Reinterpretation of Islam in Turkey

Cheema sahib,

Re: 112

Why?

Regards

Re: # 113

as Gill Sahib has said in the last paragraph; reckon believe in whatever in your daily (personal) life but don't make it grounds for establishment of legal codes etc. It has failed so often and as a nation, where has it got us? Then we make excuses by saying things like "we haven't had REAL Islam@ and the like.

What exactly is this REAL Islam that could not withstand the test of time? No one knows. Re-interpretation is a joke; who re-interprets and based on what criteria?

Let us make laws based on the demands put to us by the 21st century, not the 7th; PLEASE!!

Cheema sahib,

I dont think Turkey is trying to back to the 7th century even the Welfare Party isn't. About Pak there are clearly two streams of thought- one wants to make it a Western style liberal secular democracy, the other wants a democracy patterned on Islamic ideals but not necessarily always a Talibanist one, although some Islamicists wud no doubt want a Taliban style Islamic democracy.

Ultimately, the people's will shud prevail.

Regards

Re: # 115

My fear is as follows: The so-called "Islamic Revolution" (as dreamt of by Maududi) is not as far fetched as some like to think. People's will, what people and what will?! whoever talked about the people and what the ..ll have they got to do with government in a theocracy?

Unfortunately, the only time "the people" would realise what has hit them, it would already be too late. The we'd have to muddle through life like the Iranians have done for so many years; the "Exit" is not that well sign-posted, I am afraid.

Instability, such as it is, is perpetual; it has already been going in that direction for years. Time is near when these so-called modern liberals will be telling their stories to the west, same as the Iranian ex-pat are today.

I only hope I am wrong

The only way out is a complete and absolute separation of Religion and Politics; no half way measures.

(The only way out is a complete and absolute separation of Religion and Politics; no half way measures. )

That's my belief too. But whether such an order can be implemented in Pakistan wud depend on the will of the Paki people. I am not certain that they wud endorse such a stand, MAJ (pbuh) and 8/11 notwithstanding.

Regards

#116 Posted by akcheema

Time is near when these so-called modern liberals will be telling their stories to the west, same as the Iranian ex-pat are today.

Well said, though I'll modify it a bit:

Time is near when these so-called modern liberals' women will be standing on street corners in Bayswater in London, same as the Iranian ex-pat are today.

Zee sahib,

What do liberal women do at street corners in Bayswater, London???

Regards

Re: # 118

Tell him Zee; howcome you know so much about the women at Street corners!

Also, I am glad someone has owned up to this "Great Success Story" of Islamic government in Iran!

I know you'd say it is all different, shiites and all that; when the "Ayotallah Rooh-allah Khomeini" arrived back in Iran in 1979, the "Jamaatis" cheered all over the Pakiland! That is the truth of your political Islam mate; its conveniences, lies and treachery but in "God's name"!

Right!

Cheema sahib,

(arrived back in Iran in 1979, the "Jamaatis" cheered all over the Pakiland! )

Are you suggesting that they don't cheer now?

Regards

Re: # 121

why don't we ask Zeemax this?

Re: # 122

Besides, I am a mere mortal "overseas" Paki; what do I know?

cheema sahib,

.... like i have said before, islam cannot be reformed because of very fundamental and structural flaws ..... it would be like trying to 'reform' other totalitarian ideologies like nazism or communism .... islam is not an ordinary 'religion' like buddhism or christianity; it has very little spiritual content and like nazism was designed as a vehicle to gain political power ..... god, angles, jinns and bhoots are incidental and mere tools for manipulating the unwashed masses .........

..... having said that, the best we can hope for are some cosmetic changes that can allow women to drive and teenagers to listen to music without the fear of being flogged or beheaded ..... major changes will only happen once the forces of darkness have been thoroughly discredited and defeated like nazism and communism ..... it will take time, but it will happen ..... unfortunately you and i won't be around to breathe the fresh air of freedom ......

hamidm #124 So your conclusion is Islam cannot be reformed. That is great - because Islam is fine the way it is.

Now individuals (no matter what they call themselves - muslim, enlightened moderates, and so on) are another matter..

#119 Posted by majumdar

What do liberal women do at street corners in Bayswater, London???

Same thing they do under lamp posts around King's Cross .. i.e. peddle their fannies!

The following article appeared in The Newsweek, the week of February 25, 2008. I am sorry for copying and pasting it here but it is quite relevant to the topic of the article. Even though the U.S. has been a secular country for quite a long time, the pros and cons of secularism are freely discussed even today. Such a reasonable discussion can allow the amendment of the Constitution if needed. The trouble with a religious government is that you cannot amend it; it is from the immutable God. Those of you who have time, should read it and enjoy.

Mohammad Gill

__________________________________________________________

In Defense of Secularism

'It's red meat for pundits,' concedes Harvard chaplain Greg Epstein, who prefers the word 'humanist.'

By Lisa Miller
NEWSWEEK
Updated: 12:09 PM ET Feb 16, 2008
In the public school I went to in the 1970s, "secular" was A neutral, descriptive word. Our social-studies teacher taught us that ours was a "secular" government, by which she meant that we lived free of any religion established by the state. We were to be proud of this secular government, she told us; it differentiated us from people in other times and places where those speaking for God made the rules—rules that sometimes were corrupt and unfair. As I understood it then, "secular" had nothing to do with disavowing or disapproving of any particular belief in God.

"Secular" does mean "godless," and its neutral meaning has always fought with the more negative one; recently, though, the word has taken on a lot more freight. Like the words "feminist" and "liberal," "secular" and its derivatives have come to mean extreme versions of themselves. They are code in conservative Christian circles for "atheist" or even "God hating"—they conjure, in a fresh way, all the demons Christian conservatives have been fighting for more than 30 years: liberalism, sexual permissiveness and moral lassitude. The Fox News star Bill O'Reilly frequently frames the culture war as "traditionals versus secular-progressives." Ann Coulter accused "the liberals and the secularists and atheists" of using religion as a wedge. In a speech last year, Newt Gingrich decried the "growing culture of radical secularism," and in a new book the diplomat John Bolton critiques "the High Minded elite who worship at the altar of the Secular Pope." In politics, where it is efficacious to unite people against a common enemy, "secularism" has become that enemy's new name.

To be fair, battles in the war against secularism have been fought for about 150 years, dating back to a time when discoveries in science (especially those of Charles Darwin) and a disenchantment with organized religion led a critical mass of mostly European intellectuals to declare that one could lead a moral life independent of God. By the middle of the 20th century, their heirs had coined the term "secular humanism," to mean a concern with values but not with religion, and the Rev. Jerry Falwell took particular aim at them. In 1986, he proclaimed that secular humanists "challenge every principle on which America was founded," including "abortion on demand, recognition of homosexuals, free use of pornography, legalizing of prostitution and gambling, and free use of drugs." Pope Benedict XVI speaks out frequently against the dangers of secularism.

What's new about the assault on secularism is how, among conservative pundits, it's become almost shorthand. O'Reilly doesn't have to list secularism's sins as Falwell did; he has only to utter the word. And the so-called secularists are hardly helping their own case. Aware that no group is more reviled in America than atheists, and reeling from all the attention atheists have gotten from recent best-selling books, some nonbelievers prefer to wrap themselves in a safer label: "secularist." This rhetorical deflection only makes them targets. Secularist equals nonbeliever; nonbeliever equals immoral God-hater. "It's red meat for the pundits," says Greg Epstein, Harvard's humanist chaplain. He prefers the word "humanist."

Language evolves. "Secular" was first used in the Middle Ages to mean things and people not belonging to the church—as Webster's puts it, "not overtly or specifically religious; not ecclesiastical or clerical." This remains its best and most important meaning. In this great experiment that is American democracy, "secular" is the only word we have to describe the idea, handed down by the Founders, that our leaders do not belong to God, they belong to us.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/112719© Newsweek Mag

Re: #127 freethinker,
"The trouble with a religious government is that you cannot amend it; it is from the immutable God"

The Quran is from God and cannot be amended.
But any constitution based on the Quran is a human creation and can be amended.
Do you think the Iranian constituion can't be amended?