Islamic Utopia?

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

re: stuka

{If future generations of Pakistanis want a secular state they will mould one in a democratic system.}

...given how many sympathizers of military dictatorships and state religions one finds even amongst the seemingly educated lot (like romair). you have to wonder...if the country truly was sick of dictators and wanted democracy, there has been sufficient time in the past 50 years to have a revolution....

YLH:

A well written article. I especially liked the comparison to the Western world, where the influence of the church grew and then rapidly declined.

I do agree with Dost Mittar however; regardless of the intentions of the creators of Pakistan, it is the people who should define the country. If future generations of Pakistanis want a secular state they will mould one in a democratic system.

If the majority of the present generation of Pakistanis want an Islamic state, it should not be denied by force. If the Mullahs are willing to make a commitment to democracy, then the choice is that of the people.

YLH:
I agree with Dost-Mittar. Do not pursue unattainable goals (e.g. secular state), it will only lead to frustration. Instead, work for the attainment of an `ideal Islamic state`. That seems to be more in line with the what the majority public opinion in Pakistan seems to want. The matter seems to have been decided, and the issue of secular/non-secular state is for academics only from this point on. As Dost says, if the fools amongst the 3% minorities who cannot reconcile with the fact that they will never become Pakistan`s President, PM, Chief Justice, or a general, then leave them to their fate, or ask them to leave the country.
The only other Muslim country that has tried to chart a secular course with great difficulty, Turkey, did so only after they were convincingly defeated on the battlefield, in the market, and in the laboratory of science by secular countries. It was the failure of their cherished ideals that led to introspection and the abandonment of religious dogma. Even so, the religious right in Turkey is down, but not out.
Pakistan is not in the same situation as Turkey. It`s competitor, India, is not as far ahead of Pakistan as the Europeans were ahead of Turkey even 100 years ago. As long as India does not convincingly forge ahead of Pakistan economically and technologically, the message of the anti-secularists in Pakistan will not be discredited. And that won`t happen for a very long time. In a way, the success of secularists in Pakistan, is dependent upon the success of their brethren in India, and India`s ability to solve its gigantic problems (health, poverty, social equality). (Who said that India and Pakistan are not joined at the hip?). As long as India struggles with these issues, the secularist voice in Pakistan will not be able to find a credible role-model to point to. However, should India succeed in becoming a high-income country, then the military-mullah axis in Pakistan will be completely discredited. Whether even that results in a pursuit of pragmatic policies in Pakistan, is anyone`s guess.

I would suggest to you that Mr. Advani is the exact Hindu analog of Mr. Jinnah. Both have taken a ``short-cut`` to power. This is also the reason why it is extremely important that Mr. Advani not be the prime minister after the next election. Inshallah, the BJP which is steadily being crushed will be reduced (once again) to a significant but small party representing conservative north indian hindus.

Both individuals chose demagoguery over substance when it came to the crunch. Without a doubt Mr. Jinnah was a much higher quality individual but when his back was to the wall he carried out the exact equivalent of Advani`s rath yatra in his ``direct action days`` and the fantastical notion of a ``homeland`` for muslims, a community found in every district of undivided india! Exactly as fantastical as the theories of ``hindu grievance`` that Advani has directly and indirectly supported in India and which may in the end destroy Indian democracy.

Once the relationship is clear, the rest of Pakistani history follows straightforwardly. The question for us Indians is whether Indian democracy is robust enough to resist the pakistanization of India with demagogues like Advani and Modi.

Prem,

I`m not sure I understand you. Are you saying ana & noorlain are the same person?!

YLH:
August `47 brought independence, but not freedom. Independence and freedom are very different concepts, and are not synonymous.
I recommend that you read, `What Went Wrong: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response` by Bernard Lewis (Oxford University Press) to understand why secularism finds it so hard to strike roots in Islamic countries, and what it portends for Pakistan.

Khaki duds
Mate bearded thugs
Pakistan Paindabad
The nation`s hoist
By its own petard
Pakistan Zindabad
The jackals howl
The wolves they scowl
Where is God
To call the foul?

All I would say on this board is that when you mix religion with matters of the nation or the state, nothing good will or can come out of it over the long run.

Rozaiba makes some good points. On chowk, it`s absurd to see ana (who interestingly has been using the nick nooralain :))-such a devoted and endearing Pakistani-being informed by the state (not some group like sipah sahaba or whatever) that she is not a full citizen.

This theatre of the absurd becomes positively obscene when people who support such set ups begin to resent even being profiled in other countries....

Really, this whole worldview is so messed up....

khair...

``Thank God, we are now realising that our fundoos are not good for the market price of sweet potatoes``.

I say, Yasser, this whole religion thing is so cyclical. Luckily your fundoos & our fundoos have only got access to a few dozen nuclear bombs.

I am getting more worried about the fundoos who seem to have about 12000-15000 nuclear bombs and are currently using their ``acceptance of modernity`` to wage a terror war . . .

``The path to revitalization of the Islamic order lies in the acceptance of modernity``

............that is just not possible - you cannot reconcile antiquity with modernity ......... the silly concept of the islamic order has to be destroyed and replaced with plain old horse sense ..........

coming from a predominantly christian neighborhood that despite it`s gawking social inequities has managed to keep any sectarian voilence at bay (at least in the immediate area), it`s hard for me to accept ANY islamic party simply because evidence only points to how the fundos fuk up the harmony rather than promote it.

if christian friends have little loyalty to a nation whose name and slogan are based on a religion that isn`t theirs, rather then putting them down for their action, i prefer putting down the nation that carries that ideology that has lead to it`s citizens (even if few) to feel like `outsiders`.

if promoters of islam can convince the christians and other minorities (within and outside the religion) that islam is a solution and will not be a problem for them- which all present indications state that it is a problem for them, only then can islam, ijtihad and all that you state about modernist islam can be thought of as serious.

yes, like you point out, only actions will change perceptions.

untill then, all thoughts and statements about islam`s unified piety and righteousness and equality in political and social life today are a lie.

need to do away with the notion of ``islamic`` country.

any country that uses religion as the basis of its identity doesn`t have chance.

Yasser,

Good to hear from you again. Fill us in with the details. What have you been upto?