Looking for a New Islamic Fiqh

manto, many of the so called ``hindu`` reformers did not attempt to reform the hindu religion. they simply performed reformist activities like marrying widows or taking low-caste into upper-caste temples or educating women etc. they were ridiculed and ostracised, but when others saw that their aberrant behavior cause no big problems, others tried those things as well. i am not sure of the rennaissance, but i doubt if kepler tried to give any religous argument.

At a minimum, Manto`s suggestions can form the starting points of a constructive dialogue among the followers of Islam.

Let`s not forget the context. What we have here is the logical evolution of Manto`s own ideas. It`s been a few years since Manto moved from Rutgers to Pakistan. He is now more sensitive to the role of religion; more aware of the great challenges (and opportunities) religion presents; and more conscious (overtly or not - I am not sure) of some peculiarities specific to Islam and Islamic societies.

With that background, those who agree with Manto`s general direction may want to offer suggestions for tightening his thinking, or suggest better alternate ideas.

freesoul,

Blind I was when I was intolerant of those who associated any pride with being a Muslim.

Secularist I still am... but my understanding of the whole thing is derived from

1- Origins of secularism in Christian countries...

2- Law making in Christian countries.

English Jurisprudence and Napoleonic Code- the basis of secular laws in our time- were at point deeply rooted in christian tradition. Infact I can bring up judgement after judgement from English Common Law judges suggests that christianity was part and parcel of common law. John Locke, arguably the father of liberal democracy, modern society and hence secularism, derived his political philosophy from religion mind you.

An Islamic Reformation is necessary for the evolution of secular society in the Islamic East- just like Christian reformation- except Islam gives a way of doing it... Calvin and Luthar were groping in the dark.

Kaalchakra,

Fascinating analysis ... I see the whole issue much the same way.



Jang,

My friend... Indian Constitution was working perfectly in the Shah Bano case. You have to accept that Congress uses Deobandi mullahs as it did so in the British India for political gain ... which you call vote bank politics...

Hindu reformers did not because Hinduism like the semitic traditions is not rooted in one god one book... Hinduism, in essence, is more of a cultural experience than a religion in semitic sense...

Renaissance followed reformation... surely you don`t discount the effect that Luthar had on Europe... there would be no John Locke had there been no Martin Luthar... I am sure of it.

#50 i dont consider islamic laws as a big developmental problem for pakistan.

Re #51

ur view that secularism was the result of christianity`s reformation, is not the factually correct. It is alsmost like expecting gay marriages to be first solemnized in churches, and then in the constitution of USA (or any other country). It won;t happen this way, as it never happend this way.

Religion always follows social change, not the other way around. Religion, by its very definition, is passive and static. Social and economic urrents genarte demands, that are always resisted by orthodox aganets, religous or non-religous (traditions)

re: jang # 52

Islam and Islamic societies face some peculiar issues that make progressive, liberal political reforms within Islam and Islamic societies quite difficult and uncertain. And when such reforms do occur, they tend to be rather short-lived, often replaced by more vicious forms of Islam.

An editorial in the Daily Times reaches the unpleasant conclusion long drawn by cynics.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005 12 10 story_10-12-2005_pg3_1

If there is any truth in these assertions (divine proclamation does not refute them), then genuine wishers of liberal democracy have no option but to become religious reformers. After all, even casteist Hinduism was (and remains) logically contradictory of liberal, progressive democracy.

Freesoul,

You are looking at specific occurences, point by point- I am talking of the general trend. The secularisation of society is not dependent on a victory here and defeat there. The reason why a debate is possible in the west today on issues of gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research etc is because the majority religious discourse has been reformed to allow such a debate... Church disagreeing with an opinion is very different from the Church persecuting that opinion.

There would have been no constitution of the United States had there been no John Locke (or Rousseu or Kant etc) whose writings the founding fathers of the US closely followed.
John Locke was the product of the age of enlightenment that was brought about christian reformation.

-YLH

Re: # 55

gay-marriage was just an example to prove a trend. If chtistian orthodox had their ways, even a discussion would not be possible on such topics. European Immigrants to USA would have thrown out USA consitituition, if it anyways had incorporated chrisrtianity in it. The founding fathers could easily see what would would fly. It was not the reformed christianity, but the desire of ppl to limit religion`s role in their affairs.

Again, my point is simple: Islam can not be reformed in a centralized or imposed ways. Limit its role to ppl`s pvt lives, and ppl will make it as relevant to their lives as they deem fit. And it has happened in so many ways around us. 4 marriages of a man, r now things of past. People have simply rejected this. The concept of femal sex slaves now disgust an ordinary muslims, and he can`t belive Mohammed and his followers ever justified this. All the things against `sood` (interest) has become irrelevent. Zia made provision for shia to by pass this, and 70% of bank customers (by one estoimate) declared that they were shias just to by-pass zakat deduction. It is happening all around us. What is necessary is that we strip Islam from pakistan, and declare all statements of Jinnah and ML linking Pakistan with Islam, as null and void.

Historically no secular state has ever resulted from the process that you outline- hence the failure of secularists like yourself... even our officially secular neighbour has tried to limit religion in people`s personal lives. The most successful secular state in the Islamic World is Turkey. In Turkey Kemal Ataturk- despite what people would like to portray him as- did not try to make people irreligious- he tried to reform them. He even tried to reform and nationalise Islam- and to a large extent his efforts have borne fruit. However, his successors made a dogma out of his actions rather than his vision and therefore you have a reversal of sorts in Turkey. Still- Tayyib Erdogan, a conservative Islamist, is more secular than several secular politicians of the Islamic world.

The purpose of a secular state is NOT to make people irreligious but to ultimately give them the freedom of conscience. The founding fathers of the United States very clearly credited the US constitution to John Locke... and other scholars of the age of enlightenment. Jinnah was well aware of this process when he spoke of Protestants and Christians discriminating against each other... and then developing toleration. That is ultimately secularism... not denouncing Islam because you don`t like it- the majority of Pakistanis will remain deeply committed to Islam whether you like it or not... and they have every right to.

-YLH

Sorry just saw your post again... and you are not talking about stripping religion from people`s lives but just the state- a position I agree with- religion should ultimately be a personal matter... but religion became a personal matter in the west through reformation. As I pointed out in one of my earlier posts it is not about whether church disagrees with a position... but whether people are ready to give it the authority to shape their lives... the people will stop giving the church authority in the Islamic world if there is a reformation as there was in Christiandom.

The rest of the post is relevant.

Re: # 58

It is just not possible that an institution wielding control over state would just withdraw from positions of power, thru reformation. Christianity was forced out, not left thru reformation.

It is like expecting Pakistan army to leave civilian domain (govt, bureaucracy) thru internal reforms. It won`t happen this way.

``The founding fathers of the United States very clearly credited the US constitution to John Locke... and other scholars of the age of enlightenment``


John Locke did not try to reform Christianity as if we would try to make 1 woman`s evidence equal to man`s. He was more concerned with limitin religion`s role to `souls salvaation`. Your example of John Locke, strengthens my case, not urs.

pakistan was created for islam, so its obvious that pakistanis are ``commited`` to islam ;-)

Freesoul.

You are totally missing the point because frankly you don`t understand what I am saying nor have you bothered to read my posts.

John Locke was the product of reformed christianity. How can you contest a case without knowing what the other person is arguing. I don`t think you have even tried to read his works, which deeply embedded in Christian thought.

Secularism in the west would have never come about had it not been for reformation first... it is a historical process beyond an individual here and there.

I would add that not only John Locke but Kant, Rousseu, Voltaire down to J S Mill and John Morley were all products of reformed Christianity. Even Darwin was a product of the social impact this reformation had on Christian society which became more accepting of free-thinking... (Hence Darwin was not tried like the earlier gentlemen).

Secularism began when French Prime Minister Cardinal Richelieu, a christian priest, declared that foreign and state policy had nothing to do with religion or religious considerations... the famous painting where he chose to appear as a secular prince instead ot the ``prince of church`` is the real beginning of secularism as we understand it in the west.

yes, having a secular state was a result of witnessing the consequences of mixing religion and politics / policies.

these horrible consequences of the mix was what was got people to realize that the two need to be kept separate.

today we continue to see the disasterous consequences of the mixture. other nations too will realize the need make sure no one religion is given credance over another and to instead have a secular set up where all faiths are treated equally.

Re #62 & #61

I have read ur posts very well, so don`t bother to use strawman here.

Everyone, even atheists and agnostics in this world, have had some effects of their original religions on them. There is no exception. Newton, was a strong and quite a freaky beleiver in christianity. But by no strecth of thought, his `atheist` physics laws were inspired from Bible. The same can be said about Faiz. `Lazim hay kay hum be daikhain gay` is an example of his inspiration from Islam, but was he a mainstream muslim?

A secular person can be a religous, as lonmg as he/she keeps govt out of religion and vice versa. If u deny that for John Locke, then obviously u have not read anything.