Andrea Leistra wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2001, Christopher Gwyn wrote:
>> which bridge would that be, and could i get you to paint it first? i
>> do think it is possible that the Taliban decision-maker who ordered
>> this could really believe that the ruling is for the benefit of the
>> Hindus and Sikhs - although that does not provide any guarantee that
>> it actually is to their benefit....
> Explain, then, if you will, why the new policy also requires Hindu
> women to go veiled, something directly contrary to the "protecting
> minorities from strict Islamic law" interpretation.
that one is easy - they're hypocrites! (or - without what they would
see as slander, "can't have those temptresses tempting good muslim
men to sin with non-muslim women. besides, going 'un-veiled' makes
those non-muslim women appearing 'immodest' - it might give them a
bad reputation, so it really is for their own protection!")
> The Taliban *say*,
> according to the NYT, that it's a protection-of-minorities issue,
> but anyone who believes that needs their head examined.
either that or they are deeply lost in their ideology/theology.
someone - even someone who otherwise seems to be compassionate and
thoughtful - can so fervently believe an absolutely nonsensical idea
that he or she is able to sincerely say some absolutely ridiculous,
or even innately abhorrent, things without being either hypocritical
or 'dishonest'. however their being utterly convinced of the validity
of their statements has nothing to do with the justness,
reasonableness or validity of it. but ignoring the possibility that
they really do believe what they're saying can make it hard for them
to listen to any suggestions.
cheers,
christopher
--
Christopher Gwyn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
