Canada’s First Muslim Woman Member of Parliament: Why did the Media Miss the Story? Dost,

re: secularism.

Secularism has correctly been identified as the separation of church and state, however it should be noted that this separation is not meant to be equitable. If any conflict arises between state and church, the state wins since it has all the legislative and executive power. This in the West, at least. I guess Iran could be considered the mirror opposite. The `Church` has penultimate authority, while in theory the laity runs all government institutions. The Church-state separation exists here too, but with a different balance of power.

I suppose the assertion that secular states do not interfere with religious practices is not entirely correct. Religions are as much social as personal, and it is the social aspect of religion that secularism is trying to repress, delegitimize, or even eliminate. In this sense, no secular state is entirely agnostic towards religion. Some are more lenient than others, though. Some secular states are bold enough to forbid religious practices for the explicit purpose of trying to ``reform``, or rather engineer a social change.

Army Action in Wana and Our Responsibility Urstruly,

``Those soldiers who die while killing Muslim Pakistanis in Wana, their namaz-e-janaza is haraam and it is inumbent upon every Muslim that they should impose a social boycott of the families of the soldiers who are dying there. ``

This is utter nonsense. May I remind you that these soldiers are merely following orders, yet it is these militants who have no problems in firing back and killing these soliders of their own free accord. What of their status? Heroes? Are they to become siants we should build shrines to? Give it a rest.

I too can play this game. In an Islamic system there is only room for one government. Agitation against this government is nothing less than spreading mischief, and the punishment mandated by God is death/crucifixtion or having any opposing hand and foot dismembered. Gen. Musharraf is, qute honestly being a softie. The Islamic republic and it`s policies may be imperfect, however that is no excuse for treason. The political idealism of the ignorant few must be made subserviant to the descisions of the ruling few who are in the know.

Understanding Innovation & Its Sources Cool! Very interesting indeed...

When did Freethought Cease in the Muslim World? ballukhan,

Sorry for butting in, but I think the military/weapons programs do go along way to encourage young`uns to go into Engineering/Science. Star Trek, Sci Fi in general, had probably done more for Sci. and Engineering than any elementry school Sci. Teacher.

Military, esp. areospace, is pretty much science fact, or yesterdays science fiction. Nukes have the same effect...people know what the nuke is and what it can do...it`s not a leap to start wondering how the heck the thing works. Hopefully, along their way Paks can discover Solid State physics and start fabricating/innovating microchips and stuff too... :-)

Prophecy and the Mullah: Hotel Mohenjodaro mantolives,

[Try and understand the statement again... I didn`t say Imperialist rule over Turkey... I spoke of Arab Imperialism in the Islamic faith.]

The Arabic roots of Islamic sources and traditions should not be confused for Arab imperialism. The idea that Indo-Turkic (which are very much related to each other) Islam is being subverted by Arab imperialistic ambitions is an exercise in chasing phantoms.

I am otherwise unfamiliar with the notion of ideological imperialism by a party that doesn`t exist (or at least didn`t exist during the 1930`s). What are the exact manifestations of Arab imperialism in the Islamic faith? Was it this, or the historic Arab Imperialism that Iqbal was referring to?

Prophecy and the Mullah: Hotel Mohenjodaro mantolives wrote (about Attaturk):

[His effort was to purge Islam of Arab imperialism, and make it a truly Turkish religion for the Turkish Nation.]

For goodness sake, manto, Turkey was the imperial power ruling over the Arabs. Not the other way around. Claims of Arab imperial rule over Turkey is a joke. If attaturk was a true anti-imperialist patriot, he would have forbidden Western dress/script as well. Turkification would have meant abandoning houses for a Yurt.

Attaturk was a modernist and a chauvinist (one and the same back then), and so could not tolerate anything un-Turkic or un-Western. He no doubt considered anything Arab `beneath` him.

Origins of Hijab dost-mittar,

As a member of a first-generation community, can you please tell me what`s wrong with an `in-your-face` attitude? And I am asking this as in-your-face as possible :-)

A discussion that was between I think Vertex and another about exactly this issue on the previous Hijab board was quite informative. Needless to say, I think he was spot-on. The crux of his argument was that in-your-face expressions of `otherness` is part and parcel of this culture, so that alone is an insufficient reason to question the Hijab.

This leads, of course, to your `dar-ul-harb` statement, which is rather uncalled for. The implication being of course that the Hijab is in fact an expression of political hostility, rather than assertion of identity or the perceived fulfillment of religious obligation. There is a world of difference, the difference only being bridged by projected sentiment which is more an act of hostility towards the Muslim community rather than one emanating from it. Such sentiment should not be pandered to.

There is hypocrisy at work (which I am not accusing you of, btw) when those who suggest that the Hijab will somehow lead to ghettoization yet express a sentiment that those who wear it at work, etc. are being condemnable social miscreants. Here, by not being ghettoized, they are being offensive, and the only solution is to have them either ``conform`` (or rather, to placate) or to ghettoize. It`s no doubt a nice position to occupy for those who wish to be antagonistic...

Muslims Vs. Modernity dos-mittar,

You read the Post/Citizen too much. :-)

Fear mongering aside, it is both well known, and a very common argument on the part of those who support these arbitration committees that the law of the land will reign supreme. This is not a `saving grace`, but understood to be a part of the design. Ismalis, Christians, aboriginals, and Jewish groups (not just `obscure` ones) have such comities.

The real issue isn`t Sharia, since any judgment of the arbitration panel must be in accordance with the law (there is only one law). The real issue is the competency of those who are running the arbitration panels, and those of us in the community are thinking along these lines despite the willful ignorance of those outside who would wish to obfuscate the nature of these arbitration comities. Either get rid of these across the board, or allow their use across the board. Personally, I would be very skeptical about the quality of the arbitration, so I wouldn`t go to one of these tribunals.

Your point about this potentially becoming an `image` problem...perhaps, but then there`s nothing that can make the Lowell Green types happy. In fact, given the hysteria these types have tried to stir up, it is better for the community to challenge it head on than to roll over and play dead.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1086819009712&call_pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist969907621513

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1087078813623&call_pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist969907621513

Recent Accounts of US Perfidy in Iraq fuzair,

[The point that I was making is that if you look at the work of Zeynab Ali and her fellow travellers, it is unremittingly critical of the US, usually from a human rights/morality perspective.]

This is disingenuous. Any criticism of American policy must be along these lines as this is precisely the spin the Americans themselves put on it. It`s fine and dandy to bring up the barbarity of the Arab militias in sudan (which needs more attention, imho), but these militias do not claim to be the champions of freedom and humanity itself. This is a critical point.

Recent Accounts of US Perfidy in Iraq

fuzair, #4:

In what way, shape, or form is Z. Ali displaying hypocrisy? Please enlighten us...

My Pakistan Diary: Lahore Aaya Main Othay Dil Chhod Aaya! dos-mittar wrote, #315

[Kashmiri separatism is not based on any threat to Muslim Kashmiris` religious identity; instead it is based on an islamist movement where some people are willing to lose their distinct identity in the name of religion; ]

The situation is, of course, more complex than that. It`s not just simply an `islamist` movement, it is more accurately described as an anti-India movement. The islamist element is more an artifact of cloned afghan strategies projected across the LoC. What is of note, though, is that there is no analog to Pakistan in the Canada-Quebec issue.

The bottom line is that seperatism is always based on some sort of greivence with the central authority. Who is to say that protection of lingual/cultural identities is in fact a valid basis for seperation? The sentiment is `just cause` enough for the seperatists. For the federalists, there simply is no cause that could justify seperation.

[But the reaction of the governments in the two cases has been quite similar. Indeed, Trudeau`s reaction was much harsher. Just on the basis of one kidnapping, in a single night he threw in jail anyone who was deemed to be sympathetic to insurgency. That would mean, in the Kashmir context, the entire leadership of APHC.]

There is simply no comparison. The extent of India`s reaction to the Kashmiri insurgency is more akin to an occupation (Iraq/Gaza & West Bank) than Trudeau`s rather innocent (by comparison) excursion into martial law. During the breif period of the WMA, only 500 people were arrested - that`s pretty much the extent of the `sins` on the part of the Canadian government. And the FLQ, that flunkie ``me too``-revoloutionary outfit...well...they were pretty much just small-time terrorists. The Kashmir issue is simply off that scale, and we can`t honestly compare either Canada with India, or the Quebec separatists (even with the FLQ!) with the Kashmiri insurgents.

The Canadians and Qubecois have thus far treated each other with a great deal of civility in comparison to the Indians and Kashmiris....

On a lighter note, I got a big kick out of this:

http://www.algathafi.org/issue2-en.html

:-)

A Waste of National Resource Feroze wrote:

[I am saying that Pakistanis have to admit the truth that this nation was not created in the name of Islam. We have to stop harking to religion and using it as cause of this nation`s existence.]

It`s unavoidable. At the root of the Pakistan movement was Muslim anxiety of being dominated, and possibly politically and economically marginalized, by the Hindu majority. Whether or not this view was merited is another discussion, however the thing to note is that it was a Muslim anxiety. True, far from an Islamist vision - however not exactly the shared concerns of an otherwise unrelated group of people.

So although the movement for the creation of Pakistan was not ideologically Islamic (i.e. it was not an `Islamist` movement), it was a movement that addressed the (manufactured?) concerns of the Islamic community. It may be tempting to say ``Muslim`` community, implying the existence of a secular-Muslim identity - however that runs the risk of intellectually dishonesty. How far would Jinnah have gotten with Pakistan if he had consistently made it clear that although the state was for Muslims, Islam would have no place in it? This, to the extent that laws could be passed that would be fundamentally hostile to Islamic tenants. Would that concept have even been sensible to the Muslim populous?

Pakistan, was about addressing the secular concerns of a religious minority. Why this is simply being dismissed as a matter of ``economics`` is confusing to me. I agree that the Zia-style ``Islamified`` version of history has to be challenged. However, trying to downplay the role of religion in the creation of Pakistan is absurd. From what I understand, Pakistan was meant to be a ``modern`` state with an ``Islamic`` character. What that means is ambiguous, and to some possibly contradictory. I propose that it`s best left to the people of Pakistan to resolve any confusion on this matter, and not the historians or a handful of other academics.

The Nuclear Noose Around Pakistan’s Neck
ferozk,

[More harm has been done to the interests of Pakistan in the name of Ummah and Islam than by anyone else and this has to stop and national interest has to reinforced and made the top concern of the nation over everything else.]

Feroz, with all due respect, this is nonsense. Pakistan may pay lip service to the Ummah and pan-Islamism, however it has never, to my knowledge, actually acted on this in any tangible way. Pakistan has never sacrificed anything for this ``ideal``, nor has it ever acted for purely ideological reasons. Pakistan has always, and will continue, to put it`s national interest first - or rather, the army will continue to put their interests first.

That Pakistan was most likely receiving something in return for it’s nuke technology, and that one of the nations was North Korea puts this `for the Ummah` theory down the drain.

Here we have a case of harm being done precisely by a blind and shortsighted (i.e. ``over everything else``) view of what Pakistan`s national interests. This has nothing to do with the Ummah or Islam. Let`s give that old goat a rest on this one...

French Not the Only Offenders on Hijab Sadna wrote:

[The article posted by nasah #94 talks of other religious communities having to face persecutions and massacres even, in the French state`squest to divorce religion from the state.]

Yes…and? It’s odd to think that a minor issue like the banning of the Hijab will be considered nearly as important as the events identified in the article. It also does not answer why the current Government’s sponsoring of religious organizations – a distinctly “unsecular” act. Anyhow, delving into the distant past and drawing analogies about contemporary issues is a weak apologetic device I must say.

[In this case, religious symbols have been banned only in government schools -which means that a girl can put on the hijab the minute she leaves the school gates.]

Nothing in principle now stops the French from passing laws that will support an outright ban. Indeed, there is talk of allowing the banning of the Hijab, or rather “religious symbols”, to prevade in the private sector as well.

[It is hard to see this as an attack on Islam. It is however an attack on Sikhism, since to comply with this law, those Sikhs who have chosen to be keshdhari, will have to violate their own mandatory religious observance. ]

Indeed it is equally affecting Sikhs as well! I would also like to point out that those who do wear the Hijab do consider it a mandatory religious observance. Anyhow, such a ban did not come out of the ether. It was clearly motivated by something. From what I understand the Sikh population is rather small in France…their integration into society is less concerning than the much larger Muslim population. Look, all I am saying is that this is more of a race-relations issue than anything about defending secularism.

[He clearly names Europeans and Jews as some of the enemies who are oppressing Muslims. He clearly says of all 1.3 billion Muslims `we are all oppressed, we are all humiliated`. India has 140 million Muslims, more than 10% of the world`s Muslims. So when he says `we are all oppressed, we are all humiliated` he means Indian Muslims too. So Hindus are the enemies….. ]

Geez…why are we discussing this speech again? Oh well…

It is an act of sheer audacity to interpolate the way you are doing. He “clearly” says no such thing you claim he does. His discussion of Europeans (paragraph 32) is alluding to Muslim preceptions of helplessness – something he thinks is more a state of mind and a self-imposed reality than a fundamental aspect of our existence.

The following paragraphs only clumsily identify “The Jews” as hostile to Muslims (keeping in mind, here he is talking about a collective Muslim community, and their complete and utter impotence to do anything against such a small community). Where you come up with India and the rest is beyond me. You seem to be rather paranoid. You certainly assume too much.

[The fundamental Muslim-nonMuslim divide is implicit and explicit in his words. His exhortations are solely aimed at Muslims being unable to defend themselves in CONFLICT.]

Actually, the common antagonist in his article is the “Jewish” bogey-man – and the absolute inability of Muslims to not only deal with the Palestinian issue, but to defend against any attack on their nations as clearly demonstrated by the American/British attack on Iraq. I will admit, his rhetoric is at times rather childish. But, he’s of the opinion that “rhetoric is good”. Whatever the rhetoric he employs, his conclusions are fair, and I happen to share his concern over our self-imposed irrelevance on the world scene:

41. Apart from the partial unity that we need, we must take stock of our assets. I have already mentioned our numbers and our oil wealth. In today`s world we wield a lot of political, economic and financial clout, enough to make up for our weakness in military terms.

42. We also know that not all non-Muslims are against us. Some are well disposed towards us. Some even see our enemies as their enemies. Even among the Jews there are many who do not approve of what the Israelis are doing.

43. We must not antagonise everyone. We must win their hearts and minds. We must win them to our side not by begging for help from them but by the honourable way that we struggle to help ourselves. We must not strengthen the enemy by pushing everyone into their camps through irresponsible and unIslamic acts.

44. We must build up our strength in every field, not just in armed might. Our countries must be stable and well administered, must be economically and financially strong,industrially competent and technologically advanced. This will take time, but it can be done and it will be time well spent. We are enjoined by our religion to be patient. Innallahamaasabirin. Obviously there is virtue in being patient.

45. But the defence of the ummah, the counter attack need not start only after we have put our houses in order. Even today we have sufficient assets to deploy against our detractors. It remains for us to identify them and to work out how to make use of them to stop the carnage caused by the enemy.

You are absolutely correct when you say that he mentions nothing of the incompetence of his very audience- perhaps paragraph 44 is as close as he gets. I think the reason for that is painfully obvious…an important point, however it does not undermine his suggestions one bit.

[If George Bush had made such a speech exhorting Christians, you would be howling to high heaven.]

A silly example. George Bush is the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth. If some tin-pot dictator of a third world nation with a Chrisitan population said a similar speech, I would certrainly not react in an emotionally charged way.

[btw, I donot like the mode of this discussion, I put up arguments/info and you get to simply say rubbish. ]

Well, yes. Your arguments were little more than a “proof by example” rhetoric, and often wandered from topic to topic well beyond the original discussion of the small Muslim protests representing some sort of pandemic Muslim duplicity. I’m sorry, but that’s not my fault. I’m also sorry that I allowed myself to be goaded into such an unfocused “discussion”.

I’ve conceded points to you whenever you made sense. You, on the other hand, can’t seem to see past your bigotry and continue to proclaim the existence of some kind of homogeneous Muslim mindset. Whatever.

The last word is yours if you want it. I’m done.

French Not the Only Offenders on Hijab Sadna wrote:

[Which particular values? That the French have turned their back on their values once Muslims are added to the equation is your interpretation only, for which you provide no basis. ]

Freedom of choice is a value shared by the French and other Western nations. It SEEMS like this value is being made secondary, or rather is being re-defined, in the name of defending the secular nature of France’s state. Fine. It is curious that after such a long time of allowing religious symbols, such as the Jewish Kippa, it is only recently that there is talk of ‘defending’ secularism by banning these religious symbols – a rather weak argument considering activities by the French government that can only be called inherently un-secular. That this ban coincides with a public anxiety over a flood of Muslim migrants into France is more than enough basis for my interpretation.

[Who are these `they`, the `detractors` and `oppressors` and `enemies`` of 1.3 billion Muslims that Mahathir Mohammed is talking of, 1.3 billion Muslims who are all humiliated, all oppressed? NonMuslims, that is who. ]

That’s obvious given the nature of his speech. A little bit of logic for you: the declaration of some non-Muslims as a threat is not the same as a declaration that all non-Muslims are a threat. I have no reason to believe that Dr. Mathir would include, say, Tibet, South Africa, or the Indians (to Pakistani dismey) in his qualifications of ‘they’, which given today’s context clearly refers to the Americans (“Today if they want to raid our country, kill our people, destroy our villages and towns, there is nothing substantial that we can do.hey bomb us, etc.”).

Needless to say, there is no double standard in what he says. He is all for the strengthening of Muslim states so that they will no longer be subservient to foreign interests. His particular ideas on how to do this may be flawed, but that’s not the point.

[ Instead of pointing out how Muslim governments(of which only 2-3 are democracies) need to be more democratic and responsive to their people`s needs, he talks of all Muslims getting ready for the defence of the ummah against nonMuslims and their governments. ]

Don’t be obtuse. Given the clear American aggression in Iraq (please don’t give me this Saddam was dictator nonsense, since that was not the reason why war was waged), his speech was most apropos given the contemporary world situation. If you bothered reading the rest of Dr. Mahtir’s speech, you would find that there was only one group he blamed for the Muslim predicament: Muslims themselves.

[The guy`s speech got a standing ovation from the Muslim heads of state there.]

Yes, because they understood what he was saying.

[Take even calls for war crime trials of Saddam. Arabs and Muslim world ... account for almost none of these calls...Now, if Saddam had been a nonMuslim, there would have, in contrast, been a lot of anger at his mass killings of Muslims, as is seen wrt Bosnia.]

If you mean to imply that Muslims recognize Saddam as a mass killer, and accept his brutish nautre on account of his being a Muslim, then you are out to Lunch. If you are pointing out that Muslims are easily deluded into thinking a person is `good` because he has a Muslim name, then you have a valid critisism. That, though, is not an example of duplicity.

Also, I do not recall a single Muslim country championing a course of action on Milosevic. In typical 3rd world style, they were content with what the power brokers deemed reasonable. There is no double standard here. Rather, a pathetic consistency.

[Angry Muslims didnot go to Iraq to fight a jihad against his government, as they went to fight the jihad in Bosnia. ]

Actually, OBL’s (is he enough an angry Muslim for you?) primary grief with Saudi was that they called in the Americans, in lieu of a rag-tag Muslim army lead by OBL himself, to subdue Saddam. And yes, despite this there were a plethora of obscure Muslim groups out to get Saddam.

French Not the Only Offenders on Hijab [However, firstly, it was not just a few hundred protestors. ]

In the Muslim world proper, yes it was. Outside, it was somewhat larger - mostly in France and UK. Not more than a few thousand though...and it is notable that the mainstream French Muslim organizations chose not to protest. They advocated engaging the government in dialogue.


[Secondly, irrespective of how much you argue about the number of protestors, the causes of protests, or whether the protests are a reflection of Muslim opinion or not...]

Er, it`s a rather important argument, if not THE argument when talking about MASS Muslim duplicity, or anything else for that matter, being exemplified by these protests...


[the issue is that there exists a blatant double standard in the Muslim world as a whole, one standard applied to nonMuslim governments and another standard to Muslim governments. ]

Rubbish. The Muslim world as a whole makes no claims about non-Muslim governments aside from a few...the USA and Israel are the only ones that come to mind. Aside from that, there`s no consensus. Where the hell are you coming up with this garbage?

[This double standard also comes to the fore when a person excuses/overlooks a government`s actions saying `the government is `Islamic` and lays no claim to democracy or human rights unlike the nonMuslim government I am criticising`. Just fyi, myself and `my ilk` (whoever they are), consider this to be a totally specious argument with no merit. ]

That`s a rather lackluster interpretation of my criticism. The criticism is: ``Why is it after such a long period of declaring particular values as fundamental to your culture, you seem to be turning your back on them once Muslims are added to the equation?`` That`s a very specific question to France, and makes no pretense of holding said values as sacred. Not at all difficult to understand...but you`ll simply write it off as a `victim` thing no doubt...