a quote attributed to Umar along the lines of wishing a “wall of fire” to separate the Persians and Arabs which highlighted what I believed to be true.

As the war and President Zia succeeded in radicalizing a significant percentage of the population including some close relatives of mine, my loathing for fundamentalist Islam was born. I remember having arguments on whether Muslims were somehow destined for heaven and how that stood in stark contrast to God’s chiding the Israelites for presuming the same. How did we have the hubris to claim what God specifically refuted for others and didn’t explicitly grant us (2:62 Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve”).

Furthering the same fundamentalist agenda was the idea of dehumanizing non muslims. Since they were condemned in any case their lives were pointless and by definition forfeit. Actually having arguments about the immorality of “death to the infidels” was deeply disturbing. The extension of the same to the even more heinous crime of apostasy… drew a heated response from me. (My personal vendetta against the Hijab stems from my identifying it with the outward symbol of a bigoted agenda.)

Amidst this backdrop with growing frustration I got into an argument with my sister (who ironically was the most religious amongst my siblings) about the pointlessness of it all and the sheer loathing I felt. Her answer which was a watershed moment for me was “Why do you allow others (or their actions) to define your beliefs”.

The more I studied Islam the more it seemed to be what I believed and representative of what was good and true. There is a commonly held belief in Pakistan that female testimony is given half the weightage as male testimony is. I’ve heard people justify it on the grounds of women being more emotional, citing the maternal instinct etc, I learnt that according to the Quran there is no disparity amongst the same (The ayat on testimony for adultery being exactly equivalent).

I’ve always been a proponent of science and with my interest in astronomy and cosmology was naturally drawn to the work of Timothy Ferris and Carl Sagan who wrote extensively on our place in the cosmos which fed into verses like “Behold in the creation of the heavens and the alteration of night and day, there are indeed signs for men of intellect. (3:190)”.

One of the gems I gleaned from this was Aristarchus of Samos was actually the originator of the heliocentric theory about 2000 years before Copernicus but was buried by the age-old collision of conservatism dogma and revolutionary thought. What still amuses me about that is that Islam at its inception was vibrant and productive but suffered the same fate turning around on to demolish the scientific endeavor as heretical. Even though all this boded ill the Quran itself remarkably has nothing against critical thinking but actively encourages it time and time again.

None will grasp the message but men of intellect? (2:269)

For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are the deaf and the dumb,- those who understand not (Quran - 8:22)

Another pet peeve related to the collision of Islam and Science has been Evolutionary Biology. This in turn was set off by being given a free book penned by Harun Yahya at ISNA. Again to me it seemed that contrary to popular opinion Islam says nothing antithetical to the established biological science. I actually was able to dig up references that could easily be construed to hinting at the same. 71:14 “When He created you by (diverse) stages?”

24:45 “Allah hath created every animal of water. Of them is (a kind) that goeth upon its belly and (a kind) that goeth upon two legs and (a kind) that goeth upon four. Allah createth what He will. Lo! Allah is Able to do all things.”

25:54 “And He it is Who hath created man from water, and hath appointed for him kindred by blood and kindred by marriage; for thy Lord is ever Powerful.”

One of the basic foundations of a free society rests on freedom of speech and thought, without which no society can actually progress. If a subject is considered taboo how can its shortcomings ever be addressed? Again the Quran had nothing against this and the idea of subjects being taboo seemed to be an innovation brought about by the practitioners and ‘custodians’ of faith rather then the faith itself. One safeguard against this was the lack of a centralized clergy akin to Christianity. The link between man and God was deemed to be personal with God. The ayat “002.170 When it is said to them: "Follow what Allah hath revealed:" They say: "Nay! We shall follow the ways of our fathers." What! even though their fathers Were void of wisdom and guidance?” furthers that theme wherein one shall be questioned for ones own belief and simply toeing the line being unacceptable.

Over the past few years I returned to studying Islam, discovering people that believed that were actually kindred souls, and intellectually honest about their faith. A significant percentage of the thoughts expressed above were lent clarity during this period.

Coming from Karachi my experience of religious scholars and clergy had been a study of bigotry, discovering rational thinkers as mainstream Islamic leaders in America was a revelation. The idea of attending a religious seminar where the scholars blast cultural misogyny n use the Quran to illustrate equality of the sexes was a breath of fresh air.

Then there was the idea that even if I was unable to reconcile a specific point in the Quran, the chances of it being reflective of a defect in the Quran were much lower then it being representative of a failure of imagination on mine. I was still fervently anti-conservative but my faith in Islam and in its vision of moderation was at an all time high, all indicators, all texts I read pointing to the veracity of the Quran

London - William Blake

London

I wander thro' each charter'd street,
where the charter'd Thames does flow,
And mark in every face I meet
Marks of weakness, marks of woe.

In every cry of every Man,
In every Infants cry of fear,
In every voice: in every ban,
The mind-forg'd manacles I hear.

How the Chimney-sweeper's cry
Every black'ning Church appals,
And the hopeless Soldiers sigh
Runs in blood down palace walls

But most thro' midnight streets I hear
How the youthful Harlots curse
Blasts the new-born Infant's tear
And blights with plagues the marriage hearse.

Heard this referenced in a lecture by Eben Moglen, the phrase he mentioned was particularly powerful:

The mind-forg'd manacles I hear....

An explanation of the same

Bilquis Edhi (taken from the SPDC Annual Review 05-06)

Bilquis Edhi is an eminent figure in the field of social welfare in Pakistan. Along with her legendary husband, Abdul Sattar Edhi, she has been working with the Edhi Foundation since the mid 1960s for the welfare of the destitute and the marginalized. A social worker by choice, she joined the Edhi Foundation as a teenager in 1965. A living example of simplicity, humility and compassion, Bilquis Edhi has more than 40 years of experience in serving humanity. She has numerous awards to her credit. She is a co-recipient of the 1986 Magsaysay Award for Public Service, which is termed Asia’s Nobel Prize. Presently, she is in-charge of the Bilquis Edhi Foundation, which is exclusively involved in the welfare of battered women and neglected children. As far as women’s rights are concerned, she is an outspoken person and feels no hesitation in expressing her views. In a recent conversation with the SPDC team, Bilquis Edhi shared her views on various social matters including women’s rights, children’s issues, poverty and societal inequality. Her observations, which are paraphrased below, are clearly based on many years of first hand experience.

In her comments, Bliquis Edhi said that gender inequality is a major social concern in Pakistan. She said that Pakistan’s patriarchal society does not give equal status to women and puts them in a highly subjugated position, as compared to men.

She was of the view that women do not enjoy basic freedoms in the country, which include even the right to take decisions concerning their own lives, adding that problems related to women have intensified over the years whether they are in the form of honour killings, domestic violence, sexual molestation or public harassment. She said that these issues are perpetuated by the complacency of society as most fundamental rights of women are violated in homes or within communities.

Bilquis Edhi said that even many educated women do not enjoy basic liberties in Pakistan. It has often been the case that qualified women are not permitted by their families to take up paid employment, she commented, adding that this raises the question: why are women provided education in the first place if they are not supposed to be in- charge of their lives and utilise the skills and abilities that they possess? Bilquis Edhi believes this is in part a reflection of contradicting norms of our society where claims are made to give equal status to women but the gender roles are stereotyped. She said that marriage against choice has also become a grave social problem, which has serious implications for the well-being of women. Despite the freedom provided by our religion, women are compelled to marry against their will, which is a gross violation of an individual’s basic right, she noted.

According to her, those who revolt against patriarchal norms often face serious consequences, and these women are either killed in the name of honour or abandoned by their families. Unless women are treated as respectable human beings and social justice is provided to them as individuals, Bilquis Edhi does not foresee any meaningful social development taking place in Pakistan.

This leading social worker said that in Pakistan’s male-dominated society, women are brought up in a manner so as to remain dependents. Therefore, in the absence of state support systems, they are inclined to take assistance from their families in their time of need, she noted, giving the example that a divorced woman does not usually have social standing in our society. The taboos associated with divorce lower the self-esteem of the individual, making her a social outcast. This has severe implications for the victims, she said, and elaborated that unless illiteracy and ignorance are rooted out from this society, cultural taboos and so- called societal norms will continue to treat women as chattel.

Bilquis Edhi said that a large number of women come to her for shelter after leaving their homes as a result of a variety of family disputes. Keeping in view the ‘power relationship’ between men and women in Pakistani society, she said that she tended to advise those women to adopt a pragmatic approach and try to save their family as a unit even if they have to sacrifice their comfort. She justified this by saying that this is because the situation otherwise would be worse for them and for their children.

Another big problem faced by a large number of Pakistani women is domestic violence, which is endemic and its incidence has been increasing over time, noted Bliquis Edhi. She added that it is important to understand that domestic violence is inflicted on women not only by their husbands but also by other members of the family, including other women. She said that her organization receives a large number of cases in which married women are stated to have been burnt while cooking. On this, she said that her question to those families is: why is it that the daughter-in-law and not their daughter gets burnt in the kitchen? In the majority of such cases, even the parents of the victim usually do not want to pursue any legal action primarily because they are disillusioned and do not have any faith in the judicial system of the country, she noted.

As far as the advocacy for women’s rights is concerned, Bilquis Edhi said that she was doubtful about the role of many NGOs that claim to be the custodians of women’s rights in Pakistan. She was of the opinion that the majority of these organizations are merely providing lip service to the issues of women without having any serious commitment. According to her, most of them are involved in organizing conferences and workshops in luxurious settings to propagate themselves and also to procure grants and financial assistance from international donors.

Bilquis Edhi said that she is also skeptical about the 33 percent representation of women in the legislative assemblies. She commented that merely increasing the number of seats would not make any tangible difference in the lives of women, unless women legislators are heard and their views are given due importance. Unfortunately, in this male dominated work, she does not foresee these legislators making a significant contribution to the lives of ordinary women and was of the opinion that their representation is more symbolic and trivial than participatory and effective.

Bilquis Edhi said that she is particularly appalled to see the status of children in our society. Instead of handling children with love, affection and care, many are mistreated and brutalized, she said, adding that it was because of this that her organization took the initiative of placing a cradle outside the Edhi Home(s) so that babies could be treated with respect and dignity. There are many childless couples in the world who are willing to adopt and give these children a better life and brighter future, she noted.

Bilquis Edhi said that overall, Pakistan’s performance in social development has been very poor. This may be attributed to two main factors: bad governance and income disparity, she commented, adding if we examine the service delivery systems in Pakistan, we will find that they are blemished and flawed and encourage corruption of various sorts. According to her observations, the provision of basic social services by government is in a miserable state, and the management and administration structures are highly inefficient and extremely corrupt. This apathy is primarily a result of financial corruption and irregularities, she added. Generally speaking, the ultimate objective of the people has

become to make money, irrespective of what costs society has to bear for this and also people have become more inclined towards individualism and therefore, a collective approach to bring change in society is severely lacking, said the social worker.

She was of the view that individuals must go beyond the self and must begin with the community. She blamed the feudal and the highly educated elite of Pakistan, being the most privileged, for this state of affairs. The inefficient governance system is also responsible for sustaining inequality and poverty, she commented, asking: why are the rich in Pakistan getting richer and the poor getting poorer? The system of income distribution is extremely inequitable and resources and opportunities remain in the hands of a few, she commented and said that these are the reasons that she felt disappointed by the system and by society.

In conclusion, Bilquis Edhi said that she saw no light at the end of the tunnel and that as Pakistanis, we have to seriously think about why all this is happening and in which direction we should go from here.

Tagged?

Done under duress.... :| (SAVE ME!!!)

I am thinking about the futility of certain interpersonal relationships
I said f'off to people in positions of authority
I want to become all powerful
I wish I was God.
I miss going to school instead of work :)
I hear and understand rational thought
I wonder the meaning of creation
I regret hasty decisions as well as oft delayed ones
I am a rebel with way too many causes
I dance ... with someone that would love my company
I sing on the top of my voice when i'm in a great mood as well as when totally blue
I cry if I feel or see pain, mine or anothers
I am not a god...yet O:-)
I write about things I believe in and want to share with the world.
I confuse traditionalist, although its closer to outrage then confusion
I need infinite wealth to reshape the world and eliminate hunger as well as war
I should try harder to achieve my goals but short as well as long term
I finish things I actually believe to be important on a scale grander then myself.

Happy 14th August to apparently the 13th unhappiest country in the world :)

Ironically ran across an article extolling Denmark as being the happiest country in the world . It was based on the work of a researcher in England.

The original ranking he reached arent available online at the moment but their Google Cache is still available.

Salient Countries
Denmark: 1
United States: 23
Palestine: 125
Pakistan: 166
Burundi: 178 (Last)

Happy Independance Day

Water Pipe / Sheesha WHO Preliminary Study

The WHO has done a preliminary study on the effects of Water Pipe Smoking -
Link to the report

Along with the conclusions listed below they've strongly urged for more research regarding the same (included in the report above)

Waterpipe smoking has not been studied as intensively as has cigarette smoking;however, preliminary research on patterns of smoking, the chemistry of the smoke that is inhaled, and health effects supports the idea that waterpipe smoking is associated with many of the same risks as cigarette smoking, and may, infact, involve some unique health risks. The science base supports the following conclusions:

1. Using a waterpipe to smoke tobacco poses a serious potential health hazard to smokers and others exposed to the smoke emitted.

2. Using a waterpipe to smoke tobacco is not a safe alternative to cigarette smoking.

3. A typical 1-hour long waterpipe smoking session involves inhaling 100-200 times the volume of smoke inhaled with a single cigarette.

4. Even after it has been passed through water, the smoke produced by a waterpipe contains high levels of toxic compounds, including carbon
monoxide, heavy metals and cancer-causing chemicals.

5. Commonly used heat sources that are applied to burn the tobacco, such as wood cinders or charcoal, are likely to increase the health risks because when such fuels are combusted they produce their own toxicants, including high levels of carbon monoxide, metals and cancer-causing chemicals.

6. Pregnant women and the fetus are particularly vulnerable when exposed either activelyor involuntarily to the waterpipe smoke toxicants.

7. Second-hand smoke from waterpipes is a mixture of tobacco smoke in addition to smoke from the fuel and therefore poses a serious risk for non-smokers.

8. There is no proof that any device or accessory can make waterpipe smoking safer.

9. Sharing a waterpipe mouthpiece poses a serious risk of transmission of communicable diseases, including tuberculosis and hepatitis.

10. Waterpipe tobacco is often sweetened and flavoured, making it very appealing;the sweet smell and taste ofthe smoke may explain why some people, particularly young people who otherwise would not use tobacco, begin to use waterpipes.