Blog updates

As few readers might notice, I have completely changed the template of this blog. I guess, I was quite obsessed with two sidebar-layout. It was making the blog look too cluttered, and a few readers had also complained of the sidebars' content being distractive.

So finally, I have overcome that obsession. This theme & layout are simpler & hopefully more pleasing to the eye. Your frank feedback is certainly welcome. :)

But most important announcement - I have updated my blog roll. I had to work very hard towards it. I have not merely enlisted the blogs, but also tried to point out what I like about certain blogs and bloggers. Also, I have tagged each blog with broad genres that the posts tend to fit in. Additionally, for almost all blogs I have added two posts that I had remembered as having impressed me the most while drafting the blog roll.

Apart from serving as a guide to readers who want to explore new blogs, through this blog roll I want to convey my heart felt thanks to the enlisted bloggers for enriching my life, giving me new things to think about or feel.

I have tried in the past, but I do not know if I could convey this clearly enough. The people I have mentioned make me think of this World as a better place to live in, and thus, this life more worthy of living.

Those who can believe my sincerity behind saying all this, and can understand what it means for a cynic like me, will appreciate that it is one of the highest compliments I can pay. :)

You can go through the blog roll by clicking on 'Blog roll' button below the header, or alternatively by clicking here. :)

If you feel like commenting on the blog roll, kindly do so on the blog roll page itself.

Thank you!

Ethics in Tangents: Part 2 - Ethicality and False sense of Obligation of Producing Children

What follows is modified and significantly expanded from one of my (long) tweets, but it contains doubts/conjectures that I have had for a long time, and which I have articulated at various places in different words.

How ethical is the decision to have a child? If it sounds weird, by it, I mean, do prospective parents really have a right to bring children to life, without seeking (the prospective children's) permission? Perhaps the elaboration sounds even weirder, but given that a hitherto unborn person cannot 'regret' not being born, but an alive person - depending on how life treats him/her - could end up very unhappy and in pain, it seems that every time parents decide to have a child, they are risking pain and unhappiness to the child despite having the option of not taking such risk. What to me makes this very tricky is that the impact of a decision taken by two (or more, in case of Indian families) people affects a totally different person!

To give an analogy:

If you are given a choice to press or not press a button, which would totally randomly give either a chocolate or a pin prick to someone else who is sound asleep (and is thus, neither experiencing pain nor pleasure), what would you do?

For me, the ethical choice would be to not press the button. It might be argued that "but then there is also a chance that the person would get the chocolate"! But remember, putting up that argument still entails taking a decision on someone else's behalf whose disposition we just do not know! How do we know such a person would prefer chocolate to avoidance of a pin prick? However, if I do not press the button, the person remains asleep, and would never regret not being able to get the chocolate he/she could have got on the pressing of button. The counterargument could be that, that by not pressing the button we are depriving the person of a chance to get a chocolate, which would also be a decision in itself. True, it would be, but usually any sort of inaction is unethical when an action is called for. E.g., if a person walking by your side suddenly feels giddy and extends his/her hand towards you (indicating a demand for assistance), then taking an action (helping) would seem more ethical than inaction (not helping). But imagine, that person is not feeling giddy. In that case, action is not called for, and your not helping (obviously) would not be unethical. I hope, I could explain how this example would apply to depriving a person of a chocolate that he is not needing/desiring by virtue of being asleep. [Of course, it needs to be assumed that he/she will remain sound asleep forever, and not complain after 'waking up'!] One of the important things I wanted to highlight alongside the original question was:

Most decisions in life have certain risk involved of their turning out wrong, but usually they directly impact the one taking that decision, and not someone else.

I would also like to point out here that dying is not the same as not taking birth. By way of living a life, we become afraid of death and also get, what I call, 'addicted' to life. E.g., to have never had a cell phone is not the same as being robbed off of one's cell phone. So, keeping this in mind, is it possible to imagine what it would be like to never have been born? If I ask you: "Would you have liked it better to never have been born?", In all honesty, I cannot answer that question. And if one is able to visualize the situation, and especially respond to it in negative, then, they are severely deluding themselves by (unknowingly) invoking the concept of 'soul'. But one thing I am certain of is: without taking birth I would have definitely never regretted not taking birth, because 'regret' is a feeling that is felt by a conscious mind, which in turn is a function of the brain and that certainly requires one to be alive in the conventional sense of the term! Now, try to answer another similar question: would you regret dying after you die? Again, if one is able to answer such a question, and especially so in affirmative, then their mind is leading them astray. But despite admitting that both the situations cannot be visualized, I do feel a tinge of fear at the prospects of not being born and of dying. This, we can call the 'fear of not existing', which I shall shorten to FNE in what follows (perhaps it contributes to our survival instinct as individuals). But again remember, to experience this fear one needs to be alive! Unborn and dead people are not going to feel it! Perhaps, the logic I am trying to illustrate is getting too circular. And perhaps, it is for the same reason we feel grateful to our parents for bringing us to life (and of course, for extending nurture despite the effort and pain it entails), because whenever we think of our parents' decision, our analysis is tinged with FNE. People feel suicidal if the pain or the effort they experience in process of living overwhelms their FNE.

That was all simply about ethicality (or lack thereof) of decision to have a child. Now, if you could understand my questions and arguments above, think of them at a larger scale - would it have been 'bad' had the human species never come into existence? Would it be 'bad' if the human species gets extinct? Respectively, "to who it would have been bad?" and "to who it would be bad?" Can the same be said about the existence of the Earth and the Universe? So, is the fact that the Universe exists something special when our FNE is factored in? Just like how we feel grateful to our parents for giving us birth because our thoughts are tinged with FNE, we feel a sense of gratefulness for the existence of our Universe (which had enabled 'our' existence in the first place). But who do we feel that gratefulness towards? God, of course! But it is important to note here that, not everyone believes that God exists. Also, it is to be noted that it is humanization of the Universe we indulge in each time we think that whatever exists needs to be created from something, and that thus it needs a creator. Of course, this assumption is unfounded!

But getting to the other arm of the analogy, death, we feel FNE with regard to the humanity as well as towards the Earth. As an example, try to examine your feelings if I say, "the Earth would be hit by a large asteroid 150 years from now, and all life would be destroyed by it". I guess, most people would feel a sense of dread. Now, make a simple calculation. Assuming, each of your successive progeny become parents at the age of 35; it means, it would be your fourth & fifth generations that would face the wrath of the asteroid. And honestly, who cares about one's great grandparents, for instance? Meaning, how many of us feel emotionally attached to our great grandparents and great great grandparents (that is four and five generation 'before' us for you). But yet, we feel a sense of dread in response to such prophecies, where those getting affected would be four or five generations removed from us. There are two possible reasons for that: one, that we cannot visualize not existing, and we always subconsciously assess things as if they would affect us (thus insinuating a soul-like eternal existence in the process); and two, that perhaps we feel for humanity and Earth, what we feel for our 'self'. Meaning, I am humanity, and I am Earth (okay, that sounds funny, but I cannot explain it better). And it is for this reason that we invest so much in future to try to save our planet from destruction, when perhaps the fact is that such 'destruction' would not affect us, nor some of the generations that immediately follow us.

In my analysis, I have obviously not considered the fact that it is not possible to consult unborn children, nor the fact that if everyone would start thinking like me, the human species could get extinct! As you might appreciate, those two concerns do not figure in the equation of ethics here. So if you are confused whether to marry or not, and then, whether to have a child or not, I hope I have been able to assure that if by your not producing children, you fear that you might be contributing to the extinction of the human species, then your fear is unfounded! ;)

I believe with this post I have crudely dealt with:

1. The ethicality of decision to have a child.
2. Why we think there needs to be a creator for the Universe to exist.
3. Why we fear for damage to and/or extinction of the human species and the Earth.

Disclaimer: I am unmarried [and if the one reading this is a woman of my age who would be ready to marry me and put up with rants as above, then she can consider this as an advertisement! ;) ], and this doubt (doubt about ethicality of having a child) does not have much to do with my own life, but I cannot get the doubt out of my mind. Of course, what I eventually conclude would influence my wanting to have a child or not, but of course that would have to be in consultation with my then spouse.

Islamophobia is a Misnomer - a few Rebuttals

In my last post (click), I had quoted translations of a few verses from the Quran. A tweeter - Mr. Kashif Shahzada (click) who apparently is quite knowledgeable of the scripture had pointed out a few inconsistencies in its precepts across different chapters and a few within them and that individual verses must not be cherry-picked, but should be interpreted in context of what is conveyed in verses elsewhere. The significance of this is that, two of the (untoward) conclusions one might draw on reading the verses I had quoted were contradicted by other verses elsewhere in the Quran. In what follows, I quote the said verses, and also the contradictory verses from the Quran and Mr. Kashif's explanation/rebuttal, which I will try to paraphrase as faithfully as possible.

1. (From Chapter 3)
YUSUFALI: Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.
PICKTHAL: Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying.
SHAKIR: Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming. [Verify: Sura 3:28]

This might make one think that Muslims are forbidden from helping or showing kindness to "Unbelievers". Mr. Kashif had pointed out this instruction applies only to those who are hostile towards and first attack the believers of Allah. In support he had referred me to the following two verses:

1.a (From Chapter 60)
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as friends (or protectors),- offering them (your) love, even though they have rejected the Truth that has come to you, and have (on the contrary) driven out the Prophet and yourselves (from your homes), (simply) because ye believe in Allah your Lord! If ye have come out to strive in My Way and to seek My Good Pleasure, (take them not as friends), holding secret converse of love (and friendship) with them: for I know full well all that ye conceal and all that ye reveal. And any of you that does this has strayed from the Straight Path.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Choose not My enemy and your enemy for allies. Do ye give them friendship when they disbelieve in that truth which hath come unto you, driving out the messenger and you because ye believe in Allah, your Lord? If ye have come forth to strive in My way and seeking My good pleasure, (show them not friendship). Do ye show friendship unto them in secret, when I am Best Aware of what ye hide and what ye proclaim? And whosoever doeth it among you, he verily hath strayed from the right way.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take My enemy and your enemy for friends: would you offer them love while they deny what has come to you of the truth, driving out the Messenger and yourselves because you believe in Allah, your Lord? If you go forth struggling hard in My path and seeking My pleasure, would you manifest love to them? And I know what you conceal and what you manifest; and whoever of you does this, he indeed has gone astray from the straight path. [Verify: Sura 60:1]

1.b (From Chapter 60)
YUSUFALI: Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.
PICKTHAL: Allah forbiddeth you only those who warred against you on account of religion and have driven you out from your homes and helped to drive you out, that ye make friends of them. Whosoever maketh friends of them - (All) such are wrong-doers.
SHAKIR: Allah only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of (your) religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust. [Verify: Sura 60:9]

2. (From Chapter 9)
YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [Verify: Sura 9:5]

This might make one believe that Muslims are supposed to kill idolators as soon as the time-period of the pact (the Pagans/idolators are supposed to make with Muslims at/near a Mosque to live in peace) ends. Mr. Kashif here, buttressing with the following sura, pointed out that again this instruction applied only to those Unbelievers who had taken the initiative to assault believers of Allah:

2.a (From Chapter 9)
YUSUFALI: Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!
PICKTHAL: Will ye not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges, and purposed to drive out the messenger and did attack you first? What! Fear ye them? Now Allah hath more right that ye should fear Him, if ye are believers
SHAKIR: What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers. [Verify: Sura 9:13]

My points that I had made in the previous post, I believe, prevail. While, I can get more into technicalities, that is uncalled for. To make a simple point, what is the logic behind mentioning the precondition of hostility and aggression as subclause for not befriending "Unbelievers" in chapter 60, which is far removed from chapter 3? Also, if verse 9:5 calls for something as serious as killing off of idolators despite having had a pact with them as soon as its time period ends, would it not be pragmatic to forcefully mention then and there the caveat that those unbelievers have to be hostile and aggressive?

I rest my case here.

Disclaimer: Mr. Kashif had been patient and civil in his debate - something that I appreciate, nor did he insist or mention that I issue the clarifications/rebuttals that I did above.

Islamophobia is a Misnomer

An important note: A tweeter had presented rebuttals to few of the arguments in what follows. I consider it important to inform the reader that I have included them in one of my subsequent posts - Islamophobia is a Misnomer - a few Rebuttals (click), which I request the reader to go through to form, what I consider a slightly more nuanced opinion on the whole issue.

I do not believe that an entity that is omnipotent, omniscient, sentient and intention-driven, and which also created the Universe and oversees the various occurrences in it, exists. Allah (click), incidentally possesses many of the attributes, which the entity I do not believe to be existent is supposed to possess. Now that makes me a kafir (=infidel) through multiple criteria (click).

The Quran (click) is purported to be the final word of the God (Allah):

"Muslims believe the Qur’an to be the verbal book of divine guidance and direction for mankind. Muslims also consider the original Arabic verbal text to be the final revelation of God." - Wikipedia

Now, the Quran says many things (click), lot of which are prescriptions and proscriptions on how to lead one's life, i.e., what to do or what not to do. Some of those prescriptions/proscriptions (click) are of umm... err... disturbing nature (of course for infidels like me). I quote a few that leave little to imagination:

[Please note:
I. All the English translations of the Quran written in Arabic language in this post are taken from University of Southern California's 'Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement', which comes with the following disclaimer:

"Please keep in mind that ANY translation of the Qur'an will most definitely contain errors (e.g. see our online list of corrections [click])."

II. The web site uses translations by three different authors, who respectively are: Yusuf Ali, Marmaduke Mohammad Pickthall and M. H. Shakir. Thus, each sura I quote will have three translations. This I believe, should largely lay to rest the skepticism expressed regarding the accuracy of translations of the Quran (click):

"Translation of the Quran has always been a problematic and difficult issue in Islamic theology. Since Muslims revere the Qur'an as miraculous and inimitable (i'jaz al-Qur'an), they argue that the Qur'anic text can not be reproduced in another language or form. Furthermore, an Arabic word may have a range of meanings depending on the context, making an accurate translation even more difficult." - Wikipedia

"The original meaning of a Qur'anic passage will also be dependent on the historical circumstances of the prophet Muhammad's life and early community in which it originated. Investigating that context usually requires a detailed knowledge of Hadith and Sirah, which are themselves vast and complex texts. This introduces an additional element of uncertainty which can not be eliminated by any linguistic rules of translation." - Wikipedia

III. You can verify from the University of Southern California's web site, each quoted sura's translation by clicking on "Verify" after the translation ends. The translation will automatically open in a new window or tab, but do wait for some time for the linked page to load completely and for it to point to the intended Sura.

IV. Some of the suras are to be read in continuation to best understand their complete meaning.]

-----

1.
YUSUFALI: Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and messengers, to Gabriel and Michael,- Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith.
PICKTHAL: Who is an enemy to Allah, and His angels and His messengers, and Gabriel and Michael! Then, lo! Allah (Himself) is an enemy to the disbelievers.
SHAKIR: Whoever is the enemy of Allah and His angels and His messengers and Jibreel and Meekaeel, so surely Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers. [Verify: Sura 2:98]

YUSUFALI: We have sent down to thee Manifest Signs (ayat); and none reject them but those who are perverse.
PICKTHAL: Verily We have revealed unto thee clear tokens, and only miscreants will disbelieve in them.
SHAKIR: And certainly We have revealed to you clear communications and none disbelieve in them except the transgressors. [Verify: Sura 2:99]

2.
YUSUFALI: Say: "Obey Allah and His Messenger": But if they turn back, Allah loveth not those who reject Faith.
PICKTHAL: Say: Obey Allah and the messenger. But if they turn away, lo! Allah loveth not the disbelievers (in His guidance).
SHAKIR: Say: Obey Allah and the Messenger; but if they turn back, then surely Allah does not love the unbelievers. [Verify: Sura 3:32]

3.
YUSUFALI: When ye travel through the earth, there is no blame on you if ye shorten your prayers, for fear the Unbelievers May attack you: For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.
PICKTHAL: And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail (your) worship if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you. In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you.
SHAKIR: And when you journey in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you distress, surely the unbelievers are your open enemy. [Verify: Sura 4:101]

4.
YUSUFALI: In a Believer they (infidels/idolators) respect not the ties either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who have transgressed all bounds.
PICKTHAL: And they (infidels/idolators) observe toward a believer neither pact nor honour. These are they who are transgressors.
SHAKIR: They (infidels/idolators) do not pay regard to ties of relationship nor those of covenant in the case of a believer; and these are they who go beyond the limits. [Verify: Sura 9:10]

YUSUFALI: But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity,- they are your brethren in Faith: (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand.
PICKTHAL: But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge.
SHAKIR: But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith; and We make the communications clear for a people who know. [Verify: Sura 9:11]

YUSUFALI: But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained.
PICKTHAL: And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist.
SHAKIR: And if they break their oaths after their agreement and (openly) revile your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief-- surely their oaths are nothing-- so that they may desist. [Verify: Sura 9:12]

YUSUFALI: Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!
PICKTHAL: Will ye not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges, and purposed to drive out the messenger and did attack you first? What! Fear ye them? Now Allah hath more right that ye should fear Him, if ye are believers
SHAKIR: What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers. [Verify: Sura 9:13]

YUSUFALI: Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers,
PICKTHAL: Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them, and He will heal the breasts of folk who are believers.
SHAKIR: Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and heal the hearts of a believing people. [Verify: Sura 9:14]

5.
YUSUFALI: Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.
PICKTHAL: Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying.
SHAKIR: Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming. [Verify: Sura 3:28]

6.
YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [Verify: Sura 9:5] Now here I would like to point out that though I am not an idolator, many people I hold dear, like my mother, father, relatives and closest friends are!

7.
USUFALI: O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).
SHAKIR: O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil). [Verify: Sura 9:123]

8.
YUSUFALI: And thou hadst not expected that the Book would be sent to thee except as a Mercy from thy Lord: Therefore lend not thou support in any way to those who reject (Allah's Message).
PICKTHAL: Thou hadst no hope that the Scripture would be inspired in thee; but it is a mercy from thy Lord, so never be a helper to the disbelievers.
SHAKIR: And you did not expect that the Book would be inspired to you, but it is a mercy from your Lord, therefore be not a backer-up of the unbelievers. [verify: Sura 28:86]

-----

While, I could have quoted the translations of many such suras here, I guess, these many would suffice to make my point. I have tried my best to not quote selectively, and have provided the context of each sura. Also, some might point out that there must be many Muslims who overlook the above kind of umm... err... disturbing prescriptions and proscriptions. Let us see what the Quran has to say about such selective following of the God's word:

YUSUFALI: After this it is ye, the same people, who slay among yourselves, and banish a party of you from their homes; assist (Their enemies) against them, in guilt and rancour; and if they come to you as captives, ye ransom them, though it was not lawful for you to banish them. Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? but what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life?- and on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For Allah is not unmindful of what ye do.
PICKTHAL: Yet ye it is who slay each other and drive out a party of your people from their homes, supporting one another against them by sin and transgression? - and if they came to you as captives ye would ransom them, whereas their expulsion was itself unlawful for you - Believe ye in part of the Scripture and disbelieve ye in part thereof? And what is the reward of those who do so save ignominy in the life of the world, and on the Day of Resurrection they will be consigned to the most grievous doom. For Allah is not unaware of what ye do.
SHAKIR: Yet you it is who slay your people and turn a party from among you out of their homes, backing each other up against them unlawfully and exceeding the limits; and if they should come to you, as captives you would ransom them-- while their very turning out was unlawful for you. Do you then believe in a part of the Book and disbelieve in the other? What then is the reward of such among you as do this but disgrace in the life of this world, and on the day of resurrection they shall be sent back to the most grievous chastisement, and Allah is not at all heedless of what you do. [Verify: Sura 2:85]

So basically, if a Muslim does not follow the Quran in entirety, he/she is disgraced for life, and more important, Allah would punish severely after the said Muslim dies. Which implies, a true Muslim is not supposed to use his/her discretion in selecting what suras to follow and which ones not to.

Let me come more specifically to the title of this blog post: what is Islamophobia?

While, there are more nuanced definitions to be found of the term on Wikipedia's article on Islamophobia (click), I am taking the least devious one, the one which is arrived at from its etymology: Islam-o-phobia, i.e., phobia of Islam. Phobia is defined (click) as:

"A phobia (from the Greek: φόβος,phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear") is an irrational, intense and persistent fear of certain situations, activities, things, animals, or people. The main symptom of this disorder is the excessive and unreasonable desire to avoid the feared stimulus." - Wikipedia

So, after reading what Allah has commanded the true Muslims on how to treat infidels like me, if I fear for my life and safety, is that fear irrational, excessive and unreasonable?

Let me clarify here a few things. I am perfectly aware that no one gets to choose their parents, and hence the religion they are born into. I will never hold against the circumstances of their birth against anyone. One of the impassioned 'arguments' offered by religious apologists (of all colors) is that one's religious beliefs are a matter of choice, and we must not judge people for that. Now honestly, that is such a silly thing to say! Do we not judge people precisely by the choices they make? If no volition would be involved, e.g., in matters of skin color or height or voice or some physical handicap, it would not be wise to judge people adversely for that. So what choice do those people have if they do not approve of the tenets of religions they were born into?

Let me recount a small incident here. Over the social networking web site, twitter, a user who had said in a tweet mentioning me, "you might disagree, but all Muslims must be killed". I told him that I did not agree with him, and that whatever he was saying amounted to hate-speech and he could be punished for that, and most important, I 'unfollowed' him. I must add that it was not a case that all his tweets had been insane, he had a few 'good' (sensible) things also to say. But important point is, the moment he espoused violence against a certain group of people only for the family they were born into or for their chosen religious beliefs, I expressed my strong disapproval and denounced his views. Can a religious scripture be 'unfollowed', provided one actually disapproves of things written in it? Can a religious scripture be similarly disapproved of and denounced for espousing violence against a certain group of people only for the family they were born into or for their chosen religious beliefs? Why or why not? I leave that question to be answered by religious apologists and religious theists. Remember, the said tweeter had also said a few things that were sensible.

Okay, coming to another aspect of Islamophobia - contempt towards and discrimination against Muslims. Why should I be expected to respect someone who systematically hates me by virtue of following the Quran in entirety, and who would not help me, nor befriend me, and would take it upon him/herself to kill idolators who I hold dear? Perhaps, I could be accused of being sensationalist. Let us try again! What shall I think of a person who considers the precepts in the above quoted suras as unassailable truth and divine revelation to be revered? Especially so, when the said person has the option of rejecting those ideas as utter rubbish?

Then, there is one more argument put forth by religious apologists:

"But why do you selectively target the evils of religion? There are so many good things in religion, no? Why not just follow the good things and forget the bad things?"

There are two things I would like to say in response. First, consider a person who goes to an orphanage. He makes generous donations, and also asks others to do the same. But he picks up every child wearing a blue colored dress and stabs and kills him/her. And moreover, he does this in cold blood, without remorse. What would be your assessment of such a person? Would you persist with your plea of "just look at the positives and overlook the negatives"? Why should such cherry-picking be done? Why not assess the person in entirety? Likewise, why not assess religions in entirety without trying to be too lenient in judging them? Second thing I want to point out is, the moment one takes a call as to what is "good" in a religion and what is "bad", they are using their own discretion on what is good v/s bad. Which means their reasoning and discretion had superseded the precepts of the scripture. In other words, they do not need the said scripture to know what is good and what is bad!

So, what am I to think of religious apologists who want to themselves make unwarranted concessions to religion and also expect me to make the very same concessions? What am I to think of those who would hail the orphan-killer as a great saint and revere him because of few 'good' things he does by overlooking his murderous streak?

In summary, I have put forth what the Quran says of infidels like me, which obviously a true Muslim is supposed to subscribe to. In light of these facts, it is difficult to not fear and to respect true Muslims and the religious ideology they willingly follow (despite having a choice to reject that ideology, provided the said Muslim actually disagrees with it). And hence, the term 'Islamophobia' in its purest sense is a misnomer.

PS: With this I complete 100 posts on my blog. :)

Political Correctness and Me

(of language) not objectionable, especially in terms of avoiding offense based on race, gender, religion, ideology or any other social grouping such as disability.

Usage notes

...sometimes (also) extended to cover political ideology and behavior, curriculum content, and many areas affected by law, regulation, and public pressure, and is often used pejoratively.

-Wikitionary definition of 'politically correct' (PC).

Many internet users euphemize and generalize, not to avoid causing offense, but labels of "commie", "Godless" or "Internet Hindu". The critic or perceived offender is then expected to counter a volley of criticisms of the category he is boxed into. The ensuing defensiveness causes indiscretions like: "all religions teach us love and tolerance", "all religions are (equally) bad", "all politicians are (equally) useless", etc.

This approach is wrong on at least two levels:

1. PC-statements are partial truths or completely false. One can conclude all religions teach love and tolerance only on deliberately overlooking or distorting available facts. This is dishonesty. This behavior follows from the flawed idea that pot must not call kettle black. No, both pot and kettle must call the other black, if relevant, and if possible, without contempt. For, the blackness cannot be removed without showing and acknowledging it.

Moreover, this defensiveness is a tacit acceptance of guilt merely by being born in a community or supporting an ideology. I am not responsible for misdeeds of others born in same community as me. I am not answerable for deeds of the ideologue, unless his ideology I support is the cause.

2. PC causes intellectual laziness. By saying "all politicians are same", I am discrediting the better ones. Through such generalizations, I would shy away from obligation to minutely analyze the available data before infering. PC will prevent incremental improvements in politics enabled through noticing and acting upon subtle differences between politicians.

I avoid and disapprove of PC, though I use some out of fear of physical harm and violating law, and those not doing even that can certainly hold me in contempt. I greatly admire two honest and courageous (for using their real identities) persons - Atanu Dey (click) and Marvi Sirmed (click).

Another Blog

Hello readers!

Yesterday I started another parallel blog called Conflusions (click), where I will be mainly noting down some of the conclusions drawn about life. In contrast with the current blog, thoughts there will be most succinct, and not written in an explanatory tone.

You are invited to take a look.

Cheers!

Life - Just this and that

A dash of mad passion

And its occasional suppression



A blind leap into the air; drop to the abyss

And a wait for the doom; return to the surface



A speck of apprehension

And its usual suspension



A seasoned flight of fancy, in search of ecstasy

And the crashing culmination in reasoned apostasy



An entanglement of questions

And a chain of comprehension



A mutilation through stabs; tearing away by tensions

And a sudden release into nothingness, without anticipation



That's all that life is

Or maybe a bit more

I'm not yet sure

And so I explore...



AN ADDICTION

[One of the very spontaneous (and unambiguous) poems that I have written. Written in less than 20 min. So there would be 'logical' flaws, indeed. :)


Another impulsive poem by me, which I would like to share is One Moment of Clarity (click)

Title of this poem was inspired by the name of a fellow blogger's blog (click), whose poetry I greatly admire.]

It had to happen. It happened yesterday. After three years!

Yesterday as I was climbing down stairs, engrossed in thoughts, suddenly I heard an enthusiastic "Namaskaar"(a salutation in Hindi). It was one of the sweepers, an older employee of the hostel. I had vaguely registered something to be new on seeing him, but the stream of thoughts in my head, had not allowed me to quite place it.

I smiled back and asked him, "kaheen gaye huae thae kya aap?" [You had been gone somewhere?].

My first instinctive response was to say back namastey (synonymous with namaskaar, but less formal), and ask how he was. But then something held me back.

He replied back, "Apne gaaon gaye thae; ek mahine ke liye." [Had gone to my native village; for one month].

"Haan yehi soch rahaa tha ki aap dikh nahin rahe thae bahut dinon se. Chaliye achchhaa hai, aap apne ghar ho aaye! Chaliye, chalta hoon" [That's what I was thinking. Had not seen you for many days. Good, you paid visit to your home! Bye for now] I smiled and moved on.

I was very pleasantly suprised that he had remembered me, and made it a point to greet. I could distinctly make out his happiness to see me.

He is much older than me, and I had always been quite courteous towards him.

But what had kept me hesitant to greet him with as much warmth as I actually felt?

It was the fear of developing such a strong rapport that I would not be able to say 'no', if he someday asked for money.

But I wondered, was my fear rational? What was the point if it was keeping me from feeling a fellow human's warmth?

I thought again. Why was he so happy to see me? By then, I had already entertained the possibility of his projected warmth to be insincere. Or maybe my courteous behavior could have actually drawn him to me.

But all of a sudden I realized I was not liking these arguments in my head. I was feeling guilty for thinking all this about him. I felt tired of fighting against the happiness I wanted to feel.

Because of past experiences, I have become suspicious of people and always think of their ulterior motives to guard myself against deceit and hurt. But this guard had brought with it a latent fatigue, and yesterday, after three years, it showed.

With a new spring in my step, I smiled at the situation, at my foolishness, and eventally, also at the Hostel in charge, who I think of as cunning and do not usually talk to.

He was suprised. Pleasantly! :)

I just like all THIS. So I post all this just like THAT!

Take a look at the two new widgets at the top of my left sidebar.

Thanks! Not for looking, but your comments!

Of course, I am not entirely convinced by the numbers shown. Especially, TUIB's low 'score'! ;)

Whenever I look at my blog, I feel satisfied by at least one thing--comments have largely been sincere.

There have been numerous arguments and disagreements, but honestly, they have only reassured me that those thus commenting had not simply glossed over ideas presented in my posts. That those ideas had been able to stir something in the reader to induce them to engage them with at least some thoughtfulness. Of course sometimes, those very dissenting/different thoughts have given me something new to think about, and made me see the World in an altered way.

There have also been posts with comments full of frivolity. And am glad, they were expected to be like that! :)

Some might ask me, do I care for comments? Yes, I do.

I am not one of those inclined to instantaneously put pen to paper (even if so in the 'virtual' maze of electrons being thrashed around) owing to a spontaneous outpouring of my passions. This could probably be because of a high 'turnover rate' of my emotions! Meaning, new emotions keep on displacing the older ones very quickly, which would not allow any single emotion to exert sufficient influence on my ego (click; second meaning) to make me write about it! Okay, bad theory! Though some posts, to my own suprise, have been emotional outbursts as well!

So, I do not write in isolation. I do expect that my ideas find readers--not (necessarily) with same ideas as mine, but those who would have thought on the very same issues, if not before, at least after reading!

Yes, I do look forward to comments on my posts!

To end this post, I would only say that my blog has become a very integral part of my life, which I had never imagined when publishing my first few posts.

And very suprisingly, it has brought me in contact with a few people, who I could safely call my 'friends'! A few wonderful people who I truly value today for reasons more than one, and who I would have not known, had it not been for this medium. I am overwhelmed, and to them I could only say, though it would sound cliched on my blog:

Thanks for existing! And also for letting me know that you did. :)

iBubble. The Perfect Sphere. The Perfect Hollow.

Sometimes I understand others in terms of how they are similar to me. Other times I understand them in terms of how they are different from me. There is no other way to understand others. Comparisons are imminent.

If I understand myself, still I might not understand someone else correctly, for some contamination of data would distort my perception.

But, if I do not understand myself, there is no chance I can understand others.

The key to understanding others is to understand myself, first.

I am the common denominator in how the World is. If not for me, nothing would ever make sense in this World.

But understanding myself is an ongoing process. Partly because I am complex. Partly because I keep on changing. I cannot suspend the process of understanding others in the meantime.

After all, life has to go on, if it is to stop some other day.

And hence, everything I do, every thought I think has a purpose.

LOL!

Simple! Isn't it? ;)

So...

iBubble had burst?

OR

I burst Bubble?

...Would depend upon if you are a prick just like me, or if you are not a prick unlike me.

Told you, comparisons are imminent! ;)

My flirtation with Wikipedia

While I have been keeping very busy, and am unlikely to post anything substantial for some time, I thought, I would provide link to my Wikipedia user page (click) that I had developed after lot of effort without any real knowledge of HTML. Of course back then, I had been able to develop it only by analyzing a lot of others' users pages, and tweaking them through trial and error.

Also, almost unknown to many of you, I had been a very avid contributor (click) to Wikipedia articles. But had to tear away myself from that web site, especially editing it, only since it was so very addictive and hampering my studies (not unlike blogging ;) ).

There is an article I had created and brought to its current status almost entirely on my own, including making several diagrams. On searching for 'polyclonal response' on major search engines, that article is the first result one gets. Here (click). It enjoys the status of a 'Good article' on Wikipedia, which means by quality and reliability as judged by a stringent peer review, it is 1 among every 403 articles.

Also, I had singlehandedly created an article on a very important topic called 'lymph', which a year back used to get almost 700 to 1000 hits in a day, or more! Same with articles on 'B cell' and 'lymphatic system', to which I had made significant contributions.

It has been more than a year I have made any significant edits to Wikipedia, and was feeling nostalgic. And not to forget, once a Wikipedian is always a Wikipedian. :) So, I wanted to share these things with a few readers who visit my blog. Somehow though contributing to Wikipedia has not brought me any glory or provided with career boost, I feel very content to have added something to the World's knowledge-base. I have used Wikipedia extensively, and have always felt deeply indebted to those anonymous contributors who have been enriching my life through their knowledge and writings, with no material rewards in return, except for the satisfaction of sharing their knowledge systematically.

If any of you feel you are an expert/well read person in anything under the Sun (and beyond), please do share your knowledge through Wikipedia. :)

A resolve to become a better quacktor

For those of you wondering, why do I keep on coming up with nonsensically dark posts (click) with even more nonsensical brutality, I tried very hard to introspect (my using this term with such high-frequency repetition used to be just another torture technique [;)]), and realized I always aspired to be one of these famous ten quacksdoctors (click).

But despite my repeated attempts at quackery, and of course, writing quack medical manuals (insinuated as 'dark posts' into my blog), I have not been able to achieve even one-tenth the notorietyfame as this famous doctor (click).

So, here on I have decided, I will not write stories, which could serve as templates and bad influence for other budding writers to kill off the characters in their stories in exemplarily psychotic manner. ;)

It has dawned on me that it is better to be one among nine doctors that agree with each other, rather than one among ten doctors with whom every other doctor disagrees (for further elaboration, you have to click on the last of the above three links [:)]).

States of Matter. State that matters - An Explanation. And a joke!

This is the explanation for my previous post which could be found here (click)

I do not believe in writing ambiguous posts, especially as part of the reason I write is to know how others and I view the same things differently. I believe, if not most, some people do have reasons for what they become/what they choose to become. And when the same things are viewed differently, it gives all the parties involved a chance to review what their belief systems are, and what are they based on. At the 'end' of the discussion, one may emerge more confident of the views held priorly, or less so. One may also feel insecure of new ideas if they threaten to upset the equilibrium of their life, which usually is very difficult to achieve, and this is probably also what contributes to the inertia we experience in reviewing and imbibing new ideas, apart of course, from the fact that whatever we currently know/think would be outcomes of numerous experiences, mistakes and rewards, which consolidate our confidence in our 'own' ideas. So with this short preface I seek to establish that on my blog, I wish to be understood precisely, and to understand the contributors equally precisely, though it will only rarely so happen that I change someone's views, or someone, mine.

The only reason I had not included this explanation was the constraint of length of 18 SMSes. Also I did not want to dilute the spontaneity of my ideas by inserting technical explanations for abstract analogies, for it is ever so rare that I come out with posts, which I feel rather than think. I had planned to clarify the analogies as a part of my replies to comments, but I realized, I needed to also come up with a detailed explanation of what I meant through each analogy.

-----

Fluid. By 'fluid' I did not mean weak or flexible. For one talks of flexibility only when there is a shape one could identify with.

By gradients of availability, I meant rushing in for things only because they are available. An avarice for things without pausing to think if we want/need them or possessing them would make us any happier.

A simplistic, but illustrative example is weddings, where so many times people take so much ice cream that they cannot finish it. Mind you, I am not talking here of etiquette, or health hazards of gluttony, or wastage of food, which are separate issues in themselves, but of a weird kind of opportunism. An opportunism that does not even serve our interest! But the sheer pleasure of enjoying something unearned, and probably undeserved (which is contentious, though), but worst of it all, undesired and unrequired! If that ice cream would be required or desired, not so much of it would be found wasted in the plates at the end of the parties!

By falling into next empty space, I was talking of the same opportunism, but manifesting itself differently. Flattery, imitation and insincere agreement. Others' needs for praise and approval are like empty spaces, and on spotting an opportunity (availability) they can be filled! They can be filled instantly and effortlessly, only because this fluid is guided by a gradient. It does not have its own ideas or opinions (no shape), or probably does not value them enough. Does not have any attachments or committed loyalties (no place), and hence has nothing to lose when it goes and occupies the next available space.

This fluid comes in contact with a vast expanse of surfaces, always leaving a trace of wetness (good impression). But it itself never knew what it stood for or against. Its attraction for things (gravitation) was its only guiding force.

The structure called self is a composite of ideals, desires, opinions, tastes, distastes, preferences, and a conscience but most important, a recognition and subsequent acknowledgment of all of these. By surrendering them to the 'demands' of opportunity and availability, this structure collapses, and that is what I had meant by to fall, in fact the collapse of an identity called 'self' is so profound that all shapes and senses of location and direction are lost, whereas as a person grows, it is expected that they accumulate more ideas, ideals, opinions, loyalties and attachments (climbing).

By evaporation, I did not mean destruction or death, but a total loss of identity of the 'self'.

Passively plastic. A passively plastic person also lets their ideas and opinions get shaped according to external forces. There is nothing wrong with allowing external ideas to shape one's opinions, in fact, without the action of external forces, not many ideas can be formed. But when one holds them only to fit into a collective/communal identity, then they lose their own ideas and aspirations. The identity of the individual is supplanted by the perceived identity of a community (mold). The driving force here is the willful assumption of a preformed, assembly-line-manufactured identity, even at the cost of losing one's 'real' native identity, without a sense of remorse.

How is this deformation allowed, or rather sought?

Probably because the original shape was not loved enough? It did not receive assent from coexistence with a number larger than zero, that is, owing to being unique ('one')?

This can extend right from "a feminist needs to defend everything a female does" to "secular people have to side with the 'minorities'"; from "doctors 'should' be dressed in formals" to "'hip' people 'need' to wear low-waist jeans"; from "you need to agree with everyone if you are broadminded" to "learn to say 'whatevah' if you are above the rest of petty people, and close to attaining 'nirvana' to firmly establish you do not care about their existence or their opinions"

Reactively plastic. This simply implies trying to be different from others. It does not matter if what I end up is different even from my 'real' self. The only priority is a need to stand out. To be a 'trend-setter', fully forgetting that trend would also be followed only by opportunists and those seeking the shelter of a collective, without ever respecting the very same shelter.

Rigid. This is what I need to personally guard myself against the most. I know what I want. I know what I like. But I also know, the world is not going to act according to my wishes. I will not the get the kind of education system I want. I will not get as friends, people as honest as I would want. I will not work at places whose ethics would be in alignment with mine.

Because all these systems are too rigid to yield. Whether they are more correct, or I, is a different matter. What matters is that their walls and my contours are incongruent.

And if I barge into these systems brazenly, unprepared, it will be me that would be hurt. Both physically and emotionally. Gradually, I will start giving up. What were originally my aspirations would no more remain so. What I used to find pleasurable, would turn into pain.

As an example, I find it extremely immoral to simply memorize some fact and write/mark that as an answer in exams, without understanding its cause or significance. It, according to me is nothing short of copying. What is the difference? How is not knowing and copying wrong, but not knowing and pretending to know, right?

But I need to survive. I cannot change the exam system according to my wishes. In its confines, memorizing, without understanding is alright, or maybe, also admirable.

That brings me to elasticity. Elasticity is not absolute deformability, which is actually plasticity, but an ability to return to its original shape. A rubber band is elastic not because it can be stretched, but because it can recoil back. So possibly, elasticity lies somewhere between two extremes of plasticity and rigidity.

Deformability would entail that I will need to compromise on occasions. To fit in, to survive, to make life fulfilling. But same time listening to my conscience, to let it pinch, to not silence it, which will remind me that I had betrayed the 'self'--my ideals, original aspirations, which I had loved. All this because the circumstances (edges and corners) had forced me to change. But also to remember that choice of fitting in and compromising were both mine, and mine alone.

Important is to not drown my conscience in "It's okay!". To remember to not compromise the next time out of force of habit, or simply knowing that a simpler route exists.

So yes, elasticity is indeed deformable rigidity, and thus by default a moderate property between the two.

Self-love. This is the trickiest to define. To love the self, first, it is important to recognize the 'self'. Self is the innermost desires, doubts, the knowledge of what I like, what I hate, what I want to do. And if possible, also 'why'? But this assessment needs to be most honest. Most of what constitutes 'self', calls for some action or reaction, be it, lazing late till afternoon on a holiday or 'fighting the system'. To understand that it is alright for those actions to be directed by the desires, but within such a framework that very same actions will not bring 'me' shame in my own eyes.

Ultimately all actions have to serve the upkeep of self-image. If I love my 'self', I will make a most honest assessment of it. If not, I will try to shield it from my own scrutiny, or to distort it. The moment I try to distort it, I know, there is something that I do not like. Either I try to change it, or accept it as my limitation/deficiency.

Loving the self does not amount to serve primal-most self-interest to the exclusion of anything that entails sacrifice for the good of someone else, which if seems 'right', and not doing so, 'wrong', then it is indeed congruent with my desire to somewhere make a change outside of 'me'.

This might seem too mechanical way of living--the loving-the-self-part, but actually it still is the most spontaneous expression of the 'self', just that it passes from under a screen of introspection. :)

-----

A sinister, sadistic, half-asleep-from-previous-night's-binge-examiner eyes neatly dressed, frightened, semi-prepared students of final year MBBS exam, standing before him in mock respect, but genuine awe, and thinks: WTF?

Neatly dressed, frightened, semi-prepared students of final year MBBS exam, standing in mock respect, but genuine awe, eye a sinister, sadistic, half-asleep-from-previous-night's-binge-examiner, and think: WTF!

Examiner's WTF? = Who to flunk? | Student's WTF! = WTF!

States of Matter. State that matters--1

Do not be so fluid. So fluid that you fall into the next empty space. No shape. No place. Existence defined only by gradients of availability. Never able to climb; only fall. You will spread yourself wide. You will spread yourself thin. And before you know it, you will evaporate into nothingness.

Do not be so passively plastic. So plastic that you always fit in and forget your own shape. Always wanting the rigid confines to define the contours of your being. You will fit in. You will not remain you.

Do not be so reactively plastic. Yes, plastic again. So plastic that you change shape the moment you see a mould. Only to not fit in. Letting the confines define the contours of your being--this time staying out. Before you know it, you will become the next unshapely thing. You might become the next mould. Only fluids and plastics will occupy you. You will forget your shape.

Do not be so rigid. So rigid that you want the confines to yield, to replicate the contours of your being. You might wish, but you will not succeed. Before you know it, the edges and corners will scrape off chunks of your own being. You will lose them forever. You will not remain you. If you wait for that perfect mould--the one made for you, it will never be made. You will always remain outside. Outside is only for lodging. Outside, you will not live.

Be elastic. Mostly fitting in. Sometimes comfortably. Sometimes uncomfortably. Fitting in, yet feeling where it hurts. Knowing where the edges poke the contours of your being. Remembering what shape you were the last time. Springing back into your shape, each time you come out. Choose the best mould, but it will not fit perfectly. It will hurt. Be prepared for that. If a mould is too convoluted, too constricting, remember, it is best to lodge outside. For inside, painful poking will overwhelm your senses. You might remain you. Life will not remain life.

That elasticity is self-love. Love yourself, and life will become the simplest it could. You will remain you. Life will remain life.

---
1. This is simply a summary of a lesson on how to live that I have learned. What you have learned could be different. If so, consensus need not be reached.

...continued (click)

Up against "What's up?"; please help! :(

Long back my parents would ask me to be more graceful in dealing with relatives, e.g., to ask them "tamey kem chho" [Gujarati for "How're you"?], though it literally means not "how", but "why are you?"! Isn't that offending, or at least a deeply existential query?

Plus, I used to find it pointless. I'd ask, "if someone's in a bad mood, would they actually say so? So what's the point?" And no, it wasn't me trying hyperrationalism! I truly used to feel that, and also find it insincere to ask. On top of it all, the expected reply would also be weird! "(badhuj) saaru chhe" = "(everything) is fine" [in response to "how are YOU?", and not "how is 'everything'?"!]. The problem is, to answer in terms of "I'm fine/good" is difficult due to weird connotations some words have come to take: "Hoon saaro chhun" = "I'm good", but it would be taken to mean "I'm a good person"! "Hoon barabar chhun" though translating as "I'm alright", sounds like "I'm correct"! "Hoon theek chhun" = "I'm alright", but comes off as dejected (not sufficiently ecstatic!), and hence, not apt.

But someone clever, recognizing the problem with greeting thus, added a leading question to "Kem chho?", viz., "Majaa maan?" = "Enjoying life?". Now, who has the balls to say, "What fun! Am effin preparing for PG entrance exams!" So you see, it's not only for effin that balls are required, but also to say effin!

I used to have same predicament asking "How are you?" and its Hindi version "Aap kaise hain?" See how the question's open ended, and could be as well grammatically correctly answered as "I'm like a lizard^*" or "main chhipkali jaise hoon" [*my grammatically flawed attempt to get Stupidosaur to comment!].

But the most formidable mutant among the species of redundant questions is "What's up, dude?". I mean, on being asked the first time I was totally stumped! I was obviously not expected to answer if I felt "fine"! The question means "what's new in life?", and I'd say "nothing special, man. You only tell!" See, how I'd cleverly shift the onus of answering such philosophical questions to the tormentor (interrogator)! Though, my dirty mind could also think "whatever is *up*, shouldn't stay so if I've to keep up focus on studies!"

But honestly, I still don't know how to answer "what's up" aptly. :( Someone please help me!

Rambling, as if in dreams!

I have no idea if any of the readers go through the sidebars of my blog, but there is a lot to explore there, probably more than my posts also, and much more interesting, too! ;)

On the bottom left, you will find a link to a web site that comes up with a daily miscellaneous list of ten things (usually).

Today's list is 10 More Amazing Facts about Dreams (click). It in turn, as expected, links to another original list of equally amazing facts about dreams.

I have yet not gone through the latest list, but while going through the original one, I was quite amazed by how the observations made by Sigmund Freud (click) about nine decades ago, have still held true. I have had the fortune of reading initial parts of the English translation of The Interpretation of Dreams, and the first time I had read it, I was dumb struck by the intelligence of that person. And on reading about his ground-breaking ideas (apart from those on dreams) of psychoanalysis (click), ego-defense mechanisms (click) and psychosexual development (click), I was totally floored! Each time I read about him, I only wonder, how could a person feel, observe, analyze, document, and subject to verification so much in one lifetime! No wonder, I was not surprised in the least when I came to know through some obscure web site (of questionable reliablity) that his IQ was tagged at 160!

And from the very same web site: Einstein--165, Newton--175, Darwin--180, Kasparov--180, and well the most intelligent public figures were Sharon Stone--150, Hillary Clinton--140, and Madonna--140 ;)

Here (click) is a list of IQs of famous people with figures quite different from what I have quoted in this post, but interesting (and equally dubious) nonetheless.

Those are HUGE numbers! In all likelihood, the most intelligent grown up you would have ever personally known would have it less than 160!

As you could see I have rambled a lot, leaping from one idea to the next remotely connected one. But then I had to justify post's title, also! ;)

nOBAlAMA P*ss Prize! Please help me! Or, laugh with me...

I used to read about great people, mostly scientists, but still people who'd had significant and positive IMPACT on the World. The likes of Einstein, Neils Bohr,
Schrödinger, Francis Aston, Har Gobind Khorana, and well the list could NOT go on... In ALL cases, I'd first read about their WORKS, and they'd invariably filled me with awe, and somehow inspired me. Then I would read they were all Nobel laureates! My respect had risen for the Nobel and other laureates that I didn't even know!

My list mostly has physicists/chemists and not Medicine workers despite being a medico. It's silly, but I used to nurse a desire to gain sufficient knowledge, to strive to become like them, and to win the Nobel. But NO MORE. The common reason is my reading about them BEFORE realizing this:

Behind any public recognition there are ugly factors. Factors--I don't like to utter aloud, maybe whisper in the silent alleys of my frightened heart, which get drowned by the thundering applause that emanates from somewhere faraway where the heart cannot make itself go.

Last year reading about him, I'd found the contributions of Paul Ehrlich absolutely stunning, BUT poor guy, he'd managed to win a Nobel! And this time around to my own shock, I started seeing his contributions skeptically.

I'd to become apathetic to save myself. I couldn't afford to care. But today, Obama's won the Nobel Peace Prize!

Don't get me wrong, I'd heard his most wonderful speech, which had changeD my heart, well almost, and I shouldn't be harsh on him. His term's just started, and he might end up a wonderful World-leader WHEN THE RESULTS SHOW. And that's precisely the point! Has the quality of oratory become the yardstick for winning the Peace Nobel? My angst is at the Nobel Committee, not Him. Today, you've slapped all those scientists I'd respected, and all that I'd held dear in them.

Oh but wait, if you're trying to say, "the World's become so very bereft of those who ACTUALLY do some work of positive impact, and hence we'd to scale down our criterion to just POTENTIAL for greatness", then I agree. Wholeheartedly, and heartlessly.

Ah but, we still have humor (click)!

---

What did World say to Obama on being asked for change?

Aagey badh; chhutta nahin hai! Par yeh rakh Nobel sikka.

[Move on; ain't got change, but keep this Nobel medal]

Too bad, it's just a joke. :(

Do I deserve pink chaddis?

*Chaddi is a word used interchangeably for "shorts" or "briefs/panties".

This is a post I've been planning to do since long, because it was after a long time some event had made me introspect and analyze things with utmost depth possible, and yet leave me, possibly, without answer. Also, this post is going to be very, very frank. Everyone tends to push the innermost workings of their minds under the carpet. But quite the opposite of that, I'm going to reveal it as explicitly and plainly as possible. So, in certain ways this post is going to be EXPLICIT. So, the reader's forbearance is requested. Also, I'll try my best to set the sequence of my thoughts in an algorithm-like structure. So, it'd be easier to dissect it, and discuss the same.


First, I'll have to tell something about myself to establish a proper context. As of now, I am preparing for postgraduate (PG) medical entrance exams, for which I've joined a particular coaching institute in a city different than the one indicated in my profile. I stay in a hostel, which consists mainly of other PG-aspirants just like me. We have a mess, where we have our meals, and at other times, it serves as the reading room.


Before I describe the very trivial incident, let me make it amply clear that the fact that I'm blogging about it, only implies that I've thought a lot over it. And I urge the reader to be patient, and specifically ask me where something that I try to explain remains unclear. This disclaimer is necessitated because I suspect apppreciable number of readers, if they read this post would be tempted to send me pink chaddis! But, I'm not giving my postal address! :P


There is this girl in the ladies' hostel (just next to the hostel where I stay), owned by the same owner as my hostel, who attends the same coaching institute as me, but in a different batch and schedule. My interaction with her has been nil. And she uses the same reading room and the mess. This girl, as far as I've seen, interacts only with boys from her alma mater, which is in a different city from where I've been staying. And, I hadn't taken any special notice of that fact, though it had registered in my mind. I wouldn't think much about such issues, for simple reason--they don't affect me, and moreover, there is fundamentally nothing wrong with that. Just that the event I'm about to describe made me think also about all this. As to what's her opinion about other fellow female hosteliites to be not interacting with them at all, or conversely what do other female inmates think about her.


The incident was this: I had gone to the mess to have my lunch (I don't study at that particular study room, but do so in my own hostel room), and I was at the table where the food is laid for us to help ourselves, the girl was ahead of me in a sort of short queue that was formed, and my gaze fell on her flank. And I felt such an intense revulsion that I turned away my gaze with disgust. What I saw was her exposed flank because of a triangular 'side-cut' in her shirt. The area exposed was more than 50 centimeter sqaured, with part of her innerwear's elastic band visible. Now for those wondering how did I reach the magical figure of 50 cm², just think of a square of 10 cm sides (100 cm²), and cut it half at the diagonal.


Actually, for someone with perfectly normally working hormones like me, I should've stared on. My female readers might be disgusted by this suggestion. But then, I believe, I'm going to do full justice to all the moral considerations involved in this particular event, which is prototypical of what one gets to see day-in-and-day out. All this got over in a less than a second, and nor must have I turned away my head in a violent motion to draw anyone's attention. Basically, no one around noticed what had happened.


But this got me thinking as to why did I feel disgusted, as afterall what she wears is entirely her prerogative.


I'll make a few clarifications here, right at the outset:
1. I did not gossip about it with others.
2. I did not give her a 'look'.
3. I would never think of harming her in anyway on account of what she chooses to wear.
4. If I were to ever interact with her, I'd do so with utmost courtesy that I would reserve for anyone I'd be talking to for the first time.


Of course, to clarify, her dress was in deed out of the ordinary for what other girls wear at this place, especially when coming to study or eat. Moreover, she herself had worn that dress for the first time, and to the extent I remember, she never had repeated it.


I drew this conclusion--'she wanted to expose her flank and elastic band to draw attention to herself'. Of course, I'll first try to address the concern as to why did I draw the above conclusion. I had an argument in my head in attempt to make maximum possible allowance for that girl.


Allowance 1: She must have not realized that the dress was revealing.

Answer: She has always been meticulously dressed even on other days, when she used to wear Salwar-Kameez. Most of the people when the buy their clothes, try them. This girl used to wear relatively costly dresses, and it was unlikely that she must have bought it from some street-side hawker and didn't get and an opportunity to try it. Dressing is a skill, and she had been good at it, so it's unlikely that even if in an unlikelier event that she did buy the said shirt from a roadside hawker, she wouldn't know that the dress would be at least 7 to 8 cm short of the trouser's waist.

Allowance 2: She must have dressed in a hurry.

Answer: Didn't look like that. Her dress was well-ironed. Her hair wasn't disheveled or anything, and she was taking her food quite leisurely, and also eating it equally leisurely.


Allowance 3: She must have been comfortable with that sort of dressing.

Answer: Possibly, yes. But that had got me thinking as to why we choose the kinds of dresses that we choose? We buy clothes such that they cover those parts of our bodies that we don't want others to see, especially strangers. I wear a shirt/T-shirt whenever I move out or my room, for simple reason I'd feel embarrassed to allow others to see my bare chest and back, etc. Likewise, I wear trousers that cover my groin area completely! Sorry, couldn't help it. Had to bring in the last example to clarify. So, I reached this conclusion that she did not mind revealing her flank and the elastic band of her innerwear.


Allowance 4: So what? What if she's comfortable with revealing her flank and the elastic band? That does not establish intent to reveal.

Answer: When she must have bought that particular shirt, she must have had the option of buying one that did not reveal her flanks. It must have not been very difficult to buy a shirt that would be just 8 to 10 cm lower, and jeans that would be an inch or two higher. Afterall, all other days she had been wearing clothes that were not revealing in the same way. But yes, there is indeed a subtle difference between 'not minding' revealing and 'wanting' to reveal. How do I know it was the latter and not the former? I concede, this is difficult to answer. But, I'll give an example. If at a tea stall, you order Pepsi, and the waiter comes and tells you they don't have it, and offers you to have Coke instead, if you say, "Okay, alright!", then, that's what is 'not minding', but if you ask for Pepsi in the first place, then you 'want' Pepsi, and does not amount to 'not minding' it. So, I believe, this adequately establishes the intent to expose, so to say.


Allowance 5: Okays, so what if she wanted to reveal? How does it make me conclude that she wanted to draw attention?

Answer: This is most difficult to explain, but if I've to assume that she did not want to draw attention, how do I explain someone carefully choosing clothes that precisely are going to reveal one's flanks and the elastic band? I could attribute random behavior to, maybe, a small child doing things on whim, like wanting to stand on a table and not wanting to climb down, or children of 2 to 3 years not willing to eat their food, but how do I do that for someone in their twenties? It's either random impulse or it's well planned attempt to draw attention. And considering her age, it was much likely to be the latter.


Allowance 6: Okay, so what if she chooses to wear revealing clothes? What's my problem?

Answer: Nothing! Honestly, I have no problems with what she wears. What all I thought about the issue till that point, and for a few minutes beyond did not affect me in any way!


Now, I'll point out a few things that people do. Do ask yourself if you find them disgusting or not:
1. Picking of nose in public
2. Scratching of groin (in public)
3. People making lousy noises while eating, or licking their fingers passionately while eating

Do you find all or any of the about disgusting?

Yes? What's your problem?


But they disgusted you, right? Isn't it precisely their prerogative to likewise to use their fingers, nose, mouth and other orifices the way they want to?


No, but honestly, what I saw about that girl disgusted me beyond reasons involved in above three examples.


Now I will try to explain, why.


The other three examples I gave--what do they tell us about the people concerned? That they are coarse, possibly unhygienic, inconsiderate of others' attention, and lack a sense of aesthetics.


But why did I feel more disgusted at that girl?

Because that attitude is representative of things fundamentally so wrong with any human being. Picture this:

You're talking with someone. Possibly, the person is talking something grave, and a part of you wants that person to be distracted by you if of the opposite gender, or if the same gender, to be envious of you! This is hypocrisy of highest kind. Not being truthful to oneself, as well as to one's present. Also, such a person is living their life on others' terms, wanting their approval. And approval from any random person, not specifically the people they themselves value.


I have to make many more clarifications. I'll feel the same kind of disgust if I see someone trying to show off their knowledge out of context, or status or wealth. Or those saying "yes" all the time to please others. Or considering themselves as much worthy as gauged by just about anyone. All these things have one thing common to them--lack of truthfulness to oneself, a lack of certain kind of straightforwardness. Honestly, I wouldn't have disrespect for someone plainly going and asking someone--"Do you think I'm attractive enough?" What I don't like is the subliminal influencing through any means. At a much larger scale, it's the same kind of hypocrisy that makes our politicians do things subversive to the interests of the country in name of benefit to one 'community' or the other. Also, how little or high is the chance that persons not averse to wearing revealing clothes to attract attention of just about anyone, wouldn't do so at the workplace to get promotions, or colleges to get extra marks (something I've myself noticed happening)? Is this honorable? Of course, the one giving into such distractions and extending undue favors would be deserving of same blame of indulging in immorality (click).


But, what had really agitated me was that once there was a spat between one of the coordinators of our coaching institute and the owner of the hostel regarding quality of the food served, and coincidentally, when the aforementioned girl was present their, she had been labeled as "characterless" by the hostel owner, because she had been going out alone with guys at night on walk. I was really disgusted by the owner. Afterall, he had no right to interfere with her personal life, who she moved out with, what all she did, and I too had made all the right noises as to how, the girl is a mature, grown up adult, and it was very, very mannerless of the owner to have said that. But a part of me was wondering, did I not also conclude the same thing a month back (then)? That was my hypocrisy. To have something with utmost verbal strength, but just half strength of actual conviction behind those words. And quite obviously, the girl left the hostel to live elsewhere in some days.


Some more clarifications:

1. I never felt even once that owning to her dressing, she deserved to be badmouthed, or eve teased, or molested.

2. I think a saree can be much more revealing than what she was wearing, if so intended by the one wearing.

3. I'm no fan of idea of "preservation of culture", something I might discuss in one of my coming posts. I've not even mentioned the Indian culture perspective above.

4. What all I've analyzed for the above girl applies to males, as well as to all other spheres of life.

5. I'd try my best to not be judgmental about the girl, if were to have any interaction with her. But, my above conclusions will definitely weigh heavily on me. If I find her a nice, upright person otherwise, I'd really be forced to do a rethink on my criteria for judging people. Maybe, I'd try to know her better, and understand, why would she like to wear those kind of clothes, which would make people notice only the superficial aspects of her personality, and maybe, not value her emotions, thoughts, words, deeds, or innovative ideas? But on the whole, in my life, whenever I've tried too hard to make allowances for others' acts that I would find objectionable, I've ended up on the wrong side of judgment, meaning, those people have indeed turned out to be unreliable and opportunistic.


The crux of this post is, if someone has right to wear whatever they want, or behave however they like, I have equal right to draw conclusions about them. Of course, I don't have any right to impose my beliefs on them. And such conclusions are bound to have bearing on how generous would I be with them, or how sympathetic I'd feel if they're troubled. And most important, how much would I respect them as fellow humans.

Another interesting article

In one of my interactions with a fellow blogger, the issue of purpose of life was raised. Not that I can allow someone else to define that purpose for myself, except for if it's through a form of coercion I can't thwart, but it's always interesting to note others' views on the issue. Someone else's purpose could definitely be more interesting than mine(!), and I'd uninhibitedly and shamelessly borrow that purpose for myself!

I've long concluded there's no external purpose to life--as in influencing some tangible indestructible entity on whom the act of our living would've an impact. But this sterile view begs many questions--like 'why do we then feel such an intense desire to live?', 'why should we live?', 'what should we do while live-ing?'.

To the above questions I do have some crude answers, which I can of course, not claim to be applicable to all. Greatest reason being there's no measurable endpoint to the act of living. Like endpoint of using energy efficient automobiles would be the reduction of green house gases in the atmosphere, which can be measured.

Well so as usual, as a quirky idea, I searched for 'purpose of life' on Wikipedia, and this is what turned up.

I've not yet read the article completely, may not even complete it myself, but thought others might enjoy it. Reading it won't take much time, but understanding it completely, which will require one to understand concepts right from molecular biology, thermodynamics, quantum physics to abstract philosophical and logical assertions, will certainly take much longer--maybe around a week.

One thing that struck me was how the ancient Greek philosophers born more than 2000 years ago had such clear and objective view of life. They were only limited by lack of scientific knowledge. And then, somehow the world's intellect regressed, and it took mankind almost two millenia to reach their level again and progress beyond that!

Maybe philosophy will always stay ahead of science. It requires only two tools--one harbored behind the two eyes and an armchair!

Which reminds me, maybe, I've been philosophizing a lot, the indicator being creaks of my armchair, which are nothing but groans because of the abuse I subject her (it's my armchair--I get to assign the gender ;) ) to. Time to stop philosophizing so much get a new armchair!

That's all!

My System of Ethics

Why is it important to analyze the basis of ethical principles?

Simply because, our ethical principles determine how we deal with others, what we conclude, how we judge, what we speak, what we do, and what we become. Each word we speak and act we commit is an exercise in ethics.


There is a lot of worthy debate as to what is the source of ethics? Is it some authority (religious, philosophical, elders of the family and society) or is it the individual? Are the terms of ethics modifiable with time and circumstance? I've opined in one of my previous blogs that ethics should not base itself in authority.


One of the strongest (and most worthiest of consideration) objections expressed against this position is the opportunistic use of such ethics, more specifically, not following it or modifying its terms when it comes in way of satisfying one's self centered desires even by harming others in the process.


I would be stupid if I disregard this contention for I've seen such opportunistic application of ethics too many times.


I've always possessed a strong sense (as in without too many predicaments) decisiveness in matters of ethical principles. I'll restrict the scope of this post only to bases of my ethics for I too was curious about them! But to discover them, it did require some mental excavation--it was buried real deep!


A simple example: I'd be ashamed of stealing something even if no one would notice me doing that. The simple reason for this? I dislike anyone who steals something (undeserved, obviously!) from others. So, would I like to hate myself? If I steal, the only obvious consequence is hating myself, provided I keep my honesty and objectivity intact. Same holds true for all other virtues--being truthful, helpful to those deserving, courteous, courageous, etc. Every instance I depart from any of above virtues would leave me with contempt for myself. I could of course, somehow rationalize my act or take solace in the fact that no one noticed it, but what would happen to my peace of mind? If I lie to myself, think of the consequences. I'm lying (I'm a liar); I'm believing that lie in spite of having best knowledge of the truth (I'm stupid!), and the one lying and one believing that blatant lie is the same person--so I'm both a liar and am stupid!


Well unfortunately, I know issue does not resolve there itself! One could very appropriately ask, what would make me detest an act of stealing? The fact that I won't like being robbed. If I've to judge an act with utmost fairness, it's solely the act that has to be judged irrespective of the 'commit-er' and the subject of that act. Meaning, stealing is equally bad even if one stealing is my family member/friend/myself(!), and even when the one robbed off is some else(!), and not necessarily me! It indeed is a very useful maxim that what I'd not like done to me is bad, irrespective of who it is done by and on whom. Of course, this could beget further question (do questions not believe in family planning!)--why do I not like being robbed? Well, I give up! I don't have all the answers! If I dig deeper in the valleys of my mind, I think I'd find that elusive answer, but this much exercise is enough for one day. Already my mental muscles are feeling sore.


This all seems very straightforward, but an honest introspection would tell how frequently we depart from this maxim. It's not very rare to find a hurt friend ruing, "He'd always been so nice. I don't know how he suddenly turned such a rascal!" Do I need to add that that's just the "subjective" assessment. The objective assessment would be, "All this while, I'd ignored his misdeeds. I'd enjoyed how he used to insult others. And then he hadn't insulted me ever. I thought I was special, 'cuz I wanted to think I was special. Today, just suddenly I was no more important to him, and hence the treatment I got." How often have we been this objective in our analyses of events and people?


I've up till now stressed only on acts of omission (how "not to" commit bad acts). I've not talked about the acts of commission (committing noble deeds). Just like in the above example of despising one committing a bad act, I'd respect one committing acts that impressed me. I'd like to be associated with those acts. That would be my driving force to emulate them.


Lo and behold! What a cute little baby-question we have! What makes an act noble?

This one is indeed difficult to answer. Any act has certain driving forces and certain deterring forces. What forces does one give into and what deterring forces one overcomes, while deciding to commit and act determine its nobility. If I'm overcoming fear (a weakness), then the act has something admirable. If I'm overcoming my guilt of inflicting pain (without giving anything desired by the subject), in well, inflicting pain, then my act is ignoble. If jealousy is the driving force of my act, it's inclining towards unethcical. If empathy or compassion drives me to help someone, then my act could be justified. (I know I'm accumulating grand-grand-grand baby questions).

What makes jealousy and inflicting pain bad? And what makes compassion and overcoming fear admirable?

The answer is I'm unlikely to like dealings with me that are driven by jealousy, and of course I won't like pain (masochi...you immoral morality-grass hopper; jumping to conclusions?) inflicted upon me. I'd really appreciate when helped in time of need, and the fact that not all can overcome fears of all types at all times, makes it admirable (maybe).


The bottom line is if after this much elaborate (by my standards, of course) exposition of my basis of ethics, if someone is not ready to trust me with my decision-making based on this system of ethics, I really can't help it. I can't answer why others don't follow this system of ethics, seriously. I wish I could, but then the unfortunate fact is I can't. I do have more answers to more potential questions. They may have some philosophic glitches, too, and some ambiguity about when best to apply a certain ethical principle, but I still find this system of well scrutinized ethics more reassuring than "'cuz someone said so".