A Critique of Philosophical Thought in Pakistan

I took quite a few philosphy classes in college. From Socrates to Descartes to Sartre. The problem with philosophers is they create a problem (imaginary or real) and try to solve it. The worst of these were who used religion to solve these problems. The religious dogma was used as `facts` or the basis of the support. This ``evidence`` and ``philosophers`` could be termed stupidity at best.

The worst non-filthy curse in our day-to-day vocabulary is the word ‘atheist’. In Urdu, we use ‘dahriya’ and ‘zindique’ for it. We condemn atheism without acquainting ourselves with its intrinsic arguments.


Besides the point....Atheists don`t care what you call them....nor do they have an evangelical zeal to prove to you, the stupidity of your faith in a ``higher being``....in short...they don`t give a shit....

``Our views are preformed about the universality of Islam; dissident views are considered prejudiced and discarded out of hand. Arguments are crafted to support Islamic viewpoint at all costs.``

The counter arguments are no less crafted...that is, after all, the essence of a well formed argument! One could equally say that given one with an Islamic world view, the western one is not compelling enough. But then, how can one be objective with something that is entirely subjective? You can`t.

I would add that what you have in the Muslim world is a disinterest in Western philosophy. Some ideologues may cringe, however this is far more tolerable than the disinterest in Science and Technology.

Why did Chowk block Arjun`s post, his post was very sensible.

Re: # 2

A for Aggravated.....

A for Atheist.......

A for Arjun........:-)

Dear Mr. Gill,
It is very interesting to me that you have translated Khudi as Selfhood. Do you not think that it is an extremely narrow definition of the word. It is such a word that essays can be written in order to explain it satisfactorily to some degree.
Iqbal was not a secular philosopher, rather he worked within the paradigms of the philosophy of religion particularly Islam in the Indian Subcontinent. In his speech delivered to the 1930 annual session of Muslim League, Iqbal stated:
````I, therefore, demand the formation of a consolidated Muslim state in the best interests of India and Islam. For India, it means security and peace resulting from an internal balance of power; for Islam, an opportunity to rid itself of the stamp that Arabian imperialism was forced to give it, to mobilize its laws, its education, its culture, and to bring them into closer contact with its own original spirit and with the spirit of modern times.``
Iqbal`s ideas about religion, state, politics, etc. were not concerned with Logical positivism or Atheistic existentialism, and that is precisely why he did not comment on such fledgeling philosophical movements fraught with their own logical fallacies and assumptions.
``The philosophy of religion should include critical examination of the philosophy of other religions also. Philosophy, in its entirety, should be studied and worked upon for its own sake.`` Muhammad Gill
Yes, I agree. Philosophy of religion does include critical examination of all religions at US universities, but Paksitan is another story. In a country where an illogical and unjust law code prevails formulated especially during the reign of Pakistan`s self proclaimed Islamic savior Zia-ul-Haq, how can the universities in such a country teach or encourage critical thinking especially when it is concerned with Islam in plain view of the Blasphemy Laws. For philosophy to flourish anywhere in the world, it is imperative that the state protect the right to free speech.
In order to come out of the stagnation of philosophical thought and endeavor in Pakistan, a total overhaul of political and religious thought is necessary. Only after Pakistan`s law code is free from the meddling of political and religious goons, can independent critical thought flourish in a secular homeland as deemed by M.A. Jinnah.

The philosophical thought in Pakistan is not likely to change in the forseeable future no matter what few of us think and wish. Actualy the reasons are not that complicated to understand. As the author pointed out and I repeat here are simply the result of mytholigizing Islam, Islamic history, Islamic dogma and absolute belief in the inherent goodness of Islam. Additionally, all of the concepts are magaconcepts without any serious, micro or in-depth analysis through reductionism or deductionism. These megaconcepts are universally believed by Muslims irrespective of education and intelligence level.

When Akbar S. Ahmed says, ``I see Islam everywhere in USA but no Muslims and Islam nowhere in Islamic countries but mostly Muslims`` he is essentially saying the same thing that Iqbal said in his Reconstruction of Islamic thoughts and the excerpt from his speech ShoreSahib quoted, ``bring them into closer contact with its own original spirit and with the spirit of modern times``. The belief that Islam is inherently good and would help succeed Muslims if applied in its essence is prevalent even here at chowk.

This belief is not just the result of infallability of Quran, Quran as the actual and best words from god delivered though Mohammad as the last prophet but also from the myth of the golden age of Islamic history it led to produce. This is a mytholigized megaconcept. First it assumes with 100 percent certainty that there was a golden age of Islam (which was actually measured in territorial and power terms than anything else) and then it links it without proof to the inherent goodness of Islam. Why not claim inherent goodness in empire building if powerful and vast empire is touted as the best outcome and proof of Islamic goodness?

Even the western historians have no problem in believing that Islam produced an efficient, lagre and dedicated fighting machine. No other place could produce as many young male fighters per 100,000 population as Islam was able to produce through a combination of teachings of submission to Islam, importance of jihad and rewards of jihad in this world and hereafter. However, if this is the extract of inherent goodness responsible for the golden age of Islam, it is absolutely useless in modern times of technology, education and brain power. Islam can raise a million man fighting machine but destroyed from the sky by air force with planes flown by women as many of the pilots used in Afghanistan by the USA were women. So the inherent goodness goes down the drain as useless. The best part of Islamic success is obsolete now.

Muslims, more than any other nation or people believe in the reversibility of time and coming back of the so-called golden age of Islam. Again this reversibility is baseless; it is only wishful thinking. Many other people have seen the golden age before and after Islam - greeks, romans, byzantium, vikings, british, spain and mongols to name few. Are all of these people today dreaming about recreating the golden age? Are Italian hoping to rule the former territories of Roman empire? Are greeks hoping to revise Alexander the Great conquering? Greeks had great strategists and generals, Romans had great loyal administrative capability, British relied heavily on sea power (Navy) as did vikings before and Church helped a lot in Spanish conquests. All of these people can claim to have inherent goodness and strength as Islam and Muslims do today.

Why do Mongols leave behind in dreaming? They can sit in the tents on great Mongolian grasslands and plan to revive the successes of Genghis Khan and Hilagu Khan. It so happens that Mongols expanded actually faster than Muslims despite all the inherent goodness of Islam and ruled the largest land area in the history of mankind which included all of Russia, most of China, central Asia, Iran, Turkey and almost all of middle east except Egypt. They did this within 2 generations through goodness created by Genghis Khan, his sons and grandsons. The speed, dedication, loyalty, ruhlessness, disciplined fighting machine followed something which could be said complete blueprint for living - a deen of Mongols detailed with guidelines for everyday daily life.

Genghis Khan comes very close to Mohammad in the effectiveness and influence both men were able to generate within short period of history, except that Genghis Khan did not claim to communicate with god and let the goats eat all the written pages of anything in his empire. What goat did not eat makes all the difference for Muslims, differentiating them from Mongols of today.


Once the belief in the inherent goodness, the best religion and rrevivability of golden age exist, various organs are created or made use of to hekp it. Those who help it most and most cherished, propagated and kept in high esteem, such as Islaimc hstory in subcontinent-TNT-Urdu trio. These three go hand in hand, for example Aurangzeb was great Muslim king, TNT was essential and Urdu is the main Muslim language. This trio has now created additional support structure on its frontiers in the form of mullahs-jihadis-madrassah.

So outer most layer or first line of defense is made up of mullah-jihadis-madrassah. Second line of defense is Islamic history of empires in subcontinent-TNT-Urdu language and in the middle sitting comfortably is inherent goodness of Islam, Islam, dogma in the minds of people. People have to break thrugh two outer layers to breath fresh and modern air in order to think seriously about changing philosophical thoughts which is not likely to happen any time soon.

It sounds funny but promotion of native languages and cultures could actually help change philosophical thoughts. For example, Islamic madrassah system is not available in most Pakistani native languages. There are no equivalent words of murtid, mulhid, dehriya etc in Punjabi. Most punjabis use them as such from Arabic or Urdu and most uneducated villagers dont know the meanings of these words.

There are really 2 options to challenge the strangling of philosophical thoughts; either enlightenment through education and exposure to the West or much easier and very effective one, requiring minimum basic education by going native, makng native cultures/ languages supreme or at least of equal importance to Urdu. The consequences of promoting Punjabi, Sindhi, Balochi and Pashtun are fully realized by the establishment and in order for business as usual/ status quo, suppression of native languages is deemed essential. This is one area where mullah and military are on the same boat.

Leaving Islam for learning philosophy........everything will be sorted out soon. Death is not too far from all of us.

Good work Gill sahib! I was waiting for this article.

In Pakistan, thinking is considered a sin! Philosophy is simply out of the question. If you think, you`re confused. If you don`t think, you are a hero! So it`s better not to waste time discussing the ignorant. The governing philosophy in Pakistan is that one should mind his or her own business.

Keep writing!

- MF

Good work Gill sahib! I was waiting for this article.

In Pakistan, thinking is considered a sin! Philosophy is simply out of the question. If you think, you`re confused. If you don`t think, you are a hero! So it`s better not to waste time discussing the ignorant. The governing philosophy in Pakistan is that one should mind his or her own business.

Keep writing!

- MF

Freddy # 8

You have said some good things.

Let the local cultures & languages flourish unhindered. Out of this would come the softness and respect for other cultures. And an unhindered philosophical thought. And the Dogma could be pushed back at its right place - a personal matter.

nhk

Mr. Nazar Hayat Khan sahib, can you please give me your e-mail address or contact me at azure3d at yahoo.com? I want to talk to you about a few things. Thank you very much.

Philosophy in India suffered from a similar predicament in the early part of post partition era....however, thanks to the standard British Philosophy Courses students did read a lot of Plato, Aristotle, Locke and Russell. Only a few Buddhist or Sankhya-Vedanta Courses were added in the post graduate courses.
Fortunately, in the early 70-s when the courses were revised some Universities did add a Analytical Philosophy and Existentialism or Phenomenology.................Now a major part of the university courses include Western Philosophy and Logic apart from Indian Hinduistic Philosophies.........So, Philosophy in India is a good mixture of the contemporary as well as the Religious PHilosophies.
Infact, some of the IIT`s maintain a Philosophy department with emphasis upon the Philosophy of Mind, Advanced Logic (De-Ontic etc), Philosophy of Science ( Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend and others).
Some PHilosophers of Science have also published books with good publuishers like RKP.........and the number of students working on Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Language, Semantics and AI are increasing in the Indian Universities...........besides the fact that most of the good ones move abroad to pick up their Phd`s in foreign universities.Although the number of students picking up a full Philosophy Course is small, yet the number of serious ones who take some courses in Western and non-religious Philosophy appears to be healthy....

Freddy,
Since you seem to know a lot about religions, I have a question - what would have happened if paganism had survived, and all the abhrahamic religions had lost out?

sameerjb,

......... great post as usual ......... but what is it with the freddy handle ?......... first it was ylh and now you ?......... it is disconcerting ....... can you go back to being sameer - we liked him.........

Freddy_Krueger #8: I think you have some valid points. But you are exaggerating quite a bit also. I think you are greatly mixing the views of a small minority of religious activists in Pakistan with the general population. If the specimen in your study is Mullah Umar, then your views are accurate. If it is a normal Pakistani, then they are not. My guess is because you are letting your personal opinions interfere with an objective analysis. It is impossible to carry out a balanced analysis on an issue, if one has an open dislike of it. Such an analysis would be ignored completely by people whom you are attempting to communicate with. It will only be accepted by those who already agree with you.

My guess is that the hamidm/NHKs etc will agree with you emphatically. While Urstruly/Naqshbandis will disagree with you. Each will abuse the other, as usual. And nothing productive will have been accomplished.

People who want to rid the world of religion need to do just two things a) Provide an answer on the meaning of life: why were we born? b) Provide information on what will happen after death. Once those two are answered, religion will finish. Until then, religion will survive (and continue to grow), because it is the inherent nature of an inquisitive mind to attempt to find answer for these two questions.

Another factor is that the poorer a person happens to be, the more fatalistic he/she becomes. It is very easy for you and I to accept and unaccept philosophies, as we wish. We have nothing else to worry about, financially. However, a person who has been born weak, poor and disenfranchised has to have some hope in an aftrer-life that will balance out the injustices that he/she is facing in this life. If that does not exist, then the world is (or would seem to the disenfranchised) to be an extremely unfair place, for him/her.

Most of the discourse on religion on this site, and in the Pakistan press, is dominated by two types of individuals: those who consider religion to be the solution to everything and those who consider it the problem for everything. These two groups, in reality, are a small minority of Pakistanis. In every survey I have read on Pakistan, the theories of these two groups enjoy very little importance. Pakistan’s condition will not improve, if everyone started going to a madrassah, nor will it improve if everyone started speaking Punjabi and stopped going to madrassahs (with no other options available to them). These are mostly pipe-dreams pushed by people who have a different agenda, i.e. not the improvement of conditions in Pakistan but the removal or institutionalization of religion in a society.

I don’t think too many people long for a revival of 7th century Islamic civilization. I work for an NGO in Pakistan, which provides scholarships to needy students at levels starting from high-school to college. It gets a lot of applications from the remotest parts of Pakistan. These are from individuals who cannot even afford a couple of hundred to a thousand rupees for their education. I have yet to see a single application for any madrassah. They are all for places like Hasan Abdal school, UET, Fatima Jinnah Medical, Govt. run primary schools, etc. Why haven’t any of them applied for a madrassah (many of which are actually free) if your theory of people longing for the historical greatness of Islamic civilization are true?

If the govt. builds an Beaconhouse school next to every community of madrassah, where do you think the people will send their kids?

Muslim countries, specifically Pakistan, have been harmed far more by individuals who went to Oxford, Harvard and Sandhurst, then by individuals who went to a madrassah. The madrassah-goers have yet to gain power over Muslim countries. Who knows what they will do? But one cannot conveniently pass on the failiures of the former (who have been running every country from Morocco to Indonesia) onto the later. It is nothing more than a case of denial.

People long for economic growth. For personal security. For jobs. For infrastructure. For education for their children. For entertainment. This is what drives every person. It is what even drives animals, what to talk of people. This is what the main discourse of any successful society should be on. Unfortunately, on this site, we have an overdose of articles on why religion is the solution and why it is the problem, i.e. the views of two minorities dominate the views of the majority.

If everyone had spent a 1/10 of their energy on debating economic theories, educational policies, how to build a canal, how to introduce electricity to a village, how to finance a school, the strengths and deficiencies of the Karachi Stock exchange, the standard of IT in Pakistan, how to improve fertilizer delivery to farmers etc., that they spend on useless debates on how the madrassahs are the problem, and Punjabi is the solution, all of us here on Chowk would be much well-informed and enlightened…….

I think Chowk should now think of doing away with articles that repeatedly debate religion and secularism and religion and secularism and religion and secularism. They are a waste of time, because they are generally written by people who barely understand these philosophies in detail. Hence it is impossible to debate anything with them, since they will never acknowledge the deficiencies in their respective theories. Most have an agenda, they are pushing. And the ones who do understand the philosophies seem to be convinced that most people in Pakistan seem to give religion and/or secularism the same importance that they do………

Personally, I would be much more interested if you could provide us with the details of Waris Shah or on how to improve the cotton crop in Southern Punjab than on why Islam is the problem or the solution. And if surverys are anything to go by, so would an overwhelming percentage of Pakistanis………..

I have recently had the good fortune of discussing issues with Raza Kazim, Pakistan`s leading lawyer, who has dedicated a considerable amount of his time, wealth and and effort to philosophy. He does not fall into the same trap. He speaks of a ``dialectics of the mind``... and in doing so manages to go beyond the existing parameters as we know them in philosophy.

Allama Iqbal was a great poet philosopher, but he was the poet of the middle class, and a philosopher concerned with Islam and its role in the modern world. Mr. Kazim`s philosophy goes beyond it, as it does not suffer any such pretensions.

Freddy Kreuger (a.k.a SameerJB?)

I suggest you read what Romair is saying closely. If you can look past his attrocious simplicity... perhaps you will see that what he says in real terms might not be so bad.

For years now we have been frustrated by his obfuscation and strawman fallacy of Islam vs. secularism (Islamic Republic vs. Secular Republic, as if any secular Republic ever made ``Secular`` the part of their official name).

But the fact is that we should accept his definition as is... for this is how he chooses to define the two. The fact of the matter is that when Romair says he is more interested in Waris Shah or the cotton crop in South Punjab ... he is actually accepting the twin headers of your ideology... 1) Punjabi literature 2) The very secular Agricultural Economics.

I accept it... but I also hope that some one will pay some attention to institutional discrimination that exists against minorities in Pakistan. I am sure Romair does not support the constitutional discrimination against them.

-YLH

#8,
Sameer,
A good and well put post.

Freddy,

``Actualy the reasons are not that complicated to understand. As the author pointed out and I repeat here are simply the result of mytholigizing Islam, Islamic history, Islamic dogma and absolute belief in the inherent goodness of Islam.``

If one were to objectively analyze Western philosophers, then you will see that they do not engage in the questioning of certain fundamentals. There is a Western mythos, a special emphasis on Western history, a dogma of sorts surrounding axiomatic notions such as freedom, and a belief that the West is not only inherently good, but the best. There are definitely more `intellects` in the Muslim world who criticize Islamic thought than Western intellects who take stock and seriously challenge the academic establishment in the West.

Why? Because this is how it works. You have a body of work, and a paradigm for thinking. Paradigm shifts are few and far between. But what is important about Western thought is that it is self contained, and does not (in a paranoid fit) compare itself to any others. In fact, there is a complete obliviousness of any other world view. This is good and neccessary to come up with a self-consistent mode of thought. Muslim Intellects (especially the secular ones) are too busy ``reconciling`` to do any original thinking. The religious ones do it only in reference to their own mode of thought, and so obviously Western thought will loose out since it can`t bridge the conceptual gaps that are taken as established truisms. Vice versa, for that matter.


``When Akbar S. Ahmed says, ``I see Islam everywhere in USA but no Muslims and Islam nowhere in Islamic countries but mostly Muslims`` he is essentially saying the same thing that Iqbal said in his Reconstruction of Islamic thoughts and the excerpt from his speech...``

Sounds like a cop-out to me. Basically, they see a successful West, in particular technologically and economically powerful. Then they go on to attribute every and all things good to it. Thus, the first thought that comes to mind is that if we walk the walk just like they do, then perhaps we can be successful like they are. Of course, success has little to do with how you walk.

The problem here is that it will take lots of work, and not just changing the way we ``think`` which is rather easy and takes but seconds to do. Further, it implies that we can do nothing unless we all think a certain way, and act in unison. More rubbish. There is a common good that can be worked towards, even if you are working along side someone who`s ideology you despise. This, however, never happens in our part of the world. NEVER. And this is the true strength of the West.

``First it assumes with 100 percent certainty that there was a golden age of Islam (which was actually measured in territorial and power terms than anything else) and then it links it without proof to the inherent goodness of Islam.``

Bzzzt. Wrong. The idea is that we were once ``leaders`` in the various fields of study, and in economics...and we can be again. It was, in fact, a golden age. Not exactly the best political set-up, certainly nothing to emulate today. But worthy of remeberence, and not to shy away from. If I only had a dime for eveyrtime someone who is so dissociated from Muslim thought that they would actually think this is some kind of valid point...

``However, if this is the extract of inherent goodness responsible for the golden age of Islam, it is absolutely useless in modern times of technology, education and brain power.``

Oh, and if I had a penny every time someone brought this up as if it was a novel idea. DUH!

``Muslims, more than any other nation or people believe in the reversibility of time and coming back of the so-called golden age of Islam.``

Nope. See above. The idea is we were once great, we can be again. That`s just useless sloganeering, though. Fact is, every Muslim knows they don`t know what to do...and that no one else really has a good idea either. What they do take for granted is that in order to ``succeed`` we need to be left alone. So what you have, in fact, is a growing xenophobia....very difficult for a missionary people to reconcile btw. It is this shutting out the world that is doing us harm...

``Are all of these people today dreaming about recreating the golden age?``

You`ve obviously NOT talked to a Persian or a Greek lately. Or an Italian, for that matter. The pride is undeniable. The fact is, they are now a part of the EU, so they have a sense of progress. So they don`t need to fallback on memories of the past to assuage their contemporary feelings of hopelessness.


``It sounds funny but promotion of native languages and cultures could actually help change philosophical thoughts. For example, Islamic madrassah system is not available in most Pakistani native languages. There are no equivalent words of murtid, mulhid, dehriya etc in Punjabi. Most punjabis use them as such from Arabic or Urdu and most uneducated villagers dont know the meanings of these words. ``

No, Pakistani native cultures are primitive and not very cosmopolitan. The fact is, it is a sure fire way to have the state disintegrate. Promotion of the native cultures over any concept which transcends them (whether it is Pakistani nationalism, or Islam, or whatever) will encourage racism and sectarianism. This is foolish. Swallow your pride and look at India, not the West.

Re: # 21
I agree with most of your repudiation of Freddy`s points. Very well said, but one comment of yours is puzzling. I would appreciate it if you would explain it further.
````When Akbar S. Ahmed says, ``I see Islam everywhere in USA but no Muslims and Islam nowhere in Islamic countries but mostly Muslims`` he is essentially saying the same thing that Iqbal said in his Reconstruction of Islamic thoughts and the excerpt from his speech...``

Sounds like a cop-out to me. Basically, they see a successful West, in particular technologically and economically powerful. Then they go on to attribute every and all things good to it. Thus, the first thought that comes to mind is that if we walk the walk just like they do, then perhaps we can be successful like they are. Of course, success has little to do with how you walk.`` Vertex

#8 Freddy,
Sameer, is it - i liked your big picture. It is a rather devastating comment that - assuming you`re right - that it was women pilots who rained down bombs on a masculine army in afghanistan.. The conflict is multidimensional.

Romair and Mantolives:

While you both are partly right that my last post relied heavily on the midset of a certain segment of Islamic societies but you must also remember that various levels of symapthy exist in the larger Muslim societies for the zeal, principles and modes of operation of these elements. Therefore, the societies have taken no steps to single out, isolate, marginalize or weed out these elements from within.

However, the gist of my contention seemed to have lost to both of you. I contended that a system (religion or civilization) does not have to be perfect to succeed. It is the edge in certain important areas that matters now as it always mattered. None - Islam, West, Hinduism, Christianity etc - are perfect but West enjoys edge in education, technology, social contract and generating wealth areas. Similarly Hinduism has been enjoying edge over Islam in education and the role of women in society in subcontinent for almost 2 centuries now. Islam also enjoyed edge in certain areas like raising large faithful, dedicated and determined soldiers which helped creating empires and territorial expansion. Islam still enjoys the edge over others just as it once enjoyed during the so-called golden age of Islam in the same areas of able to bring forth large number of able male to defend in addition to low rate of pre-marital or ``illegitimate`` sex. But the Islamic edge in modern times is not only meaningless/ obsolete but detrimental also due to their effects on the society.

What I just wrote is not rejected only by the hardcore fundametalists as you people suggested but almost by all of the mainstream Muslims would object to edge theory over perfect/ inherent goodness theory. The belief that Islam, in its original form, is all good and perfect. Islam mukammal zabita-e-hayat hae (in Urdu): Islam hamara deen hae; Wordly success is not important compared to eternal bliss in heaven and hense, following Islam in its purest form guarantees eternal bliss. Are these the beliefs of hardcore fundamentalists and mullah omer or majority of Muslims?

The perfection of original Islam is infallable for Muslims because it is linked with the message of all good and powerful god directly. Perfect Islam means its edge in all important areas which is just not true in the real world. Muslims must accept that Islam is not perfect like every other system, to begin with and stop this nonsense of corruption by mullah and elites theory. They must agree unconditionally that four wives per man, lightly beating your wives and them relegating to half a witness status is absurd and stop making excuses to justify these absurdities. They must also agree that for generating wealth, interest-free banking is crazy idea with no empirical data to support it in addition to accepting the fact that Islam is heavy with rituals costing much more time and energy per person per week, per month, per year and per lifetime thus leaving comparably less time per person to succeed in wordly matters. Well, I have just laid out few imperfections in the original, pure and inherently good Islam - key to eternal bliss in heavens. These are just tip of the iceberg. Once you start looking at it critically, you can write a book about inherent imperfections.

In modern times to succeed, the edge to have is same for all faiths, nations and people. Muslims are wrong to believe that once inherently good, original, pure and perfect Islam is implemeted, they would enjoy edge over the rest. Rest of the world is just not stupid to not know the areas where edge matters. The edge for all of humanity lies in education, technology, generating wealth, civil liberties and most important edge going forward from here would be enjoyed by the people who lead the way in accepting (and practicing) women to absolute equal level with men.

So, stop the mantra of Islam is perfect and Muslims are imperfect due to corrupting Islam.

....various levels of symapthy exist in the larger Muslim societies for the zeal, principles and modes of operation of these elements. Therefore, the societies have taken no steps to single out, isolate, marginalize or weed out these elements from within......

Far from weeding out these weeds, these factions are exalted and worshipped by large number of coreligionists

The world is bored with the ``hijacking of Islam`` conspiracy theory, amongst other rumors that these people want the world to gulp without questioning.

Re: # 22

ShoreSahib,

The idea was not to disaproove of the compliment being paid to the West, but rather to point out that the comparison is on such a superficial level. The fact is , no matter where you think you see Islam, the fact is the Westerners have and worked hard to get where they are and we Muslims have done very little work at all.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the intension of the quote, however I think progress is truely independent of thought at such an idelogical level. Whole-sale `westernization` (which I think is what is being advocated) is therefore at best a superficial suggestion.

Q:``Why not question``?
A:Because there IS no question!

This is what the preface/preamble says.
``The Book (Qura`an Al-`furquan is for those who have not an iota of doubt`` ( zaal`i Kal kitaab--``)

No need to proceed any further. You`ve been cautioned! Caveat emptor! Read No further! Scram!

You have a CHOICE!
``Announce or Renounce``!--echoboom.
[Its a `free` country--is`nt it)

---

``The Muhammadan Law, which is binding on all from the crowned head to the meanest subject, is a law interwoven with a system of the wisest, the most learned and the most enlightened jurisprudence that ever existed in the world.``

- Edmund Burke ``Impeachment of Warren Hastings``

Vertex:

In the light of the topic and contents of the article by Mohammad Gill, a comparison with the west and the rest is the most appropriate mean of discussion on this subject. A debate about suffocation and arrest of philosophical thoughts in Pakistan against null background is only meant to transfer the blame to anybody but Islam and Muslims and Urstruly is master of doing it. Comparison with the better is an incentive for striving whereas comparison with the worse off is meant to feel good, proud and satisfied. If you and ShoreSahib wish to feel good, proud and believing in the perfection of Islam, I have no problem in stating that Islam is inherently good and perfect religion compared to savage lifestyle of neanderthals.

echoboom:

.....ba ba black sheep....have you any wool? Where is the beef? Where is the edge? How does covering head with hijab by all Muslim women and growing beards without moustache by all Muslim men create an edge over the rest in any spehre of interest? May be thick padded/ insulated hijabs, like helmets, absorb the lightly beatings on the head from husbands?

Romair:

I hope you understand the difference between all good, inherently good and perfect from that of having an edge. Here is an example you should understand well. Pakistan military establishment has an edge over civilians and politicians due to trained and professional army with weapons. However, not all would agree that they were perfect to rule and inherent goodness urged them to overthrow civilian governments in Pakistan.

I see nothing wrong in accepting not having an edge and not perfect yet be happy, content and even proud of being a Muslim for you. Islam is a religion and being a Muslim becomes part of your identity. As in my case, I have no doubt that Punjabi language has no edge over English in my situation and it is not perfect becasue it lacks expressing scientific and technical world, but I am happy and content with this being my identity of choice instead of any other identity related to subcontinent. You just dont let anything not having an edge and not perfect to stand in the way of lawful persuit of happiness and success.

Freddy,

``Comparison with the better is an incentive for striving whereas comparison with the worse off is meant to feel good, proud and satisfied. If you and ShoreSahib wish to feel good, proud and believing in the perfection of Islam, I have no problem in stating that Islam is inherently good and perfect religion compared to savage lifestyle of neanderthals``

To paraphrase Westerners, the philosophy espoused by Islamic thinkers may not be perfect, but it is the best for Muslims.

The very notion that one can compare two philosophies without even a common frame of reference to conduct this comparison is absurd. The fact is, when such comparisons are done, it is with a preconceived answer in mind...`to feel good` as you put it. There is no honesty in that. You seem to recognize this when Muslims do it, but yet have no problem when you do it.

Who better to learn from than the immensely successful, highly respected, belonging to the ``elite`` people of the WEST ( who have no NEED for anything or anyone); The ones who know the TWO worlds, East & West, much better than the * The crow/swans, number 2 maal, the fakes, the imitations, the copy-right infringers, the patent purveyors, or the trade-mark thieves*

*In short: The Ba Ba Blacksheep of the Ummah*

Can`t love them,
Can`t leave them.

``Am I a Yo-Yo?
or a pendulum
This back and forth
and up and down
is shaking up my brain``

No matter how much science I do
I just can`t stop thinking of their `God`

Am I still in His control?
Am I still with unfree-thoughts?
Echoboom say renounce or announce
But its God always that I denounce.

O Allah! why are You so much in my thoughts?
H--E--L--P!``

---

Snippets from (mostly) MarmaDuke Pickthall


The standard of Islam in every sphere of human action or human intercourse, is certainly not lower than the highest standards of today. It is Muslims who fall short of the Islamic standard today. This downfall and decay, far from shaking the face of Muslims in the Shari`ah , have strongly confirmed it. For they now see clearly that the cause of their humiliation has been neglect of some of the injunctions of the Sacred Law:

* ``To obtain education is a religious duty for every Muslim, male and female.``
* ``Seek knowledge even though it be in China.``
* ``An hour`s contemplation and study of God`s creation is worth a year of adoration.``
* ``Trust in God but tie your camel.``

and many other sensible and plain commands.

Muslims now see clearly that the material success of western nations is due to their adoption of that part of the Shari`ah which guards material progress and prosperity, and which the Muslims have so foolishly neglected.

which were present in Islam from the beginning, and are embodied in the Sacred Law - have gradually one by one, become accepted by the people of the West. The duty of free-thought and free-inquiry; the duty of religious tolerance; the idea that conduct not creed or class distinction must be the test of a man`s worth in law and social intercourse; woman`s right to full equality with men before the law, her right to property; the license to divorce and remarry; the duty of personal cleanliness; the prohibition of strong drink - all these well-known ingredients of the Sacred Law of Islam, which were all anathema [obscenities] to Christian in Europe. They are still regarded by the church as either irreligious or purely secular, that is, outside the purview of religion and have been incorporated in the ideology of western civilisation.

It can be proved, and has been proved by Christian writers, that all these modern ideas were derived from the Muslims of a bygone day. But they were of course adopted by the Europeans on the strength of daleel-aqli (the argument of reason alone), not on [al-daleel al-shara`i] (the argument of divine sanction); which alone commended them at first to Muslims.

The Muslims, from belief in their divine sanction, proceeded to acknowledge the arguments of reason in favour of these ordinances. Is it possible that having accepted them on the evidence of reason that the West may come to eventually believe in their divine sanction? I hardly think so, until the West can recognise the divine sanction which is behind human reason Until the people come to know that all these things (which the Christians rank as `secular,`) are of such vast importance to the welfare of mankind, and form part and only part of an existing code of religious Law and claim to be of divine revelation. Until they come to realise their need for the remaining portion of the Shari`ah, the part which Muslims still hold firmly, the part which guards political and social stability and progress.


This the Muslims have held tenaciously on the strength of (divine) shariah only for the past two or three centuries; but human reasoning alone can bring non-Muslims to adopt it, and human reasoning today is lacking in the only form in which it could appeal to the materially-minded - a bright example of the whole Islamic polity [nation] and practice, upon modern lines.

Freddy #24: At an abstract level, your theory is correct. However, at the specific level, in regards to Muslims, it may or may not be, for the following reasons: You have based your theory, regarding Muslims, on the following two premise:

- Muslims are trying to revive the ancient golden centuries of Islam
- The main reason the Muslims are not advancing is that they are lost in trying to revive their golden age

Nowhere in your thesis, have you provided any facts to back up these two assumptions. You have just assumed them to be true. If either of them turns out to be false, then your argument becomes null and void. How do you know that Muslims are lost in reviving 7th century Islam? Is there a survey that you can point us to? How do you know that is what is keeping them back, even if they are trying to revive their golden age? Maybe it is making them work harder and having the opposite effect? Maybe it isn’t. How can one even quantify such an assumption?

This is why I keep saying that your thesis will not have any affect on anyone else, other than those who already agree with your assumptions. Unquestioning agreement with your train of thought and opinion, is a pre-requisite for agreeing with your thesis. Thus it will have no effect on those who do not agree with your assumptions.

A solid argument is one that cannot be discredited and disputed, even by those who want to disagree with it. Such an argument that is based on logic and on provable statistics. Otherwise it is nothing more than an opinion, which more than likely is biased.

I think the factors that relate to the advancement of a civilization have more to do with what you mentioned at the end of your last reply: “The edge for all of humanity lies in education, technology, generating wealth, civil liberties and most important edge going forward from here would be enjoyed by the people who lead the way in accepting (and practicing) women to absolute equal level with men.”

However, I cannot agree with your premise, “Muslims are wrong to believe that once inherently good, original, pure and perfect Islam is implemeted, they would enjoy edge over the rest.” until your provide more factual information justifying that most Muslims actually think this. For example, I don`t think it is even possible to implement any kind of Shariah, even if one tried. And in Pakistan, there never has been one. In fact, there is hardly any Muslim country in the world that has one. Yet, barring a tiny minority, the Muslims aren`t trying to implement one. And even where they are trying, it is more due to the failure of all other options that have ruled over them.........

I think most Muslims are worry about same things others are worried about: jobs, health care, security, education, prosperity etc. This is what is indicated in every survey that I have read in Pakistan. This is what is indicated by the migration patterns also. I have never seen return to 7th century Islam as a top priority. Discussions on this topic are limited to those on the fringes, who keep attacking each other on this issue, because of their personal feelings about religion………

So you need to substantiate your assumptions to justify that Muslims actually think the way that you say they do………And even if they do, this is what is keeping them back..........

In addition, some of your historical information is inaccurate. For quite a few centuries, scientific thought was actually dominated by Muslim scientists. I believe it was much more than, “raising large faithful, dedicated and determined soldiers which helped creating empires and territorial expansion.” Though that is a different debate.

As I have always stated, you have a lot of knowledge, from which everyone could benefit.. But much like Urstruly, you tend to let your biased opinions on religion and its perception amongst Pakistanis cloud your views and thesis..........

Philosophic ideals develops as a function of void, injustice and resources present in the society. Philosophy in this environment may take different route and evolve in their due time. Their ideas may vary greatly with what the likes of Karl Marx , Nietche, Hegel, Karl Popper or Wittgenstein have to say. This article does well in identifying the each of the dependent variables but assumes that the functional philosphy must be `exact` mirror of the western counter parts. Or perhaps we are , as the past hundred or so years have shown us, in a time where we should not concern with producing something indigenous .
Mustapha Kemal set the `tone` in harmony of future development of any `muslim` state. Following Kemalian [ no pun intended] tone, why stop at the constitution which was based on wetsern model, Pakistan should `allocate resources` send some students abroad to learn philosophy and come back and breath life into stagnant situation. After all Pakistan has scholarships for students studying nuclear physics and rocket science [I have personally met with at least a couple of such nationally, as opposed to naturally, endowed individuals ]. But such policies do not seem to be in allignment with national policy. As far as individuals are concerned they are tied to `khudi of `roti` rather than love of knowledge viz:philoophy.

khudi ko bus parrha aisey
ki har nokri sey pehley
khud aa aur khud hi pooch
`beta meri meri `roti` kahan hai?`

Mr. shaphyzx:

I appreciate your feedback. You said in it, ``the article...but assumes that the functional philosophy must be exact mirror of the western counterparts.`` I didn`t assume any such thing. My objective was to try to release our philosophical thinking from the religious peg.

Sitaron sey a`agay jahan aur bhee hain. (Iqbal)

But there is no harm in learning what the western philosophers thought and developed. When you develop a new idea, you ought to know what other ideas have already been developed. The first chapter almost in every research thesis is the review chapter. You don`t have to reinvent the wheel. And there is no harm to give credit where it is due.

My objective was and still is to illustrate how we got trapped into the monotony of the religious metaphysics. We need to move away from that peg and do other meaningful things also. I never suggested to discard religion or religious metaphysics. All I am saying is that there are many other valueable fields of knowledge also; we should not lose sight of them

Nobody has said the final word on any thing. One should not be overwhelmed by the veneration for the authority and accept every thing blindly and uncritically. Regards,

Mohammad Gill

Well then how is it that you assume that there does not exist a philosophy in the `cultural-existence.`[long live Sokal]. There could be a philosophy of economy of words [let us face it, we are talking of Pakistani philosophers]. The only vividly discussed and talked philosophy just happens to be a philosophy of `religious peg`. I do sympathicize with your complaint as any one feels intoxicated after two pegs anyway[imagine these words in Imran Khan accent for full reading pleasure]. This philosophy is not talked about or discovered yet. You might be first sober `non-peg-ian` liberator [ abhii ishq ke imtihaa.N aur bhii hai.n ].After all as Iqbal said:tuu shahii.n hai parwaaz hai kaam teraa
tere saamane aasmaa.N aur bhii hai.n .

Or just let it be for I hear philosophy speak in words of Faraaz:

sholaa thaa jal-bujhaa huu.N havaaye.n mujhe na do
mai.n kab kaa jaa chukaa huu.N sadaaye.n mujhe na do

jo zahar pii chukaa huu.N tumhii.n ne mujhe diyaa
ab tum to zindagii kii duaaye.n mujhe na do

aisaa kahii.n na ho ke palaTakar na aa sakuu.N
har baar duur jaa ke sadaaye.n mujhe na do

kab mujh ko aiteraaf-e-muhabbat na thaa `Faraaz`
kab mai.n ne ye kahaa thaa sazaaye.n mujhe na do

Shaphyzx:34

Good stuff.!
Your post alongwith humour & shaeri is most appreciated

..``aur kuchh bichaaroaN pUr tO aisaa bijoag pURRa kay mashrab kay saath saath mashroob bhee badal diyaa, yaa`ani saadaa paani pee pee kar lURRkhRRaanaiN lUgay..`` ( Yoosafi)

``Vaaez suuboot laaey jo mai kay jUvaaz meiN
Iqbal ko yeh zidD hai kay peena bhee chhoaRR dey``

There`s an interesting strand of scepticism in Hindu thought. This is from the Rg Veda

Hymn of Creation

Then even nothingness was not, nor existence.
There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.
What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping?
Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?

Then there were neither death nor immortality,
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.

At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose at last, born of the power of heat.

In the beginning desire descended on it --
that was the primal seed, born of the mind.
The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom
know that which is kin to that which is not.

And they have stretched their cord across the void,
and know what was above, and what below.
Seminal powers made fertile, mighty forces.
Below was strength, and over it was impulse.

But, after all, who knows, and who can say
whence it all came, and how creation happened?
The gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it from all from the highest heaven,
he knows -- or maybe even he does not know.

tr. A.L. Basham The Wonder that was India

Re: # 36 And here is some hope in the words of Bashir Badr for you:
sisakate aab me.n kis kii sadaa hai
ko_ii dariyaa kii tah me.n ro rahaa hai

savere merii in aa.Nkho.n ne dekhaa
Khudaa charo taraf bikharaa huaa hai

sameTo aur siine me.n chhupaalo
ye sannaaTaa bahut phailaa huaa hai

pak gehuu,N kii Khushbuu chiikhatii hai
badan apanaa suneharaa ho chalaa hai

haqiiqat surKh machhalii jaanatii hai
samandar kaisaa buu.Dhaa devataa hai

hamaarii shaaKh kaa nau-Khez pattaa
havaa ke ho.nTh aksar chuumataa hai

mujhe un niilii aa.Nkho.n ne bataayaa
tumhaaraa naam paanii par likhaa hai

.............................................
...............................................
.................................................
while taking bows in front of echoboom.......``aapki sheeren sukhan hain warna ghulam kiss qabil...``

Chandala:36

Interesting `fun` execise! This Rg Veda

..``strand of scepticism..``?

Then who knows it could also titled ``Hymn of Destruction``. How do we know that instead of having been CREATED we are really going through a SHREDDER. The button that was pressed was REWIND & my son is really my father--TIMEWARP with MINDWARP!

and the last line of the hymn tells us even He doesn`t know.

If Doubt is the Belief then so shall it be. To each his own. Some people might enjoy the masochism of perpetual Doubt & some might love the cocoon comfort of Belief.

So is comfort bad? is work good? is efficiency, progress worthwhile or is ecology and conservation bad? Are vacations or weekends better or are those who slog through 5-days to wait for a weekend or vacations really Anti-Progress Terrorists or sleeper-cells of Al-``Happy Days``-Quaeda``?

Such ``philosophic`` musings are called lethargic eastern mumbo-jumbo, fakir-talk, yogi-bullshit, swami-musings, Peer Saadhoo brain-idlings--a roadblock to market manouverings or arms-wrestlings. It does NOTHING to RESOURCES. Does not spread PEACE, FREEDOM, and DEMOCRACY!

The thuggs start getting edgy.

---

L`kuum deenakuum vlai deen [To you your religion, to me mine]--Al-Qura`an al Hakeem.

Allama Iqbal has indeed stressed on commonality of Muslim all over the world in his viewpoint and elevating and boosting demolished morals of Islamic Societies all over the world. But at the same time his schooling are imprisoned to be limited to Eastern horizon and then scholars limited him to South Asian and then ill-fated he was supposed to be belonging to Pakistan. The worse things continued when he was bounded to Lahore. And then to his Tomb where he rest eternally.
Iqbal like Sheikh Saadi is considered a Sufi Poet whose Philosophy is infliction of Muslim reign and glory left abolished in historical carnage.
Talking about his ‘Nazriat’ and theological way of tackling them is an existential code. And its can never be ‘one’ source of depiction. Propagation of philosophical thinking can happen when we have the opportunity and liberty to endorse our own view point, no matter we put forward Atheism as a logical outlet to our information and analysis. Contradictions with the conformist believers of Islam must not be categorized as sin.
Similarly blindly following atheism is itself a ritualistic approach of anti-religious. Our believes should be identified and acknowledge on particulars of our present status which could help in constructive thinking.

Re: # 33

What are the number of research papers on Philosophy of Science/Mind/Language/PM published viz a viz the Religious /theological papers in PAkistan?
How many of the faculty have a doctorate in the ``secular`` Philosophical topics than on IQbal etc.???

That would be good enough to prove your point???

And idiots fail to understand that it is the agnosticism about God and belief in Scientific Materialism ( read Popper if you do not understand this term) that has been the mainstay of West`s success in Sciences . No scientific paradigm which believes in the ``Final Cause`` as God and ``Miracles` or ``Divine Intervention`` theories has been a successful scientific program.....So talking about Scientific Inquiry in a theological paradigm is definitely further confusing the already confused ummah into greater submission to mullah Omars of this unfortunate world...................

Men have used the sword to rule the earth - all in the name of the ``final cause`` i.e. the God`s Will.
Until we agree to discard this ``Final Cause`` theory and accept the culpability of the perpetrators of criminal action wisdom will never descend upon the gullible Ummah- Until we stop believing that the self proclaimed Ayotollahs and Mullahs are NOT divinely inspired in their actions and that their lust for temporal power has nothing to do with the ``Final Cause`` we remain doomed....................we would keep on blaming US and the Jews for all the miseries that befall upon us due to our actions................

Re: # 38
``..``strand of scepticism..``?

Then who knows it could also titled ``Hymn of Destruction``. How do we know that instead of having been CREATED we are really going through a SHREDDER. The button that was pressed was REWIND & my son is really my father--TIMEWARP with MINDWARP!

and the last line of the hymn tells us even He doesn`t know.``
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Before knowing the answer, you have to know what the question is. Besides, only a true poet knows the delight of poetic imagery and language, and only a true intellectual can appreciate the delights of speculation. I think this is the central issue that is being debated.

There is a Sanskrit poem by Bhartrihari which says that tides arise only in the ocean, not in a well.

Rg veda are pristine documents that seemd `rigged` to baffle any intellect,but talking about it could tantamount to `existential - code` [ no confusion with Da Vinci accepted here ]. Timewarp and mindwarp may help to together create the illusion of contemporaneous existence of Saadi and Iqbal doomed by temporal `carnage` even further the cause of discrediting thory of ``Final Cause`` in the world void of ``divinely ispired`` mullahs and Ayotullahs.But it can not ignore the theory of EDGE[#24 by Freddy_Krueger] - so smooth, foamy, cheap . For $2.59 this product gels well with removing any hairy detail to bring out the visage of Philosphical developemnt or ``constructive thinking``. Just like Raag bhairav cannot be sung at all time and mood you cannot use love to rule - sword looks like a necessary evil to rule . But notice I endorse the edge theory[ I get 1% from revenue;)].
In this mood [majaz] let us sing the `hymn` of majaz lacknavi:

Khuub pahachaan lo asrar huu.N mai.n
jins-e-ulfat kaa talab_gaar huu.N mai.n

ishq hii ishq hai duniyaa merii
fitanaa-e-aql se bezaar huu.N mai.n

chhe.Datii hai jise mizaraab-e-alam
saaz-e-fitarat kaa vahii taar huu.N mai.n

aib jo haafiz-o-Khayyaam me.n thaa
haa.N kuchh is kaa bhii gunah_gaar huu.N mai.n

zindagii kyaa hai gunaah-e-aadam
zindagii hai to gunah_gaar huu.N mai.n

merii baato.n me.n masiihaa_ii hai
log kahate hai.n ki biimaar huu.N mai.n

ek lapakataa huaa sholaa huu.N mai.n
ek chalatii hu_ii talavaar huu.N mai.n

Re: # 43
juar bhata jo samundar mein uTThta hain kuyaiN mein nahin;
kuyaiN ke menDak kuyaiN ke talabgar hotein hain samundar ke nahin.
How is that for poetic imagery ;)

In the middle ages, revolutionary Christian Bishops made it compulasory to read Greek and other philosophers. The philosophers` teachings contradicted Chrisitian Beliefs. Still, the bishops deemed it necessary to expose their students to different views and free thinking.

I was talking to a Christian school teacher Wednesday on the subject. At the school, they teach evolution with equal fervor as Creationism. If, the students are sheltered from opposing thoughts, in real world, they will either convert and shun their beliefs or turn into fanatics.

Strictly convent educated pupils turn into perverts and abnormal behavior....ie Madonna singer, or convert to a different religion.

Chandala, Sunlight

Any Hindu knows that our concept of `God` is so fundamentally different from the one propounded by semitists that the two shouldn`t be clubbed together. They belong to different scales, different time-frames, different views about the nature of matter and non matter.

Scepticism is a characteristic trait of systems that bestow sufficient legitimacy on mutlitiplicity. For It (not his or her) to be capable of accepting infinite multiplicity, one`s God has to be infinitely big. No limited God can tolerate scepticism and the free reign of reason.

Gill,

What do you think of ``philosophical thinking in pakistan, well just plain ``thinking`` will be a good idea for pakistanis. The pak society does not support any divergent views, even simple logical deductions, the man who said that the parents of mohammed could not be muslims was charged with blasphemy and killed.

Gill, it is people like you who are detriment to the progress of pakistan by talking about as though it is a normal society. You should focus on he reality of pakistan, write about what happened to simple thinkers of pakistan. I understand that jang newspaper was attacked because they wrote about incest in pakistan.

Blasphmey laws inhibit any kind of thinking in pakistan about religion. Furure is very grim, simply because of the education system. A society that does not accord any credit to a noble laurette for his contribution to physics cannot support any philosophy.

I understand that omar quiraishi is a well educated asst editor of a news papaer in pakistan, and he once posted that he wrote an obitury for abdus salam, never ever dared to write again about him.
Chowk is infested with educated pakistanis, how about funding a scholarship in the name of abdus salam. Gill, write an article why such a scholarship should not attract blasphemy laws, and that could be a philosophical contribution to pak thinking. Gill, do you think that parents of mohammed could not be born muslims. Do you think that could have some philosophical basis. Pathetic.

Freddy_Kruger: Can you point me to any good Punjabi to English dictionaries, preferably online....Thanks.........

subah ro ro ke shaam hotii hai
shab ta.Dap kar tamaam hotii hai

shaid log padhte hain yeh column
ke badhte raqmoN ki numaish hoti hai

kisi ne kiya jin qaida ka izhar
capital letter mahroom-e-nazar hoti hai

pesh keiN sukhn-e-mast bateiN
scholarship waheiN tamam hoti hai

sha_id istamal-e-infestation
na_ii keDe qaum ki tadbir hoti hai

ham jo kahate hai.n kuchh ishaaro.n se
ye Khataa laa-kalaam hotii hai

[With thousand appologies to Bahadur Shah Zafar]

Thank you for providing an appropriate platform for expressing my outrage. Chowk just banned my IP address because I taught one of their favorite ``pets`` a few lessons about freedom of thought.
I was finally able to get back in and this is the thread that I started:

****************************
This is just to prove to Sobia and Succubus that we can still get in.


Thanks to my husband, I was able to log in. The guy is a genius and he made it work just before the Super Bowl – go Eagles!

On a more serious note, Chowk is merely a reflection of the larger Paki society. Your dictatorial government, your intolerant religion, and your unfair society are all represented by Chowk. Just like in Paki society, you ban dissenters that you don’t agree with, you mysteriously make messages disappear, you wipe out entire threads you don’t like, and you block IP addresses when all else fails. You do this based on the traditional Paki “SIFARISH” system of who knows whom in power. You use selective enforcement, selective banishment, and selective judgment to make your rule prevail over the innocent subjects. Three of your civilian leaders are in exile, several journalists and columnists are in jail or “house arrest” merely for their opinion, and you have officially declared some of your own coreligionists as “non-Muslims.”

Indians can help you resolve IT and Telecomm issues, but they cannot teach you democracy and freedom of speech. That you will have to learn, practice, and defend on your own. Perhaps we Americans could help somewhat. Eye Rak and Afaghanistan are headed for democracy. Iran is next. Perhaps Pakistan will also become a democracy one day – with American help. How do you say it? Inshallah and Mashallah!

The main question for my group of associates is whether we want to waste our time on a medium where certain “pet” favorites control the environment? Six out of eight in our group have lost interest in Chowk because of its selective censorship. Kum se kum, Mumbaichick aur Nangaparbat ne Sobia ki sukhi lay lee. No wonder she was so upset and had to run to super Chowk Staff for assistance, just as Saminasha and Scout before her. When these privileged few lose their debates they run to Chowk mama – I think the rest of us can claim this as a victory!
********************

Thank you and long live freedom of thought and expression.
Mumbaichick

Gill, few comments. It is interesting for me to see that we have interests in the same issues yet our analysis differ sometimes:

1. Many issues you have pointed out especially vis a vis the west are embedded in certain philosophical and cultural boxes, the very notion you have objected to:

- I have a feeling that throughout your paper you have equated Western Philosophy with Philosophy ignoring completely not only the Islamic Philosophical tradition but all the other traditions as well, religious and otherwise. Though you make reference to other religious traditions the philosophical schools you have mentioned are exclusively Western. Why western philosophy alone? You might want to clarify this point.

- Your usage of the word `science` also presupposes as if there is only one science or maybe there is only one valid science. Either way the word scientia which means `to know` does not have a connotation of a particular kind of knowledge and a particular method, namely empirical. The modern notion of science presupposed and explicated in your article again has a western bias. There is more to this point but I just wanted to highlight your assumptions.

- The categories of modern, post-modern and medieval Islam again have western origins and you might want to contemplate over their meaning in the Islamic context. It seems your sources of learning are predominantly western, which is fine, but this poses few problems. I leave it here too.

- The category of `secular philosophy` and of `philosophy of religion` both having western and modern origins are again presupposed. It just seems that you are also working from within a box, the box of western intellectual tradition extending claims and labels to the whole Islamic tradition. The comment: Philosophical thinking in Pakistan, by and large, is boxed in Islamic container; there is hardly any meaningful discussion of the realities that are outside the box`` applies equally to western philosophy where the dominant discourse is secular. I can again go on and on to elaborate on this point.

- The comment: ``I wonder why the whole entire vast field of philosophy was left for the west`` in the light of what I have said above is such an over-generalization that it seems - and I will be explicit in my judgement - completely absurd to me. You are exactly implying what West has been trying to prove.. that it`s only the people in the west who are thinking and rest of the world does not think at all (good old Social Darwinistic claim). In the case of Islam, philosophy died with Averroes (this is what Western historians of philosophy wrote and what you are buying into).

- The advances of western science should be acknowledged but your comment ``Occasionally, a few admit and recognize the advances that the philosophical thought has made in the west`` is definitely questionable. I would relate one personal experience. While the US started bombing Iraq, we were in a Phlosopphy seminar unsuccessfully trying to deal with skeptics and antirealists attempting to prove that yes there is an objective reality out there. Now this is definitely progress of thought!!!

- In view of above, the long quote again from a westerner ``Thus philosophy in the East came to a dead end because it did not get the material of philosophy which could nourish it and keep it alive” is just your view seeking endoresement of an authority of a big name in the discourse, the very notion you are not very comfortable with. Just quoting someone does not prove the point and you yourself made reference to this argument.

- Finally an equally important question is why break-up from a tradition unless we are claiming that tradition lacks which needs to be proven before we embark on such a project.

I do agree about the general claim that thought is stagnat in Pakistan, but my opinion about what stagnation means, what are its causes, how it could be overcome and what needs to be done differs radically from yours.

Again, so long we are sincere in our quest for knowledge and truth every difference in opinion is valuable. Salams.

Mr. razijaffery:

I’ll try to comment on both of your posts (Islamization and Philosophy in Pakistan) hereunder although the response is not very systematic. A systematic response, I had posted earlier.

You have given me an inkling that you have taken courses in philosophy so I assume that you are a philosopher. I do not know whether it’s your main calling (you may be a scientist for all that I know) or not but that doesn’t matter at all.

As far as I am concerned, I am a civil engineer. I did my Ph.D. in Hydraulics at Imperial College of Science and Technology, London, UK. I never constrained myself to only engineering although that’s what I mainly did between 1968 and 1990. When you’re involved in research work you’ve to devote most of your time to the problems on which you’re working. That is my excuse for devoting almost all of my time to Hydraulics in the twenty two years from 1968 to 1990.

I have delved in many other things in my life and philosophy is one of them. I am not a professional philosopher and I did not criticize Pakistani philosophers because I pathologically hated them or hated Islamic metaphysics. To me it is a field of knowledge not the whole entire substance of knowledge. My point was that if you are a professional philosopher, why restrict your scope only to Islamic philosophy?

To you and many others, ‘west’ and ‘western’ are bug words, which they should not be. One of the Prophet’s hadiths enjoined upon the Muslims to go even to China in pursuit of knowledge. You need not go to China in pursuit of Islamic knowledge because logically the Islamic world should be its fountainhead. It was “other” knowledge that the prophet was alluding to.

When some of the readers comment on my works, they start criticizing me personally and my western knowledge. I have carefully read your posts; all the names that you have quoted therein are western excepting Nasr and Ibn Rushd (Averroes). In the bottom line in one of your posts, you asked me if I had read the works of Wolfgang Smith? I suppose, he is from the west. I do not know which school you were in at the time of your philosophy seminar when Iraq was invaded. Was it in the west? The greatest philosopher and the intellectual founder of Pakistan, Allama Iqbal, got his Ph.D. from Germany. One of the Islamic passionate preachers whom I knew from Nigeria, and who is quite renowned in the Islamic circles for his preaching, received his Ph.D. from Professor Arberry of Cambridge University, UK, and he was proud of it. Consider our plight; the western universities are offering Ph.D.’s in Islamic Studies and those Muslims who receive them are proud of the fact. We should be teaching Islam to these Oriental scholars although I don’t mean to demean them. They are quite knowledgeable in our religion.

I live in the west (U.S.) and I am a westerner for that very reason, if nothing else. I was born in India, had Pakistani nationality for 30 years and was (am) proud of it. I have Islamic sub-stratum in my intellectual make up and I am proud of it.

I have read quite a bit in Islamic philosophy although I do not have any academic degree in it. I have in my personal library ‘A History of Muslim Philosophy’, ed. by Professor M.M. Sharif (Prof. Nasr contributed several chapters in it), “A History of Islamic Philosophy” by Majid Fakhry,
al-Ghazali’s ‘Tahafut-al-Falsfah’ (Incoherence of the Philosophers), Ibn Rushd’s rebuttal of al-Ghazali, “The Incoherence of the Incoherence of the Philosophers”, Iqbal’s “The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam”, “al- Beiruni’s India” (although I haven’t read much of it), Iqbal on “The Development of Metaphysics in Persia“ and several other works. I have several books by Ghulam Ahmed Pervaiz on liberalizing Islam also. I have read most of them; some of them selectively.

On western philosophy, I own Russell’s “A History of Western Philosophy”, and many of his other works, I have a few books written by Karl Popper, Hume, Mills, Kant (although I find it very difficult to really understand some of his philosophy without getting help from other sources), “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding” by John Locke (I have read it only selectively), books by Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend and many others. I have several books on philosophy of science. I have Iqbal’s “Kulliyat, both Urdu and Persian”, “Diwan-e- Hafiz”, etc. etc.

I am not writing all this to present my resume’ here. In case, there is any doubt anywhere that I wrote these articles superficially, I want to assure you that that is not the case. I am not Islamo-phobic either. I am concerned about our backwardness. I want to confront the causes of our backwardness, not to rationalize them.

I am concerned when I don’t find a single philosopher of science in Pakistan who has published some original critical work. There was not a single logical positivist in Pakistan, excepting Dr. Qadir whom I had mentioned in my article.

Almost all of your references in your posts are from the western sources – yet you call me a westerner as if you are not. The label of ‘west’ should not be used as a curse or abuse. Philosophy by itself has not produced any great work of hard sciences. To me, it is important because it gives you a critical and analytical outlook.

My heroes are Professor Abdus Salam and Professor Ahmed Zewail (see my article on naseeb.com, if you are interested); both of them are Nobel Laureates. Salam was a physicist and Zewail is a chemist. They did a great service to the Islamic world and I recommend others to follow their lead. There are hundreds of other Muslim scientists who are silently contributing in their respective fields without bothering to Islamize any of them. They are the ones who are re-establishing science in the Islamic world.

Islamization of science is misleading and just propaganda. Those who are propagating it have failed to clarify what it is, how it can be done or who will do it. Above all, is it worth doing? I wish you best of luck but if you are in your twenties or early thirties, don’t waste your life in such unproductive pursuits. Life is a gift of God and it’s given only once; don’t waste it. (This is not an advice, I’m in no position to advise you; it’s just a suggestion. Or, may be it’s just an idle thought). Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Dear Mohammad,

Honestly, you have completely missed the point. I repeat again, I never challenged your background in philosophy and what we are doing here, insofar as I understand it, is healthy discussion on issues that we all think about. I am sorry but you did not respond to a single question that I raised and I don`t know what to say now. I made my questions quite specific. Perhaps you chose not to. Wallahu `alam. It does not matter whether we are eastern, western or Islamic. What I was pointing out were ideas, assumptions and all you have dealt with in your response in cliches, labels and euphesims.

At the least please do not think I was attacking you or questioning your knowledge. We all have limitations to what we know, I might have more than you and perhaps I do. I wanted to contribute to this important question that you have raised but perhaps ended up upsetting you. Astaghfurullah.

razijaffery:

It`s good that you at least realized that I did not write the article frivolously. You say I missed your point completely. I don`t believe that I missed any of your points. You wanted to see if science or some kind of science can emerge from Islamic spirit or essence. I said the hard science (physics, chemistry, etc.) is independent of religion. Social sciences, yes. They are a fertile field for Islamization.

Whether I see your other points or not, I think Islamization of science is a wholly unproductive exercise. You want to do it, I don`t have any problem but I cannot appreciate it. When you or others have accomplished Islamization of any science, I will love to see it for the sake of my own curiousity. I might learn something new. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Unless we have freedom of speech, freedom of political thought, law and order, freedom of practising religion, we will continue doing what we are ordered to do. So there is no real point of discussing the development of philosophical thought in Pakistan because all disciplines relating to social sciences have been manipulated and abused by the power brokers and ``Islamic saviors``. We need to realize that religion and philosophies cannot be imposed on an individual. Until that principle is implemented, there is no real point of discussing this topic.

The mind-body dualism of the Enlightenment in Europe has produced many errors in the way we conceive of what we ordinarily understand ``the realm of thoughts and ideas`` to consist in. The first most important error was the assimilation of the Intellect with the Soul, broadly speaking, or the tacit replacement of the classic ternary of spiritus, animus and corpus, as clarified by the Scholastics, with a vulgarised dualism between the rational faculty and the body. Muslim intellectuals have become a hardened lot in the last few centuries upon more frequent contact with European civilisation. Some have ridiculed it while others have opened their arms to all of its terrestrial productions. Muslim intellectuals, forever torn between impish imitation and fundamentalist self-conceit, have largely failed to elucidate the way in which genuine Islamic firasa (discernment) is learned through the experience of life itself. The sin of ``intellectualism`` does not therefore consist in the flagrant display of narcissitic self-concerns but in the inability to perceive objects as they stand in relation to the perceiving subject. The Islamic world cannot learn from ``muslim intellectuals`` and vice versa. The Islamic World is in no need of justification or defence in circumstances where the insight of the one-eyed is given unparalled authority to speak in the name of truth or justice. The visceral identity of home-grown professional Muslims is self-contradictory on account of its myopia.