- Some things can only happen in a society with low rational expectations
“There is a place, like no place on earth. A land full of wonder, mystery, and danger. Some say, to survive it, you need to be as mad as a hatter. Which, luckily, I am.”
Lewis Carroll
Why don’t we think before we condemn something? Or not.
There’s a thought provoking observation on the ‘net which says that if it is a sin for people to eat and drink in front of people who are fasting in Ramzan, it is equally a sin for people to wear nice new clothes in front of those who cannot afford them.
Whether it is a sin or not is up to God, but in Pakistan (and in some other Muslim countries) you can go to prison for a few months and be fined a hefty sum if caught eating or serving food in public in Ramzan.
But the bit about clothes is not illegal, which is strange, considering that the first is.
Why is that so?
There are several answers to that, the most obvious that the wives of the people who make these laws would have something to say about nice new clothes being illegal at any time. That probably occurred to the law makers right away, if they ever thought about the issue at all, which is doubtful.
Such things are moral, ethical matters and not crimes, and they should not be penalised. But if one must, it is easier to grab a person scarfing down a samosa in public in Ramzan, and not as easy to find out if a jora is new, and of course nice is a matter of opinion.
These kinds of foolish laws have a purpose. To quote Carroll once again: “No wise fish would go anywhere without a porpoise.” The ability to arrest and penalise gives those in authority a feeling of power which is always appreciated. Otherwise, in any kind of rational society, the best you can do is hope that people have the decency not to flaunt something attractive in front of those who cannot have it. In this argument, if the people who are fasting are set upon obtaining something to eat, they have the option of not fasting, or of breaking the fast, which is their problem, and is a matter between them and God. The sight of a samosa should not break down such commendable religious resolve, such as a sight of a woman should not break down a man’s decency. Just saying.
Yet another reason for such laws is that focusing on trivial matters pushes other, much more important, matters into the background. You need not focus, say, on getting innocent Pakistani citizens out of prison in a foreign country even though they have been there for fourteen years, and have been wrongfully accused to start with.
He was a man she knew, a fellow student, who had been pressuring her to meet him. The pressure included threats, hacking her social media accounts for a smear campaign, culminating in the attack with a knife
But the biggest reason is that one is not taught to reason, most particularly in matters of religion. Logic and rational thought are frowned upon under the brand of Islam popularised by mullahs, and labelled with all sorts of derogatory names. It is taught that religion is a matter of the heart alone, and everything else is western influence, which is considered to be the most derogatory label of all.
If reason were taught, then would the slogan ‘vote do jannat lo’ (give a vote, gain paradise) ever see the light of day? That is the electioneering slogan being used by one of the most dubious right wing, extremist, ‘religious’ parties in the country. It basically says that if you vote for this party you go to paradise. All others will go to hell. If the slogan had meant to encourage people to vote per se, it would have said ‘vote karo’. Not that that holds any promises for paradise either.
There is also the case of Khadija, who was stabbed twenty three times on a busy road in Lahore. She saw the attacker’s face. He was a man she knew, a fellow student, who had been pressuring her to meet him. The pressure included threats, hacking her social media accounts for a smear campaign, culminating in the attack with a knife.
The attacker was given a seven year imprisonment sentence only – hardly sufficient given the gravity of the crime. Later that sentence was reduced to five, and a few days ago the attacker was allowed to go free altogether. So here is another exercise in reason: whereas it is un-Islamic, and a crime to eat a samosa in public in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and you can go to prison for the offence, you are allowed to walk free after stabbing a woman. Is that right? Of course, that the young man has important connections might have overridden reason to a great extent.
Such things can only happen in a society with low rational expectations.
“We’re all mad here. I’m mad, you’re mad.” Lewis Carroll.
God bless his cotton socks.
