Reforming Religious Fundamentalists I envy Dr. Sohail’s zeal and enthusiasm for promoting peace in the world. We may differ from what he writes, in several details, but his message is beyond criticism and controversy.

He asks, “Can militant religious fundamentalists be reformed?” I think they can.

Firstly, these fundamentalists are engaged in a self-defeating struggle when they try to impose their brand of fundamentalism (Taliban type) by violent means on the peaceful Muslim brethren. Time can not be revered by 15 centuries. Their basic tenets are rejected by a majority of the Muslim population. Although they can and are creating a lot of chaos in peaceful communities, they can not drive them back into ignorance, illiteracy and intellectual backwardness.

Secondly, there are silent, unselfish and peaceful undercurrents unleashed by humanitarian reformers to promote education among the remotest parts of Pakistan where no schools existed ever. One of such dedicated reformer is Greg Mortenson. What he has done and is busy doing in the remotest and not-easily-accessible parts of Baltistan is unprecedented in our recent history.

I had heard about his book, Three Cups of Tea, from a friend but hadn’t mustered sufficient will to get it to read. Then I heard about this book on TV and kept hearing about it every now and then. One day finally I sat down to start a search for this book in the area libraries. Copies of this book were there in every library but were checked out and there was invariably a long waiting list in all of them. I put down my name in the waiting list. I was lucky to borrow this book in a couple of weeks..

I read the book from cover to cover and was impressed by the single-mindedness and devotion of Mortenson to the cause of children’s education in the far flung areas which are very poor and form the catchment of the Taliban madrassas. Mortenson’s aim is not to reducing terrorism directly; his aim is to educate children. He offers same kind of curricula to children, which are offered by any other Pakistani school (not madrassas). Education which he is offering in his schools is transforming not only the lives of the students but also the lives of their illiterate parents. Education alone probably is not going to bring any fundamental change immediately but it sure will change the society for good in due time.

Let me reproduce a rather extensive extract from Three Cups of Tea to illustrate my point. Mortenson was in Pakistan when 9/11 occurred. He was advised by the U.S. Embassy to leave Pakistan because it was no longer a safe haven for Americans. But Mortenson was for a reason in Pakistan which he wouldn’t abandon. So he continued with his program. He went to visit Kuardu, a village in Baltistan where he had established a school for boys and girls and had planned to build similar shools in several other villages in that area. In the inaugural ceremony of his school, a Shia religious leader, Syed Abbas, was to address the gathering (Syed Abbas was greatly respected by his people whose leader he was). He started his speech as follows:

“Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim…As-salaam Alaakum… It is by fate that Allah the Almighty has brought us together in this hour…Today is a day that you(r) children will remember for ever and tell your (their) children. Today, from the darkness of illiteracy, the light of education shines bright…

We share in the sorrow as people weep and suffer in America today as we inaugurate this school. Those who have committed this evil act against the innocent, the women and children, to create thousands of widows and orphans do not do so in the name of Islam. By the grace of Allah the Almighty, may justice be served upon them.

For this tragedy, I humbly ask Mr. George (Cowan) and Dr. Greg Sahib for their forgiveness. All ofyou, my brethren: Protect and embrace these two American brothers in our midst. Let no harm come to them. Share all you have to make their mission successful.

These two Christian men have come half way around the world to show our Muslim children the light of education… Why have not we been able to bring education to our children on our own? Fathers and parents, I implore you to dedicate your full effort and commitment to see that your children are educated. Otherwise, they will graze like sheep in the field, at the mercy of nature and the world changing so terrifyingly around us…I request America to look into our hearts – and see that the great majority of us are not terrorists, but good and simple people. Our land is stricken with poverty because we are without education. But today another candle of knowledge has been lit. In the name of Allah the Almighty, may it light our way out of the darkness we find ourselves in.”

I believe, our collective salvation lies in education.

Mohammad Gill

Freud and Jung and Their Secret Affairs Dear S.R.: Post #86

Thanks for your excellent and timely post. The most repulsive and abusive interactors at Chowk are those who proclaim to be the so-called defenders of their respective faith. No religion teaches you to be abusive.

One can make a reasonable point without being unnecessarily abusive and offensive. I do not understand why the Chowk management allows such abusive interacts and does not filter them (even after they get posted). They should at least make sure that the interactors adhere to the Chowk guidelines. Otherwise what good do these guidelines serve?

People like you should express their views more often and as assertively as you have done. With regards,

Mohammad Gill

Bridge Mania HP:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts about bridge. I played bridge yesterday. On one hand, my partner bid a little slam without any help in bidding from me and he made it. My hand although quite weak in points held two key cards which helped him fulfill his contract. I am enjoying bridge now in my retirement more than ever before.

Be well,

Mohammad Gill

Bridge Mania Re: # 1

Dear Mr. Kulaharee:

It appears that bridge is the game of elitists' in Pakistan. First time I heard of bridge was in my F.Sc. class (1953). Our English composition teacher was discussing Nasim Hijazi's novels and he asked the brightest student in our class if he had read Nasim Hijazi and what he thought of him and his works. The student said ever since he had read Naim Hijazi's novels he had started saying his prayers five times daily. THe professor said that Nasim Hijazi himself was not that kind of a religious man. And he said that he played bridge with him at the Abbotabad Club. From that I guessed bridge was a cards game but didn't know how it was played. I could play almost every cards game (like flush or flash, sweep, trumps, rummy etc.).

Bridge is fun.

Mohammad Gill

Reinterpretation of Islam in Turkey The following article appeared in The Newsweek, the week of February 25, 2008. I am sorry for copying and pasting it here but it is quite relevant to the topic of the article. Even though the U.S. has been a secular country for quite a long time, the pros and cons of secularism are freely discussed even today. Such a reasonable discussion can allow the amendment of the Constitution if needed. The trouble with a religious government is that you cannot amend it; it is from the immutable God. Those of you who have time, should read it and enjoy.

Mohammad Gill

__________________________________________________________

In Defense of Secularism

'It's red meat for pundits,' concedes Harvard chaplain Greg Epstein, who prefers the word 'humanist.'

By Lisa Miller
NEWSWEEK
Updated: 12:09 PM ET Feb 16, 2008
In the public school I went to in the 1970s, "secular" was A neutral, descriptive word. Our social-studies teacher taught us that ours was a "secular" government, by which she meant that we lived free of any religion established by the state. We were to be proud of this secular government, she told us; it differentiated us from people in other times and places where those speaking for God made the rules—rules that sometimes were corrupt and unfair. As I understood it then, "secular" had nothing to do with disavowing or disapproving of any particular belief in God.

"Secular" does mean "godless," and its neutral meaning has always fought with the more negative one; recently, though, the word has taken on a lot more freight. Like the words "feminist" and "liberal," "secular" and its derivatives have come to mean extreme versions of themselves. They are code in conservative Christian circles for "atheist" or even "God hating"—they conjure, in a fresh way, all the demons Christian conservatives have been fighting for more than 30 years: liberalism, sexual permissiveness and moral lassitude. The Fox News star Bill O'Reilly frequently frames the culture war as "traditionals versus secular-progressives." Ann Coulter accused "the liberals and the secularists and atheists" of using religion as a wedge. In a speech last year, Newt Gingrich decried the "growing culture of radical secularism," and in a new book the diplomat John Bolton critiques "the High Minded elite who worship at the altar of the Secular Pope." In politics, where it is efficacious to unite people against a common enemy, "secularism" has become that enemy's new name.

To be fair, battles in the war against secularism have been fought for about 150 years, dating back to a time when discoveries in science (especially those of Charles Darwin) and a disenchantment with organized religion led a critical mass of mostly European intellectuals to declare that one could lead a moral life independent of God. By the middle of the 20th century, their heirs had coined the term "secular humanism," to mean a concern with values but not with religion, and the Rev. Jerry Falwell took particular aim at them. In 1986, he proclaimed that secular humanists "challenge every principle on which America was founded," including "abortion on demand, recognition of homosexuals, free use of pornography, legalizing of prostitution and gambling, and free use of drugs." Pope Benedict XVI speaks out frequently against the dangers of secularism.

What's new about the assault on secularism is how, among conservative pundits, it's become almost shorthand. O'Reilly doesn't have to list secularism's sins as Falwell did; he has only to utter the word. And the so-called secularists are hardly helping their own case. Aware that no group is more reviled in America than atheists, and reeling from all the attention atheists have gotten from recent best-selling books, some nonbelievers prefer to wrap themselves in a safer label: "secularist." This rhetorical deflection only makes them targets. Secularist equals nonbeliever; nonbeliever equals immoral God-hater. "It's red meat for the pundits," says Greg Epstein, Harvard's humanist chaplain. He prefers the word "humanist."

Language evolves. "Secular" was first used in the Middle Ages to mean things and people not belonging to the church—as Webster's puts it, "not overtly or specifically religious; not ecclesiastical or clerical." This remains its best and most important meaning. In this great experiment that is American democracy, "secular" is the only word we have to describe the idea, handed down by the Founders, that our leaders do not belong to God, they belong to us.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/112719© Newsweek Mag

Reinterpretation of Islam in Turkey Khurram: #27

Personally, I am for a secular form of government with a Constitution, as I stated in the article. Religion can then be left for individual practice. In such a situation, there is no need for any reinterpretation. The individuals can practice their religion whatever way they want without imposing it on others.

My post #25 related to a situation where amelioration is sought through reinterpretation. Reinterpretaion should not only be theoretical; it should be practical also. This can be done by a government as Turkey is currently seeking to do.

Kamath: #29

I did not mean that the Muslim world was always "intellectually frozen in the seventh century.." I was speaking of the present Muslim world. If you read my statement in the article slowly, there will be no confusion. The statement is clear enough.

Mohammad Gill

Reinterpretation of Islam in Turkey Okay guys, jokes apart; let me suggest something seriously. It is recognized that reinterpretation is difficult particularly when there is no precedent for it. For centuries, for example, the Muslims have disputed on music. It was never seriously undertaken by any Muslim Government or any Government authorized bodies to rule on music. If it is ruled that music is allowed by Islam under certain reasonable conditions and then those conditions are specified, there would be at least a precedent. On the other hand, if it is ruled that music is haram, then there is no reinterpretaion because many already believe that it is haram. Yet majority of the people want it to be part of their life.

Once the issue of music is settled, then movies, television shows, etc. can be similarly Islamized. Once these precedents are in place, further task of reinterpretation becomes simpler.

The whole thing may sound trivial but it is not. Such precedents will open the way for reinterpretation of more difficult issues. This process should bring us into the modern times rather than taking us back into the 7th century Arabia. Each Muslim government can settle issues for its own people and universality may not be sought. In the absence of such precednts, no body knows who should do the reinterpretaion and whether such reinterpretaions would be binding to settle down the ongoing disputations.

Prostitution is haram yet it is part of almost every Muslim country. The prostitutes are condemned and no amelioration of their social conditions is possible. The government should take the proverbial bull by its horns and make peace by suitable reinterpretation.

Seen in this light, maybe the Turkish effort has a potential to deliver the goods.

Mohammad Gill

Bullhe Shah and His Veil of “Meem” akcheema: #60

You are doing quite well. At age 36, you are critically probing the issues which majority of the Muslims are afraid even to think about.

Let me see what I was doing at age 36. I was more than half way through with my Ph.D. work, I had published my first research paper in the Proceedings of American Society of Civil Engineering,and was thinking of other problems in my line of research. I had critically thought on religion (like you) but had shelved it so that I could focus on my research interests without any distraction. I hadn't written anything about religion at that time and wouldn't do it for another 25 years or so.

I have written several articles on Science and the Muslim world at Chowk. One of these is:

Decline of Science in the Muslim World
Mohammad Gill September 1, 2005

You might be interested to read it.

I wish you well.

Mohammad Gill

Bullhe Shah and His Veil of “Meem” Naqshbandi: #30

In your earlier post, you wrote:
"Ana Ahmad bila Meem"
I am Ahmad without the 'M' i.e. Ahad. (The One).
It's quite a definitive statement; it doesn't seem to be figurative as you implied in your post # 29.

Similarly, Bullhe Shah's statement is quite definitive. It is quoted in my article as follows:
“Ahad, Ahmad wich farq nah Bullya
Ikk ratti bhar marodee da”
(There is no difference between Ahad and Ahmad but of a nominal ‘rounding’ [meem}.)

Mohammad Gill

Bullhe Shah and His Veil of “Meem” Various Interactors:

Did I write anything in the article to suggest that "purdah-e-meem" was real and not obfuscation? I wrote this article to show how apocryphal sufistic thought is, if you take it seriously.

Ahmad (Muhammed) can not be Ahad (God) by any stretch of human imagination. According to Chapter 112 (Unity0 of the Holy Quran, "He (Allah) begetteth not, nor is He begotten." On the other hand, Prophet Muhammed was begotten by his father, Abdullah. Ponder, Mr. Naqshbandi.

The trick of removing a letter from a word, transforms the word Arab into Rab, if A is removed from Arab. Does it mean that a piece of land is God?

In response to hamidm2, #23, I want to reassure him that I am okay (both mentally and physically). True, I have a lot of time at my disposal to burn.

Be well,

Mohammad Gill

Musharraf’s Days are Numbered VRV: #44

The situation in Pakistan is really complex. Musharraf can help by holding a fair election and then stepping down. He should announce that he isn’t having any political stake, before the elections are held, and that he would step down after the elections.

If the majority of people want Talbanization, let it be. I think esprit de corps is the essence of democracy. If the majority wants to ruin Pakistan in the name of Islam, let them decide. But I like to believe that this wouldn’t happen. Majority of the people would choose to keep religion where it belongs – at a personal level. The moderate Islam (however it may be described) will prevail. But as I said in the article that if the country is doomed, Musharraf alone cannot save it.

Mohammad Gill

Musharraf’s Days are Numbered zeemax: #17

I didn't say army will kill him. He might be assassinated by the kind of people who killed BB.

Mohammad Gill

Making a Mockery of Democracy Salim-Chauhan (61), tahmed32, and hamidm2:

Guys, thank you for focusing on the raison d'etre of the article.

Mohammad Gill

Making a Mockery of Democracy Chowk Management, Staff and Chowk Members:

Wish you all a happy and prosperous New Year.

Mohammad Gill

Making a Mockery of Democracy GT:

I do not claim to be a very knowledgeable politician but I look around critically to see what is happening in the political arena. I am neither pro “a certain political party” nor am I against “another.” In my view all the political parties have failed to promote democracy in Pakistan. See my earlier article “Political Quandary in Pakistan.”

Only a few have commented on my point of view that a political party needs to become democratic within its own ranks and files before it can serve the bigger cause of nation-wide democracy.

You wrote in your PS “..I think I understand the reasons behind Bilawal accession” but you did not share those reasons in your post. Doesn’t PPP have any other mature “non-Bhutto” politician to head the party after BB? Is PPP so bereft of good politicians? Why PPP does have to be dynastic? Why is it improper to criticize the dynastic make-up of the party?

We, politicians and non-politicians, need to criticize the policies and structure of the political parties who seek to rule us; if we don’t, there is no hope for improvement. You and others got entangled in my quotes from Dalrymple (who by the way wrote a very informative article) but ignored the central part of my article.

Be well,

Mohammad Gill

Making a Mockery of Democracy Ras:

It seems you're holding me responsible that Dalrymple's article was not published at Chowk. Firstly, he may have chosen to publish it in The Observer which has a wider readership than chowk. Had he submitted his article to chowk, the chowk management would have published it on the front page. I don't have anything to do with how the articles are selected for publishing at chowk. I am just a member like you.

Dalrymple's article is informative and interesting. Had he published at chowk, I might still have quoted from it.

Mohammad Gill