Taliban : An Analysis

hobbyty

Rationality and revelation are no longer complementary.

``That implies they once were, what`s changed?``

Understanding and knwoledge, ``mullah ghulam ullah``. We no longer talk about four corners of the earth or babies being made from frozen clot of blood and their souls existed before conception (lot more souls for poor muslims than europeans now)or going to Jerusalem from Mecca on white horseback. The magic of turning rods into snakes made sense then not now.

Reason is independent of probability.

``Exactly the opposite, junior ``scientist``! All that we call knowledge is of it`s nature, provisional, and permanently so! We can never know the truth, we can only get closer and closer to the truth (while becoming more and more aware of our ignorance of it) and even when we make an advance, we can never know that we have reached our goal``.

My dear maulvi glulam mohammed, Osama also has reason for his action and so do USA to going after him. Pakistan and India both have reasons for their stands on Kashmir. They are not all rational. I just wish, Pakistani military and ISI had calculated probability of success through arming militants, ramifications at home and excessive militray spending before putting reason to observation /test.

does the failed Kashmir policy of using force has still same probability today as it was in 1948 invasion?

``The statement that ``reason is independent of probability`` would be a viable one, if we still believed that theories are developed based on observations and if we still held the validity of induction as method.

The problem of induction, to those of us who are not scientists and hope to be merely intellectually honest, is also referred to as ``Hume`s problem`` - that is to say even if an event A is accompanied by an event B, in a Billion observations, the one time that it is not observed to accompany event A, lays waste to our claims of certitude. Water boils at 100 degrees centigrade - we all have been taught this is the

truth - but it does not boil at 100 degrees C in the mountains, it does not boil at 100 degree C in a closed vessel.

Bertrand Russell, writing in his ``History of Western Philosophy``: ``Hume has proved that pure empiricism is not a sufficient basis for science.``

We know for quite sometime that boining point of water is related to atmospheric pressure. The events defying the enormity of evidence, observations as in the case of having a probability of billion to one are either called exceptions to the norm and unlike revelations, they also have sceientific reasoning. It is not empiricism but the understanding and ability to express natural laws in mathematical terms, thus allowing varying degrees of interpolation and extrapolation credited to Newton.

``That the whole of science, of all things, should rest on foundations whose validity it is impossible to demonstrate has been uniquely embarassing. It has turned many emprical philosphers into sceptics, or irrationalists, or mystics. Some it has led to religion.``

Wrong paths lead to wrong assumption and irrational behavior, Mufti ghulam Ahmed. Wrong answers in claculus or in any other field lead to ``F`` grade.

``We have to admit that, strictly speaking, scientific laws cannot be proved and are therefore not certain. Even so, their degree of probablity is raised by every confirming instance...``

I suppose you have doubts with equal proabability about water molecules being a combination of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms and the jinn power.

``As to the problem of ``method`` - we have all been taught that observation leads to theory - WRONG! Theory preceeds observation - observation tests the theory - generally speaking - counter instances are when one discovers something entirely new (``Structure of Scientifc revolutions``, Thomas Kuhn).``

According to allama ghulam mustafa, Darwin went to Galapagos Islands to observe after proposing his theory and publishing his book. Newton posposed gravity before observing apple falling from the tree and Mendel stated growing peas to observe after proposing Mendel`s laws of heredity. Wah wah, subhan allah.

Observations after the theory are meant to justify, deny, modify, prove, disprove, improve and ultimately gaining acceptance by those who had doubts before, just as Church finally accepting that earth is not the center of universe.

``Newton`s theories for hundreds of years were the back bone of Western cilization, not just in science, but manufacturing, indeed in culture - for hundreds of years these theories served mankind - till Einstein came along: Did Einstein not observe the same nature that Newton did, then why the different theory? primarily because of the person of Einstein and because knowledge had evolved further and with new knowledge and with creative imagination, Einstein fashioned new hypothesis that was more resilent to testing, that accounted for newton`s theories and which also made more accurate predictions and observations of nature. Even now Einstein`s theories are being challenged (``The End of Time``, Julian Barbour) yet, instruments such as satelites that whose functioning relies on the implications of Einstein`s theories still continue to function and serve us. What can we learn from this?

Wrong again. Einstein did not prove Newton wrong, he advanced the knowledge with respect to relativity. Newtonian mode is still the basis of modern science as well as western civilization. The gravity, boiling point, measuring distances, input/ output ratios and calculation of force, in horse power or other units are all calculated withoout bringing relativity to it. The measure of force in camel power would also be according to Newton model in the future Islamic republics.

``Reason existed prior to revelation. Reason as

we understand it is a Greek ``product``, though Drumz would argue, with no small measure of justification, Egyptian - it existed for thousands of years prior to the ``revealed`` Abrahamic religions. Can reason be used to support revelation? is a ridiculous notion. reason does not support revelation, rather it is a man made tool that may be applied to the understanding of revelation. Revelation by definition, Divine, can never be entirely understood or have a permanent human understanding``

Bravo! Since revelation, according to you, is divine and never be entirely understood: what the future holds for Islamic Republic of Pakistan based on derivation of revelation into state ideology and basis of laws? Isn`t this a solid case for separation of religion and state?

``The spirit of tolerance and pluralism cannot deny to those who seek to be guided by their ``common sense`` in social or moral behaviour - by all means, for those who no longer require religion. However, for those who do seek the guidance of religion, codes of social and moral behavior are what religion is about. You may consider religion ``weak`` but you are not being asked, nor should you be asked, to be circumspect towards codes of social and moral behaviour of adherents of a particular religion.``

According to Ayatoaah ghulam mujtaba, nobody should questin Osama Bin Laden because his twited belief in the strength of religion. Let USA, Osama, Pakistan, India act on the bais of each to his own even if your own undermines my own.

``No one prevents you from not being an adherent. It is you who seek to deny the rights of adherents their faith in the invisible, the constant.``

Nobody prevents me frrom being non-adherent but my non-adherent stance is threatened by adherents based practices just as Huddod ordinance, Blasphemy law, right to eat during ramazan, not killing a goat per year, not throwing intestines and stomach out on the street for the sake other creations of god and not growing beard (if I were to be in Afghanistan last year).

``On the other hand whatever one`s justification for their faith is their own business.``

Same response as above. Osama`s actions, Taliban, laws of Islamic Republics` justification based on faith are not just their own businesses and left alone to terrorize people in peace as well as in war.

``Islam universal, Hinduism limited to India - Islam, message of universal brotherhood, Hinduism, message of caste differentiation. Islam, message of redemption and justice, Hinduism, message of cycles of birth and oppression.``

Hinduism is considered successful by the virtue of surviving the onslaught for some seven centuries. It took much less than seven centuries for Muslims to make almost the entire population Muslim from Indonesia to Morocco, except in India. Islam even failed in coversion game in Punjab during the last 4 centuries when compared to conversion to Sikhism because major conversions to Islam took place prior to the rise of Sikhism. Given free hand and 1000+ years, any addiction could become universal.

``You have every right to your opinion and I have not challeneged any opinion other than those posited as scientific fact or philosophy.``

ditto!

SameerJB

You have out done yourself - this is by far the most internally inconsistent of your ``musings`` but I am grateful for it because you, unintentionally I am sure, prove the points I have made, such as interpretation.

``Rationality and revelation are no longer complementary.

That implies they once were, what`s changed?

``Reason is independent of probability.``

Exactly the opposite, junior ``scientist``! All that we call knowledge is of it`s nature, provisional, and permanently so! We can never know the truth, we can only get closer and closer to the truth (while becoming more and more aware of our ignorance of it) and even when we make an advance, we can never know that we have reached our goal.

``The gods did not reveal, from the beginning,

All things to us, but in the course of time

Through seeking we may learn and know things better.

But as for certain truth, no man has known it,Nor shall he know it, neither of the gods,nor yet of all things of which I speak.

For even if by chance he were to utter the fianl truth, he would himself not know it.

For all is but a woven web of quesses.``

Xenophanes

The statement that ``reason is independent of probability`` would be a viable one, if we still believed that theories are developed based on observations and if we still held the validity of induction as method.

The problem of induction, to those of us who are not scientists and hope to be merely intellectually honest, is also referred to as ``Hume`s problem`` - that is to say even if an event A is accompanied by an event B, in a Billion observations, the one time that it is not observed to accompany event A, lays waste to our claims of certitude. Water boils at 100 degrees centigrade - we all have been taught this is the

truth - but it does not boil at 100 degrees C in the mountains, it does not boil at 100 degree C in a closed vessel.

Bertrand Russell, writing in his ``History of Western Philosophy``: ``Hume has proved that pure empiricism is not a sufficient basis for science.``

That the whole of science, of all things, should rest on foundations whose validity it is impossible to demonstrate has been uniquely embarassing. It has turned many emprical philosphers into sceptics, or irrationalists, or mystics. Some it has led to religion.

``We have to admit that, strictly speaking, scientific laws cannot be proved and are therefore not certain. Even so, their degree of probablity is raised by every confirming instance...``

Our non-scientist friends may asks, well how can this be? the answer is that we agree that for ``practical`` purposes, to hold these theories as more valid than not, until something better is fashioned, devised.

As to the problem of ``method`` - we have all been taught that observation leads to theory - WRONG! Theory preceeds observation - observation tests the theory - generally speaking - counter instances are when one discovers something entirely new (``Structure of Scientifc revolutions``, Thomas Kuhn).

Newton`s theories for hundreds of years were the back bone of Western cilization, not just in science, but manufacturing, indeed in culture - for hundreds of years these theories served mankind - till Einstein came along: Did Einstein not observe the same nature that Newton did, then why the different theory? primarily because of the person of Einstein and because knowledge had evolved further and with new knowledge and with creative imagination, Einstein fashioned new hypothesis that was more resilent to testing, that accounted for newton`s theories and which also made more accurate predictions and observations of nature. Even now Einstein`s theories are being challenged (``The End of Time``, Julian Barbour) yet, instruments such as satelites that whose functioning relies on the implications of Einstein`s theories still continue to function and serve us. What can we learn from this? That there is no definitive theory or description of nature, that we cannot know of anything completely, we can only know of it as more true or valid or less true or less valid. That tests allow us to assert posits as valid by virtue of a greater probability.

Now, look at what this means with regard to how knowledge is developed (and interpretation): if Newton`s theories is not a body of truth inherent in the world (as proved by Einstein), where then did these theories come from? Well, of course they came from Newton. These were man made theories that fit all the facts known ``at that time``. Does this make Newton irrelevant? Of course not, it still has practical uses, but clearly it is not percieved as the totality of inherent truth of nature as it once was. Einstein`s theories accounted for those of Newton and allowed for more precise statements to be made about the nature of the world, but even Einstein knew that his theories held anomalies.

``Reason has always existed in support of revelation, otherwise revelation based religions would not have survived.``

Reason existed prior to revelation. Reason as

we understand it is a Greek ``product``, though Drumz would argue, with no small measure of justification, Egyptian - it existed for thousands of years prior to the ``revealed`` Abrahamic religions. Can reason be used to support revelation? is a ridiculous notion. reason does not support revelation, rather it is a man made tool that may be applied to the understanding of revelation. Revelation by definition, Divine, can never be entirely understood or have a permanent human understanding - it`s understanding evolves, is dependent on the application of knowledge and science (reason) of the time (therefore interpretation).

``The reason for revelation was more valid (better probability) some 2000 or 1500 years ago than today.``

That depends on the adherents of revelation - that`s what tolerance is all about - to you it may be entirely reasonable that revelation is not valid - but would you deny that it may be valid to me? Pluralism, junior scientist.

``It is because revelation is a constant whereas reason is a variable that has changed (and improved tremendously) during the last 2000 or 1500 years. Now reason is multi-disciplined and relies on reasoning within discipline.``

A perfectly reasonable statement.

``The reason for secularism or liberal democracy has no meaning for reason in Astronomy or Chemistry.``

Intellectaul honesty - junior scientist:

the reason for secularism...for the reason of Astronomy or chemistry.

In the first part of the sentence ``reason for`` is applied to a field or realm - yet you did not afford the same to second half of the sentence, that is, ``reason for`` Astronomy or chemistry.

Historically, communists have been willing to change facts, not their ideology.

Clearly these are different realms - does that mean ``reason`` itself does not operate in these realms or is exclusive? On the other hand the statement is utterly useless, a tautological statement, the equivalent of ``it will rain``.

Clever by half, little communist scientist.

``In the past, a better probability reasoning existed for religions as well as for Astrology and Al-chemy with respect to Astronomy and Chemistry respectively. Just like reasons for Astronomy and Al-chemy, the reason for religion is weak unless the reason is limited to spirituality only.

``A Chemistry book even in Islamic republic has no need to bring in revelation or religion to understand the concepts.``

A resonable statement.



``Similarly the concept of social and moral behavior based on common sense no longer require religion.``

``Thus spoke`` the scientist. The spirit of tolerance and pluralism cannot deny to those who seek to be guided by their ``common sense`` in social or moral behaviour - by all means, for those who no longer require religion. However, for those who do seek the guidance of religion, codes of social and moral behavior are what religion is about. You may consider religion ``weak`` but you are not being asked, nor should you be asked, to be circumspect towards codes of social and moral behaviour of adherents of a particular religion.

``The reason for revelation based religions becomes even weaker than other religions due to adding an invisible and/ or non-existent constant as the source of everything including revelations.``

Refer to the first two paragraphs and the response above. No one prevents you from not being an adherent. It is you who seek to deny the rights of adherents their faith in the invisible, the constant.

``Now in one equation you have two constants and still one variable - reason. That is why, it has become easy for people like Deepak Chopra to reason the existence of a different kind of god that actually decreases the value of revelation based religions to almost zilch and dropped out of the equation.``

Mashallah -

``Actually, I think, the reason for justification of religion based upon traditions has better probability than trying to justify it on the basis of revelation. The use of right hand, prohibition of alcohol consumption, sacrificing animal once a year and going around seven times around kaaba as traditions could be better argued for than based on revelation.``

You, think? Hey, what happened to ``common sense``? merged into hostility? On the other hand whatever one`s justification for their faith is their own business.

``That is why Hinduism remained a successful religion in comparison to Islam. They justified it on the basis of traditions and multiple deities on the basis of varying local traditions.``

Islam universal, Hinduism limited to India - Islam, message of universal brotherhood, Hinduism, message of caste differentiation. Islam, message of redemption and justice, Hinduism, message of cycles of birth and oppression. Sounds like success to me, but each to his own.

``Trying to search a complementary relationship between rationality and revelation is beyond the commonly accepted methodology of reason. It is not making sense even in the first step in most disciplines except spirituality. Even in individual spirituality arena, revelation based has to compete against non-revelation based spirituality.``

Refer to the first two paragraphs of my response.

You have every right to your opinion and I have not challeneged any opinion other than those posited as scientific fact or philosophy.

Happy trails.

Rationality and revelation are no longer complementary.

Reason is independent of probability. There is difference between a low and high probability reason. A reason just remains reason and does not become reasonable unless probability is improved. For reason to become justification, it has to further improve the probability - or to become rationale. Reason, Reasonable and Rationality are more or less like hypothesis, theory and law respectively in scientific terminology.

Reason has always existed in support of revelation, otherwise revelation based religions would not have survived. The reason for revelation was more valid (better probability) some 2000 or 1500 years ago than today. It is because revelation is a constant whereas reason is a variable that has changed (and improved tremendously) during the last 2000 or 1500 years. Now reason is multi-disciplined and relies on reasoning within discipline. The reason for secularism or liberal democracy has no meaning for reason in Astronomy or Chemistry.

In the past, a better probability reasoning existed for religions as well as for Astrology and Al-chemy with respect to Astronomy and Chemistry respectively. Just like reasons for Astronomy and Al-chemy, the reason for religion is weak unless the reason is limited to spirituality only. A Chemistry book even in Islamic republic has no need to bring in revelation or religion to understand the concepts. Similarly the concept of social and moral behavior based on common sense no longer require religion.

The reason for revelation based religions becomes even weaker than other religions due to adding an invisible and/ or non-existent constant as the source of everything including revelations. Now in one equation you have two constants and still one variable - reason. That is why, it has become easy for people like Deepak Chopra to reason the existence of a different kind of god that actually decreases the value of revelation based religions to almost zilch and dropped out of the equation.

Accepting twisted, low probability reason to justify the pre-conceived acceptance of revelation based hypothesis defy logic and norms of reason-reasonable-rationality path. It is cheating rather than tunneling because tunneling phenomenon actually does not defy reason-reasonable-rationality path both before and after tunneling. The reason for short cut obeys the same laws as typical processes.

Actually, I think, the reason for justification of religion based upon traditions has better probability than trying to justify it on the basis of revelation. The use of right hand, prohibition of alcohol consumption, sacrificing animal once a year and going around seven times around kaaba as traditions could be better argued for than based on revelation. That is why Hinduism remained a successful religion in comparison to Islam. They justified it on the basis of traditions and multiple deities on the basis of varying local traditions.

In the case of Buddhism equation, the invisible and/ or non-existent constant is just non-existent. The equation is simplified and instead of calling it a revealed philosophy, they just call it enlightened thinking or enlightenment.

The low probability reasoning for the selection process of the messengers by third party make third party untrustworthy and in analyzing both third party and his/ her chosen messenger lose credibility. Why would third party so obsessed with the mythical bloodline of Abraham to selecting messengers left and right from this line. On the other hand kept passing the message of equality of all human beings. Decency, honesty and ``ideal`` moral behavior does not run in a line down to 50 generations or more. It is more like hereditary monarchies where charlie might one day have his picture on the currency bills of Britain, Canada, Australia, Newzealand,........ What is so special that Moses, David, Jesus and Mohammed have to be (mythically or in reality does not matter) from the 60 million seeds of Abraham. Only scientific reason would be a genetically pre-disposed towards becoming messenger of invisible force, occurring among males at irregular intervals, in addition to certain other traits.

Trying to search a complementary relationship between rationality and revelation is beyond the commonly accepted methodology of reason. It is not making sense even in the first step in most disciplines except spirituality. Even in individual spirituality arena, revelation based has to compete against non-revelation based spirituality.

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

rajanjua #251
``i am finding it hard to accept that you are actually making sense...``

One solution is 2 Tylenols and one day bedrest but then perhaps it doesnot make sense :)

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

rajanjua # 251

Ah, and also rajanjua, RSS too has as its motto something called ``integral humanism.``

I have never bothered to find out what that means. We judge a person not by the abstractness of their ideas, but their actions, and by the real consequences of applying those ideas in a non-UTOPIAN, complicated world.

Any theory/religion/dogma that expects people to be angels for it to bring peace and happiness on earth, is not worth the paper (or whatever else) it is written on. Communism, totalitarianis, fascism - all Utopias based on forcing others to follow a particular given path - are excellent examples.

rajanjua # 252

Right on, rajanjua sahib.

An example will help less intelligent people of my sort: As you may or may not know, we have a person in India by the name of Sai Baba. Some people believe he has divine powers, others are agnostic about him, while still others - me included - believe that the divine powers belong either to all of us, or to none of us.

The friend with whom I am staying these days is a strong believer in the special powers of Sai Baba. He and I have discussed our respective positions. We have reached the conclusion that what we have here is a matter of personal faith - a kind of faith that is his own. It doesn`t bother me, doesn`t tell me how to live. I do think he is a bloody fool (sorry, A :)) but he is also a hell of a nice guy - one of the best. If he was a woman, I would have married him (see A, I told you NOT to read this) despite his beliefs, and exposed our children to the variety of belief systems - so they could choose for themselves - a real intelligent choice.

Personal faiths can change, evolve, as we learn, as we interact with others and see things for ourselves. So long as my friend doesn`t treat ME any differently than he does to his other (obviously less important) friends, so long as he doesn`t expect ME to do the things he does because of his beliefs, I will continue to spare his butt.

samina:

``semi,rsax,hari,sadna

Apparently you guys missed the post in which the hydra claimed to have worn the burqa on the subcontinent. Really. ``It was uncomfortable`` the hydra wrote. Will the lies ever end? ``

....when he/she/it learns to....actually on second thought, i guess never....

``You are in a similar error as Rajanjua, in thinking that Reason and Revelation are the same in this work - they most certainly are not. Reason (secular), Revelation (ecclesiastic), they can be complementary of course.``

sure - now you have a correspondence with gibraeel and he tells you what i think, eh? - what you consider as revelation might be termed as hallucination by others. what is divine for you might be morally repugnant to others. that`s why religion should stay personal and kept completely out of public. reason complimentary to revelation? nonsense!

Ayatollah hobbyty can beat around the bush, dance in circles or try to hide in `ol weber`s pajamas, but his mumbo-jumbo is no different than that of a fazloo or a qazi. After wasting chowk`s storage space, discussing his theory on the differences between objective and subjective secularism, he wants to train us to become `good muslims`. This is for the general good of the public he assures us- the training will include among other things, an understanding of `the rights of god`. once we have become good muslims according to his interpretations of the divine, we can have a secular govt. ¡V but this is no ordinary secular govt. that he envisions ¡V this particular one is guided by the hand of the Almighty Himself. he thinks that shariati and soroush and other ayatollahs will unite all the ulemas of different sects under his banner to follow the true tareekah on the road to haqeeqah. out of this will come a revised shariah which would be acceptable even to fazloo. how can this revolution take place - the answer may lie in the following masterpieces - `the protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism` and `cultural contradictions of capitalism` - mysterious are the ways of Allah! stay tuned for his next sermon in which he will discuss in detail the differences between `theocracy` and get this -`clergiocracy`.

re: sadna

i am finding it hard to accept that you are actually making sense, especially after nominating you as the most irritating individual - but lets not get too lovey-dovey about this eh? :-) we have a war against terrorism to fight and advani is still on the loose roaming around somewhere in dire need of clozapine.

SammerJB

Khalid Ahmad and you are in error with regard to interpretation. All text are neutral and open to interpretation.

Mr. Ahmad is in error when he lists all the ridiculous injunctions of the council on Islamic ideology, and concludeds that these form the substance of Islam; afterall, the council is not the same as Islam is it?

Both you and Mr. Ahmad are correct, however; in positing that figh and Shariah have attained a position that they were never intended to aspire to, indeed the circumfrence and the center have traded places. Seemingly, Every other sentence in koran begins with words ``Mercy`` and ``Compassion``, such that it is difficult to not conclude that these attributes define God the most and therefore his message of guidance, yet many Muslims, and certainly the council on Islamic ideology, seem not to take notice - can there be a more damaging error?

You for your purposes remain estranged from Islam and find it useful to denigrate it - but then you do no less, no better than the council on Islamic ideology. Which will it be a religion of ideology or the ideology of religion? the council knows not the difference.

hobbyt #248
``First of all reason (secular) and revelation (sacred) are two separate fields``

What if reason says the sacred is less irrelevant or the sacred says reason is less irrelevant?

``we only have reason as our tool for interpretating the sacred``

This depends on ones interpretation of what is sacred and beyond the reach of reason.

hobbyt #246
``What if we disagree about the relevance of revelation``..`` differences of opinion are what ``Tolerance`` is all about. ``

hobbyt, when a law is put in place, people have to OBEY it and the question of tolerance doesnot arise. The guy who has his hands cut off for robbery against his will is not `tolerating an opinion`, he is obeying it.

How to decide which law? is what we are talking of. Can one compromise on ones definition of the sacred in favor of tolerance to different definitions of sacred or even rejection of the sacred?

``If one says that Individuals are free to engage in private enterprise`, it means individuals are free to engage in private enterprise, and if they were free to engage in public enterpises, it would have been made explicit - No? Yes?``

Certainly it can be made explicit what are the scopes of public enterprise and private enterprise, both. btw, I donot know of any secular country where an individual can engage in his religious pursuits ONLY in the privacy of his home, do you?

Allowing an individual freedom to decide on some matters doesnot imply taking away his right of association with others.

Perhaps you are saying, granting an individual rights diminishes his group`s rights over him, namely his coreligionists.

Well, suppose an individual`s religious practice and what is defined as sacred for him is an autonomous groups`s business, instead of the individuals personal choice.

Now when the individual associates in public causes with those outside his group, he incurs the risk of conflict of interest, between himself and his group or between groups. ((say intermarrying between religions or even political activism for say secular education)

He could also incur hostility from his group because there is a value judgement attached to his groups definition of the sacred. How does this advance the cause of religion?

For example if there is a separate Parliament for Muslims agreed to in UK as a result of a reasonable interpretation of the scriptures that a Muslim should live under Muslim law if possible.

Now if any UK Muslim wants to opt out and get into the secular mainstream, since the ``Muslim`` defination was attached to those subscribing to the laws of the Muslim Parliament, does that mean he is now a `lesser` Muslim than they are?

If he now migrates out of UK, perhaps to the US, where there is no Muslim Parliament, he can go back to being fully Muslim. Its clear, for him personally, the legal definition of Muslim seems to have upstaged the sacred definition in importance and his group had more rights over his definition of the sacred than himself and God too?

Also perhaps adherents to different interpretations of the sacred will say, we donot want to buy into these common laws. Now should tolerance to be called for to reach a compromise? Or a reasonable interpretion of each`s set of sacred religious texts would require that various different schools of thought be allowed to have their own parliaments and laws?

Seems that the price for having a public defination of sacred over individual choice, leads to increasing fragmentation of society.

Sadna

Apologies - I overlooked answering an important point you brought out:

``Religion, however, never judges a situation independently; the judgement is refracted through the interpretation of religious texts, a task that falls within the domain of reason, which always harmonizes its comprehension of religion with its other precepts.``

Interpreting religious texts doesnot fall within the domain of reason. There is a religious text and there are precedents and neither are necessarily `reasonable`, the text for instance is likely to be `revelatory```

When Soroush is talking about ``Religion, however, never judges a situation independently... interpretation being a task that falls within the domain of reason`` needs explanation. First of all reason (secular) and revelation (sacred) are two separate fields - yet we only have reason as our tool for interpretating the sacred (after all if we had the sacred as a tool, would it need to be interpretated?)

And when Soroush says of reason ``which always harmonizes its comprehension of religion with its other precepts.`` - here, the other precepts of reason are of course all the sciences and knowledge developed by the methodologies of reason.

Again, I`m sorry, I overlooked this.

I have always maintained that blaming the failures in Islamic societies and nations on misinterpreted Islam is a myth. Most of the acts of Taliban are to be found among various Islamic literature about giqah, shariah, hadis etc. It is almost impossible to condemn Taliban on the basis of Islam. The best avenue and hope for a world according to Islam is a complete upside down of all achievements of last 500-1000 years resulting from a godsend or natural disaster or a total destruction of current principles and pillars of pluraistic societies.

To say, Islam is being misinterpreted, misrepresented and misunderstood (by the West) is just whitewash - due to belief in the infallability of scripture and scripture-inspired disciplines and principles. Now even in Pakistani print media, such voices are being heard. Here is one from the latest edition of TFT.

The myth of ‘misinterpreted’ Islam

Khaled Ahmed

There is a common fallacy that Islam as enforced in Pakistan is misinterpreted and somehow there exists a true religion of Islam which should be revived. At least Masud Mufti in Dawn (29 December 2001) seems to imply that. The truth of the matter is that under the prevailing principles of interpretation, what we have is the correct interpretation of Islam. The ‘rational’ Islam of Sir Syed Ahmad was rejected in his lifetime by all schools of thought among the Muslims, Deobandi and Barelvi alike. In Egypt the reformist spirit of Muhammad Abduh has been challenged and set aside by the Islamists of the 21st century including the ulema of Al-Azhar. There is an emphasis on fiqh under the principles of ijtehad (reinterpretation) . Not many people know that Islamic law is based on fiqh and that ijtehad is allowed only on matters not decided by fiqh . Allama Iqbal once tried to write on ijtehad and corresponded with Maulana Salman Nadvi, asking him tough questions on points where fiqh actually supersedes the Quran, to which the maulana made no reply.

The verdict on riba by the Supreme Court Shariat Appellate Bench in 1999 shocked many, but it was according to the standard application of fiqh . Right after that, the Federal Shariat Court also abolished the old Family Law Ordinance and allowed men to practice polygamy without the permission of their first wives. In an effort to make the verdict rational, the Court said it was good for Pakistan because there were more women here than men! After that the wife of Dr Israr Ahmad, the famous Lahore cleric, said that she would not mind her husband taking another wife. Famous leader of Lashkar-e-Tayba Hafiz Saeed never stopped saying that democracy was against Islam and that those who believed that Islam allowed parliament were ullu (owl). Only the army liked what he kept on saying, but he was right. The Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) and the Ministry of Religious Affairs should not be blamed for issuing outrageous Islamic proposals (the latest being that all banknote be withdrawn and the photo on them of the Quaid-e-Azam be erased) because they are following the rules of accepted interpretation in Islam.

Most people think that extremism comes out of a misinterpretation of Islam. This is wrong. Extremism and violence occur when people do not accept what the Islamists regard as the irreducible crux of Islam in the shape of shariah . (What is shariah may differ from country to country). The mood among the clergy and the Islamists is aggressive since the turn of the 20th century and violence is normally resorted to when a literalist version of fiqh-dominated Islam is not enforced. That is where extremism starts. As for the practicability of literalist Islam, many laws in force have either produced malpractice or have simply lain dormant, as in many cases of dyat (blood money) and qatt-e-yadd (cutting of hands). In such cases the stand of the Islamists is that only they will enforce them correctly when they come to power through aggressively isolationist policies in the manner of Mulla Umar. Below are produced some of the ‘strange-sounding’ statements issued by institutions and individuals charged with the task of enforcing Islam in Pakistan:

Blasphemy to apply to Allah

According to daily Jang , Council for Islamic Ideology will soon hold its session to recommend that anyone blaspheming against Allah too should be punished. It will also recommend that no woman be allowed to marry without the permission of her wali (male guardian). It is expected to ban kite-flying, organ transplant and smoking.

Religion ministry okays Taliban idol-bashing

According to Khabrain , the ministry for religious affairs in Islamabad gave its verdict on the destruction of ancient statues in Afghanistan by saying that the Taliban were right in doing so. The Foreign Office had asked the ministry about the status of this destruction in shariat . Thus Pakistan had now to support the destruction of the ancient Buddha statues in Afghanistan, although it was not made clear what should be done to such statues ion Pakistan.

Objection to Christian hangman

According to Khabrain , the Council for Islamic Ideology had become seized with the question of Christian jallad (hangman) executing Muslim convicts in Pakistan. Among issues taken to the Council by the religion ministry was the issue of girls marrying of their own choice.

Closure during namaz

According to daily Din , religion ministry had given the task of preparing a draft ordinance for the enforcement of namaz in Pakistan. Its directive was that all businesses should be closed down five times during namaz and during Friday namaz, and no one should be allowed to break this law. The entire country will have the same namaz and azan (call) timings.

Religion minister against Punjabi Conference

Quoted in daily Insaf , federal religion minister Mehmud Ghazi said that the Gandhis of Pakistan were trying to raise the slogan of Punjabi to undermine the Islamic ideology of Pakistan. He said that the Punjabi Conference held in Lahore was an Indian scheme, which emphasized the region at the cost of Islam.

No songs on PTV, please!

According to daily Jang , the federal ministry for religious affairs headed by Mr Mahmud Ghazi had sent a recommendation to the ministry of information that all songs and dances shown on PTV be banned. The ministry’s letter said that PTV was involved in emulating Indian TV channels and was showing women shaking their bodies.

Ideology Council recommends ‘wali’

According to Khabrain , Council for Islamic Ideology (CII) announced that nikah of a girl without the permission of wali (male member of family) was un-Islamic and those girls getting married of their own choice should be punished under law. A verdict undoing such a marriage at Lahore High Court was set aside by the Supreme Court not long ago, but the CII favored the earlier verdict. The other enlightened opinion of the CII was that co-education should be banned, that all lotteries like prize bonds should be banned and the paper used for printing the Quran should not be recycled.

Ideology Council critical of Supreme Court

According to daily Din , chairman of the Ideology Council of Pakistan (CII) criticised the Supreme Court for postponing the removal of bank interest for another year. Its chairman Mr S.M. Zaman said that it was not an economic issue but an issue related to the Quran and the Prophet PBUH. CII had earlier endorsed the destruction of Afghanistan’s archaeological heritage by the Taliban and criticized the Hanafi laws of letting girls marry without the permission of the wali. According to Nawa-e-Waqt , the Council also rejected religion minister Mahmood Ghazi’s plan to use zakat to allow the poor to invest in businesses by saying that zakat could not be used for investment of any kind.

Namaz defaulters to be punished

According to Khabrain , religion ministry had sent the draft of a new law called Amr bil maruf wa nahi anal munkir Ordinance to the cabinet for approval and enforcement. Under this law everyone will be required to say namaz , all government employees will have to lay aside work during namaz timings and will be fined if they didn’t say namaz. At all levels, ulema committees will see to it that non- namazi Muslims are punished. All those who refuse to say namaz after three warnings will be fined.

Insurance is un-Islamic

According to Khabrain , Council for Islamic Ideology (CII) ruled that insurance of all kinds was against Islam and should be abolished forthwith. Instalments paid into a policy should be given under mudaraba (leasing) to make insurance Islamic. Mudaraba business did not do well in Pakistan.

Non-alcoholic beer un-Islamic

According to Jang , the Council of Islamic Ideology came to the conclusion that soft drinks sold as non-alcoholic beer were not jaez (allowed) in Islam. The Council said that any drink which is not sharab (alcohol) could not be called sharab or that the name beer should not be put on it. It said preparation and trade of non-alcoholic beer inside or outside Pakistan was haram (prohibited).

Kalima for the flag

Daily Khabrain reported that despite the passage of 23 years since the Council of Islamic Ideology made its first proposal about it, the government had not changed the flag. The recommendation was that kalima tayyaba be inscribed on the Pakistan national flag along with Allah Akbar. It was a pity that such a good scheme for Islamising the national flag was not accepted so far.

No women in ads, please!

Quoted in Jang , the Council for Islamic Ideology (CII) said that women should be disallowed from appearing in ads and that only men should be used to promote products through photographs. It said that women were allowed to work as air hostesses but they should wearing burqa or hijab on board. Also, no darzi (tailor) should be allowed to sew the clothes for women and that only women darzi should be used for women. According to the daily, CII also recommended that ACRs of all state employees should contain sections indicating religious observance and those not saying namaz should not be promoted.

Jehad is no defensive war!

According to Jang , the Council for Islamic Ideology in Islamabad declared that it was wrong to label jehad as a defensive war alone. The truth according to CII was that jehad could be offensive as well. According to Nawa-e-Waqt , the CII stated that Western propaganda against jehad had pushed it into the background, but everyone should be grateful to Afghanistan for having revived it. It said that the greatest act of piety was participation in jehad and one cause of the decline of the Muslims was their abandonment of it.

Currency will be banned

Daily Jang magazine quoted Lashkar-e-Tayba chief Hafiz Saeed as saying that when Islamic government is imposed on Pakistan currency will be abolished and gold and silver coins only will be legal tender. He said that the constitution too would be abolished, as there was no need of a constitution in the presence of Quran. According to Khabrain , an insulator of the Prophet PBUH was sentenced to death in a Lahore Sessions Court because Yusuf ‘Kazzab’ had claimed to be the khalifa (appointee) of the Prophet PBUH.

Get rid of ‘bainamaz’ officers

According to daily Pakistan , the Council of Islamic Ideology recommended to the government that it should fire civil servants who did not say their namaz, and that areas where people said their namaz should be selected for concessional development funds.

Against Sunday holiday

According to daily Pakistan, Islamic Ideology Council (IIC) resolved in Islamabad that Pakistan should revert to Friday as weekly holiday for Islamic blessings, which supported a similar demand made by some shopkeepers in Lahore. However, two members of the CII, not member Afzal Haider, insisted that instead of reverting to Friday, the government should ensure that people said their Friday prayer.Jail against Islam

Prison not allowed in Islam

According to Khabrain , Council of Islamic Ideology declared that sending anyone to prison was against Shariat and recommended that prison sentences be abolished. Early Islam had no jails, no police, and no banks. Thieves used to have their hands cut.

Sadna, Saminashah

You are in a similar error as Rajanjua, in thinking that Reason and Revelation are the same in this work - they most certainly are not. Reason (secular), Revelation (ecclesiastic), they can be complementary of course.

What if we disagree about the relevance of revelation? To what? for argument`s sake, everything except reason (for if we disagreed with absolutely everything, then we would be in a polarized paradigm war - which only a recourse to public opinion or political violence, might offer resolution) - differences of opinion are what ``Tolerance`` is all about.

``If one says about privately-owned businesses `Individuals are free to engage in private enterprise`, it means individuals are free to engage in private enterprise, not that the state owns all public enterprises``

This a statement of extraordinary clarity! in an Orwellian sense. Please reflect further on this.

If one says that Individuals are free to engage in private enterprise`, it means individuals are free to engage in private enterprise, and if they were free to engage in public enterpises, it would have been made explicit - No? Yes? - After all, the fact that they free to engage in private enterprse has been made explicit.

Indeed, when some on these boards posit that Religion`s practice should be limited to the private, personal sphere - they are in effecting setting a boundary, a arbitrary limit. The balancing of the secular (Reason) and the Revealed is the ``elusive Elixir`` Soroush is referring to - and which you and I have discussed since we first conversed on these boards. I have repeated stated that the problem is not the specialization of the institutions of religion and governance - the problem remains the lack of neutrality of the insitutions of goverenance with regard to the institutions of religion (``religion to be private, personal``) . Yet this lack of neutrality was supposed to have been attenuated by the independence of the judiciary - that is possible only if the hostility toward religion is not institutionalized.

Samina, I want to agree that communism is far from ``dead`` as a political and cultural force. Marx had predicted and predicated his work on communism as a post industrial phenomemon, yet it`s emergence, thus far, has been in what were agricultural societies. Clearly chialistic sense of mission and salvation remain potent forces in the hearts and minds of men.