Why We Need Islamization of Science
Kamran Meer February 25, 2005
#476 Posted by ayaan2002 on March 7, 2005 7:16:12 am
This is in response to several requests made by readers to explain the symbolic language of religions, but with specific reference to the Qur`an. While the subject is vast, I have made a humble attempt here.
Regarding symbols, the Qur’an states:
“Do you not see how God sets forth a symbol? A good word is as good as a good tree, its root set firm and its branches in heaven. It brings forth its fruit at all times, by the leave of its Lord. God sets forth symbols for men that they may remember.” (14:24-25)
In order to understand this significant Qur’anic verse about symbols, a verse that ends by referring to “men that they may remember”, it must first be understood what the Qur’an says about the “two levels” that comprise existence, that is, one vertically “above” and the other vertically “below”, and the purpose for which humans have been placed on Earth.
Why Humans were created
According to the Qur’an, the ultimate purpose for which humans have been placed on Earth “below” is so that they can climb back “above” so that they can regain the state of perfection, the state in which Man was originally created by God, as the Qur’an says,
“Verily we created Man in the fairest rectitude” (95: 4),
When the first man (Adam) was created, it was a time when Man lived in Paradise (the world “above”) and in close proximity to God and possessed the truth of certainty of the existence of God, or a direct knowledge of God. God tells of this proximity by stating that God commanded the angels to prostrate before Man, as the Qur’an says:
“And we said unto the Angels, Make prostration before Adam” (2:34).
Subsequently however Man fell into error and was reduced by God to a lowly state by being clothed in the physical body and placed on Earth (the world “below”), as the Qur’an states:
“Verily we created Man in the fairest rectitude. Then we cast him down to the lowest of the lows” (95: 4-5).
Now, in order to help the fallen earthly Man to travel back towards the goal of the state of perfection or to a state of unity, God has placed symbols in the universe so that they might remind Man of the perfection that he once possessed. Man is thus commanded to continue to “remember” by performing “dhikr”, which is Arabic for “remembrance”.
According to the teachings of Islam, to affirm that “la illaha illa llah” (There is no God except God) is a form of dhikr, to perform ablution with fresh water is a form of dhikr, to perform the daily canonical prayers is a form of dhikr, and to follow the Law of God in society, that is, Shari’a, is also a form of dhikr, as is the repetition of any of the 99 names of Allah. All these acts lead humans towards the state of perfection or state of unity (as opposed to a state of duality) so that they can enter Paradise again and re-gain proximity to God. On the other hand, neglect of dhikr leads away from God, or a forgetfulness of God.
Now coming back to the Qur’anic verse (14:24-25) cited above, the firm-set root of the tree is the dhikr itself uttered with firm-set purpose; the Heaven-reaching branches represent the tremendous impact of the dhikr as it passes upward throughout the whole universe; and the fruit of the tree is the state of perfection and nearness to God, a state in whose memory the dhikr is performed. Thus dhikr leads to a direct knowledge of God, that is, to a direct knowledge of reality without any doubt and with absolute certainty.
The Symbolism of the Human Body
The result of the loss of proximity between Man and God is that humans have forgotten the truth of certainty. The symbol of this forgetfulness or one could say “distraction” is the physical human body, which contains animal passions (such as lust, anger, greed etc.), and the weight of these passions draws humans vertically downwards, that is, away from the truth. Thus humans on earth contain two natures: one which is spiritual or God-like and therefore striving vertically upward for the lost paradise, and the other passional and therefore pulled vertically downward, away from the paradise. It is the conflict between these two natures that humans must overcome in order to regain the state of perfection.
Thus God commands men to strive to re-possess the truth of certainty by fighting the passions so as to reverse the fall, that is, humans must work towards or travel vertically back towards the goal of the state of perfection, thus converting their state of duality back into a state of unity.
What is a Symbol
It can now be explained what a symbol is: A symbol is something in a lower domain of reality (such as the physical universe within the observable reach of humans) that has the power to remind humans of the symbol’s counterpart in higher worlds above, not through merely incidental resemblance, but because the symbol is related to its higher counterpart in the same way that a shadow is related to the object that casts it, as the Qur’an attests that everything in existence is nothing but a shadow of higher realities: “Allah disdains not to set forth as symbol even the weakest of creatures as well as the highest” (2:26).
The Symbolism of the Sun-Moon Pair
The Sun-Moon pair is visible from every place on earth and can therefore be called a universal symbol. The sun with which the day is lit corresponds to the light or knowledge of certainty, and the moon’s various phases of brightness throughout the month (but which are only a reflection of the sun’s light) correspond to humans in their various states of perfection. Thus the full moon symbolizes a human who has attained to full perfection, while the various degrees of the partial moon symbolize the different degrees with which humans must pass in their efforts to attain perfection. The Sun and the Moon are thus only two of the signs upon the horizons shown to humans to lead them to the truth, as the Qur’an states:
“We shall show them Our signs upon the horizons and within themselves, until it be clear to them that He is the truth.” (41:53).
The Symbolism of the Horizon
The horizon itself, which is a clear line separating the earth from the sky, is also a profound symbol placed in nature by God for contemplation by humans, for it separates the sky or what is “above” from the earth or what is “below”, thus reinforcing and reminding humans about the duality within themselves and in all of existence.
The Symbolism of Water
The Qur’an states:
“And He it is Who hath let loose the two seas, one sweet and fresh, the other salty and bitter, and has set between them an isthmus, an impassable barrier” (25:53).
This verse about the nature of water again reaffirms the duality of existence. The sweet sea corresponds to the perfect human state as it was in heaven “above” while the salty sea corresponds to the fallen human state as it is in earth “below”. Moreover, in Arabic the ocean is called “al-muhit” which means All-Embracing, so that it may remind humans of God who is the All-Embracing. Also, the sweet sea of heavens, symbolized especially by the rain clouds, falls upon the earth as rain to symbolize God’s blessings which He sends down to awaken man, as the Qur’an states:
“And we have sent down from heaven pure water, that therewith we may quicken a dead land, and so that we may give drink to our creatures, to cattle and men in plenty, and verily we have given of it freely unto them, that they might remember” (25:48-50).
Water also symbolizes purity because it has the power to clean away or wash impurities. Thus the Muslim rite of ablution is itself a symbol of purification or attainment to the Paradise which is attained when humans cleanse themselves with water.
Conclusion
Through parables and symbols, all authentic religions including Islam, reveal the mystery and the unanswered questions that humans have about the purpose of their creation and the structure of reality. Simultaneously, they suggest how humans should fashion thought and acts throughout their lives.
It must be mentioned that of course humans have been endowed with free will to either accept or reject the messages conveyed through the religions, and the consequences of rejection are also presented so that humans may contemplate.
Regarding symbols, the Qur’an states:
“Do you not see how God sets forth a symbol? A good word is as good as a good tree, its root set firm and its branches in heaven. It brings forth its fruit at all times, by the leave of its Lord. God sets forth symbols for men that they may remember.” (14:24-25)
In order to understand this significant Qur’anic verse about symbols, a verse that ends by referring to “men that they may remember”, it must first be understood what the Qur’an says about the “two levels” that comprise existence, that is, one vertically “above” and the other vertically “below”, and the purpose for which humans have been placed on Earth.
Why Humans were created
According to the Qur’an, the ultimate purpose for which humans have been placed on Earth “below” is so that they can climb back “above” so that they can regain the state of perfection, the state in which Man was originally created by God, as the Qur’an says,
“Verily we created Man in the fairest rectitude” (95: 4),
When the first man (Adam) was created, it was a time when Man lived in Paradise (the world “above”) and in close proximity to God and possessed the truth of certainty of the existence of God, or a direct knowledge of God. God tells of this proximity by stating that God commanded the angels to prostrate before Man, as the Qur’an says:
“And we said unto the Angels, Make prostration before Adam” (2:34).
Subsequently however Man fell into error and was reduced by God to a lowly state by being clothed in the physical body and placed on Earth (the world “below”), as the Qur’an states:
“Verily we created Man in the fairest rectitude. Then we cast him down to the lowest of the lows” (95: 4-5).
Now, in order to help the fallen earthly Man to travel back towards the goal of the state of perfection or to a state of unity, God has placed symbols in the universe so that they might remind Man of the perfection that he once possessed. Man is thus commanded to continue to “remember” by performing “dhikr”, which is Arabic for “remembrance”.
According to the teachings of Islam, to affirm that “la illaha illa llah” (There is no God except God) is a form of dhikr, to perform ablution with fresh water is a form of dhikr, to perform the daily canonical prayers is a form of dhikr, and to follow the Law of God in society, that is, Shari’a, is also a form of dhikr, as is the repetition of any of the 99 names of Allah. All these acts lead humans towards the state of perfection or state of unity (as opposed to a state of duality) so that they can enter Paradise again and re-gain proximity to God. On the other hand, neglect of dhikr leads away from God, or a forgetfulness of God.
Now coming back to the Qur’anic verse (14:24-25) cited above, the firm-set root of the tree is the dhikr itself uttered with firm-set purpose; the Heaven-reaching branches represent the tremendous impact of the dhikr as it passes upward throughout the whole universe; and the fruit of the tree is the state of perfection and nearness to God, a state in whose memory the dhikr is performed. Thus dhikr leads to a direct knowledge of God, that is, to a direct knowledge of reality without any doubt and with absolute certainty.
The Symbolism of the Human Body
The result of the loss of proximity between Man and God is that humans have forgotten the truth of certainty. The symbol of this forgetfulness or one could say “distraction” is the physical human body, which contains animal passions (such as lust, anger, greed etc.), and the weight of these passions draws humans vertically downwards, that is, away from the truth. Thus humans on earth contain two natures: one which is spiritual or God-like and therefore striving vertically upward for the lost paradise, and the other passional and therefore pulled vertically downward, away from the paradise. It is the conflict between these two natures that humans must overcome in order to regain the state of perfection.
Thus God commands men to strive to re-possess the truth of certainty by fighting the passions so as to reverse the fall, that is, humans must work towards or travel vertically back towards the goal of the state of perfection, thus converting their state of duality back into a state of unity.
What is a Symbol
It can now be explained what a symbol is: A symbol is something in a lower domain of reality (such as the physical universe within the observable reach of humans) that has the power to remind humans of the symbol’s counterpart in higher worlds above, not through merely incidental resemblance, but because the symbol is related to its higher counterpart in the same way that a shadow is related to the object that casts it, as the Qur’an attests that everything in existence is nothing but a shadow of higher realities: “Allah disdains not to set forth as symbol even the weakest of creatures as well as the highest” (2:26).
The Symbolism of the Sun-Moon Pair
The Sun-Moon pair is visible from every place on earth and can therefore be called a universal symbol. The sun with which the day is lit corresponds to the light or knowledge of certainty, and the moon’s various phases of brightness throughout the month (but which are only a reflection of the sun’s light) correspond to humans in their various states of perfection. Thus the full moon symbolizes a human who has attained to full perfection, while the various degrees of the partial moon symbolize the different degrees with which humans must pass in their efforts to attain perfection. The Sun and the Moon are thus only two of the signs upon the horizons shown to humans to lead them to the truth, as the Qur’an states:
“We shall show them Our signs upon the horizons and within themselves, until it be clear to them that He is the truth.” (41:53).
The Symbolism of the Horizon
The horizon itself, which is a clear line separating the earth from the sky, is also a profound symbol placed in nature by God for contemplation by humans, for it separates the sky or what is “above” from the earth or what is “below”, thus reinforcing and reminding humans about the duality within themselves and in all of existence.
The Symbolism of Water
The Qur’an states:
“And He it is Who hath let loose the two seas, one sweet and fresh, the other salty and bitter, and has set between them an isthmus, an impassable barrier” (25:53).
This verse about the nature of water again reaffirms the duality of existence. The sweet sea corresponds to the perfect human state as it was in heaven “above” while the salty sea corresponds to the fallen human state as it is in earth “below”. Moreover, in Arabic the ocean is called “al-muhit” which means All-Embracing, so that it may remind humans of God who is the All-Embracing. Also, the sweet sea of heavens, symbolized especially by the rain clouds, falls upon the earth as rain to symbolize God’s blessings which He sends down to awaken man, as the Qur’an states:
“And we have sent down from heaven pure water, that therewith we may quicken a dead land, and so that we may give drink to our creatures, to cattle and men in plenty, and verily we have given of it freely unto them, that they might remember” (25:48-50).
Water also symbolizes purity because it has the power to clean away or wash impurities. Thus the Muslim rite of ablution is itself a symbol of purification or attainment to the Paradise which is attained when humans cleanse themselves with water.
Conclusion
Through parables and symbols, all authentic religions including Islam, reveal the mystery and the unanswered questions that humans have about the purpose of their creation and the structure of reality. Simultaneously, they suggest how humans should fashion thought and acts throughout their lives.
It must be mentioned that of course humans have been endowed with free will to either accept or reject the messages conveyed through the religions, and the consequences of rejection are also presented so that humans may contemplate.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#475 Posted by arjun_m on March 7, 2005 5:36:14 am
#472 by amit on March 6, 2005 10:34pm PT
My fear is that the US is on a slippery slope. The blue state-red state divergence is becoming sharper in every election cycle.
The red states are dominated by people supporting the right wing agenda, including religious issues like abortion and gay rights.
Hello Lt. Clueless...Do you live in the US? Some of us actually do....and it`s not like we`re getting pulled over by cops because we don`t have a jesus fish on our cars...
I am sure you have heard of the role that the evangelical vote had in the 2004 elections. The supreme court is also getting dominated by right wing judges and it is quite likely that in this term, Bush will appoint some more right wing judges.
Name one policy decision that was ``evangelical``....abortion is still legal...gay marriages were banned by individual states...ohio isn`t exactly glowing red...
The policy environment has degenerated such that scientific progress in areas like cloning and stem cell research has stopped and shifted to other countries.
Hello Lt. Clueless...ever heard of the 3 billion $ california stem cell financing initiative?
In the media environment, you saw the tremendous reception given to the movie ``The Passion of the Christ``, which had a strong anti-semitic message.
Yup..a bunch of people watched the passion of the christ and then went out joo -hunting...It`s the pogroms all over again...I`m already looking at places to stash contraband computer science books by the joos..never know when they might get banned..
Extreme right wing talk show hosts like Michael Savage routinely tear into Islam and muslims for hours each day.
It`s called free speech...and even with Weiner`s rantings, muslims are safer in the US than anywhere else in the world...including India and Pakiland...would you rather be a shia or an ahmedi in the US or Pakiland?
Of course, you are well aware of the immigration related hardships that muslims have faced in US for the past few years, with ordinary people being arrested and deported.
Yup...innocent muslims with legit immigration papers are being picked off the streets and deported...I`ll bet that`s what capt clueless told you..
Jeezus...are you sure you aren`t the lovechild of a vermont wedding between Capt Clueless and Michael Moore...
My fear is that the US is on a slippery slope. The blue state-red state divergence is becoming sharper in every election cycle.
The red states are dominated by people supporting the right wing agenda, including religious issues like abortion and gay rights.
Hello Lt. Clueless...Do you live in the US? Some of us actually do....and it`s not like we`re getting pulled over by cops because we don`t have a jesus fish on our cars...
I am sure you have heard of the role that the evangelical vote had in the 2004 elections. The supreme court is also getting dominated by right wing judges and it is quite likely that in this term, Bush will appoint some more right wing judges.
Name one policy decision that was ``evangelical``....abortion is still legal...gay marriages were banned by individual states...ohio isn`t exactly glowing red...
The policy environment has degenerated such that scientific progress in areas like cloning and stem cell research has stopped and shifted to other countries.
Hello Lt. Clueless...ever heard of the 3 billion $ california stem cell financing initiative?
In the media environment, you saw the tremendous reception given to the movie ``The Passion of the Christ``, which had a strong anti-semitic message.
Yup..a bunch of people watched the passion of the christ and then went out joo -hunting...It`s the pogroms all over again...I`m already looking at places to stash contraband computer science books by the joos..never know when they might get banned..
Extreme right wing talk show hosts like Michael Savage routinely tear into Islam and muslims for hours each day.
It`s called free speech...and even with Weiner`s rantings, muslims are safer in the US than anywhere else in the world...including India and Pakiland...would you rather be a shia or an ahmedi in the US or Pakiland?
Of course, you are well aware of the immigration related hardships that muslims have faced in US for the past few years, with ordinary people being arrested and deported.
Yup...innocent muslims with legit immigration papers are being picked off the streets and deported...I`ll bet that`s what capt clueless told you..
Jeezus...are you sure you aren`t the lovechild of a vermont wedding between Capt Clueless and Michael Moore...
#474 Posted by parthaab on March 7, 2005 1:22:53 am
Re: # 469
You ve hit the nail bang on the head.
You can never really COMPARE, but only CONTRAST religion with science, though the religious nuts always want to think that their beliefs are scientific.
You ve hit the nail bang on the head.
You can never really COMPARE, but only CONTRAST religion with science, though the religious nuts always want to think that their beliefs are scientific.
#473 Posted by ballukhan on March 6, 2005 11:11:37 pm
http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00004829&channel=civic%20center
I would request all those discussing the Ahmedi issue to go to this board and appreciate the fact that the ethnic violence that took place was because a `majority` of the persons from the Hutu community considered Tutus as being afflicted with the disease of `otherness` -
This carefully built discourse on otherness of Ahmedis is precisely the discourse that the politics of hatred works on......and the proponents spread these discourses amongst the `majority` so that it can consolidate them into one group..............despite the fact that it does not affect those who know earth to be round even if someone mistakenly considers it to be flat!!
The same goes for the other discourse of hatred called TNT!!!
I would request all those discussing the Ahmedi issue to go to this board and appreciate the fact that the ethnic violence that took place was because a `majority` of the persons from the Hutu community considered Tutus as being afflicted with the disease of `otherness` -
This carefully built discourse on otherness of Ahmedis is precisely the discourse that the politics of hatred works on......and the proponents spread these discourses amongst the `majority` so that it can consolidate them into one group..............despite the fact that it does not affect those who know earth to be round even if someone mistakenly considers it to be flat!!
The same goes for the other discourse of hatred called TNT!!!
#472 Posted by amit on March 6, 2005 10:34:08 pm
Re:hamidm#464
My fear is that the US is on a slippery slope. The blue state-red state divergence is becoming sharper in every election cycle. The red states are dominated by people supporting the right wing agenda, including religious issues like abortion and gay rights. I am sure you have heard of the role that the evangelical vote had in the 2004 elections. The supreme court is also getting dominated by right wing judges and it is quite likely that in this term, Bush will appoint some more right wing judges. The policy environment has degenerated such that scientific progress in areas like cloning and stem cell research has stopped and shifted to other countries.
In the media environment, you saw the tremendous reception given to the movie ``The Passion of the Christ``, which had a strong anti-semitic message. You see right wing talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O`Reilly constantly harping on christianity related themes like wanting ten commandments in courtrooms and schools. They work hand in glove with the republican party to gang up on anyone that is viewed as a threat to the republican agenda and try to silence all dissent by protraying it as unpatriotic or unamerican. Extreme right wing talk show hosts like Michael Savage routinely tear into Islam and muslims for hours each day. Of course, you are well aware of the immigration related hardships that muslims have faced in US for the past few years, with ordinary people being arrested and deported.
I am afraid that as the Democrats wither away, this process is going to accelerate. Once they lose the filibuster power in the senate by falling to less than 40 seats, it becomes a republican free for all. Who can stop all kinds of constitutional amendments and other legislation to come through? Most of us desis typically live in blue states so we think there is no problem. But even commentators like Charlie Rose have spoken out on this march of fundamentalism.
My fear is that the US is on a slippery slope. The blue state-red state divergence is becoming sharper in every election cycle. The red states are dominated by people supporting the right wing agenda, including religious issues like abortion and gay rights. I am sure you have heard of the role that the evangelical vote had in the 2004 elections. The supreme court is also getting dominated by right wing judges and it is quite likely that in this term, Bush will appoint some more right wing judges. The policy environment has degenerated such that scientific progress in areas like cloning and stem cell research has stopped and shifted to other countries.
In the media environment, you saw the tremendous reception given to the movie ``The Passion of the Christ``, which had a strong anti-semitic message. You see right wing talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O`Reilly constantly harping on christianity related themes like wanting ten commandments in courtrooms and schools. They work hand in glove with the republican party to gang up on anyone that is viewed as a threat to the republican agenda and try to silence all dissent by protraying it as unpatriotic or unamerican. Extreme right wing talk show hosts like Michael Savage routinely tear into Islam and muslims for hours each day. Of course, you are well aware of the immigration related hardships that muslims have faced in US for the past few years, with ordinary people being arrested and deported.
I am afraid that as the Democrats wither away, this process is going to accelerate. Once they lose the filibuster power in the senate by falling to less than 40 seats, it becomes a republican free for all. Who can stop all kinds of constitutional amendments and other legislation to come through? Most of us desis typically live in blue states so we think there is no problem. But even commentators like Charlie Rose have spoken out on this march of fundamentalism.
#471 Posted by HP on March 6, 2005 10:22:25 pm
Romair Numerous posts!
I have many times seen you recycling the secular-ahmedi-PPP issues. I thought sometime ago, I gave you a hint that your knowledge of Pakistani politics is not very flattering and your information about the PPP and civilian political parties is not even marginally close to precise to put it mildly. Only political Party you know about is the army and there too your views are slanted.
Amit has been very patient in taking care of the ideological part of the secularism debate w/you so I am not going to get into it but I know where you are coming from when you discuss secularism from a Pakistani pov.
The PPP defined its three point agenda for Pakistan from the very inception and AFAIK there has not been any change in that.
The PPP manifesto claimed and I will write that in Urdu for accuracy’s sake.
1. Islam Hamara Deen hai (Islam is our religion)
2. Jamhooriat Hamari siasat hai (democracy is our politics)
3. Socialism hamari maishat hai ( Socialism is our Economic system)
Throughout his campaign in the 1970s and 60s, Bhutto championed the ISLAMI Jamhooriat and ISLAMI Maishat. He never ever claimed to be secular neither did PPP ever propagate secularism in Pakistan. So, you really have no basis to call the PPP or it’s feudal as secularist or supporters of secularism.
Since Bhutto and the PPP were always for ISLAM HAMARA DEEN HAI, he never hesitated in declaring Ahmedi non-Muslims, when he was under the sword by the mullah in 1974. He did not hesitate to declare Pakistan a dry country, after another Mullah pressure during the PNA movement in 1977.
Now how did you get the idea that the PPP was/is secular? I know the answer to it but I will wait for your reply.
There were only two parties in Pakistan that supported Secularism. One was Awami League of East Pakistan and the other was NAP of Wali Khan. We know what happened to Awami League. The National Awami party was banned in 1971 and after two years, it was banned again after the military action in Balochistan. The NAP was not allowed any significant role in Pakistan politics. So we may never know whether they were secular or not! All male NAP MNAs were in jail in 1974 so they never really voted on Ahmedi amendment in 1974. NAP Woman MNA Jennifer Musa was in the assembly, she voted against it.
Gallup polls and Pew Polls in Pakistan. I guess I have info on that too and how they are conducted in Pakistan. Some backgrounder for you, before details some other time.
Ijaz Shafi Gilani owns Gallup franchise in Pakistan. He was an Islami Jamiat Tulaba’s president in the 70s. Isalmi Jamiat Tulba is the student wing of Jamaat Islami. Ijaz Shafi Gilani also was the President of Karachi University student union around that time. Later, he came to the US for education and worked for Gallup in US and since he was from a very well off family in Karachi, he never had any problem in buying Gallup franchise in Pakistan. Gallup Pak conducts all polls for Pew and many other organizations in Pakistan. Anything coming from a company owned by Ijaz, who is still a member of JI, should be taken with a handful of Salt, and should never be accepted w/o question.
Now my question to you:
What was the precise question they asked about Islam in Pakistan, how they justified their interpretation of the replies?
Remember Pew said 90% Pakistani support Musharaf and I told you at that time that 90% means 90% Sindhi and Baloch support Musharaf too. I bet you cannot count more than three hundred Sindhis who support Musharaf, in Balochistan that number would go down to may be 100 people.
Pew may be respected in the US because sampling in the US has been perfected but that is not the case in Pakistan.
I have many times seen you recycling the secular-ahmedi-PPP issues. I thought sometime ago, I gave you a hint that your knowledge of Pakistani politics is not very flattering and your information about the PPP and civilian political parties is not even marginally close to precise to put it mildly. Only political Party you know about is the army and there too your views are slanted.
Amit has been very patient in taking care of the ideological part of the secularism debate w/you so I am not going to get into it but I know where you are coming from when you discuss secularism from a Pakistani pov.
The PPP defined its three point agenda for Pakistan from the very inception and AFAIK there has not been any change in that.
The PPP manifesto claimed and I will write that in Urdu for accuracy’s sake.
1. Islam Hamara Deen hai (Islam is our religion)
2. Jamhooriat Hamari siasat hai (democracy is our politics)
3. Socialism hamari maishat hai ( Socialism is our Economic system)
Throughout his campaign in the 1970s and 60s, Bhutto championed the ISLAMI Jamhooriat and ISLAMI Maishat. He never ever claimed to be secular neither did PPP ever propagate secularism in Pakistan. So, you really have no basis to call the PPP or it’s feudal as secularist or supporters of secularism.
Since Bhutto and the PPP were always for ISLAM HAMARA DEEN HAI, he never hesitated in declaring Ahmedi non-Muslims, when he was under the sword by the mullah in 1974. He did not hesitate to declare Pakistan a dry country, after another Mullah pressure during the PNA movement in 1977.
Now how did you get the idea that the PPP was/is secular? I know the answer to it but I will wait for your reply.
There were only two parties in Pakistan that supported Secularism. One was Awami League of East Pakistan and the other was NAP of Wali Khan. We know what happened to Awami League. The National Awami party was banned in 1971 and after two years, it was banned again after the military action in Balochistan. The NAP was not allowed any significant role in Pakistan politics. So we may never know whether they were secular or not! All male NAP MNAs were in jail in 1974 so they never really voted on Ahmedi amendment in 1974. NAP Woman MNA Jennifer Musa was in the assembly, she voted against it.
Gallup polls and Pew Polls in Pakistan. I guess I have info on that too and how they are conducted in Pakistan. Some backgrounder for you, before details some other time.
Ijaz Shafi Gilani owns Gallup franchise in Pakistan. He was an Islami Jamiat Tulaba’s president in the 70s. Isalmi Jamiat Tulba is the student wing of Jamaat Islami. Ijaz Shafi Gilani also was the President of Karachi University student union around that time. Later, he came to the US for education and worked for Gallup in US and since he was from a very well off family in Karachi, he never had any problem in buying Gallup franchise in Pakistan. Gallup Pak conducts all polls for Pew and many other organizations in Pakistan. Anything coming from a company owned by Ijaz, who is still a member of JI, should be taken with a handful of Salt, and should never be accepted w/o question.
Now my question to you:
What was the precise question they asked about Islam in Pakistan, how they justified their interpretation of the replies?
Remember Pew said 90% Pakistani support Musharaf and I told you at that time that 90% means 90% Sindhi and Baloch support Musharaf too. I bet you cannot count more than three hundred Sindhis who support Musharaf, in Balochistan that number would go down to may be 100 people.
Pew may be respected in the US because sampling in the US has been perfected but that is not the case in Pakistan.
#470 Posted by amit on March 6, 2005 10:11:02 pm
Re:Romair#468
You wrote: ``To prove, from the Quran itself, that the State has no rigth to decide who is and is not a Muslim. I have used this argument quite a bit and it is always effective......... ``. While I am no religious scholar, if your statement is true, then it shows that Islam in its essence supports secularism. A government should not get into this business of defining anyone`s religious beliefs. If there are two communities whose religious beliefs clash, have separate civil codes for each community.
Being an Indian and a hindu, I am not qualified to comment on the theological underpinnings of the Ahmedi debate. But consider this - Islam has been around in Pakistan for 1000 years and this whole ahmedi thing started flaring up in the 70s, when religion entered the public space in Pakistan. Prior to that, how did Islam survive and prosper without resolving this issue? Clearly the theologians debated it and concluded that they were not muslims. The ordinary muslims had already decided that they were not muslims. Ahmedis did not agree with that but so what? What is the need to bring government into it? All the government has done is to officially sanction persecution. Let the people decide these things on their own and the government should just make sure that no one breaks the law.
You wrote: ``To prove, from the Quran itself, that the State has no rigth to decide who is and is not a Muslim. I have used this argument quite a bit and it is always effective......... ``. While I am no religious scholar, if your statement is true, then it shows that Islam in its essence supports secularism. A government should not get into this business of defining anyone`s religious beliefs. If there are two communities whose religious beliefs clash, have separate civil codes for each community.
Being an Indian and a hindu, I am not qualified to comment on the theological underpinnings of the Ahmedi debate. But consider this - Islam has been around in Pakistan for 1000 years and this whole ahmedi thing started flaring up in the 70s, when religion entered the public space in Pakistan. Prior to that, how did Islam survive and prosper without resolving this issue? Clearly the theologians debated it and concluded that they were not muslims. The ordinary muslims had already decided that they were not muslims. Ahmedis did not agree with that but so what? What is the need to bring government into it? All the government has done is to officially sanction persecution. Let the people decide these things on their own and the government should just make sure that no one breaks the law.
#469 Posted by rsridhar on March 6, 2005 9:35:12 pm
re: Religion and Science
This forum has departed from the topic of discussion viz is religion relevant to science or vice-versa.
The more i read the author`s article, more non-sensical it appears.
There is nothing like an Islamic Science just like there is nothing like ``Hindu Science`` or ``Christian Science``. There is just one science and it has no religion.
And thank God for that!
Today, people from all cultures and societies can learn scientific truths through a known method of hypothesis, experiments, analysis and finaly arriving at conclusions that either prove or disprove the hypothesis. This method is practised in scientific communities across cultures and has nothing to do with religion.
That is why i take exception to author`s remarks: ``In its actuality science is never the kind of purely objective or unbiased enterprise it is generally assumed to be; subjective presuppositions do inevitably play an essential role.``
Scientific methods work only if they get rid of the bias of the observer. That is why ``Double blinded randomized controlled prospective studies`` are considered the best possible way of performing a study to prove or disprove a hypothesis in Medicine.
Science also presupposes that what is observed today may change tomorrow as technology develops. Until Leewenhoeck developed the microscope, nobody had seen or heard of microorganisms. Now we know they exist. Observations prior to Leewenhoeck`s times were not faulty. They just did not have the techonology to see the microbes not visible to the naked eye. Newer subatomic particles are discovered every month. The idea of space itself is changing fast. Science, in this way, is dynamic.
Religion, OTOH, is static. It is founded on a preconceived dogma or belief. In case of Islam, everyone swears by one Holy Book. Nobody would want to question what is in that book that was written several centuries ago.
Problem with Islam and Science is that the two seem to be at loggerheads. Muslim religion is a community religion based on set dogmas. Science challenges these dogmas in ways that muslims find unpalatable. It is in a muslim`s own interest to wrest the religion out of the clutches of the mullahs and make it his/her own personal religion. Then, there will not be this dilemma: who to believe: Science or my religion?
What is the place of Islamic countries in Science?
You may go to the following Url:
http://www.itdg.org/?id=publicgood_king
The article is written by a well known figure David King and talks about how most of output in Science comes from 4 or 5 countires (USA, UK, Japan, Australia). Look at the table in that article that says: Relative Global Strength of Science: 1997-2001 based on % share of world publications and citations and see how many Islamic countries are in the first 30. Only one viz Iran. India is placed 20th, China 19th. see how many countries in that list are secular, how many are religous fundamentalist. NOt one of the Oil rich Middle Eastern countries make it to the top 30.
Therin lies a pearl: religious fundamentalism and Scientific temperament do not go together. If a society wants to develop Scientifically, it needs to shed its religious intolerance. That is the first step towards Scientific advancement. That crucial step was taken by Western democrazies many decades ago.
Author has forgotten perhaps that the early Arab scholars who did great work in Science were influenced deeply by earlier civilizations (Greek, Indian, Egyptian etc). They were muslims but were also secular in their belief system. Al-Barauni was a great historian who make observations objectively. He did not mix his peronal bias when writing history. This was to disappear in the muslim world as freethought gave rise to religious bigotry and bias.
Science in a way seeks to find truth the way Yogis of the past sought to find truth by contacting the Universal Spirit. All the scientific developments that we see around us is made with a basic premise: the material world around us is in reality non-material. Fax machine, Telephone, TV etc all work through this principle. Perhaps one day, Science and Spirituality will come together (note, i am saying Spirituality and not Religion; there is a difference).
I would like to end with this remark with a quote by Professor Hoodhbhoy (who also i think wrote a book on Islam and Science):
``science is a secular pursuit, and it is impossible for it to be otherwise. The secular character of science does not mean that it necessararily repudiates the existence of Divine. But it does mean that the validation of scientific truths does not rely on any form of spiritual authority; observation, experimentation, and logic are the sole arbiters which decide what is true or false. Scientists are free to be as religious as they please, but science recognizes no laws outside its own``.
Sridhar
This forum has departed from the topic of discussion viz is religion relevant to science or vice-versa.
The more i read the author`s article, more non-sensical it appears.
There is nothing like an Islamic Science just like there is nothing like ``Hindu Science`` or ``Christian Science``. There is just one science and it has no religion.
And thank God for that!
Today, people from all cultures and societies can learn scientific truths through a known method of hypothesis, experiments, analysis and finaly arriving at conclusions that either prove or disprove the hypothesis. This method is practised in scientific communities across cultures and has nothing to do with religion.
That is why i take exception to author`s remarks: ``In its actuality science is never the kind of purely objective or unbiased enterprise it is generally assumed to be; subjective presuppositions do inevitably play an essential role.``
Scientific methods work only if they get rid of the bias of the observer. That is why ``Double blinded randomized controlled prospective studies`` are considered the best possible way of performing a study to prove or disprove a hypothesis in Medicine.
Science also presupposes that what is observed today may change tomorrow as technology develops. Until Leewenhoeck developed the microscope, nobody had seen or heard of microorganisms. Now we know they exist. Observations prior to Leewenhoeck`s times were not faulty. They just did not have the techonology to see the microbes not visible to the naked eye. Newer subatomic particles are discovered every month. The idea of space itself is changing fast. Science, in this way, is dynamic.
Religion, OTOH, is static. It is founded on a preconceived dogma or belief. In case of Islam, everyone swears by one Holy Book. Nobody would want to question what is in that book that was written several centuries ago.
Problem with Islam and Science is that the two seem to be at loggerheads. Muslim religion is a community religion based on set dogmas. Science challenges these dogmas in ways that muslims find unpalatable. It is in a muslim`s own interest to wrest the religion out of the clutches of the mullahs and make it his/her own personal religion. Then, there will not be this dilemma: who to believe: Science or my religion?
What is the place of Islamic countries in Science?
You may go to the following Url:
http://www.itdg.org/?id=publicgood_king
The article is written by a well known figure David King and talks about how most of output in Science comes from 4 or 5 countires (USA, UK, Japan, Australia). Look at the table in that article that says: Relative Global Strength of Science: 1997-2001 based on % share of world publications and citations and see how many Islamic countries are in the first 30. Only one viz Iran. India is placed 20th, China 19th. see how many countries in that list are secular, how many are religous fundamentalist. NOt one of the Oil rich Middle Eastern countries make it to the top 30.
Therin lies a pearl: religious fundamentalism and Scientific temperament do not go together. If a society wants to develop Scientifically, it needs to shed its religious intolerance. That is the first step towards Scientific advancement. That crucial step was taken by Western democrazies many decades ago.
Author has forgotten perhaps that the early Arab scholars who did great work in Science were influenced deeply by earlier civilizations (Greek, Indian, Egyptian etc). They were muslims but were also secular in their belief system. Al-Barauni was a great historian who make observations objectively. He did not mix his peronal bias when writing history. This was to disappear in the muslim world as freethought gave rise to religious bigotry and bias.
Science in a way seeks to find truth the way Yogis of the past sought to find truth by contacting the Universal Spirit. All the scientific developments that we see around us is made with a basic premise: the material world around us is in reality non-material. Fax machine, Telephone, TV etc all work through this principle. Perhaps one day, Science and Spirituality will come together (note, i am saying Spirituality and not Religion; there is a difference).
I would like to end with this remark with a quote by Professor Hoodhbhoy (who also i think wrote a book on Islam and Science):
``science is a secular pursuit, and it is impossible for it to be otherwise. The secular character of science does not mean that it necessararily repudiates the existence of Divine. But it does mean that the validation of scientific truths does not rely on any form of spiritual authority; observation, experimentation, and logic are the sole arbiters which decide what is true or false. Scientists are free to be as religious as they please, but science recognizes no laws outside its own``.
Sridhar
#468 Posted by Romair on March 6, 2005 6:39:39 pm
Amit #462: ``There are two ways to handle this in a secular system. The first to understand the nature of the injunction and see if it is acceptable to all communities. If so, the injunction can be part of the legal system. The US legal system, applicable to everyone, is based on judeo-christian principles.``
I think this is where the breaking point occurs. Where secularists, if they want to succeed, need to plan out their strategy. You have not mentioned one angle: What if allowing the injunction for one community is considered an attack by another. For example, what if a law on four marraiges in India was considered something that Hinduism did not allow, at all. i.e. it had to be one or the other........whose side does one fall on.........
This is where the core issue of Ahmedis falls in Pakistan. The Ahmedi issue in Pakistan is like the gay marriage issue in the Western world. It is, at the moment, the, ``core`` issue in the secularism/religionism debate in the country.
Ahmedis believe they are Muslims, despite their belief in Mirza Ahmad. Non-Ahmedis consider the existence of Mirza Ahmad a direct attack on their religion, Islam. It has to be one or the other. Non-Ahmedis are willing to give Ahmedis equal rights, as long as Ahmedics consider themsevles a separate religion. Much like Christians and Hindus. Ahmedis, obviously, do not agree to that.
I don`t have statistics, but my guess is that a big majority of Pakistanis (of any side) consider Ahmedis to be non-Muslims. I have met Sunnis who do philanthrapy for minorities, but openly consider Ahmedis to be non-Muslims. This is indicated by the lack of marraiges with Ahmedis, even amongst the more secular crowd.
No govt., even a secular one, will dare to declare Ahmedis to be Muslims. In fact, PPP is the one which declared them non-Mulsims. The religious column in the passport is there, specfically, for them. Not for any other religion..........
What to do in such a situation? When it is the more secular parties that actually declared the state to define who is and is not a Muslim? How does secularism appear in such a society? Obviously not through the techniques used by most secularists, including those on this site, who are more aggressive and rigid in their arguments (and out of touch with the real Pakistan) than even the mullahs.....
I have debated this issue with the religious rite folks on various occassions. I don`t know, personally, whether the Ahmedis are Muslims or non-Muslims. I am against people declaring themselves Prophets. And do not consider Mirza Ahmad a prophet or messenger of any sort (which is why I am not an Ahmedi). Yet I don`t think the State should decide who is and is not a Muslim...........
Considering the fact that 2/3rd of Pakistanis don`t support secularism, and perhaps even a higher number probably do not consider Ahmedis to be Muslims, there is only argument that will be effective. To prove, from the Quran itself, that the State has no rigth to decide who is and is not a Muslim. I have used this argument quite a bit and it is always effective.........
Reaching humanism in a society with religious leanings is not a straightforward event which can just be completed by forcing secularism. It has to be argued through various means. If you check the polls, Indians though seculat at the govt. level, are the fourth most religious group at the personal level in the world (Pakistanis are fifth). And while I don`t know Indian politics well, my guess is that the rise of BJP (which does not have an equivalent in Pakistan, even though Pakistanis are non-secular in their thought) may have been a result of various Indians seeing the secularism of India, including Muslim-specific laws, a threat to their religious identity.............
Pure straightforward rigid aggressive secularism which wants to shave the beard off the mullah, will not work in Pakistan. The arguments have to be made in more dextrous ways, through religion (on many occassions) to achieve humanism in Pakistan...............
I think this is where the breaking point occurs. Where secularists, if they want to succeed, need to plan out their strategy. You have not mentioned one angle: What if allowing the injunction for one community is considered an attack by another. For example, what if a law on four marraiges in India was considered something that Hinduism did not allow, at all. i.e. it had to be one or the other........whose side does one fall on.........
This is where the core issue of Ahmedis falls in Pakistan. The Ahmedi issue in Pakistan is like the gay marriage issue in the Western world. It is, at the moment, the, ``core`` issue in the secularism/religionism debate in the country.
Ahmedis believe they are Muslims, despite their belief in Mirza Ahmad. Non-Ahmedis consider the existence of Mirza Ahmad a direct attack on their religion, Islam. It has to be one or the other. Non-Ahmedis are willing to give Ahmedis equal rights, as long as Ahmedics consider themsevles a separate religion. Much like Christians and Hindus. Ahmedis, obviously, do not agree to that.
I don`t have statistics, but my guess is that a big majority of Pakistanis (of any side) consider Ahmedis to be non-Muslims. I have met Sunnis who do philanthrapy for minorities, but openly consider Ahmedis to be non-Muslims. This is indicated by the lack of marraiges with Ahmedis, even amongst the more secular crowd.
No govt., even a secular one, will dare to declare Ahmedis to be Muslims. In fact, PPP is the one which declared them non-Mulsims. The religious column in the passport is there, specfically, for them. Not for any other religion..........
What to do in such a situation? When it is the more secular parties that actually declared the state to define who is and is not a Muslim? How does secularism appear in such a society? Obviously not through the techniques used by most secularists, including those on this site, who are more aggressive and rigid in their arguments (and out of touch with the real Pakistan) than even the mullahs.....
I have debated this issue with the religious rite folks on various occassions. I don`t know, personally, whether the Ahmedis are Muslims or non-Muslims. I am against people declaring themselves Prophets. And do not consider Mirza Ahmad a prophet or messenger of any sort (which is why I am not an Ahmedi). Yet I don`t think the State should decide who is and is not a Muslim...........
Considering the fact that 2/3rd of Pakistanis don`t support secularism, and perhaps even a higher number probably do not consider Ahmedis to be Muslims, there is only argument that will be effective. To prove, from the Quran itself, that the State has no rigth to decide who is and is not a Muslim. I have used this argument quite a bit and it is always effective.........
Reaching humanism in a society with religious leanings is not a straightforward event which can just be completed by forcing secularism. It has to be argued through various means. If you check the polls, Indians though seculat at the govt. level, are the fourth most religious group at the personal level in the world (Pakistanis are fifth). And while I don`t know Indian politics well, my guess is that the rise of BJP (which does not have an equivalent in Pakistan, even though Pakistanis are non-secular in their thought) may have been a result of various Indians seeing the secularism of India, including Muslim-specific laws, a threat to their religious identity.............
Pure straightforward rigid aggressive secularism which wants to shave the beard off the mullah, will not work in Pakistan. The arguments have to be made in more dextrous ways, through religion (on many occassions) to achieve humanism in Pakistan...............
#467 Posted by Romair on March 6, 2005 6:16:57 pm
amit #463: ``The US is going in the opposite direction with Pat Robertson and James Dobson attacking Spongebob Squarepants, but then every civilization goes through ups and dows. Maybe the down cycle is starting for the US.``
The USA has had an interesting departure from the rest of the Western world, on this issue. The USA is the only major (and perhaps even minor) Western country, according to surveys, where religion is making a comeback into politics. And that too in an aggressive manner. In all other Western countries, it is either static or is receeding.
Currently 45% of the Americans actually want religion in public life, i.e non-secular frame of mind. This number will probably increase to 50% of more, considering the direction of the current US society. The two most powerful organizations in the USA lobbying system were NRA and AIPAC. Due to this, all US candidates had to show that they liked hunting (Kerry shooting geese) and none could ever utter a word against Israel.
However, religion was open season for criticism, and the Democrats openly called the Religous right, ``Religious Whackos.`` Those whackos are now the most powerful political force in the country. They are the kingmakers. Something like 33-40% of the US population is with the Christian Right. And 23% of the voters are outright Evangelists.
Pretty soon, we will see Democrats carrying out Bibles, much like they carry around guns in photo-ops (even if many are against hunting and NRA). The Republicans have won 5 out of the 7 previous Presidential elections. Bush screwed up foreign policy. USA is hated more now than ever before, in the world. He screwed up financial policy. USA is reaching record uncontrollable deficits. He is not articulate. Yet he won. Why? Because he had about 30% or so of the vote in his hand, locked up....
Imagine how big the Republicans will win, when they actually have a more presentable candidate (like Bush`s own brother Jeb or someone like Ronald Reagan). The moderates like Colin Powell and McCain cannot win Republican primaries. Though they would win a Presidential election............
As the population becomes less secular in its approach, the govt. is bound to become more and more religious. Currently, it is the US judiciary that is holding the fort for secularism. However, the next religious right agenda is to replace, ``activist`` (read secular) judges with, ``non-activist`` (read non-secular) judges.
I don`t think it is possible for a Northern State Liberal openly secular Demcrat to win a Presidential election now. Interestingly Kerry won polls in all Western countries, except USA. In Canada, he beats Bush by a huge margin (Canadians hate Bush openly with a passion). Now only a Southern Bible Belt Democrat has a shot at winning..........And to do so, he will have to highlight his religious tendencies...............
The situation in Canada is opposite. A religious approach to politics results in automatic loss. The Conservative party (which has some religious inclinations) was unable to defeat the Liberal party, this time, even though the Liberal party has a huge corruption scandal and was internally divided in two parts..............
The USA has had an interesting departure from the rest of the Western world, on this issue. The USA is the only major (and perhaps even minor) Western country, according to surveys, where religion is making a comeback into politics. And that too in an aggressive manner. In all other Western countries, it is either static or is receeding.
Currently 45% of the Americans actually want religion in public life, i.e non-secular frame of mind. This number will probably increase to 50% of more, considering the direction of the current US society. The two most powerful organizations in the USA lobbying system were NRA and AIPAC. Due to this, all US candidates had to show that they liked hunting (Kerry shooting geese) and none could ever utter a word against Israel.
However, religion was open season for criticism, and the Democrats openly called the Religous right, ``Religious Whackos.`` Those whackos are now the most powerful political force in the country. They are the kingmakers. Something like 33-40% of the US population is with the Christian Right. And 23% of the voters are outright Evangelists.
Pretty soon, we will see Democrats carrying out Bibles, much like they carry around guns in photo-ops (even if many are against hunting and NRA). The Republicans have won 5 out of the 7 previous Presidential elections. Bush screwed up foreign policy. USA is hated more now than ever before, in the world. He screwed up financial policy. USA is reaching record uncontrollable deficits. He is not articulate. Yet he won. Why? Because he had about 30% or so of the vote in his hand, locked up....
Imagine how big the Republicans will win, when they actually have a more presentable candidate (like Bush`s own brother Jeb or someone like Ronald Reagan). The moderates like Colin Powell and McCain cannot win Republican primaries. Though they would win a Presidential election............
As the population becomes less secular in its approach, the govt. is bound to become more and more religious. Currently, it is the US judiciary that is holding the fort for secularism. However, the next religious right agenda is to replace, ``activist`` (read secular) judges with, ``non-activist`` (read non-secular) judges.
I don`t think it is possible for a Northern State Liberal openly secular Demcrat to win a Presidential election now. Interestingly Kerry won polls in all Western countries, except USA. In Canada, he beats Bush by a huge margin (Canadians hate Bush openly with a passion). Now only a Southern Bible Belt Democrat has a shot at winning..........And to do so, he will have to highlight his religious tendencies...............
The situation in Canada is opposite. A religious approach to politics results in automatic loss. The Conservative party (which has some religious inclinations) was unable to defeat the Liberal party, this time, even though the Liberal party has a huge corruption scandal and was internally divided in two parts..............
#466 Posted by hamidm2 on March 6, 2005 2:28:44 pm
tahmed,
.......... i have no problem with your brand of islam - actually it could be a lot of fun if we can combine shab-i-barat with basant .............. it is the political islam that was established by the prophet`s favourite father-in-law that is a source of some concern ............
.......... i have no problem with your brand of islam - actually it could be a lot of fun if we can combine shab-i-barat with basant .............. it is the political islam that was established by the prophet`s favourite father-in-law that is a source of some concern ............
#465 Posted by tahmed32 on March 6, 2005 12:44:38 pm
hamidm: you are as determined in proclaiming islam as the root of all evil as meer is in proclaiming islam is science and science is islam. at least you are more entertaining.....
#464 Posted by hamidm2 on March 6, 2005 11:37:42 am
amit,
......regardless of what the fear-mongers and the lunatic left say, the us is no closer to becoming a theocracy than it was during the time of the christian president jummy carter ...........folks like pat robertson and james dobson have always been around - the moral majority was founded by that other idiot jerry falwell way back in 1979 ...........
..................the fact of the matter is that inspite of the hoopla, secularism and the concept of separation of state and church is in no danger in the us ......... name one piece of legislation introduced in the last four years that has made god a partner in running the state ......... the monkey business in kansas does not count - it could be reversed at the next meeting of the local school board ! ......... other than the talking heads on fox news and the talk radio, the liberals are still in firmly charge of setting the social agenda ........... in case you haven`t noticed, paris hilton and the simpsons are on the fox network ! ........... ever wonder why ?
......regardless of what the fear-mongers and the lunatic left say, the us is no closer to becoming a theocracy than it was during the time of the christian president jummy carter ...........folks like pat robertson and james dobson have always been around - the moral majority was founded by that other idiot jerry falwell way back in 1979 ...........
..................the fact of the matter is that inspite of the hoopla, secularism and the concept of separation of state and church is in no danger in the us ......... name one piece of legislation introduced in the last four years that has made god a partner in running the state ......... the monkey business in kansas does not count - it could be reversed at the next meeting of the local school board ! ......... other than the talking heads on fox news and the talk radio, the liberals are still in firmly charge of setting the social agenda ........... in case you haven`t noticed, paris hilton and the simpsons are on the fox network ! ........... ever wonder why ?
#463 Posted by amit on March 6, 2005 10:35:04 am
Re:hamidm2#460
You wrote: ``even in the most enlightened islamic state you will remain a ``dhimmi`` - a second calss citizen with first class rights``. You are exactly right!! This was my argument to Romair as well. That is why we need enlightened states that have majority muslims living in them rather than enlightened islamic states.That transition will occur eventually just as it did in Europe where christianity based regimes gave way to secular rule.
It is an uphill battle, but there are some signs of hope. In Pakistan, people are unhappy with what Bhutto and Zia did in terms of bringing in religion into public life. In Iran, people are very unhappy with the theocracy and given a choice would get rid of it in a heartbeat. India seems to have come back to its senses. The US is going in the opposite direction with Pat Robertson and James Dobson attacking Spongebob Squarepants, but then every civilization goes through ups and dows. Maybe the down cycle is starting for the US.
You wrote: ``even in the most enlightened islamic state you will remain a ``dhimmi`` - a second calss citizen with first class rights``. You are exactly right!! This was my argument to Romair as well. That is why we need enlightened states that have majority muslims living in them rather than enlightened islamic states.That transition will occur eventually just as it did in Europe where christianity based regimes gave way to secular rule.
It is an uphill battle, but there are some signs of hope. In Pakistan, people are unhappy with what Bhutto and Zia did in terms of bringing in religion into public life. In Iran, people are very unhappy with the theocracy and given a choice would get rid of it in a heartbeat. India seems to have come back to its senses. The US is going in the opposite direction with Pat Robertson and James Dobson attacking Spongebob Squarepants, but then every civilization goes through ups and dows. Maybe the down cycle is starting for the US.
#462 Posted by amit on March 6, 2005 10:17:19 am
Re:Romair#459
You wrote: ``Secularism does demand that the public aspects and injunctions of religion be considered invalid.........Do you agree with that?`` There are two ways to handle this in a secular system. The first to understand the nature of the injunction and see if it is acceptable to all communities. If so, the injunction can be part of the legal system. The US legal system, applicable to everyone, is based on judeo-christian principles. The second way, which is less preferable, is if the injunction only applies to a particular community and is unacceptable to others. That can be handled via a separate civil code for that community. For e.g. muslims in India want to keep polygamy and their 3 talaq system as the method for divorce. Other communities do not support this. So the muslim personal code covering only muslims allows them to follow their own injunctions. People do not like this because it means different standards for different communities but then democracy involves compromise.
The real intent of secularism is to ensure that government does not discriminate between people on the basis of religion. That means decisions are not taken under influence of mullahs and priests. Everyone is treated equally under the law. Everyone has the same rights to participate and contribute in public life i.e. public positions are not closed to people from different religions. I have heard that Passport forms in Pakistan require a signature accepting the Kalima and to ascertain that people are not Ahmedis. I fail to understand how that leads to following Islamic injunctions. Where in Islam is it written that passport forms need such signatures? Where is it written in Islam that non-muslims cannot hold positions of power? So some of this public aspect of religion are recent man-made distortions in the name of religion.
You wrote: ``Secularism does demand that the public aspects and injunctions of religion be considered invalid.........Do you agree with that?`` There are two ways to handle this in a secular system. The first to understand the nature of the injunction and see if it is acceptable to all communities. If so, the injunction can be part of the legal system. The US legal system, applicable to everyone, is based on judeo-christian principles. The second way, which is less preferable, is if the injunction only applies to a particular community and is unacceptable to others. That can be handled via a separate civil code for that community. For e.g. muslims in India want to keep polygamy and their 3 talaq system as the method for divorce. Other communities do not support this. So the muslim personal code covering only muslims allows them to follow their own injunctions. People do not like this because it means different standards for different communities but then democracy involves compromise.
The real intent of secularism is to ensure that government does not discriminate between people on the basis of religion. That means decisions are not taken under influence of mullahs and priests. Everyone is treated equally under the law. Everyone has the same rights to participate and contribute in public life i.e. public positions are not closed to people from different religions. I have heard that Passport forms in Pakistan require a signature accepting the Kalima and to ascertain that people are not Ahmedis. I fail to understand how that leads to following Islamic injunctions. Where in Islam is it written that passport forms need such signatures? Where is it written in Islam that non-muslims cannot hold positions of power? So some of this public aspect of religion are recent man-made distortions in the name of religion.
#461 Posted by MantoLives on March 6, 2005 10:10:12 am
Kamran Meer...
Please feel free to back up your assertion about the scientists and philosophers I mentioned. As far as I know, except Averroes, the rest were quite cynical about religion...
Am I wrong?
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- MatloobZaman: Re: # 29 Oh... Faith and Religion
- MatloobZaman: Re: # 28 Very true... Faith and Religion
- Regards: Satyamvada, Matloob, If you were... Faith and Religion
- Eklavya: Matloob bhai, the only... Faith and Religion
- masadi: tahmed writes "If you... How real is your
- MatloobZaman: Re: # 165 W/Salam WRWB My... How real is your
- masadi: HP writes "he problem... How real is your
- MatloobZaman: Re: # 26 by... Faith and Religion
