On July 8, Chief Justice Islamabad High Court (IHC) Justice Muhammad Bilal Khan here directed the ministry of Foreign Affairs to submit its comments regarding developments in the case of Dr Afia Siddiqui for bringing her back to the country. The court sought the response of the foreign ministry after a review petition was filed by the mother of Aafia and Iftikhar Hussain Rajpoot jointly for bringing her back to the country from a detention centre in the US.
Citing former President Gen Musharraf and former PM Shaukat Aziz as respondents the petitioners have alleged before the court that since 1998 after the handing over of Aimal Kansi to the USA, Pakistan has given away more than 9000 citizens in the American custody.
The petitioners have also made the Secretary Interior Syed Kamal Shah as one of the respondents while submitting that he was indirectly involved in the abduction of Dr Aafia, in his capacity as Inspector General Police of Sindh province.
They requested the court to direct the government to take steps for bringing Dr Aafia back to the country, and in case the matter is not resolved, it must be taken to the International Court of Justice under the 1959 treaty that is signed by both the countries.
Published by alaiwah
ALAIWAH'S PHILOSOPHY
About 12 years ago, while studying Arabic in Cairo, I became friends with some Egyptian students. As we got to know each other better we also became concerned about each other’s way of life. They wanted to save my soul from eternally burning in hell by converting me to Islam. I wanted to save them from wasting their real life for an illusory afterlife by converting them to the secular worldview I grew up with.
In one of our discussions they asked me if I was sure that there is no proof for God’s existence.
The question took me by surprise. Where I had been intellectually socialized it was taken for granted that there was none.
I tried to remember Kant’s critique of the ontological proof for God. “Fine,” Muhammad said, “but what about this table, does its existence depend on a cause?” “Of course,” I answered. “And its cause depends on a further cause?” Muhammad was referring to the metaphysical proof for God’s existence, first formulated by the Muslim philosopher
Avicenna.
Avicenna argues, things that depend on a cause for their existence must have something that exists through itself as their first cause. And this necessary existent is God. I had a counter-argument to that to which they in turn had a rejoinder. The discussion ended inconclusively.
I did not convert to Islam, nor did my Egyptian friends become atheists. But I learned an important lesson from our discussions: that I hadn’t properly thought through some of the most basic convictions underlying my way of life and worldview — from God’s existence to the human good.
The challenge of my Egyptian friends forced me to think hard about these issues and defend views that had never been questioned in the milieu where I came from.
These discussions gave me first-hand insight into how deeply divided we are on fundamental moral, religious and philosophical questions. While many find these disagreements disheartening, I will argue that they can be a good thing — if we manage to make them fruitful for a culture debate.
Can we be sure that our beliefs about the world match how the world actually is and that our subjective preferences match what is objectively in our best interest? If the truth is important to us these are pressing questions.
We might value the truth for different reasons: because we want to live a life that is good and doesn’t just appear so; because we take knowing the truth to be an important component of the good life; because we consider living by the truth a moral obligation independent of any consequences; or because we want to come closer to God who is the Truth. Of course we wouldn’t hold our beliefs and values if we weren’t convinced that they are true. But that’s no evidence that they are.
Weren’t my Egyptian friends just as convinced of their views as I was of mine? More generally: don’t we find a bewildering diversity of beliefs and values, all held with great conviction, across different times and cultures? If considerations such as these lead you to concede that your present convictions could be false, then you are a fallibilist.
And if you are a fallibilist you can see why valuing the truth and valuing a culture of debate are related: because you will want to critically examine your beliefs and values, for which a culture of debate offers an excellent setting.
View more posts
NEVER MIND 