Chowk, Jay, a Ditch and I

ylh,

(1)

``There is debris of Indian Planes at Karachi Musuem for Pakistan Air Force... now if they are excluding the planes that the Americans took with them...``

Are you sure they`re `71 debris ? Probably not. Get it checked. Maybe `65 debris. The Americans sure as hell wouldn`t be interested in Hunter and Gnat debris and Yeager was not a man to leave a job half-done.

(2)

ylh, RSaxena was mistaken in saying that 93000 soldiers surrendering is a world record. At stalingrad, approx 100,000 germans surrendered. But this was after 250,000 of them died - out of a total 350,000 soldiers.

How many pak soldiers died in `71 in the east - 3 or 4 thousand. 93000 surrendering after only a few thousand died is indeed an unbeatable record.

However, while there is honour for surrender in a hopeless situation, there`s only Shame, with a capital S, in letting someone fly away laughing with hard-won war mementos for which your countrymen suffered and died.

(3)

To finally end your delusions, here`s an extract from the World AirPower Journal, Vol. 12, spring 1993:

``By 1970, India had attained its 45-squadron goal, and turned its attention to modernisation, phasing out the most obsolete aircraft types and establising a modern air defense ground environment. The 1971 war with Pakistan was the proving ground for the new air force, which was not found wanting.

Achieving 80 percent serviceability, the Indian Air Force mounted some 4000 sorties in the west and 1978 sorties in the east, despite pre-emptive strikes by the PAF against many IAF airfields. The Indian Air Force concentrated on interdiction sorties, preventing a major Pakistani offensive against India. Despite much propaganda by Pakistan and its apologists, the bulk of Indian losses were to ground fire, and IN THE AIR THE INDIANS DEMONSTRATED AN EDGE.``

OK, so was Yeager a liar or not ?

Three-to-One kill ratio for PAF, whipping ass in the sky...blah,blah.



100 aircraft lost in 6000 sorties. One aircraft every 60 sorties - is not bad whichever way you look at it.

Does anyone have figures for the PAF ? I doubt they flew even a 1000 sorties.

best regards,

Sattar2

Could not agree more with you. I would like to suggest that Ulema may still redeem themselves, if they avoid direct political power and concentrate on the study of the science of religion, so as to assist individuals and society chart a moral course, to be able to discern the wheat from the chaff.

Hamidm

hamid, How I wish you had read the series of posts completely. I wish I could have made it more fun to read.

Like so many, you are confusing Islam with Islamic knowledge. And in doing so, you are in the same error as the uneducated fundos you berate. laws are derived from an interpretation, conventions and knowledge prevalent at that time.

Morality and the law are interrelated and independent elements - they are related but not the same. Morality is Supra-historical but not law. Laws are man made constructs. Laws are by no means eternal. The relationship between morality and law is like that of the ``Kernel`` to the ``husk``, the flesh of the fruit to it`s peel.

Morality does not change but our understanding of it, does - If ``self evident`` truths were thus in time, why did the need to be asserted at that particular moment in time, why weren`t they ``self evident`` before?. If the understanding that slavery is immoral was the same through time, why it`s abolition, at that particular moment in time?

Fatima and Ayesha were human beings, acting within a human drama, by conventions and knowledge of their times and may God shower them with his mercy and peace. If it was in yester years, true that a nine year old bride is a blessing for the parents of such a bride, why does no one want such a blessing today? because our knowledge, our conventions, our presuppositions are different today from yesterday.

Our problem is that our laws have not kept pace with our understanding, and are moored in the knowledge and conventions of years past.

Happy Ijethad.

But then from a purist who will not give gin martinis for vodka, what can you expect? AND since I have an investment in your rate of consumption:

Mount Gay rum - tall glass, crushed ice, lemon twist - Stan Getz, Etta James doing ``tell it like it is``, John Lee Hooker and Van Morrison doing ``Don`t look back`` and Magic Slim and the Teardrops doing ``Can`t get no Grind`` or Mukesh doing ``Duniya Banane Wale...``

Hobbyty:

Various posts.

I have been trying to avoid getting myself in this discussion despite your invitations.The simple reason being that I find ``intellecualism`` a bit insipid.

Havin said that let me make this `revelation`.Blasphemy laws,as they stand today in the former British-colony countries,are of British commom law origin.So are censorship & anti-pornography laws.

It is still the statute in England.(I have no knowledge of other western countries).This,after secularism & science the new faiths,now manifests itself under hate-laws.Prosecution for the denial of the holocaust is nothing but a continuation of this asinine concept.

Just to give one example:Even Musailmaa,the kazzab nabi DURING the time of our nabee(sww)was not prosecuted for `blasephamy`.

Mr.rjanjua is perhaps well aware of the last three days of our nabee(sww) when the pen & paper was requested & `delirium` comment was made by someone nearby[Mr.rjanjua--I do not want to stir the hornets nest here];).Even then no such `law` was invoked.Yezid ransacked the ka`abaa & medinaa & still his family & tribe was safe--even after he was not there.

Ayatullah Khomeinis Fatwa has nothing whatsoever to do with any blasphemy law in Islam.It was sheerly a master political act and,admirably so,that it galvanised the entire Ummah around the globe.

In case you are wondering,Ayatullahs are not Imams in the classical shia concept of the twelve Imamas(i.e masoomeen).They are what is termed as those who have donned the Vilayaat e Faquhee.Simply meaning that they have the knowledge,experience,consensus,& the mandate to be the Jurisprudents & mujtahids(Ijtehaad rulings).

Ayatullah Khomeini was made Ayatullah sometimes around early seventies(I think)in an emergency & as a ploy to save him from the Shahs` tyrrany to him & his entire family.THe law in Iran,then was,that the Shah could not interfere in religious matters & therefore could not prosecute anyone who was an Ayatullah or above.Hence he was exiled to Iraq.As you might well be aware the seat of Shii fiquh is still Najaf Iraq and not Iran.I believe the present Mujtehad e Aazam is Ayatullh e Uzma Seestani(after Khui who passed away 4/5 years ago,I think).

What I am trying to convey is that Ayatullah Khomeini was way away from becoming an ayatullah let alone a mujtahid.The Qumm madressas have a very rigorous curriculum & there is no fixed-years ``graduation``.One could study for fifty years & still not be considered ``competent`` because of lack of personal qualities & virtues(like patience,absence of anger,greed,--you get the point).

For muslims who aspire a very well-honed learning in all fields there is nothing comparable in the whole world.Most Ayatullahs in Iran have Doctorates from Sorborne,Harvard or Cambridge,are fluent in at least 5/6 languages other than arabie or farsie,and have degrees in sciences too from reputable western instituitions.I personally know students who are doing their doctorates in genetics and philosophy in Canada & US who have spent a few years in Qumm & they vouch for the unparalled high calibre of education they obtained there.



Sorry friends,

I just realised that I have started rambling.I must stop right now!

PS:mr.Sattar seems more forthright & direct to me.

Saroush is a great philosopher but as Allamaa Iqbal has warned us(practical man that he was--despite being a doyen philosopher)

``masail e Nazaree mein ulajhh gaya hai khateeb``

__________________________________________________

PS:As I said that I try to avoid partaking in ``intellectual`` discussions because I find it too much a drain on time & ``fun``.Books,Inter-net,and maulanaas are available to anyone who is truly interested.

WASSALAAM

Drumz

Dear Drumz

There is considerable confusion on your part as to what my position is.

My first reaction to seeing, reading or hearing about an injustice or a brutality is the same as everyone. A basic gut reaction, a deep revulsion, Something of the sentiment that Bruce Cockburn expresses, in “If I had a Rocket launcher..” – or If I had a baseball bat.

``Where do you get the audacity to tell me Im looking for blood?``

It has noting to do with audacity, in all your posts; you express that Gut reaction to injustice and the desire to do the perpetrators of the injustice, bodily harm. When I suggested that we should treat Mr. Naqshbadi with respect and dignity, you suggested I was some sort of race traitor, as if an extreme reaction would help us understand his position, when I tell you that if we respond with brutality and suppression, (or bad language) we only confirm the worst fears of those we confront and erode any chances of trying to see different positions with a measure of calm. It does not mean that I don`t feel angry or I`m not outraged, but must I express this outrage in a manner you approve? What happened to U b U?

While I share your sense of outrage, I am convinced that such behavior can only be corrected by education. Education is food for the soul, as in “man does not live by bread alone.”

We have heard it suggested on these boards that the human spirit can be broken with imprisonment and harsh treatment. Did it break Mandela? In the end those who called a him a vicious terrorist, and robbed him of his freedom, locked him away on a island, In the end they not only acknowledged him as a Statesman but as a great man. The moral strength that sustained the terrorist Mandela, is the same moral strength that allowed him to forgive his jailors. Food kept his body alive, education and moral strength ensured his freedom and redemption of a nation.

”(Just a thought... Also How does pluralism deal with those who reject it (I know how communism and democracy deal with them), say the jihadis?”

To my knowledge, I do not know of a single instance where any Jihad was aggressive. Whether in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia or Kashmir, in neither of these instances, did Jihadis initiate hostilities; rather they responded to hostilities.

However, what if Jihadis reject pluralism? First of all being a Jihadi is not a crime. My only option is to persuade them with the force of reason, of their acceptance and their role in society, and strength of public opinion. Rejection never takes place within acceptance. Would the Puritans have left England, had they been accepted in England? Would Jews have left Europe and other parts of the world, if they felt accepted?

Do not misunderstand me, I am not suggesting nor do I believe I have ever suggested, that those guilty of crimes should not be punished. Throwing acid in some innocent’s face is a terrible crime and I should like those who did it and those who ordered it done, even if this means going to high political offices, be brought to justice. In the specific case of Lashkar e Jabbar, I reassert, that I remain suspicious of this group and suspect it of being an intelligence operation and indeed, I am not alone in this suspicion. Does this make acid thowing Ok? No, of course not, if anything it makes it even more vile, if that`s possible.





Shalom.

Reply Drumz #1537

Drumz

“Temporal tells me that people dont respond due to my offensive langauge.”

Um – might actually be due to your difficult ideas. Be as polite as you wish, I bet you won’t get any coherent rebuttals.

“I suspect he`s right, actually Im glad he`s right. I agree with hamid, the god damn courtesy shown here is sickening. (ya hafta wonder exactly what these people are covering up with their politeness)”

Rudeness only detracts from true unpleasantness. May you continue to grow and prosper.

PM

Dear PM

I am not quite sure where you are heading with you the first point about “foreign” Law. However, let me first assert that “Imposition” of anything, even laws is a net negative. Laws are acceptable when society has arrived at a consensus about what the problem is and that the law is seen to be dealing with the problem. There is no way to impose acceptance of a law upon society, short of threat of harm – and I cannot imagine why anybody would want to – we have seen the results of such impositions. We should never try to impose our morality on others who do not share that morality.

Yes, laws reflect and protect morality. I would not use the term subservient; they are related but also independent.

“ but there are situations in which Law must damn well bring Morality under its command. Where? In cases where reason (ijtehad, if you will) can be serviced to show that prevailing morality-- whatever its phenomenological basis – offends the LAW”.

I disagree with the way you have phrased it. It is not morality that will ever offend the Law. It is the other way around. An interesting take on this may be the call for Homosexual rights (laws) within society. The homosexual community will not be able to secure those rights until a moral case is made that appeals to the majority within a community. In this case where as a Law offended the morality (for our purposes, lets agree that the call for such rights to those who call for such rights, is a moral call), when a greater number of persons find that moral value more acceptable, then the law has to reflect that value. In the last post, there is mention of the kinds of role women now play as opposed to before and the fact that the laws do not take into account this new perception and that this contradiction is harmful to members of society and therefore to society. Again, it is a call for the laws to reflect and protect society. Another example is the blasphemy laws. I challenege you to bring forward even one case where either a pwer position or some poor peasant is not being shown the stick. The law itself is an affront to the morality of Muslims. It not the morality of Muslims that is affronted by the Law.

“The LAW I speak of are those ‘truths held to be self-evident’ etc. etc. etc. (It maybe be that the best we can do is have civilization-bound ‘self evident’ law, but nonetheless, some sense of a superseding set of ‘basic principals’ to which all law must conform and be consistent with.”

Interesting point – the “self-evident” nature of the truths asserted, is itself, a product of the presuppositions and knowledge of that time. After all, they were not always held, “self-evident” by a majority of persons, throughout history.

The basic Principles are moral values. “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” based on what? Moral values. However, did not the perception of the role of these moral values change in history, and was that change not a result of an “expansion and contraction” of knowledge and sources of knowledge and methodologies of arriving at knowledge. That is to say, that the moral values have a supra historical nature to them, but our understanding of those values and the role of those values in organizing society has been effected by our knowledge and it’s application to understanding these values.

May I suggest to you that a better basis for an all encompassing set of laws may be a consentual agreement on the meaning of human rights. I think within the context of Islam and the morality of Muslims, the concept of human rights can have a powerful moral force. In order to get there we must first traverse the system of ideas that include religious pluralism, pluralism of indexical salvation and the tolerance of pluralism that it must obviously mean.

“Cultures might have had accorded a protective, if benighted attitude toward women. As long as the loss of freedom of the woman could be justified as a necessary evil to uphold the ‘virtue’ of protecting the ‘weaker’ members of society, society could be said to be in moral equilibrium. (This is not to deny that such a situation could give rise to undesirable power imbalances and abuse - opportunity) Now with the passage of time, the original rationale for the ‘protective’ status all but forgotten, women so far from being protected, are victimized for asserting themselves. What if local understanding, morality AND law promote this victimization? Should those outside the particular ethical system eschew interference on ground that law must always be subservient to morality?”

Any pressure from inside or outside will not help as much as the creating of an understanding, by education, of the error of the laws vis a vis society’s moral values. This is the perfect example of the ``Husk`` and the ``Kernel``. When such a situation exists, an internal contradiction will cause a rupture within society – As we witness in Pakistan. The cohesion of the society as a whole is threatened.

You will find very few people, educated or not, who support honor killing. This “internal rupture” is a symptom of a moral failure of societal proportion. In addition, it is a symptom of a moral coma, caused by the struggle between a present day morality and an ethical worldview dependent on presuppositions and knowledge of bygone years. An “ought” (as in a law based on a moral value or a moral value) already exists and I am not suggesting that it is derived from or should be derived from an “is” (from an observation of something or norm that exists within society) – but I am suggesting that it must not be in conflict with an “is”.(refer to my summary)

“To demonstrate that Law may in fact be imposed on an incongruous morality with desirable outcomes, one has only to look as far as the Abolition Act in the US. Is there any doubt that it flew in the face of the accepted morality of the anti-abolitionists? Yet, relying on an ascendant morality, Honest Abe was able (and willing!) to impose a law that many in the South were unready for. Can it be doubted that ‘morality’ gradually came around as a result of this imposition?”

Yes, indeed it can be doubted and the result was a bloody war. Had the North lost, would the morality of the abolitionist movement been discredited? The legacy of racism is still with us, as are attitudes reflected in the prevalence confederate flags in the South. This after more than a hundred and thirty years. The decreasing value placed on racism as a State or societal or cultural value, is the function of education, not imposition. The English imposed their language upon the peoples of their colonies, it has not succeeded in making of it`s colonial subjects, English persons (Englishers). Whereas it is true that the morality of the abolitionist movement took hold in the north and by strength of numbers and industry and tremendous bloodshed did organized State racism was defeated. Again, lets examine this with the notion of presuppositions and knowledge of the times. You will agree that political and social changes in the way people live their lives and earn their lively hood has a tremendous effect on their knowledge and perceptions. I suggest that the changes in society due to industrialization in the North and the resistance to change in the South and the social and political consequences of these changes and the attendant presuppositions and knowledge in both the North and South, will be a more fruitful course of inquiry over such broad notions as that the North engaged in a war with the South over the morality of the abolitionist movement. For another example, lets look towards banning of liquor in the early century. The call for the banning was on moral grounds, but it effected quite the opposite. The same in Pakistan, when one could buy alcohol openly, it was not as much of a problem for society as it is now. (refer to summary)

PM – - Laws are a utility, they will last until their utility lasts, until society deems that they are not useful -

For any change to be EFFECTIVE, those undergoing the process of change must understand the nature of the change and must understand the moral rationale for the change, and must not be threatened by that change. I put it you that society in Pakistan has undergone tremendous changes – but it has failed to understand the nature of the changes and it has not been able to “own” the changes because no plausible rationale has taken a hold within society, and that these changes have caused a both an opportunity and a reaction by the most conservative elements of society. These elements can see clearly that their position in society has little value, because they have not been busy articulating the nature of the problem, nor have they developed a moral base that finds the solutions they offer, are in keeping with the requirements of the lives of average persons.

In summary:

“We shouldn’t devise rights and duties that their historical, biological and psychological existence has declared impossible, undesirable or inappropriate. If such an obligation is imposed, it will inevitably fall into disregard. Rights and duties are, in the language of philosophers, normative (subjective) and normative things cannot be ``true`` or ``false``; they can only be desirable or undesirable, appropriate or inappropriate, possible or impossible. If the spirit and mentality of women brushes aside certain commands, then these commands will become impracticable, regardless of the fact that we may be able to marshal a hundred religious sayings and narratives in their support. If the physical bodies and biological structures of men and women are such as to brush aside certain commands, they will inevitably become null and void. The verse saying `` no duty beyond people’s capacity `` is testimony to this fact. We do not have any duties that are beyond our capacity and endurance. In fact, such a duty would go against Islamic law. But we have to bear in mind that capacity and endurance don’t just refer to physical capacity and endurance. As I said, it is also a matter of mental and psychological capacity and endurance. And this capacity and endurance changes with the passage of time and in the course of the different eras of history. Hence, in enacting laws for men and women, young and old, capacity and endurance have to be taken into account. Things must not be said and obligations must not be imposed that would be brushed aside and ruled impossible by reality and nature.”

--------

“Hobbyty, or anyone who cares, on another, not completely unrelated note, would the prescriptions in the verses quoted by Gowardhan be considered the husk or the hull? Would appreciate a thoughtful reply, as such issues seem to me extremely problematic.”

PM – taking quotes out of context so as to effect a change in their meaning is a fundamentally dishonest endeavor. Perhaps if the very same were to present a study or present arguments and persuade us that it is “husk”, well that would be a different matter.

``Problematic`` is not necessarily bad - in inquiry we will by nature of inquiry come up against walls. It`s what we allow this to do to us or not do to us, that counts. And we should have any pretensions that we seek to understand ourselves and our environment, we should take as a given, the presence of the ``problematic``.



Enjoy.

yo YLH are you angry with me again?

a) When they won`t let you back into Pakistan, which is beginning to look increasingly certain, we will welcome you to India, since we do encourage diversity.

b) Will you please advise readers here what the PAF headed by Chuck Yeager was doing when Karachi received dual pastings in 1971 from the Indian Navy missile boats as well as Hunters of the IAF that came from a westerly direction assisted?

aLSO:-

`` Aug-26-01 1:42:58 EST Reply #: 721

veeresh

ylh 648 . . .

a)

Serious part:-

Thank you for your response on Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose . . . there is a lot coming out now on his last days and the linkages between the UK, USSR, US, Indian and Pakistani governments on the subject. Some of it may make even your hair stand on end, especially when you take on Indians and Hindus as a matter of habit.

However, hypothetical it may seem but could well have been true, if Bose had come back to un-divided India triumphant or otherwise, the Brits would not have had the guts to hang him, Bengal would have remained united, West Pakistan would have got Jinnah AND Nehru AND Kashmir AND the Congress Party.

Which is why I want to research what the Pakistanis teach you people about Bose.

Think: would we as a sub-continent have been free without Bose? Counting from Singapore onwards, and moving West . . .

b)

Now to the fun part. I often remember how my children, when they were smaller and denied chocolates, would say ``I hate you . . .`` . . . so in that vein:-

I am not a liar nor am I a bigot. To reconfirm this, I called up all the Hamdanis/Humdanis in the phone books of a few Indian cities (so far 87 of them, about 40% Hindu, 20% Muslim and the rest were not willing to disclose religion) & asked all of them : is Veeresh Malik a liar and a bigot? (I am a famous fat man here, see?) All the Hamdanis/Humdanis said, no, Veeresh Malik, you are not a liar and By various Gods, you are not a bigot, either.

Now I am therefore, by logic, made to assume that if you are correct then all 87 of the other Hamdani/Humdanis are liars, in which case good chances are that you may also be a liar. However, if the other 87 Hamdani/Humdanis are not liars then you are anyways a liar. This is very confusing, you will admit?

c) There are 3000 odd people claiming to be of Pakistani origin seeking refuge with UNHCR in Delhi. This gives me no joy, because they all look like Pathans or Palestinians when you check out the lines. Please read the latest Economist on Human Rights.````

Banjara

There is Islam and there are Islamists. Islam is personal religion, Islamism is a hateful ideology of extreme cruelty and arabic monoculture without any soul.

An muslim can be a good person, a good bengali, a good Indian, a good sindhi, a good Indonesian, good Punjabi. An Islamist is not a person but automaton slave of arabia.

A muslim can be a muslim and also enjoy Basant festival, the culture of his parents, the dress of brothers and sisters, the language of his ancestors. An Islamist hates Basant because it is not an arabic festival, is glad his mother was raped by a gang of arabs, dreams of some 50 year old arab taking his 9 year old sister, and makes sure both of them wear nothing but burqa when they go out. A muslim can have non muslim friends. An Islamist hates them internally as kuffars who have to be conquered and enslaved so they can sent to clean the streets of arabia.

In Pakistan islam has all but died at the hand blood thirsty Islamism. In Bengladesh and in India there is a war between the two. Muslims have to decide whether they want to be Muslims or Islamists. Hindus or christians are not involved in this fight. Hindus got their own problems.

Re:Reply #: 1638

ylh

Unlike your country which may seek to distort the truth, we do not do so. Why do you have to make such statements as ``Indian History Books claim that India thrashed China in the 1962 War and marched on Beijing...`` only to be caught red-handed? What is your source? The history that i read was silent about the war which is better than falsifying history. Newspapers and T.V channels have never lied to us. Generations of Indians have been told about the Chinese betrayal (it was just that; they attacked India at the height of Indo-Chinese friendship)and have grown to hate them.

On the other hand my good friend from Pak, with whom i did my residency in New York, betrayed his ignorance of history when he asked me one day if Chinese had not come all the way to Bombay during the `62 war and i had to tell him that it was at best a border war and did not involve Navy and Air force.

Sridhar

Re: hamidm, #448

That even the ``liberal`` Pakistanis have shunned the Ahmadis in Pakistan is a sad commentary indeed.

Many years ago I, born a Sunni Muslim, had a privilege to work in a restaurant in NY that was owned by the Ahmadis. They were among the most pious, Allah fearing, namaz praying group of people I had ever seen. And there I was, a liquor drinking, pot smoking, pork eating, screwing person, who was, and still is, as far away from religion as a pious Brahmin from beef. It is my firm belief that those Ahmadis will be among the first ones to let in Junnat by Allah, whereas I, a Sunni Muslim, don`t have a chance in hell, and neither do those `good` Muslims who prosecute others in the name of religion.

Shame on those Pakistanis and the so-called Muslims who don`t count the Ahmadis among themselves. Maybe it`s a commentary on the Ahmadis. Religiously, and also as human beings, the Ahmadis have proven to be a lot superior to those who look down at them.

jay #431

``NOT FROM DAWN

Suffering little hearts breach LoC.........``

....what, found a new vedas have we? good have mercy on us....

Reply Stuka #400

Stukaji

``…it would help if you told me what Lahorian Di Hatti is”

Dhaba at Connaught Place. But Karim’s, etc. is also good. So many possibilities…

Zafar

Reply Tahmed321#: 425

“ And while you are in the business of providing Hindi lessons, what is the Hindi for ``Desi`` pliz? Would it be ``Smelly, amla oil covered, visa begging, yellow toothed, Hinglish grunting, brown skinned, grossly unproportioned, little runt`` perhaps??”

Your grasp of our language is impressive! (Welcome back.)

Reply Godot #439

Godot

I agree with you that Jay often writes posts laden with leading question type assumptions. I find it unfortunate, however, that your best response to the destruction of places of worship in Pakistan is to say that the same happens in India. As an Indian I feel India is diminished when a house of God (whatever it is called) is destroyed, and I would feel that way regardless of what was happening in Pakistan. Going from your past posts, I cannot help but suspect that you feel similarly.

Zafar

hamidm 448

That was awesome!

YLH # 1547

Yasser,

The questions indeed are obvious. If we agree on the principles and the blueprint we can step ahead with the thought process through debate and brainstoming. There are several approaches; the best approach, as always would be to start from and assessment of what we have right now and then move our argument forward.

You asked:

1) How within the republican structure adopted by Pakistan do you wish to inculcate the Islamic System based on `autonomous religious minorities`?

My reply:

See the paragraph above. A debate is required but first we must set the parameters of that debate as to what we want to prove through the debate. I would like you to take a position because the scope of this argument is so wide.

You asked:

2) Dont you think confessional multiculturalism (ie of Multiculturalism without Secularism) has failed in Lebanon? Taking the case of Lebanon how do you propose the imposition of Islamic System?

My reply:

I think you mean constitutional multiculturalism in Lebanon. I don’t think that the multicultural experiment through constitutional parity has failed in Lebanon. The civil war was mostly due to the external factors such as Israel. As a matter of fact Lebanon is a great example to prove that the religious pluralism can exist with in a constitutional polity. As far as the second part of the question is concerned, an agreed constitution is the answer. What would be the features of that constitution is debatable as in Q.1

You asked:

3) You haven`t said anything against Minorities being part of the state or defense, but your assertion of Mandatory Jehad for Muslims kind of has the notion of segregation of Non Muslims from the Muslims in so far as Defence is concerned?

My reply:

I don’t think that it can be implied from my post. Keeping something optional for a segment of a society is more autonomous than segregation. On the other hand instead of making it an option if we restrict them to take part in defense, would be pure segregation. War is not something majority of people like any way.

You said:

4) How do you view the Ideal Indian Model of treating with the Minorities with things like `Muslim Family laws` etc. Can you compare and contrast it with homogenously Muslim yet secular polity of Turkey? In these two extremes if we have to tread a middle path, how should we do it?

My reply:

The Muslim Family Law has been in place since British rule. The Indian constitution adopted it from there. Nonetheless, credit goes to Indians for making their constitution more pluralistic and inclusive. This is another example that religious pluralism can coexist with in secular pluralism. Everything and every system can be successful if it is based on just principles and we are determined to make it successful.

I must exercise caution though when we discuss the totally secular Turkish constitution. One must keep in mind that since Ataturk there has always been a totalitarian or a dictatorial governance in Turkey. The religious parties are banned. Dissent is banned and it is crushed by force. So I don’t think that taking Turkish model and implementing it in a democratic pluralistic constitutional polity is a very good idea. Turkish constitution bans the pluralism, which is inherent in human nature. Besides applying Turkish paradigm on Pakistan is also not a very smart idea. One must keep in mind that apart from religion Pakistani Muslims or Turkish Muslims have a very different psyche. Both people have totally different historical experiences. So a Turkish model will not be palatable to Pakistanis (assuming that it is palatable to Turks). I would prefer to look towards Indian Model rather than a Turkish model. At least by analyzing we can know first hand what could go wrong in a secular democracy or at least what exactly not to do in a secular democracy. Indian model is also a text book case to see how social attitudes prevent a secular democaracy turn into a welfare state based on principles of social justice. This comment has nothing to do with my usual anti-hindu/Indian rhetoric. We can discuss this on its merit. Personally I am not very fond of totalitarianism or fascism even if they are sugar-coated with the notion of a ``benevolent dictator``.

You said:

5) What about the Ceremonial heads of state in a country like Pakistan? Should the constitution discriminate against a Non Muslim?

My reply:

I claim my ignorance here. The issue is debatable. We can examine the issue through the Quran, Hadis and then Ijtehad. Personally, I think if a minority member swears his allegiance to the constitution he is eligible for a leadership role. My contention is based on two things:

a)With the exception of first four Caliphs who were elected through vote, the Muslims throughout the world always had a Monarch or a Caliph as the state head. In monarchy or a caliphate the word of the head of the state is the constitution. So, I don’t think that Muslims would have allowed a non-Muslim to lead them. Whereas in case of a constitutional polity the constitution has the sovereignty. So if a member of a minority swears his allegiance to the constitution he may be fit to lead.

b) The second point actually supports the first. Lets see our Prophet’s (pbuh) last sermon when he said:

Quote:

. 0 Ye people, Allah says: 0 people We created you from one male and one female and made you into tribes and nations, so as to be known to one another. Verily in the sight of Allah, the most honoured amongst you is the one who is most God fearing. There is no superiority for an Arab over a non-Arab and for a non-Arab over an Arab, nor for the white over the black nor for the black over the white except in God`s consciousness……………………, Listen and obey, though a mangled Abyssinian slave is appointed your Amir, provided he executes (the Ordinance of) the Book of Allah among you.

Unquote.

YLH, please pay attention to the last line. We can reach to a conclusion through an intellectual discourse

hamidm # 1540

I see that now you have started hiding behind your women. It aint a surprise. It was expected.