Canada’s First Muslim Woman Member of Parliament: Why did the Media Miss the Story?

dost-mittar,

Pardon the delayed response:

Farid Zakariah? Dude, Cat Stevens would have no problems getting elected in any Muslim country either, if you catch my drift.

Hum Mustafavi haiN

Recorded in 1974: Music Sohail Rana: Voice Mehdi Zaheer

story behind the event:

The Second Islamic conference was scheduled. Time was short. JamilUDDIn wrote the song and as you will notice that it is in ``rajaz`` meter. It was decided that either Umm-Kulsoom or subhaan [ the great singers from egypt] would be retained. Sohail Rana suggested that we should use our own talent. Mehdi Zaheer, of Radio pakistaN- A legend in his own lifetime both as a scholar and as an artist. His recorded songs in Arabic were already popular in the Middle East but he was himself pretty shy and evasive of publicity & commercialism.

The galloping and advancing of horses, after the introductrey [rajaz] which was a part of battle protocol and strict rule among arabs, is a masterpiece in music composition by a genius as well as singing by another genius.

Enjoy!

Pakistan ko Salgirah Mubarak ho.
PakistaaniON ko salgiraaH mubarak ho.
CHOWK ko salgirah mubarak ho.

Shariat courts are working in U.K for years. Thank you very much.
From a poster in London, England.

Comparison of Punishment under Shariah and Modern Law

1. Mugging: You have probably suffered this at least once in your life, or know someone who has suffered it.

British Legal System : The sentence is discretionary, depending on the crime, but is commonly punished by community service.

Islamic Judicial System: Once guilt is ascertained, the judge will consider the severity of the crime and perform ijtihad (i.e. extracting the rule from the Qur’an and the Sunnah). This may range from public humiliation to death, if the mugging led to death.

2. Burglary: Burglary is extremely common in Britain. No doubt, you are afraid that your house may have been burgled if you are away for any period of time.

British Legal System: The sentence is discretionary, depending on the crime, but is commonly punished with imprisonment.

Islamic Judicial System: Burglars will have their hand cut off, provided they fulfil the seven conditions for this punishment. They are not permitted to have it surgically replaced.

3. Rape: There is a rape in Britain on average every 2.5 hours. Many more go unreported, and in most cases the perpetrator is known to the victim.

British Legal System: The sentence is discretionary, but the punishment ranges from a fine to life imprisonment. Commonly, the period of imprisonment is below 10 years.

Islamic Judicial System: The punishment can be death, depending on the circumstances.

4. Drug Abuse: This is extremely common amongst all ages, particularly the youth. It is often seen as a harmless habit. Perhaps you are worried about a child or relative. If not, you probably should be.

British Legal System: The punishment depends on the nature of the drug, and the quantity possessed. Alcohol is legal. For ‘soft’ drugs like marijuana, offenders are usually just cautioned, but ‘hard’ drug abusers (like cocaine, heroin) may be imprisoned.

Islamic Judicial System: Offenders are publicly flogged 80 lashes.

5. Fornication & Adultery: With the emphasis in our society placed on relationships and sexual freedom, you would be justified in fearing for the conduct of young or indeed older Muslims who are subject to its influence.

British legal System: Both of these are legal, whether done between members of the opposite sex or the same sex (i.e. homosexuality). In fact, if you were to criticise these you would be blamed for intolerance and discrimination.

Islamic Judicial System: Fornication is punished by flogging 100 lashes. Adultery and homosexual fornication are both punished by public execution.

The objective behind the administration of justice in Islam is to act as a deterrent, to reform offenders and to secure society. As you can see, the nature of sentences in the Islamic Judicial System ensure that these objectives are achieved. History bears witness to this - only about 200 hands are recorded to have been cut in the entire history of the Islamic State!

In the West, however, up to 70% of convicted prisoners re-offend once they are released, and the rates of crime are hardly indicative of a successful deterrent.

One of the fundamental problems in the West is the complete contradiction of the ideology that is pushed upon the people. On the one hand, they are told that freedom is the basic right of the individual. This, however, is an open license to commit crime. When this is combined with the concept of democracy, the contradiction becomes apparent. For democracy is a system of making laws - devices to restrict freedom. The result of this conceptual mish-mash is chaos!

The justice which the Islamic State’s Judicial System proffers will offer you peace of mind, security and confidence that your rights will not be abused. After the checks and balances of personal taqwa and the effect of public opinion, the last level of regulation - the Islamic Judicial System guarantees that the world will be free from the exploitation and corruption of man-made law, and the rising tide of crime that complements it.

---

The slaves who have seen nothing but slavery always adopt whatever is the creed of their Masters. Everything seems `normal` and `natural` to them if somebody promises to throw them a bone and pat their backs sometimes.

First it was communism (with all its shades and sects) now it is Liberalism (with all its sects).
These Nine to fivers naukar ( euphemistically label themselves ``professionals``) types mortgage their minds to whoever is their Master. To be enslaved IS the destiny of them & their generations to come.
Their new masters are on their way.

Romair:

[A very fascinating inisight. Unitarian church holds the same opinion, but by coining a beautiful phrase [The coming (?) struggle between] : ``high-tech and high-touch``

17:20 2002-08-13
Muslim leaders pledge to `transform West`

News story from the WorldNetDaily site.

The given article is published within the framework of the agreement on cooperation between PRAVDA.Ru and WorldNetDaily

`If Islamic state rises, we will be its army`


The West will never ``reach the level of Islam,`` and Western society will be ``transformed`` through an ``external or cultural invasion`` by Islam, according to two Islamic leaders in Great Britain.

In recent interviews with the London-based daily Al-Hayat, Egyptian-born Sheik Abu Hamza, imam of the Finsbury Park Mosque and head of the Ansar Al-Shari`ah organization; and Syrian-born Sheik Omar Bakri, founder and leader of the Islamic Religious Court in London and head of the Al-Muhajiroun Islamist Organization, predicted Western civilization and law would eventually succumb to Islam.

The interviews, translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute, provide insights into how Islamic leaders attempt to use Western-style freedoms and laws to accomplish their goal of spreading the Islamic faith.

For example, Hamza, in his interview, said that although he lives in Britain, he does not consider himself a British citizen except ``to the extent that I use my British documents to move around.``

``I live here and I hold a passport,`` he said. ``It is a superficial identity; real identity is in the heart and in the mind, and this is the [identity] that drives a man. This [identity] is Islam …"

Hamza also hinted that Islamic law would never tolerate certain types of behavior that are tolerated in the U.S. and elsewhere throughout the West.

``Every man can choose whether to be a human being or an ape,`` he said. ``For example, if a man wears clothes he is respected; but if he takes them off, he should not be respected.``

He also said, ``an adulterer should not be respected,`` nor should ``anyone who attacks little children`` or ``anyone who tries to turn himself into a half-man, half-woman …"

When asked how responsive the Islamic community in Britain is to a call to integrate into British society, Hamza said that could occur only in certain areas of life.

``If you mean that the Muslim integrates with the non-Muslim in matters that Islam does not prohibit, such as protecting the environment, defending human rights, and fighting corruption, usury and adultery, then yes, there can be such integration,`` he told the paper. ``But if we take integration en masse, and we all integrate, the Muslim`s daughter will come to him pregnant and he will say, `Never mind, I`m integrated.` His wife will throw him out of the house and he`ll sleep in his car, and she`ll bring her lover home …"

For his part, Bakri said ``in my method of education`` he was flatly ``opposed to the idea of integration.``

``We do not believe that it is permitted to integrate into the societies in which we live,`` he said. ``I am not a supporter of seclusion from society, and I am not a supporter of integration into it.``

Bakri said he supported ``interaction with society by means of my religion and my belief, in order to change the environment, not be changed by it …"

Converting to Islam would solve Britain`s concerns over more stringent immigration, said Hamza, who also insisted his religion is devoid of hate.

``You cannot fight deeply rooted racism. It would be idiocy to think that these countries [in the West] will ever reach the level of Islam,`` he said. ``They need much more time to even understand Islam. The only solution for stopping their racism is to call on them to join Islam, so they will realize what a civilization they are missing.``

Hamza said he had ``prepared`` himself to go to Afghanistan but did not because ``Allah decreed otherwise – primarily in light of the fact that my passport was confiscated by the authorities and now I am under house arrest.`` But if he had a passport, ``I would go,`` he said.

Before Sept. 11, he said, ``we all had intended to emigrate to Afghanistan – even after the events of Sept. 11. Many wanted to.``

``In the beginning, al-Qaida denied any connection`` to the attacks, he claimed, adding: ``It turns out that al-Qaida was not connected to the events.``

As a licensed British engineer, said Hamza, he could ``prove that these [World Trade Center] buildings did not fall just like that because of a fire …"

``Anyone who knows the properties of these buildings knows that al-Qaida didn`t do it. These buildings were blown up from within,`` he said – despite video footage broadcast worldwide of U.S. airliners being flown into both WTC towers the morning of the attacks.

Bakri said the West was guilty of imposing ``man-made law`` on Muslims, but that a ``[future] Islamic regime will impose Islamic religious rulings on them.``

``Either we preach to them [the West] and they will accept [Islam], or we will live among them and they will be influenced by our lives and will accept Islam as a political solution to their problems, not as an ideological solution,`` he said.

The Syrian-born Bakri also said, ``Islam defended the religion of the Christians, the Jews, and others, and stated that `there is no coercion in religion.` But the coercion is in the laws. Laws can be Islamic-religious and they can be man-made.``

``Allah willing, we will transform the West into Dar Al-Islam [that is, a region under Islamic rule] by means of invasion without,`` said Bakri. ``If an Islamic state arises and invades [the West] we will be its army and its soldiers from within. If not, [we will change the West] through ideological invasion … without war and killing.``

Bakri said Islam sought to use Western-style liberties to accomplish its goal of subverting the West to Islamic rule.

``As long as my words do not become actions,`` he said, ``they do no harm. Here, the law does not punish you for words, as long as there is no proof you have carried out actions.

``In such a case you are still on the margins of the law, and they cannot punish you,`` he continued. ``If they want to punish you, they must present evidence against you, otherwise their laws will be in a state of internal contradiction.``

By contrast, countries dominated by Islamic regimes are often dictatorial and curb the right to speak out freely, without fear of reprisal or harsh treatment by the government.

According to the Qur`an, or Koran: ``Islam advocates a qualified right to freedom of speech … provided that the criticism is not propagandistic,`` says one website dedicated to explaining the religion.

Bakri said any contradiction in Western law serves Islam ``because we will be able to claim that the capitalist camp has failed in the face of the Islamic camp in actualizing the things in which it believes, like freedom of expression.``

He said he stays ``on the margins`` of Western law by neither obeying them nor betraying them.

Asked if he was ``testing`` Western regimes, Bakri said yes. ``We must prove that man-made law is a fragile law,`` he said.

``There is a pact between me and them, and I am not breaking it,`` he added. ``I do not preach to kill even one Briton. But they have betrayed the pact [between us] by killing my brothers in Afghanistan,`` Syria and Iraq.

``Allah said: `Do not obey the infidels and the hypocrites.```

By Jon Dougherty
WorldNetDaily

Romair#97:
``But in the USA, a Muslim has no chance in hell of ever getting elected at the Federal level.``

Dilip Singh Saundh, a sikh, became a US congressman from California during Eisenhower`s time. A muslim may have a somewhat harder time getting elected at this particular time because of the ``guilt-through-association`` which views all muslims with suspicion. But people like Farid Zakaria might get elected even now.

dost-mittar #96: ``As always, it was nice discussing with you.``

As always, nice discussing with you also......

``And yes, I can give you directions in Ottawa for both bus and car:-). ``

Ottowa is the first city I landed in, when I decided to move to Canada. I am actually there, quite often. About once every two months or so. Nice place (kind of).....Location is quite nice, but somewhat boring.....401, then 416, if remember correctly....

``If your definition is to be accepted, they are still moving towards it and will remain in transition until everybody stop believing in religion in both personal and political lives. It is obvious that we have different definitions of the same concept.``

Woh tou kuch aur hi bantay gayey anjaan Adm.......
Hum to sumjhay thay keh pahchan huwi jaati hay

Actually, we don`t disagree that much. I agree that the West is secular. I am just saying that it is not 100% secular. Once things like gay marriage etc. get approved, it will move even closer to 100% secularism. As for not being 100% secular, until the society becomes athiest at a personal level: Perhaps I am exxagerting, a bit. But something close to that is what will be needed to ensure that the legislative and executive are not influenced by religion. Perhaps a combination of all religious thoughts, or religious tolerance of exceptionally high levels.

I think you may have a bit of difficulty accepting this, because you have seen Canadian politics, but not American politics. In Canada, I agree, my religion may not be a big obstacle to becoming a part of the legislature. But in the USA, a Muslim has no chance in hell of ever getting elected at the Federal level. And the law-making at the Federal level is heavily (though indirectly) influenced by the Christian Right lobbyists. Both Canada and USA have a secular system.......Yet it is different.......

Romair:
The way I see it, atheism is perhaps a sufficient but not a necessary condition for secularism. Most western societies are already secular, by most definitions. If your definition is to be accepted, they are still moving towards it and will remain in transition until everybody stop believing in religion in both personal and political lives. It is obvious that we have different definitions of the same concept.
As always, it was nice discussing with you. And yes, I can give you directions in Ottawa for both bus and car:-).

echoboom #91: ``For the last 10000 years or more this is what it the ``Earthies`` (Materialists--dehryaas) have been doing. Never ever lasted. Religion DID.``

It is true that religion has clearly outlasted all sorts of, ``isms.`` But will it outlast secularism? I don`t think so. Not in the Western societies, at least. Religion will be morphed, and eventually there will be concept of God, with all man-made laws at the public level, and with mostly man-made laws at the personal level. There will be pockets of religionists at the personal level, but they will be the minority.

In fact, this is already happening.

Karen Armstrong is someone I enjoy reading. She wrote a best-seller on Islam. However, she, according to her admission is now religion-less. She used to be a nun. Now she does not follow any religion. Though, I believe, she does still believe in God.

The removal of Church (I don`t call it separation) from State was a major event in mankind`s history. It seems to be commonly accepted, nowdays. However, when it happened (or slowly happened), it must have been as major a change as removing God from one`s personal life. It took extreme power centralized amongst the Christian religious heirarchy and the damage they caused, to finally convince the Christian Western societies to drop religion from public life.

A natural consequence should have been to drop it from personal life, also. But that hasn`t happened completely. Probably, because at a personal level, one is not affecting too many other poeple. And because people need an answer to the question of, ``What will happen after death, and who created all of us.`` However, it was, and is, inevitable that as people see less and less religion in public life, they will also challenge its teachings more and more at the personal level. One cannot follow half of a religion (personal) and not follow the other half (public). People will ask if half of it is wrong, then how can the other half be completely right.

In the Western socieities, other than the USA, religion is now becoming less and less significant, amongst the Christian majorities. And even in the USA, there is one a set of strong religious followers, which have not allowed the society to be more free of religion. It is not the whole soceity. The US soceity, theoretically, is secular. However, practically, it mixes religion with state quite a bit. The only branch that is secular in the USA is the judiciary. The legislature is heavily influenced by religion, and regularly legislates based on it, since the Southern states will never vote for an openly secular person. And the executive always has to wear and show his religion on his sleeve, while simultaneously stating that he believes in Secularism.

The only way the legislature can bring religion back into the state is through constitutional amendments, thereby, locking the judiciary out (which will always vote in favor of State, and not in favor of religion). Organizations like the Christian Coalition (and the Christian Right in general), are heavily influential in US politics.

So even the USA is going to be slowly going towards full secularism.

The group that is being affected by reduction of religious influence the most, are the Jews in the USA. According to Alan Dershowitz in, ``The Vanishing American Jew,`` the number of Jews in the USA in a few generations will be microscopic to their current numbers. Because Jews are heavily inter-marrying with Christians (and low birth rate). Eventually, I think, the Jewish faith in the USA, will be intermixed with the Christian faith, and will disappear as we know it today, in the USA.

Religion in Western Europe, and in Canada, has far less influence in personal lives, than it did at one time. And it is getting less and less. There are pockets of influence. But pure Christianity, at a personal level, is become more and more watered down. This is not to say that people don`t recognize the existence of God. It just says that, even at a personal level, they have questioned His teachings, and are picking and chosing, changing and morphing, and in many cases, dropping all together, what was in their religion.

Sooner or later, this imbalance of considering religions` public teachings inefficient for the public sphere, while considering them good for the personal sphere, was going to give way to a more cohesive approach. Either people were going to go back to try to bring religion into the public sphere (slowly end secularism through constitutional amendments), or they were going to change their religious personal lifestyles, to make it more insync with the atheistic public rules.

Considering the fact, that even the most die-hard religionists of the US Republican party were unable to pass even an amendment on gay marriage, you should be able to tell which direction the society is heading. And, within a generation or two, the number of Brits who think David Beckham has more influence in their lives than God, will move from 35% to 65% or more.

I don`t know whether this is right or wrong. But it is clear that it is being done volutarily by the individuals of these socieites, and is the general trend.

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

Dost-mittar #89: ``If you feel better calling secularism public atheism, it makes no difference.``

If I didn`t know you better, I would think that you perceive my discussions about secularism, as an attack on secularism. And you feel the need to defend it against such an attack. I am not attacking. Just discussing. I don`t think one should consider any subject beyond debate and criticism and discussion. However, many people tend to get overly defensive when secularism or religion is being discussed.

I am not calling it public atheism. That is what it is, by its own definition. The politically correct definition of, ``Separting Church from State,`` is just that, i.e. politically correct, but not accurate. Secularism does not separate Church from State. It does a lot more.

A divorce is a good example of separation. Two entitites going their own separate ways, or moving away from each other, and no longer depending on each other. However, in a divorce, neither the husband, nor the wife, gets superiority over the other. The husband`s word cannot overrule the wife`s, nor vice-versa.

In Secularism, man-made laws, at the public level, always overrule religious public laws. They are not considered equal. In fact, religion is not even supposed to be considered a legitimate basis to argue or form public laws, under Secularism.

Hence Secularism does not just separate Religion and State. Secularism removes religion from the State, all together. It denies the legitimacy of God-made (however God maybe interpreted by the majority local population) laws in the public sphere. By definition, it demands from individuals to declare (their) God`s public laws to be inappropriate, incomplete and impractical, to get the job done. It only recognizes the legitimacy of those laws, at the personal level. Hence it is atheism at the public level combined with religion at the personal level.

It`s good to see that both of us agree on this......

``I might add that the problem is serious only for the followers of abrahmic faiths since their God sent law-bearing messengers like Moses and Mohammad. As far as I know, the Indic or Far Eastern God does not pose any such problem; manuals written by men like Manu are not considered the word of God. ``

My knowledge of non-Abrahamic faiths is not very good. If they, by definition, do not require allegiance to scripture, then, you are correct, it would be easier to introduce secularism in such societies.

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

Communism is DEAD. It is licking its wounds by trojan-ing itself as secularism, liberalism, pluralism kind of claptrap. For the last 10000 years or more this is what it the ``Earthies`` (Materialists--dehryaas) have been doing. Never ever lasted. Religion DID.

Today they want to charm us by fancy lullabies like ``pluralities`` and ``inclusiveness``. They want their bars, gay-gaandoos, and strip-joints to be considered equal in stature to a masjid, mandir, girja, and kanishtaa.

They want to feel accepted by society at large and treated with respect. The only way they can expect respect is if they keep their ugliness under wraps and do not debauch & corrupt with impunity and seena-zoree.

Has never ever happened. Never will.

Chursee, bhangee, sharaabee, juaree, haraamkaar & haraam-khores and zaanees will never ever be accepted as inclusive, and pluralistic behaviour. Society should rather be encouraged to despise and malign them even more. Zaleel them in open. It must be a part of interviewing process as well. [ ``but I didn`t inhale`` kind of fippant talk would soon be no joke``]

Aug. 6, 2004. 06:55 AM
Rallying cry for Muslims in Canada
North Americans offer key lessons, conference told
Author on religion opens 73rd event in Couchiching

LESLIE SCRIVENER
FAITH AND ETHICS REPORTER

ORILLIA—One of the greatest dangers facing the West is increased alienation among North American Muslims, says British historian and best-selling author Karen Armstrong.

``Increasingly since 9/11, there`s a lot of hostility and some are saying they don`t have a place in the West. This is a huge opportunity lost.``

North American Muslims have the potential to be one of the most effective weapons in the war on terror, said Armstrong, a leading commentator on religion, who opened the annual conference organized by the Couchiching Institute on Public Affairs last night.

``One of the great things Muslims in Canada can do is to show Muslims in the old country it`s possible to have a vibrant Muslim life in the heart of the Western world and act as a bridge between the old and the new,`` she said.

Canada`s openness toward religious minorities and willingness to accommodate religious expressions is the way to go, Armstrong said in an interview. ``This is exciting.``

In contrast, France, where the government plans to ban religious symbols in public schools in September, is making trouble for itself, she said. ``Any attempt to suppress or denigrate makes it more important and people hold on to it as a symbol.``

Armstrong said she`s been asked if Muslim fundamentalists are worse than those from other backgrounds. ``No, but if we go on the way we are, they`re likely to be.``

The theme of this year`s Couchiching conference, which runs until Sunday, is ``God`s Back — with a Vengeance.`` It`s the first time religion has been addressed in its 73-year history, though Armstrong says religion has never really gone away.

``We have always thought that God and religion were on the way out; it`s a delusion,`` she said. ``We`ve taken for granted since the middle of the last century that religion will never play a major role in world events.``

And that`s been proven wrong.

``The Moral Majority (in the U.S.) was simply regrouping and was thrust upon us in the 1970s. Religion is here to stay and with the growth of fundamentalism, many people want to see religion reflected more clearly in the public life.``

Armstrong, a former Roman Catholic nun whose books include The Battle for God, a look at fundamentalist movements in Islam, Christianity and Judaism, said every fundamentalist movement she`s studied is rooted in ``fear of annihilation`` — the belief that modern, secular liberal society wants to wipe them out.

``This is not necessarily paranoia,`` she said.

Yasser,
Just because I ``withdraw` doesn`t mean you get to have the last word. You`re obvioulsy confusing me with some other poster. I haven`t made any false claims, neither am I interested in urinating in competition with you.
Take a few deep breaths, go for a long walk with the missus, really! things aren`t as bad as you think they are. Life is still worth living.
and no, I`m not being sarcastis (for once!)

echoboom#83:
I was surprised by your post.
-the Indian constitution was written by the constituent assembly, an elected body, though not with universal franchise;
-the constitution, esp. its secular character enjoys overwhelming support. The only significant demand is for a uniform civil code, which would in theory make it more secular;
-there are specific provisions for the amenment of the constitution and it has indeed been amended several times.

Romair:
If you feel better calling secularism public atheism, it makes no difference.
I might add that the problem is serious only for the followers of abrahmic faiths since their God sent law-bearing messengers like Moses and Mohammad. As far as I know, the Indic or Far Eastern God does not pose any such problem; manuals written by men like Manu are not considered the word of God.

So basically your ego doesn`t permit you to admit that indeed you were wrong about the post that you put up ... or the way you tried to argue it out... ... withdraw by all means... I am not interested engage someone in conversation who wants to every thing from a pakistan-india pissing contest lens...

This article is about a non-entity Canadian MP with a Parsi sounding name whom the author is p1ssed doesn`t get credit for being the country`s ``first Muslim MP``. It`s boring enough without trying to argue with you, Yasser. So let me withdraw now. Bye.

echoboom #71/73/83/dost mittar #82: Interesting comments.

I agree with much of what echoboom has stated in 71 and 73. Though not necessarily with much of what he has stated in 83. I agree with pretty much everything D-M has stated in reply #82. However, w.r.t #82, I am not commenting on how secularism is currently implemented today, I am commenting on how it will evolve and where it will end up, since it is still a very young concept, and how it will handle its inherent contradictions.......

The biggest motivation for secularism, as you both of you have implied, is the diverse and conflicting religious opinions that exisit in all socieities. If everyone in a State belonged to just one school of religious thought, then these issues would not come up. However, people belong to different schools of thought, hence there are issues.......

Based on this, one viable solution has been to remove religion from public life. This is not a small step. It is a major change. It is basically a rejection of the public aspect of religion. In essence, people have decided that religion is incomplete, or coflicting or vague or just plain wrong in its public teachings. God, as each society`s majority defines Him, has provided inefficent or conflicting rulings for running a society, is the core basis of secularism.

Thus, secularism is, in fact, ``athiesm in the public sphere, while remaining religious at the personal level.`` Separting of Church and State is just a politically correct way of putting it. In actuality, it does not really separate Church and State. It gives State superiority over Church. In fact, it gets rid of Church all together from the public arena. Hence my definition of it as public atheism. Atheism has an additional factor, that it all together denies that God exists. Under secularism, the existence of God is not denied (since He is needed at the personal level). However, it is decided that God`s rules at the public level are wrong, and need to be substituted by man-made rules.

This may (or may not) be the utopian solution. We will find out in a few hundred years.

One thing I am quite sure of is that secularism is currently in an inconsistent state. And as it moves towards 100% completion, it will result in some massive changes in the society. If one is going to reject the public sphere of one`s religion, then how can one continue to accept the personal aspects. If God or Allah or Bhagwan got it wrong on the public side, then how can people be sure He did not get it wrong on the personal side, also? If I cannot trust Dost-mittar to give me correct directions to Ottowa when I am driving a public bus, then why am I sure he is giving me correct directions when I am driving my own car?

This is why I cannot understand people who say they will reject the public part of God`s commands, as defined by Christianity or Islam or Hinduism etc., but they will keep clinging to the personal parts. This is just a way of satisfying their own selves. It doesn`t pass the test of logic.

In Western societies, other than USA (which is the least secular amongst the West), people are taking religion out of their personal lives also. This is a natural correction of the imbalances that exist in the concept of secularism. It is common to now have peopel say they are not practicing Christians, but are Christians. This means they are born Christians, but do not follow it. They just believe in God, and that is about it.

As secularism increases towards 100% separation of Church and State, the above phenomemon in personal lives will increase. And as it increases, secularism will move quicker towards 100% completion. They will both accelerate each other. Eventually, I think we will reach the natural conclusion, where people`s personal lives will also be based on man-made rules and regulations, about marriage, sexual, moral etc. behavior. The existence of God will be recognized, but not the laws He has set down, even for personal lives.

This is what I was trying to imply, i.e. eventually people will move towards atheism. Not that secularism is atheism at the personal level. It isn`t. But that it will move socieities towards that direction, to get out of this state of inconsistency of recognizing God`s commands in one sphere and not it the other. And, in essence, as D-M said, you won`t need secularism, because the Church will be completely morphed, or will be replaced even at the personal level with man-made laws. Church will be separate from not only State, but also from the individual. Everything will be based on man-made ethics. The kind of society that hamidm and Sameerjb advocate (I think).......

Those who don`t agree with this, just need to take a look at the trends in Western Europe, with respect to religion in personal life......

Is this direction right or wrong. Who knows? But it does offer intersting insights into how and why secularism is or isn`t being adapted in Muslim countries. And the challenges Muslim socieites should expect as they move towards secularism.......Those who are promoting secularism should have strategies to handle these issues, if they want secularism to succeed in Pakistan. If they continue to just repeat the simplistic , ``Church/State, Church/State`` line 24 hours a day, without disecting into its details, they will never be able to provide cohesive answers for tackling these issues..........

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

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

So if all it means is to reflect the consensus then why the need for even a word like ``secularism``. I never see this word being bandied around in US Canada or Britain [among others]the way it is touted and shouted in India or Turkey. The reason is that this religion called ``secularism`` is enforced top down and not by consensus or refrendum..otherwise there would have been provision for amendment in the constituition of either country. No sir! it is a belief, a creed, a cornerstone, a foundation --A RELIGION. No reform needed , thank you.

Remember! if there is a name , then there is an idea. Secularism like communism. atheism, socialism, liberalism ARE religions and they must be tackled as and when the situation dictates. One must always remember that communism and socialism looked very ``normal`` and `` right thing to do`` in not so distant past. The life of such these religions was not more than the period of Post-Partition India and Pakistan.

What is in store for next fifty years can easily be assessed from that. Revival of ALL religions is there and Islam leads the way. It always strenghthens in adversity. One may not even have to wait fifty years. It might happen within our lifetime.

Romair#70
``I am just inquring, debating and trying to get into the depths of the concepts of secularism (and religion), and any consequences it will eventually have on society. I think Western societies are starting to have to face these aspects.``

What`s happening is that people are becoming less rigid in their personal beliefs. Don`t blame the separation of church and state for it, unless you want the state to dictate personal morality of its citizens, instead of just reflecting it.

``In my opinion, both religious politics and secular politics are incomplete in handling the complexities of mankind`s society.The West is currently in a transitional state, moving from religion to secularism. Eventually one of things will happen: a) there will be a backlash and people will bring in more religion (kind of what is happening in USA) b) the society will stop where it is today, and not implement secularism fully c) secularism will come in fully and slowly religion, in personal life also, as we know it will disappear or will be modified beyond recognition (starting to happen in Western Europe) d) some new concept, independent of religion and secularism, will be invented ``
I am not sure what is meant here. Political parties can be based on religion, like some christian parties are in europe or the ruling party is in Turkey. In a secular society, politics is about power and compromise, religion is or should be about ethics and meeting spiritual needs; when the two run into conflict, as in the case of Gay unions, the state reigns supreme. In a secular society, the interaction is through values, people`s religious beliefs would affect their values and those values are reflected in the state laws. To me, this is straightforward and applies even in a religion based govt. such as Iran`s. The increased influence of religion has not made a dent in the US commitment to secularism; indeed, a school has been asked to remove the ten commandments and some people are suggesting that God be removed from state insignia.

``Through secularism, societies have asically agreed that the public rulings of their religion(s) are invalid.``
This maybe so but it is not necessary. They simply have decided that when there are competing religious views about those ``public rulings``, the state should act on the basis of societal consensus and not on what God or various versions of God said. Pesonal beliefs are okay but even there the state has the right to arbitrate if one religion`s beliefs clash with another`s.

digit#74:
``If any conflict arises between state and church, the state wins since it has all the legislative and executive power.``

Yes, sovereignty belongs to the people and not to God or Pope in truly democratic societies.

echoboom#73,77:

It has been said that european renaissance was delayed by Constantine`s conquest and the rise of christendom, as it reversed the freethinking greek philosophy. And the pagan influence is felt until this day in many of the christian and secular festivals, like Halloween (thank gods for that!).

``these were the stubborn religious traditions of the pagan population and the agenda of the imperial court. These two factors are the seedbeds of modern secularism and new age spirituality.``

I am not sure that I would agree with this proposition, as the separation of church and state is more recent phenomenon. In any case, why couldn`t the court impose the ``christian`` laws on everyone? In fact, this is what I think that they did as at the root of the western legal system is the laws brought down by Moses.

``The reason why the myth of secularism is so precious to modernity is not its potential to separate religion and politics but its potential to advance a framework for dealing with religious diversity under conditions of unequal power.``

If equality of treatment vis-a-vis religious beliefs and practices can be served under this framework, why cannot it be used in dealing with conditions of equal power? With that qualification, this is the point I have been trying to communicate in my discussion with Romair. If everyone was atheist (which Romair mistakenly calls ``secular``) there wouldn`t be a need for separating religion and state.

soundmeister...

Now I don`t fault you at all... it is your English comprehension skill that is the problem. How in the world did you assume that I was claiming Pakistan to be secular?? Yes I do want it to be secular, and modern and democratic... but that is for now merely a wish, or as some would say... wishful thinking... in Pakistan sadly even the word secular is said with a gulp, and in whisper...

Read the post again... I am saying something quite the contrary... but then again those who are stuck in their `India-Pakistan pissing contest` mode can hardly think beyond their own one-upmanship... and you are a classic case.

Please keep me out of your complexes and imagined complexities...

Sincerely

YLH

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

Dost-mittar

The reason why the myth of secularism is so precious to modernity is not its potential to separate religion and politics but its potential to advance a framework for dealing with religious diversity under conditions of unequal power. In perfectly homogenous societies, it does not matter if the state is influenced by religion or not. It is only when there are other faith communities, or other interpretations of the same faith that the state can become an instrument of religious oppression in the hands of the majority. But religion disguised as national interest or secular reason can play havoc with minority rights.

#75 Yasser

---

``In Pakistan it is the exact opposite in fact... rarely does a newspaper mention Youhanna`s or Kaneria`s religion... some rightly feel cricket doesn`t have anything to do with religion, and others think it is embarrassing. Rarely do you read of Rana Bhagwandas who is a leading Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan... or do you hear about the prosperous Hindu community of Karachi... heck I had to read about it in an Indian paper a few months ago during the Pakistan-India series. Maybe we are too bigoted for our own good.``

Yes, Pakistan is secular. I hear if you sniff enough glue it becomes democratic as well.

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

arjunm,

They have every right to be... I am just surprised at Soundmeister who wants to deny it.


Soundmeister,

I am surprised at how far you will go to simply cover up your earlier attempt at one-upmanship... one can quote hundreds, nay thousands of articles in the Indian press on Azim Premji`s religion... there is nothing wrong with that... what is wrong is your claim, as well as condescending post you put in reply earlier.

In Pakistan it is the exact opposite in fact... rarely does a newspaper mention Youhanna`s or Kaneria`s religion... some rightly feel cricket doesn`t have anything to do with religion, and others think it is embarrassing. Rarely do you read of Rana Bhagwandas who is a leading Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan... or do you hear about the prosperous Hindu community of Karachi... heck I had to read about it in an Indian paper a few months ago during the Pakistan-India series. Maybe we are too bigoted for our own good.


Anyway... Please grow up, and stop making everything into a Pakistan-India pissing contest.



Harimau,

The gentleman in question is a great success for India and I respect him greatly.

-YLH

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

Romair & Dost-mittar:
I , as a silent observer, am thoroughly enjoying this conversation. I think what I write below would help in understanding the psyche and cultural roots of `christianity` or for lack of a better word `westernism`.
Western mentality has a basis of heathen polytheism. All of the European religious systems before the conquest by Christianity were founded on the concept of a pantheon of various gods and goddesses with different functions. These were seen to control the fate of humankind, but demanded worship and various types of sacrifice for propitiation and in order to induce them to act favourably towards human beings. The Nordic gods are still reflected in the names of the days of the week in all of the Nordic languages. The Romance languages preserve the names of the planets, also perceived as gods and goddesses, in the names of the days of the week in the Romance languages. In Western languages people refer daily to the ancient European gods. This is more than a mere linguistic remnant. It is a single piece of evidence for a whole configuration of pagan thought that forms the underlying layer of European mentality.

Christianity was a small sect among many cults competing with each other in the Roman empire in the first centuries of the Christian era. But for a particular historical event, Christianity would have disappeared with hardly a trace. Christianity became the vehicle for the emperor Constantine’s attempts to consolidate his power. He made Christianity the State religion, the purpose of which was to enhance imperial power. In so doing he changed the face and character of Christianity beyond recognition, so that today it has practically nothing to do with the actual teaching of Jesus (AS) and his original followers. There were two matters that needed to be reconciled: these were the stubborn religious traditions of the pagan population and the agenda of the imperial court. These two factors are the seedbeds of modern secularism and new age spirituality.

Dost,

re: secularism.

Secularism has correctly been identified as the separation of church and state, however it should be noted that this separation is not meant to be equitable. If any conflict arises between state and church, the state wins since it has all the legislative and executive power. This in the West, at least. I guess Iran could be considered the mirror opposite. The `Church` has penultimate authority, while in theory the laity runs all government institutions. The Church-state separation exists here too, but with a different balance of power.

I suppose the assertion that secular states do not interfere with religious practices is not entirely correct. Religions are as much social as personal, and it is the social aspect of religion that secularism is trying to repress, delegitimize, or even eliminate. In this sense, no secular state is entirely agnostic towards religion. Some are more lenient than others, though. Some secular states are bold enough to forbid religious practices for the explicit purpose of trying to ``reform``, or rather engineer a social change.

Romair: Have you heard of Muqtedar Khan? He is a very respected voice in US.


The Myth of Secularism:
Religion and Politics are Mutually Constitutive

M. A. Muqtedar Khan

Identity and Politics are Inseparable

As a Muslim intellectual living in the West, researching and teaching political theory and political philosophy, I have always marveled at the durability of the idea of secularism. For a civilization that boasts considerable sophistication in most areas, to assume that politics and religion constitute two separate realms or that the two can be separated is uncharacteristically naïve. This belief, not in separation of church and state, but in the separability of church and State, in my opinion is one of the enduring myths of modernity. This myth rests on the false assumptions of pure politics and pure religion. Secularism is a device that seeks to protect religion from the corruption of politics and politics from becoming usurped by religion.

All core issues are not only normative in nature but also impinge on individual and collective identities. Neither the conception of the individual self nor the construction of the collective self is free from political or religious considerations. Even in societies that were anti-religious such as the former Soviet Union and present day China, or more secular than the US, such as France and Turkey, religion remained an important political issue and politics shaped the way religion was practiced. Christianity played a significant role in the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and Islamists found a way to come to power in secular fundamentalist Turkey. The place of religious symbols in public sphere, whether it is Hijaab (Muslim headscarf) in French public schools or the Ten Commandments in American courts, remains contested primarily because there is no consensus on the exclusion of religion from public sphere anywhere.



The rest of it.

Dost-mittar #68: ``I dont think that we will ever agree on this. But still here`s another effort (futile?) on my part.``

No discussion is ever futile. I am actually enjoying this. One learns the most from individuals one disagrees with, on something. So rest assured it is not futile. Hopefully, I will learn a few things from you and you from me (as long as we keep an open mind, and are willing to change any long held views)......

``Are you suggesting that it would be alright for a state to have separate legislations for separate religions?``

I am not presenting any solutions. Nor am I supporting or opposing anything......I am just inquring, debating and trying to get into the depths of the concepts of secularism (and religion), and any consequences it will eventually have on society. I think Western societies are starting to have to face these aspects.

In my opinion, both religious politics and secular politics are incomplete in handling the complexities of mankind`s society. The West is currently in a transitional state, moving from religion to secularism. Eventually one of things will happen: a) there will be a backlash and people will bring in more religion (kind of what is happening in USA) b) the society will stop where it is today, and not implement secularism fully c) secularism will come in fully and slowly religion, in personal life also, as we know it will disappear or will be modified beyond recognition (starting to happen in Western Europe) d) some new concept, independent of religion and secularism, will be invented

The current state is one of public athiesm (with some exceptions for things like marriage etc.) and personal religion. This is what is currently called secularism. This is an inconsistent state, and will change in some direction.

Religions do not just define personal rules. They define public and social rules also. Homosexuality is not only a sin at a pesonal level, according to Islam and Christianity; it is a sin at a social level also. This is why it was banned in Canada earlier. It was due to religious reasons. This is also why gay marriage is not legal (yet).

Through secularism, societies have asically agreed that the public rulings of their religion(s) are invalid. They felt these need to be rejected because they cannot be used to set up a stable society. Hence one side (the public) side of religion has to be rejected by anyone supporting secularism. In essence, it is a statement, that God (however their religion defines it) was not quite right when He defined the rules for society.

However, his rules on personal affairs are alright, hence those are accepted. I think, this is more just a matter of covenience to satisfy individuals. If people have decided to reject the public aspect of their religion, then why not reject the personal aspect, also. If God did not know what He was doing when defining the public aspects, then how can we be sure His personal rules are correct.

In this sense, what hamidm and sameerjb argue is more valid. Why not reject religion altogether, instead picking and chosing half of it?

Slowly, secularism is being implement more and more in Western societies. Taking the right away from the State on how to define marraige will be a big change in society, eventually. The court will have to rule in favor of any kind of union, based on the social rights of individuals, regardless of what the society thinks (unless Constitutional amendments are passed).

As religion moves completely out of the State, the society will change. For example, the next generations will be more acceptable of homosexual marriages etc., and eventually it will have to be introduced in schools, books etc. as an equally acceptable option. Once such things become the norm, people will indulge in them more often (assumign people aren`t born gay, but chose it). Other religious restrictions will go away. People will challenge religious restrictions more and more in personal lives. And eventually will modify their religions completely beyond what they were originally, or will eventually reach the conclusion that religious restrictions are as misplaced in personal lives as they are in public lives.

Eventually, society will be based on a code of man-made ethics. There may not even be a concept of God, Who defines how we should spend are lives. Western societies have grealy modified their religious beliefs in personal life, already. I think the end result will be a athiestic society, or one in which their is a concept of God, but nothing more than a concept.

To the best of my understanding (though not sure), China is like that already. Barring a small Bhuddhist and Muslim minority, the majority of Chinese are not raised with a concept of religion of any sort. However, in China, minority views can be suppressed easily by the State, hence the State acts as a kind of God. In Western societies, individuals rights have to be accepted, even if the majority disagrees with it. Hence Western socieites will see a much larger change than China did, as secularism moves toward completeness.....

People cannot just become publically athiest and reject any religion`s public aspects and cling to its personal aspects as Divine law. This is why Muslim societies face so much resistance in implementing secularism. Their citizens are unwilling to give up on Isam`s public aspects, even though then cannot agree to exactly what that is. And this is why Western societies are becoming less and less religious, at a personal level. Because it doesn`t seem logical to reject half of religion (its public part) and continue with the other half (its personal part).............

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

Romair#60:
I dont think that we will ever agree on this. But still here`s another effort (futile?) on my part.

Marriage may have been consecrated by all major religions but they are primarily a social institution. Many people take marriage vows in a court rather than in a religious place. And even when a society`s official religion is atheism, like in the former soviet union, cuba or china, marriages did not disappear. Nor did any of them made gay marriages legal. Personally, I do not think that the soviet union was secular or that china is secular now. Both these countries placed strict limitations on religious practices, so they did not separate religion from state, whereas western societies are secular because they do not interfere in people`s religion.

``At the same time, I am not a theocrat either, because I don`t believe one religion should legislate to everyone``
Are you suggesting that it would be alright for a state to have separate legislations for separate religions? This would mean a chaos - a muslim`s hand would be cut for stealing while a hindu/christian would get away by a few months` as a state guest in a penitentiary with cable tv, exercise room and other frills.

#55 by Mantolives

[I think every Indian and their mother in law make it a point to mention `India`s richest man is a Muslim , Azim Premji the first Muslim IT entrepreneur`...]

I`m curious to know since when is the Indian media representative of `every Indian and their mother in law`?

Posting a longer extract of YLH`s quoted reference, to put things in perspective. Also, I did a google search as suggested- ``Azim Premji`` returned 9910 hits, ``Azim Premji Muslim`` returned 677. So I was wrong, it`s not 10-20% of all articles on him that mention his religion but barely some 8% of them!

Many democracies consciously put members of minorities into prominent positions as tokens of secularism. India has always given weight to minorities in selecting presidents. I do not think Zakir Hussein, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed or even Abdul Kalam would have become president but for their being Muslims.



This (however) cannot be said of Manmohan Singh. He has risen to the top on the basis of sheer merit, not sectarian preference or mani-pulation. This is not the only example of Indian inclusiveness. The Indian cricket team that beat Pakistan included Irfan Pathan, Zaheer Khan and Mohammed Kaif, three Muslims selected on pure merit. Our top tennis player is Leander Paes. In Bollywood, the three top stars are Shah Rukh Khan, Salman Khan and Aamir Khan. Our top music director is A R Rahman.



India ’s richest businessman is Azim Premji. So, although we in India have much to be ashamed of, we have some redeeming features too. Muslims, Christians and Sikhs can get to the very top on merit. This will not be of solace to those killed in the next riot. But for now, let us raise a toast to Manmohan Singh, and to those who chose him as prime minister.

Ref Mantolives #55

[My dear friend... which world do you live in... I think every Indian and their mother in law make it a point to mention `India`s richest man is a Muslim , Azim Premji the first Muslim IT entrepreneur`...]

I KNOW you are getting tired of ``the first Muslim IT enterpreneur`` thing so if you will send me your address, I shall send you a rather large box of soap and vegetable oil made by the aforementioned gentleman. Certainly, they will be of more utilitarian value than computer hardware or software.

Warmest regards.

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

Soundmeister:

How about Rediff, Tehelka, Hindustan times, Times of India, Outlook ?


Here is just one example ... search google and you will find thousands:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/692621.cms


``India ’s richest businessman is Azim Premji. So, although we in India have much to be ashamed of, we have some redeeming features too. Muslims, Christians and Sikhs can get to the very top on merit. This will not be of solace to those killed in the next riot. But for now, let us raise a toast to Manmohan Singh, and to those who chose him as prime minister.``


It seems that the Indian media is obsessed with Azim Premji`s religion...

-YLH

YLH,

I was talking about the INDIAN media. You, your mother-in-law and ``Dawn`` (or is it ``The Friday Times``?) don`t count!

:)

Arjunm,

The elections were unfair, but not because of `poll rigging`... Rigging comes in many ways... If you devise a King`s Party of those single constituency members who are sure shot winners, then you can hardly lose can you?

What happened in the Pakistani election of 2002 was not that polls were rigged, but instead the conditions were rigged... major leaders were not allowed to take part, vacuum was created, and the Madrassah degrees were declared equivalent to BA ... similarly close to 1 million Afghans registered as voters in the NWFP... all voting `anti-American`....

For Musharraf I feel the biggest surprise was PPP`s vote bank... which was still larger than all other vote banks..

Dost-mittar #58: ``Exactly! It`s your interpretation of that definition that I do not agree with. To me, the fact that a majority of the Canadian legislatures and judges routinely pass laws and judgements which go against their relgious teachings and, in many cases, also against their personal beliefs proves beyond any doubt that this is a secular society.``

Perhaps I am not making myself clear. I have stated myself, that Canada and other Western societies are generally secular (or secular leaning). Hence my statements about them being 80% secular or 90% etc. The point I was making was that none of them are fully secular. They do separate Church from State, in most areas. But not it all areas. They are slowly moving towards that direction, and may someday reach that utopia of theirs. But they are not there yet.

And I am not sure whether they will ever get there, without massive changes in the way those societies are set up. Either they will resist these massive changes, and remain mostly secular; though not completely so. Or they will accept to change their social norms.

The marriage debate hits at the core of this. I am thus watching it closely. I hope you do agree that marriage is a purely religious concept on which the State legislates heavily. Taxes, insurance, inheritance, etc. are all legislated based on marriage. Even the legal definition of marraige is legislated, based on religion. This makes it a clear mixture of Church and State.

Why is marriage important? Because it is the foundation of the Western society (and of most societies). Any change in the concept of marriage will resonate through the whole social structure. I think gay marriage will eventually be accepted, someday, in the West as legal. However, what is more important in this debate is not gay marriage, itself, but the taking away of the right of the State to define what marriage is. Once that happens, Church will be separated from State on this issue. And then, anyone in any kind of union (polygomous, incestual etc.) will have a legal right to be treated equally to any other union.

There is no defintion or concept of marriage in secularism. Secularism just demands equality for everyone in unions, with no regard of religion in law-making. This is where we are stuck at the moement. Socieites are mosly secular, but not on certain key issues like marriage (Eid/Christmas holidays etc. being minor issues, compared to this one).

How are these societies going to tackle this issue? In Western Europe we can see that people are becoming more and more religiously abstract, or agnostic. There was a very interesting debate on this on BBC (Imran Khan was on it also). In the end the moderator showed a poll asking Brits whether they felt God had more impact on their lives or David Beckham. 35% in the poll, replied David Beckham.

The more secular societies become, the more of their religious beliefs etc. the citizens will either have to change or be modified. Religions do not just define personal rules. They define social rules also. So just by separating Church from State, people have given up on the social rules side of the religion. Or have modified their religions. If the caste-system is a part of the Hindu religion (is it?), then giving up on it, at a personal or social level, is in fact a modification of the Hindu religion. If gay marriage is forbidden at the personal and social level in Christianity and Islam (which it is), then voting in favor of it in the legislature is an acceptance of the modificaiton of religion.

Eventually, people will have to modify many of their personal beliefs also, to achieve a purely secular society. Western Europe is moving in that direction. Such a society will have very different norms and values from what we see today. In such a society, it could eventually be possible that David Beckham did have more impact on people`s lives than God.

I am not saying whether this is right or wrong. It may very well be right. Or maybe wrong. I am just stating what I see to be facts. And I think if people are going to push secularism, they shouldn`t be half-baked about it. They need to do the full monty. I would vote against gay marriage if I were in the legislature. Hence I can never state that I am fully secular. How can I be? At the same time, I am not a theocrat either, because I don`t believe one religion should legislate to everyone.

What I cannot understand are people who claim to be secular, but only as far as they want to be. Then they become religious. They are conveniently secualar, but not fully so. Hence my claim that any party to the right of NDP is not fully secular.

It is easy to say that people need to keep their religious beliefs at a personal level and not let it affect the govt. system. It is quite difficult to put this into practice fully, without accepting major social changes. So far, the Western societies were comfortably living in the happy medium, of being mostly secualr and partially religious in govt. Now they are having to make some important decisions, on which way to go. The Conservative partys of the world are taking them in one direction, and the NDPs of the world in the other.

All of this cannot be just written off in simplistic terms. There are a lot of complex issues in the details of separating Church from State completely. I really don`t know if it will ever happen, fully.

``But the American constitution is without religion. Some of the founding fathers did want to introduce the concept of christian values in the document but they were overruled. The difference between these societies and those that call themselves christian/islamic/jewish or that their laws will be based/inspired by one holy scripture or another is fundamental and not one of mere degrees.``

The Constitution does not reference God. But the Declaration of Independece certainly does, on multiple occassions. I agree that the difference between, ``these societies`` and those that push a holy scripture (there are very few of these, like Saudi Arabia) is fundamental. But the overwhelming majority of the countries in the world do not push a scripture fully (Pakistan doesn`t for example; it does so more than India though, but it does not have Shariah rule). And the differences amongst these countries is one of degrees..........Some more secular than others, but none being completely so....

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

Romair:
``In case of secularism, it is the concept of separation of Church and State. That is what secularism is. Nothing more, nothing less.``

Exactly! It`s your interpretation of that definition that I do not agree with. To me, the fact that a majority of the Canadian legislatures and judges routinely pass laws and judgements which go against their relgious teachings and, in many cases, also against their personal beliefs proves beyond any doubt that this is a secular society.
One might raise doubts about the US since they do use expressions like ``In God we trust`` or ``God bless America``. But the American constitution is without religion. Some of the founding fathers did want to introduce the concept of christian values in the document but they were overruled. The difference between these societies and those that call themselves christian/islamic/jewish or that their laws will be based/inspired by one holy scripture or another is fundamental and not one of mere degrees.

Soundmeister,

`Does Azim Premji ever complain that the Indian media doesn`t portray him as ``the first Muslim IT entrepreneur``?`

My dear friend... which world do you live in... I think every Indian and their mother in law make it a point to mention `India`s richest man is a Muslim , Azim Premji the first Muslim IT entrepreneur`... as is obvious from your own barely concealed attept to pull a fast one here... there is nothing like the proof of one`s religion, to prove another`s secularism.

I don`t think Azim Premji has any complaints...

Sincerely

YLH

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

aah the obsession with everything 100% pure continues.

Dost-mittar #50: “You have some peculiar views re. secularism.”

Either that or you have not taken the time to study secularism, as a concept, fully. And have not diagnosed what a pure (100%) secular society would look like. And whether it is even practically possible to achieve such a society, when its citizens all believe in different religions, with different level of intensities.

I am debating the issue based on the definition of the concepts. In case of secularism, it is the concept of separation of Church and State. That is what secularism is. Nothing more, nothing less. And the point I am making is that there are no societies, in the world, at present, which are fully secular. They are all in a state of evolution.

To a great extent you have validated my point, by providing examples about the state of Canada, when you arrived and what it is today. The fact that it is different now is an indication that it is evolving or trying to evolve towards some goal. But it has not reached it.

The ideas of accepting homosexuality at a social level or accepting marijuana at a social level does not affect secularism one way or the other. It is the acceptance of homosexuality at the State level, where secularism comes in. The fact that it had to be, “accepted,” as something legal, regardless of it being illegal religiously, would indicate that the society wasn’t perfectly secular before then. It was, and still is, in a state of evolution.

What is the biggest obstacle in their evolving to this stage? I cannot think of anything except the religious tendencies of the voters, who elect the legislature. This directly affects legislation. Does it not? Secularism in USA is different from secularism in Canada, from secularism in Pakistan. Is it not?

Granted the commonalities far outweigh the differences. But all of the above systems cannot be 100% secular, if they are different from each other. Gay marriage is legal in secular Massachusetts, but not in secular North Carolina. This is why I stated that for pure secularism, i.e. 100% secularism, one would have to really have a society where religion has no influence in any legislative matter. For that to happen, voters would have to disassociate themselves from personal religious leanings, completely, when voting.

The only pillar of State that has been separated from religion in Western democracy is the Judiciary. It (more or less) interprets laws in a religion-less manner. However, the legislature, due to the religious belief of the voters, and the executive, due to the religious beliefs of the individual who occupies this position, remain mixed with religion. Surely you cannot deny this.

There is in fact a direct relationship between the religiousness of societies and how secular their systems of govt. are. Pakistanis are more religious than Americans, and thus have a less secular system of govt., because people vote based on religion. Americans are more religious than Canadians, and have a less secular govt., because in a great chunk of the USA (South) people vote based on religion (even though the system of govt. is mostly secular). So on and so forth.

“Your interpretation would make a secular society as rigid as one whose laws are based on a holy scripture.”

Yes, pure secularism is a very rigid concept. Much like pure Shariah. Pure, “anything” will tend to quit rigid. People will have to give up, or compromise, on many of the religious beliefs they hold, to fit into such a system. The example of Monia Ahrar, not believing in abortion, yet having to vote for it, is an example. The headscarf/turban issue in France is another.

This is probably why there isn’t any country in the world, which has taken secularism to its 100% pure form. They tend to stop at the point where a majority of the population accepts the consensus, i.e. they only push the separation of Church and State, so far. This is why each country implements secularism differently from the other. Even though as a concept, it is quite straight forward, i.e. separate Church from State.

This is also why the current gay marriage debate is so important. It hits at the base of this concept. If the State gives up its right to define marriage, then I think, within the next 100 years, the face of the Western society will change quite a bit. All types of unions will have to be accepted as legitimate, which under secularism they should be.

In fact, separation of Church and State is the argument that is used by political parties (including NDP) to justify gay marriage. At the same time, in the USA, the party in power is trying to bring in a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Both claim to be secular. On this issue, and on other similar issues, they obviously cannot both be secular.

BTW, has anyone checked with this lady to see if she minds not being known as the ``first Muslim MP``? For all you know, she may be happier with ``the first MP to make a real difference``...

Does Azim Premji ever complain that the Indian media doesn`t portray him as ``the first Muslim IT entrepreneur``?

Mumbai chick..

Getting elected is hardly a problem.... it is what our legislators do when they are elected... Pakistan has 1 national legislatures, 4 provincial legislatures, and countless district and municipal assemblies...

But does it affect Musharraf`s skin?

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

Romair#39:
``I have always felt that if one studies and diagnoses secularism thoroughly, one will come to the conclusion that it is nearly impossible to have a pure secular system of govt., in societies where citizens have a religion, i.e. pure secularism is only possible in societies where a majority of the population is athiest.``

You have some peculiar views re. secularism. One can always take any proposition to an absurd extreme, challenge that extreme and call it mission accomplished. If a society is largely atheistic, there is no reason to separate religion from politics, which is what secularism is, since in an atheistic society there is nothing to separate.

The point you wish to make -and it is a valid one- is that a society will reflect the ethos of its majority (christmas v/s eid), regardless of the system of government. This is why the western countries have a ``judeo-christian`` ethos and Syria and Turkey an islamic one though both are secular societies. However, a secular society does not follow the dictates of the majority religion if the societal values turn against its religion. When I came to this country, adultery, homosexuality, sodomy were criminal behaviours, now they are not even immoral. As of now, marijuana is considered illegal but not immoral, so sooner or later the society`s laws will change in accordance with the changed values. In India, the Hindu society, or at least its leadership, has decided that the earlier pillar of the Hindu society, its caste system, is an evil and its practice should not only be considered illegal but the past injustices should be corrected through preferences and quotas. According to you, this is the opposite of secularism, since the state is telling people what to do wrt their religion, instead of the government reflecting the changing values of its society. Your interpretation would make a secular society as rigid as one whose laws are based on a holy scripture.

#48 by mumbaichick

LOL!

Who cares whether a Muslim get elected in Canada? It is a real miracle when a Muslim is elected in a Muslim country.

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

re #44
She even made it to NPR today morning. It seems the strongest opposition to her is coming from other women in her mosque in WV. Reminded me of pro/anti hijab debates on chowk unplugged.
regards

Romair,

Thank you for taking the time to explain your post. You have merit in what you say, but I still disagree with your view of what motivates people to join the NDP. Let us agree to disagree on this point. Perhaps we are viewing the same picture from very different angles.

With regard to my angry outbursts on TV, they are very rare and that is how I am; my chemistry is ascerbic and that is what makes me tic at 55 :-) Most of my peers are becoming `abba hazoors`, have grandchildren, have cooled down and are settled. Who knows, I too may soon surrender, but thank you for your advice. Next time you see me calm in a TV debate, you can give yourself the credit :-)

Tarek

http://www.asranomani.com/site/

this woman, daughter to immigrants from mumbai is creating news in the US.

Indian Muslim Asra Nomani has found herself on the frontline of a battle for women`s rights in Islam in the United States.

She entered the local mosque through the front door and dared to pray alongside men, an act that has triggered heated discussions among America`s Muslim community

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3926461.stm

The shia sunni divide in Arab world is very sharp as compared to that in Pakistan. In Pakistan only recently they have started killing each other and only when Uncle Sam started funding the carnage, whereas in Arab world it goes as back as that of Ummyad Dynasty and then Abasides. Then it was Hasan Bin Sabah of Al-Amut, the Alwites of Egypt and Syria, Karamatah who ransacked Qa`aba and took the Hajra-e-Aswd to somewhere in present day Iran and started something like Hajj over there. For three years, as long as Mecca was under occupation by Karamtah, there was no Hajj. Finally, on the call of the Caliph, Mehmood Ghaznavi attacked Karamatah in Multan to end the political power of this sect forever. Only recently a couple of days ago Iraq`s aggression on Iran was viwed by Arabs sunnis and shias as the re-enactment of War of Quadisia which resulted in conquereing of Iran by Muslims the first time. In subcontinent, however, both Shia and sunnis who came historically, were refugees who excaped the political persecution in their native lands. Somehow they managed to live together in peace. Later, the British, as colonial power assessed that their divide can be used as an advantage. The present day neo-imperioalists also see their divide as an opportunity to divide and rule. Now since most of the so-called Muslim orgs like ICNA, ISNA, etc. are dominated by sunni arabs and shaafi africans, it explains why a cold shoulder to Ratansi.

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

i am afraid that canada, that survived qubecoise movement will break up soon over debate of friday vs sunday and eid vs christamas.

Re: fatah #7
``I couldn`t understand what you meant by your statement that the media missed the story because ``she forgot to condemn her religion.``

``If this was meant to be a sarcsatic remark suggesting that only critics of Islma get publicity, then you are ded wrong. Monia Mazigh who ran from Ottawa on the NDP ticket and who wears a hijab, got huge coverage and publicity from the media.``

Yeah those are only a couple of types of Muslims the media is interested in: them that blow themselves and others to kingdom come, and those that keep their women subjugated behind the veil.

This lady apparently never claimed to be Muslim (not condemning a religion being quite different from actively endorsing it, as Urstruly shrewd as ever, implies), so what is your grouse? That she didn`t get any publicity out of it? (why should she, is being elected MP enough to make news?) or that ``nice Muslims`` don`t get enough publicity? (welcome to the real world! )

dost-mittar #33: ``Could y