Re: # 129 Gill, I have tried to systematically respond to some of the questions and criticisms you have rasied here: See parathesis.

``...it is the idea of state that has become our reality today that forces all of us to come up with same laws for every one..`` This is not only a present day reality, it has always been like that.

(I don’t think this is historically accurate. The idea of nation-state/state is quite modern.)

In a multireligious society, the state should implement laws, for the purpose of the day to day governance, which are secular, i.e., which do not belong to any particular religion and do not discriminate on religious grounds. We, the Muslims, find it difficult to accept it because in our conception, religion is part of the state or the other way round, i.e., the state is (or ought to be) part of religion. We then can grant concessions to the followers of other religions and claim to be just and fair.

(In the light of history this argument does not hold. State is not the only way to govern and was not for the most part in global (and not just western) history, as I mentioned earlier. I can cite the inception of statehood in western history if you like. I really think this question needs to be explored in history and hardly anyone would contend on it with me)

Will you like a Christian government to rule in the U.S. which can (and will) delimit your, and of the other non-Christian citizens), freedom? My rights to me are given by the constitution of a secular government in the U.S. I am not beholden to anybody for these rights.

(As I have said earlier, the idea of nation-state has made it imperative to make one generalized law for ``all citizens of the state``. A little bit scrutiny of Andalusia (Muslim Spain) would reflect how one can have different laws governing different religious communities according to their own religion. Again, Spain is just one among many examples that can be cited. Our very own Mughal history provides numerous other examples. The important point to notice is that these examples are not that of a state as you might think)

A religious government is frequently unfair even to its own people. Sharia (Hudood laws), for instance, is unfair to the Muslim women.

(This argument applies equally to non-religious governments. The slavery issue in US history for which unfairness would be a reductive term is not result of religious discrimation but happened in a secular state. Same can be said about Auschwitz.)

I do not need to belabor this point too much because it is so obvious. I am suggesting that a secular government is fairer than a religious government because it does not discriminate on religious grounds. A religous government, on the other hand, does, otherwise it need not be religious. As far as practicing a religion is concerned, secular government doesn`t prevent you from it.

(In the light of arguments made above these claims do not hold.)

I had also mentioned that a democracy coupled with constitutional liberty and secularism can work to the `common good.` We in Pakistan are neither secular nor theocratic. We need to have a secular democracy in Pakistan to end the political game of musical chairs currently going on there. How can it be done? I don`t have any idea. First important thing is for the common people, you and I, to realize that a secular democracy is a benevolent form of government.

(I don’t think this argument holds either given what I have already mentioned above.)

A secular democracy is not divine, we can make changes and modifications to improve it, all the time., in a constitutional way. A religious government is rigid and inflexible.

(Again these claims are complete misconstrual of historical facts and is a big overstatement.)

Based on my personal experience, I can say that whenever you try to solve a problem on religious grounds, the solution becomes impossible. Think of:

1. Is music allowed in Islam? It`s still controversial, yet it has become a fact of our life. I hope you listen to the music and do not feel bad about it.
2. Is photography (and TV) allowed by Islam? For theoretical discussion, it is not allowed, yet we cannot live without it. The same goes for painting and fine arts.
3. There is no `religious ban` on poetry but it is disparaged. There is a whole sura on poets.

(This way of phrasing these questions to elicit certain conclusions is ‘simplistic’ to say the least. These issues have been widely discussed in various intellectual disciplines in Islamic thought and there are varieties of perspectives one finds there. For example, philosophers, mystics, jurists, theologians, traditionalists and so on. I can cite references if you prefer.)

I can go on and on. If you want to live peacefully, better stay away from these issues. Let them be personal affairs and not communal.

I have no problem with what you believe and don`t believe because it is your personal business. I don`t pass fatwas of kufr on my brother Muslims because ``I know what I am``, ``munn a`anam keh munn da`anam.`` Generally religion makes people arrogant. (I`m not suggesting that you`re arrogant. You seem to be a liberal person willing to discuss issues with open mind)

(In light of all this, these conclusions are ill-founded. I think we need to be intellectually very diligent in our scrutiny of such important issues especially when we made our opinions public on forums like chowk.com. Throwing in generalized statements, exaggerated facts and conclusions based upon our individual penchants will not be very helpful.)

(I hope you will be able to see my good intent here.

Finally you said that “Generally religion makes people arrogant.”

Arrogance has little to do with religion. It is basic human psyche of raising oneself above everything, even God. In my academic career I have found most arrogance in Business schools and in scientists themselves. If it’s a question of our personal experiences alone then I am afraid mine are radically different from yours. Arrogance is an issue of human ego which religion precisely intends to overcome. What probably you want to say is that some belief-systems make one arrogant and this is true for scientific belief-systems as well.

I will close with one example: Richard Dawkins, the famous protagonist of Darwinism once said: “IT IS ABSOLUTELY SAFE TO SAY THAT IF YOU MEET SOMEONE WHO CLAIMS NOT TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, THAT PERSON IS IGNORANT, STUPID OR INSANE (OR WICKED BUT I WILL RATHER NOT CONSIDER THAT). - This is a scientist`s way of labelling someone kafir - a term you avoid to use. For a scientist it is the reason which holds the ultimate value as in contradistinction with faith in the case of a religion. Therefore a heresy is labelled accordingly - not being unfaithful but being stupid and insane. So humble indeed!

Salams

razijaffery:

``...it is the idea of state that has become our reality today that forces all of us to come up with same laws for every one..``

This is not only a present day reality, it has always been like that. In a multireligious society, the state should implement laws, for the purpose of the day to day governance, which are secular, i.e., which do not belong to any particular religion and do not discriminate on religious grounds. We, the Muslims, find it difficult to accept it because in our conception, religion is part of the state or the other way round, i.e., the state is (or ought to be) part of religion. We then can grant concessions to the followers of other religions and claim to be just and fair.

Will you like a Christian government to rule in the U.S. which can (and will) delimit your, and of the other non-Christian citizens), freedom? My rights to me are given by the constitution of a secular government in the U.S. I am not beholden to anybody for these rights.

A religious government is frequently unfair even to its own people. Sharia (Hudood laws), for instance, is unfair to the Muslim women.

I do not need to belabor this point too much because it is so obvious. I am suggesting that a secular government is fairer than a religious government because it does not discriminate on religious grounds. A religous government, on the other hand, does, otherwise it need not be religious. As far as practicing a religion is concerned, secular government doesn`t prevent you from it.

I had also mentioned that a democracy coupled with constitutional liberty and secularism can work to the `common good.` We in Pakistan are neither secular nor theocratic. We need to have a secular democracy in Pakistan to end the political game of musical chairs currently going on there. How can it be done? I don`t have any idea. First important thing is for the common people, you and I, to realize that a secular democracy is a benevolent form of government.

A secular democracy is not divine, we can make changes and modifications to improve it, all the time., in a constitutional way. A religious government is rigid and inflexible.

Based on my personal experience, I can say that whenever you try to solve a problem on religious grounds, the solution becomes impossible. Think of:

1. Is music allowed in Islam? It`s still controversial, yet it has become a fact of our life. I hope you listen to the music and do not feel bad about it.
2. Is photography (and TV) allowed by Islam? For theoretical discussion, it is not allowed, yet we cannot live without it. The same goes for painting and fine arts.
3. There is no `religious ban` on poetry but it is disparaged. There is a whole sura on poets.

I can go on and on. If you want to live peacefully, better stay away from these issues. Let them be personal affairs and not communal.

I have no problem with what you believe and don`t believe because it is your personal business. I don`t pass fatwas of kufr on my brother Muslims because ``I know what I am``, ``munn a`anam keh munn da`anam.`` Generally religion makes people arrogant. (I`m not suggesting that you`re arrogant. You seem to be a liberal person willing to discuss issues with open mind)

I have enjoyed interacting with you, Regards,

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 126 Well, to your statement ``In a secular system, you can cherish your religion as much as you like but you will not impose sharia on non-Muslims`` I would like to make amendments by introducing the underlying idea of State: i.e., It is not Shariah that makes it universal implementation necessary but rather it is the idea of state that has become our reality today that forces all of us to come-up with same laws for everyone, JEws, Christians, Muslims, agnostics and so on. The idea of state implies one law, one government, one system and so on and so forth for everyone. It thus implies ubiquitous implementation of law, religious or secular. What I imply in this argument is that the problem is not with Shariah or law but with the idea of state, no matter how inevitable it has become in the modern world. With a monarchy for example, there was no such problem of imposition of one law on all; in theory as well as in historical practices sometimes. Muslims have allowed Jews to live by their Halakah. I can cite historical examples if need be. The question of secularism cannot be understood or tackled without bringing in the idea of state or nation which I think goes hand in hand with secularism. (Nation, an arbitrary identity with no ontological content whatsoever) One reinforces the other and both complement each other by making each other inevitable. Maybe they are inevitable in the modern world but to accept something (the idea of state and secularism) as necessary evil and to `cherish` something are two radically different ways of approaching these questions. With the former one would always seek alternatives; with the latter one would be complacent with the system in place.
Two more things: What is your potential audience for this argument? Pakistan or the West? Are you making a case for secular Pakistan? You think Pakistan should become a secular state to protect rights of minorities? Secondly, you have not responded to my concerns about democracy. I am curious to know what you think.
Salam!

When muslims are in charge!

SECULARISM watches in envy!

Muslim keeps the keys at the holiest site in Christendom

By MATTHEW KALMAN
Scripps Howard News Service
March 23, 2005

JERUSALEM - Every day at 4 a.m., Wajeeh Nuseibeh walks through the walled Old City of Jerusalem to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the holiest shrine in Christendom. Most Christians believe it is the site of the crucifixion, tomb and resurrection of Jesus.

Nuseibeh takes an ancient 12-inch iron key, climbs a small ladder and opens the huge wooden doors.

Every evening at nightfall, after three raps of an iron door knocker spaced out over half an hour, Nuseibeh closes up for the night and places the key in safekeeping.

He inherited the job from his father and grandfather, part of a chain stretching back more than 1,300 years.

But surprisingly for the doorkeeper of the site of the Crucifixion, Nuseibeh, 55, like his ancestors, is a Muslim.

``It goes from father to son, from one generation to the next,`` said Nuseibeh, a small, dapper man in a suit and tie, with a dark mustache. ``I was 15 when I first opened the church. I thought it was fun. As I grew up I realized it is a big responsibility.``

The Holy Sepulchre is a vast warren of chapels, tunnels and caves with pieces of church architecture dating back to the fourth century and spanning a broad range of traditions from the Westernized cathedral of the Catholics to the Eastern brass and icons of the Orthodox churches.

It houses the final stations on the Via Dolorosa - the journey of Jesus to his crucifixion - and attracts hundreds of thousands of pilgrims and sightseers every year.

The church is jealously managed by five competing and often warring Christian denominations. Sometimes the tensions over the right to clean or pray in an area of the church spills over into violence.

Nuseibeh`s family has helped keep the peace between them since Caliph Omar Ibn Kattab first conquered Jerusalem for the Muslims in 638. The only gap was 88 years of crusader rule in the 12th century. According to the family history, when Salah A-Din recaptured Jerusalem in 1191, he promised Richard the Lion Heart he would invite the Nuseibeh family members to resume their role as custodians. Since that time, Judeh family members, also Muslims, have been given the key for safekeeping overnight. The two families have shared the position ever since.

Once a year, the three biggest denominations - Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Armenian - publicly renew their request to Nuseibeh to be the ``custodian and door-keeper`` as written on his business card and multimedia Web site.

About 100 years ago, the key was stolen. Now they keep a spare inside the church. Nuseibeh receives $15 every month for his labor, but the ancient honor is worth more to him than the token payment. When tensions boil over between the churches, Nuseibeh is the one who calms the waters.

``Like all brothers, they sometimes have problems. We help them settle their disputes. We are the neutral people in the church. We are the United Nations. We help preserve peace in this holy place,`` he said.

Nuseibeh said he still becomes anxious before big ceremonies, or when important visitors arrive.

``I realize there are thousands of people waiting to go into the church and they are waiting for me to open it, and I start to imagine what will happen if the lock will be broken or the key is damaged and I can`t open the door,`` he said.

But it has never happened in the 20 years since he took over from his father. He hopes that one day his son Obadah, now 21, will step into his footsteps, but it`s not certain.

``He is at college, studying to be a sports trainer,`` said Nuseibeh. ``Maybe he will not follow me, and then my brother or my cousin will take over.``

Easter celebrations at the Holy Sepulchre will place the diminutive Muslim center-stage as thousands flock to the church for services, processions and the ancient ceremony of the Holy Fire, in which Nuseibeh plays a central role.

The ceremony is held each year on Easter Saturday and symbolizes the resurrection of Christ. Thousands of worshippers pack into the church around the marble-clad tomb where Jesus` body was laid. The oil lamps inside the empty tomb are extinguished and a huge stone rolled across the entrance, which is then sealed shut by Greek Orthodox priests.

``If there are no oil lamps lit, the tomb will be sealed with wax. I am the witness. I put my stamp, the name of the family, in the wax on the tomb,`` Nuseibeh said.

What happens next looks like a miracle. The Orthodox patriarch begins to pray, and a bluish Holy Fire begins to emanate from within the tomb, lighting the lamps and sometimes flying around the church, over the heads of the assembled worshippers, lighting the candles of believers.

Nuseibeh, who has been the official witness at this ceremony for more than 20 years, said he was deeply touched by the Christian rituals and felt a close affinity with the church, but he does not pray there.

``I know every stone. It is like my home,`` he said. ``But I go to pray at the Omar Mosque next door.``

razijaffery:

I don`t have any argument with all what you`ve said in your #123. But non-Muslims surely will disagree with you. In a secular system, you can cherish your religion as much as you like but you will not impose sharia on non-Muslims. Similarly, Hindus can cherish Hinduism as much as they like but they will not impose it on non-Muslims. I think you understand the basic thesis of secularism but don`t want to support it because like most of the traditional Muslims you want to have the right to extend Islam to all whether they like it or not. In secular system, conversion from one religion to the other is acceptable if it`s voluntary and not forced. As long as religion remains a personal affair, a secular system doesn`t have any dispute with it. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 119

``You missed my point here. All the laws you state in the long paragraph are irrelevent. We are discussing what just is. ....We are looking for the definition, not for examples. ......``

Definitions are again with reference to the a perspective- there is no apriori ``given`` which `defines ` what is just and what is not just. That is exactly my point, when we try to look at what is `justice`, we have to look at those instances and events that people within a community consider as being `just`. That is exactly the Sophist`s point of view that Plato tried to demolish in the Republic with his own brand of sophistry (more of it later). So when we try to hypothesize what is ``Just`` we look at all those instances which people consider as just and then see whether these instances can be `derived` from these instances of just acts. Much like the hypothetico-deductive method used in most of the sciences to prove a theory. Following this method we definitely find no `definition` of what is `just` that is consistently followed in all the communities in the past as well as present. Perhaps a few of these principles can be considered to be common like Chomsky`s Universal Linguitics such as the principles of Natural Justice or Eschewing Violence within the same community to settle disputes etc.


``I will give you an example ...........was offered by her local unemployment office a job to provide “`sexual services` at a brothel.`` She turned it down, and now her unemployment benefits may be revoked. ``
I am not aware of the details of this incident but obviously there are certain Universals in moral behaviour well accepted within the modern world such as non-coercion , uprightness of public office, human rights etc. One needs to look into the legal provisions of that community to understand whether any contravnetion of legal precepts occured in that instance or not. I am sure that there must be some contravention of the commonly accepted moral precepts of the modern times in that case.

```..... If we take your definition to be true then that was just as that was the law. Hudud ordenance is just, same is true for quota system in pakistan, as both are laws.``

Ofcourse the representatives of Pakistan government passed these laws because they considered it as `just`- they are obviously `just` for that community. In case you do not consider Hudood as just then you obviously do not share the common view on morality that most of the PAkistanis share. From my point of view, you are definitely more fortunate not to share that view of justice!!!

regards,

Re: # 89 Thank you for this encouragement. I just hope that the objectives of our interactions are to be clear in our thinking, to puruse sincerely these burning issues and to resolve the complicated puzzles of the strange world we all dwell in.

Dear Gill, ``Secularism doesn`t rob the space of a religion; it recognizes religion and avoids, in principle, clashing with it.`` Lets think about it for a second. What is the space of religion? or especially the space of Islam as understood traditionally. I think Islam makes no distinction between public and private, worldy and spiritual and in a way attempts to sanctify the wordly life as well. This means making money, working, fighting when needed, raising family etc etc (all within the prescribed limits as defined in Shariah) and I don`t think I need to elaborate on it. In this sense there is no space that Islam won`t call its own. Shariah legislates everything in life, not just what you are calling religious as opposed to secular, private as opposed to public. Unless you say that Prophetic mission was just spiritual and had nothing to do with worldy and he was just a spiritual leader - which of course you won`t be the first one to say, Ali abd-al Raziq has blatantly made a case for it - we will have to denounce such dichotomization.

Salam

Kyaa baat hai, kyaa baat hai, kyaa baat hai Vallah!

#120 by sohail_rao on March 23, 2005 5:35pm PT


A 25-year-old waitress and former IT professional was offered by her local unemployment office a job to It seems that your belief is whatever is written in the any law is just. Do you think the above law is just?


well she was in IT so she`s used to working nights..in her old profession, she was used to being around virgins hoping to lose their virginity...in her suggested profession, she doesn`t have to work days.....no TPS reports, no sarbanes oxley compliance, she gets to pick her clients....

Re: # 119
You missed my point here. All the laws you state in the long paragraph are irrelevent. We are discussing what just is. We are looking for the definition, not for examples. Also the examples you provide mean nothing. How do you prove these laws to be just? A statement being part of a constitution does not make it just in itself.

I will give you an example of that.

A story in 30/1/05 Telegraph is a good – but a hair-raising – example. A 25-year-old waitress and former IT professional was offered by her local unemployment office a job to provide “`sexual services` at a brothel.`` She turned it down, and now her unemployment benefits may be revoked.

Thanks to a new German employment law adopted two years ago, “any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job - including in the sex industry - or lose her unemployment benefit.” Under the new regulations, “working in the sex industry is not immoral any more” – so take it or leave.

It seems that your belief is whatever is written in the any law is just. Do you think the above law is just?

Do you think the fatwa issued by Khomaini about salman Rushdi was just? If we take your definition to be true then that was just as that was the law. Hudud ordenance is just, same is true for quota system in pakistan, as both are laws.

regards,

``If just is not timeless and cease to be just after some boundaries then justice only means to assess someone according local norm/laws. How local a law do you think should be? Should it change every mile? every state/country/continent or planet? ...``

We all know....when you move from one state to another in the US with a gun you would probably be contravening a law. You would land yourself in the prison for doing so.
You may not know but in Alabama, it is illegal to wear a fake mustache that causes laughter in church.In Texas, it is illegal to curse in front of, or indecently expose oneself to, a corpse.In Michigan, a man legally owns his wife`s hair.Kansas law prohibits shooting rabbits from a motorboat.In Idaho, the law states all boxes of candy given as romantic gifts must weigh more than 50 pounds.It`s against the law to catch fish with your bare hands in Kansas.In California, animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school or place of worship.In Washington state, it`s against the law to sleep in an outhouse without the owner`s permission.Putting salt on a railroad track can be punishable by death in the state of Alabama.In Texas, it`s illegal to put graffiti on someone else`s cow.
In Alabama, dominoes may not be played on Sunday.In New York City, it`s illegal to shake a dust mop out a window.In Connorsville, Wisconsin a man is legally prohibited from shooting a gun while his female partner is having an orgasm.In New York, it`s against the law to throw a ball at someone`s head for fun.In Pueblo, Colorado, it is illegal to let a dandelion grow within city limits.In the state of Washington, it`s illegal to catch a fish by throwing a rock at it.It is illegal to lie down and fall asleep with your shoes on in North Dakota.In Berkeley, California, you can`t whistle for an escaped bird before 7:00 a.m.

So, if we look for certain immutables (except for some principles of law such as Principles of Natural Justice or Kantian Categorical Imperatives) then you are in for a great disappointment.

`` I am only saying that if norms are subjective then a person must only be assessed according to the norms applicable to him/her. You can not apply rules of today to an act committed centuries back. As the norm, as you say, has a temporal expiry date. ``

Ofcourse, in case holding belief in a reveled religion is declared as unlawful as pornography by our posterity , they would definitely consider our faith to be a prime example of their lawlessness and depraved past.

``Do you mean a physical threat or a psychological? ........ always have psychogical effects on their behaviour anyway, so in this case their perception can never be voluntary. ``

That is the issue about FREEWILL that needs even greater deliberation. I would suggest you can read something by John Rawls and other philosophers on the issue.

``Then why is it that the vote of an 18 year old carries the same weight as that of an 50 years old. ``

I believe this is to make the qualitative and numerical calculation of the voters` preferences in a democracy much simpler. I would love to have a calculation schema where the voter`s age, educational qualification is factored in to provide greater weightage to to the votes of an elder and educated voter.

``Why is it that a minor can drink coke but can not consume alcohol, have sex or smoke. What do you think is the difference between consuming alcohol and drinking coke?``

I go to the Himalayan region of Nainitaal in India too often...and find all the kids and women smoking and drinking without any issues wthin their community!!!!



regards,

Re: # 117

The pic is a few year sold but yeah im quite young. As a writer, yes i have admired ur writings. though im only talking about PP writers here. thanks for ur advice. take care

paindupastry:
Out of curiosity, I opened your page at Chowk. I saw your picture; you`re quite young as you said in one of your posts. Try to make the best use of your life. I wrote some place: ``Life is the gift of God and it is given you only once. Don`t waste it.`` I am an old man and have taken the liberty of giving you a piece of my mind.

I also noted that you consider me as one of your favorite writers. I am flattered. Thank you for your kind thoughts about me. I wish you well,

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 115

sorry brother, but u dont seem to even know the exact definition of kaffir, if u did, u`d know tha kaafir and a free thinker are about exact opposites as can be!

Freethinker=Kaffir
It is impossible for a freethinker to be a muslim.
Think ``Freethinker``, Think ``Kaffir``.

When ``Freethinkers``( read: Kaffir), enemies of all religions esp. Islam, squeal it is cause for celebration.

Here is what such a ``freethinker``( read: Kaffir) writes.
And muslims get insights & tips of who is a friend and who is a foe.

The good news is that most in high places are now talking in FAVOUR of Islam and against the Kuffaars (read: Freethinkers).*

---

Re: # 89

:)

razijaffery:

A nice welcome to you.

please visit often. You are important here. From your past interacts you have impressed.

And you are not shy to say that you are a muslim--so we know ``from where you are coming from``.

You are clean and clear.

Romair:

I do not know the answers to the questions that you`ve raised regarding Pakistan and its politics. I`m not uptodate with it.

I do know one thing. A liberal democracy coupled with a healthy secular system can constitute a good form of government. When a system is broken and fails to function, it is useless to try it over and over again. Something else should be tried in its place.

Regarding reformation of Islam; there is a provision for it within its own framework which is called Ijtehad. The tragedy is that it exists only in theory, it has seldom been used or used very sparingly for minor issues. A generous use of ijtehad by liberal and educated people who truly believe in modernizing Islam (pulling it back from 1400 years into the twenty first century) will serve it good.

Bye bye orthodoxy and welcome modernity. The reformed religion will be unrecognizably different from the orthodox Islam; so be it. If that is not acceptable, leave it alone and use a secular system which doesn`t tamper with personal faith. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Freethinker: Do you think secularists have a strategy of pursuing secularism in Pakistan? What is it? Are such individuals willing to start purely secular political parties and movements? Or are they content with relying on parties like PPP, which, though not like the MMA, are still not secular (as defined in the West)?

Also, there seems to be a confusion on exactly what the secularists want: Do they want to sideline the theocratic parties, while not being too bothered about moderately religious parties (like most parties in Pakistan). Do they want to reform Islam by changing some of its rulings and interpretations? Or do they want to remove Islam`s public injunctions as a means of legitimate jurisdiction, and recognize only Islam`s injunctions on personal issues (this is secularism as practiced traditionally in the West)?

You keep pointing to the Western society and its secularism. Yet there is very little debate on how it got there. The hundreds of years of turbulence it went through. The social changes in the society itself. For example, the amount of power enjoyed by the relgious priests in Christian societies, at one point, has never been matched by the Islamic theocracy. That may have been one of the causes of secularism in the West. What if that level of abuse never occurs in the Islamic society? Will secularism still succeed?

So what is the practical, ``Path to Profitibality,`` that has been defined for Pakistan by the secularists, to introduce their ideas into the country?

razijaffrey:

If we accept Islam as a religion then there is no clash between it and secularism. A secular system separates religion from state. Secularism doesn`t rob the space of a religion; it recognizes religion and avoids, in principle, clashing with it.

Think of the Muslims living in the U.S. According to the U.S. constitution, there is no religious discrimination. We have our mosques in U.S. as the followers of other religions have respectively their own places of worship. We go to our mosques freely; there is no interference in our worship. The U.S. secularism thus, in principle, does not interfere with the practice of a religion. Isn`t it fair?

No system is practically perfect. If a system is on the whole working for the ``common good``, it should be considered a fair system. There is no ongoing violent clash between Sunnis and Shias in the U.S. as in Pakistan, for example. It is good as far as I am concerned.

The biggest advantage is that a secular system is not divine and can be improved unlike a divinely ordained rigid and inflexible system. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Is there a strategy that individuals who want to introduce secularism have, on how to introduce it in Pakistan? The ones who want to bring in relgion and Shariah, certainly seem to have a strategy. And they have been acting upon it for a long time. They have a personal, political, and social ideology and they rarely deviate from it. You won`t find too many lotas in the MMA. And they are pretty straightforward about what they want, i.e. they want a Shariah-based interpretation of the Quran........That`s it. And they say this without any embarassment.........

What is the strategy of the secularists? I think they lack a strategy. They are just hoping. And in many cases yelling and screaming. They seem to only be able to penetrate into a very limited audience of upper-class Pakistanis. There seems to be no mass movement for secularism in Pakistan. There are, in fact, hardly any parties, which are even willing to admit they are secular. A few days ago, on a talk show, I heard someone ask reps of PPP, PML and MQM whether they are secular. Their reps jumped around this word, like American parties jump around the word, ``Liberal.`` Even Liberal parties don`t want this word attached to them.........Similarly no party wants the term, ``secular`` attached to its name in Pakistan.........Including the ones like MQM who hate the mullahs......

Are such people willing to start purely secular parties? Instead of trying to join PPP and others, which are just non-theocratic but are not really secular. And how are they going to penetrate their ideas into the normal, ``awam,`` most of which actually does not, at the moment, want secularism?

And are they willing to present secularism to be what it is, and still sell it successfully? Rather than beating around the bush by saying that it, in no way, disregards any part of religion. When infact, it does demand a rejection of the public aspects of any religion, including Islam.

When any idea (right or wrong) is to be sold to a population, it has to have a dedicated cadre and a long-term strategy behind it that appeals to the average person. It makes no sense for it to just appeal to the English newspaper reading and Internet-saavy 1% of the public.

Does such a long term strategy exist for the introduction of secularism in Pakistan? What is it? Can someone articulate it, step by step? So far, the only thing one sees are like-minded people patting each other on the back, for articles they have written, and telling each other how enlightened they are. And abusing those who disagree with them, by considering them ignorant. This can make one feel good about one`s self, but doesn`t accomplish much outside that. I have yet to see anyone convince someone who disagrees with them on secularism, and make them change their mind. Even on this site, I have yet to see anyone get convinced, who wasn`t already convinced before the discussion started.

In general, in the Muslim world, secularist thought is on a big decline. It seems to have reached its peak, after WWII, when many of the Muslim countries, became independent and were run by British and French educated and/or influenced leaders. Jinnah, the Baathists, Shah, Nasser etc. were far more West leaning and/or non-religious in their approach than what has replaced them........Including in present-day Iraq; the latest country moving from secularism towards a religious govt........Wherever in the Muslim world, elections are being held, religous parties are winning big-time. Even Turkey, of all places, has a religous party (albeit without beards) in power. It is mostly dictators who are now still following the secular or Western school of thought. So secularists in the Muslim world are actually getting defeated, in ratios not seen before.

Yet one does not see any introspection on their part, to try to figure out why they are failing..............Why is this?

I think one of the main reasons behind this is that those arguing for secularism have a lot of arrogance in their approach. They don`t debate their point. They preach it. They don`t try to convince others. The expect the others to be convinced, from the get-go. They are far too impatient. They, at least in Pakistan, have no success stories to show, where their parties brought about a favorable change in the life of the poor Pakistani. Yet they don`t try to look the skeletons in their own closet. They are generally led by wealthy individuals who have nothing in common with the average Pakistani. They pat each other on the back, all the time, rather than trying to figure out why they are losing the battles they are trying to fight. They are, thus, far too unaccomodating and elitist in their appraoch.

The successful argument is not one which is supported by a group of individuals who agreed with the argument to begin with. A successful argument is one that convinces people who disagreed with it, when it was initiated, to change their minds.........And it is the maulvi brigade that seems to be winning that battle..........

Those who don`t agree with me, need to consider the fact that had it not been for the coup, Pakistan would be under Shariah law now. An elected assembly had passed the Shariah Bill, and was just waiting for the Senate to stamp it...........This should be enough for the secularism supporters to carry out an introspection and try to figure out why their ideas are not penetrating anyone`s minds, other than their own minds..........

Before one debates women (or men for that matter) leading prayers, one should debate the whole concept of prayer, itself. The Quran actually does not describe how one should pray. Infact, the Quran mandates very little on most issues. It is generally filled with telling people to do good and not do bad etc., in very abstract terms.

Where exactly has the concept of praying in a certain fashion appeared in Islam? The more one reads the Quran, the more starts to realize how unregimented Islam is supposed to be. Much of what is regimented in Islam was created through various other, ``scholars`` who appeared after the fact............

So a bigger issue than women leading prayers is whether their is a strict code of prayers in Islam to begin with...........

Re: # 82 not sure what you mean and not sure if you understood what I meant.

Re: # 81

razi mian,

``Saying that secularism is inevitable in the modern world and is a necessary evil is a different claim from commending it. ``

........... do you know how silly that sounds? ........... it is kind of like saying :

``Saying that a round wheel is better than a square wheel is a different claim from commending it``

.......... the problem with islam is that even its most ``reasonable`` proponents are precariously close to the lunatic fringe ............

Salam Dr. Gill,

A few comments: The move from descriptive secularism (what it is) to normative secularism (defensible, plausible, inevitable, ougth-to-be) in your article is not very clear and you did not present any argumets for it. Iqbal`s own understanding of this issue could be questionable and indeed is after at least 83 years of Ataturk`s usurp of power in Turkey. Iqbal did not live long to deliberate on the consequences of secularism. I know of one girl here who had to leave Turkey to wear Hijab. The birth of secularism and its eventual embracement as a state religion - read Chirac`s speech on why wearing religious symbols cannot be accomodated in France - and you might see the potential conflict between Islam and secularism. Furthermore, your comment on religious equality goes against the Islamic legal understanding of `dhimmis` which accepts no egalitarianism and treats non-Muslims as secondary class citizens while taking into account their human dignity. This of course is a complicated matter and I won`t extend any straightforward claims about it. Saying that secularism is inevitable in the modern world and is a necessary evil is a different claim from commending it. I have a hunch that you are arguing for the latter and in doing that not paying enough attention to how and in what sense it contradicts traditional Islamic understanding of religion and politics, which as you yourself noted were not separate spheres.

Re: # 75
Yes, Change will spread in the masses in not just Pakistan but elsewhere. Muslims have access to internet and other mass media tools now. They will not stay satisfied with their present status in their home countries.
Once they start asking change it will like Domino Effect.

It is so true and you all know it, but are delusional in your thinking.

Other nations forbid blasphemy,
so why don`t we?

By James Lileks

A court has ruled that a fashion company can`t run ads that make fun of the Last Supper. To be specific:They can`t make fun of a painting done 1,500 years after the event. Pretentious denim-vendors Girbaud parodied Leonardo DaVinci`s famous painting; bishops complained, and the government banned the ad.

Typical for Red-State-Uber-Alles Amerika, eh?

But this happened in France. Yes, it`s Europe that has blasphemy laws - secular, post-Christianity Europe, ome-for-the-cathedrals-and-stay-for-the-hash-cafe Europe. The ruling came from a French court in response to a case brought by a group of
French bishops.

Said Thierry Massis, the bishops` lawyer, ``When you attack sacred things, you create a moral violence that is dangerous for our children. Tomorrow we`ll have Christ selling socks.`` Don`t give them any ideas. It`s still a miracle that Lot`s wife hasn`t endorsed Morton Salt. The bishops` complaint might seem rather exaggerated,
.....continued

69:Mantolives

What is it in #60 that got your goat?.

And what is this ``hint`` about Iqbal Academy? An ``insider``? `He` should know better.
Since when has it been an exclusive domain of the Iqbal Academy to convert even a ``Once-muslim`` , let alone, as you put it, ``goraa-chura``.

Goraas, chura or not-chura (your term), are flocking to Islam on their own. Perhaps you choose to read and report only what leads to further delusions about the Ba Ba Blacksheep of Paki Baighairat Leadership.

Hamidm2: #64
Tiktiki was the frame on which the Zanees/Sahraabees were spreadeagled before the Jallad would take a long start form the ``pavilion Line`` , whip-lash in hand like a cowboy minus horse would strike upon the wretched one.

This, I`m told, was the great Jumma Matinee and a the crowd chanted Allah-O-Akber in unison but with baited glee and fear. You would have been a show-piece exhibit, but you did the wise thing and left.

The stupid thing that you do is that you are still not content with your boozing-buddy companions. You keep in touch with the masjid crowd, you visit their homes, you make this a subject in your household. You torment yourself unnecessarily.

Look hamidm2: I`m not that ``good`` a person and you are not that ``bad``. The way your frothy-foam calms down and settles tell me a lot about you. You and I could perhaps be equally at home in a masjid or a maikhana--but why give an inch here, right?:)

You ARE a closet mullah . We know that. Only ``horrible-hindoos`` should not discover that.

PS: Your read on Wahabbis is right on!(#76), but then this is the nexus between The Saudi
family (Saudi; as in Umvee & Abbasi) and the Imperialists. Wahabi ``teachings`` have been lassoed in and the common man in Saudia is as much oppressed by the Imperialist lackeys ( Saudis) as the Pakistanis ( or other muslims) are by their own ``Masters, not Friends``.

Tahmed32, by the way, subscribes to the Wahabee thought , if not belonging to the sect.
Whatever he says he is at heart a well-meaning muslim.

You will not find me critical of any ``sect`` among muslims for ``political`` reasons. That is supposed to be a private affair--a family thing. If you give a chink of opening to the ``free-thinkers`` they try to make inroads into the house.

Incidentally for our hindoo friends: There are quite a many hindoo saudi-arabians who have been there for centuries. They dress, walk, and talk like well everyone else. Very powerfull financially as well as ``advisors`` to the Royals. Most Pakistanis mistake them for muslims.
The ``Dehlvi`` clan is one of the prominent Indian but muslim clan. They have been there for
almost 400 years.

Re: # 75

Theek Hae`, but still your stance is not very convincing.

Rozaiba`s two cents had a perspective. Still not too convincing!

women in prayer .......

............ in and of itself, women leading congregations of the faithful in religious rituals is no big deal as zahraj points out, but it is one small step in opening up islam like other religions, secret orders and cults before it ........... after all, even most christian churches, jewish sects and indian tribes seem to have a problem with women leading men in prayer and rain dances .......... it all goes back to men having a problem with following women - the last time they did it they got thrown out of the garden of eden ............

.......... but, on a more serious note, this is exactly what is needed to break the hold of wahabi islam which keeps the majority of muslims mired in regressive and retrograde obscurantism.........tody it is a woman leading prayers, tomorrow it might be a sect that declares that prayers are mandatory only once a week and who knows, god willing, we might one day have the ulema given in and allow wine on weekends .............. sects like the druze and ismailis already offer a path to modernity and any small step by the mainstream that breaks with 1400 yeart old traditions is a step in the right direction ............

ZahraJ:

The point that I tried to make was that the world is changing. Our stereotypical thinking will have to change too. Our old mindset will need to give in to the new realities, whether we like it or not.

Lady Imam was unthinkable in the past but soon in the future it will cease to be a big deal. Those of us who are holding fast to the old orthodox model in