Doctrine of Necessity: Is It Really Dead?

Doctrine of Necessity: Is It Really Dead?

by

Tipu Salman Makhdoom

Supreme Court of Pakistan

Who invented Doctrine of Necessity; Supreme Court or circumstances? What would be the true criteria of judging the imposition of next martial law; a 'Doctrine' of law, or the 'Necessity' of the circumstances? These are the questions which need pragmatic not dogmatic answers. Dogmatic are the answers coming out of fixed principles, regardless of reality while pragmatic are the answers coming out of reality, regardless of any hypothetical principles.

Cancerous Faiths

by Tipu Salman Makhdoom


According to fundamentalists, all faiths are cancerous; all but one. Which one, is the million dollar question. And answer to this question is not easy. At least it is not cheap. It has cost us tens of thousands of innocent lives in last few years. Count in many tens we paid in Karachi. The currency this time was the blood soaked bodies of the peaceful Ismailies, a sub-sect of Shias, considered heretics by Talibans and ISIS.

Politics of Religion: Ahmadis of Pakistan

Politics of Religion: Ahmadis of Pakistan

By Tipu Salman Makhdoom

(Another Chapter form my upcoming book)

1- INTRODUCTION

In middle ages, Portuguese law declared Muslims as protected but inferior subjects. They were decreed to live in separate quarters and to restrict their social interaction with Christians.[1] At the same time, in the neighbouring Spain, similar transition was taking place from a Muslim to a Christian society. “During the war with the Muslims of Granada, Isabella founded the first military hospital in Europe, consisting of six large tents equipped with bandages, medicine, and beds, which were carried from on besieged town to another.”[2] 

Passionate Legalities of Marriage

(This in fact is a Chapter of my upcoming book)
Also available at Academia

By Tipu Salman Makhdoom

Marriage as a Control of Biology:

Sex is good for health. Very good in fact. Not only for body, but also for brain, which incidentally is the largest sex organ in human body. Scientific studies in this regard have been voluptuous. One set of studies shows that men who reported highest frequency of orgasm enjoyed life expectancy 200 percent more than those who lagged behind. Another set indicates that men who had sex at least 3 times a week slashed their heart attack risk to half. Yet other studies demonstrate that frequency of sexual activity is directly proportional to the lower risk of breast cancer in women and that of prostate cancer in men.[1]

She Males

By Sadaf Salman Makhdoom

Who is a transgender.

I came across a TV show on transgenders. After watching that I realized something which I never thought of before. I was shocked to find out that we are all transgenders. They are physically prominent because of their appearance and we disclose ourselves through our thoughts. Why is transgender such an abusive and offensive term? Isn't it good to have the power of man and appearance of woman or be sensitive as a woman with appearance of a man ? Why not? Why not respect individuals who are much more better when it comes to traits? Our govt is providing them with employment. I think it is quite a step in the so called Islamic state.

Families disown their offsprings at some stage in a sense that girls get married and boys move on for their families and future. Does parent's role as ruling party ceases? Why does society force the parents of transgenders to quit on their child when it is bound to happen at a later stage...

I believe there is no gender...one should be free to choose whatever they want to be and no one should be allowed to intrude........ Murdering the personalities of people isn't humane!

Pakistani Yes--But Who Am I?

By Tipu Salman Makhdoom

A Pakhtoon famously said about himself, 'I am a Pakhtoon for 5,000 years, a Muslim for 1400 years, and a Pakistani for 60 years'.

Pakhtoon

Who is bad?

By Tipu Salman Makhdoom

Pakistan is locally called,  quite proudly,  سلطنت خداداد پاکستان-Pakistan the Empire of God.

In this empire of  God, drinking moderate level of alcohol in private is considered a sin of the highest degree, while looting of public exchequer is.......... rather enviable.

Why? Well. Actually I have no idea.

I tried to think about it. Comparing a person who privately takes alcohol of his own hard earned money with one who steals collective money of society which is supposed to be everyone's social security; ensuring free medical facility, free education, cheap electricity, etcetera etcetera. How can society banish the first and glorify the other? Banish a sinner who disobeys God but does not hurt society while glorifying the one who disobeys God and also hurts the society?

It's not that society has a taste for bribe and not for liquor. To be honest I find drinking common in every class of our society; it's just not admitted openly because of theocratic laws imposed by a dictator to serve a super power's proxy war ambitions a quarter of a century ago.

It does not justify drinking. Only that how can a society be that sensitive to a sin which is not hurting it while envying another sin which is hurting it badly?

Are we less of a society and more like a group of bandits? A group of characterless, weak and coward bandits who cannot admit of our true evil values, yet secretly admiring the robbers (corrupt politicians,  bureaucrats, etc) wishing we too can rob the weak and helpless in society sometime.

Am I such a lowly person too?

What about you?

Teachers? Kill'em

By Tipu Salman Makhdoom

KARACHI: Assailants on Wednesday shotdead an assistant professor of the University of Karachi (KU) in Federal B area.

........

Police in Jan 2015 had claimed the arrest of a suspect who had allegedly confessed to his involvement in the murders of Karachi University dean of Islamic Studies Prof Dr Shakeel Auj and Prof Syed Sibte Jafar.

Earlier this month, the vice-principal of the Jinnah Medical and Dental College's student affairs wing Debra Lobo was shot and seriously injured on Shaheed-e-Millat Road in Karachi.

Dawn, 29th April, 2015

Killing the teachers? Well it's not that bad idea after all. 

For one, they deserve it. They have lost the initiative to teach. They are no more interested in exposing the brewing humanity to the wonders of exploring, experimenting and understanding. They are not capable of showing the pupils wonders of critical thinking. And they are no more worthy of instilling the good values in new generation. So why keep them?  Just kill them.

True as it is, this horrible truth lies in the realms of metaphor rather than an actual pool of hot, fresh and liver-red little pool of human blood. Killing such terrible teachers imply exchanging them with good teachers. Teachers about which I heard a joke few decades ago; a joke that I am not sure if it was a joke or a lesson of life long wisdom.

A panicking man came to Stalin and said,  "we are ruined, Soviet doctors have gone corrupt". Stalin said in grace "we are a great nation, we will survive". Then came another person and said "Stalin we are ruined, our judges have gone corrupt". Stalin replied calmly "we are a great nation, we will survive". Then came a third person and said "Stalin we are ruined,  our teachers have gone corrupt". Stalin got horrified this time and said "we are ruined indeed".

Finding out that a large majority of our teachers are actually pathetic, calls for a reaction which should result in improving their lot and replacing the incurable (disease-like-teachers). Certainly not murdering them in cold blood.

Starting from Socrates, killing teachers has always been a bad move for humanity. 

Don't kill them. Teach them, improve them, even replace them. But don't kill them. 

That's not what they deserve. Even for teaching badly!

Hear Me, I Exist!

by Tipu Salman Makhdoom

I have an email account, a facebook account, a twitter account, and now a blog (all of these free though). I send a lot of emails, even more tweets, further more facebook status updates and sharings, and on top of all that, now I want to write blogs. Why?

Kids & gods

by Tipu Salman Makhdoom

We love our children; indeed for multiple reasons.

For one they are our heirs. They will take care of our belongings after we will be forced to leave them (both) in peace. Second they will remember us (occasionally) after our death (to no visible benefit to our dead bodies though).

Philosophically,  they carry our genes (only half of them) and follow our traditions (not any more). And so they represent us in this world after our death.

But most importantly, children are the Noah's ark in the flood of non-existence; they are the holy grails. Kids are the other world where we spend our afterlives.

Genes are the only part of our physical existence that we leave behind in this world. In the face of death, which is the decomposer of existence, we keep existing in our genes. And child is the only medium through which this is possible. It is the only possible carrier of our genes. Thus a child is the heavens where we live after death. Without a child, black hole of death will devour us into non-existence.

We love our kids because we love our lives and don't want them to end. And we don't want our lives to end because we love ourselves and don't want to lose ourselves, ever.

We are the gods!