If you have a question for the participants , please e-mail to Editors at
editors@thinkersforumusablog.org
The Question will be posted in Category ” Ask A Question” for participants to comment.
Thinkers' Forum USA
A Site for Intellectual Empowerment and Exchange of Ideas
Azeem’s comment is in fact further explanation, rather expanding of my question as a linguistic vulgarity apparent in every society throughout the world. In decent company people abstain from using indecent language and that itself explains that people are conscious of its being a dirty language that stinks. But the core question stands untouched as to why such language which is only for the sake of speech. Does it reflect a person’s dirty thoughts hidden in his sub-conscious? May be humans have inherited this from their historical ape-like-ancestors. Or as childern of Hazrat Adam, could human beings have inherited this tendency as an exposition of the guilt of sin?
Mirza
Its amusing to me to think that ” May be humans have inherited this from their historical ape-like-ancestors.” Do we know for sure that apes have both regular words and expletives in their vocabulary which survived the evolution to the current stage of Homo Sap-iens ? The most evolved race among Homo Sapiens are the dark-sinned negroid race, specifically from South Africa. They are used to using curse words as a regulaqr and consistent component of their speech. That rules out that the use of vulgar language is a remnant from our originating fore-fathers i.e the Apes.
People use curse words because they are used to hearing it from childhood, from family and friends. They use it casually in casual company and as an expletive only when yelling and cursing in rage. Any particular reason why Mirza is looking for more profound causes ?
First of all neither Darwin nor I have stated “our fore-fathers, i.e.the Apes.” Rather, what I have said is “ape-like-ancestors.” Great Muslim moralists like Ibn Sina, Miskawayh, Nasir Tusi, Khwaja Muhammad bin Hassan’s Akhlaq-i-Nasri, Allama Dawwani’s Akhlaq-i-Jalali and a host of moralists followed by European thinkers and psychologists have speculated upon the moral and ethical values of human beings. Muslim moralists have explained three tendencies of the humans, ifrat, tafreet and oust, i.e. excess, recess and medium. Human action and thought in tafreet or recess results in reviving his animal instinct. Modern linguists like Chomsky and most interestingly Steven Pinker in his book The Language Instinct, believe that much before humans invented language, sign language was used. Modern philosophers like Wittgenstein, Strauss, Quine, Davidson, and Foucault known as exponents of “structuralism” a study of the structures of the sign-systems “constructionism,” “de-constructionism” and Quine’s “reductionism” maintain that each statement is equivalent to some logical construct upon terms which refer to immediate experience. Quine’s student Davidson in his essay Mental Events reflects that in mental events three factors play an important role: causal interaction , nomological character of causality and the anomalism of the mental which means no strict laws relate physical and mental events. Anomalism reflects the causal thinking that results in the expression of loose and vulgar language–sexual interaction being natural pre-language act and demand of every living being and man in his state of animal life has gone through this like other animals. Foucault, an exponent of structuralism and deconstructionism relates that the advent of the “linguistic turn” focused on the meanings of concepts rather on their impact, helped him develop an idiosyncratic structualism. He says that whatever we think and say can be revealed understood, and explained by the deconstruction of what we say. So far my study of Oriental, Islamic and Western philosophies tells me that expression of vulgar language is the result of a person’s animal instinct or according to Muslim moralists “nafs-i-baheemi.” It is a very vast subject and needs pages to explain. In nutshell, I would say that today philosophy is being understood through science, linguistic analysis, and phenomenology. Linguistic analysis attempts to probe through a systematic analysis of language what it means to “make sense” and to explain what is semantically structured in language. For detailed reading please see last four or five chapters of my book “Introduction to World Philosophies: A Chronological Progression” available on line as well as with the Thinkers Forum. . . . Mirza
Your figure of speech reflects your personality.It’s often said and heard that choose your words before you utter.Each society and culture does have some forms of expressions. When I was working , I was shocked and disappointed to note that from bottom to top many low to highly educated people excessively used abusive words without any second thoughts. As a matter of joke once I told my very senior that if my observation is correct than you have very little knowledge of English language . He asked me how come. I told him that for every one line you utter at least four time “F” word. He laughed and said that this sign of being macho man.
Final analysis is that you can take horse to the pond but can not make him drink. Things which become habit to nature should be ignored and hope for the best. As we know that charity begins from home. We must watch and correct our kids not to use indecent words.
It is posted just to check the website functioning
What are two numbers whose sum is 10 and product is 40?
{Sum is addition ‘+’ and Product is Multiplication ‘*’ or ‘x’}
If there was no British colonial rule ,would there still be an eventual partitioned Sub-continent ?
Yes, the subcontinent of India would still have been divided in more than 3 states. Before the British ruled India, most of the sub-continent was under Muslim rule. But the World of Islam has never been under one rule from Spain, North Africa to Indonesia. Even in the sub-continent Baluchistan, Sindh, Bahawalpur have been autonomous regions during the Tughlaqs and early Mughal period. After Aurangzeb the process of division had started. I believe that the sub-continent would have been divided in many states.
Mirza
I agree with Mirza Sahib, it would have been more States. British gave legal cover for two states, India is still holding strong on its territory, but Pakistan was divided, geographically impossible, two parts and it was natural for the Bangladesh. to emerge.
Fayyaz
New Question:(By Wequar Azeem) Should the practice of male circumcision be continued or obsoleted ?Should it continue just because of religious reasons, even if it is determined that it diminishes sexual stimulation and pleasure due to removal of pleasure tissues concentrated in the fore-skin?
(A court in Cologne ruled on Tuesday that involuntary religious circumcision should be illegal as it could inflict serious bodily harm on people who had not consented to it.The ruling, which applies only to the area around the western city of Cologne but sparked fears among Muslims and Jews in particular that other German states could copy the ban, said boys can consciously decide to be circumcised later in life.)
1- Even after circumcision, enough foreskin is left and it does not have adverse effect on sensations or fertility.
.
2- There is enough medical evidence that suggests that it prevents AIDS and other infections beneath the un-circumscribed foreskin due to poor hygiene.
3- In a country like Germany, its benefits vastly outweigh any minimal to no risks.
4- I think this decision is biased against religion .The countries like Germany and France claim to be ‘secular’ but their practices are ant-religion, especially ant-Islam. And that is against the principles of Secularism. A secular country has to respect the practice of all religions.
Fayyaz
Millennium old customs and traditions, biblical or even pre-biblical, are hard to be repealed or forsaken. Dr. Fayyaz has made a good point that it is a pretext to undermine religious practices. Though these are minor issues, but the intention is to put a dent into religious harmony.
Shouldn’t a religious custom or ritual, if determined to be harmful for mankind, be discarded? After all religion permits slavery to exist. Religion also permits female family members of slain enemy or POWs to be used as sex-slaves under the “Women under the right hand” doctrine. Religion allows polygamy, but not polyandry for powerful and rich women. Religion treats women as chattel and virtual slaves to the wishes of father, guardian, husband and finally the son. Religion allows men of 45-50 years or even older to marry girls under 7 years just because the male guardian of the girl said yes through fear or favor. Why is an attempt to have such practices obsoleted taken as an attempt to put a dent in the religion ? More human blood has been shed on this planet due to religious discord or confrontations, than any other cause. Religion causes huge divisions, rivalries, animosity, exploitation, victimization of one community by another. How come religion is sacrosanct, but not the social improvement and societal development ?
I am not a scholar on religions but speaking generally, the things you mentioned are not “compulsory” to practice in a religion. One can opt out of these practices. Many things have historic background and sometime deliberate misinterpretations of texts to justify wrong doings. Certain aspects that look horrifying in today’s culture were a norm in old cultures and are becoming obsolete in practice in today’s society.
Your question or suggestion: Shouldn’t a religious custom or ritual, if determined to be harmful for mankind, be discarded?
I think the customs or rituals that become harmful to mankind, a culture or society, will either adapt or will die down in practice with the time. But it is a matter of opinion what is a harmful practice, and ultimately mankind, society or culture as whole will be the determining factor. Even in Pakistan the marriageable age by law is 18 for male and 16 for female. Although some still practice marrying at younger age, but it is becoming rare and is mostly by ignorance rather than following a religion.
Now the big question is – Should we change the Holy Texts to accommodate these views?
I personally do not think it should be changed, because it is a slippery slope. But I believe many parts of Holy Texts were related to old historic contexts and should be re-interpreted according to the present context.
The Secular countries, including Muslim majority countries, should adopt laws that are for the greater good of the society and should not be religion targeted. My criticism of the some of the so called ‘secular’ countries is that some of their laws are anti-religion, even when the religious practices are not harmful to society. In a secular society, a religious person should have as much right to practice its belief as an atheist or agonist has the right to not practice any religion. A woman should have as much right to wear a veil according to her beliefs as the other woman has the right not to wear it.
I think the problem with the “ Circumcision Law” and many other such laws is that they are anti-religion and not for the greater good of the society.
Fayyaz
Although a question falling purely in the’ realm of the male’ I would still dare to answer or rather comment on it .Medical research has proven that circumcised men are far less prone to STDs ,UTIs and various bacterial infections than uncircumcised ones . Since Islam lays a lot of stress on cleanliness ,hence it is more commonly practised in regions where it is dominant. Putting religion aside ,it merely becomes a choice between hygiene and somewhat enhanced pleasure ! Following the logic,it would then be a left to common sense to choose between the two.(If pleasure is the priority, then use of condoms should be discouraged as well,as they are reputed to reduce corporeal pleasures,but then this concept is not coming form Muslims.) One of the logics put forward against circumcision, that infants know what they are going through and are traumatized by the painful experience throughout their life, sounds hollow.Many infants go through horrendous life threatening experiences,but do not grow up and recall them. We after all have to cut our nails ,snip and remove hair from certain parts of body on regular basis: purpose purely being to maintain hygiene.For this men should be thankful it needs to be done only once and lasts a lifetime ! With due apology to law makers in Cologne,it would pay them better to adjust and learn the logics behind various cultural norms ….otherwise it’s just a small piece of skin!!!
I have great respect for Ms Saadia Asad and am an admirer of her prolific poetry. However I totally disagree with her opinion on circumcision.
” it’s just a small piece of skin!!! ”
Would she say the same to female circumcision when the clitoris is mutilated robbing females of the trigger house of extreme pleasure, for life ?
Mian Aslam
Comments by Wequar Azeem!
What is the bottom line Doctor Saheb ? Is religion not sacrosanct ? And is it ok that some religious injunctions, sent through “Vahi” were temporal and hence jettisoned over time ? The things I mentioned are integral parts of Sharia Law. Contesting them constitutes blasphemy. It is not as casual or non-chalant as you mentioned. The Prophet proposed to marry Hazrat Ayesha when she was only 6 years old, that too the shorter lunar years. Her father Hazrat Abu Bakar was reluctant because of her young age and Prophet being 46 years older than her, and therefore did not accept the proposal readily. However he was left with no option but to accept the proposal when angel Jibrail AS brought the “Vahi” that the Prophet was to marry Hazrat Ayesha. Thus Hazrat Ayesha was married off to the Prophet at tender age of 6. The marriage was consummated when she turned nine. So marrying a 6 years old is not just permitted, but preferred as a Sunnat. I could go on narrating how female POWs were distributed among the Jihadis as booty and used for sex by the allottee Jihadis as ‘ women under the right arm ‘
Dear Wequar Sahib! I Think I answered your original question and that was my bottom line.Certain new things you are saying are above my pay grade and I am not well versed to answer them.You are most welcome to comment on them. I will be away for few days and you will have the final word on this question. As Ms. Saadia Asad commented- it is just a matter of small piece of skin!