More questions

The apologists for Islam say that although certain things are allowed by shariah, they are not enforced any more, things like cutting off hands, stoning, polygamy, etc. So although it is legal, it is not morally or socially acceptable. Which brings me to the question, if religion is not giving the guidelines to morality, what is it good for anyway?

Please note this is different from the Taliban and other friends, who want to implement the shariah in the spirit and letter.

What side are you on?

Ramblings

A few random thoughts

1. There must be something wrong with a belief that sanctifies the willingness to take one's own child's life. I am okay with "risking" one's life or possessions for something that one believes in, not okay with sacrificing life in any form or shape just to please a higher calling or cause. Kamikazes, suicide bombers, etc. all fall in the latter category.

2. My fight is against irrationality, caused by anything. A lot of it is due to faith, which is one obvious cause of becoming irrational. But I have found that there are quite a few other things out there which cause humankind to behave in the strangest of ways. It is hard enough to understand things that have a logical reason, I am stumped when I see people accepting things without any reason whatsoever.

3. It could be a fight to retain one's identity, the reason we try to justify the labels that we wear. For example, we call ourselves Pakistanis or Muslims, but at the same time, we keep saying that all those doing the crazy things are not one of us (at least the partially sane ones do). So if they aren't part of our group, and they say they are, who are they? And more importantly, who are we?

When will the craziness end? I am not hopeful that I will see an age of reason in my lifetime.

To flog or not to flog?

I don't know if anyone can or will answer my question that I have come up with after reading, watching and hearing about the flogging of the girl in Swat or wherever, and the comments of different people on various media.

Our misogynist taliban are saying that this was done six months ago. I guess in their minds, that is the statute of limitation. A lot of others are saying that its a degrading punishment and should not be done. To a lot of other idiots, this is a Jewish conspiracy to malign the good name of our holy warriors. Saying that this is a plot to undermine the good deeds of the drug growing, beard and danda/gun wielding friends. I love the latter the most.

My question is not about these things.

The death penalty has been abolished in most of the civilized world today. Only the mullahs of Saudi Arabia and the born again Christians of the United States seem to endorse and enforce it. As Pakistanis, we as usual don't have a clue. It is part of the penal code, but lately there have been some moves to do away with it. Have no clue why or whether anything will come of it. So I would think that capital punishment has been declared as inhuman. But to societies that practice it, I would think it is the norm.

Now moving on to our shariah implementers, is this acceptable to the population who lives in those parts? Are flogging a girl, stoning people, cutting of hands, etc. acceptable to them? If yes, what is the problem? We are already the lowest of the low, what difference will that make to our standing? This is our way.

Now there are idiots like me, who feel that this is wrong. The reason why this is wrong is because this is based on the interpretation of the Islamic code of justice that was formulated 1400 some years ago by a medieval society and that should change as society changes.

And now come the apologists, who will say that technically there is nothing wrong with it, but we don't like to do this any more. As long as there is a provision in the law, I don't buy this argument. And then there is another thing, it is the wrong interpretation. Which brings us to the question I want to ask

"Which interpretation should be followed?"

I am sure every group feels that they have the correct and divine right to interpret the law the way they want it. But what about the others who don't agree with them?