In Defense of The Left urstruly

We see this obfuscation from Hindu fanatics - they want to compare Hinduism with Islam - as if they both had the same structure. They want to apply the structure of Islam to Hinduism - that is to make Hinduism more like Islam, to rid it of it`s amorphous, vaporous nature, towards structure - like the fascist, they seek to convert religion to an ideology of politics and society.

If Ram Raj means a just society and a noble ruler, sure, if that`s what Hindus want or if that`s what Indians want.

BUT, lets be clear about this, The argument is no longer, if it ever was, not about who should rule, (after all, for the faithful God rules in heaven and delegates the Earth to man, to reign over): The real challenge is how to dimish the prospect of MISRULE - For the Muslim obscuritanist or Hindu or the COMMUNIST, all their effort to establish the perfect society is a sure formula for tyranny and cannot but lead to a arrested society, characterized by both a reactionary, romantic and violent worldview. These historicist visions are enemy making and enemy seeking. All attempts to make things better for any large number of persons, as in a grand plan, are flawed - let the individual to have liberty, to make his or her own ``best of all possible world``, lets just make sure he or she has a level playing field, that is the extent of the help any individual needs.

As Mr. SameerBJ`s article makes clear, the communist is but a longing of the ``true believer`` of these ``material determinists`` - under the mask of ``the people``, whom communists have killed more than 60 million in USSR and PRC; their blood lust and hatred of Liberty and faith - thinks that they may be resurrected - as if they have forgotten or forgiven.

Breaking News: Suicide Bomb in Karachi Pakistanis on Chowk - Please help!

I desperately need to find an old friend I had lost contact with - do you have any ideas on how I can go about finding this person?

Sycracuse graduate - last name`` Yusufzai

Would appreciate any help you may be able to offer - thks

Dissing Ideologies Shammi

Musharraf held a referendum - he himself, agrees to its shortcomings. Whereas the MORI poll is a scientific study - lets see if you can get this:

Referendum = political, yes or no

MORI poll = scientific study.

As to my lack of criticism of the referendum method - Once again, the referendum is a political exercise and the criticism we witnessed, and to which I responded was unfortunately, political and not technical. Clearly, I agree with you that both in the referendum and the MORI poll, questions are designed to elicit approval of given political positions, yet the MORI poll (by definition, therefore it`s methodolgy included) is a scientific study, If it is not a scientific study - why don`t you come out and say that it is not scientific and is a political utility.

Have I been consistent in my criticisms? No, I have not. You be the first to tell me if such a thing is possible for falliable human beings.

Tahmed

Ahmed Sahab, I hope you will now see the rational of my objection and criticism of the position you are taking. I am not aware of any ``generally accepted`` - $10,000 position by any organization of body - in effect, the notion that one can argue Poverty or Ignorance has been irradicated is flawed, as what constitutes or not, Poverty, and What constitutes or not, Ignorance, are not objective in the scientific sense nor in the sense that there is a broad agreement as to what they may mean. If we shall argue the figure $10K, will that mean $6500 will mean Poverty and Ignorance, what about $8900 ? As a matter of fact, the meanings we infuse into what poverty and ignorance may mean or not, continue to change, as our understanding of what these words mean or constitute, changes.

Dost Mittar

I give you the benefit of the doubt: I very much disgree that the punishment for blasphemy and Apostasy, we are being told is ``Islamic``, is most certainly not! As a matter of fact these punishments are reviled within Islamia, noting the single most important endeavour of Muslims in the 20th century, lead by Allahmah, Iqbal lahori, is, the effort to distinguish the constant and the variable components of religion, so that it would be clear where Islam would be susceptible of change and where it would be unbending and resistant. Criticising the preeminence of the institution of Figh and Shariah, in Islam: ``...One cannot stand by and witness an oppressed woman from the Punjab, deprived of the right of religious divorce in order to escape a tyrannical husband, appeal to the law of apostasy.`` Indeed, thus far, no fresh thinking has enveloped the luminaries who serve Figh and Shariah and main stream Muslims have found that they do not have the luxury of negelect heaped on them by these brutes, they therefore appeal to reason, conscience and Quran to justify their position that no punishement is required for either - by all means objection and disapproval of the loss may be registered, but I stand on my understanding of Quran and Islam.

I invite you to view such things as these absurd punishments as the embodiment of Obscuritanism. I want you you to keep this visual in your mind: Islam is precious gem but it has collected a great deal dirt and grime on it - the struggle is clean this gem of the excess of Figh and Shariah and to polish it, so that it may be that beacon of God`s mercy, as it is intended. Recall that democracy requires tolerance of obscuritanism and it`s advocates - the defeat of obscuritanism must be an ideological defeat - it`s ideas, their epistemology, their anthropological foundation, their religious legitimacy. If we are to be tolerant, we need not seek the defeat of believers whom we described as obscuritanist, RATHER, we must seek to defeat the beliefs, never the believers, for then we shall be nothing different from obscuritanist, we will be imposing - we do not seek to impose our view on any body else, and we do want to be free to persuade, to appeal to the reason and conscience of men and women.

Dissing Ideologies Narain

A coup0le of clarifications may help to consider Hurriyets role. First of all Hurriyet is a amalgm of political parties and the suggestion that it is a Pakistani creation are not only false but unhelful. In my earlier posts with several interlocutors I had requested feedback on on a couple of ideas that have a fair chance of being accepted. - The first of these was to establish a process involving Pakistan, India and Hurriyet - the feedback was why not include other stake holders - seems like a fair idea and it makes the process more representative. The establishment of this process must be predicated on Hurriyet`s call to end armed struggle and Pakistan`s commitment to ensure that inflitration will cease at the same time Indian occupation forces will be evacuated out of captive kashmir. Indian civil service and police may remain until final status agreement and implementation.

In such a melieu, the concern of religitimating the players from captive kashmir can be established by holding elections in the presence of international monitors and observers.

You have asked why must we accept that Hurriyet is the repreentative of captive kashmiri - there is a methodological problem here, in my opinion - it`s as if it is legitimate to ask whether we voted to give ourselves the right to vote - this unwillingness to accept a bargaining partner suggests, to me, that I may not be wrong in asserting that the most important ``finding`` of the MORI poll is the ``need`` for a new political party.

While it`s entirely possible to create such a ``new` political party, I submit, this not really the problem - In the absebce of Hurriyet, we will again be left with issues of legitimacy - I put it you that this is the issue that must we dealt with, IF, long term acceptance of solutions is to be arrived at.

Shammi

You don`t want me to defend my position or be critical? You will grant that my criticism is justified and that it has been rational.

Tahmed

Ahmed Sahab - you are being unreasonable, I hope you will reconsider. Your position that freedom must wait for the end of poverty and ignorance is unsupportable. How so? After all, when will we agree that poverty has been irradicated or that ignorance has ended - is there ever an end to poverty or ignorance? of course not. When we are conscious that we have a good deal of knowledge, we are also conscious that by and large we remain ignorant. You and I are fairly educated, yet seem to be coming across as ignorant to each other. The same is true with regard to poverty - one may have a six figure salary, yet that may not be enough to satisfy ones needs.

Dissing Ideologies

Several years ago Robert Kaplan, writing in the Atlantic Montly in an article ``Was Democracy just a Moment`` had suggested that the trend among intellectuals in most Muslim nations was to think along the lines of creating a Hybrid state - in the article below, Friedman, echoes Kaplan, but uses ``synthesis`` instead of ``hybrid`` - Also note two very important points - these will shape Islam of future: 1. Following Soroush`s call for minimalist Islam (Islam, washed clean of Obscuritanist ideas - AKA Historicism) Anyone recall ``Reason and Revelation``?

2. The role of Iran (read Shiah Islam) - historically Iran has had no ambition on the world stage but does within Islam (see any study of the role of Iran in relation to the Ottomans) -Will Pakistani faithful, who are also Liberals, (in it`s original sense), and critical rationalist, realize the potential for reversing obscuritanism?

``Iran and the War of Ideas

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

TEHRAN, Iran — What if a theocracy and a democracy had a baby? What would it look like? It would look like Iran.

What makes Iran so interesting is that it`s not a real democracy, but it`s not a real Islamic theocracy either. It is, though, just enough of a democracy for many Iranians to know that they want more of it, and just enough of an Islamic theocracy for many Iranians to know they want less of it.

And if you listen to what`s going on behind all the noise here, what you find are a lot of thinkers, both democrats and religious conservatives, looking for a way to synthesize these two aspirations.

You find democratic reformers who have learned from the shah`s failed attempt at imposed secularism, and from the past 23 years of Islamic rule, that no democracy will take root in Iran that doesn`t find a respected place for Islam.

And you find religious thinkers who have also learned from the last 23 years that Iranians have lived through enough incompetent clerics trying to run a government — and trying to tell people what they should wear, think and speak — to know that Islam can`t regulate every aspect of a nation`s life in the modern age without producing a backlash. Many young Iranians are now running away from the mosques and dislike clerics so much that some mullahs take off their turbans and robes when they walk around certain neighborhoods, to avoid being insulted or harassed.

But precisely because Iran is this crazy semi-democracy (unlike Iraq or Saudi Arabia) — precisely because people here get arrested every day for speaking out, then go to prison and write books, then get released, then run for Parliament, speak out, start a reformist newspaper and get arrested again — there is a lively debate about how to find a better balance between state and religion.

One day I went to see Amir Mohebian, the political editor of Ressalat, a religious conservative newspaper, who told me: ``At the time of the revolution we offered certain [religious] values to the society in a maximalist way. . . . Now we are witnessing a backlash. So I am proposing a new definition for an Islamic society. In this definition we won`t try converting people into religious people. We just don`t want to have a deviant society. If we go on pressing for maximalist religious values we will increase the gap between the generations. If we articulate a minimalist definition, we can have a lot in common with the new generation.``

The same day I visited Mohsen Sazgara, a former aide to Ayatollah Khomeini, now a reformer, who is opening a paper staffed by and directed at Iranian students. He said: ``We believed that we would overthrow the shah and establish a new government, an Islamic government, that would show the world a new way. But what we did after the victory of the revolution was not a new way. We did not succeed in marrying democracy and Islam. That led to the reform movement. . . . But it has failed, because it had no constitutional power. In the Constitution there was a religious authority above everything that could always block changes. So now we have to push for real constitutional democracy — not religious democracy but real democracy, with a respected place for religion under it.``

Such a synthesis will take a long time to play out here. For now, the Islamic regime is still deeply entrenched, thanks to oil money that can buy friends, and an iron fist that can crush all domestic foes. The hard-line clerics will not give way easily, and they are not afraid to make enemies abroad, because tensions help them militarize Iranian society and shut down criticism. Yet even the hard-line clerics seem to realize that they cannot survive indefinitely on coercion alone, which is why they let the debate go on.

It`s ironic that the war of ideas that the West hoped would be fought in the Arab Muslim world after Sept. 11 — a war against the Islamic fascism of Osama bin Laden that would be waged by Arabs offering a democratic, Islamic, progressive alternative — has not happened, because there is not enough democracy in most places there for that war to even begin. But it is being fought in Iran — not in response to Sept. 11 but in response to Iran`s own bad experiences with secular despotism and religious despotism.

Wish them well. If Iranian thinkers and politicians were ever to blend constitutional democracy with a redefined Islam that limits itself to inspiring social norms, not running a state, it could have a positive impact on the whole Muslim world, from Morocco to Indonesia, that Iran`s Islamic revolution never had.``

Dissing Ideologies Tahmed

``But I am a fair man`` - how fair is to assert that those who disagree with you exhibit ``mendacity``?

Dost Mittar

The reason I have not made any explicit statement to you about my position on punishment for Blasphemy or Apostasy is to create an awareness in you that it is not acceptable to me to have interlocutors make accusations that they themselves cannot support - and expect me to confirm or deny. You have not had the integrity to prove your assertions nor have you retracted your accusations - disagreeing with persons, has never meant that one forget their integrity and civility.

Shammi

Who is this Lord Avery and why would he commssion MORI to do such a poll? Is there a statement by this lord avery? (I think I got his name wrong)

Narain

``I think the methodology sounds reasonable. If it does not correspond to what you think is right, it at least has the advantage of being in the open.``

Open? Open to what? interpretation? Narain as you know, with all such studies, one must be conscious of the language used to describe methodology, sample and conclusions. Notice MORI itself says that confidence intervals take no account of design effects - that is, they do not deal with the issue of design effects - thereby allowing for the the conclusion that their data are sound - indeed, even if we had more data on the design of the study and the questions and even if we were to correct for design effects - we still may not be able to conclude that the data are unreliable.

``(I am not sure how you got information on the age spread though?)``

I believe, that age spread is part of the data available.

``Fieldwork was carried out by FACTS Worldwide, MORI`s affiliate company in India, between 20 - 28 April 2002.

In total, 850 interviews were completed, face-to-face, with adults aged 16+ across 55 localities within Jammu and Kashmir. This comprised 22 localities in Jammu City, 20 in Srinagar City and 6 in Leh (urban areas), as well as in 3 villages around Jammu and 4 villages around Srinagar (rural areas).

Quotas were set by gender, religion (assessed by observation) and locality, according to the known population profile of the region.`` - From MORI website

``In any case, MORI being a recognized market research company, I would place my credence in its professionalism in certifying the survey results, irrespective of who commissioned the study and who MORI chose to carry it out.``

Please, your credibility is not at stake nor is it being questioned in any way. Again, please be conscious that who commissions the study, With what objectives in mind the study is designed, who and how it is carried out and in particular how the data are interpreted are always important considerations. You would be mistaken to conclude that I am taking an emphatic position- that the study is wrong, a propaganda exercise in verty dimension - I suggest we take a more cautious approach, a critical approach does not have to mean a challenge to any interlocutors integrity that`s all. While the poll conclusions are significant, rational, critical readers are conscious that there is much it omits, in the consensus of conclusions it reaches. It is particularly interesting, that Hurriyet seems to not be valid and that a ``new`` political party is required - interesting is it not, what does it say about the party that leads in captive Kashmir today? If we are take this as valid, are we wrong in asserting ``Captive Kashmir``? Are we wrong in asserting ``occupation forces``? To be fair, I think , a response to this question is that it is not ``entirely`` unfair.

``It is true that there is a significant difference of opinion among the valley and Jammu, but there is also considerable opposition, it seems, to partitioning the state. I am not sure, therefore, on what basis you conclude that a religion-based division would be acceptable to the populace?``

I have not suggested that there is support for a religious or ethnic divsion, what I have said, what I have invited readers to be conscious of, is that the conclusion of the poll is an interpretation - it is clear that that Muslims and Hindu poulation are strongly divided on the role of ``security forces`` and their need, and that the conclusion that such divsion on religious and ethnic grounds is opposed is an oxymoron. Of course no one kashmiri would want such a division in an ideal situation - in an ideal situation there would not have been any reason for Muslims to seek the creation of Pakistan - Ideally, Pakistanis want citizenship for all, similarly in India - but the case of the Qaidiani and events of Gujrat suggest that we need to temper our idealism with realism. What the poll does not offer us, is whether it would be acceptable as a possible political solution - in other words it does not tell us what would be acceptable in the real world of give and take.

Note that we do not have the questions posed to respondents themselves - not do we have access to the rationale behind structuring the questions.

Notice the strong divergence of views between Muslims and Hindus of captive Kashmir (Srinagar and Jammu) when it comes to the question of increased contact and trade with Azad Kashmir and the role of the security forces - Notice that the poll, while entirely conscious of religion of the respondents (Quotas were set by gender, religion (assessed by observation) and locality, according to the known population profile of the region.) yet, no where does the poll use this language in it`s conclusions.

``As far as democratic elections are concerned, it is true that the support for them is not as strong in the valley as it is Jammu and Leh. But still a simple majority (52%) does support them. That is a very good base to work upon.``

Narain Sahab, What did the pollesters say were ``democratic elections``? Was there divergence in views based on religion and region, on what ``Democratic elections`` may mean? You know that it is not unfair to conclude that to respondents in Jummu, democractic may mean under the rubric or context of Indian constitution - and may not mean the exact same thing in Srinagar - will you not grant? ``Democratic``? while Hurriyet leaders are in jail?

``You put ``democratic elections`` in quotation marks from which I infer that you find it doubtful that India would allow genuinely free and fair elections in the state. However the past is an inadequate indicator of future behavior, especially when one`s fingers were burnt before.``

I agree that the past is an inadequate indicator, are objectives different, is the motivation different? Yes, it`s inadequate, but thats what we got and I call for realism. If the objectives and motivation remain, the problem remains. I had pointed out that this is a problem of ``moral legitimacy`` - both Pakisstan and India reject each others moral legitimacy. To Pakistan, it is takmeel e Pakistan - to India, it is anegation of what it considers itself (secular) and on top of that the fear that all Indian provinces may want to go their own way and India unravel as a nation state. (perhaps in the post modern India, there may be a debate about the nation state- what constitutes it? what is the role of culture?)

``In any case it would be wrong to condemn India as guilty before India

has even had a chance to act. Also this time round, the eyes of the whole world are on the elections in Kashmir: figuratively and literally. The Indian govt. has decided to give free access to foreign observers and the foreign media to view the election process (without conceding them any official status) (more at: http://www.indian-express.com/full_story.php?content_id=4556)

If it it would be wrong to condemn India as guilty before India has even a chance to act - would it be right to ask, what has prevented it from acting in the last 54 years? The single most important ``finding`` of the poll, to me, is the ``need for a new political party..`` The upcoming election will secure exactly this, even as the leaders of Hurriyet are in jail. No Amnesty International, nor international media all these years.

As for the Indian army being an occupation force, this is a strange occupation indeed where the ``occupied`` have the same rights and even more priveleges than their captors, and where the captors are pushing for the Kashmiris to use these rights! At the same time the fact that the Kashmiris were able to obtain a very favorable dispensation for themselves from the Indian state at the time of accession, seems to point to a process of political give-and-take. This may indicate that the accession was not wholly involuntary. The help given to the Indian army by the local populace in the failed Pakistani aggression of `65 would also indicate a population not wholly alienated from India. The term ``occupation`` therefore seems a little far-fetched.``

The reason it is correct to identify Indian forces as occupation forces is is the attitude of these forces. You will note no Hindu dies in custody or ``encounter`` - indeed, it is clear that some Kashmir do not have rights others do - to life, to liberty - To be sure we have different take on history, you suggest that the Kashmiri obtained a very favorable dispensation from the Indian state at the time of accession - I would say to you that even from a very Indian point of view, accesion was hardly a process of negotiations that by any stretch included Muslims at large ar even representatives.

Polemics aside - it seems the time is at hand when the world is prepared to deal with the question of Kashmir - this is both fortunate and also unfortunate for both Pakistan and India - what the world wants may be a bitter pill to swallow and in my opinion, they will for their on reasons, regret having missed opportunities to set up a process of dialogue which includes the captive Kashmiri.

In Defense of The Left Left and Awam this:

``First woman Brigadier elevates as Major General



RAWALPINDI June 18 (NNI): Brigadier Shahida Malik has been promoted to the rank of Major General on Monday to become the first ever lady general officer of the Pakistan Armed Forces.

Lieutenant General Karamat Ahmed Karamat, Surgeon General of Pakistan Army, pinned the badges of ranks onto her shoulders at a simple but graceful ceremony held at General Headquarters here this morning.

She has been appointedInspector General Armed Forces Hospitals. Major General Shahida Malik graduated from Fatima Jinnah Medical College in 1969 with distinction in surgery and was awarded Gold Medal.

She joined Army Medical Corps in 1970 and worked in different Armed Forces Hospitals as General Duty Medical Officer till 1995 when she was selected for MSc (Advanced Medical Administration) and completed her advanced study from Armed Forces Post Graduate Medical Institute Rawalpindi, with distinction.

She secured first position in the course and was awarded the prestigious ``Burki Gold Medal`` in recognition for her outstanding performance.

Trusting her capabilities she was assigned the challenging job of Deputy Commandant (Administrative & Support Services) in Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology and National Institute of Heart Diseases Rawalpindi.

In February 2002, she made history when she was approved for the rank of Major General by the Selection Board held at General Headquarters.

As Deputy CommandantArmed Forces Institute ofardiology/National Institute Heart Diseases, Rawalpindi, she remarkably shared the responsibility of looking after thousands of patient.

The rank wearing ceremony was attended by senior serving and retired officers of the Army Medical Corps, including her husband Major General Asad Malik Principal Army Medical College, Rawalpindi.``

Dissing Ideologies Chowkies

WE have hearing about the poll done by the ``British`` company MORI in Captive Kashmir - What you have not been told is that the poll was done by the Indian representative of MORI - But there is a wealth of Data here and I invite your comments, in particular with regard to conclusions and method, I for one, see in this poll, several omissions and the portends of what the upcoming Indian occupation forces`s ``elections`` will throw up: the creation of a new party to replace Hurriyet. The differences among the opinions of the valley folk and Jammu are significant and suggestive of a deep divide that does not support the conclusion that a division based on religion is as alien as the official conclusions suggest. The age group in the sample is rather wide and I wonder if it would not have been a more objective sample and the respondents been grouped by age as well. I have put certain words in quotation marks, as empahsis and to invite your comments on what they may mean:

``Kashmiris Reject War In Favour Of Democratic Means

MORI publishes results of major new survey

31 May 2002

The vast majority of Kashmiris oppose India and Pakistan going to war to find a permanent solution to the situation in Kashmir and believe the correct way to bring peace to the region is through ``democratic elections``, ending violence, and economic development.

They also believe the unique ``cultural identity`` of the region should be preserved in any long-term solution, and there is virtually no support for the state of Jammu and Kashmir being divided on the basis of religion or ethnic group.

These are the main findings to emerge from a poll conducted by the independent market research company, MORI International, at the end of April (20-28 April 2002), just before the start of the recent escalation of conflict in the region.

Interviews were conducted in the Jammu and the surrounding rural areas, Srinagar and its surrounding rural areas and in Leh. Interviewers were set quotas for ``sex`` and religion (assessed by the interviewer)`` to match the population of each region.

Although the vast majority in Jammu and Leh believe the correct way to bring about peace is though ``democratic elections``, opinions are more evenly divided in and around Srinagar, with a bare majority (52%) agreeing with this view.

Nevertheless, the vast majority - 76% - of those in the Srinagar region believe India and Pakistan should not go to war to bring about a permanent solution.

There is a general consensus across the regions that it is not possible to hold democratic elections while violence continues – 65% agree while 34% disagree.

A very clear majority of the population – 65% - believes the presence of foreign militants in Jammu and Kashmir is damaging to the Kashmir cause, and most of the rest take the view that it is neither damaging nor helpful.

Overall, two thirds of people in Jammu and Kashmir take the view that Pakistan’s involvement in the region for the last ten years has been bad. Only 15% believe it has been good for the region, while 18% say it has made no real difference.

On the issue of citizenship, overall, 61% said they felt they would be better off politically and economically as an Indian citizen and only 6% as a Pakistani citizen, but 33% said they did not know.

A suggestion that most people do not feel that the current political parties have the solution to the problems in Kashmir is reflected in the fact that around half, or more, of the population in each region agree with the view that ‘a new political party is needed to bring about a permanent solution in Kashmir’.

People in all regions are in general agreement that ‘the unique cultural identity of Jammu and Kashmir – Kashmiryat – should be preserved in any long-term solution’. Overall, 81% agree, including 76% in Srinagar and 81% in Jammu.

There is also widespread consensus on the types of proposals which will help to bring about peace in Jammu and Kashmir. More than 85% of the population, including at least 70% in each region, think the following will help to bring about peace:

Economic development of the region to provide more job opportunities and reduction of poverty – 93%

The holding of free and fair elections to elect the people’s representatives – 86%

Direct consultation between the Indian government and the people of Kashmir – 87%

An end to militant violence in the region – 86%

Stopping the infiltration of militants across the Line of Control – 88%

The critical role people see for economic development in helping to solve the problems is further underlined by the 74% who think that ‘people from outside of Kashmir being encourage to invest in the area to help rebuild Kashmir’s economy and tourist industry’ will help to bring peace to the state.

There is also a widespread view, held by 80%, that allowing displaced Kashmiri Pandits to return to their homes in safety will help to bring about peace.

Views are mixed on the likely impact of ‘People in Jammu and Kashmir having the freedom to travel in both directions across the Line of Control’. Those in and around Srinagar and Leh generally feel this would help to bring peace while those in Jammu take the opposite view.

An overwhelming 92% oppose the state of Kashmir being divided on the basis of religion or ethnicity. There is also overwhelming support – 91% – for a forum in which Kashmiris from both sides of the Line of Control can discuss common interests.

A clear majority - 70% - also support the borders between Pakistani-controlled Kashmir and Indian Kashmir being opened for much more trade and cultural exchange. However, while the views in Srinagar and Leh were very decisive – over 90% support – those in Jammu were much more balanced – 47% support, 53% oppose.

Views are also split on the issue of granting more autonomy to Kashmir. Overall 55% support ‘India and Pakistan granting as much autonomy as they can to both sides of Kashmir to govern their own affairs. However, while the majority in Srinagar and Leh support this, the majority in Jammu oppose this policy.

There are also mixed views about the role and impact of the Indian security forces. In Srinagar and Leh, at least nine out of ten believe that security forces scaling down their operations in Jammu and Kashmir would help to bring peace, whereas in Jammu opinions are reversed.

There are clearly different perceptions of the behaviour of the Indian security forces. Nobody interviewed in Leh or Jammu believes that human rights violations by Indian security forces in Jammu and Kashmir are widespread, whereas in Srinagar 64% of the population think they are widespread.

Perceptions are different with respect to human rights violations by militant groups in Jammu and Kashmir. 96% of those in Jammu believe such violations are widespread whereas only 2% of those in Srinagar believe they are widespread (although 33% believe they are ‘occasional’).

Technical note

Methodology

Fieldwork was carried out by FACTS Worldwide, MORI`s affiliate company in India, between 20 - 28 April 2002.

In total, 850 interviews were completed, face-to-face, with adults aged 16+ across 55 localities within Jammu and Kashmir. This comprised 22 localities in Jammu City, 20 in Srinagar City and 6 in Leh (urban areas), as well as in 3 villages around Jammu and 4 villages around Srinagar (rural areas).

Quotas were set by gender, religion (assessed by observation) and locality, according to the known population profile of the region.

A random selection procedure was used to select individual respondents.

Sample Profile

The following table details the profile of respondents by locality and religion:

Locality Total i`views Breakdown by religion (observed)

Muslim Hindu Sikh Buddhist Christian

Srinagar 300 292 8 - - -

97% 3% - - -



Villages nr Srinagar 60 58 2 - - -

97% 3% - - -



Jammu 344 103 229 7 1 4

30% 67% 2% *% 1%



Villages nr Jammu 71 21 50 - - -

30% 70% - - -



Leh 75 35 4 - 36 -

47% 5% - 48% -





Total 850 509 293 7 37 4

60% 34% 1% 4% *%

Quotas were based on 1981 Census data (population in 1,000s):

Total pop. Muslim Hindu Sikh Buddhist Christian

Kashmir Valley

(Srinigar & surrounding areas) 3,102 2,977 125 - 0.2 -

96% 4% - *% -



Jammu region 2,717 805 1,803 100 1 8

30% 66% 4% *% *%



Ladakh

(incl. Leh) 134 62 4 - 68 -

46% 3% - 51% -





Total 65% 32% 2% 1% *%

Statistical Reliability

The sampling tolerances that apply to the percentage results in this report are given below. This table shows the possible variation that might be anticipated because a sample, rather than the entire population, was interviewed. As indicated, sampling tolerances vary with the size of the sample and the size of percentage results. The confidence intervals take no account of design effects and, of course, there were certain areas in each region we did not conduct interviews.

Approximate sampling tolerances applicable to percentages at or near these levels (at the 95% confidence level)

Base: 10% or 90% 30% or 70% 50%

850 (total) 2 3 3

415 (Jammu region) 3 4 5

360 (Srinagar region) 3 5 5

75 (Leh) 7 10 11

Source: MORI

For example, for a question where 50% of the people in a sample of 850 respond with a particular answer, the chances are 95 in 100 that this result would not vary more than 3 percentage points, plus or minus, from the result that would have been obtained from a census of the entire population using the same procedures. Tolerances are also involved in the comparison of results between different elements of the sample. A difference, in other words, must be of at least a certain size to be statistically significant. The following table is a guide to the sampling tolerances applicable to comparisons.

Differences required for significance at the 95% confidence level at or near these percentages

Base: 10% or 90% 30% or 70% 50%

432 (Men) and 418 (Women) 4 6 7

415 (Jammu region) and 360 (Srinagar region) 4 7 7

415 (Jammu region) and 75 (Leh) 7 11 12

360 (Srinagar region) and 75 (Leh) 8 12 13

Source: MORI

Dissing Ideologies Shammi

Thks for the site info - who paid for this sample - do you know?

Dost Mittar

You heap accusation on me and then do not have the gumption to back it, instead you want me to respond to a charge you cannot be bothered to substantiate? If the content is ``dumbed down``, it is because you refuse to take responsibility for your understanding (foggy land - I don`t understand) you do not even realize the importance I give you, to that searching heart, to explain this - You do not even realize that you are not owed an explanation - Please be conscious! Listen, I will once again to explain (in an attempt to be more lucid) what this debate about ``method`` is all about. With Islam, the controversies that you witness, and misidentify, are debates about ``method`` (training/point of view - which is more valid?)

Obscuritanists as you have corrected observed seek to infuse in present life, a meaning derived very many centuries ago - They do this in order to maintain control - after all, if the ideal society is being realized why change? What need new knowledge, for what purpose????? In this way they are exactly like the utopians of the left - both are totalitarians, reactionary, romantic and VIOLENT. Both fear change; the Obscuritanists in his misadventure to create the perfect society, sees things going from bad to worse, the utopian left by preserving the so-called perfect society of the future.

The argument against the Obscuritanists is that their credibility is zero, with obvious implications for the ideology they espouse because their ``method`` is faulty - How so?

1. Humans are not God. The relationship between the word of God to human understand, is like that of a thought and the language used to express it. We as humans cannot hope to comprehend the word of God as God does - if we did it would mean we are Gods - Blasphemy! We can only understand (comprehend) the word of God, as humans, we can only use human knowledge and reason to approach the Scriptures/Text.

2. We ``comprehend`` (interpret) text based on the knowledge (sciences - note the plural)

that we have today and the knowledge of the past (point of view/training).

3. The nature of of human knowledge is that it evolves. This means our comprehension of the scriptures/text is dynamic.

4. With the 3 points above, we can assert that it is that any claim to know the word of God is ``PROVISIONAL`` - and that to assert one point of view or another, as the only comprehension of the word of God, is error manifest.

5. Because our knowledge of today (sciences) enable a variety of comprehension of the Scriptures/Text, based on our training, that is the point of view, which we bring to the subject -we are conscious that a pluralty of understanding exist, each valid within the general framework - This allows us to assert that if this plurality exists and is valid, might we not be open to examining the validity of other ``understandings/comprehension`` within their own framework, to be valid to an adherent of that framework (that is valid for him or her OR valid

in a particular timeframe).

6. Because of the plurality of religius comprehension, because of the validity, to the adherent, of his or her religious framework, we assert that tolerance of others comprehension is central to civil and religious life.

Sattar2 usually monitors posts about blasphemy - perhaps he may give you reasons to justify your charge of me wanting death for Blasphemy - and if he should give you reasons to ``confirm`` your ``thinking`` - I make a pledge to you before Chowk, that I will be open to your charges.

You believe in one commandment - but not in one religion? Why must you make these kinds of absurd statements. Commandment as in legal or religious? Temporal or Eternal? Whacha talkin abut, eh?

Muslims got Blasphemy, you don`t - so why aren`t they more like me? Why don`t they believe as I do? What about obscuritanists and method did you not get?

Now, This business about ``war on terrorism`` and ``Islam=Terrorism`` - talk about blasphemy - anyway, some people hold that it is so - so what? some people hold the earth is flat or that you are unworthy - so what? Well, is it the ``truth``? How can we tell? Is ``Islam=terrorism`` a scientific proposition? Do you agree that it is an absurdity to posit that is? If so, how can we know? Can we get any help from ``method``? You will agree, won`t you that ``scientific method`` used to be observe, note results of observation, test observations, develop theory and test? But of course, we do not just observe, do we? We first choose, select, the object of our observation - don`t we? What is it that we reveal in our selection? is it not a ``point of view`` that we reveal in our selection of what to observe? That gravity was `invented` when an apple fell on Newton`s head? The object of our observation is never neutral to our ideology, our point of view -there is as much ``truth`` to Islam=Terrorism as one is willing to invest results of observation of that theory - Are the majority of Muslims enaged in terrorist activity? If your results suggests the answer is, yes - then one would have conclude that the proposition that islam=Terrorism is ``truth`` - But if sense should intervene and the necessity of all this theory and testing is not required - what must we make of the proposition that the West thinks Islam is terrorism - we may conclude that such statements are ignorant hyperbole. They appeal to persons not comfortable with thinking things through for themselves.

Clarifications: Kardh or Karz (the Z is the influence of Persian, whereas the J sound in words in that do not have a subcontinental origin is other influence) - no need to get hung up over it.

Interest Vs Usury. Perhaps you can help me understand is Usury the same as interest? Catholic doctrine preaches against Usury, yet I am not aware that it is understood as interest -Jesus rid the temple of money changers - but again if I understand it correctly, his stance was against Usury - Do you seek how Obscuritanism functions - The religious imagery is pure ``historicism`` - to imagine that one can creat the exact past in the present or the future. Do you see how Obscuritanism is rejection of this life? Do you see how it is utopian in nature and must be antithetical to change? What is there to change in a perfect society? All both the Obscuritanists and leftist utopians can do, is to arrest the development of change.

Dissing Ideologies Tahmed

A straw man argument. So many Assumptions you feel comfortable with - good - who am I to stand in your way.

Search for ``truth``? without a knowing subject?

Do be reasonable and not personal - If the paradigm I support presently will become untenable, my position will reflect that.

Of Errant Politicians And The Kashmir Cause

The real purpose of sending emmisaries rto the four points was not to explain Pakistani policy or high light the ``Kashmir cause`` - The purpose was to elict feedback, to gauge rewards/punishment, of elements of a restructuring, reorientation, of both Pakistan policy towards Kashmir and India and to gauge the level of support Pakistan can expect for initiating a process of dialogue wih India.

Two penny politicians? They did not steal as much as BB and NS? they did not make of Pakistan their property, their booty, which they disburse to their supporters? They all did, they all would - that`s what works in Pakistan - that`s what works in all places where exists neither Iman nor omeed. May Allah keep Mr. Musharraf safe, may He deliver him from the enemies of Pakistan, May He allow Mr. Musharraf to complete the restructuring of the Pakistani State and Economy.

Dissing Ideologies Narain

Dear Narain:

How nice to hear from you - I hope you will interact more frequently. Of course the question you pose, much like Tahmed`s, is not one whose answer will be persuasive to those who have already taken a position.

The MORI poll has been mentioned before, I cannot speak to the method or validity of this poll. Of course I have been on record as suggesting that if we shall find that our theory is not supported by results/testing, then it is incumbent upon us to change our theory and not the results; However; we must remain conscious that MORI sample supports a particular opinion/point of view and that Hurriyet and the various armed factions, represent evidence in support of point of view that MORI sample may not support; at this stage I balance this method with fact that there is a great deal of fatigue among the captive Kashmiri - yet I am not convinced that this means that they willingly surrender their desire to be free or that they have freely chosen to put their lot in with India. In fact, were such a fact, with genuine public support - a giant sigh of relief would be heard in most of Pakistan - not because they do not support the captive Kashmiris desire to be free, but because they too are conscious of the price of this effort, but such is the stuff dreams are made of. The fact is that no such freely arrived at consensus will exist in captive Kashmir, as long as it is, captive kashmir.

If the ``gaurantees`` provided by Pakistan to India will stand for the next year, then I am sure the notion that the struggle of the Captive Kashmir to be free of Indian rule, will not be sustained and may have to wait for another day.

On another level, if we grant that the MORI sample is legitimate in every sense - we may conclude that a shift in the value system has taken place in captive Kashmir - a shift that will be reflected elsewhere as well.

Dissing Ideologies tahmed

You and I simply disgree on what the value of freedom is or ought to be. To you freedom is a value can may hold after one has eliminated poverty and ignorance - To me freedom is the first step towards the elimination of poverty and ignorance. Let us see which paradigm will find greater acceptance.

Refugees of A Refugee Camp

Bong Dong, Romair

I read recently that Super7 will be rolled out at Kamra in middle of 2003 - what does this mean? Is kamra doing a assembly or does it actually manufacture components?

Refugees of A Refugee Camp Alpha null

Don`t have a cow Alpha! - A token is a token is a token - a rose by any other name.

A self made man? are there really such things? - anyway - if his candidacy pleases you - great!

Learn to deal with criticism effectively - that means avoid the knee jerk call of ``racism`` and ``discrimination`` - BJP had a bad image in India due to it`s ineffectiveness in Gujjrat, ti had a bad image in the West for the same reason - and it needed a ``Muslim`` - ``at home with Indic traditions`` - whatever those may be. - So sure, dress him up as a ``symbol`` - just another word for token.

Dissing Ideologies Dost Mittar

Hobbyty#282

“Thanks for your reference to Rafiq Zakaria`s article. If your own post had been as lucid, it would be easier to have a dialogue. Otherwise, one feels like one is playing a game of smoke and mirrors. And to be honest, I am terrible at this game (of smoke and mirrors!). So, I`ll try to respond to what I think I understand.”

I accept this criticism of my writing style and appreciate your attitude.

“First the last point. The comparative worth of one muslim man equals two women, etc. was derived from the Islamic jurisprudence as practised in Saudi Arabia when assessing compensation for the loss of a human victim.”

Excellent. Islamic Jurisprudence? Not Quran? Derived from? Context? As practiced in Saudi? Again not Quran. If you wish to be critical, you must approach this subject from the inside but barring that at least with a knowledge base that is or attempts at honesty – what you don’t realize is that the criticism within Islamia of what has become Islam is far deeper than you imagine. Scholars that I mentioned to you are taken by most Ulema, to be “unIslamic” – yet it is they who are, in my opinion, gaining more receptive audiences. In this struggle, Obscuritanists get more publicity, they take more space in our minds, after all look at their tactics.

“If kufr, blasphemy, dar-ul-harb, jihad etc. are legitimate concepts, then I am afraid the Islamic world is set on a collusion course with the rest of the world.”

I for one do not accept that you speak for the world – so this will have to suffice as your opinion. Nothing can be further from the truth; Islam and the rest of the world interact, Islam is not a ship that seeks to collide into the world. Islam is of this world and a very important part of this world and the notion that Islam must be what non-Muslims think it ought to be, is entirely objectionable, It’s plain silly.

“The shorthand expression for these beliefs is an Islamist.”

Obviously the long stuff is not lucid and causes the comprehension skills to break down. That is one opinion and I remain open to discussing with you whatever issue you may have with the term, Islamist. I remind you that are a number of ideas and groups competing for this term and to infuse the value judgement that you have in this term, is, entirely premature.

“Fortunately, in my opinion, most Muslims are not Islamists and do not believe in these concepts in a literal sense.”

What a relief! I’m sure Muslims are grateful for your generosity – what you lack in comprehension skills you make up for in the comic relief you provide. The key words “in a literal sense” is intriguing. Of course I am not a lucid writer, but I do recall pointing out repeatedly that while Muslims may “delegate” legislation to God, they do not abdicate to Obscuritanists or non-Muslims, Muslims’ right to “comprehend” such. What does this mean? Recall our conversation about method and the fact that different people bring different training (point of view) to comprehending the texts. Think of the problem you are having with comprehending this writing – (I write one thing and you continuously keep getting out of it what I did not put in it – as a matter of fact it seems you get out my writing, the point of view you bring to it – lets see if I can “confirm” more for you ) – amazing how that works?

``Kufr`` is a term of hatred.”

Certainly you and some others perceive it as “hatred” – but that is not what it is. Nevertheless, it is important that you perceive it as such and to the degree that you may desire to ascertain its proper meaning, it is in my opinion, incumbent on all who can assure you that it is not hatred, to do so. Kafir is a non-believer or un-believer. What specifically is the problem in identifying one with whom you do not share a religious faith? Don’t give me the hate stuff – I agree that hate is objectionable. – I want to understand why, I as a Muslim may not identify another as one who does not share a religious faith? Indians are not Pakistanis! Is it objectionable to assert this? Allow me to elaborate: Kafir also holds within it ideas about the righteous, the “Saved” of heaven and hell – in a way some the basics of Islam as a religious faith. Today we want to be egalitarian, so that everyone’s rights are protected – yet a non-Muslim does not a “right” to be a non-Muslim and object that he or she does not fit into the “saved” category within a Islamic framework. A non-Muslim does not have any right to approve of or object to any construct within Islam – expect those that may abridge his or her, temporal, legal “rights” – a non-Muslim may not claim “hatred” because a Muslim may hold that a non-Muslim will or will not be saved in Eternity – here the group Islam asserts within it’s own framework, acceptable to it’s adherents, those precepts that effect the eternal – and no non-Muslim has any basis to object – after all the non-Muslim is not part of the group of adherents – however; if the term kafir will include temporal, legal restriction upon the “rights” of non-Muslims, such a comprehension of the term, will be objectionable to a majority of Muslims, in my opinion.

“How can there be a permanent peaceful coexistence with people one hates?”

Indeed! Can there be one hand clapping? Or are you asserting that there is one group that hates and all others love? In which case how can hate survive? Your premise that there is one group that hates, is a false premise, it has no basis in reality. Serbs killed Bosnian Muslims, because they were Muslims – Hindus in Gujrat burnt Muslims alive because they were Muslims. Both these statements have some truth to it, but omit serious facts that allow for a deeper more balanced understanding, yet it does not change the fact that Muslims were targeted because they were Muslims and that some ideas were projected upon them. Those who think there is a mad ship Islam looking to collide into the sane ships of the world, delude themselves and do not realize that their prejudices are revealing themselves for what they are. Which is why I welcome all takers.

“The concept of `blasphemy` is group specific.”

Blasphemers are a group? OK, sure – in principle, like criminals and police are groups.

“To you and other muslims, any deemed insult to the prophet or the holy quran is blasphemy and deserving of death.”

Insult, yes, I find it objectionable. Deserving of death? – that’s rather a hysterical departure. You have spoken, yet again for me and other Muslims – please resist the urge to project on me and other Muslims, attitudes you may hold. Do you recall if I called for or advocated death for cases of blasphemy – You assert that I have, perhaps you will have the integrity to show not just me but all of Chowk, where and when I have called for death for blasphemers – and if you can’t or don’t, I hope you will have the decency to retract and desist from making incendiary and false charges. Too much smoke and mirrors, gentle Dost?

“But to someone else, questioning the validity of their prophet being the son of God or even the divinity of their idols could be blasphemy. Why should the questioning of their beliefs also not be punishable in a similar way? This is the nature of the religious beast: one man`s faith could be another man`s blasphemy. “

Indeed, eye for an eye, making the world blind? Yes, do recall, contrary to the stance of Obscuritanists, all “comprehension” evolves – as will yours, if you are open to it. Do try to be rational. This is only the nature of a religious “beast” – yet religion does not endeavor to create beasts, but human beings – it seeks to create a consciousness of their humanity and their relationship with one another and their creator. So are you arguing that all religions should have the same internal structure, have the same cosmology? Or should there be one religion that should be acceptable to all? Why should blasphemy exist, for instance, in Hinduism?

For instance, Hindus want Muslims to “redeem the past” – Ought Muslims to hold Hindus responsible for what they perceive as short comings of the past of Hindus? Seems to me, there is another traditional Hindutva argument masquerading here – which is to say Muslims have special privilege laws – perhaps they do seem special to ignorant persons or persons who want a single world religion, a single ethic, a single culture, a single history – that’s just so much rubbish.

“That`s why the concept is unworkable, except in a system where a religious majority uses brute force to impose its concept of blasphemy on others. The same with apostacy: If a Muslim who renounces Islam is to be punished with death, why wouldn`t other believers mete a similar punishment to anyone who wants to leave their fold for Islam?”

Yes, indeed, too many blind persons.”… where a religious majority uses brute force to impose its concept of blasphemy on others” or where a religious majority demolishes a Masjid and demands to build temples on thousands of other Masjids? Or where a religious majority demands that a religious minority accept that the incarnation of the religious majority’s God was born? Indeed, isn’t that the same as forcing a religious minority to accept as God that which they do not? Or where a religious majority demands that a religious minority be conscious that it needs to earn the “good will” of the majority to survive? It is unfortunate that you are not a deeper student-religions have been around ever since someone first appreciated a sense of their self – it will be around for quite a while longer. The manner in which adherents and learned scholars have “comprehended” concepts such as Blasphemy, Apostasy and such, operate within a meleiu of other ideas and have evolved and will continue to. If you are interested, Robert Bellah’s “Religious Evolution” is an excellent work. When we differentiated between Obscuritanists and ordinary Faithful, we highlighted the debate between “Certitude and Faith” and how each relates to a particular “comprehension” of religiosity – please feel free to refer to passage.

“One could raise similar arguments against the concept of dar-ul-harb and violent jihad. You would recall that perhaps our earliest disagreement on Chowk was on the notion of making a distinction between a terrorist and a jihadi with a gun. You took offense at my saying that the world is unwilling to make a distinction between the two. If this was not clear to you before, I hope it is so now in the post 9/11 world.”

One could say that ones uncle was ones auntie – what does it have to do with the price of tea in China? Let me to deal with the last part first – I agree with you that America post 9/11 is unwilling to make such a distinction and as America is a world leader, such an attitude has found acceptance worldwide. However; Dar UL Harb and Jihad are not necessarily part of the distinction. I think the confusion for you is that support for Jihad means, TO YOU – offensive war – whereas to me, it is defense that makes it valid, not offensive, war. I think I can say with a high measure of confidence that Muslim conscience does not support offensive war. In cases such as Bosnia or Chechnya or Kashmir – there have been blatant abuse of Muslims alone and this fact has not and it is my hope, will not escape the attention of Muslims worldwide. When the outrages against the Bosnians were beginning, I said to friend of mine that these outrages will not go unpunished and am gratified that satellite TV, global communications are making not just all people more aware of terrible injustices but that in particular, it’s creating an awakening among Muslims long overdue.

“There have been, are, and will always be injustices in the world and we need to strengthen international institutions that fight against injustice, but there can be no room in today`s world for any non-state actors to take the gun in their hands, especially in support of their religious brethren elsewhere.”

I assure you that I understand this sentiment, I do not reject this sentiment. Do you similarly feel that international institutions should be appealed to for the resolution of the Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India? Yet I am realistic. It is clear that international institutions have been ineffective, sometimes by design, other times by neglect –I am conscious that I are not talking about people as if they were abstract. I like to think that they are as real as you or I – and indeed, but for the grace of God… Also your statement about religious brethren has me unclear – Are you a Hindu and do you “feel” kinship with the group, Hindu? You among others have charged that in Pakistan a great deal of persecution of Hindus occurred and as a result many left – Tell me do you today feel any kind of kinship with the Hindus in Pakistan that decided to stay? If you do, why would suggest that any Muslim feeling or expressing kinship with Muslims, especially those oppressed, is objectionable? Isn’t it a fact that merely expressing ourselves as members of a particular group, we are expressing approval, kinship and regard for that group?

Clearly you have issues with regard to “religious” brethren – I don’t, to me they are the larger family, within the larger family of our shared humanity. Far from lessening support for religious brethren, the lack of distinction between Terrorists and others will actually increase support. So long as a perception of unfairness as a result of religious discrimination real or perceived, remains, so long as peoples desire a religious identity, religious brethren will continue to share a burden of persecution and act to relieve it. The challenge is to solve peacefully, with justice, the outstanding problems of the world in which religious identity is a component as well. The actions we have seen after 9/11 is an attempt to put a lid on the problem (like putting a lid on a boiling pot) yet thus far we have not seen it accompany real solutions – e.g. Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya. I urge you to be careful with regard to the so called “war on terror” – The real struggle is two fold, one it is a struggle with Islam with regard to it’s meaning (method) and the other is just solutions in places like Palestine, Kashmir and Chechnya.

``Where my understanding or where the ideas, the conceptions, I find compelling, allow me to identify Obscuritanism are, whereas ordinary Muslim faithful, in relation to law delegate their right of legislation to God, in the sense that the laws of a religious society are understood as heavenly, Obscurtanists seek to have Muslim faithful renounce, to abdicate, their right to comprehend divine laws and to harmonize then with prudence and justice``

“Your statement confirms my views about you and the reason why I had asked you to define obscurantism in the first place. To me, ``delegating the right of legislation to God`` is itself obscurantism while to you it is the opposite. I believe, in a modern state, people and not religious books are sovereign in making the legislation. To most Hindus - and I am sure to you as well - the idea of making Manu Smriti the basis of all legislation in India would be disgusting. So, would be the idea of making Torah/Bible the basis of all laws to the jews/Christians. So, in a pluralist society, whose religious book will be the basis of the constitution? You have every right to believe that your faith is superior to others` but so do the others have the right to believe in the superiority of their faith.”

How curious it is with expectations, I confirm your view about me and you learn only what you already knew – and if I didn’t confirm your view of me, I would be doing a smoke and mirrors routine and still you would learn only what you already knew. Some say that scale of our expectations reveals much about ourselves and yet others say that it is the difference between animals and humans that humans evaluate the results of their expectation with a view to selecting that which they deem most useful. It is unfortunate that you are not a critical reader, nor a rationally critical thinker, of the work of even as poor a writer as I – the subtlety expressed in the “confirming” paragraph has been lost on you. “Delegate” the right to legislate (after all who but God legislates a “divine” law) – note “delegate” – they do not give up the right to make temporal law – they “delegate”, that is they have the right, and delegate to God to make divine laws – can men make laws and call them divine? Is this not what Obscuritanists do with Fiqh and Shariah?

And, yet again, seemingly for the millionth time, note: “their right to COMPREHEND divine law” and “harmonize them with prudence and justice” – At all times, it is those (Muslims), who have the right to COMPREHEND God’s law, (with what faculties and tools do we comprehend?) it is those (Muslims), who harmonize divine law with PRUDENCE and JUSTICE, who are sovereign – At no time is Divine law sovereign in the sense of operational, it is certainly guidance – it is “COMPREHENDED”, again note the appeal to reason and knowledge – it is harmonized with PRUDENCE – an acknowledgement that the temporal has to be balanced with the divine (recall the quote from Igbal: “,“The ultimate spiritual basis of all life as conceived by Islam is eternal and reveals itself in variety and change. A society based on such a conception of Reality, must reconcile, in its life, the categories of permanence and change” - Divine Law=Permanent, Comprehension of divine law= Change and variety – Comprendo? gentle Dost.

note “harmonized” – How can those who are not sovereign, harmonize? Who, in this relationship is DOING the defining?) then again, note the appeal to reason and tolerance in JUSTICE. As I am particularly ungifted as a writer, let me put this in another way – religious/divine laws are created by God (by definition) yet, as we humans are not God (by definition) we cannot understand, comprehend, them in the way God does (to assert that we do is to blaspheme). We can only rely on our reason and our knowledge (both of which evolve) to comprehend divine law. Further our comprehension of divine law is tempered by the acknowledgment that we live in a temporal and pluralistic world. In order that we may DO Justice, it is with PRUDENCE, with the exercise of a great deal of deliberation and care that we may arrive at any comprehension of divine law (The implication for method is clear).

With regard to manu smitri – you have not mentioned Vedas and other Hindu religious texts – is your statement specific to only the manu smitri?

“the idea of making Torah/Bible the basis of all laws to the jews/Christians”

Get real, school yourself, Ten Commandments include the basic of all law, of human nature in society. I agree completely that no one religious text ought to be the constitution in a tolerant, pluralistic political economy.

“So, it seems that, like your esteemed friend Progressive, it is not obscurantism but the deviation from obscurantism, or modernism, that you are worried about....”

Perhaps you can see clearly now the point about the ``right to comprehend`` - I write against OBscuritanism - you read it and say I am an Obscuritanist - Do you see how the point of view one brings to any text is the most important part of ``comprehending``?

I do not know if Progressive will find my company acceptable, but in him I judge a searching heart, attempting to “COMPREHEND” in accordance to the light God grants and the company of intellect and good meaning men afforded him. In time and with study, with “COMPREHENSION” you may change your mind about what I wrote you. Remember smoke and mirrors work for people familiar with them – I only relayed to you ideas that may help you understand, if that is what you want.