Wahabism in Centers of Learning

Re: # 96
[...get rid of them in Pakistan in favor of liberal secularism ...]

Yeah sure... may be when the hell freezes over... :))

#95 by shishapa

``Can an Islamic law change i.e. could/would there be amendments to the
Islamic constitution? ``

As far I see them, they are static. Just see the problem in Pakistan. Zia put togather Huddood ordinance and when Mush attempts to change it, some start shouting that it is unislamic to change that.

That is why no country should ever have religious laws as you never can amend them to reflect the changing times and situations.

nasah, You are right. We never got to that discussion.

#96 Nasah

[so for heavens sake get rid of them in Pakistan in favor of liberal secularism -- for crying out loud!]

Nasah sahib, I am sure you have realized over time that if there is anything that tops the Pakistani consistency in making one foolish mistake after another - it is the Pakistani insistence that actually those are not foolish mistakes!!!

#99 (add-on)

Starting from the beginning, of course!

Re: # 83 bjkumar {``... is Islam like any other religion - or is it something special that is better than other religions?...``}

In this complex world that comes in all shades of grey there are no black and white answers, except for children and simpletons. I hope it is a rhetorical question and that you are not serious.

Islam is both. It is unique and special, unlike any other religion. And yet, it is similar and vey much like other great religions.

How?

For those who are steeped in the faith and feel deeply committed, I slam is unique and special. It is no less special and unique for them than is Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Communism, or any other major religion/ideology for those who are committed to that particular way-of-life.

It is also the same as any other religion for all those others (outsiders) who are not committed to it.

Frankly, it wasn`t a very incisive question. The answer should have been self-evident.

...SR

Re: # 93

``You can always drown those sorrows in more pegs of zaam! (or is that jaam?)``

BJ are trying to lighten the somber mood on this board or you don`t know -- like `le gaya jalim chorakar sonay ki zanzeer bhi`......:)

Re #94 by HP

A law is discriminatory only if it treats people differently based on their religion, gender etc.

But you are defining a law as discriminatory because it is based on principles that 100% of the population does not agree on.

Well, every law is based on some underlying principle or philosphy. And it is nearly impossible to get 100% of the people to agree on any philosphy. There is no escaping discriminatory laws by your definition.

If a majority believes in a law and implements it democratically and the law does not discriminate against anyone and does not violate anyone`s basic right, then why does it matter if the underlying philoshpy is Islamic or Christian or Hindu or Rational Humanistic?

#95 shisapa
``Can an Islamic law change i.e. could/would there be amendments to the
Islamic constitution? ``

Yes, if it is a democratic law and democratic constitution.

#101 SR sahib

Therefore sir, let me simplify your answer. You are saying that “there is nothing special about Islam!” (and other religions are equally special to their own adherents.)

Not an incisive question, as you rightly pointed out. The follow-on, sir, is – if this question is so simple and this fact so obvious...

How many Muslim families tell this simple fact to their children?!!

How many?!!!

Be honest in answering, now!

Do Muslims even have the ability to say that – without fears of the head getting chopped off?!!

#102 Nasah sahib

Of course not, sir! How could I ever dare to undermine the ``intellectual`` content on this site with levity?!!

I onle seek knowledge!

Because of some reasons though, I keep coming to these boards for my jaams of knowledge - but strangely enough, never get to drink any - just get caught in those same old ideas - that eternal chowk ``traffic`` jaam!

Case study


When the Prophet Muhammad (known as ``mercy for the universe`` in the Qur`aan) marched into the city of Mecca in the 8th year of hijraa, he declared a general amnesty for all his enemies. However, the same Prophet named seven or eleven persons ``who should be killed even if they are found holding on to the cover of the Ka`bah!``


Those who like to understand or evaluate Islam from the secular/humanist point of view must realize that Islam should be judged on its own terms, and not by the secular ideals.


Out of those seven persons, one case is interesting. It is an example of a murtad milli--a non-Muslim who became Muslim and then became kaafir again. His name was Abdullaah bin Sa`d bin Abi Sarah, a foster-brother of Uthmaan bin Affaan. He had come to Medina and professed Islam, then he went back to Mecca and become a kaafir again.


In spite of the Prophet`s order to kill Abdullaah, Uthmaan sheltered him till after the conquest, and then brought him to the Prophet and asked for forgiveness. The Prophet remained quiet for a while hoping (as he himself said later on) that someone would stand up and implement his standing order by killing Abdullaah. But when no one understood the meaning of his silence, the Prophet granted pardon to him.

#64 Khurram

``That was my question. What kind of institution would determine what the Islamic injunctions are? ``

In every Western democratic country its the role of Supreme court to interpret law; the law that is enacted by an assebly and senate. The lower courts then take precedence from the rulings of the Supreme Court. Same system exists in Pakistan when it is not ruled by Martial Law.

In Pakistan during Zia`s time an institution of Federal Shariat Court was created in parallel with the Supreme Court. It was charged with the duty to examine all existing laws and find out whether they contradicted any injunction of Islam or not and it was also charged with the function to evaluate future laws as well. The objective eventually was that to converge the Supreme Court and FSC into one body as a number of judges became well versed in Islamic law. To the best of my knowledge the the court comprises of 7 judges who are nominated by the president and approved by the senate.

It is just a matter of procedure how judges can be made more accountable and representative. For example, in US judges are nominated by President but they are severely scrutinized by not only public representatives but by media as well. Every judge is grilled in public by representatives before his appointment. Even a wrong sentence that a potential judge might have occured while a teenager, might cost him his potential seat. This is what constitution of Pakistan as it was before oct 99 calls for when it stipulates the condition for a public official or representative to be of ``sound Character``. Alas we were naver able to put the same principles in practice since our country is hijacked by a morally bankrupt and corrupt vassal class who neither consider themselves accountable to people people nor fear Allah.

Mr. Osama Shahid, which universities did you visit?
Are you an academic?

#103 by khurram

“Well, every law is based on some underlying principle or philosphy. And it is nearly impossible to get 100% of the people to agree on any philosphy. There is no escaping discriminatory laws by your definition.”

It is not a matter of “agreeing” on the laws it is how a law is applied. A good law should be applicable on all citizens and not just some citizens. As I said before, you can disagree with a law it is your democratic right. People disagree with laws all the times that is why laws go thru changes to reflect a society’s changing requirements.

However, you can also rightfully assume that maybe there is no escaping discriminatory laws. It can happen in a secular society too. Has actually happened as biases are hard to remove from the people and people developed systems. Nevertheless, the basic premise should always be not to have laws that show a clear bias and discrimination. When you base laws on some religious diktats, you built discrimination against people who may not share your religion right away.

“If a majority believes in a law and implements it democratically and the law does not discriminate against anyone and does not violate anyone`s basic right, then why does it matter if the underlying philoshpy is Islamic or Christian or Hindu or Rational Humanistic?”

A majority can believe in any thing. It can believe in eliminating minorities. So it really is not an issue of what majority believes, it is more than that. Laws do have underlying philosophy and secularism is one of them. The whole argument is that the religions create biases and the laws based on religions would tend to discriminate against non-believers.

Whereas the laws that look at people as equal would be fair to all citizens. Of course, no system guarantees error free implementation.

Re: HP
``Laws do have underlying philosophy and secularism is one of them. The whole argument is that the religions create biases and the laws based on religions would tend to discriminate against non-believers. Whereas the laws that look at people as equal would be fair to all citizens``

This is the core of our disagreement. Laws based on secularism are considered fair even to non-believers in secularism because secularism looks at people as equals irrespective of their religion. But religion CAN also treat people as equals in matters of state and citizenship. That is why religion-based laws are not NECESSARILY discriminatory. What matters is that the specific laws look at people as equals.

On June 7, 1992, a 30-year-old shoemaker named Abdul Ghafoor was jailed for sitting in the “Muslims only” car of the West Pakistan Railroad. Ghafoor was only one-eighths non-Muslim and seven-eighths Muslim, but under Pakistani law, he was considered non-Muslim and therefore required to sit in the “Non-Muslims” car. Ghafoor went to court and argued, in Ghafoor v. Pakistan, that the Separate Car Act violated the 1973 Pakistani Constitution.

The local court found Ghafoor guilty of refusing to leave the “Muslims only” car. Ghafoor appealed to the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which upheld the decision. In 1996, the Supreme Court of Pakistan heard Ghafoor’s case and found him guilty once again. Speaking for a majority, its Chief Justice wrote:

“That [the Separate Car Act] does not conflict with the Pakistani Constitution, which envisages an Islamic Republic...is too clear for argument...A statute which implies merely a legal distinction between the Muslims and non-Muslims -- a distinction which is founded in the basic religion of the two, and which must always exist so long as Muslim men are distinguished from the other by religion -- has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two...The object of the constitutional provision was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon religion, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two religions upon terms unsatisfactory to either.”

The lone dissenter showed incredible foresight when he wrote:

“A secular Constitution is religion-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among its citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law...In my opinion, the judgment this day rendered will, in time, prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the American Dred Scott case...The present decision, it may well be apprehended, will not only stimulate aggressions, more or less brutal and irritating, upon the admitted rights of non-Muslim citizens, but will encourage the belief that it is possible, by means of state enactments, to defeat any beneficient purposes which the people of Pakistan had in view when they adopted the 1973 Constitution.”

Over time, the words of the dissenting Justice rang true. The Ghafoor decision set the precedent that “separate” facilities for non-Muslims and Muslims were constitutional as long as they were “equal.” The “separate but equal” doctrine was quickly extended to cover many areas of public life, such as restaurants, theaters, restrooms, and schools. Not until 2054, in an equally important decision, would the “separate but equal” doctrine be struck down.

(Note: the above account describes a true event. The following changes were made: 1892 --> 1992, Homer Plessy --> Abdul Ghafoor, Louisiana --> Pakistan, 1954 --> 2054)