An Ode to Euthanasia

Re: # 57, Feroz:
I totally agree with you but the vested interest obfuscators in all religions, particularly Islam would, forever, claim that there is no difference. This so, because their vested self-interest is their God, no matter how they camouflage it.
Where is Ballukhan?!!!!

The term secular, means at least to me, the seperation of religion from politics but not the absence of religion altogether, as it is often understood.

In the Muslim political context, secularism is wrongly identified as atheism.

re: Inquirer

Your analysis pegs the issues in the Muslim world very well.

Ciao

I just scanned the first five comments. I congratulate the respondents.

F. R Khan, I just returned from India. Naturally, your article caught my attention. I feel sad. ``Kaun sunega nakkaar khaane mein tootii kii aawaaz?`` But keep on trying you provide us the belief that sense is not all lost in the Muslim World. Hopefully, it is not unfounded.
Thanks for writing a very readable article. I have not read any of the responses and there are, of course many. But the thrust of the essay is, I believe, in the following paragraph.

``The only solution to the problems being confronted by Islam lies in the adoption of secular, liberal (constitutional) politics by the Muslims. The fault in this scenario rests, with the clergy and its wrong interpretations of Islam for their own political gains. Constitutionalism and the politics based upon it, would solve the vast majority of the problems in the Islamic world and it would not only prevent Islam’s spoilage at the hands of politics, but will also greatly help in the preservation of Islam as one of the world’s great religion. This option, should it be utilized, would immensely benefit the Islamic world in creating an international image of itself on the very basis of what Islam proclaims and proudly stands for: peace, respect, tolerance, justice, progress, and enlightenment. Muslim constitutional politics would not only protect these ideals, but will also ensure their most equitable implementation unlike the arbitrary whims associated, with a theocratic politics. ``

Unfortunately, the realization that you want to emerge is blocked by two very fundamental problems. They are:
1. The essential intolerance of Islam inheres in Mohammad`s thirty seven wars AND the subsequent importance given to his militaristic methods by the early royal converts to Islam.
2. The entire governance structure in Muslim World - and I mean all governments with a possible exception of Turkey and ``good parts of Musharrafism`` - has a critical self-interest to preserve the unholy alliance to which you repeatedly refer to.

I agree with you when you say that currently, sectarianism = Islam. And you are right that this sectarianism has led to devaluation of higher values in Islam itself. Does it mean that those elements have disappeared? Of course not. But they have been almost annulled unless they are revived.

How can this revival occur? As I see there are only two ways. Either the entire ruling edifice of the Muslim World has to collapse - as is threatened by the US right now, or the moderate, intellectual and essentially religious among the Islamic adherents have to fight a Mahabharat with their own Masjid and vanquish them. This shall require a Kamal Ata Turk in each of the Muslim Countries.

Neither one is something that can be envisaged by the peace loving people with comfort but as it is said in the Gita that there comes a time when you have to fight a outrance for what you believe is right.

#53 you got it..hindus have found spiritual salvation even from stones, so why not from a book? its possible...its as simple as ``opening your mind to the possibility`` ;-)

What `simple and clear principles` would lead different people to reach such violently and irreconcilably different conclusions about key aspects of human life? Are we sure there do exist any scientific principles for tafsir, which are different from the long-established steps for reading tea leaves....

Some fellow called Ahmad von Denffor puts up quite a formidable wall in the way of any such exegesis:

To be able to `get the tafsir,`` a man or woman must

* Be sound in belief.

* Well-grounded in the knowledge of Arabic and its rules as a language.

* Well-grounded in other sciences that are connected with the study of the Qur`ân.

* Have the ability for precise comprehension.

* Abstain from the use of mere opinion.

* Begin the tafsîr of the Qur`ân with the Qur`ân.

* Seek guidance from the words and explanations of the Prophet.

* Refer to the reports from the sahâba.

* Consider the reports from the tâbicûn.

* Consult the opinions of other eminent scholars.

Palmistry, numerlology, and pigeon-fighting, not to mention, reading tea leaves, all seem far more honest endeavors. Doesn`t anybody else feel so?

Naqshbandi,

It should be pointed out that, politically, the Calipha system failed, in spite of the nobility of the first four. I understand you used the word ``model``, but would you agree to use the term ``prototype``, or even ``rough framework``, or something to that effect?

It should also be noted that the Calipha system revolves around a single person, and their role with respect to society at large, and what`s more this role is described in very informal terms.

It should be easy enough to graft this one role onto a whole class of political systems that follow certain constraints. In effect, though, the role would probably be ceremonial.

As for the Caliph belonging to Quraysh...is there really a way to determine who is a descendent of this tribe? Half of Pakistan qualifies, them being Syeds and all...

Naqshbandi,

It should be pointed out that, politically, the Calipha system failed, in spite of the nobility of the first four. I understand you used the word ``model``, but would you agree to use the term ``prototype``, or even ``rough framework``, or something to that effect?

It should also be noted that the Calipha system revolves around a single person, and their role with respect to society at large, and what`s more this role is described in very informal terms.

It should be easy enough to graft this one role onto a whole class of political systems that follow certain constraints. In effect, though, the role would probably be ceremonial.

As for the Caliph belonging to Quraysh...is there really a way to determine who is a descendent of this tribe? Half of Pakistan qualifies, them being Syeds and all...

#44, Mantolives {``Salim
I don`t think Ataturk was against Islam at all...``}

Manto Bhai,
I agree with you in general. However, Ataturk, whose own mother Zubayda was a devout Muslim, was very suspicious and negative about the pervasive role of religion in government, education, commerce, and the military. Being a man of his times, he concentrated on what was ailing his beloved Turkey and why Turks were losing in all departments from the 18th century to the 20th. To him an emphasis on Islam in all matters worked as detriment to Turkey`s progress - especially in comparison to the secular focus of its European rivals. Being a European himself, Ataturk never felt inferior to Christian Europeans, instead he blamed his country`s misfortunes on its antiquated legal, educational, governmental, commercial, and military institutions. All of them had suffered thanks to inflexible and often irrational influence of religion.

#45 by haroonellahi {Islam and politics should be removed complete and totally from each other. Politics has invaded the river bed of Islam, has effectively polluted it and threatens to corrupt our religion to the point of no return. }

this is incorrect and threfore should not be propagated if real progress is to be achieved. islam has flourished with politics and politics with islam. it has been a very successful relationship and partnership in the past. there is no invasion by politics per se. try a different cleaner slate and maybe there is a possibility.

south america is catholic. there is an acknowledgement that spreading christianity was one of the proclaimed church principles, pope gave charters to spain and portugal, and conquest happend with bible in one hand and sord in other. once one acknowledged the truth, its hard to hijack in the future..else history shall repeat. in south america there still is poverty, inequality, but noone is looking at christianity for material salvation. this is possible because of acknowledging the truth perhaps.

Re: # 39

dost-mittar,

the science of tafsir [`ilm al tafsir] addresses exactly the questions you ask; these questions have been answered millenia ago by the classical scholars. they are valid questions but they have been answered (which verses apply when and to whom). you just need to sit down with a traditional scholar and ask e.g. shaykh pir sayyid abd al qadir shah jilani sahib. (www.yanabi.com) or www.sunniport.com or www.sunnipath.com

in islam the view of the majority is not authority.

this article is sheer poison dressed up in honey and nice words; it is a sword attempting to strike at the very heart of islam. it is a call to castrate islam.

the author claims that political islam was dreamed up by the mullahs in power to keep them there! in reality islam and politics have gone hand in hand since the very beginning. the model state was that of Madina under the Prophet alayhisalatuwasalam then under the 5 caliphs upto and including Imam e Hassan alayhisalam.

The ideal political system in islam is the Caliphate; the only valid caliphs are from the Quraysh tribe (``Caliphate is for the Quraysh``-hadith i sharif). Until the re-establishment of the caliphate republics are a good a system as any as long as the rules of the land are in accordance with the shariah. because of this secularism and islam are opposites. democracy to an extent is islamic except no laws can be passed which contradict the established shariah. the interpretation and application of shariah to new situations/problems is the preserve and job of the traditional scholars [ulama] who alone are qualified to do so. this process is ijtihad. ijtihad itself has its own rules and not every area of shariah is susceptible to ijtihad. e.g. aqaid (doctrine) cannot be changed. no ijtihad is valid if it goes against quran or sunnah and so on...

iran is a good model of a modern democracy which is still islamic.

Islam and politics should be removed complete and totally from each other. Politics has invaded the river bed of Islam, has effectively polluted it and threatens to corrupt our religion to the point of no return.

However, my view regarding the seperation of state and mosque is limited to the national level only.

Have our wise scholars ever thought about the fact that even though most of the Western World has adopted secular paradigms, they still remained united under different agreements such as NATO and other umberallas?

Universal Equality of all citizens, seperation of religious Islam and politics, and secularization of the Constitution should take place at the national level. However, I still feel that pan-Islamic unity is a good thing for the Ummah. In this respect, although Muslim majority countries should become secular countries, they should keep their distinct Muslim authority by placing clauses in their Constitution promoting Muslim heritage. Furthermore, there should be a section in every Muslim-Majority Constitution, it can be our version of the English Bill of Rights, The Islamic Bill of Rights. It should have clauses directly reflecting Islamic values, ethics, and morality. Furthermore, once this process has been done, the Muslim World, which should become internally secular, must retain it`s inherent Islamic identity.

The European Union is not based on ethnic or linguistic ties. It is built purely on religious grounds. That is why our very own Salim`s Turkey keeps on getting the red stamp from the European Union.

We need to ensure that mutual trade, mutual cultural links, and mutual economic links are enhanced amongst the Muslim world to promote our ability to achieve our true status amongst the comity of civilizations.

Salim

I don`t think Ataturk was against Islam at all...

Re: # 40

nasah

``every year we will throw helplessly stones at the Devil and get trampled in the process and die -- but that mountain will remain blocking the highway to the heaven of the modern century......modern times``

No, dear nasah, their throwing of pebbles (not stoes) at the Devil has not in any way blocked their highway to the modern times. They do possess weapons of 21st century from rocket-propelled grenade and klashinkof to the atom bomb but these are all meant for human beings only, even those who call themselves Muslims. As for the satan they are not allowed even to hit it with a pebble larger than a gram and to do this they have sometimes to sacrifice their lives.