Women and Divine Decrees

Re: PM #104,105;

I guess I am really terrible at articulating myself since you are responding to something completely different than what I was trying to say.

I have never said that I support the State`s right to impose religious practices on people. I have never supported Zia or his autocratic hypocrisy. And, I would whole-heartedly support your right to spread the ``Good News`` in Pakistan.
For the record, I would much prefer to see Pakistan become a western style secular democracy than what it is now or where it seems to be heading. But, I wanted to make a point that these are not the only two choices. I was taking isuue with the claim that secularism is an ideology-free neutral vantage point. I believe that there can be no ideology free neutral vantage point. Take, for example, the current debate on homosexual marriages. How is it even possible to begin discussing this issue without invoking some ideology. It is my opinion that in western countries, one particular ideology, Humanism, is elevated above all others and for all practical purposes becomes the state ideology. It is done so in the belief that this is a special ideology that has some objective validity that other religious ideologies do not. This is something I question.
However, in western democracies Humanism is implemented in a manner that treats all citizens with equality and gives a great deal of personal freedom even to those opposing it. The actual implementation is also not rigid, but is flexible and can be changed through democratic participation. I understand the argument that you seem to make that Humanism is a unique ideology and only it can be implemented in this way. You make a good case that traditional religious ideologies cannot be implemented in this manner. Especially Islam, you think, has a fatal flaw in its very structure that will always make it autocratic. This is where I disagree with you. I believe all religious ideologies, including Islam, can be interpreted in an englightened manner that can allow them to be implemented in the political sphere in a manner that is democratic and non-discriminatory.

Re: PM #105,

``Hello? Mr.-Jihad-vs.-McWorld....``

I am not trying to justify or condone intolerance nor trying to absolve anyone of responsibility for such actions. I am just trying to point to factors which may have contributed to it.
Pakistan has never had a democratic culture. A small elite has ruled politically and culturally. A large disenfranchised majority has seen cultural change brought about through the agency of this small elite. Since the masses do not have an effective way to resist or participate in the process of change they would tend to express themselves violently. The mullah leaders maybe political opportunists who are exploiting this sentiment. But why does this sentiment exist among the masses? It is not necesarily becuase of their religion but because of their political deprivation.
Take, for example, the recent defacing of billboards in the NWFP. It was, indeed, a deplorable act of vandalism. However, think about why those billboards were there in the first place. Did anyone ever ask the people of NWFP to establish community standards in a democratic manner? We should let MMA remove the billboards. Let them ban music in the buses. Let them ban public concerts. If that makes the people of NWFP miserable and unhappy, let them kick out MMA at the next elections.

dost,
Thanks for the kind words. `Persistent` and `forceful` I`ll take. ``Scholarly``, well, that only makes me blush.
re. bisexuality, I was simply trying to destroy Urstruly`s faux-utilitarian basis of objection to homosexuality. I would be much happier if he simply stated that homosexuality (or bisexuality) was instriniscially wrong, rather than to object with `resaonable` arguments. I do agree with him on that the Qura`n takes into account man`s nature, though of course I don`t agree it has quite the completion of knowledge as he (or it) supposes. I agree with him that cetain laws were (and still are, even in secualr states) in place simply to protect institutions, at the expense of personal liberty. However, I think what he does not seem to realize is that with a change in technology, cetain the utility of some laws are lost, but the irrational objection to them (aka prejudice) remians. And I was trying to encourage him to view laws on sexual practices from this perspective. Or at leat get him to better understand the basis of his objection.

re. ``Now maybe, you, sameerjb and I can start an organization called Hindu-Muslim-Christian alliance for Lord Buddha:-) ``
hmmm.. sounds good... maybe I`ll even get Keanu, Maddona, and Richard to join in, and we can add Athiest to it. :-)

PM#109
You are right. I had left that thread before you joined it. Re. your position, how can I disagree with someone who makes the same points I made but does so much more forcefully, scholarly and persistently?:-)
I`ll just make two points here. Re. bisexuality and Islam. My scholarship of quran is very rudimentary but I think that the reference to ghilmans in jannat in Quran is indeed a reference to boys or ``laundas``, if not adult males. But I don`t see it necessariy an approval of homosexuality or even bisexuality. Because the concept of Jannat also includes the rarest varieties of wine, which is of course haraam. So, it seems that what is halal in jannat may not necessarily be halal on this earth. Now, why would anyone want to wait until jannat to get what he can get now is another question!
My second comment is re. Urstruly. Unlike other chowkies, I do not think of him as a mad mullah. He is an islamist alrtight but an insecure one. He is a humanist at heart and has this urge to prove to himself that his Islam meets all the tests of the modern concepts of humanism. That he can never succeed in proving this is his personal tragedy. But unless Naqshbandi, his faith or aqeeda is not enough for him.

By the way, I didn`t know that Patrick Masih is a fellow Buddhist (I know, I know, you dont have to change your name or to do anything to be a buddhist!). MP Bhandara will be happy to know that he represented at least one buddhist in National Assembly. Now maybe, you, sameerjb and I can start an organization called Hindu-Muslim-Christian alliance for Lord Buddha:-)

re. dost-mittar:
``Don`t even obliquely compare this to the laws based on a belief that ``nothing in this book can be questioned.``
That non-comparability has been my contention throughout, but it is was important to point out that secularism is not, per se, anti-religion, that`s all.
btw, did you follow my exchange with Urstruly on the ``Jusitice For half a Man`` board. I joind late :-(, but would nonetheless like to hear your comments if you have any to offer.
rgds,
PM

About religion determining collective morality in a secular state:

It would be fair to say that secularism allows for civic religious values... by all means Islam can be the civic religion in our country, but it should not be allowed in the governance and hence an excuse for banning and prohibiting things...

Manto:
``Maybe you can settle down there as well, and we will start a joint venture ... a bar ... like the bars from that movie `cocktail` :) ``
Leave Karachi?? No waaay! hey, I`m an anarchist before a secularist! ....But maybe if its a weekend thingy, yeah, I`ll get to work on the bottle spinning routines.
Speaking of ``settling down`` and ``joint ventures``, I trust you`ll inform me via email whenever the ``merger`` is imminent. :-)
Take care. Nice doing this debate with you.

PM,

I heard Gwadar is going to be free port... free of taxes, free of Islamic laws, free alcohol... Maybe a patriotic Pakistani secularist like myself should consider settling down there?

Maybe you can settle down there as well, and we will start a joint venture ... a bar ... like the bars from that movie `cocktail` :)

-Manto

PM:
``Secualrism ``listens`` to the religious leanings of the people, which is why polygamy is outlawed in the West (Ali87, thank you! :-)) and homosexuality is still a felony in some US states``

I would prefer to call it listening to the collective morality of the people which is determined, among others, by religious beliefs. Thus in a span of less than a generation, people`s attitudes towards homosexuality, adultery, same-sex relationships have changed and so have the laws relating to these matters. But people`s attitude towards polygamy has not changed and so it continues to be disallowed by law.

Don`t even obliquely compare this to the laws based on a belief that ``nothing in this book can be questioned.``

In any case, you are hoping for a miracle. Even Bangladesh and Malaysia have strong Islamist movements, though secularists are puttting up a brave fight there. Wherever Muslims are in a majority, a democracy will eventually turn into a sharia-based regime. It will be interesting to see how the US resolve this dilemma in Iraq.

re. Manto:
``Let us take one premise as a given ... no one has the right to impose their views on others. If that is the case, then there is no room for the elevation of one religious ideology over another. Hence secularism is a necessity, and all those who are opposed to this view are basically trying to infringe on individual freedoms.``
Yes, but (and just to play devil`s advocate), the religionist sees secualrism as another `competing` religion; not as an arbiter between all others. But what you say next will bring out the fallacy, or at least the disingenuousness, of this notion...
``I say if someone wants to pray five times a day, fast in ramadan, take off on Eid, wants to avoid alcohol, wants to live a pious Islamic life (or a christian or a Hindu or a Buddhist or a jain life)... by all means... go ahead.``
AH.. but you`re forgetting tha the pious Muslim sees it as the State`s) right (or, the State should have the `freedom`, if that suits you better) to override `individual` freedoms. This is of course not a peculiarly Muslim issue (homosexuality and polygamy, are after all, outlawed in many ``Christian`` states too), BUT it would take a fool not to realize that it is most pronounced and explicit in Islam, which, after all, is a complete way of life
``The state should not legislate in anyway to infringe upon these basic rights of a citizen. Infact the state should make it its duty to protect its citizens` rights of religious freedom.``
Yes, yes. But don`t forget, this primacy of the Individual IS an ideology, and a relatively new one at that. Don`t also forget that in Jefferson`s view, these truths` were ``self-evident`` and rights ``granted by the Creator``, so to that extent, also invoked religious sentiment (as any basic remise necessarily will). My only argument here is with those who want to somehow have it both ways, contending that a happy marriage between this ideology and one invoking divine fiat (on so many particulars) is possible.

On another note, you ask: ``Why can`t muslims in this country open breweries as well? Why can`t I start a brewery which would give M P Bhandra`s Murree Brewery a run for its money? Why because I am a Muslim in a self avowed Islamic Republic. Damn man, cuz I am a Muslim citizen of this country.``
There, there now... hey, if it helps any, maybe I could front the business for you. 10% profits and a six-pack every weekend is all I ask.
:-)

and oh, thanks for the history lesson.

re. khurram:
``It is not the subjectivist or religious leanings that are the cause of the problem. It is the coercion i.e denying others the right to their ``subjectivist``/religious leanings.``
Oh I see. So it`s the evil secularists are are doing all the real and theoretical derpriving. Oh how my heart bleeds for the hapless religionists!
Let me rephrase what you said to make it clearer: It is the secularists who are the problem becuase they don`t allow the religious to practice their `freedoms,` which essentially impinge on the freedom of others.

But you would have us believe that there is some eqivalency of restriction of freedom, which is IMHO, plain dishonesty. Religion, despite your ``no compulsion`` quote (on which I`ll say more later) clearly impinges on matters that at least you and I will agree are purely personal, as well as some which are in the grey area of personal/public.

You say: ``But religious affairs can be more than personal.``
Yes-- and guess what? Secualrism ``listens`` to the religious leanings of the people, which is why polygamy is outlawed in the West (Ali87, thank you! :-)) and homosexuality is still a felony in some US states. It`s also why you have Family Laws in a place like India where there is a sizeable Muslim population. (But more importantly, please note that these these are matters that are open to debate and change). Compare this with the necessary restrictions on my `right` to spread the Good News in Pakistan that Jesus Christ is Lord and God :-) and you may get some idea as to the differences in freedom of restriction we are talking about, and do some cost/benefit analysis.

``Such coercion is not a necessary part of any religion, though all religions have practised it to some degree.``
First off... I think you mean ``all religious practitioners have practised it to some degree.`` To say ``all religions`` implies the existence of a theocracy and/or Shariah, for that is the only time when ``religions`` are given a free hand. Otherwise, thank God for secularist moderation!
You want evidence of religious fiat being given primacy and the effects? Look at Pakistan. Look at Saudi Arabia.

``Accepting others` right to different beliefs is not the same thing as regarding their beliefs as equally valid.``
Your point being? (In any case, I have been saying the same all through)
``Even those who make an exclusive claim to truth cannot take away others right to believe differently.``
Right. Now go tell that to Urstruly and Naqshbandi, who have pointed out, after much complex deliberation, that the divinely sanctioned punishment for apostasy is.. drumroll please... death!

``For example, I may be absolutely certain that the Earth is round. Doesn`t give me the right to bomb the Flat Earth Society.``
If you`re suggesting that it is the secualrist who are out to do anything analogous to `bombing` the religionists, then you have just lost all respect in my eyes. Unless, of course, you are actually admitting to the modus operandi of the religious groups when they have half a whit of power to play with.

In reply to my contention that ``you cannot be suggesting that Islam offers anywhere near the interpretative freedom and `egalitarianism` that most others offer`` , you write:
```Let there be no compulsion in religion``` is all the interpretative freedom I am asking for. Punishments against apostasy, blasphemy and heresy are against this basic principle.``
It always amuses me to see how quick my Muslims friends will remind me of that ayat when pressing their case, completely ignoring verses like 9:5(35?) and many others I can show you that contradict that generous dictum. (You might also consider that a value system needs to be judged by his lowest, not highest determinator, so to speak.) YOu may be asking for the application of that principle, totally unaware, of course, of how things work in your religion. There is the Qu`ran, then the ahadith. If there is any seeming contradiction in dicta (such as the ones re. apostasy), well, you then have the learned ulema and the Shariah to consult. That`s what the Shariah courts and lawmakers (more correctly, law interpretors, since the lawmaking thing was essentially completed way back about the time when Jeruslam was invaded by Al-Malik and 30,000 churches were pilaged and razed. (In response to which, I should include, the Crusaders went about on a marauding spree that matched anything Gengis Khan did in terms of cruetly.
But you`re really interested in how thigns operate when religious passions are allowed primacy, now are you? :-)

Getting back to the point, in an Islamic state, you have the Shariah and the learned ulema, who will tell you, that despite ``No compulsion...``, the Quran is very clear on the punishment for apostasy (Remember, particulars override general principles). Your `solution` to this seems to be:
(Take Two: )``All muslims and non-muslims should make a common cause against them.``
Actaully Many do, but then we come up against the likes of Urstruly and Asif who, it turns out, have most of the learned ulema and ``1400 years of jurisprudence`` on their side too. So, good luck chappy with your quest to create a nice, tolerant Shariah-run state.
(Take One: )``All muslims and non-muslims should make a common cause against them.``
Hmmm... looks like your`e asking for (gasp!) a state run on secualr principles, where the fiat of religion and it`s thekedars must be compromised. Could it be that... no.! ... heck yes! You`re asking for a... can u say it.. S-E-C-U-L-A-R state! (taubah isthakbaal!!!)

``Coercion cannot be accomodated. As for anything else, why not?``
Now you`re really talking my language! Good on ya!

But then again, much of the intolerance and bigotry in Pakistan may be coming from a sense of being coerced into modernity.
Hello? Mr.-Jihad-vs.-McWorld, you`re not selling that lie to anyone; not with the word `much` in there anyways. Those (indirectly or directly) responsible most for the bigotry and intolerance are quite comfortable with technology, and even send their sons and daughters to the Great Satan for higher studies, who invariably end up setting up shop, and then house, there! (If this doesn`t ring a bell, think Maulana Qazi). The unease with the effects of modernity (Are we talking about Pakistan here??) is at best a minor contributor to the psyche of intolerance and bigotry. Certainly, `modernity wouldn`t have been and issue back in `53, during the first anti-Ahmedi riots.

re. khurram:
``Hey! There was a first time for secularism too.``
How about we give Fascism a chance. (Oops, be carefulwhat you wish for). khurram bahi, smart people learn from making mistakes; smarter ones anticipate and avoid them when they can.
Manto wrote:``Didn`t Zia already use Pakistan as a lab for such experimentation?``
And you replied: ``I don`t recall Zia trying to be ``non-autocratic and egalitarian``
Perhaps you at least recall the elected government with the ``heavy mandate`` during whose tenure Shariah was ratified (for purely political reasons, of course.)

Khurram,

What you are doing is true obscurantism. I say this because you are obscuring everything in philosophical ideas and babble, when the issue at hand is simple... In Pakistan the state shouldn`t have the right to determine whether one is a muslim or not, or whether one should drink or not, or whether a person is a `muslim` enough to become the premier of the nation... Don`t give me coercion into modernity as an excuse. Yes there was a first time for secularism, but it worked almost immediately. This Iqbalian Islamic ideology has failed over and over again in Pakistan. So your egalitarian Islamic ideology has not only had a first, but second, third and fourth.

As for Zia, his claims were similar to yours ... In his first speech after he overthrew Pakistan`s second legitimate leader, he declared that in Pakistan there will be Islam, and because of it everyone will get food on their table and every one will live in an era of musawat. Did that happen?

For once place Pakistan before Islam. See how this obsession with implementing Islam has brought us to our knees. For God`s sake stop it now.

Re: PM #93-94,

``The `subjectivist` leanings of certain world leaders, together with the religious leanings of those behind more conventional forms of terrorism.........``

It is not the subjectivist or religious leanings that are the cause of the problem. It is the coercion i.e denying others the right to their ``subjectivist``/religious leanings.
Such coercion is not a necessary part of any religion, though all religions have practised it to some degree.
Accepting others right to different beliefs is not the same thing as regarding their beliefs as equally valid. Even those who make an exclusive claim to truth cannot take away others right to believe differently.For example, I may be absolutely certain that the Earth is round. Doesn`t give me the right to bomb the Flat Earth Society.

``Surely, you cannot be suggesting that Islam offers anywhere near the interpretative freedom and `egalitarianism` that most others offer``

``Let there be no compulsion in religion`` is all the interpretative freedom I am asking for.
Punishments against apostasy, blasphemy and heresy are against this basic principle. All muslims and non-muslims should make a common cause against them.

``I suspect you`ve fallen for the ugly :-) psuedo-liberal idea that there is nothing that cannot be accomodated``

Coercion cannot be accomodated. As for anything else, why not?

``Pakistan is about as far from there as you can get. ``

Perhaps. But then again, much of the intolerance and bigotry in Pakistan may be coming from a sense of being coerced into modernity.

Re #100

``Thankyou. That should be enough to prove our case for secularism``

Hey! There was a first time for secularism too.

``Didn`t Zia already use Pakistan as a lab for such experimentation?``

I don`t recall Zia trying to be ``non-autocratic and egalitarian``

Khurram,

`I agree it hasn`t been done.`

Thankyou. That should be enough to prove our case for secularism.

`I am more interested in whether it can be done and if it should be done`

Didn`t Zia already use Pakistan as a lab for such experimentation? How long do you chaps suppose you are going to use Pakistanis as lab rats?

-Manto