Pickled Politics






  • Family

    • Clairwil
    • Daily Rhino
    • Leon Green
    • Sajini W
    • Sid's blog
    • Sonia Afroz
    • Sunny on CIF
  • Comrades

    • Aqoul
    • Big Sticks, Small Carrots
    • Blairwatch
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Catalyst magazine
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Clive Davis
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Derek Wall
    • Dr StrangeLove
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry's Place
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • Liberal Review
    • Matt Murrell
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Humanist Editor
    • New Statesman blogs
    • open Democracy
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy's Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Tasneem Khalil
    • The Other India
    • Tim Worstall
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Desi Pundit
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Real man's fraternity
    • Route 79
    • Sakshi Juneja
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown





  • Site Meter

    Technorati: graph / links

    Muslims doing it behind closed doors


    by Sunny on 18th January, 2006 at 6:02 pm    

    Brian Whitaker wrote a hilarious piece in the Guardian yesterday on the Islam’s increasingly confused relationship with sex. As he notes, “Unlike Christianity, which tends to be squeamish about sex, Islam has a long tradition of talking about it openly.” What that means in practice, combined with the globalised nature of the internet, is that every next imam is issuing fatwas online with sometimes conflicting advice on sex. For example:

    Delivering a fatwa on oral sex, 79-year-old Dr Qaradawi describes it as a disgusting western practice, resulting from westerners’ habit of “stripping naked during sexual intercourse”. But he continues: “Muslim jurists are of the opinion that it is lawful for the husband to perform cunnilingus on his wife, or a wife to perform the similar act for her husband (fellatio) and there is no wrong in doing so. But if sucking leads to releasing semen, then it is makruh (blameworthy), but there is no decisive evidence (to forbid it) … especially if the wife agrees with it or achieves orgasm by practising it.”

    On this issue, Dr Qaradawi’s views are more permissive than those of several other clerics on the internet. One states that oral sex is definitely forbidden, adding that “this hideous practice will draw the anger of Allah”. Another, asked if oral sex is permitted, replies: “I don’t know what is oral sex, please define it.”

    All this is peanuts to Hindus of course, who wrote the definitive book on male-female sexual relations - i.e. the Kama Sutra. In fact Hindu mythology is so open about sex, as I’ve noted before, that the big poems of the Ramayana and Mahabharata openly use very sexual terms. Wish I had more time to research this properly, heh.

    Another point to note is that both Islam and Hinduism are very decentralised with regards to religious edicts, unlike Christianity and Sikhism, so you inevitably get a whole range of opinion on what is and isn’t acceptable. Personally I think that is better than just having one person legislate what is right or wrong.
    Thanks to Leon for the tip.



    Print this page and comments   |     |   Add to del.icio.us   |   Share on Facebook   |   Filed in: Religion, Humour, Moral police




    57 Comments below   |  

    1. Vikrant — on 18th January, 2006 at 6:23 pm  

      Surely Hinduism is open about sex… (KS,lingams etc)… but Hindus? No way.

    2. Don — on 18th January, 2006 at 8:00 pm  

      Great article, Sunny. I particularly liked;

      While administering the kiss of life, IslamOnline adds, rescuers should be careful to do it with “neither lust nor pleasure”.

      Scooping vomit out of the mouth will generally take care of that. Do these guys get there idea of CPR from Benny Hill?

    3. jamal — on 18th January, 2006 at 8:04 pm  

      ^^ Yes that is correct. Hindus may have the karma sutra, but on the whole appear to be far from being open about sex.

      All main religions and their members appear to be quite closed regarding sex and are far from shouting it from the rooftops.

      In terms of scholars, many can be misleading, misinterpreting and incorrect, and therefore allow islam to be made a mockery of.

      Whether this perpetuates it or not, I once read that between a married couple oral sex is considered permissible as long as ejaculation in the mouth does not occur.

      Anal and period sex has always been considered forbbidden and may be refferred to in the Quran, I cant be bothered to search for it right now, but i will.

      Not seeing each other naked is just plain silly!

    4. Al_Mujahid_for_debauchery — on 18th January, 2006 at 8:09 pm  

      I thought in the Shia Jurisprudence, anal sex was permissable.

    5. Anonymous — on 18th January, 2006 at 8:21 pm  

      Debauchery,

      I did some extensive research into that topic a while ago, and it is indeed haram in Shia Islam.

    6. Anonymous — on 18th January, 2006 at 8:25 pm  

      Correction,

      Its haram if the act is between two males, but halal if its between a male and a consenting female and only if they are married.

    7. NorahJones — on 18th January, 2006 at 9:06 pm  

      Wait.. anal sex is permissable..?

      Since when?!

      (serious question)

    8. coruja — on 18th January, 2006 at 9:12 pm  

      Funny that, Hinduism has sex running through its most sacred texts but the people themselves are considered to be rather conservative in that respect - one of those boxes that needs to be ticked each time sex & India is mentioned, yes and of bollywood & wet sari - even when the journalist is ostensibly is from India [ http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,12559,1675042,00.html ]

      Funny, it was the British troop that ran around destryoing Hindu temples that had deities in various sexual poses. So shocking were they that it was the officers that had to do the dirty work as it was thought the ordinary soldier shouldn’t see such stuff!

      So one wonders if Hindu Indians were always so uptight? Or are they adjusting their ‘morals’ to a more Christian idea of sex (after all like the Indian British accent, it might be an ossified left-over from the Empire) just as they seem to be adjusting their religion to gain more acceptance.

      Can someone please tell me (possibly in another thread) why a polytheistic religion is inferior to a monotheistic one?

    9. Al_Mujahid_for_debauchery — on 18th January, 2006 at 9:14 pm  

      “Its haram if the act is between two males, but halal if its between a male and a consenting female and only if they are married”.

      Of course, this is what I was referring to. I was not insinuating that anal sex between men is halaal in Shia Jurisprudence.
      I guess I should have put the requisite provisos in my statement so as not to give the readers a wrong impression.
      The Shias (or to be more precise, the Shia intelligentsia) seem to be more willing to play with the orthodox rendition of Islamic jurisprudence on these issues than the Sunnis are and this is a good sign as far as Shia Islam goes.

    10. NorahJones — on 18th January, 2006 at 9:47 pm  

      To spit or swallow..?

      Well, that’s sorted it then.

    11. Jay Singh — on 18th January, 2006 at 9:48 pm  

      One Sikh manuscript (not the Holy Book, a tertiary text) called the Dasam Granth features proverbs about sexuality which are quite startling in their open and frank descriptions.

      In the modern world there is big controversy amongst Sikh scholars, with many people disputing its veracity and place in the Sikh literature. It is due to excessive puritanism, an inability to accept that sexuality can be depicted and dealt with so straightforwardly in a religious textual context. It hasnt been denied, just marginalised, ignored, not referred to, as much out of embarassment by conservatives as anything else.

    12. Jay Singh — on 18th January, 2006 at 9:53 pm  

      The Scholars of ahlul Sunnah wa jumah hold the opinion that anal sex, with married man women, or with slave, or with men is haram. No touching the anus.

      A slave??

    13. Don — on 18th January, 2006 at 9:54 pm  

      coruja,

      ‘ Can someone please tell me (possibly in another thread) why a polytheistic religion is inferior to a monotheistic one? ‘

      It isn’t. It is only held to be so by monotheists, who are the dominant theist persuasion at the moment.

      Polytheism, while just as irrational, is, in many was, groovier.

    14. Don — on 18th January, 2006 at 9:55 pm  

      damn. ways.

    15. Jay Singh — on 18th January, 2006 at 9:56 pm  

      coruja

      Polytheism is great if that’s what you believe in - dont get a complex because of montheistic bigots who worry about whether it is alright to touch their slave’s anus or not and other such things :-)

    16. Don — on 18th January, 2006 at 10:27 pm  

      Jay,

      Masterly.

      I know Sunny doesn’t like people dropping haddiths into their posts, for obvious reasons, but I really think Bikhair should provide a link for the slave’s anus theory.

    17. Jay Singh — on 18th January, 2006 at 10:39 pm  

      Don

      At least the slave knows his/her ass is safe. That’s one less thing to worry about.

      “I may be a slave but at least my anus is safe from damage. Hallelujah! I’m free!

    18. Anonymous — on 18th January, 2006 at 10:41 pm  

      Norah

      “Wait.. anal sex is permissable..?”

      Not wanting to sound like an expert, and thinking that there are more pressing matters like the liberation of Palestine, but I have always been interested in anal sex even before I reverted to Islam. Bikhair is correct that most scholars consider anal sex verbotem but let me assure you that this practice is alive and well in the Middle East. I spent a fortnight in Egypt a few years ago and I was shocked at the widespread acceptance of anal sex. Egyptian female Muslims cherish their virginities, but will allow their boyfriends or fiances to penetrate their anus. Its very weird.

    19. Sunny — on 18th January, 2006 at 10:43 pm  

      Bikhair - your ignorant comment cussing Shiites has been deleted. If you continue with that stupidity I will ban you.

      As for the Hinduism - I don’t believe a religion is seperate from its followers. Hindus were quite open about sex a while back (going back centuries now) if not more recently. Who knows, the mughals, or the British could be to blame.

    20. Jay Singh — on 18th January, 2006 at 10:45 pm  

      Not wanting to sound like an expert, and thinking that there are more pressing matters like the liberation of Palestine, but I have always been interested in anal sex even before I reverted to Islam.

      Yusuf Smith, I have to say that you provide me with so much laughter and joy and entertainment. I am rolling about on the floor with laughter at this line, which I believe will become immortal in the comedy pantheon:

      but I have always been interested in anal sex even before I reverted to Islam

      I have tears of laughter rolling down my cheeks as I cut and paste it - thank you so much for the comedy, God Bless You Mr Smith ;-) :-) ;-)

    21. Don — on 18th January, 2006 at 10:51 pm  

      This reminds me of the Eddie Izzard bit where god is giving his creations their mating habits, something like;
      Ah, Man. Well, doggy fashion, giraffe fashion, swinging from the roof. Anything you like really, as long as we get the guilt in there. And now salmon, got a suprise for you guys…’

    22. Siddhartha — on 18th January, 2006 at 10:59 pm  

      Then there is the hypocrisy of and the difference in values between Hindu arts (both sacred and profane) and social values when it comes to relations between the opposite sexes. The overt but jaw-droppingly beautiful sexuality depicted in ancient Indian arts but the conservative attitudes in Indian society has been noted above.

      Hindi movies have always been about boys and girls shagging, symbolically, of course. Indian parents are the pretty conservative when it comes to letting their daughters out with boys. Yet they are all in the living room watching Shah Rukh giving Minakshi a good hard shag whilst inadvertently falling into a stream and getting a song and dance number in there for good measure.

    23. Siddhartha — on 18th January, 2006 at 11:04 pm  

      Yeah, happines was discovering the joy of Uranus. ;-)

    24. NorahJones — on 18th January, 2006 at 11:16 pm  

      I don’t get it… I don’t believe it…

    25. Col. Mustafa — on 18th January, 2006 at 11:34 pm  

      What is it with them and trying to destroy every aspect of nature.

      Sex is supposed to be enjoyable so we bloody do it.
      Silly fools trying to dictate sexual activities, just go and have sex and shutup.

      Oooh no, you can’t do this; oral sex must not be done but if for some strange reason you do, don’t do it to actually pleasure your partner.
      If your partner is feeling any sort of pleasure then kill them for they are sinning.

      Its the asking that pisses me off, you actually get retards asking thier local imams on what to do and what not to do.
      WTF is wrong with you???

      Imam sahib after i had sex in the usual position i noticed my wife wasn’t enjoying it as much as she used to, what should i do????

      Kill her.

      Are you sure?

      Yes, you can find another wife which will enjoy it.

      I was thinking maybe go down on her.

      No, you think wrong. Just kill her.

      Ok, thank you for wise advice.

      No problem, remember im always here, for those difficult questions.

    26. leon — on 18th January, 2006 at 11:58 pm  

      Yeah this one made me laugh and I thought the Pickled Politics posse would deffo be interested in it!

    27. Don — on 19th January, 2006 at 12:18 am  

      I love the idea that when god had finished the creation thing (and you monotheists are agreed on the creation thing, right?) he took time out to write all these rules.

      ‘OK, we’ve got light, separated the land from the waters, teeming eco-system, vastly complex universe, what have I forgotten? Oh,yeah. Shagging rules.’

    28. Percy — on 19th January, 2006 at 12:21 am  

      Col Mustafa,

      “What is it with them and trying to destroy every aspect of nature. Sex is supposed to be enjoyable so we bloody do it. Silly fools trying to dictate sexual activities, just go and have sex and shutup.”

      Totally agree,

      All this nonsence reminds me of BUSHaitan and Co. preaching their abstinence-only sex-ed programs, I believe our young people must learn that human sexuality is a beautiful thing and experimentation is healthy and completely natural. Do we demand that monkeys remain monogamous? Do we ask dogs humping in the front yard to hold off until marriage? Of course not. So why do we ask it of our own kids?

      Because Christian Fundamentalists have spent the past two thousand years turning casual sex with complete strangers into something dirty, that’s why.

      Archealogical evidence suggests that cro-magnon man, although primitive, had a highly progressive concept of human sexuality. A typical cro-magnon male would copulate with 100 to 200 partners in his lifetime, and had no weird psychological hang-ups concerning buggery.(Mr Yusuf Smith might be interested in that tidbid) It’s a shame that Christians have regressed our culture to a state that predates even prehistoric man.

      Indeed, with all their right-wing mumbo jumbo about abstinence and monogamy, it’s a wonder that conservatives haven’t forced more abortionists out of work. Hopefully, with the help of NARAL(pro-choice group in America) and other organizations like it, we’ll see to it that they never do.

    29. Col. Mustafa — on 19th January, 2006 at 12:22 am  

      Can’t have em going around shagging willy nilly.
      Lets lay this out properly; i think we need to do the moves ourselves.

      Exactlyyy, if we don’t try them out how can we expect them to do it.

    30. Bikhair — on 19th January, 2006 at 4:42 am  

      Sunny,

      Couldnt you have just edited my comments? Geesh, always crying like a little girl.

    31. Jay Singh — on 19th January, 2006 at 9:42 am  

      OK, we’ve got light, separated the land from the waters, teeming eco-system, vastly complex universe, what have I forgotten? Oh,yeah. Shagging rules.’

      Don, can you imagine him making a list?

      “Right. It’s OK to have slaves, but you’re not allowed to touch their anus”

    32. Vikrant — on 19th January, 2006 at 9:49 am  

      Coruja meboy! Hinduism isnt a polytheist it range from monism to monistic dulaism to what-ever-ism atleast thats what they call it on Wiki. Good fer me, i’m a Nastika.

    33. Vikrant — on 19th January, 2006 at 9:52 am  

      “Right. It’s OK to have slaves, but you’re not allowed to touch their anus”

      Dunno… Europeans stuffed the anunses of their slaves on voyages to hide any signs of gastronomical diseases. May be the mullahs will thump it as an example of slave rights in medieval Islam.

    34. Yusuf Smith — on 19th January, 2006 at 11:23 am  

      I’d just like to point out that posts 5, 6 and 18 were not posted by me.

    35. raz — on 19th January, 2006 at 12:00 pm  

      “I’d just like to point out that posts 5, 6 and 18 were not posted by me”

      Yusuf, have a look at the Faces of Asia thread. I think you may have been impostered there as well.

    36. Rohin — on 19th January, 2006 at 2:05 pm  

      Perhaps coruja meant that the British THOUGHT Hinduism was polytheistic and hence inferior.

      I’m sure (s)he knew Hinduism wasn’t polytheistic, right?

    37. Jai — on 19th January, 2006 at 2:27 pm  

      Don,

      =>”I love the idea that when god had finished the creation thing (and you monotheists are agreed on the creation thing, right?)”

      Apologies for being pedantic, but Sikhism isn’t polytheistic either. Not all monotheistic faiths are Abrahamic in origin or follow the same principles, especially the more “exclusivist” tendencies.

      Sikhism does state that there is only one God, but that it’s the same entity/spirit/deity regardless of whether you call him Jehovah, Allah, Rama or whatever.

      Anyway, now that I’ve cleared that up, normal service will resume for your debate on horizontal jogging.

    38. coruja — on 19th January, 2006 at 2:41 pm  

      Rohin,
      I don’t know. Hinduism is very old and fairly organic and possibly evolved from animism & such, and as with other religions it is really a continuation/evolution of religious belief but unlike others it doesn’t have a ‘founder’.

      I really can’t say whether it is mono or poly, although the current/modern version was really ‘invented’ in the C19th and possibly simplified to be more acceptable at the World Parliament of Religions? The Hindu Triumvirate is a strange echo of Christianity.
      (here’s something just for you http://www.axess.se/english/archive/2004/nr2/currentissue/theme_inventionhindu.php )

      Regardless, it is not any less valid for being mono or poly, I am just aware it is truly despised by the ‘Abrahamic’ religions. At least they seem to agree on some things.

      But back to the real point, why is it that men (and it is always men) who don’t actually have sex (i.e. priests of most religions) are allowed to make up the rules about our sexual activity?!!

    39. Sunny — on 19th January, 2006 at 3:05 pm  

      I don’t think people from the Abrahamic religions understand Hinduism well enough to despise it. Their ignorance is even more breathtaking than about each other’s religions.

    40. Jai — on 19th January, 2006 at 3:18 pm  

      Coruja,

      =>”But back to the real point, why is it that men (and it is always men) who don’t actually have sex (i.e. priests of most religions) are allowed to make up the rules about our sexual activity?!!”

      Good point, although not applicable in the case of Islam. Their religious leaders are not required to be celibate, although of course any sexual activity should be within the confines of marriage.

      (Same incidentally applies to Sikhism, although that’s an off-topic matter).

    41. Vikrant — on 19th January, 2006 at 6:01 pm  

      Coruja perhaps you are not aware of this, but that article is written by Pankaj Mishra. An Indian commie whose pathological hatred of Hinduism and Indian nationalism is well documented. Dont read his $#!t.

    42. Vikrant — on 19th January, 2006 at 6:03 pm  

      Actually that pathetic excuse for an article was written by Mishra to provide alternate theory for rise of “communalism”. According to commies Muslim rulers were angels. But then why are many Hindus suspicious of Islam? Ofcourse it was all invented in 18th century… no brainer, really.

    43. Sunny — on 19th January, 2006 at 6:26 pm  

      Given your views on anyone left of Donald Rumsfeld Vikrant, I’m not suprised you say that.

      The only bit I didn’t like in the article was the glossing over of Mughal rule rather than examining it properly. Under certain rulers like Akbar, Hindus did well, specially the Brahmins, under others such as Aurungzeb - no. But I’m not a specialist on the subject. Nevertheless, interesting article. Why are so many Hindus suspicious of Islam? I’d think that was well documented in the article. Try reading it first Vikrant.

    44. Vikrant — on 19th January, 2006 at 6:36 pm  

      Not reading the blasphempous crap from Mishra.

    45. Vikrant — on 19th January, 2006 at 6:53 pm  

      Under certain rulers like Akbar, Hindus did well

      Well there was only one Akbar. Hell i’m not for rebuilding the destroyed temples and things like that. But the dangers leftist historical revisonism in India cant be denied any more. Mishra and his ilk advocate a surrender for India in true “when-being-raped-enjoy-it-lying-down” style. He for instance started a dis-information campaign which culminated in sacking of Jagmohan, the man who saved Kashmiri Pandits from total annihilation. Maybe Sunny the need for you to brandish your “progressive” credentials makes you blind to the history denial in India.

      Face it, we cant make peace with country whose parliament tolerates diaparing remarks against Hindus.

    46. Vikrant — on 19th January, 2006 at 6:54 pm  

      Why are so many Hindus suspicious of Islam? I’d think that was well documented in the article.

      No it isnt. That lame article is just nother “alternative theory” on why Hindus fell out with the “lil saints”.

    47. Jay Singh — on 19th January, 2006 at 7:54 pm  

      Wow!

      Quite a display of saffron hysteria from Vikrant there.

      Why is it not possible to engage with Pankaj Mishra’s writing intellectually, without invoking metaphor’s of rape or treason? If you disagree with him lay down counter-facts.

    48. Vikrant — on 19th January, 2006 at 8:08 pm  

      Before you jump to colclusions, i’m not a practising Hindu nor a Hindutva-vadi. As for Mishra, hes just a well known twat. I dont have enough time to write a 5000 word essay on how big a tawt he is. but i think this post from sandeep would suffice. http://www.sandeepweb.com/2005/12/19/pankaj-mishra-or-why-the-world-is-wary-of-intellectuals/

    49. Jay Singh — on 19th January, 2006 at 9:04 pm  

      Vikrant

      I accept you are not a Hindutvadi extremist in good faith if you say so - you are a decent guy, I like you.

      But I dont think Pankaj Mishra is a twat. You might disagree with what he says, but you should not get all frothed up and rabid like this - you should counter his arguments with examples.

    50. El Cid — on 19th January, 2006 at 9:57 pm  

      A fascinating thread.
      I’ll just stick to the sidelines and read, except to say in response to post #18 that there was something similar going on in Francoist Spain. Weird indeed, but that’s what repression can do to a girl.
      P.S. Were it not for the booze, burkha, and stoning of adulterous women, I would certainly accept, on this evidence, that Christianity was more frigid.
      P.P.S. I’m also a little curious about the symbolism of saffron. Am I right in thinking that Iran, Spain, and Kashmir (could be the Indian bit, could be Pakistani bit , could be both, don’t get me involved) are the world’s biggest producers of saffron?

    51. Jay Singh — on 19th January, 2006 at 10:23 pm  

      El Cid

      Orange-Saffron is the colour of the Hindu religion and it has been co-opted by Hindu Nationalists - so it just denotes a mindset or assertion tinged with the ideology of Hindu Nationalist expression or feeling.

    52. Sunny — on 19th January, 2006 at 10:54 pm  

      Vikrant on the one hand you keep playing the “I’m not Hindu card” on the other hand you’re so defensive you make me laugh. Please drop the pretense. You may not be a RSS card carrying chamcha but that doesn’t mean everyone on the Indian right wing is a Hindutva member. There was this chick who used to write for Rediff a while back, like an Indian version of Richard Littlejohn and Melanie Phillips. More hot air than common sense who used words like “Pinko” and “commies” so much it used to enrage me. Now I just laugh at such people because they remind me of the intellectually bankrupt neo-cons.

      The BJP project has stalled and gone off the rails. Just because some right wingers in India incl Sandeep web have slated Pankaj Mishra doesn’t mean I’ll swallow their rubbish whole heartedly.

    53. Vikrant — on 20th January, 2006 at 5:16 am  

      I’ve already explained i see myself as a Hindu in ultural sense, but again i dont believe in the Brahminist crap propogated by RSS and its ilk. Yes its possible to be an atheist and Hindu and Right-wing. Pankaj Mishra is over the line mind you. Maybe since hes your ideological cousin, you feel compelled to take his side. Hatred of Hindutva is okay but commies use it as a disguise for blatant Hindu hatred. Maybe i should give you a brief account of his anti-Hindu rantings. Not now though, i’ll save it fer later.

    54. Vikrant — on 20th January, 2006 at 9:42 am  

      And the problem with you Sunny is that you are ready to swallow Mishra’s rubbish without giving any thought to it.

    55. Rohin — on 20th January, 2006 at 4:56 pm  

      You know, I’m actually with Vikrant on this. Well some parts anyway. Pankaj Mishra does talk crap. He has written about science on several occasions (at least, what I’ve read) and he is very sloppy.

      If you think you have to be careful when reading British news not to believe too much bias, India is way worse. It’s so hard to get objective news, everyone has an agenda.

    56. coruja — on 22nd January, 2006 at 3:46 am  

      Vikrant,

      I am quite unaware of those aspects of Mishra’s politics. My knowledge of his work only extends to the ‘The Romantics’, a semi-biography of the Buddha ‘The End of Suffering’ and numerous articles he has written for the NYT Book Review, LRB & etc.

      Most of these are reviews of fiction/non-fiction with some relation to the Indian subcontinent. He has also written quite well about Kashmir and Afghanistan.

      A lot of his writing seems to deal with how countries/people cope with modernity. I haven’t found any anti-Hindu (or in fact anti-religious) leanings in any of it. In dealing with modernity you have to deal with religious belief and there is a strong element of religion in a lot of his work - Hindu and Islam.

      Rohin,
      I haven’t come across of any of his articles on science, apart from a strange one about biotech & Hinduism. I would be very interested to read others; if they are on the net I would really appreciate it if you would post a few URLs.

    57. Evan — on 22nd January, 2006 at 10:02 pm  

      Comment Re: Humor: Jan.22, 2006

      I enjoyed the discussion about oral/anal sex in Islam/Hinduism.

      Sex is good, and should be open for everyone. I don’t think it needs approval from any religion, or any clergy.

      When you’re hot and passionate for someone, do you stop, and get a verdict from your Priest, Rabbi, Cleric, your bible, torah, koran, or other scripture before you proceed? I don’t. I would also hope a woman I felt passionate about would not feel the need to either.

      The great thing about sex is the freedom to be creative with it. Humans have an inexhaustible range of creativity with respect to sexual expression, and are capable of really enjoying the free expression of it.

      It occurs to me that religious leaders issue moral edicts advising others what is, and is not, permissible because they, themselves, do not have the opportunity to express themselves sexually on a regular basis. In a word, they are deprived and “horny”, and they want everyone else to be also. Simple jealousy, that’s all there is to it!

      Think about it. When was the last time you saw a “sexy” priest or cleric? Seen any young, virile sexy rabbis lately?

      Osama Ben Laden (spelling?) wears a beard, not because he is devoutly religious, but because the poor man is UGLY underneath it! Rumor has it that, with all his money, he can only get prostitutes! No one else will have him! And because he is so unattractive, he has to pay a higher price for them too! No wonder the man’s so angry, and wants to kill people!

      Ben Laden’s parents must be humiliated. Their parenting really went wrong somewhere. That boy’s NOT RIGHT!

      I digress. The point is everyone should feel free to discuss big, hard, erect cocks, and silky, wet, warm, cunts, nipples, tits, asses, and any other body part, or sexual reference they choose to talk about with another interested party.

      Love and sex are the few genuine pleasures we have in this life, we should celebrate it whenever possible. (…and do it whenever possible…)

      That’s what I say…

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2007. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.