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

Media missed the story because she forgot to condemn her religion and stopped short on her vows to ``reform`` it.

Dear Tarek:
Thanks for bringing this to everyone`s notice. Not only the muslims but the south asian community in general seems to be ignorant about Ms Ratansi`s election. I hope her contributions will be as significant as those of Rahim and Mobina Jaffer, the MP and Senator from the same community.
I have seen your show a couple of times and like it. Hope you succeed in your attempts to block the introduction of sharia-determined arbitrations in ontario.

Good piece.

Dear Usrtruly,

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.

There is more to it than meets the eye. Beware of conventional wisdom.

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

............ ismailis are one fatwa short of being declared kafirs...

.............. even though most muslims do not regard ismailis as ``real`` muslims, they have generally been ignored instead of being hounded like the poor ahmedis .......... it must be because you can`t get a decent hotel room anywhere in pakistan if you piss off the agha khan, or it is simply because they generally keep a low profile and camouflage their jamaat khanas as residences ................. but i wonder how long it will last ........ it is just a matter of time before some smelly cardinal takes offense at their habit of using deodrant, marrying white folks, speaking english, wearing skirts, using forks and knives, working hard, making too much money and generally pretending to be white, and declares them to be infidels and wajib-ul-qatl .........

........... it is not surprising that the mainstream misogynist muslim organizations in north america ignored ms ratansi ......... she is their worst nightmare - a muslima who is her own woman ............. but then again, maybe she is not a muslim?

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

woh mujh se hoay humkalam.....

mr. Fatah, the comment of course was sarcastic but it says what meets the eye. Aren`t you the one who wrote this article complaining. You asked for reasons, I gave you one.

hamidm:

There is no chance that Ismailis will ever be declared non-Muslims, it hasn`t happened in past not even when Old Shiekh of the Mountain - Hassan Bin Sabah and his ``(h)assassins`` decended such a terror upon Muslim world like no other in history. The reason is very simple. A Muslim differentiates between someone`s religious beliefs and his political ideology.

The Ismaili Religious Beliefs are:

``The Shia Imami Ismaili Muslims affirm the Shahadah `La- ilaha illa-llah, Muhammadur Rasulu-llah`. the Tawhid therein, and that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Salla-llahu alayhi wa-salam) is the last and final Prophet of Allah. Islam, as revealed in the Holy Quran, is the final message of Allah to mankind, and is universal and eternal. The Holy Prophet (s.a.s.) through the divine revelation from Allah prescribed rules governing spiritual and temporal matters.`` And this makes them our brothers.

The Ismaili Political Ideology is:

`` In accordance with Shia doctrine, tradition, and interpretation of history, the Holy Prophet (s.a.s.) designated and appointed his cousin and son-in-law Hazrat Mawlana Ali Amiru-l-Mu`minin (Alayhi-s-salaam), to be the first Imam to continue the Ta`wil and Ta`lim of Allah`s final message and to guide the murids (believers), and proclaimed that the Imamat should continue by heredity through Hazrat Mawlana Ali (a.s.) and his own daughter Hazrat Bibi Fatima taz-Zahra, Khatun-i-Jannat (Alayha-s-salaam). In the holy Quran the family of the Prophet (s.a.s.) has been declared pure. Prophet Muhammad at the historical incident known as the Mubahila, identified these to be Hazrat Ali, Bibi Fatima and their children Hazrat Hassan and Hazrat Hussein - the Panj Tan Paak.``

The rest of Mulsim world, however, do not subscribe to their ideology of hereditary right of rule. They rather beleive that the ruler should always be appointed by the vote of pious Muslims.

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

Urstruly:
Eurika!!

I have a hunch that the chowk-staf has a Islamic-muslim fetish--the sado-masochistic kind.
``Of all the gin-joints in the world she walks into mine`` and `` the problem of two mullahs and their two vardee poshes ( or fill in your favourite) doesnt amount to a hill of beans``

and `` aur bhee dukhh hain zamaanay mein yeh bukk-bukk kay siva``

But because now that we have been educated, it is incumbent upon us to defrag and reformat other hard-discs.

Sultan Bahu farmaa gae haiN--and our leaders have explained to us:

``Ikko aluf meinooN darkaar.``

Aluf of Amreeka--how profitic of Bahoo saheb.

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

umm, I did not know that a Muslim woman has been elected to the Canadian Parliament. I also did not know about the first Sikh woman, first African-AMerican from qubec becasue unlike this article nobody thought of them worthy of writing an article about. Sikhs, in particular, take note. Next time a Sikh makes it to European music chart, wins a kabaddi match in Oslo or starts a direct flight from Baristtslava, capital of Slovak Republic to Amritsar, some one must write an article about it on chowk. I will wait to write an article until chak no. 420 GB, tehsil Jaranwala, distt. Lyallpur produces a billionaire, a general in the Pakistani army, an Imam, a well-known Urdu poet, a record milk quantity producing neeli cow,...........

An eye opening article . The fundamentalism is depriving many accomplished Muslims of the status that they rightfully deserve. It is sad that our very own Muslim community is so divided.

urstruly,

theologically you might be right when you say ``There is no chance that Ismailis will ever be declared non-Muslims``.............but that did not stop the ayatollahs from killing iranian muslims for crimes like ``corruption on earth`` or having ``western thoughts`` ........... it is an ill wind and the poor ismailis are taking a big chance by standing up against it ............. some of them are being scared into adopting the silly customs of the rest of the ignorant flock to protect themselves from being treated like the sudanese in darfur ............. i know one guy who actually went to perform the hajj - something no self-respecting ismaili would have considered a few years ago .................

.............. it is an ill wind ..........

whoa,
biradur tarek`s atikuls get posted here?!?!?!

salaam tarek bhai!

``torchbearer for Muslims ``

i think the author is being completely illogical.

did she claim to be a torchbearer for muslims in her campaign? perhaps she ran as an ordinary canadian and not as ``first muslim woman, torchbearer`` etc. and that is the reason media treated her the way they did. after all, ordinary canadian women getting elected as MP is not an earth-shattering news, is it?

arjun,

... well said!

``Was she running in the elections to fight for pan-Islamist causes? No..? then she`s not a real muslim in the eyes of CAIR etc...why blame the media..

Like blacks in the US, muslims are expected to think and act a certain way or they`re not really black/muslim... ``

.............. you hit it right on the head ............

Didn`t know about Yasmin. Had heard the name, but didn`t follow her election campaign. Will have to add her to the list. Now there are three Muslim MPs and one Muslim Senator in Canada. And nine Punjabi MPs. Not bad.

Must give a lot of credit to Canada. Truly a multi-cultural society. Can`t see anything like this happening in USA for a long long time.

Interestingly two of the four above-mentioned Muslims are women. There was a Pakistani female candidate - graduate of Kinnaird College - named Fiaza/Fouzia (?) Khan, who got the NDP ticket from the Toronto area. But she did not win.

As for Islmailis being Muslim or not; will have to wait for the latest verdict by Urstruly and Naqshbandi to reach a conclusion........

#1: Urstruly: When will you grow up? The kind of wisdom(if any) your interacts display has nothing to do with intellectual growth or for that matter any depth. It`s all to do with the retarded cultural baggage you have been carrying with you. I think it`s time to discard that and start with an open mind.

Romair - you mentioned Fauzia Khan who ran on NDP`s ticket. Interestingly she is a friend of mine and I have known her for a few years. She is indeed Kinnaird and American University graduate, and with a very promising future ahead. She has been very active in many Muslim causes, such as fund raisings, organizing speaker events, as well as in the campaign of Carolyn Parrish - an MP with a sympathetic ear for muslim community.

Given that she is very new and inexperienced in political arena, it was expected that she would lose. However, she still managed to get nearly 10% of the votes in her riding, which shows a lot of promise for her future.

Indeed Canada is truly a beautiful and the most tolerant society.

Malik99 #21: Carolyn Parish is pretty close to the riding I currently live in. She gets elected from an area that has the highest Pakistani population. So she really needs the Pakistani vote. A Pakistani, Wajid Khan, was elected from an adjacent riding. That has the second highest no. of Pakistanis.

Mississauga in the garh of Pakistanis now, in Canada. It is known as, ``Begumpura,`` because so many Pakistanis have their wives living here, while they work in the Middle East.

Carolyn Parish, recently, made a famous remark, which got her some bad publicity, but apparently a lot of votes (she won big). She called Americans, ``Bast//rds.`` Once she retires, I think that will be another riding where a Pakistani should be able to get elected easily on a Liberal ticket. My guess is, within ten years, there should be three, or so, Pakistanis in the Canadian parliament.

Fauzia Khan lost because she had the NDP ticket. NDP is a very Liberal party. Extremely Liberal. But it only wins a few seats. This time it won only 19. If she had the Liberal ticket she may have won.

Are you in Canada?

Romair - I moved to Toronto from US in 2000 due to a long term project. I lived there for nearly 2 years until I moved back to US. I lived near Yonge & Eglinton ( also called ``Young and Eligible``) . Toronto is truly a beautiful city. I loved the summer events by the Harbor Front, City Festival as well as other many many ethnic events. I also tremendously enjoyed walking late at night with friends in dowtown, without having fear of getting shot.

Indeed ``Begumpura`` has a very big population of Pakistanis. During my years in Toronto, I often hear that 905 area code (mississauga`s area code) was experiencing the steepest growth in population than any other area code in Canada. I would venture to say that in not so distant future, and provided that Canada`s immigration laws stay the same, it could become the biggest ``little pakistan`` in North America.

What is also interesting about Toronto and its surroundings is that it has evolved into pockets of ethnic communities. So much so that a mention of a particular area of Toronto reminds one of that particular community. For example, Mississauga brings to mind Pakistanis. Brampton, with a humongous number of Sikhs and ``khalsa`` schools brings to mind that community. Scarborough, where Fauzia Khan resides, has a large number of south asians, particularly Sri Lankans. Yonge & Finch area has a large number of Iranians and their businesses. Rodedale and Bathurst has a large jewish population. The area around Spadina, Lake Shore and Yonge has a large east asian community. Danforth, east of Yonge, has a large Greek population.

Perhaps the evolution of these ``pockets of ethnicities`` has also contributed to the election victories to the parliament of quite a few immigrants residing in these pockets. Although I am not a proponent of voting along ethnic lines, but perhaps at this stage of Canadian history it is important for these communities to have their representation.

Malik99#23: Yonge and Eglinton is indeed called Young and Eligible. It is one of the most expensive areas to live in Canada. A place where all the yuppies live. Very nice area. I don`t like living in downtowns or uptowns, otherwise, that would have been my first choice.

Your descriptions of areas is very accurate. GTA is already 52% immigrant. It is the most multi-cultural city in North America; even more so than New York. Ironically, it has been voted the most organized and safest big city in North America. And the 18th best place in the world to live by UN (Vancouver was first last year).

Mississauga is already the center of the Pakistani community. As Brampton is for Sikhs. And Scarborogh for Sri Lankans. And Richmond Hill for Chineses. A Pakistani fought the mayoral elections for the city of Mississauga (he was crushed by the incumbent mayor). Interestingly, Mississauga is not an ethnic ghetto. It is one of the wealthiest cities in Canada, and its third biggest financial center, and an emerging IT center. Though I live in the surroundings, my business is located there (until I raise enough money to get a good downtown office). And the safest in Canada (making it the safest in North America, probably).

Canadians seem very open to supporting all ethnicities and religions in elections. In some cases, in these areas, all the candidates were South Asian. South Asians are mostly in the Liberal party. The ones who cannot get a ticket from there, generally go to even the more Liberal NDP. NDP is probably the only truly major secular party in North America. It completely keeps religion away from politics. I believe to get a ticket for NDP, one has to openly declare that they support gay rights and gay marriage and support abortion. So all the Pakistanis and Muslims getting their ticket from NDP, would have declared that.

Anyways, Begumpura should have another Pakistani candidate in five to ten years, due to the demographics alone......

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

Here she goes again. Here Nikki Nikki Nikki here Nikki Nikki Nikki

Romair: ``I believe to get a ticket for NDP, one has to openly declare that they support gay rights and gay marriage and support abortion. So all the Pakistanis and Muslims getting their ticket from NDP, would have declared that. ``
Monia Mazigh also ran on a NDP ticket (she lost) but she said that her personal beliefs do not allow her to vote for gay marriages. But she does not want to show disrespect to her party hence she would abstain from voting on that issue.

I am also from `sauga. A great place to live. I think Liberals won all over GTA. Anybody standing on a Liberal ticket in GTA is destined to win. Regardless of his/her ethnic and religious background.

Is is interesting to note that MSA, ISNA only count Ismaili`s when showing the muslim population in Canada.

Why didn`t the paki press cover Rattansi`s story? Well maybe becoz Rattansi never cared to visit the mosques or attend muslim fundraisers, Parrish and Wajid did!

virtue83: #27: I thought it was mandatory, as party policy, for all NDP candidates to vote for gay marriage and abortion, and not even abstain from it.

Hello folks,

As a longtime NDP member, let me assure you that our party believes in the universality of human rights. As such, irrespective of one`s religious beliefs, we insist on members recognizing equity issues from that perspective.

As far as Monia Mazigh is concerned, she first assured the party that she would support the same-sex issue as a human rights issue. then she was caight on camera in a Windsor mosque telling a group of women that she will abstain from the vote.

After being caught on camera, she had to then mainatin the story. The funny thing is that just a week before the election campaign began, she told me on my TV show that she believed in a complete seperation of religion and state and as such she found no conflict in her relious views and the issue of same-sex rights.

Last yesr aroound this time, my wife and I had written an opinion piece for the Toronto Star on our take on same-sex issues. This article was also reproduced on Chowk and is still there at:

http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00002594&channel=gulberg

Take a read and go flame me!

Tarek fatah

You claim that Ratansi did not visit mosques.

That is not true. Ratansi visited many mosques and even spoke at the huge eid prayers. In fact she debated at the infamous Salaheddine Mosque where the Khder family thrived.

But should this matter? Should mosques be allowed to used for poltical purposes? All the imams and mosques were dishonest that they restricted their pulpits for only ruling party candidates.

In one case in Vancouver, another Muslim woman candidate for the NDP was chased out of a msoque. I belivee her name was Itrath Shaikh

I found Fauzia Khan to be not only naive, but alos opportunistic. She ran for the NDP, but knew nothing about the party`s policies. I got the impression she was using this to pursue her business networking goals. During the elections a Radio station exposed her as having worked on the George Bush campaign and that she was registerd Republican in the US. She obviously had hidden this fact from the NDP, a left-wing party.

Many in her campaign were shocked to find they were working for a Bush supporter.

As a NDP member myself, I was dismayed at this lack of character among young Muslims. They tend to treat politics as unprincipled actvity. This may be true in many parties, but not in the NDP, which BTW is also home to the writer of the article, Tariq Fatah (he too ran for the NDP once).

Funny thing is that even though Fatah wrote a powerful piece in favour of Ratansi, I doubt if he would have voted for her; he is what people call a ``Yellow Dog New Democrat``

Re.Monia:
She clarified her position in a CBC radio interview. She said that her religious beliefs did not allow her to support abortion or gay rights but that she would abide by her party`s directive on those issues. Good thing she no longer has to face a moral dilemma!

[off-topic]
Met a wonderful man yesterday. Walking to my volunteer job with a children`s facility attached to the children`s hospital here, I saw a lonely pathan smoking on a bench outside the children`s hospital. He only spoke pashtu and dari so I had difficulty communicating with him. Still I learned this much: he is the father of Jamshid, an Afghan boy with a serious heart defect who has been flown here from Kabul for his heart treatment. He has no problem of food as the local community here brings him the food he is accustomed to. His son is being transferred to the Sick Children`s hospital of Toronto where his son`s chances of a successful operation are better. Please try to help this man, especially if you know pasthu or dari. Thanks!

Interesting info about Monia and Fauzia. I wonder how much of it is true.

I don`t think any party should restrict or force their candidates in voting in a certain manner on, ``moral`` issues. What if someone agrees with much of what the NDP says (like I do), but does not believe in abortion or gay marriage (like I don`t). Why can`t they be an NDP candidate? Does the Conservative party force people to vote pro-life and against gay-marriage?

I think desi candidates join parties, to a great extent, based on who will give them a ticket. I think most people want a Liberal ticket in Ontario. If they cannot get that, they go for NDP.

Having said that, I think NDP is the only truly secular party in North America. Secularism demands a complete separation of Church and State. Not an 80% separation, like most North American parties. Anyone believing in secularism, thus cannot use religion to define a union between two people. Based on this, they would have to support gay marriage. And equivalency of all religions in public affairs (Christmas holidays etc.). The NDP is the only party that takes religion greatly, if not completely out of politics. All others take in partially out of politics - including the US Republican and Democratic parties....

romair#32:
Could you please tell us which Canadian party is not truly secular?

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

aapa # 29 - You wrote ``I found Fauzia Khan to be not only naive, but alos opportunistic. She ran for the NDP, but knew nothing about the party`s policies. I got the impression she was using this to pursue her business networking goals. During the elections a Radio station exposed her as having worked on the George Bush campaign and that she was registerd Republican in the US. She obviously had hidden this fact from the NDP, a left-wing party.``

aapa - lets put a few things in context here. First of all, Fauzia is a young woman and this being her first political stint, may have come across as naive, inexperienced or both. I did allude to that fact in my earlier post.

As for your suggestion that she was ``exposed`` as having worked for Bush campaign in 2000, you are being a bit out of context here. You have to remember that the candidate Bush of 2000 had FULL endorsements of all Muslim organizations and all of these organizations in many shapes and forms supported him. It was in that context that Fauzia worked in his campaign. It was not a shameful thing and a liability at that time, it may be now. Besides, there is nothing unusual in US about young people who are in the process of ``figuring out`` their place to have volunteered in republican AND democratic candidate`s campaigns at various times. And as an interactor pointed out, that she may also have run on NDP` ticket, because that was the only party that gave her the ticket.

Your suggestion that she may have run in the elections to further her business contacts, well, I find nothing new about such allegations. We as lowly laptop warriors sit home and constantly question the motivations of those who are out there trying to make some waves and do some things.

To be fair to Fauzia Khan, she was asked by the NDP to run; she didn`t offer herself for the position. I know it because I was there and was instrumental in what happened.

So dear Aapa, you may have an impression, but impressions may be wrong.

I do agree that fauzia is pretty green in poltics and this does disaapoint me. No 35+ year old should know so little about current issues. Having said that, she is bright and enregetic and if she brings a dash of integrity into her poltics, she can make the difference. No one needs to get elected to create waves; one can do this in many ways.

Fauzia also generated a lot of interest among young Muslims and I had mixed feelings about them in my interaction. They were mostly `professional` and knew very little about Canada and the issues. They simply couldn`t get over same-sex issues.

One more point.

This notion that Pakistanis want to run for the Liberal Party and if they cannot get the ticket, they choose the NDP, is simply hogwash. This thought itself is indicative of the flawed understanding of Canadian poltics. I have been in the NDP for over 15 years. I know many Pakistanis and NOT one of them; REPEAT, not one of them wanted to have anything to do with the Liberal Party. The Indians and Pakistanis who are part of the NDP are mostly left-of-centre social democrats or socialists and would be shocked to hear this being said about them.

Most New Democrats know that their party will be in perpetual opposition. What attarcts us to this party is its principled positions on social justuce and equity issues, not the dream of fame and fortune.

Enough

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

fatah #36: ``This notion that Pakistanis want to run for the Liberal Party and if they cannot get the ticket, they choose the NDP, is simply hogwash. This thought itself is indicative of the flawed understanding of Canadian poltics.``

I am not sure if this was in reply to my reply. If not, then please ignore.

If it was then I would suggest you first read the complete comment before replying and using words like, ``hogwash.`` I have watched you on TV quite a few times, and while most of your comments make a lot of sense, the biggest disappointment I, and others, have is that you tend to lose your temper too quickly and leave yourself vulnerable for other`s comments, by making incohesive statements after getting excited and emotional. Being an, ``angry young man`` works well in movies. In debates, the most calm person, usually wins out. Just my $.02.

The comment I made was, ``I think most people want a Liberal ticket in Ontario. If they cannot get that, they go for NDP.``

This comment does not mention Pakistanis, it talks about, ``people.`` And it talks about, ``most`` people. Not all people. Most means, a majority. I think most people do want a Liberal ticket in Ontario. This is indicated by the victories the Liberal party has in Ontario. Even in this election, where the Liberal party was at its lowest point, it did extremely well in Ontario. Just in the GTA area alone, it won seats proportional to what the NDP won in the whole country.

Overwhelmingly, most people would thus want a Liberal ticket in Ontario. They vote in that direction. And that is a ticket to victory. However, if someone from this majority (i.e. most) was bent upon trying to get into politics, and could not get a Liberal ticket, he would look at other parties. This does not imply that if they did not get a Liberal ticket, the NDP would automatically give them one. This also does not mean those parties do not have die-hard followers, like yourself, in Ontario. But a majority of the population of Ontario would, first and foremost, want a Liberal ticket. And those who cannot get a Liberal ticket, then do try for other parties.

dost-mittar #33: ``Could you please tell us which Canadian party is not truly secular?``

I would say every party to the right of the NDP is not fully secular (and maybe the NDP also).

Secularism is a very poorly understood and a very under-debated topic; specifically on this site. People debate and disect religion and religious parties in details. But never the concept of secularism, on this site.

Secularism is defined as, ``The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.`` It basically means that religion, of any kind, should have absolutely nothing to do with the State.

Unfortunately, too many people equate secularism with liberalism. And too many people, furthur equate Liberalism with Westernism. Liberalism is, ``A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.``

A party can be secular and il-liberal. In fact, it can be secular and fascist. The Baath pary in Iraq being an example. And a party can be religious and liberal. In fact, Liberalism was a Protestant and Roman-Catholic movement also. But a party cannot simultaneously be secular and religious. Secularism is thus an antonym of religious politics. But it not a synonym of liberal politics.

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. Europe seems to be going in that direction, where people are becoming more and more religion-less. However, North America - specifically USA - is quite religious. Hence its politics has a mixture of religion.

The reason is that while a Constitution may separate the laws of a country from religion, it cannot separate the people making those laws from their religion. This will always introduce a religious bias in the laws. Their personal upbringing, under a particular religion, will always cloud their judgement, regardless of how secular they try to be at the State level.

Even more importantly, the voters who participate in elections do take their religious feelings into account when voting. So the candidates they elect, have to keep that in mind. A classic example is the gay marriage debate. Gay marriage in a 100% secular system is an open and shut case. It should be legal. Marriage is a religious concept, and should have absolutely no place in the legal system, including taxes, wills, etc. Yet marriage is the core and basis of all legal and social systems, even in secular states. The govt. actively legislates based on a religious concept of marriage, and not a a secular concept of union.

This is a pure mixture of Church and State. And any party supporting (or even abstaining from) this becomes non-secular, right there and then. It thus ends up discriminating, at a State level, against individuals based on religious beliefs of the majority of the populace. Furthurmore, the govts. actually define what marriages should be, based on religion, i.e. between one man and one woman. However, in any secular society, polygamy should be allowed also. Interestingly, while the gay rights groups use secularism to support their marriage rights, they tend to be against polygamy.

If the State should not define who can get married, on the basis of religion, in a secular society, then how can it define how many times someone can get married. This restriction is also only religious. The State, tbus, has to give equal benefits to people in all types of unions - inlcuding polygomous ones - or not give any benefits to anyone in any kind of union - including a relgiously defined marriage.

As you can see, if one gets into the details of pure secularism, it opens up a huge can of worms. It, like religious politics, is a very incomplete concept. I think it will be replaced by something in the coming century, as its controversial issues become exposed. Much like relgious politics was replaced by secularism (or partial secularism) of today. The marriage debate is the first part of this. If gay marriages go through, then there are individuals in Utah, who are waiting to use that as a precedence for legalizing polygamy thorughout the USA. That will start a secular snowball that will hit at the core of the Western society.

There are too many other issues also. For example why is Christmas a national holiday. And Eid is not. I can take Eid off, but why isn`t it off for everyone, if Christmas is. And what if I want to continue with my busines on Christmas, why are the govt. offices closed, in a secular society. This is another mixture of State and Religion. What if tomorrow I start a religion, which has twenty holidays a month. Will the govt. give all of them off, to me?

Western societies are thus not 100% secular. They are more secular than Pakistan, but I don`t think they will ever be 100% secular. In fact they cannot be, as long as their voters keep their religious beliefs in mind, when they vote. Which they always will. This is why Democrats in the USA, cannot win in the South. This is why US Presidential candidates always call the USA a Judeo-Christian society, and not a Judeo-Muslim-Christian soceity, even though Muslims outnumber Jews in the USA, now. They know voters keep religion in mind when voting. In fact, why call it a Judeo-Christian society to begin with, if you are pushing secularism. This is also why Pakistani secularists will argue for Ahmedi rights in Pakistan, but not for gay rights or gay marriage rights. Even though, there are probably far more gays in Pakistan than Ahmedis. How many Pakistani secularists will support gay marriage in Pakistan?

I do not know of any party, other than the NDP in North America, that specifically demands its candidates to support gay marriage. All other parties, thus, have no issues with its candidates mixing Church with State on this issue (though they do not mix it on many other issues, thereby making them mostly secular, but not 100% secular). And there will be many other issues like this, as time passes.

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! )

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

#48 by mumbaichick

LOL!

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.

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

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?

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``?

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.

aah the obsession with everything 100% pure continues.

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

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

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.

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

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....

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..

YLH,

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

:)

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

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

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.

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.

#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`?

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.

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

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).............

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,

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 & 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.

=== 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

#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.

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.

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

soundmeister...

Now I don`t fault you at all... it is your English