Pakistani police man kills sister for wearing jeans

I'm not sure that earns anyone any points. Do we all get trophies if we elect a woman? It's admirable but should be a sidenote to quality of character and platform issues... kind of like Obama and race.

 

Thinking about perusing an economics degree at Harvard with my thesis being on how religion and culture effect economic growth.

Or a masters in financial engineering at MIT.

No decision has been made or will be made for another year on where I go next even though I am taking classes at Harvard. The thesis topic is very un-PC and not well received by the community in Massachusetts. The financial engineering degree would help with career advancement, but economics really interests me.

I also studied religion for about 6 years. Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam as well as Zoroastrianism. The study of religion was mostly on my own, and it was not done using Google. I studied with Christian priests, Muslims (friends), Hindu Swamis and Buddhist monks from Burma, Thailand, Tibet, Vietnam and China.

I am also pretty well versed in International politics as I spend about two hours a day reading foreign newspapers. Chinese, Russian, German, African, South American. You name it. BTW - Google translator comes in extremely handy, so I don't knock Google at all.

 

if girls get educated there will be less baby-making machines


less baby-making machines means less Muslims

Muslims want to rule the world at some point in time in the future

they want to proliferate their message and the easiest way to do that is to make lots of them

 

Margret Thatcher.
She is looking like a genius right now with the economic turmoil they have going on in Europe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2f8nYMCO2I

We also have Angela Merkel in Germany.
Probably the best world leader we have right now.

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner in Argentina.
I think she is going a pretty good job right now, although she has manged ruffle a few feathers in England. She is also very pretty.

Yingluck Shinawatra in Thailand -
She just became prime minister of Thailand so we will have to wait to see how see does.
On a side note - I think she is pretty hot.

My personal favorite -
Myanmar - Aung San Suu Kyi
A pillar of strength and beacon of hope for her country.

India and Pakistan also had female leaders.
It really is sad what happened to Benazir Bhutto.

There have been lots of great female leaders.
Just because their is a female leader in Bangladesh does not mean you have to knock other countries. Their are lots of great female leaders in this country from CEO's to politicians. Just because the US has not had a female head of state does not mean I will look down on this country. The opportunity for a women to become the head of state in the US is their and I believe their will be one in my lifetime.

BTW - I really do think it is a good thing that Bangladesh has a female leader as I think it will be good for the country.

 

Where in the Koran does it say that they are to be kept separate?

Not sure if I'd use the word "creepy", but that would indicate a major failure of reason and someone as a parent, yes.

 

Hurricane,

If it's about religion, please explain these stories:

This is a country many here are usually happy to call Islamic, and usually view as ass-backwards.

Also, you are forgetting that Muhammad's first wife was:

Personally, I don't think it has anything to do with Islam. It's purely about the government's willingness to support it. Not more than 30 years ago, the attitude of people in this country towards women becoming educated was exactly as it is in the parts of Pakistan which you mention. In Saudi, they have the money, yet overall the women are not as educated, because support for educating women only appeared in the last 5-6 years.

If you have a look around the world, you'll find that the only constants are wealth, investment in education and government support.

The problem is not that there is something inherent in the religion. The problem is that the non-Quran materials, which for many constitute the majority of Islamic teachings, were written by old men 1,300+ years ago who, till then, viewed non-rich women virtually the same as slaves.

Moreover, if you believe that Muhammad is a false Prophet or that Islam is a false religion, then for you even the Quran is created by an old man having just gotten married to one of the most succesful women in the region. The idea that this guy was opposed to educated women just doesn't add up.

You also act as though this is a unique phenomenon. It was in the late 1700's that several areas in the US dominated by rich families opposed schooling for girls allegedly based on religion/tradition, but in reality it was a ploy for rich men to maintain their status and the social structure. The British had to lobby hard to convince Americans to educate females. Granted this was a long time ago, but the circumstances in the areas you mention are barely any different thant the circumstances in America back then. In fact I would say they're strikingly similar.

If you're sincere about your question, I recommend you research pre-Islamic Arabia and the forced/funded export of its traditions to certain places. That's where you'll find the answer. Take for example burying infant daughters - this is a trademark practice of pre-Islamic Arabia which was common back then and later virtually wiped out by Islam. Yet the practice was exported to other places, and it lives on in those places despite the fact that stopping it was a primary goal of Muhammad's. These practices live on in present-day "Islamic" countries because Islam came from Arabia and some facets of ancient Arabian tradition was unfortunately attached to the export of Islam at the time. Honor killings also fall into this category.

 

You can look at the foreign aid that we (the United States) has provided that has helped these countries succeed, and the obvious answer to that is yes. But there are a few other things you need to look at and ask yourself. The first is, look at what these countries had to overcome. Both Germany and Japan were completely destroyed and had to completely rebuild.

In the case of Germany, they also had to have a significant military presence. The Soviets were breathing down their necks. After the Berlin wall fell, they had to spend significant amounts of money re-unifying the country. I remember reading how people in West Germany were bitter about having to spend money to help the poor East Germans. Their were discussions about whether or not they should spend the money to help the Germans or just let them fend for themselves.

Today, it is Germany that is holding the European Union together. The Swiss, which are also know to have a reputation for being smart and a strong work ethic are too small to have any impact. It is the Germans that have helped bail out France, Italy, Greece, Cyprus and now Spain. Quiet frankly, the Germans are getting fed up by having to bail everyone out, but they realize this is what they need to do to save the European Union from financial collapse.

The point I am trying to make in regards to Germany is this, Germans have a strong work ethic and a culture that has enabled the country to persevere through difficult times. They would have had success with or without US financial aid.

Lets talk about Japan now. This country was totally destroyed after world war II. The Japanese rebuilt their country despite being on an island with very little natural resources.

Japanese people take pride in everything they do and do their best in everything they are asked to do. I will give you two examples. During world war II, American servicemen hated the Japanese. Why, because they were fierce fighters who fought tooth and nail. If the US actually invaded the main Island of Japan, US servicemen casualties were estimated at 500,000 (half a million). This is/was a real estimate and not exaggerated. The Soviets were pissed off because they had already lost 20 million men in the war and the Soviets told us on numerous occasions that we (the US) were not willing to sacrifice men like they were to fight off the Germans and the Japanese to win the war. For the following reasons, to avoid Soviet criticism about making sacrifices to win the war, the fact that the Soviets had sticky boots and that we were going to lose allot of men since the Japanese fought tooth and nail with allot pride, we decided to drop the bomb.

Another example of Japanese culture is how they don't have janitors in Japanese schools. Not only do the kids study hard, but they are hard working humble community that is willing to do almost any job. The Japanese unemployment rate is currently at 4.4%, and this is considered high in their country.

If we look at Japanese culture, I think it would be safe to say Japan would have done well even without US military aid.

If we look at Israel and the amount of aid it receives, we can come to the same conclusion that we did for Germany and Japan. Israel's economy is 4 times larger than all of its 4 neighboring countries combined. The difference in the economic success Israel has had is so great in comparison to it neighbors, the amount of aid that Israel receives from the US is a non-factor.

Looking at the financial aid that Israel receives, one also can not ignore that Egypt also receives financial aid from the US.

FY2008 Israel 2,380.6 Egypt 1,705.02
FY2009 Israel 2,550.0 Egypt 1,554.7
FY2010 Israel 2,775.0 Egypt 1,555.7
FY2011 Israel 2,994.0 Egypt 1,653.8
FY2012 Israel 3,075.0 Egypt 1,556.5
FY2013 Israel 3,100.0 Egypt 1,563.3

http://foreignassistance.gov/OU.aspx?FY=2013&OUID=165&AgencyID=0&budTab=tab_Bud_Planned

With Egypts greater natural resources (primarily natural gas), and the money it generates from tourism, Egypt has a distinct advantage over Israel. The financial aid Israel has received from the US is not what has allowed Israel to succeed.

It is my opinion that Israel has succeeded due to the fact that it is a highly educated country which has allowed it to become a leader in many fields such as pharmaceuticals, defense (their radar systems are awesome), agriculture, as well as computer and software engineering (Microsoft, Intel and Sony all have offices there). Israel also some of the best Universities in the world. Their are many Muslims that apply to Israeli universities for that reason.

Again I am not Jewish, but If you walk into a synagog and listen to the Rabbi speak, sooner or later you will here them talking about studying hard, working hard and doing their best. In the earlier part of this century, when were discriminated against by not being admitted into Ivy league schools, they started their own university (Bandies). Jewish students also score higher on standardized tests by two standard deviations. The difference is too great to be the result of sampling error. The only two conclusion that can be made are that Jewish students are either smarter or harder working. Since the Jewish community is comprised of individuals from many different ethnic backgrounds (Russian, German, Middle Eastern and African), Jewish students being smarter than the average population is no longer an option which leads us to conclude that higher test scores are the result of hard work and studying.

Jewish people living in Israel are placed in an environment where they are just pushed to succeed. A large part of this has been hypothesized to be the result of everyone living in Israel having served in the Military and the Israeli military providing the skills necessary for individuals to succeed in business. Since their are so many successful start-up companies in Israel, there has actually been a fair amount of research and case study work done with IT companies in the US and Japan as well as business schools so that the success achieved in Israel can be replicated elsewhere.

Israel also has had some strong leaders from the get go. You are going to be hard pressed to top leaders like Winston Churchill and Gandhi but David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Shamir did a phenomenal job and are two individuals (besides FDR and Reagen) that are going to get as close as possible to Churchill and Gandhi.

I will digress and say that Egypt losing Hosni Mubarak is a huge lose. I think he did a great job and was better for Egypt's economic growth than Mohamed Morsi will be as their will be less political stability in the country.

Iran was successful for many reasons besides it's oil wealth. I have had Iranian /Persian friends and they would find that comment insulting. If someone on this board is Iranian /Persian, please feel free to correct me. Iranians don't consider themselves Arabic (they actually have a great deal of hostility towards Saudi's) and generally refer to themselves as Persians to signify they are also culturally different.

Iran's economy has historically been stronger than it's neighbors (Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia) going back more than a 100 years; and thus before oil revenue became a factor. So we can not say Iran's economic success was dependent on oil revenue. But that is also not to say that oil revenue has not helped or hurt their economy. The current sanctions Iran is facing are clearly hurting its economy, but Iran has still managed to hang in there.

If the same sanctions that Iran is experiencing were placed on a country like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, it would destroy those countries. Iranians place a greater value on education than many other Muslim countries. Even the Israelis will say the Iranians are smart and have gone on to say (I am paraphrasing), have well designed and engineered "stuff". This last comment is in reference to Iranian missiles and range and accuracy of these missiles. While this "stuff" is not at the same level as the "stuff" the Americans and Soviets designed, it is nothing to sneeze at.

I also feel the Universities in Iran are at another level when compared to most other universities in the Middle East. Although many of the universities in Turkey, Pakistan and Indonesia are on par or come close to the same level as the Iranian universities. And as I have said before, a well educated society with political stability leads to economic growth and success.

 

LOL if I learned everything about Sikhism from my Sikh friends then I'd think they're allowed to eat non jhatka meat and cut their hair and get intoxicated.

 

The story in the OP is very disturbing but it can't be blamed on Islam. Pakistan is a mess. I understand you may say that this has some "Islamic elements" to it in the fact that the guy is not happy that his sister is not covering properly or whatever but his reaction is obviously unislamic. She should be able to wear what she wants.

The Islamic equality is a bit misunderstood because it's a different type of equality from the usual "everyone is equal" viewpoint. Men and women are equal under God. As in, they will be judged equally on the Day of Judgement. Islam has prescribed the roles and responsibilities of men and women on Earth to be different and to complement each other. That's not to say women can't work or drive (which is a flawed perception). Muslims belive God has ordained men and women to abide by certain rules and they will be judged equally in the end.

 

Persians are also the least religious out of all the Muzzy nations. Most of them, locals and immigrants to the US and Europe, prioritize education and practicality over blind devotion to their religion. Same cannot be said for the Arab sphere.

Addressing your main point, you make getting an education in a stable economy sound as easy as getting a flu vaccination. All the nations who don't prioritize it struggle from crippling poverty and instability is a result of that.

Germany, Japan and Israel have always had the foundation and resources to implement a strong educational system, even when the former nations were sucked dry after WWII. You can turn everyone in Pakistan, Zimbabwe or Indonesia into a Jew prioritizing education and it still won't make a big difference because short term survival is a much bigger issue. Likewise, Islamic countries with money flowing in like Uzbekistan, UAE and Qatar all have world class educational facilities and kind of feign to be religious states bowing to the almighty dollar. Money talks, p***y walks baby.

That's why the issue of a democracy vs a dictatorship is far more important to implement a long term vision. Democracy is not for poor nations, they need non religious dictators to sacrifice the rights of a generation to create a future for the kids and so forth.

BTW, your writing is very succinct, simple and to the point for a harvard ugrad. Not superfluous, rambling and overly technical like others I know. Congrats.

 

I don’t believe in the Hadiths, so I’d appreciate if you could cite any passages in the Quran that says people of other faiths are infidels; that women, members of the LGBT community are to be discriminated against.

Another note, to this date, I can’t name a single society in history that has practiced Islam the way I interpret it in the Quran. Islam to me is a very individual religion: you pick up the Quran and use your own reasoning and senses to understand and evaluate it, nothing more. There is no intermediary between your faith and God.

Unfortunately, this historically hasn’t been the case, and we have ‘Islamic tradition and laws’ based on the understandings of patriarchal men who wanted power and influence on Earth, rather than people that sought Tawhid, knowledge, and God which I think is the true essence of a Muslim.

I realize this repudiation of current and past Islamic practices seems like a cop-out to some, but it is an extraordinary problem. How to claim that a majority of over one billion people do not independently read and understand the Quran itself? That instead many blindly follow the religion because they were born into it, listening to the advice of so-called scholars, or incredibly molding cultural beliefs with religion to create a hybrid which I don’t consider Islam.

Like you, I too have studied most of the major world religions extensively so I hope you won’t post just one translation. I’m aware that many of the popular ones run counter to what I’ve said. An example of how different the message can be between two translations, on the controversial topic of ‘jizya’ in 9:29:

[Shakir]
Fight those who do not
believe in Allah, nor in
the latter day, nor do
they prohibit what Allah
and His Messenger
have prohibited, nor
follow the religion of
truth, out of those who
have been given the
Book, until they pay the
tax in acknowledgment
of superiority, and that they
are in a state of subjection.

[Reformist]
Fight those who do not
acknowledge God nor
the Last day from
among the people who
received the book; they
do not forbid what God
and His messenger have
forbidden, and they do
not uphold the system
of truth; until they pay
the reparation, in humility.

End notes:
The context of the verse is about the War of Hunain, and fighting is allowed only for self-defense.

Furthermore, note that we suggest REPARATION instead of the Arabic word jizya. The meaning of jizya has been distorted as a tax on non-Muslims, which was invented long after Muhammad to further the imperialistic agenda of caliphs and kings. The origin of the word that we translated as 'Compensation' is JaZaYa, which simply means compensation or, in the context of war, it means war reparations, not tax. Since the enemies of Muslims attacked and aggressed, after the war they were required to compensate for the damages they inflicted on the peaceful community.

Various derivatives of this word are used in the Quran frequently, and they are translated as compensation for a particular deed.

 

I disagree that the Quran says either of those. I will admit that based on some translations, ignorance, deeply-rooted structural and institutional sexism and chauvinism, lack of civil and political protection, and other factors lead to verses in the Quran easily being used as tools to severely oppress women in places like Pak.

Clothing: here are the only verses in the Quran I can find on this topic. I've bolded the parts I focus on. While the lengthier verse on women initially seems sexist to some, I see it more as a supplement to the bolded part rather than extra rules. The important principle is modesty for both genders, and whatever applies to women as far who to show their 'attraction' also does for men.

*Some translators and commentators render
the word sawa as "sin" or "ugly parts" or "genitals."
Though the word is etymologically related to "sin" or
"shame," we prefer translating it as "body," which
appeared to us after our sinful and shameful failure of
the first test.

*Righteous men and women should not
dress provocatively. A woman should lower her dress
(33:59) and cover her chest. God uses flexible language,
to allow culture, time, climate, age, and social
dynamics and other variables play a role in the decision.
The underlying reason for this recommendation
is expressed as protection of women from potential
male harassment. There is nothing in the Quran that
instructs the government or the society to force
women, in the name of God, to cover themselves. A
punishment neither in this world nor in hereafter is
issued.

While the male clerics and the followers of
their misogynistic teachings are sunk up to their eyebrows
in the mud of shirk, the only unforgivable sin,
somehow they scrupulously split the hair of women.
Does sanctifying the dress code of Christian nuns
have anything to do with their psychological and
sexual problems? The verses recommending women
to cover themselves aim to protect them from the
harassment of unrighteous men. Ironically, women
are now harassed more by the 'self-righteous' men.

It is up to women, not men, how long they will lower
their dress, whether they will cover their breasts or
not. It is a different thing to remind a monotheist
woman nicely to wear modestly for her protection
and perhaps for social order. But, using this issue to
patronize and subjugate women is not what the Quran
expects from us. Even worse than this, is to impose
this recommendation onto those women who are not
Muslims, since that violates many more Quranic
principles.

 

@ATW

Regarding testimony of men vs. women (from Edip's translations)

*This testimony is limited to business transactions.
From this verse, we cannot deduce that
women are inferior to men regarding intellect, mem
ory, or trustworthiness.

Verse 49:13 unequivocally rejects sexism and racism,
and reminds us that neither man nor female, neither
this race nor that race is superior over the other. The
only measure of superiority is righteousness; being a
humble, moral and socially conscientious person who
strives to help others.

Men and women, in general, are different by nature,
and have different needs and roles. However, some
sex roles and inequalities are created by society and
exploited by men.

In order to let nature and justice
prevail over superficiality and injustice, it is imperative
to have the following:

1) Equal respect and appreciation of roles regardless of their gender
2) Equal chance for both males and females to choose their roles freely and responsibly.
3) Laws to promote and guarantee these two goals.

 

People who follow religion generally don't have intuitive intelligence, so they rely on a self help book with 20 different interpretations to tell them how to live their lives. All the translations posted by dmc89 are rambling and not to the point - it's only natural people will twist it to meet their agenda.

There is no winner in this argument. Dmc has a higher iq and balanced upbringing than most Muslims so he can use these rules of common sense productively. A guy living in a mud hut is not going to see things the same way, especially when the wrong teachings are indoctrinated into him from a young age before he has the confidence to question the rationality of it.

They say religion is the opium of the masses - and like all drugs - some are better equipped to handle it than others. We need to acknowledge this and keep religion out of poor areas and allow people to develop some intuitive intelligence, have some life experience, then seek spirituality as dmc has done. Otherwise, it stunts their growth and you'll see countless stories of stupid actions done in the name of religion.

 

All I am saying they should be.... but I guess it's part of their life....
well at least one can interpret it the liberal way

Where does it state that the protectors of female the men are allowed to kill them over a pair of jeans?