Brahmin and Mullah

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Dinar as currency

Dr Muhammad Karim Beebani

In the early period of Islam the currency names used were dinar and dirham. Dinar was the name used for gold coin whereas the silver coin was called dirham. Both these currencies were in use for many centuries but as the Muslim empire started disintegrating various countries started adopting names other than these.

Dinar is the only currency name that has appeared in the Holy Qur`aan in chapter No 3 (Aal-e-Imran). This name along with dirham has also been found in many sayings of Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Muslims therefore have great attachment with these names rather than with rupee, taka or other currencies being used in Islamic countries at present. I shall therefore suggest that Islamic countries should adopt the currency name of dinar to show the continuation of the Islamic legacy and scriptural heritage.

On the other hand the currency names being used in Islamic countries have no such historical significance. For example in Pakistan rupee is being used which is derived from Sanskrit language and has a relationship with Hinduism. It is worth mentioning that there are at least five Islamic countries, which are already using dinar as their currency names. These are Kuwait, Jordan, Tunisia, Iraq and Bahrain. I shall therefore request government of Pakistan to consider adopting the currency name of dinar instead of a non-Islamic name of rupee.

Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/nov2001-daily/24-11-2001/oped/newspost.htm

Zafar #497
Thanks again! No the length doesnot bother me, check out some of mine :).

Well, apparently in Israel there is a similar debate. Some say about about the Israeli Constitution(which is apparently not written yet) ``why do you need to import something alien from Europe when you have the Bible right here``

The same groups who say this say also say ``Just include a sentence which say ``religious laws are supreme to laws of the people````, that will suffice``. And these groups are the (maybe `ultra`) Orthodox groups.

There are others who say ``Israel was formed for Jews by Jews, it must retain a Jewish character``(which is rather ambiguous about points of view like the above).

There are yet others who say ``All citizens should be equal, including Israeli Arabs, only a secular constitution will suffice``(meaning laws made by the people)

This is partly the reason for my question, sorry if it offended.

Reply Sadna #496

Sadna

From a Muslim point of view (MoR/MoI, please step in, we a relying on you):

Islam provides guidance for all aspects of life. This would include guidance on politics and Government.

If you accept that the ‘ulema is the only group that is qualified to properly understand Islam, then the ‘ulema is logically best equipped to rule.

If you contend, however, that each individual has the right and the duty to try and understand Islam, and to act (let’s say vote) according to their interpretation, then voting by the general populace is the best way to get a Government which achieves Islam’s underlying principles.

EXACTLY this issue goes back to the very early days of Islam – the conflict between the supporters of Umar and the supporters of Ali as to who would lead the community after the death of the Prophet. The former were in the majority – called Sunnis - and their intellectual legacy to Islam is that all Muslims have the right to determine polity and select their leader (read Government) - essentially a democratic approach.

[This might be what people mean when they go on about Islam being a religion of equality. Umar was a relatively early convert, but unrelated to the Prophet. Yet the majority of the community wanted him as leader, not the Prophet’s son-in-law. It may also be of interest to note that women were prominently involved in the struggle on BOTH sides.]

It IS a question of who has the ultimate responsibility/authority to understand what God wants from each individual – the “clergy” or the individual. If I were you I would not phrase it as a choice between people and scripture (too many buttons, or a Lakshman Rekha if you will, to get a measured response). IMO reactionary regimes definitely prefer the “clergy” answer – they’re easier to control than the general population. No prizes for guessing what certain outfits would prefer for the subcontinent. (And it`s consistent with the vote-bank approach to Indian Muslims! Chheechheechhee...) Even Iran’s revolution which started off pretty radical has become reactionary, and I believe that this is the reason.

[I must point out that these tendencies are NOT reflected as a dichotomy between what are today’s Sunni and Shia religious traditions. In fact Shia mysticism can be seen as giving individuals a “bypass” over the ‘ulema and directly to God.]

Hope this is useful. If one is not too literal it should shed some light on Islam, democracy and Mullahism. Please keep in mind that I’ve gone over the historical (and I suppose intellectual) issues as I see them - the role of women and minorities is not concretely discussed, but I think you can follow the drift here?

Best wishes,

Zafar

PS Why is it that I keep feeling the urge to write a small book in response to quite reasonably sized postings from you? I blame my background – after all, the world’s longest English language novel WAS written (predictably) by an Indian. Or perhaps this doesn’t hold up, as you’re Indian too, but manage to be concise? Anyway – apologies, and I will do my best to be brief in future.

Zafar Al-Talib #494
A very good post, thanks. I too find Iran very interesting. Am I right in thinking it boils down to settling the question of who should have supervening authority or sovereignty, the people(meaning their representatives) or the scriptures(meaning interpretors of scriptures).

ylh #490
Is your imagined physical description a compliment or an insult?
Either way it doesnot work.

Allah! Meri haalath dekho! Khuda hafiz kehne ke baad bhi haan men haan milane daura daura aa gaya vaapis…

Sadna

:)

The issue in Turkey is: can a political party which is self describedly Islamic in character take part in the democratic process? Does this participation by definition undermine democracy in the long run? (The Turkish army’s position.) Does the exclusion of such parties undermine democracy in the long run?

In my opinion Turkey’s democracy is harmed by the exclusion of parties with a religious component – if only because this means that the Army has taken upon itself the onus of defining what is acceptable. If an elected parliament did this it would have the right – after all it demonstrably represents the will of the Turkish people. IMO the Army should not have this right. The fact that a significant portion of the Turkish people keep voting for such parties says something.

I do not think that the participation of Islamic parties in Turkey’s Govt. undermines democracy there. Does it undermine secularism? I don’t think it does that in any significant sense either – after all, Istanbul (arguably Turkey’s most secular city) voted in an “Islamist” local Government which was broadly popular. Similarly there are religion allied parties in Europe (the Christian Democrats in Germany, for example) who participate in the democratic process, and whose coming to power has never threatened democracy there.

In India the BJP’s coming to power was a good thing for democracy – and I say this despite disliking the BJP and most of its works. Hindutvawadis who may have felt that their views were not taken into account in Indian polity, and who might have then consistently gone outside the democratic process (as they did with BM demolition, etc.) were brought into the system. Participation in Govt. – especially the need to form a coalition – has mellowed them and made them more responsible. (The BJP even goes through the motions of trying to get Muslim votes.) I strongly feel that democracies get the Governments they deserve. For all their faults, I do not believe that the BJP would resort to widespread violence to remain in power if they were voted out. (They didn’t last time.)

Can Muslim identified political parties in Pakistan work in the same way today? I am not as familiar with the country as with India but I suspect that they could not. (As usual I welcome any civil corrections and arguments on this point from any Pakistanis who have the stamina to go through my posts.) First of all – if they are confident of popular support, are they contending (and winning) elections? Are they respectful enough of the democratic process to give up power when (as always happens to all parties) they are voted out? With the temptation of having the kind of power the Taleban do in Afghanistan before their eyes, and being short sighted about the consequences of that kind of situation, I suspect not.

I do not think that Islam is not compatible with democracy (I’m sure somebody will be delighted to go over facts on early Islam with you that you doubtless already know!), but you have to keep in mind that for centuries Islam was closely associated with political power in a theocratic oligarchy (the Caliphate). This colours how Islam and political power are viewed by many Muslims – especially by those from cultures and countries which are still “midieval” in their outlook (no insult meant, just accurate description - I say that parts of India are also midieval in their outlook). Ataturk’s reforms were brutally undemocratic, but they were necessary at that time because of the weight of this tradition. (Also sometimes petty and I think beside the point. Banning a kind of HAT?) They only succeeded because the military and political collapse of the Caliphate made that kind of mental change possible (and necessary) in its heartland, Turkey. And this kind of collapse is dangerous, because its outcomes are not assured – they could go either way. I don’t indulge in triumphalist “Pakistan is a Failed State” rhetoric, but the lack of clear success by many of Pakistan’s civil institutions is what makes makes a space for theocratic ideology in that country.

I guess it boils down to: religious parties are a sign of health in democracies where a significant portion of the population supports religious influence on national polity, but they only strengthen democracy in countries where the democratic process is very strong and where the public will not support its disruption. An important proviso.

I hope you got this far. ??

Zafar

PS Iran is another extremely interesting example of an Islamic democracy. (The only Islamic Republic in the world today.) Let me say that I do not support or like many, if not most, aspects of current Iranian polity (especially the treatment of religious minorities which is appalling). It is undeniable, however, that Iran is more democratic today than it has ever been before (definitely more than during the rule of the secular Shah) in that all Iranians have a vote, and that vote has more influence on the running of the country than ever before (though still not to level that one would like). One of the hopeful things in Iran is that representatives of different political viewpoints now struggle to get votes – they don’t just struggle in the street (though they unfortunately do that too).

YLH

You have things to say, but every time you`re rude to a woman in this way you undermine yourself and your arguments. If you don`t like someone you don`t have to be pleasant - be unpleasant! But what`s the point of vulgar abuse? It degrades you and leaves their arguments unanswered.

Zafar

BTW

Islam was not the state religion of Pakistan until 1973.

tahmed,

We have Malaysia as a possible example too. Basically in Pakistan we need to secure the joint electorates, and we will have practical parity between Muslims and Non Muslims.

-YLH

`The Turkish military is fiercely secular, no?`

The picture becomes clearer... a chubby, dark skinned fanatical middle aged woman trying to prove a point ...

Pakistan has Islamic injunctions ... NO?

Pakistan had Zia ul Haq .... NO?

Pakistan was made for Islam ... NO?

Prophet Muhammad married 13 times NO?

Islam hates women ... NO?

Turkey is secular but undemocratic ... NO?

Islam thinks Non Muslims are inhuman .. NO?

tahmed no point in trying to make sense to this woman. She raises some good points but that is to fool us, ... she switches very fast from her sensible comments to her rhetoric of hate.

Long Live PAKISTAN

Aha! I edited out my comment ``if anyone mentions Turkey...``.
The Turkish military is fiercely secular, no? and very powerful and has undemocratically intervened to `safeguard` the Turkish brand of secularism.

Quite unlike the Pakistani Army which had Zia in its past and has no plans of ending its 20+ years-long cohabitation with religious parties over the Afghan war.
Check out `Islamic` amendments in the Pakistani Constitution during this period even by `democratic governments` and see if these were related to any quid-pro-quo to religious parties for jihad in Afghanistan.
Hence the Turkish NSC equivalent has had a very different connotation than a Pakistani one will have.
And sure lets give this board a rest, its been nice interacting.

sadna #486 ``In which Muslim country is the church kept separate from the state and how``

In a practical sense, I think one may point to Indonesia (I have visited that country a number of times over the past 20 years and can therefore speak with some confidence) and Turkey (ylh could tell you things about Ataturk that will make you proud to be on the same planet as Turkey). Having travelled a full circle, I think we can let his tired board get some rest.

Reply Sadna #486

The state and religion are kept separate in Turkey - this was a part of a broader ``revolution`` in which Ataturk defined nationality based on Turkishness as opposed to based on religion (with each religious community being a ``millet``) as had been the case under the Ottomans. Turkish law (I believe) was based on the Swiss code (or is it their constitution?). Though not an unmixed success this has largely been a good thing. (What lack of success it has had is due, IMO, to the undemocratic aspects of Ataturk`s reforms.

Sadna, Tahmed - yeh Chowk raha ya Hippie Festival? Anyway - over and out on this board - hope to see both the EC and MoI/MoR elsewhere.

Zafar

aka PM (actually PM is somebody on Chowk already - too confusing!)

PS Coalition with whom? You DARE suggest BM...

And we are almost back to where we started:
``In which Muslim country is the church kept separate from the state and how?``

Sadna #483 Abolishment of the MoR would be my last act on that job, after having ``privatized`` the religious functions of the state.

On how does one go about separating religion and state if one does not have political power to do so. Your guess is as good as mine.