Thursday, May 27, 2010

The dread of evil is a much more forcible principle of human actions than the prospect of good.
John Locke

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

The decision of Lahore High Court to ban Facebook, because of a group created to draw pictures of the Prophet, reminds us that we are still far from being a civilized nation. We simply cannot tolerate anything that is not usual. We cannot even tolerate our own people asking perfectly logical questions about Islam and religions in general.

I am not really into drawing cartoons of the Prophet but I am not against it either; I am just indifferent. I simply don't care. I think being into it would be stupid and like signing my own death warrant, and being against it would be against free speech.
Everybody around me gets furious at the mentioning of "Free Speech." I won't blame them. All of our lives we are told to obey: in childhood we are not allowed to speak and question parents, in college we are not allowed talk about unfair policies and incompetent teachers + management, at work we are not to question all the bullshit people higher up in food chain throw at us, and when we grow old and have our kids we don't allow them to question anything. There's a reason that why free speech is still an alien phrase for us. People generally accept that free speech means abusing and misbehaving about something. While it's not true. Even a room full of graduates from reputed institutions (2 to 3 % of total population at best) turns into a room full of coarse and uncivilized social animals merely at the mentioning of this phrase. So, I take an opportunity here to illustrate the difference between free speech and hate speech (which we naturally think are the same).

Free speech: Religions, all over the world, have been the cause of more deaths than anything else. Men died while trying to eliminate the other religion or fighting for their own. All that for a set of unreasonable and unquestionable believes. I can't believe that people actually believe that.

Hate speech: Fuck religions.

Above example should succeeded at clarifying this. Free speech is a criticism that makes sense while hate speech is an irrational aspersion. Since we are not used to hear anything negative about generally followed rules, we are swift in mingling free speech with hate speech. How to tell if that's an "authentic" hate, you ask? Hate is generally judged from the intension of doer. A case in court takes a sharp turn just because of the intention of accused. Another example.

It's a cricket match between Pakistan and India. Shoaib Akhtar is bowling to Sachin Tendulkar. Shoaib thinks that it is perfect time to throw a bouncer. Sachin on the other hand is not wearing helmet, for example's sake. Shoaib throws a bouncer. Ball hit's Sachin's head and he dies at the spot. Now, Sachin is dead and he died because Shoaib threw a 100km per hour ball to his head. But the intention of Shoaib was not to kill Sachin but make play. Shoaib wouldn't even be charged with a murder.

All those people from Scandinavian countries, who at first, drew cartoon's of the Prophet didn't think it was offensive. They just drew like they would draw Bush. Boy, did we take that seriously. Now, if a kid from his parent's basement somewhere in Europe or America creates a group on Facebook, it affects 160+ million people. Know why? Because we have shown to the world that we are such a vulnerable people that even a kid can instigate violence in the whole billion and half of us. Why on Allah Subh'an-a-Ta'la's blue and green earth can't we just ignore that? Why do we have to act like kids in return? Are we that goddam easy to offend? Seriously?

Last. Remember those stories in Islamiat that we studies for 16 years? Those times when Kuffaar threw stones at the Prophet and some old woman would throw garbage regularly? Did the Prophet or any of the Prophet's follower killed those stone or garbage throwers? Now compare shoes full of blood and clothes ruined by filth to a picture on paper.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

I just bought a new LCD display for home. This blog looks rather tinycute now. Vanity much?

Thursday, May 6, 2010

I have a colleague whose brother (among many others) was refused to take final exam because of failing to attend classes 75% or more of the time. This was probably a rule they agreed to when getting admission in that prestigious institute. Anyway, all those students challenged college's decision in Lahore High Court.

Today, court decided in favor of students, who clearly had violated the rule. In fact, the honorable judge cornered college's lawyer and scolded him for presenting 'too powerful arguments against kids'.

I don't know why I did this (I hate myself) but I told my colleague how the decision was wrong. His argument was that nobody got hurt or the kids would have wasted one year of their lives. I argued in favor of rule of law: If you agree to something you abide or you get penalized. It was the best time to teach those kids a lesson, who would go out in public and private sector with huge responsibilities in future, about importance and impartiality of law. I am sure now they are more likely to 'adjust' things and to be corrupt in their future lives. Consequences reach that far.

I don't know why there has to be mercy in courts while everybody's life is a product of his own decisions. You and I can deal differently but a court of law holds far greater and public responsibility. Were all those students who struggled to attend classes more than 75% of the time were morons? I would be hugely discouraged if I were one of them. More than half a decade back, in class, I was presented the classical dilemma of a hungry person stealing bread. I said he should be punished according to law, or everybody would have the right to steal a bread whenever he/she feels hungry, and it would turn more hard working people into savages. Guess what? The very Islamic teacher gave me 3 out of 10 for that session. 3 for showing up.

Something deep in our culture is totally screwed.