The April Fool Referendum

PM,

Since you have lived in Pakistan, I have often wondered if you read somethings in Hobbyty`s postings that I fail to detect despite my best efforts.

Take, for instance, this kind of statement that Hobbyty repeatedly makes:

``The understanding of Quranic scripture cannot be static; it is constantly evolving; as our understanding. I think we must be very cautious when evaluating verses, are they general, are they particluar, do they refer to or are a comment upon a specific event or personality?``

That may well be very fine and dandy in societies in which this ``understanding`` wasn`t such a big deal, claiming a right to rule over over ordinary people`s lives. If a society is to base itself on Quran, then this ``understanding`` - at any point in time - becomes the alpha and the omega of the society`s constitution, ethics, and morality.

Now, have you ever fully understood the exact social process and mechanisms by which this societal ``understanding`` (since Quran itself is supposedly eternal and beyond critique) is expected to be arrived at?

This question, it seems to me, has profound implications. We are asking in effect: what is the social process and mechanism by which a whole society`s ethics, morality, and constitution be arrived at a point in time?

Personal awakening and free, democratic universal participation is one way, but Hobbyty is firmly set against this form of personalized Islam. He wants Islam as a public force, perhaps states based on Shariah (or whatever form/shape of Islam appeals to him based on his own evolving understanding).

So if one rejects the ``western`` ideals of individual liberty, responsibility, and democratic universal participation as inferior to the perfection of Quran, what way is left for Ittehad?

Based on your personal knowledge of Pakistan, and perhaps reading of the Quran, what precisely is this better method? How soon, in your view, is Pakistan likely to discover this method?

I ask in all sincerity. What am I missing? I am certain Hobbyty has answered all these questions many times over but I have just completely failed to get any of it.

Hobbes #346
I am not in philosophy or history, there will be better people to guide you on work of Spinoza.
The ``History of Philosophy`` by Will Durant is short and concise. And gives in nutshell the different philosophers and philosophy.
As far as I understand Quran, everything is done by God, whether it appears to be a natural process. For example formation of human, child etc, is described as being done by God. Similar with blowing of winds or movement of planets etc. Thus I presume that natural process or laws of nature are somehow related to be done by God or reflect the will of God.
What about social laws. Social laws like laws of economics and other presuppose a human society in existence at a certain stage, or if you are abhorrent to word stage, then we can use at a specific place and time. There is some underlying laws within these parameters also and is dependent upon human nature as formed by human interaction over millenia. For example people will move towards better economic opportunity (or opportunity) etc. Are these laws dictated by God? Whatever way you argue it, this is the direction human society has taken. We can say it as laws applicable to human society.
Do these laws reflect God`s will or not?.
God is omnipotent, omnipresent and all powerful. There is no one to share in this attribute. Not even a devil. This is not a matter of two gods ``Aharman and Yazdan. god of good and god of evil. There is only one God who has no sharer in his power.
So how come world is like this anti-God. Quran says that if God willed, HE would have made monotonous world (or something like that), but that is not God`s will.
Let me give you an example from Surah Rome.
Quran says that from 3-7 years people of book will overcome Unbelievers. It can be argued in many ways. But is there a role of unpredictability of human society and human endeavours and many factors which come into play.
Any way the role of devil, whatever it is, is also with the consent of God.
So ultimately we end up with God`s commandment to guide us through this tricky and treacherour World created by God himself.
If you agree with this point of view, you will see why the concept of Heaven and hell is so important. And why it is important to know that whoever has not received God`s message cannot be blamed.
As far as your point of ``is`` and its interpretation according to certain time period, it may or may not be applicable here.

PM
Thank you for your kind interest. ``How does it square...`` I`m not sure exactly what you mean - The understanding of Quranic scripture cannot be static; it is constantly evolving; as our understanding. I think we must be very cautious when evaluating verses, are they general, are they particluar, do they refer to or are a comment upon a specific event or personality? That redemption is available for all, does not mean that we ignore that devil(s) is also a force which can act upon us and that we ought be vigilant against.
So why do we have faith in God but not the devil? lets` look to the definition of the ``good``? OK. So why do we faith in the ``good`` and not the devil or the bad? Are these equal forces? Is man civil in ``nature``, I don`t mean the natural world, I mean in himself? How can we know or at least have some clue?

Interesting discussion on ``human nature`` and the ``good``.
Hobbes, you write: ``With your permission, If I may approach this differently, ``Why do we have (those who do) faith in God, whereas we do not have faith in the devil`` ? - I would very much appreciate if you could explore this question. ``
That, I think IS a pivotal question, tying into the question of what is our notion of the Good (that is, something we deem worthy of putting our faith in). Indirectly, it defines God, I think, as the embodiment exactly of what we believe (and with a willingness to be faithful to/with) the Good.
This kinda turns Krashid`s equation of instinct with goodness (or even with `human nature`) on its head, since instinct precludes choice/willingness etc, which we (above) assume to be a part of the framework within which humans live their lives. To put it another way, and succintly, the very fact that we ask the question (or that we are equpped with the wherewithal to ask it, puts paid to the equation of intinct with human nature. (To be sure, `instict` is not the best term there, since `doubting`, `submitting`, `faithing` can also argued to be instincts (have read some brilliant work by Russell on this subject of hierarchy of isntincts-- would be happy to share)
I am curious as to your assertion viz. predestination in Islamic thought, Hobbyty. You write:
With your permission, If I may approach this differently, ``Why do we have (those who do) faith in God, whereas we do not have faith in the devil`` ? - I would very much appreciate if you could explore this question.

```Predestination`` is a doctrine related to salvation and that some are ``chosen`` for salvation, while others are not - such a doctrine runs counter to the entire notion of redemption which is central to Islam, and Christianity and Judaism - That is why God is ``Merciful and Compassionate``, that is why ``fogiveness`` is central to human well being in the desert faiths.``
I have often wondered how this redemptive theology squares with ayahs in the Qur`an that suggest clearly that believers are not to waste their time with those``..whom Allah has cast away``. (Sorry, but cannot quote chapter and verse here). Perhaps I am not aware of the context, in which case would appreciate some enlightenment. (Christian theology has similar trappings, paradoxically alongside redemptive theolgy).
Thanks,
PM

Chowkies
Finally - An unsavory truth, but one that must be accepted if we are to make progress along the path of greater transparency and fuller participation in the political processes in Pakistan; Editorial from ``The News International`` - dtd today
``Democratic decision?
Democratic culture has not yet fully taken root in Pakistan, not because of military intervention but due to the undemocratic and opportunistic approach of the politicians. Going into self-exile when it suits them, changing loyalties more often than their socks and issuing political statements from the comfort of their drawing rooms are some of the glaring examples of our `democratic` leaders. Putting an end to the rumour mills on Wednesday, Benazir Bhutto said in an interview that her return to Pakistan to contest the general elections scheduled for October 10 is unlikely. She accused the military government of trampling every democratic norm and defrauding the people of Pakistan with regard to democratic and political rights, and saw little point in returning when her very participation was in question.
Pronouncements about the undemocratic behaviour of the government, not afraid of being arrested and the final decision being for the betterment of democracy in the country are routine for the politicians not only at times of military rule but also when there are civilian governments. The two major parties -- whose leaders are abroad in self-exile or otherwise -- are both being run in an autocratic manner and played key roles in downing each other`s government through the 58(2)b mechanism. The Jeddah based prime minister preferred to strike a deal with the military government against fighting for democracy, while the London based former premier on several occasions had indicated being agreeable to working with a military president. In this context Benazir will do a great service to democracy if she also discloses the real reason for not returning ie terms and conditions she has agreed to for reaching this decision. While the former PM talks of not getting a fair trial if she returns, she avoided -- deliberately or otherwise -- facing the government head-on when she had the chance. She refused to appear on CNN Q&A last month where Information Minister Nisar Memon was also invited to present the government`s case. Why she did not avail this perfect opportunity to clear herself and her husband through the international media needs to be answered.
Democracy cannot be strengthened by having autocracy in political parties and leaders confining their activities to drawing rooms and saving their own skin when it was time to face the hard part. Changing loyalties, inviting the army to take over the reins of the country when reduced to the position of opposition and redefining democracy according to the need of the hour do not reflect good leadership. Though the masses are still illiterate and firmly under the grip of feudal system, political awakening is slowly taking place in the society with an expansion of electronic media. The politicians need to learn more what democracy is all about before they lose out to a system that can do without them.``

Krashid
Sir, Forgive me if I have misunderstood you. I`m not familiar with the work of Spinoza, with the exception of of a piece by Mr. Afaqui. Perhaps you may refer some of Spinoza`s works to me.
I think I understand you to mean that any all events, actions, decisions can be seen as simply ``is`` - and in that way is the will of God? That any characterization is one that we give to these, that these characterizations are not inherent? Any chance you an elaborate?

Here is latest intelligence report from Pakistan’s famous political diagnostician predicting a very poor harvest for King Mushaaraf fiefdom from King’s Party serfs -- in October elections.

Ayaz Amir says that the situation is dismal for Musharraf and his sycophants -- ONLY MASS RIGGING of Election can save Musharraf from an ignoble defeat – but he warns Musharraf against trying the same referendum type mass rigging of election – because everybody domestically and internationally is watching his card shuffle for ANY sleight of hands – with a microscope.

Ayaz Amir has also some crucial advice for the ARD United Front of BB and NS. They must stick together. They MUST win big

He wants them to WIN BIG – TO SAVE THE PAKISTAN ARMY FROM ITSELF!!

Here is the first part of his column:

For birds of passage cruel times

By Ayaz Amir
(excerpts)

This dispatch from the frontlines--I write from the electoral trenches of Chakwal--is really meant for the benefit of three dear friends: Tariq Aziz, General Musharraf`s principal secretary and the godfather of the King`s Party or the Quisling League, Lt Gen Ehsan, head of ISI, and Maj Gen Talat Munir, head of the Intelligence Bureau.

The first remains a dear friend despite the company he keeps. When General Musharraf seized power three years ago I remember Tariq Aziz telling me that this military intervention was different from all previous ones because the helmsman, for once, was without ambition. Well, well. I wonder what Tariq`s definition of ambition is now. The other two were with me at Kakul, both promising cadets marked for future promotion.

Only massive rigging can avert its predestined discomfiture.
But massive rigging--of the kind we saw in the glorious referendum--is impossible. No one would stand for it: not the international community, not the people of Pakistan.

Now for a bit of advice: any more mucking with the election process will do no good. It won`t alter the political landscape because that`s not easily done. But it will further discredit the rule of the generals. Why go in for such a poor bargain?

Look at the candidates the Q League is fielding: turncoats and fair-weather friends. Who`s the Q candidate in Islamabad? No name sticks in the mind. Who`s the party fielding in `Pindi? Lacklustre comrades.
In Lahore a former colleague of mine in the Punjab assembly has reportedly refused a Q ticket. When this race began, a Q ticket appeared to be the surest guarantee of success. As electioneering sputters into life, it`s hard to say how many hopefuls still cling to the same belief.

All my experiments lead to one inescapable conclusion: no one is buying the confectionery of the Q League.

My heart goes out to the regime`s political engineers. All their hard work seems to be coming to nothing.

We have already seen the fiasco of the Jatoi-led National Alliance. Does it stand a hope in hell? Regarding Farooq Leghari, one look at him is enough to make one despair of the political process.

The General has already ensured his own future by hacking away at that poor document, the Constitution, and by building protective dikes around his person. His Legal Framework Order, issued with no more effort than it takes to sign a piece of paper, remains a marvel of constitutional innovation.

All this having been achieved, what`s the sense in playing any more games? Was this country created for the sake of the Chaudries of Gujrat? Is this what we as a nation have come to?

In the quiet watches of the night Tariq Aziz must ask himself these questions.````
(Dawn)

Ayaz Amir (contd)
(excerpts)

````None of this absolves the two major parties - the PML-N and the PPP - from their responsibilities. Between now and the last date for withdrawal of nomination papers they must get their act together. That is, if they are not to sit around for the next five years bemoaning their lost chances. General Musharraf`s guiding principle is divide and rule.
The only counter to this is `unite and resist`.

The season of cutting separate deals with the military government is over. For a long time to come this will be the last call for democracy. Common sense dictates that only those candidates from the two major parties should be left in the field who have the better chance of knocking out the straw figures of the Sarkari League.

Why is a united front at this juncture important? Not for the sake of winning or for the advantage of this or that party.

Larger issues are at stake here. The army has to be saved from itself which is only possible if there is a strong vote for democracy in this election.

The army must return to its proper functions because its record over the last three years, especially its micro-involvement in political and administrative matters, has left its image tarnished. Can Pakistan afford this? Can the army afford this?

The one thing that has repeatedly betrayed the professional standing of the army is authoritarianism. It follows that the army`s best defence lies in democracy.

It`s no service to the country when democracy and the army are presented as counterpoints to each other.

What is Pakistan`s foremost problem at the moment?

The feeling of indispensability sweeping the Musharraf regime. After me, the deluge.

What is Pakistan`s foremost need?

To convince Caesar that he is mortal.

Who can perform this function? Only a parliament that doesn`t dance to the ISI`s tune, whose members do not take instructions from ISI brigadiers and major-generals. This election then is not about reviving the fallen fortunes of Ms Bhutto or the Sharifs.

It is about restoring a balance in Pakistan`s polity, a balance which currently has ceased to exist.

What checks and balances does Gen Musharraf talk about?

His constitutional prescriptions have wrecked the very notion of check and balance. Imagine a play or a film in which there is one actor playing all the parts.

This is what the military has done, hog all the roles.

We need to move towards a greater diversity, something only the coming election can deliver.

That too if the yes men of the Q League - the army in whose recruitment Tariq Aziz has shown so much skill - get the drubbing their shoddy politics deserves. (Dawn)

Hobbes #336
I think, I fail to communicate properly.
One thing is laws of nature, or laws of society. In my opinion they reflect some underlying functioning of society. For example why in a Islamic country like Iran there is a talk of ``Decency house``. Why there were so many drinkers even in Early Islamic period. Man is free will. And there are many things which move society. Why there is prostitution when society moves into Capitalism. And not when it is in early stages. These things happen in society even if there are laws against it. For example drug laws, laws against prostitution etc.
My belief is not even a leaf moves without will of God. So, I think in Spinoza style (not Neitsche) that laws of nature or society in some way reflects God`s will. Or if society moves in a certain direction, there are many forces which start acting on the society.
If this is not like this. Then ultimately we have to believe that some other force is acting in contradiction to God`s will, and not only working, but is successful. This notion will be antithesis to omnipotent God.
Now, to bring some purpose, God sent his commandments. Which demands a conscious effort on the part of man. If we see from the life of Prophet PBUH, he not only proclaimed there is no god but God. He also pin pointed the vice in society. During this effort, one tends to make many enemies especially from powerful and their machinery. And this struggle may even lead to martyrdom, if one is very proactive.
As far as predestination is concerned. This has been debated in history in the form of ``Jabar`` or ``Qadar``. That means if there is predestination, then everbody even a whore and debauch are acting according to certain divine plan. And therefore they are not at fault. If there is no predestination then man is making his effort and is responsible for his actions.
I think there is predestination. That means thing work according to some underlying laws.
But (and this also according to Quran), once a person listened to the commandment of God and realized that it is true and still persists in his old ways, then that person is acting out of free will and will be punished. While another person listened to God`s commandment and said ``Samayna Wa Ata`na`` he definitely has reward from God. Because through maturation, he might ultimately has to leave all the things which he considers dear and near. Money, family, life style etc.
I think, i am able to communicate.
What thou say.

Hobbes #
I wish, I had little time to indulge in reading. I plan to do that once I retire.
Koran says ``Enmity of someone should not make you blind, to move away from justice``
Z.A. Bhutto was elected from West Pakistan, especially Punjab in 1970 election. He did what a representative of Punjab would do in that situation. This topic is lengthy, we probably delay it for a while, if you agree.
The other topic is not only for discussion for me, but it is also to clarify things for myself by discussion.

krashid,

{{Naapak army or Namak Haram communists who ate the salt of Pakistan and eat the salt of America and still dream of their uptopia and their totalitarian leadership - let history judge.}}

Sounds like the great prof hobbes hasnt waited for history`s verdict. His Highness has already passed judgement. OK boss, you are a namaak haram communist, who has the unmitigated gall to curse the military. Hey! its better than being branded as ``defensive, suffering from an inferiority complex, morally neutred or ignorant``.

Dont you realise that Allah Himself has appointed the venerable prof hobbes as Chowk`s judge & juror! I cant believe you have the tameez to argue with His Honor.

Folks meet now -- Musharraf the Corrupt Politician -- tried the same trick witth Benazir and failed -- now the rejection from Nawaz Sharif -- gaurding the borders is so much easier and fun -- than gaurding the THRONE -- bechaarey Jurnail saheb -- saaree aqarfooN khatam ho gaiee -- honesty kee...

Musharraf offered deal to Sharif, claims party
ISLAMABAD, SEPT 4
The party of exiled former prime minister Nawaz Sharif today accused President Pervez Musharraf of trying to strike a deal with the former premier ahead of October 10 elections.

Sharif rejected Musharraf`s ``scheme and every time the deal was rejected, Musharraf`s handy men unleashed a barrage of scathing statements,`` Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) spokesman Siddiqul Farooq said in a statement.

The deal, according to Farooq, offered Sharif and his family members a safe return to Pakistan after the October 10 elections if he agreed to back the pro-government candidates of PML-N`s breakaway faction.

The deal included bars on Sharif and his family, some 20 of whom have been in exile in Saudi Arabia since December 2000, from standing in the elections.

Another part of the deal was that the PML-N enter into electoral seat adjustment arrangements with the pro-Musharraf Pakistan Muslim League(Q), made up of Sharif`s former loyalists.

The former two-time premier on Saturday withdrew his candidacy, claiming solidarity with his main political rival and former prime minister Benazir Bhutto after her nomination papers were rejected.

The Sharif clan was exiled to Saudi Arabia in a clandestine deal with the Musharraf regime allegedly brokered by Saudi royal family.

Musharraf has said the deal included a written commitment by Sharif and his younger brother Shahbaz to stay out of Pakistan and its politic s for 10 years. The Sharifs have denied any such deal.(AP)

Krashid
``The Daily Times`` dated Sept. 04, 2002, has a book review by a Yoinder Singh on ``Islam and Democracy`` - the review expectedly is flat - however, if you should ever get the chance to read the works of Sorush, please do yourself this favor; I think you will enjoy the works. Below is an extract from the review:
``Jahanbakhsh sees the efforts of ‘lay’ Iranian Muslim thinkers as more creative than that of most ‘ulama in developing a relevant and contemporary Islamic understanding of democracy and human rights. Thus, for instance, Ali Shari’ati’s radical revisioning of Islamic ideology as a revolutionary creed, implicitly critiqued the ‘ulama for their limited vision, and called for a true ‘tauhidic’ or ‘monotheist’ order, which was to be based on social and economic equality. In our own times, the author shows, Shari’ati’s critical legacy is being carried forward through the efforts of Abdol Karim Soroush in developing a new way of understanding the relationship between Islam and the law.
Jahanbaksh devotes several pages to Soroush’s Qur’anic hermeneutics, or what he calls the ‘law of contraction and expansion of Islamic knowledge’. Jahanbakshsh sees this as the boldest attempt by modern Iranian scholars to develop a contextual understanding of Islam, one that makes a crucial distinction between Islam, as God’s word, and understandings of Islam as human products, necessarily limited and partial. This suggests that no person or group of people, including the traditional ‘ulama, can claim that their own understanding of Islam represents the absolute truth, for this is known to God alone. In turn, this opens up new possibilities for a radical ijtihad, a creative interpretation of the faith that can seriously engage with issues of contemporary concern, such as democracy and human rights``
`` law of contraction and expansion of Islamic knowledge`` is also know as ``The theory of Hermenutic contraction and expansion of Shariah`` - So liberating is this understanding, that I feel confident in saying to you and all Chowk, that when this theory gains ``critical mass``, that is, when three percent of Islamia, begin to understand this theory, a revolution, Yes, Sir, a revolutionary change in the understanding of Islam, it`s relationship with Reason, the Law and the State, will transform Islam as we know it today. Truly, a work to bring you a great joy and hope.

#336

is there another shankar? i did not post #336

post #329 ke liye khodara mujhe accuse na kijiye -- yeh maqtaa Momin ka naheeN hai: - kabaa kiss munH se jao gay Ghalib/sharm tumko mugger naheeeN aatee

Krashid #343
Trees, Birds and animals are not man; that these and submit to the will of God is not reason for us to hold that so does man. Indeed, man must learn or become conscious, to submit to the will of God. A whore or a debauch is MOST CERTAINLY NOT, that is, NOT submitting tot he Will of God - You reduce the Will of God to the base?? What you describe is the asethete ethic, not the will of God as understood in the sacred scriptures. It is entirely objectionable; deeply insulting! Why have you felt the need to deliver so recklessly, a needless injury??
You confuse our acceptance of the humanity, that is, the inherent redemptablity, of God`s infinite love of his creature, of the whore and the debauch, of the availablity of forgiveness, with behaviour that warrants forgiveness and is itself a cry for the redemtion of God. Aesthetes do confuse and equate the rebellion of man with ``nature`` and they do confuse and equate the idea of submission to the will of God to God`s will as the equivalent of ``nature`` -such understanding, I characterize as shameless and arrogant! Nietzchean tripe! For all those worshippers of Man, a reminder: It is Nietzche who is dead!
You say, ``For example if you throw money on ground, majority of people instantaneously will try to pick it up. This is human nature or man is submitting to the will of Allah or whatever name you give it. But when the man makes a conscious decision that it is not his money, because he has not earned it etc. He is basically following God`s commandment, if he believes in that. ``
I must admit that it is not my understanding that ``human nature`` if any such thing exists, is the same as the ``Will of God`` - It is in fact a most objectionable statement you have made - perhaps I have failed to comprehend it or it could be rephrased - Many persons think that submission to the Will of God, means not being responsible for their own decisions and reasoned choices - I don`t share the same understanding, to my thinking, it means exactly the opposite - that one must be more conscious, assume greater responsibility - The part about ``submission to the Will of God`` part is about how one evaluates, organizes, makes sense of their experience. You have in this statement a continuation of your base suggestion that the whore and the debauch as the greedy and the petty in the example above, are ``archtype`` of ``human nature`` - and that this is a reflection of God`s will - in effect you turn God`s Will, reflected in the ethics of the scriptures on it`s head. Good is bad is Good; as if unconscious of the root of the word Good.
With your permission, If I may approach this differently, ``Why do we have (those who do) faith in God, whereas we do not have faith in the devil`` ? - I would very much appreciate if you could explore this question.
Krashid, you say, ``... it is the conscious decision of Muslim to adopt a life, not in harmony with nature, but according to God`s commandment, the height of which is ``Martyrdom``. `` Can you please elaborate on the ideas in this statement, for instance, ``conscious decision of Muslim`` - what is the Muslim conscious of ? Of commitment or the requirement of commitment? And can you also develop the notion of ``nature`` as it applies here of course, please elaborate on ``Maryrdom`` as you understand it applies in your statment.
you say, ``So in a way, I am for predestination as far as it reflects that there is some underlying working in all things.``
``Predestination`` is not what you have described - Destiny is. ``Predestination`` is a doctrine related to salvation and that some are ``chosen`` for salvation, while others are not - such a doctrine runs counter to the entire notion of redemption which is central to Islam, and Christianity and Judaism - That is why God is ``Merciful and Compassionate``, that is why ``fogiveness`` is central to human well being in the desert faiths.