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

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.

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...........

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..........

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

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?

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

Re: # 89

:)

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.

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.

Those from Madressas are ALWAY respected & admired EVERWHERE.

Hope he turns it down.
Let`s see.

---

Ali Sistani should be given Nobel Peace Prize:

New York Times columnist Friedman

Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, spiritual leader of Iraq`s Shiites, should be given the Nobel
Peace Prize for helping smoothe was road toward democracy in the country, influential New YorkTimes columnist Thomas Friedman wrote in the newspaper.

Friedmannoted that US President George W. Bush`s name will likely be bandied
about a contender for the prestigious prize, as the democracy takes hold there following legislative elections earlier this year.

But, Friedman said, ``if some kind of democracy takes root there, it will also be due in large measure to the instincts and directives of the dominant Iraqi Shiite communal leader, Ayatollah Sistani.``

A Shiite Muslim worshipper carries a portrait of Grand Ayatollah Ali Al SistaniEnlarge