Blasphemy

fuzair,

``Its because of things like this that I am an eradicateur. Bad as the secularist generals in Algeria might be, the FIS will be worse. Why?``

The largest Islamic group in Algeria has supported the outcome of the recent elections. It seems like the Algerian and Pakistani Generals have discovered the same thing...

``For the Islamists, if you are not with them, you are against them and they will hunt you down...For the generals, if you are not actively against them, they don`t care about you (not that they are going to help you but they aren`t going to hunt you down either). ``

Not true, and silly. If you are not actively against anyone, they will assume that you are tacitly with them in return. This is true in Saudi, Iran, turkey, Iran, or even USA (if you are a foreigner).

Also, although the mass executions in Algeria were blamed on the Islamists, GIS in particular, a fact of the matter is that most killings occurred in traditional FIS strongholds. The difference is in sophistication. When the generals kill, they do it in a matter that they can deflect blame. When Islamists kill, they do so in the open and with little finesse.

``There is no such thing as the ``acceptable`` face of political Islam because it is a slippery slope/``camel`s nose in the tent`` argument. Once you give in to the hijab, the next demand is segregated schools, or other such nonsense. ``

Oh please, banning the Hijab IS such nonsense. There is no nice-side to the secularist generals...ban Islam in public today, then they`ll ultimately want to regulate it in your home, then finally, like the commies, try to ban it altogether. There`s the real slippery slope with historical precedence to boot...

``So, given these two choices, guess which one is `better?```

Anarchy. What say? It`s simple-minded to aim so low when even with a little effort so much better can be achieved.

dost-mittar #76: ``Wrong about India! I am not aware of any religious party with any significant support in India. I have pointed out before that the BJP is NOT a religious party. It is instead a party which plays the politics of reigious identity, much like Jinnah did with the Muslim League.``

Point taken. I stand corrected. As I have always stated, I claim no expertise on Indian politics. At the same, I do find your comparison of Jinnah with BJP quite far-fetched. Jinnah would have hanged Modi, by his (Modi`s) balls. BJP promoted the guy, beyond belief. The other difference is that Jinnah pushed religion when he was a minority, as a self-defense mechanism, for his community. When he got the majority (Pakistan), he went to no ends to try to protect the minorities.

Your remarks about BJP do make sense. I had always wondered how BJP has been able to keep a progressive economic and even social (with respect to the Hindu community, at least) agenda, while simultaneously promoting Hinduvta. As you suggested, it does it by pushing a communal agenda, not a religious one.

``I have always wondered what exactly do you not like in secularism.``

I think my views on secularism are quite misunderstood on this site. I don`t dislike secularims. I am voluntarily living very happily in a secular political system. It is a perfectly fine concept. Well-suited for many countries.

I just don`t consider it the ultimate holy grail, like many people do. I think secularism is actually in its infancy, as a concept. And soon people will find many holes in secular politics, as they have in religious politics, thereby opening the floodgates of doubt. Like how to legally define marraige, how to implement secularism in countries which have have strongly believing religious populations, etc.

I also consider it to be automatically equivalent with, ``goodness,`` like many people do. Much like I don`t equate religion automatically with, ``goodness,`` like many people do. I don`t automatically assume that a secular system or leader will be more humane than a religious one, and vice-versa. There are good and bad religious and secular parties, systems, people etc.

I consider myself a humanist. Somone who judges leaders, systems, societies based on human rights. Without worrying about whether human rights originated from a particular religion or from secularism.

What I detest are individuals who automatically try to proclaim superiority of a system/leader etc. based on his/her religionism or secularism. PPP is better than MMA, because it is more secular than MMA. MMA is better than PPP because it is more Islamic than PPP. So on and so forth. These arguments never appeal to me. There are too many examples of secular and religious govts. that have destroyed people.

The reason I detest the above is because it gives people cart blanche to hide behind religion or secularism and commit their crimes. They will always have a group of fanatic secularist or religious followers, who will conveniently forgive all their other sins, just because they are Islamic or secular.

The other thing I don`t like about this is that secularists and Islamists, in Pakistan, are both obsessed with religion (not just Islamists, as many people seem to think). Islam is all they talk about. Read their articles in any Pakistani newspaper. In this site, the individuals who debate religion the most are hamidm, SameerJB, Ursturly and Naqshbandi. The former pair are super-secularists and the later are super-religionists. Yet all their replies have religion in them. One portraying it as the problem, the other as the solution. To me, religion is neither here nor there. What I am interested in is not how secular or religious a party is, but how well it defends human rights, provides education, improves the economy. In fact the party I support in Pakistan, Imran Khan`s PTI openly declares itself to be a non-secular party. Yet I am convinced it will look after the minorities much better than a more secular PPP.

The third thing I dislike is about debates, that base themselves along these lines. They polarize societies like Pakistan (and India, perhaps). It is a, ``with us or against us`` debate. When, in fact, Pakistanis, according to all surveys, do not want a theology, nor do they want secularism. They are neither with one, nor the other. They want, ``some`` religion in their public life, but detest mullahs, statistically. So people forcing secularism or religion down the throat of such a group will cause more violence than anything else.

The fourth thing I don`t like about these two groups is that their die-hard followers are fanatics. They always look at how religious or secular someone is. Rather than looking at how bad or good someone, or some concept is. And one can never convince any of them that their ideas have holes. They only get into a debate to change the other person`s point of view; never to learn something themselves.

I hope that answers your question. I suppose you could say I believe in keeping both religion and secularism out of politics. And basing it on human rights - a concept that can be as enshrined in various religions of the world as it can be in secularism.

Saminasha # 4

(What groups in Pakistan work in these issues? If anyone knows of the names of these orgs, please post them here so that Pak-Ams can send letters to the appropriate officials in a unified manner)

You may like to begin with Pak Army to change its Motto from ``Jihad for God`` to ``Defence of Pakistan borders``.

godot
//...This turning inwards to their religion for solace becomes dangerous when the educated and the middleclass see not much of an issue with the fanatics and the fundamentalists of their co-religionists...//

It is dangerous indeed. But this is not because West, Chinese and whoever else are ``galloping ahead``. That`s just a convenient excuse. Even if nobody gallops ahead - muslims would keep doing what they are doing now.

I think the problem lies deep inside the community and group-pshyche. There is just too much of ``we-are-vicitms`` mentality. Everything is somebody else`s fault - West, Jews, chinese, hindus ...

There are also bizzare religious-cultural ideosyncracies among muslims. No intellecutal traditions of introspection and course correction. There is just too much emphasis on religion and on koran ..... and a completely irrational resistance towards modernity in general. Modern Education has never been favored in most muslim communities. Minds are closed ... muslims learn nothing and forget nothing - atleast that`s how it appears to an outside observer.

It is dangerous indeed.

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

Godot:
``Actually, a better example is Algeria, another Muslim country...look what happened there...Pakistan needs to learn that lesson well...and quick.``
Not really! The military in Algeria, as well as in Turkey, is completely free of Islamists, which is not true of the Pakistani army. Even Musharraf, though not an islamist, is a moderate muslim who, when push comes to shove, has and will choose islamist parties over the secularist ones. A better parallel might be Egypt but even there I am not sure of the religious inclinations of the army leadership.

Romair:
``In fact, the only thing that is holding political Islam back is lack of democracy. The moment real democracy arrives in Muslimistan, I think religious political parties will start winning big. This is generally true for poor countries, including India:
Wrong about India! I am not aware of any religious party with any significant support in India. I have pointed out before that the BJP is NOT a religious party. It is instead a party which plays the politics of reigious identity, much like Jinnah did with the Muslim League. There is a big difference between a communal party, which the BJP is, and a religious party. As far as I know the BJP has no religious agenda, it never talks about laws based on Manu Samriti or any other Hindu scriptures. It does not talk about bringing back the caste system, the Sati system, the rights of Hindus to marry as many times as they want and to repeal the divorce laws which are against the Hindu concept of marriage. It does play the hindu identity card when it comes to Babri masjid or the revision of Indian history to suit its agenda but that has got nothing to do with the hindu religion. Not being a religious party does not make it less dangerous than a party with a religious agenda, but let us not call a spade a shovel.
Incidentally, I have always wondered what exactly do you not like in secularism. Solitude in his post#63 has polstulated what might be considered an extreme version of secularism. Could you please indicate which of those specific clauses do you object to? That would help me and others understand your perspective. Thanks.

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

#53 by ijaz_gul

in india, with your demostrated ``strategic accumen``, you could have been the defense minister (like george), and you would not need a weird name like ijaz gul either, you could have used some nice name from one of the apostles ;-)

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

#38 plats8

Without a doubt M. J. Akbar is the leading political journalist in India. I would say his columns are must-read for anyone trying to get a handle on india. Farzana-ji has every right to say whatever comes to her mind, but please do not confuse her emotional ramblings with true commentary or analysis.


Here are Akbar`s latest outputs -- you can find them in most major indian papers and in his own publication - The Asian Age.

http://www.asianage.com

---

A green vote ripens
- By M.J. Akbar



1927 is chiefly remembered today for black-flag demonstrations by the Congress against a Commission led by a lawyer, Sir John Simon, which had come to India in the process of reviewing the controversial Government of India Act of 1919 which, among other things, gave separate representation to all three kinds of Christians (Indian, Anglo-Indian and European) and established the principle of ‘diarchy’, or division of power between communities. But it was a year of much excitement on various fronts. FICCI opened with 27 chambers of commerce and industry, forged by giants like G.D. Birla, Purshottamdas Thakurdas, Dinshaw Petit, Kasturbhai Lalbhai, M.C.T. Muttiah Chettiar. Commercial radio went on the air on 23 July through the Indian Broadcasting Company’s Mumbai service (typical of media, it folded up in 1930). One Indian, a Bengali naturally, Sharat Roy, reached the Arctic. Another, a South Indian naturally, Y. Subba Row discovered phosphocreatine at Harvard. (Don’t ask me what it means.) Madan Theatres became the first cinema chain with 85 halls and an American, Katherine Mayo, published Mother India which Gandhi famously dismissed as a drain inspector’s report. In December, the three memorable patriots, Ashfaqullah, Ram Prasad Bismil and Rajendra Lahiri were hanged for their part in the Kakori conspiracy case.

One of the most significant events that year was the introduction, on 1 February, of the Child Marriages Restraint Bill in the Legislative Assembly by Rai Sahib Haridas Sarda. It sought to prohibit the marriage of girls below 12 and boys below 15. Social legislation was in the air: women were enfranchised in the Central Provinces, and given the right to stand for elections in Punjab, Mumbai, Chennai and Assam. There was a predictable avalanche of protest from fundamentalists of all hues. The traditional Muslim leadership was in the forefront. Their call was familiar: Islam was in danger! A fatwa was signed by 74 leading ulema and 72,725 Muslims signed 707 petitions against the bill. But there was one Muslim leader in the Assembly who was not going to be bullied by this extreme. His name was Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Defending the Sarda Bill in the House, Jinnah said:

I cannot believe that there can be a divine sanction for such evil practices as are prevailing, and that we should, for a single minute, give our sanction to the continuance of these evil practices any longer. How can there be such a divine sanction to this cruel, horrible, disgraceful, inhuman practice that is prevailing in India?

He understood the power of orthodoxy, and appreciated that they might have their reasons for what they were doing. But, matching their passion with his own, he asked:

But are we going to be dragged down by this section for whom we have respect, whose feelings we appreciate, whose sentiments we regard; are we to be dragged down and are we to be prevented in the march of progress? In the name of humanity, I ask you.

More, and this is important:

And if we are going to allow ourselves to be influenced by the public opinion that can be created in the name of religion, when we know that religion has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter — I think we must have the courage to say: ``No, we are not going to be frightened by that``.

Jinnah may have become a secessionist by 1947, but he was never a fundamentalist. What he said some 75 years ago required conviction and courage, and remains relevant. Reform in a sense is as constant as form: changing mores will always attempt to alter jealously and zealously guarded tradition. Indian Muslims faced such a conflict in the second half of the 1980s when a Supreme Court judgment giving relief to an ageing woman from Bhopal, Shah Bano, became the line behind which conservative forces within the Muslim community took a stand. They argued that the Supreme Court of India, and by extension Parliament, had no right to interfere in any personal law of the Muslims.

This stand of the Indian conservatives had no particular religious merit. This is evident from the attitude of Muslim law to theft. The Holy Quran is very specific about theft. Verse 38 of Surah 5 (Al Maidah) says: ``As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime; and Allah is Exalted in Power, full of Wisdom.``

Such a relationship between crime and punishment was not unusual for its age. Thieves were crucified during the time of Christ and you could be hanged in Britain for stealing a sheep as late as in the 18th century. But even the fact that this verse is from the Quran has not prevented Muslim jurisprudence from softening the punishment for theft. There is therefore no validity, as Jinnah implied, in taking a rigid line on social legislation like child marriage and alimony: the law moves with the spirit of the time and the Quran always reinforces the quality of mercy in its verses. Fundamentalists who provoke passions with the cry that Islam is in danger when legislation is conceived to help women are not pro-Quran; they are merely anti-women. This is all the more reprehensible since Islam ended practices like the killing of the girl child and attempted to eliminate the enormous injustices done to women at the time when the Quran was revealed. Fundamentalists are a dangerous law unto themselves.

The Shah Bano case was a touchstone; and arguably the decline of the Congress began with the mistake made when the Supreme Court ruling was reversed under pressure from the fundamentalists, who used exactly the same tactics as had been used at the time of the Sarda Bill. The man who spoke up for reform in the Shah Bano controversy was a star on the treasury benches when Rajiv Gandhi was Prime Minister: Arif Mohammad Khan. A voluble advocate on the fundamentalist side was Syed Shahabuddin.

More than fifteen years after that decisive moment, Arif Khan has been driven away from the Congress and the fundamentalist Shahabuddin welcomed into it.

This is curious for at least two reasons. First, although Mrs Sonia Gandhi was not directly involved in politics, she did have a view on the Shah Bano case, and she was convinced that her husband was making a mistake by submitting to fundamentalists. Perhaps the answer is that she was an individual then and a politician now.

The irony is that compromise with extremists is poor politics as well. One of the slow but sure changes that is taking place in Indian politics is the maturing of the Muslim mood. The sense of helplessness in the 1950s turned into severe insecurity as riots intensified in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Gujarat has not become what it has overnight: for more than a decade till the end of the 80s Ahmedabad was the scene of a daily haemorrhage of communal blood while Congress chief ministers looked helplessly away. Little has been more savage than the Bhagalpur riots that erupted in the last days of Rajiv Gandhi’s tenure; or more pernicious than the manner in which Moradabad and Meerut was handled by Congress governments in UP. This insecurity was multiplied in the inflammatory wars let loose by fundamentalists in the Shah Bano controversy, and then answered by their counterparts in the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. The destruction of the Babri mosque at Ayodhya in 1992 and the subsequent riots constituted the nadir.

But that tragedy became a wake-up call against the dangers of political religiosity. Change is slow and therefore imperceptible except to those who are changing, or to a sympathetic and acute outsider. Politicians who deposit their political fortunes in vote banks are neither sympathetic nor acute. But there was startling evidence of this change only recently, when Muslims in Uttar Pradesh laughed away a typical vote-bank tactic from Mulayam Singh Yadav, who offered them a break from work to say their prayers. (Some extreme provincial governments in Pakistan have made such breaks official so that no believer has the excuse not to pray.) A decade ago such a gesture might have been welcomed; today, clerics lead the way in laughing it off.

The one thing that I can say with certainty about the Muslim vote in the coming election is that there is an almost compulsive desire to reject any party that treats Muslims with patronising promises. The days when the Indian Muslim vote could be collected with beads and mirrors by the heroic conquistador are over. They have understood the power of democracy, and are enjoying it. Their vote will split, coolly, unemotionally, and go to the claimant with the best exchange rate. It will vary not only from state to state, but also from region to region within a state. In Andhra Pradesh for instance, the Muslims of Telangana could happily vote for separatists while Muslims of the coastal belt punch their machines for Chandrababu Naidu. In Uttar Pradesh, they will weigh the merits of candidates as much as parties, with their vote being split in four directions. Mulayam Singh Yadav is still likely to get the maximum share, but he is not getting exclusive rights. A substantial section of Lucknow’s Muslims will vote for Atal Behari Vajpayee. The Muslims of Akbarpur will vote by and large for Mayawati. A similar percentage of Muslims in Amethi will vote for Rahul Gandhi.

Since 1952, the past — partition, or riots, or Ayodhya — has shaped the Muslim vote, for understandable reasons. This is the first time that a substantial number of Muslims will vote for the future.

That is not change; that is sea-change.

godot
``Their lack of fundamentals, such as economic prosperity and helplessness in international affairs, while others, the West, China, India, who are galloping forward, have made the Muslims turn inwards. ``

please explain..if the rest of the world were not ``galloping forward``, would the muslim be better off? in what way?

#66 by temporal on April 14, 2004 8:26am PT

temporal

you will need to email me at arthurshiraz@yahoo.com because I have a few questions about what you proposed :)

better yet call me so I can give you a hug - on the phone ofcourse :)

Thanks

p.s. Romair what do you think of the Pen painting on the secularize pakistan movement`s website?

It is the time to take solid steps to get rid of Mullahs in Pakistan.
I feel that there are a lot of liberal Pakistanis living all over the world. But they express their view only limited to their certain community consisting of like minded people. Chowk is a typical example of such a situation.

I think it is the time for all the liberals to step forward and try to spread the message. The appropriate way may be writing articles in newspapers, magazines etc. Imagine, how many chowkies can write something really good. Suppose, one article per month by each chowkie writer in some urdu newspaper. Imagine the amount of output we can produce. And in my opinion, writing in urdu newspapers is more important as it is the easiest way to convey the message to a common man.

Ahmadzai #61,

``You have your answer from Kaurasack at # 44.``

I do ? How ? This is what he had written :

``Ahmadzai,

Indians and so am I are much more critical of India , but what Farzana writes is
rubbish, a baseless biased tantrum under the cloak of liberal agenda. It does more
harm to IMs` cause and image than good.``

How does this correlate to Farzana being hated since she is a dissenting Muslim ?
Surely Kaurasach can think that what she writes is rubbish and actually hurts
the cause of the Indian Muslim - that would be irrespective of her own religious
sensibilities.

In any case, it makes little sense to compare this with the people I mentioned,
where the readership runs into many millions.

fuzair #64: ``if you are not with them, you are against them and they will hunt you down.``

I am not quite sure whether I fully agree with you or disagree with you, on this one. After all, the phrase, ``with us or against us`` was not coined by a political Islamic leader. Political Islam has its issues. Actually, the whole concept maybe an issue. But that doesn`t mean what it is, or has been, replacing was a smaller issue (as your argument states it to be).

In fact, the only thing that is holding political Islam back is lack of democracy. The moment real democracy arrives in Muslimistan, I think religious political parties will start winning big. This is generally true for poor countries, including India.

If something thrives in a democracy (politcal Islam) and something thrives in dictatorship (political secularism in Islamic countries), then one has to look at the issues in much more detail, then claiming the later to be inherently a better option than the former. If what you say is true, then political Islam should thrive in a dictatorship in Algeria, while the secularist generals should thrive in a democracy. Not the other way around. Same scenario in Iraq, and Turkey, and Iran and Egypt, and maybe someday in Pakistan, also.

You and I have prospered in political secularist systems. Hence we are bound to be biased in its favor. But the fact that political Islam appeals to the poorest of these countries, and thrives under a free democratic system, should be an indication that the majority was not, ``left alone`` by political secularism. After all, it did give political secularism a chance for decades. It is only now that it is turning to other options, like political Islam.

I think political Islam, is in its ascendency, in the Muslim world. Iraq being its next frontier (ironically with the unintentioned insistence of the USA). Should an Ayatollah rule a country. I don`t think so. But apparently, the citizens of the country consider him a better option than secular Saddam. Should Qazi Hussain rule Pakistan. I don`t think so. But there is a possibility that someday people of Pakistan may consider him a better option than more secular Benazir.

The Americans are now caught in a wierd dilemma. They allegedly want to introduce, ``democracy`` in the Muslim world. However, they now know fully well, from their Iraq experience, that democracy will result in anti-USA religious govts. being elected. Due to this, I wouldn`t be surprised if they may give up on, ``introducing`` democracy in these countries, soon.

What the Americans should do is to accept the ground realities, and try to engage with the religious parties in places like Iran, Iraq, Algeria etc. Rather than trying to discredit and destroy them. The secularists in Pakistan should accept these ground realities, also. Otherwise, I think they will fighting a politically losing battle soon in Pakistan. Much like the Americans are in the Middle East......

The more the secularists try to define the political debate along the lines of religion (in or out of politics), the more they are playing into the hands of the Islamists, because the Islamists will win that debate (actually they may not win the actual verbal debate, but they will win the elections based on it).