NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/culture/pakistan/19097

Text File | 1993-01-03 | 7.6 KB | 195 lines

Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!gatech!destroyer!news.iastate.edu!IASTATE.EDU!jakhan
From: [e-mail] (Javed Ahmed Khan)
Subject: Re: Pakistan: Ideals of democracy and secularism
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Javed Ahmed Khan)
Organization: Iowa State University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 19:56:41 GMT
Lines: 182

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Syed Irfan
Hyder) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Javed Ahmed
Khan) writes:
> >
> >
> >It is true that many, especially in the west, tout "democracy" and
"secularism"
> >as the panacea to all conflicts and evils afflicting society.
>
> No problem with that if they also allow the same right to us to
> hold any other system as panancea of all conflicts and evils
> afflicting the society.
>
> >
> >My belief in democracy and in secularism stems from the recognition that
> >though one cannot claim secularism and democracy will necessarily end all
> >conflicts, they are IMO systems which present the best approach to end
> >persecution of humans based on gender, religious beliefs, race etc. because
> >they originated from our belief that all people are equal. The success in
ending
> >misery depends a lot on the goodwill of people practicing these ideals but
the
>
> So, the argument "for" secularism and democracy is "NOT" that they
> are necessarily the panacea of "all" evils, but that they have been
> found to be quite useful and efficient in running today's governments.
>
> Thus, there may be other systems that can deliver, but their lack of example
> today make them unattractive. However, if Muslims think that their system
> "can" deliver, and they are willing to experiment on themselves, then,
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> there should not be any problem in allowing them to experiment with
> systems that are compatible with their beliefs and lifestyle.




The problem is that its not possible for muslims to "experiment on themselves"
in places like the Indian subcontinent without affecting the lives of others who
do not subscribe to the idea of Islamic laws(non-muslims and muslims alike).
If the country was 100% muslim then there shouldn't be such a problem.

Even if we don't consider the experience and example of the west, its a fact
that non-muslims have their doubts about the "Islamic" system being fair to
non-muslims. Why should they have to abandon their lands and homes to make way
for a system that wouldn't be fair to them ?




> >
> >
> >You are ofcourse right in observing that any system will try to prevent any
> >subversion of its ideals. Though an "Islamic" country may not necessarily
> >subvert democracy, the idea of a theocratic state is a victim of the history
of
> >religious meddling in govt. seen in the west and the west has come out in
the
> >open (sometimes hippocritically) against the "Islamic" states.
>
> Please, do not argument the "context" in which the experience of a
"theocratic"
> state in history has had negative repurcusions. The persecutions of
"theocractic" states is entirely the experience of West. Our history is devoid
of such
> experience. In fact, the only time Muslims faced persecutions at the hands
> of the court's system of beliefs was during the Mautazillah period, when
> Mautzillites scholars of the court of Abbasides persecuted the Islamic
> scholorrs like Imam Ahmed ibne Hanbal.  Islam or Muslim states
> have never been "theocratic" or  can ever be "theocratic".  The concept
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> of theocracy is entirel alien to Islam. See for instance, Hasan Turabi's
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> vision of Sudan (I can send you the article).





Thats what the RSS-VHP-BJP say about the Hindu Raj which they want to bring
about. Would you believe them ?


I'm not sure what your definition of a theocratic state is however?





> >
> >My argument is that the Quran essentially has the SAME ideals as
> >any democratic or secular system and  disagreement is really on means being
> >suggested to achieve this goal.
>
> Then what's the problem in making Quran the constitution of a state?
> If the problem is only in the mechnics then they can be worked out
> through experience, right?



The problem is the interpretation. The similarities I see is obviously not seen
by you. I do not believe that the specific set of "Islamic" laws that are being
propounded will work in generating the spirit behind the principles enunciated
in the Quran, they may even be counter productive. There are many reasons for
their unworkability, the most prominent being the refusal to consider the era in
which they were formulated and that they are but one specific implementation of
human interpreted Quranic principles. I may interpret the Quran differently
and may come up with a different set of laws and the mechanisms to implement
them. Why would that be un-Islamic ?





> >Its my contention that the idea of an *Islamic
> >state* is purely a human creation which took flight during and after the
> >formation of the caliphates. The so-called "Islamic" laws are a set of
specific
> >implementation of the spirit/guidelines enunciated in the Quran and liable to
be
> >challenged. The structure of the state being suggested is unacceptable.
> >
>
> Here, you are totally ignoring the psyche of people who have been
> subjugated and enslaved during colonization. The only way a slave
> can regain his self respect and maintain his individuality
>  is NOT by copying his masters, but, developing from within his own
> beliefs and lifestyle the  principles and instruments that can
> make him not only equal the master but also his better. Note
> that by copying you can become as equal, not suprerior!!!
>



If the question is only of generating a system from within our society, how
is accepting the western concept of democracy any different from accepting the
Arab/Islamic concept of society as far as non Arabs like us are concerned ?


Indians had their own civilization before Islam and western democracy and
though it was unjust in many respects, it was generated from within our
society.


I agree that one must develop our own system which suits our society best but
this does not mean that we shut ourselves out from ideas which are not our own.

The reason we are here studying in the US is to learn from the experience and
knowledge gained by the west. Why is it assumed that learning and accepting a
non-native system implies a process of copying blindly ?

Our forefathers did the same in the case of Islam didn't they?




> See for example, why Afroamericans in USA felt the need  for and
> inspiration from the "Roots", and Malcolm X by Alex Haley.
> Read the books and try to see how these books instill in Blacks
> awareness of their own history, pride in themselves, and inspiration
> to be not only equal to blue-eyed-white-skin-former-masters, but
> even better than them.


Thats exactly what the Hindus of the BJP-RSS-VHP are telling the  Muslims in
India : Reject the "alien"  Arab/Islamic culture which destroyed the native
Hindu culture.

Are they right?

These are exactly the same arguments made by the BJP etc. when they agitated
to bring down the Babri masjid.

If you know about the "Hindutva" campaign and its ideology, how would you
differentiate between the arguments  you are making and the arguments they are
making ?


--Javed.