An Ode to Euthanasia

The idea very clearly is to come to a Westphalian conception of nation state and stick to it. Every citizen of Pakistan, for example, should be equal before law without any discrimination based on religion, caste or creed.

Once every Muslim Majority Country accepts this conception secularism and democracy must inevitably follow... call it Islamic or Muslim or whatever.

Re: # 64
Thanks for your explanations. My interest, however, is not your individual definitions. I thought you were referring to some concepts grounded in other than personal choice of words.

I believe you are a Shia Muslim. Unfortunately the current Iran is even more exclusivist and radical than the Sunnis.

Re: # 62

Inquirer

Thank you for the kind and rather flattering interact.

By Khilafat I meant `direct democracy`, like the one prevailing in the classic Greek city state, and by Malukiat I meant the personal rule by a despot like Yazeed. Karl Marx had called State a tool of oppression by one class of another in a society ridden with classes and was of the view that the State as a political institution will wither away in a classless society. Islam did succeed albeit for a short time to establish a direct stateless social democracy which is called Khilafate Raashidah in a classless milieu of a tribal society. It is not possible pehaps now to reverse the time-clock to go back to KHILAFAT HOWEVER WE MAY THINK WISHFULLY.

It is the age of globalization with clash of civilizations which seems to have been flared up presently by MO Danish cartoons. Is it not paradoxical that the people who murdered mercilessly the grandson of the prophet and are target killing his progeny are the most furious one protesting against blasphemous cartoons. Sorry I digressed, the effect of Aashurae Muharram perhaps.

Inquirer,

``Thanks for identifying your self as a ``fundamentalist.``

How did I do such? Never mind...it`s not as if it`s a bad word...

`` The easiest thing for me would be to just refer to #60 teshah, who miraculously answered for me on the most critical issue. But you have implied other issues that he has not covered. Hence, the sequel. ``

4 lines a miracle? Small miracles indeed.

It`s an interesting thought, I`d give it that...the comment about Islam condemning state apparatus and sympathizing with prisoners needs elaboration.

Needless to say, a pre-requesite for taking over the aparatus of the state, as he put it, is for the parties involved to a large degree overcome their sectarian differences. Having any one narrow sectarian group take power is nigh impossible, so is a boogey threat.

``****If the ``fundamentalists`` don`t accept the status quo, then why don`t they act to change the situation?****``

I think this very comment discredits you as an informed observer of the Muslim world...or even Pakistan alone...

``****Talk to teshah.****``

Why?

****Ignore? May be you mean focus on. Those ``skirmishes`` have left indelible marks on the the psyche of Islam.``

Eh?

The reference to genocide was from the attempted genocide of the early Muslims by the pagans of Mecca. The skirmishes/raids/battles are understood in that context.

I have no idea what you`re babbling about, this Psychoanalysis business and all...

Re: # 60 Excellent summary of the critical issue. But for non-Muslims: What is malukiat? And what is the reference for your definition of Khilafat?

#59 _digit: Thanks for identifying your self as a ``fundamentalist.`` Now, I can speak with some understanding. The easiest thing for me would be to just refer to #60 teshah, who miraculously answered for me on the most critical issue. But you have implied other issues that he has not covered. Hence, the sequel.

``You seem to almost imply that the status quo is acceptable to Muslims, and in particular fundamentalist Muslims...such is not the case. ``

****If the ``fundamentalists`` don`t accept the status quo, then why don`t they act to change the situation?****

``It seems like the Masjid is hardly a center of power with the exception of two Muslim countries.``

****Talk to teshah.****

``To ignore the fact that the so-called ``intolerance`` of Islam stems from 37 wars (skirmishes is perhaps a better choice of words for the most part) of survival and resistance to an attempted genocide makes one wonder what it will take to appease non-Muslims. ``

****Ignore? May be you mean focus on. Those ``skirmishes`` have left indelible marks on the the psyche of Islam. Psychoanalysis of the entire population is needed to get rid of the psychosis of the events and, what is more important, the deliberate, systematized, persistent, and essentially non-relgious adherence to the psychosis by the Islamists except perhaps Sufis. Now this psychoanalysis had been once attempted by Mustafa Kamal Ata Turk. May that is now needed on a much wider basis****

``I wonder if there is a saying in the Gita that expresses the need for this duplicity.... ``

****Read Sheikh Mohammad`s (Eighteenth Century India) study of Gita to get an inkling of what is in Gita.****

WOULD YOU PLEASE DETAIL THE GENOCIDE THAT IS BEING COMMITED ON MUSLIMS? That is a news to me.

# 47 by Naqshbandi

``in reality islam and politics have gone hand in hand since the very beginning. the model state was that of Madina under the Prophet alayhisalatuwasalam then under the 5 caliphs upto and including Imam e Hassan alayhisalam.``

Actually it is not the question of politics, it is the sectarian religion taking ovr the coercive apparatus of the state, subverting it into a malukiat that is objectionable. Khilafat in fact meant social democracy in true sense with no coercive apparatus of the state, like police, taxes, jails, etc. Islam condemned all these and even expressed sympathy with the prisoners.

Inquirer,

``How can this revival occur? As I see there are only two ways. Either the entire ruling edifice of the Muslim World has to collapse - as is threatened by the US right now...``

...and as agreed upon by the Islamist themselves. You seem to almost imply that the status quo is acceptable to Muslims, and in particular fundamentalist Muslims...such is not the case.


``or the moderate, intellectual and essentially religious among the Islamic adherents have to fight a Mahabharat with their own Masjid and vanquish them. This shall require a Kamal Ata Turk in each of the Muslim Countries. ``

...why? It seems like the Masjid is hardly a center of power with the exception of two Muslim countries. No doubt such a result will be most palatable to you, but insofar as real benefits to Muslims...what will the result be?

To ignore the fact that the so-called ``intolerance`` of Islam stems from 37 wars (skirmishes is perhaps a better choice of words for the most part) of survival and resistance to an attempted genocide makes one wonder what it will take to appease non-Muslims.

If even fighting for existence is considered intolerant, then why on earth should we fight for anything else...let alone a new form of governence?

I wonder if there is a saying in the Gita that expresses the need for this duplicity....

Re: # 57, Feroz:
I totally agree with you but the vested interest obfuscators in all religions, particularly Islam would, forever, claim that there is no difference. This so, because their vested self-interest is their God, no matter how they camouflage it.
Where is Ballukhan?!!!!

The term secular, means at least to me, the seperation of religion from politics but not the absence of religion altogether, as it is often understood.

In the Muslim political context, secularism is wrongly identified as atheism.

re: Inquirer

Your analysis pegs the issues in the Muslim world very well.

Ciao

I just scanned the first five comments. I congratulate the respondents.

F. R Khan, I just returned from India. Naturally, your article caught my attention. I feel sad. ``Kaun sunega nakkaar khaane mein tootii kii aawaaz?`` But keep on trying you provide us the belief that sense is not all lost in the Muslim World. Hopefully, it is not unfounded.
Thanks for writing a very readable article. I have not read any of the responses and there are, of course many. But the thrust of the essay is, I believe, in the following paragraph.

``The only solution to the problems being confronted by Islam lies in the adoption of secular, liberal (constitutional) politics by the Muslims. The fault in this scenario rests, with the clergy and its wrong interpretations of Islam for their own political gains. Constitutionalism and the politics based upon it, would solve the vast majority of the problems in the Islamic world and it would not only prevent Islam’s spoilage at the hands of politics, but will also greatly help in the preservation of Islam as one of the world’s great religion. This option, should it be utilized, would immensely benefit the Islamic world in creating an international image of itself on the very basis of what Islam proclaims and proudly stands for: peace, respect, tolerance, justice, progress, and enlightenment. Muslim constitutional politics would not only protect these ideals, but will also ensure their most equitable implementation unlike the arbitrary whims associated, with a theocratic politics. ``

Unfortunately, the realization that you want to emerge is blocked by two very fundamental problems. They are:
1. The essential intolerance of Islam inheres in Mohammad`s thirty seven wars AND the subsequent importance given to his militaristic methods by the early royal converts to Islam.
2. The entire governance structure in Muslim World - and I mean all governments with a possible exception of Turkey and ``good parts of Musharrafism`` - has a critical self-interest to preserve the unholy alliance to which you repeatedly refer to.

I agree with you when you say that currently, sectarianism = Islam. And you are right that this sectarianism has led to devaluation of higher values in Islam itself. Does it mean that those elements have disappeared? Of course not. But they have been almost annulled unless they are revived.

How can this revival occur? As I see there are only two ways. Either the entire ruling edifice of the Muslim World has to collapse - as is threatened by the US right now, or the moderate, intellectual and essentially religious among the Islamic adherents have to fight a Mahabharat with their own Masjid and vanquish them. This shall require a Kamal Ata Turk in each of the Muslim Countries.

Neither one is something that can be envisaged by the peace loving people with comfort but as it is said in the Gita that there comes a time when you have to fight a outrance for what you believe is right.

#53 you got it..hindus have found spiritual salvation even from stones, so why not from a book? its possible...its as simple as ``opening your mind to the possibility`` ;-)

What `simple and clear principles` would lead different people to reach such violently and irreconcilably different conclusions about key aspects of human life? Are we sure there do exist any scientific principles for tafsir, which are different from the long-established steps for reading tea leaves....

Some fellow called Ahmad von Denffor puts up quite a formidable wall in the way of any such exegesis:

To be able to `get the tafsir,`` a man or woman must

* Be sound in belief.

* Well-grounded in the knowledge of Arabic and its rules as a language.

* Well-grounded in other sciences that are connected with the study of the Qur`ân.

* Have the ability for precise comprehension.

* Abstain from the use of mere opinion.

* Begin the tafsîr of the Qur`ân with the Qur`ân.

* Seek guidance from the words and explanations of the Prophet.

* Refer to the reports from the sahâba.

* Consider the reports from the tâbicûn.

* Consult the opinions of other eminent scholars.

Palmistry, numerlology, and pigeon-fighting, not to mention, reading tea leaves, all seem far more honest endeavors. Doesn`t anybody else feel so?

Naqshbandi,

It should be pointed out that, politically, the Calipha system failed, in spite of the nobility of the first four. I understand you used the word ``model``, but would you agree to use the term ``prototype``, or even ``rough framework``, or something to that effect?

It should also be noted that the Calipha system revolves around a single person, and their role with respect to society at large, and what`s more this role is described in very informal terms.

It should be easy enough to graft this one role onto a whole class of political systems that follow certain constraints. In effect, though, the role would probably be ceremonial.

As for the Caliph belonging to Quraysh...is there really a way to determine who is a descendent of this tribe? Half of Pakistan qualifies, them being Syeds and all...

Naqshbandi,

It should be pointed out that, politically, the Calipha system failed, in spite of the nobility of the first four. I understand you used the word ``model``, but would you agree to use the term ``prototype``, or even ``rough framework``, or something to that effect?

It should also be noted that the Calipha system revolves around a single person, and their role with respect to society at large, and what`s more this role is described in very informal terms.

It should be easy enough to graft this one role onto a whole class of political systems that follow certain constraints. In effect, though, the role would probably be ceremonial.

As for the Caliph belonging to Quraysh...is there really a way to determine who is a descendent of this tribe? Half of Pakistan qualifies, them being Syeds and all...

#44, Mantolives {``Salim
I don`t think Ataturk was against Islam at all...``}

Manto Bhai,
I agree with you in general. However, Ataturk, whose own mother Zubayda was a devout Muslim, was very suspicious and negative about the pervasive role of religion in government, education, commerce, and the military. Being a man of his times, he concentrated on what was ailing his beloved Turkey and why Turks were losing in all departments from the 18th century to the 20th. To him an emphasis on Islam in all matters worked as detriment to Turkey`s progress - especially in comparison to the secular focus of its European rivals. Being a European himself, Ataturk never felt inferior to Christian Europeans, instead he blamed his country`s misfortunes on its antiquated legal, educational, governmental, commercial, and military institutions. All of them had suffered thanks to inflexible and often irrational influence of religion.

#45 by haroonellahi {Islam and politics should be removed complete and totally from each other. Politics has invaded the river bed of Islam, has effectively polluted it and threatens to corrupt our religion to the point of no return. }

this is incorrect and threfore should not be propagated if real progress is to be achieved. islam has flourished with politics and politics with islam. it has been a very successful relationship and partnership in the past. there is no invasion by politics per se. try a different cleaner slate and maybe there is a possibility.

south america is catholic. there is an acknowledgement that spreading christianity was one of the proclaimed church principles, pope gave charters to spain and portugal, and conquest happend with bible in one hand and sord in other. once one acknowledged the truth, its hard to hijack in the future..else history shall repeat. in south america there still is poverty, inequality, but noone is looking at christianity for material salvation. this is possible because of acknowledging the truth perhaps.

Re: # 39

dost-mittar,

the science of tafsir [`ilm al tafsir] addresses exactly the questions you ask; these questions have been answered millenia ago by the classical scholars. they are valid questions but they have been answered (which verses apply when and to whom). you just need to sit down with a traditional scholar and ask e.g. shaykh pir sayyid abd al qadir shah jilani sahib. (www.yanabi.com) or www.sunniport.com or www.sunnipath.com

in islam the view of the majority is not authority.

this article is sheer poison dressed up in honey and nice words; it is a sword attempting to strike at the very heart of islam. it is a call to castrate islam.

the author claims that political islam was dreamed up by the mullahs in power to keep them there! in reality islam and politics have gone hand in hand since the very beginning. the model state was that of Madina under the Prophet alayhisalatuwasalam then under the 5 caliphs upto and including Imam e Hassan alayhisalam.

The ideal political system in islam is the Caliphate; the only valid caliphs are from the Quraysh tribe (``Caliphate is for the Quraysh``-hadith i sharif). Until the re-establishment of the caliphate republics are a good a system as any as long as the rules of the land are in accordance with the shariah. because of this secularism and islam are opposites. democracy to an extent is islamic except no laws can be passed which contradict the established shariah. the interpretation and application of shariah to new situations/problems is the preserve and job of the traditional scholars [ulama] who alone are qualified to do so. this process is ijtihad. ijtihad itself has its own rules and not every area of shariah is susceptible to ijtihad. e.g. aqaid (doctrine) cannot be changed. no ijtihad is valid if it goes against quran or sunnah and so on...

iran is a good model of a modern democracy which is still islamic.

Islam and politics should be removed complete and totally from each other. Politics has invaded the river bed of Islam, has effectively polluted it and threatens to corrupt our religion to the point of no return.

However, my view regarding the seperation of state and mosque is limited to the national level only.

Have our wise scholars ever thought about the fact that even though most of the Western World has adopted secular paradigms, they still remained united under different agreements such as NATO and other umberallas?

Universal Equality of all citizens, seperation of religious Islam and politics, and secularization of the Constitution should take place at the national level. However, I still feel that pan-Islamic unity is a good thing for the Ummah. In this respect, although Muslim majority countries should become secular countries, they should keep their distinct Muslim authority by placing clauses in their Constitution promoting Muslim heritage. Furthermore, there should be a section in every Muslim-Majority Constitution, it can be our version of the English Bill of Rights, The Islamic Bill of Rights. It should have clauses directly reflecting Islamic values, ethics, and morality. Furthermore, once this process has been done, the Muslim World, which should become internally secular, must retain it`s inherent Islamic identity.

The European Union is not based on ethnic or linguistic ties. It is built purely on religious grounds. That is why our very own Salim`s Turkey keeps on getting the red stamp from the European Union.

We need to ensure that mutual trade, mutual cultural links, and mutual economic links are enhanced amongst the Muslim world to promote our ability to achieve our true status amongst the comity of civilizations.

Salim

I don`t think Ataturk was against Islam at all...

Re: # 40

nasah

``every year we will throw helplessly stones at the Devil and get trampled in the process and die -- but that mountain will remain blocking the highway to the heaven of the modern century......modern times``

No, dear nasah, their throwing of pebbles (not stoes) at the Devil has not in any way blocked their highway to the modern times. They do possess weapons of 21st century from rocket-propelled grenade and klashinkof to the atom bomb but these are all meant for human beings only, even those who call themselves Muslims. As for the satan they are not allowed even to hit it with a pebble larger than a gram and to do this they have sometimes to sacrifice their lives.

Dost,

The same message will neccessarily have different interpretations in terms of applicability to differing circumstance. Universalism cannotes universally binding, not universally applicable, or universally actualized. Thus, the clarity of the message is not what is at issue here...or at least, should not be.

Using words such as `true` Islam, and implying that OBL is closer to it than anyone else is a validation of the latter`s theology. The point is, any interpretation only need be self-consistent and well argued. Your chiming in is neither. It`s for this reason why I think Muslims should be self-concerned, and really not solicit or take advice from outsiders (nothing personal, I assure you).

As for Mr. Bush, the point was why is his actions a personal failure for him and not of an entire political system? A bit of a double standard, it seems.

#39 DM Sahib, {`` The verses are not preceded by a qualifier whether a particular verse is addressed to the Prophet or to all Muslims or to both. Nor does it clarify whether the message is meant for the Arabs who were the Prophet`s contemporaries or for all humanity. ..
Secondly, would it be possible for an organisation like the OIC to come up with a consensus on which verses in the quran were meant only for the 7th century Arabia and are no longer valid?``}

DM Sahib,
Again, you deserve the front row in any mosque. :) The questions you raise and the ideas you project deserve serious responses and even more serious consideration.

What most Muslims, especially the Mullahs, forget is that the revelations or supernatural experience of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) happened to him and were all intended for him. These were messages to him about what to observe, what to say, how to prioritize, in his dealings with the people of Mecca and then Medina. The Holy Koran, as compiled today, is not in chronological or topical sequence. It is merely organized by the length of the suras. The earlier revelations in Mecca were meant to warn the Holy Prophet (PBUH), to encourage him, to advise him, and even to chastise him. There are verses telling him to stand up to the unbeleivers and not to be timid. The Holy Prophet (PBUH) was a non-violent man and quite humble by nature - apparently God wanted him to be more assertive, more aggressive, and even confrontational at times. He did what he was instructed to do. Also, he passed on his revelations to his followers. Not everything that was incumbent on him is necessarily incumbent on all of us - 1400 years later. The Holy Koran is there for reference and not to be blindly followed for all issues. I give the analogy of the Pathan tribesmen in NWFP who used to raid hospitals to steal the medecines, because they knew that medecines cured diseases. :) It`s just not that simple. You always have to know what is applicable and what is not.

Your suggestion about the OIC, or any other representative organization, doing a study and coming up with a consensus about the applicability of Koranic verses is an excellent one. Not only does this need to happen, but such consensus needs to be updated periodically. Therein lies the problem. Who would represent the various factions and how can they agree on a change management approach. Thanks.

``the provision that everything in the quran is valid for all times and places.`` (Dost-mitter)

that`s our Achilles’ heel dost-mitter ji -- that`s our nightmare.....that`s our Mount Arafat where the devil resides forever blocking the gates to the 21st century….

every year we will throw helplessly stones at the Devil and get trampled in the process and die -- but that mountain will remain blocking the highway to the heaven of the modern century......modern times

we have no New Testaments -- only our Old Testaments -- will be getting Older and Older -- neverchanging -- in the everchanging Newer and Newer World...

we have no Martin Luther -- we will never have one -- only ‘Narcissistic’ Nasreens and ‘Rabble Rouser` Rushdies -- only to be chased away by the blood thirsty glass breaking beard-flowing rabble....

there is no redemption for us Muslims -- we are frozen in quranic time and space......thanks for reminding....

Salim_Chauhan#31:

Your comments take the usual moderate line. I would address them in two ways. First, Allah says in the quran that He is delivering this message in Arabic so that simple folks can understand and follow it. However, to someone like me, it seems to be anything but simple. The verses are not preceded by a qualifier whether a particular verse is addressed to the Prophet or to all Muslims or to both. Nor does it clarify whether the message is meant for the Arabs who were the Prophet`s contemporaries or for all humanity. This leaves the verses anything but clear and subject to different interpretations. Why would Allah say He is delivering a clear message but then create interpretational confusion? A believer has every right to accept everything based on his or faith but these questions do cause doubts in the minds of a non-believer reading the quran.

Secondly, would it be possible for an organisation like the OIC to come up with a consensus on which verses in the quran were meant only for the 7th century Arabia and are no longer valid? This would certainly clear the air. I don`t think that he quran is unique in having some contextual and other universal passages. Urstruly pointed out in an earlier post that even the most fanatic hindutva nut would not ask that Manusmriti be used as a legal code in India although I would think (I haven`t read Manusmriti) that it still has some passages which are relevant today.

_digit#36:
Some of my response to Salim applies to your post as well.

``Careful now. By validating a particular theology, you are then beholden to it (even if you yourself do not practice it). By stating such a thing, the onus is on you to validate your position; why is OBL`s theology more valid than, say, Asghar Ali Engineer`s? Do you really want to play that game, or is proclamation based on gut feeling enough?``

No, I did not validate Islamic theology, only Muslims as people. I could make the same statement about Hindus without validating Hindu theology either. Between OBL and Asghar Engineer, the latter`s version is much more palatable to me as a non-muslim than that of OBL. But, I wonder if true Islam would accept the validity of Hinduism, Buddhism or Sikhism as Engineer would; as you know, there is that little problem with the practice of shirk (not sikhism) or agnosticism (Buddhism) and a belief that all living beings have a soul that transmigrates. So, if I am a true believer in the quran, I dont see how I can accept these religions to be true religions when the quran says that its message is the only true message.

``Why do we Muslims need moderates, yet portions of the secular West who have mobilized their war machines not? Spare us, dost.``

Here, you are preaching to the convert. I agree that the West`s (more correctly Bush`s) use of its war machine is illegitimate and, indeed, counterproductive to achieving its purpose.

teshah#33:
Shahji, Aap tau yoon-hi sharminda kar rahe hain!

Urstruly#38:
I am not confused in this matter because I do not consider Islam to be just another religion. I might agree with you to some extent that Islam could be compared to Communism but would not say the same thing about Capitalism, as the latter is largely restricted to an economic philosophy even though it does require a minimum set of rules (property rights, etc.) to function. As of now, capitalism is flourishing in such diverse political regimes as in largely irreligious China, Russia, former Soviet republics and deeply religious India. And I do not see much incompatibility between Islam and Capitalism either; Saudi Arabia practices both sharia and capitalism, doesn`t it?

Re: # 29 DM

The core reason of your confusion is that you still consider Islam as just another religion. As compared to other religions, Islam is more than just rituals, it is a way of life. Hence it is an ideology. Like any other ideology it seeks new recruits and it dictates a certain degree of discipline among its adherent.

Let me expalin the above lines with an example. When Bush says that `our fight is not with Islam` he is probably telling the truth. In order to support his claim he might point to thousands of mosques spread across the North American continent. People go to those mosques without any restriction or fear. He might also point out to the fact that Islam is the fastest growing religion in Northe America. All this was not possible if he hadn`t been forthcoming. So in other words no one in the world has any problem with a ``ritual Islam``. If people, go to prayer, fast, perform Hajj etc. no one has a problem. But real problem starts when Islam starts preaching a system values that promotes universal social justice, when it starts demanding a certain degree of discipline in society, when it dictates moral values at social level; when it promotes an equitable and just distribution of wealth; when it demands everyone to be collectively responsible to curb corruption in the society. That is where all the problem begins. Now comes in the conflict of ideologies; the clash of world views; and evaluation and comparison of moral values.

This world is a competing ground of ideologies. All ideologies inherently are mutually exclusive, so is Islam. For example, in a country Capitalism and Communism cannot co-exist. As a matter of fact the deadliest and costliest conflict in the human history have been between these two.

In a uni-polar world, an individual is being restricted from its choices. A point in history has come when Muslims also have to choose between Kaaba and butkhana. As the conflict is intensifying, it is putting more pressure on individuals to choose one. Hence for an outside observer Islam is no more a religion of ``peace``. By ``peace`` people usually mean the Islam (or any religion) should always take the back seat, it must stick to its rituals and it must not compete in testing field of ideologies. If this is the criteria by which this religion is being judged, then I am afraid that you will be more than disappointed.

#34 Manto, {``Also- you seem to suggest that Ataturk banned the Azan. As far as I know that happened under Ismet Inonu in 1939... Ataturk did ask for the Friday Khutbas to be in Turkish...``}

Manto,
I think that you are right. In any case, the Azan in Arabic is alive and well in today`s Turkey. :) With so many mosques, Turkey is the marathon of azans.

Ataturk used the tradition of Ottoman Ghazis to motivate the Anatolian resistance against the Greeks. I really think that Ataturk was just against Arabs and Arabic and not that much against Islam. Probably his disappointments in Syria and Libya had a lot to do with his hatred.

Dost-mittar,

``As a non-practising non-muslim...``

You will excuse me if I say that this is exactly why your opinion will be, and should be, ignored. But I`m baited, so I`ll continue.

``Now I am not so sure. I still believe that most muslims are peaceful, tolerant and show respect towards others but I dont believe the same is true of Islam as a doctrine.``

Careful now. By validating a particular theology, you are then beholden to it (even if you yourself do not practice it). By stating such a thing, the onus is on you to validate your position; why is OBL`s theology more valid than, say, Asghar Ali Engineer`s? Do you really want to play that game, or is proclamation based on gut feeling enough?

The idea that it is the universalistic interpretations of the Quran that are motivating the masses to give legitimacy to OBL and his likes is too simplistic and one-sided. Why do we Muslims need moderates, yet portions of the secular West who have mobilized their war machines not? Spare us, dost.

The fact is, when OBL invokes the Quran, he invokes Islamic history as well. He attempts to draw equivalences between the genocidal anti-Muslim pagans of the 6th century, and modern western civilization. How about stop helping him make these links? Jejune analysis of the Quran, and moreover dismissing any attempts at contextualizing it inspite of the importance of the context, intellectually dishonest at best. Musing about the psycological ``infleucnce`` of the Quranic passages that deal with the war`s the Prophet (pbuh) fought are, from my point of view, daft.

The problems in the Muslim world are by far and wide modern problems rooted in modern conflicts. All this talk of reform and what not from critics of Islam and Muslims, when in fact the Muslims are doing nothing worse than those who criticize them, can`t be taken seriously.

---

We do need reform, but not exactly the kind being advocated here.

I think. I can`t tell, Feroz is being rather vague in his use of the term secuarlism and exactly what it implies for Muslim/Islamic socities.

re: Dost-Mittar

Thanks for your comments, which were quite cogently expressed.

Ciao

Dear Salim...

The smart leader that Ataturk was, his pre-1921 statements are replete with calls to Islamic solidarity, Jehad and the Prophet... He was a clever man who raised the Anatolian Muslims to defeat the forces of Greece and other allies... ofcourse his final aim was Modern Turkey with or without Islam.

Also- you seem to suggest that Ataturk banned the Azan. As far as I know that happened under Ismet Inonu in 1939... Ataturk did ask for the Friday Khutbas to be in Turkish... today Friday sermon is always in the local language... and it was so in South Asia even before Ataturk

Re: # 29

dost-mittar

Welcome dear DM, I have been missing you for many days. You have, as usual, wonderfully put forth the dilemma, the so called Umma is facing, vis-a-vis, Islam and the Quran. It can provide motivation and even a convenient handle to OBL`s terrorism on the one hand and to `Moderation and Enlightenment` of Musharraf brand on the other. As you pointed out the Hypocrites (Munafiqeen) and the sectarian hate-mongering Mulla are also the result of the vast scope of the divergent interpretations to which the Quran and Sunna can be subjected.

salim:
i respect your assertions in the face of 1400 years long history of islamic jurisprudence .

Having said that, your assertion cannot be taken as a defense for statements like :

``The universal message of Islam, as with any other religion, is peace, respect and tolerance``

Because islam when in power (eg. medinah state) never practiced that universal message of tolerance, peace and respect.

Therefore, a little bit of attitude correction perhaps a mix of irony is in order for people who have to make these patently wrong statements, i.e., if they absolutely have to.

regards.

DM Sahib #29, {``In my admittedly prejudiced opinion, the quran provides the parameter for Islam and that has proven to be straitjacket, esp. the provision that everything in the quran is valid for all times and places. By inclination, most people are moderates but that particlular clause makes it very difficult for moderates to stand their ground when challenged.``}

DM Sahib,
I am glad that you made this comment. I may not be an expert, but I believe that the Holy Koran is very specific about what it says - Each verse needs to be taken within the context of the time, place, circumstance, and purpose of its revelation to the Holy Prophet (PBUH). After all, God was speaking to Mohammed (PBUH) at that time, place, and for a specific purpose. Sure, we are free to draw conclusions about the applicability of these verses to our own lives today, here, and for various purposes. In my opinion, we cannot just start quoting from the Holy Koran to justify how we want to behave and how we want people to ratify our behavior. If taken out of context, without regard to occasion, timing, place, and purpose, many verses in the Holy Koran actually contradict themselves. I am sure that everyone knows about the ``There is no compulsion in religion`` verse, but then there are other verses such as ``Slay them where you find them...`` It is up to us to apply God`s advice to our lives. Seeking religious or Koranic ratification for what we know is evil kind of defeats the purpose - and that is why UBL and Al-Kayda/Tally Ban are wrong. Thanks,

DM Ji:
that comment by ferozek you pointed out is patently incorrect - lemme invite Allah mian to counter ferozek:


003.080
YUSUFALI: Nor would he instruct you to take angels and prophets for Lords and patrons. What! would he bid you to unbelief after ye have bowed your will (To Allah in Islam)?

003.081
YUSUFALI: Behold! Allah took the covenant of the prophets, saying: ``I give you a Book and Wisdom; then comes to you a messenger, confirming what is with you; do ye believe in him and render him help.`` Allah said: ``Do ye agree, and take this my Covenant as binding on you?`` They said: ``We agree.`` He said: ``Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses.``

003.082
YUSUFALI: If any turn back after this, they are perverted transgressors.
PICKTHAL: Then whosoever after this shall turn away: they will be miscreants.
SHAKIR: Whoever therefore turns back after this, these it is that are the transgressors.

003.083
YUSUFALI: Do they seek for other than the Religion of Allah?-while all creatures in the heavens and on earth have, willing or unwilling, bowed to His Will (Accepted Islam), and to Him shall they all be brought back.

003.084
YUSUFALI: Say: ``We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma`il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam).``

003.085
YUSUFALI: If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).


003.086
YUSUFALI: How shall Allah Guide those who reject Faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Messenger was true and that Clear Signs had come unto them? but Allah guides not a people unjust.


003.087
YUSUFALI: Of such the reward is that on them (rests) the curse of Allah, of His angels, and of all mankind;-

003.088
YUSUFALI: In that will they dwell; nor will their penalty be lightened, nor respite be (their lot);-


003.089
YUSUFALI: Except for those that repent (Even) after that, and make amends; for verily Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

on Apostates:

003.090
YUSUFALI: But those who reject Faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of Faith,- never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have (of set purpose) gone astray.

003.091
YUSUFALI: As to those who reject Faith, and die rejecting,- never would be accepted from any such as much gold as the earth contains, though they should offer it for ransom. For such is (in store) a penalty grievous, and they will find no helpers.

Hi Feroz:

As a non-practising non-muslim, I am of somewhat different opinion. Ten years ago, I used to think, as you put it:
``The universal message of Islam, as with any other religion, is peace, respect and tolerance, but this religious message is diluted by the principle of power politics which generally operates on the notions of a zero-sum game.``
Now I am not so sure. I still believe that most muslims are peaceful, tolerant and show respect towards others but I dont believe the same is true of Islam as a doctrine.

In the last ten years, I have read more and more about Islam, including the primary sources of the quran and ahadith. In my asmittedly prejudiced opinion, the quran provides the parameter for Islam and that has proven to be straitjacket, esp. the provision that everything in the quran is valid for all times and places. By inclination, most people are moderates but that particlular clause makes it very difficult for moderates to stand their ground when challenged. Indeed, the quran has a despicable word for muslims who want to pick and choose- Munafiqeen. Many Muslims, from Mutazlites in Arabia to Kabir in India, tried to moderate the message of Islam and that appealed to a lot of people but, in the end, the stirring passages of the quran with their exhorations of jihad and hatred for the kafir, murtaad and munafiqeen are a tool that the likes of OBL, Hamaz or Maudoodi can always use with devastating effect to uphold the ultimate superiority of nizam-e-mustafa. Those particular words, I do not think, are there in the quran but the commandment to obey the quran and hold the Prophet as the role model can be used to justify everything that political islam wants to achieve.

If the moderates really want a moderate Islam, they should have the courage to confront the puritans with a clear-cut rejection that everything in the quran has universal validity without getting into convoluted arguments about the contextual relevance of certain passages. In other words, what the moderates need is a New Testament. However, showing such courage may carry too high a price.

Interesting tactic.

Speak highly of religion, and claim that in order to keep it prestine...we need to protect it from the evils of politics.

That`s a one-trick poney my friend.

On the contrary, what the religious need to do is drop their know-all attitudes, and admit that from time to time, the answer isn`t evident to a problem...and that perchance we may have to take a chance once and a while. And to admit, that *gasp*...failure might be a possibility.

Imperfect people can`t implement perfect systems. Once that realization hits us, the ummah will flourish, and Islamic politics will be viable.

Secularism is an excuse to eliminate religion from the public sphere.

#26, jang {``in short, it has been a symbiotic relationship. so, its unfair to claim purity of intent for the religion while damning the religious. ``}

I submit that having a hammer around is quite handy. Using that hammer to crack heads open is not what I consider handy.

#8 by Salim_Chauhan
{I agree with the essence of your presentation that power-hungry and selfish Muslims must stop exploiting and maligning Islam as they stomp on everything Islamic to attain their unIslamic goals. }

hmmm..this is whitewashing..many religions were used by states, and religions and conquering flourished hand-in-hand (feroze has written a lot on this in his war dispatches). so there is a large history of evidence of gain from religions (and certainly FOR religions by gaining them adherents ). in short, it has been a symbiotic relationship. so, its unfair to claim purity of intent for the religion while damning the religious.

#22, Manto
The Turks of the 1920s were more against Arab influence than they were against Islam. Because of the infidelity of the Arabs, the Turks lost WWI by being stabbed in the back - in the south, where they were not expecting an attack. They had taken care of the British in Gallipoli and the Russians in Armenia.
The anti-Arabic bandwagon just took on an anti-Islamic tone with the ban of calls to prayer, religious laws, etc. More than anything, Ataturk wanted to modernize the Turks. His mother was herself a very devout Muslim. Turks are strange when it comes to Islam - alcohol and sexual activity have always been part of Turkish culture - pre-revolution and post-revolution.

Re: # 23

Madani,

Unless Akhtar is doing both of your daughters, there`s no need to sing unnecessary praises of him. He took only two wickets compared to Asif and Razzaq.

Bowling O M R W ER Nb Wb
S Akhtar 16 3 70 2 4.38 4 0
M Asif 19.1 1 78 4 4.07 6 0
A Razzaq 16 3 67 3 4.19 7 0
S Afridi 3 0 12 1 4.00 0 0

Re: # no reference
As predicted India defeated by 7 runs by home team. Indian management total failure. Test is won almost as shoeb Akhtar reaching 157KM/HR. Major indian batsman can not face Express just throw and run away. Sad only indian bowlers have to bad.

Feroz..

An excellent article as usual.


Salim Chauhan,

Being a Turko-phile like myself you must have read the history of the Turkish Revolution.
The rallying cry, under Mustapha Kemal Ataturk, there was Islam and Jehad more than anywhere else and look what they did after that.

Re: # 20
No reference:
It looks pindi express will indian team out of misery . Indian team has no chance again management failure of Indian captain.

on the inside joke:
i came across this guy who was comparing characters in Heinrich Heine`s poem Marie Antoinette with muslims. In the poem, ghosts of Marie Antoinette the famous french queen entertains her guests in the strictest ettiquettes or so it seemed to the ``Guests``. The irony was that all the guests and the Queen were headless (as the scene was transpiring after the French Revolution) and since they were headless they didnt have their brains intact to realise that they were headless... ! eek!

Muslims are pretty much in the same headless state with the ghost of Muhammad haunting them.

ferozek:
i think pakistani state is emulating the Medinah State, the ideal state founded by the Prophet, in one very imporant area.

And that is the lack of any sort of succession principle in force in Pakistan just like Mohammad left it open ended for his followers to duke it out among them once he was dead - well here we are - in 1400 Hijrah-century and Pakistani state is strictly following the Sunnah of the Prophet with extreme reverence.

Too shallow an article to warrant any serious response.

Re: # 7

The title is an inside joke; if the Muslims do not reform they will be responsible for their own end. :)

Ciao

Re: # 8 and # 5

Thanks.

Ciao

Re: # 1

Agreed.

Ciao

#9 by Urstruly on January 28, 2006 8:22pm PT


The days of military fascists, atheists thugs, and corrupt puppets of the west are numbered now.


Hey..2 million is a number too..

#9 writes <<< The days of military fascists, atheists thugs, and corrupt puppets of the west are numbered now. >>>>

Yes, the days of those who have used and abused Islam and its image for their evil ends, whether it be the so called Afghan Jihad or now the ``war on terrorism`` are numbered. They are losing on all fronts.

wo din key jis ka waada hey
hum dekhain gey

Inshallah.

Re: # 9

Brother Urstruly,

Indeed Hamas` victory cannot be denied even with the majority Palestinian atheists amongst the voting population. In the face of rampant corruption etc, even a party of donkeys would have been victorious, no? So really its not Hamas` islamness (some moderates will say they have none) that has been validated, but just their non-Fatah-ness is. Brother, you may have been influenced by the western media when they call Hamas, an extremist ISLAMIST party.. when you know in your heart that it is just an extremist palestinian party responding to Israeli aggression and Fatah corruption..

Brother if you want to seek the truth, you have to admit that the islam-ness of a politcal party should be measured by its competition and what they are offering. Like Maududi, coming out with that fatwa against Fatimah Jinnah.. You probably know countless other examples. Hamas, PLO, Fata etc.. none of them are secular or islamist.

The example of Muslim organization helping out, the writer of this article might say that this is what the place of Muslim organizations (just like the church) should be, where they invoke the fear of the supernatural in order to collect charity for the earthquake victims. Just don`t enter politics with half-assed ideas about banking, rights of women/dhimmis/sects/gays/arts/inheritance/slavery and corporal punishment when we can have a constitution based on modern sensibilty and science, the writer would say.

The battle cry in the last line is so cute brother, that kaka would like to take a puppee of you, if that`s alright with the editor here.

Re: # 8

`If Muslims prefer the gains of political power and they wish to use and malign Islam for this purpose, then out of a common decency, they should stop pretending to act in the name of Islam`

The problem with this hapless circularity is that, anyone wanting to MALIGN Islam will HAVE TO act in the name of Islam, common decency notwithstanding. In other words, it is not possible to make an egg omelette without invoking some eggs first.

I do not believe this statement ``The Muslim ummah is a myth``. The articles preamble starts with this quote.
Ummah is strong and alive and kicking and ummah is presently little ill is agreeable but but does not exist is wrong statement. All pakistan is example of Muslim Ummah is alive and proof of Quiad`s Two Nation theory.
Many muslim rich countries like KSA or Kuawait, UAE and other cash rich with full of liquid black gold and brimming with cash help Pakistan help is sign of Ummah. Only due to concept of Ummah they are helping pakistan other what is need for them. Ummah is fully united against nonmuslim episodes like israel or terrorism by OSB type people. I think there are proindia people want to discredit Ummah and put muslims in depression. When any bad things happens in poor Muslim countries all Muslims are united to support is sign Ummah exists. Like when India made invasion of Pakistan in 1971 and liquidation of E.Pakistan all muslim countries were united for pakistan. Iran helped us by sending arms and allowing Pakistan airmachines can land and stay and then fly and bomb indian army. Same way Turky send us spare parts and Indonesia was angered and asked permission of pakistan to occupy India islands od Andaman and pakistan asked them not to increase area of conflit. Aryameher ShaenShah called on word bodies to do something when Indian army crossed international borders.
Ummah is strong. Ummah is strong in resources and population, controls 60% of worlds black liquid gold. What is needed is strong enlightened moderare antiterrorist leadership and that is available in form of leadership of Ge.eral Musharaff of IRP.
Let Salake din ho Hazzar and Ummah live Hazzar Sal.

#6

The writer`s thesis, even as explained by you, is still croc. Perhaps it is you people who need to get out of your supernatural fairylands. One example would suffice. The recent victory of Hamas in the election disproves your and writer`s thesis. They did not get this election victory because they appealed to masses because of their belief system or because they appealed the anti-Isreal-US hatered in their masses. But instead their platform was based on three things - reform, end of corruption, and accountability. THere was decades of social service and charity that supported their platform.

Similarly, during the recent tragedy in Pakistan it were the Muslim organizations that were first to respond to the disaster and provided systematic social services to the victims despite military dicatorship`s ugly attempts to sideline them or even outright prevent them from providing social service. Interestingly, it was the masses in the Muslim lands who provided instant monetary help to their fellow Muslims, even before their governments did. And today after four months the only money that circulates among the victims is that collected by religious organiztions and that raised in Muslim lands.

The days of military fascists, atheists thugs, and corrupt puppets of the west are numbered now.

{``Therefore, the need for constitutional politics in the Muslim world is sorely needed to protect the sanctity of Islam, as a religion....If Muslims prefer the gains of political power and they wish to use and malign Islam for this purpose, then out of a common decency, they should stop pretending to act in the name of Islam, and they should be prepared to answer for their acts before the final Bar of Judgment.``}

Khan Sahib,
Very good article and some excellent points that you have made. I agree with the essence of your presentation that power-hungry and selfish Muslims must stop exploiting and maligning Islam as they stomp on everything Islamic to attain their unIslamic goals. Much as many groups with diverse axes to grind have manipulated American patriotism, I see many groups using Islam as a stepping stone for their own nefarious aims. The KKK, American Nazis, Republican neocons, Reaganites, Southern segregationists, labor unions, the Mafia, White Power advocates, AIPAC, ISNA, CAIR, JDL, Bnai Brith, ACLU, George Bush, and Timothy McVeigh, among others have at one time or another waved Old Glory to justify their own goals as ``American.`` Getting the red, white, and blue stamp of approval somehow makes their causes absolutely right. Similary, Saudi Arabia, UBL, Alkayda, Tally Bans, ISI, Muslim League, Mr. Jinnah, Khomeini, Hamas, Sadman Houston, King Hussein of Jordan, Ziaul Haque, ZAB, Nawaz, LeT, LeJ, SeS, JeM, JI, JUI, PPP, and even Mushy have used Islam to justify their own actions or misdeeds. May Allah have mercy on their souls. :)

This article ignores the fact that the vast majority of despots in the muslim world have been secular nationalists. They have appealed to nationalism, not religion, to maintain their dictatorships. Even now, our beloved dictator talks invokes the `national interest` to keep his vardi on. Islam and Islamists have not been an obstacle to constitutional and liberal politics. In fact, they have been part of the democratic opposition and have suffered brutal repression at the hand of dictators in the Islamic world.

P.S. What`s with the title?

Re: # 4

Brother,

The writer is perhaps saying that whenever islamists (the two kinds) have taken part in the political process, one kind (which is insincerely Islamic) seeks to keep the status quo and an skewed distribution of resources for their benefit, THUS DEFEATING THE LIBERALISM THAT IS THE WRITER`S VISION. The other kind (which is sincere) tends to get tangled up in power struggles for Islam`s cause, and supports out and out dictators, THUS DEFEATING THE LIBERALISM THAT IS THE WRITER`S VISION. Either way, the secular, constitutional (which inevitably will have some Islamic flavor as well) politics (which is the best way in the writer`s opinoin) that seeks to address basic problems of common people is not happening because the islamists are appealing to people`s awe of the supernatural. The writer is also charging the islamist of creating sectarian problems like Ahmedi, non-wahabi and even ummah-related dhimmihood.

kaka is just explaining, not agreeing with the writer. In fact, kaka thinks that the writer has reached a stalemate in his head and should consider kaka`s call for violence.

Mr. Khan,

Interesting article!! There are some key differences between Islam and other relgions. The basic difference is that Islam is way more structured than other religions. It attempts to be all encompassing by addressing every aspect of a person`s life both public and private. It is very difficult to but a box around it and say that Islam will play a limited role in a muslim society. Such an action can very easily cross the lines of heresy and be considered as a anti-islam action. Ergo people will end up not supporting it in the long run. Thus we see that in muslim countries, it is very easy for any tom, dick and harry scoundrel to mouth religious verbiage and gain power.

Your suggestions for secular, constiutional politics will unfortunately fail. If you have proper constitutional politics, you have to allow ALL political parties, or it becomes a farce like Turkey or Iran. As soon as you allow all the players, any political party that makes Islam the foundation will have a strong advantage. We are seeing that happen in Iraq, Iran, the MMA in Pakistan and the Hamas in Palestinian Authority. Or you can have the other extreme like Turkey or Algeria where religious parties are forcibly kept out of the electoral process, which makes a mockery out of democracy.

Therefore, you have basically two options. The first option is to let the electoral process work out in its full glory. Let the Hamas, Jamaat-e-Islami or any islamic party get power in their respective countries. However, they have to deliver. If they fail to deliver, they can be booted out and secular parties can gain power. This is possible if the political system is stable and allows smooth transition of political power. It has not happened anywhere so we do not know if this is plausible or not.

The second option is way more difficult but maybe the only option in the long run. This option is to revise Islam and eliminate its reach into politics and public service. While changing Islam is not possible, I believe there is a process of ``ijtehad`` or reform that is out there. As a hindu, I am not familiar with it. Nor have I ever seen it in action. But assuming such a channel exists, it is imperative to use it and reform Islam so that it remains strictly in a person`s personal life and doesnt interfere in the political space.

Article is nothing but sugar coated piss and vinegar. Lacks research and scholarship.

Even though Islamic parties all across Muslim world are taking part in democratic process (whereever available) yet in the twisted mind of this writer somehow they are facist. Interestingly, the only party that has regular internal elections is the Jamat-e-Islami. The party through elections have removed even his founder Maududi from chairmanship when he showed abysmal party position in 1971 elections. It has also removed chairman like Mian Tufail who led the Jihad in Afghanistan and succeded in expelling Soviets from there. If this is not blind hatered then what is.

`The only solution to the problems being confronted by Islam lies in the adoption of secular, liberal (constitutional) politics by the Muslims.`

Obviously, this isn`t working. That`s why the rest of the article..

One solution is violence. Violence of ideas, words and images. Starting from the existence of Allah, Mohammad and anything sacred, question everything. The nature of Mohammad`s musings with the supernatural; the transfer and collection of those musings; the intrinsic value of those musings held against emipirical observation.. all of these need to be discussed in full light of the Muslim masses.* Be that the traditionalists may win the debate, the exposure will educate not only Muslims but also non-Muslims about the nature and nuances of the debate. kaka believes, that will do it all for justice, peace and fulfilling basic needs.

kaka, a believing Muslim of the Maududi tradition, actually went out looking for the questions in the paragraph above. He wasn`t trying to be cool, looking to hang out with atheists and the anarchists. He asked simple questions; got complex answers and settled on the compromises of justice, peace and fulfilling basic needs for all.

*kaka got educated by going to the primary sources and manuscripts. The masses can get educated through.. umm Internet TV, Indian TV, American TV or Dubai TV, discussing all what kaka suggested, interspersed with comedies, dances and dog shows. The `text` internet is too elitist and distracting with its disposition towards commerce and porn. kaka is looking to brainwash the masses. Either that or its brainwashing. Its a simple and clear choice.

well the question is again the old one -- which came first -- the chicken or the egg -- did Islam produce the retarded Mullahs -- or the retarded Mullah produced the retarded Islam.....

there is nothing crazy about Islam -- its just like any other religion -- retrogresssive for the non practionors -- panacea for everything from the hemorrhoid to higher physics for the believers...

...like any other religion...

however UNLIKE any other religion -- it dabbles in politics in a big way -- even that is nothing unique in Islam -- the Christians were hanging the `pagans` called Mohamedans in the name of Jesus the Inquisitor politician...

....BUT that was 100 years ago -- for the Mullah`s Islam that hundred year ago -- is RIGHT NOW....a mere difference of 100 years -- just an itsy bitsy bloody blimp on the scale of human evolutioon....

...so what`s the heck...

Ferozk, the problem is that our myths are more powerful than our realities. Some even consider myths to be the only reality.