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.

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...

#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.

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?

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.

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.

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....

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

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?!!!!

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...