Women and Divine Decrees

#59 by PM on July 31, 2003 11:28am PT

The all or nothing view of the west in imposing its Ideology is well known but usually not admitted and at times not recognised by people like you.

In India we could happily live with communists in West Bengal and Kerala but if we belived US we would have had to kill a few hundred thousand people who were infected with its fever.

Socitey is a balance between opposing forces. While there is some amount of domination of one over the other which periodically changes positions. the same was true historiacially in Islamic/muslim countries over centuries.

For centureies you had kings and nobles given to drinking and licentousness. In fact the Mughal dynasty had many such specimens who wasted their lives in these acctivites. The Islamic faction also existed and there was some sort of power play and accomadation.

I dont see it not happening in future either.

What skews the issues is not the above items but the distributed and defeated nature of Muslim poility, Its backwardness technologicaly and economicaly, The influence of Oil and other startegic concerns of US. All these have much more Impact than the twin issues of Secualrism/Islamism. Of we ourselves are blind to it given our unabased admiration to the west and the west would not like to let us in on it.

PM #57: Interesting discussion.

“Yaar, aap ko shayed typing karna bohat passand hai. :-) Gee, I want your job!”

It has taken me a lot of time to get to a position, where I just have to tell others to do things, and not do anything myself. So, I am enjoying it…….

You are moving the goalposts, on me. The initial debate was whether secularity and religion should be the criteria for supporting people. I gave you the example of Saddam Hussein vs. Mother Teresa. You have now added an additional adjective of, “democratic goverments.” This was not part of the original debate, for which you wanted examples. Hopefully, I can nudge you to add some more adjectives, and you will finally end up where I am, i.e. democracy, humanity etc. are more important than secularism and religion.

You have asked for examples, now, I assume of democratically elected secular bad guys. Well lets see. No one in Pakistan is completely secular, but Z. Bhutto comes to mind. Just go talk to the Ahmedis. BB comes to mind. She not only destroyed the religious minorities, she destroyed the religious majorities also. Rajiv Gandhi was super-secular. Don’t tell that to the Sikhs in Punjab and Muslims in Kashmir. Ayub and Yahya were not only secular, they were beer-drinking secularists (though not democratic). Don’t tell that to the Bengalis. The Soviet Union was secular (even athiest, though not democratic in the strict sense of the word) when it invaded Afghanistan and killed 1 million Afghanis. Democratically elected secular Truman dropped atomic bombs on Japan. Democratically elected and non-democratically elected secularist Europeans killed more people in two World Wars than all the mullahs in the history of the Sub-Continent. Democratically elected secular Europeans colonised and enslaved more natives than any maulvi I have read about. Democratically elected secular American Presidents nearly exterminated the American Indians from their lands. And democratically elected secular George Bush is chomping at the bit to attack any Muslim country, whose name he can pronounce. Democratically elected fanatically secular heads of Turkey have killed more Kurds than religiously elected Iranis have.

I can go on and on, but I think (hope) I have made my point. In fact, in the 20th century, the number of individuals enslaved and killed by secular countries/indivudals is probably 100 times, if not more, than the number of individuals killed by religious forces.

Now, this could be countered by providing a list of religiously elected/motivated individuals who done their share of killing. That would furthur prove my point, i.e inhumanity is distributed amongst secular and religious people.

You will have to add another adjective to secularism, hopefully – Humane. So what you originally meant was not secularism. Nor democratically elected secularism. But democratically elected human secularism. Which is my argument to begin with.

Mantolives #63,

Secularism as non-ideology is a myth. Whenever a govt. does something, it is acting out of some ideology. What is called secularism in the west is the privileging of Rational Humanist ideology over traditional religious ideologies.

I do not disagree on any point in this article.

May I add to Sameer`s post by saying: There isn`t anything extreme about secularism... how can some one who believes in giving everyone the right to say or do whatever they want be an extremist? Waisay I remember Sameer wrote a post a long time ago about `secularism with a flavor`... maybe he remembers what he wrote but basically that is how I see secularism in Pakistan.

The point that I want to drive home is different ... secularism is not an ideology .. it is the absence of ideology... a sort of neutrality to all ideologies.

-Manto

Manto:

``A secular state is simply one which doesn`t impose religious views and interpretations on its citizens. It doesn`t establish nor discourage the practice of any religion. ``

I agree. Even though I grew up in India, I prefer the American model of secularism. The reason being that disenagement of the state from religion is better than the state tying itself in knots trying to please all.

About your article, my opinion is that mixed feelings are what convey depth because nothing is black or white. But, obviously you are the best judge. Just to clarify, my curiosity was not about your feeling about Pakistan, rather it was how the change has affected you. A bit different. Anyways, write when you feel up to it.

faisal #50 and manto #51,
Good points!
(Yes, yes I`m the resident cheerleader)

Nazar Khansahib:
re. #31: I agree with, and am heartened by, the points and patterns you point out in your post regarding the `average arif`s` political sentiments.
But I cannot deny an unease with the fact that it is the people`s representatives who did not vote in favour of condemning the practice of honor killings, following the infamous Saima Anwar case. I`m sure someone here will want to point out that honour killings are not sanctioned in Islam, but can anyone honestly say that such-- shall we say `boldness`?-- on the part of the majority of legislators could have been imagined in a pre-Zia, pre-Huddood-Ordinace Paksitan? Romair, what do you think?
rgds,
PM

Romair, re. #37
Yaar, aap ko shayed typing karna bohat passand hai. :-) Gee, I want your job!
You write: ``I am not talking of normal decent secular people, nor normal decent religious people. I am talking about people who use secularism and religion for their own good. You will not see normal decent religious people asking for anyone`s head either.``
Yes, yes, yes... and, tell you what, let`s even completly leave aside the theoretical arguments over the practicability of secularism in Pakistan, and even the issue of equivalency of theoretical extremes BUT my point is (to rephrase your words above): You will not even see not so normal, indecent, secular folks calling for the heads of their opponents. Yes, they will ridicule them and belitle them, but I think we may all agree that there is a little difference between dersion and death, don`t we?
``My personal argument is that one cannot use secularism or religion as the barometer for the goodness or badness of a system/person. At least in countries which have large populations of both groups. One has to go to a lower level and base judgements on humanism.``
Heck, why didn`t you just say so in so succinct a manner earlier, instead of making statements like (4)``.the secular extremists are as bad as the religious extremists``, which lead us to believe (erroneously, of course) that your actual argument was that the secular extremists are as bad as the religious extremists (!!!)
:-)
``So what does that make me? I am certainly not secular, because I will vote for Christian and Muslim and Hindu Shariahs. I am not Islamic politically, because I will vote for secular and even athiest people.``
It would simply make you someone who seems not to learn the lessons of history. You may get lucky voting ``humanely`` (i.e, your religious party might actually be humane and just and let allow your wife to wear a skirt and sleeveless blouse, :-)) but frankly, going with sheer statistical probability, you`re gonna end up in a bog of intolerance voting religiously.
Your illustration of Saddam Hussain as an example of bad secularism is not only insufficient (since here are many more relatively `successful` secular nations than unsuccessful ones (do you disagree?), but it`s also irrelevant, since we are speaking of democratic goverments, the kind in which legislation is `open` to debate and negotiation (as opposed to you-know-what form of law)
``Pakistan will end up with, ``secular`` (or kind of secular) parties like PPP/PML etc. on one end. And Islamic parties at the other. Both dead sure, they have the right idea, and fanatically sure of the misguided ignorance of the other.``
...And this precludes the possibility of one of them being right?!? C`mon Romair, the fence can`t be that cushy a place on which to perch yourself!
I suppose I should meet the maulvi halfway and say ``ok, let`s agree that anyone uttering a word against the sahaba should only half die for the sin, right? You think the relgious extremist is even willing to give an inch on what he believes are divine injunctions? Think again. OTOH, I`m sure you can well imagine the extremest of secularists negotiating on particulars, though they may be absolutist on the question of well, negotation of particulars. And nothing more. And necessarily so, too, if you think about it. Every single position entails at least one absolutist propostion. This does not make it extremist, though. And this is where you err, IMHO.
``I get, ``attacked`` from both sides on Chowk, since I oppose both, hence I can say this from personal experience. Both with camps of people who will defend their, ``own`` as long as they keep using the word, ``Secular`` or, ``Islam.`` What is going to be the end result?``
Let`s put it simply for you, Romair: Do you want absolute relgious fiat, or absolute secular fiat, given that the secular is open to negotiation and accomodation, whereas the religious is not (as long as it`s ultimate authority is revealed divinity). Remember, you can`t have a halfway house. (Actually, the latter is the kinda halfway house you`re looking for, if you think about it)
Both will try to decimate the other, when they get into power.
So, wouldn`t you want to `decimate` those who have made plain their intent to decimate you? But again, your argument is wanting: Secualrists might want to `deicmate` the extremist religious positions., while accomodating the moderate. The Religious, OTOH, almsot by definition, must shut out ALL secularist positions.
``However, since both have such huge, almost fanatical, following (not in terms of killing others, but in terms of passion for the correctness of their ideas), they will not be able to destroy the other.``
I don`t care much foryour numerical equivalency here, but it doesn`t matter, you seem to have got to the heart of the matter: On some matters, there is no compromising. You simply cannot compromise with extremism, by definition. Any compromising would, well, compromise that very extremism. :-)
`` e.g. you are passionately secular and Naqshbandi/Urstruly are passionately Islamic. If one of you cannot decimate the other, then the only option is to come up with a system, which suits both. Or just keep arguing and fighting. If you do the later, then Pakistan will end up like India, with secular and religious parties/forces going at it.``
Please ask Naqshbandi to what extent he is willing to compromise with me on say, the punishment for braeaking the blasphemy law. I, and every secualrist I can think of, on the other hand, would be more than happy to agree that there should be some penalty for deliberately offending sensibilities of those not mature enough to not be offended in the first place.
Hope that clears things up a little.
And hey, I know you`re a busy man, but if you can find the find the time, maybe you can answer the questions I posed in #5. They are not rhetorical and actually do affect the weight of your entire argument, since you seem to say that Paksitan is under threat equally from religious and secular extremists.
rgds,
PM

re. #38 Manto:
Excellent post!

Manto,
Thanks for the input. Will be looking up Zafarullah`s Khan said speech at first fursat

re. faisaluno
Faisal, nothing cruel or heartless in what you say. Of course, the `pure` secularism of the West will not take root here, and need not. Secularism may indeed be, in one sense, a relative term when you consider the degree to which public sentiment is informed by religious dogma and practice anyway. However all sense of this moderating relativity ends when consensus (ijma?) is over-ridden by what is deemed to be divine fiat, and a select class of `scholars` (shudders!) have the sole right to interpret and legislate.
That said, I agree that, practically, all we can do is chip away at the edifice. People are seeing for themselves the fruits that a fundamentally religious constituion bears, in terms of tolerance and amity and the demands for change will b heard soon enough.
Re. the parallel with the blasphemy law: I don`t know why you should use that law as illustration. Muslims have been targets and victims of that law in as many, if not more cases as non-Muslims. But since you brought it up, this is another example of the inherent dangers of `religionization` of Law. No-one accused of committing blasphemy has ever been put to death by the State. But of course, many have lost their lives to rabid extremists. How many such extra-judicial murders were committed before the imposition of this law? Urstruly, can you help us out here, perhaps?
``i know your legal status in pak is different from my status in u.s. end result however is the same.
The difference, of course, being that conceivably in 2-3 years your `position` will have changed, with the passing of the hysteria, but mine probably won`t have.
Not that I`m really complaining. Given the prevalence of injustice along so many lines other than religious one, my status as a religious minority isn`t exactly on the top of my lsit of worries. Besides, Minorities (ok, I should say educated minorites) offer benefit from forms of reverse discrimination in urban Pakistan.
rgds,
PM

Mantolives:

Good posts, particularly #51.

Naqshbandi:

I was refering to others. Your comment about me is just fine. Please contribute your thoughts, if you feel secularism is bad given you have on the record supported recognition of Israel and showed great respect for Z. A. Bhutto.

stuka:

Question is not about what local conditions need to be included in Pakistani brand of secularism (separation of church and state); it is the statement that exteme Islamism and extreme secularism (100 percent separation of church and state) are equally bad. Neither Mantolives, nor me has ever said that extreme secularism is the dire need of Pakistan. This is my wish because of the mix of atheism and extreme secularism I believe in. It would be absolutely stupid of me to suggest anything like that for Pakistan at this stage in history.

Our objection all along has been to compare two and then decide if they are equally bad. On one side you have people who opposed Pakistan and on the other you have people who created Pakistan. It is between people who love their own twisted interpretation of Pakistan ideology and people who love Pakistan; it is between people who never paid a dime in taxes and those who pay taxes; it is between mullahs, conservatives, orthodox, jihadis, madrassah educated, anti-everything except Islam and educators, teachers, professors, artists, educated folks, open-minded, rational, pragmatic; it is between people who would have landed Osama in Pakistan before 9/11/2001 and those who would have kept him as far away as possible; it is between people who believe in animisities before friendships and those who believe in exhausting all options before becoming enemies; it is between people who force minorities and Muslims in NWFP to take off shits and pants, don`t listen to music, don`t dance, no co-education and those who consider all Pakistanis absolutely equal; it is comparison between people who use heavenly decrees to run the affairs of the state and those who believe in running the affairs of the state according to wordly, internal and external needs and responsibilities; it is between people who call strike every Friday and wheel-Jam strike once every month and those who has never called strike; it is between people who love to bring people on the street and those who consider individual freedom and responsibilities more important; it is a comparison between MMA and PPP to some extent; it is comparison between women as equal and women as half of men.

How the hell, these two can be equally bad? It beats us.

stuka, all of us including Indians diagree or dislike many aspects of the US foreign policy but Islamism is the worst side to take in order to disagree or prove anti-American credentials. Saminashah has been more tirelessly supportive of Palestinians than any Islamists on chowk but she does not have to wear hijab to do that. Their is big difference between opposing responsibly and irresponsibly or between diagreeing to benefit and disagreeing to self-destruct.

faisaluno...

That is exactly our point... had the Government in Islamabad been secular it wouldn`t concern itself with issues like shariah, talibanization, riba, and the banning of shirt and pant... it would be more concerned with providing the citizens of the country basic amenities... Secularism is not an ideology. It is the absence of ideology and pragmatic estimate of the true needs of the people instead of mundane religious issues...

Had you been fair in your estimate you would have criticized the Islamists... they are the ones who are avoiding the basic issues like roads, hospitals and schools in the name of Islam.

-Manto

Stuka,

While the Indian model of democracy is perhaps the most to my liking, I must say it is the American version of secularism I think what I have in mind atleast. The state should not concern itself with the private affairs of the citizen... and hence should play no part in religion. However these issues come later... first let us atleast establish equal rights of all citizens, and finish discrimination on the basis of religion, and do away with archaic interpretation of religious texts. Once again... I must say for the benefit of others... secularism to me is not an ideology. A secular state is simply one which doesn`t impose religious views and interpretations on its citizens. It doesn`t establish nor discourage the practice of any religion.

-Manto


PS: In the `Death of India` by Khushwant Singh he talks of the difference between Nehruvian version of secularism vs Gandhian/Azad version (I would call this latter one multiculturalism)... It is the nehruvian version I am talking about...

PPS: About my transition back to Pakistan... I haven`t made up my mind about how I feel about the place... I have such mixed feelings about it, so I don`t think I am in the position to write an article.

i did NOT do takfir --which is a v. serious thing in islam which only qualified muftis can do not a layperson like me--I simply asked a question since these people continuously make fun of traditional islam. I am not a Wahabi but these people make fun of anyone who isn`t secularist in reality if not in name. the ``progressive islam`` they want is nothing but liberal secularism dressed up in the name of islam...

sameer--you have yourself said that you left islam of your own volition some time back!
drumz has said islam is a `joke`.