From: hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Pakistan. Deen and its meanings
Date: 28 Dec 1992 12:50:53 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: pageboy.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Dec27.170607.6445@doug.cae.wisc.edu> budaraju@cae.wisc.edu (Srinivas Budaraju) writes:
>In article <ljmsstINN4qh@pageboy.cs.utexas.edu> hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder) writes:
>>In article <BzqCHA.Mo7@ucunix.san.uc.edu> bhatnagr@ucunix.san.uc.edu writes:
>>>Would you please write a couple of phrases in English that capture the
>>>semantics of the word "DEEN" in its original language?
>>In Quran the word DEEN has been used in the following four meanings
>>1.	Sovereignty and Supreme Authority
>>2.	Obedience and Submission to such Authority
>>3.	The system of thought and action established through 
>>		the exercise of that authority
>>4.	Retribution meted out by the authority, in consideration 
>>	of loyalty and obedience to it, or rebellion and transgression
>>
>>As such DEEN encompasses all the reasons d'etre of a "state".
>						       ^^^^^
>I think that this is just one of the possible interpretations (given 
>for example by Maulana Maduadi). Other interpretation, given by Maulana
>Wahiduddin Khan, is clear from his criticism of those for whom the
>main purpose of Islam is to establish a political system:
>

Who is this Maulana Wahiduddin Khan? I would certainly like to read
his works.

There have been four types of responses to the challenge of the Western
civilization to Muslims all over the world [1].

1: One has been that of orthodox ulemas. Like the ulemas of Deoband and
   Syed Ali Hasan Nadavis to a lesser extent and Tablighi Jamaat in
   particular. Their approach is reculsive in nature. It does not confront
   the Western challenge directly. 

2: The second approach has been that of the "apologists". Most famous
   among them have been people like Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, syed Amir ali
   in the subcontinent and Mohammad Abduh, and Rashid Rida in Egypt.

3: The third approach has been that of the secularists and progressive
   liberals. These are the followers of Mustafa Kamal of Turkey, Jamal
   Abdun Nasir, Sadaat, Mubarak, Bhuttos et. at. They all want to keep
   Islam to personal affairs. THat is make it irrelevant for all
   practical purposes.

4: Fourth and probably the most frontol of the Muslim responses has been
   that of Maudoodi in Subcontinent, Hasan ul Banna and Syed Qutub
   in Egypt, and Hasan Turabi in Sudan. 

The secularists  are now thoroughly discredited in the entire Muslim
world. Especially after the down fall of the mirage of communism. These
progressive elites are now researching and realigining their responses
after the Gulf War (Eg. Tariq Ali, and Mushahid Hussain .. 
severely anti West today, but domestically without direction). 
The orthodox ulemas are irrelevant for the present tussle
as they are out of the contention in the short run because of their
recluse. The aplogists are now history. Orthodox ulemas and the so called
fundamentalist ulemas got together and finished them about 50 years
ago as far as the interepretation of Quran goes. They were unable to
validate their arguments from Quran.  Although Maudoodi, Syed QUtub
found themselves initially under hard criticism from the orthodoxy,
it now appears that their interpretation has survived the criticism 
of the orthodoxy. The followers of Maudoodi and Syed Qutub are generally
young, scientifically educated from the West,[2] and are now assuming the lead
against  the status quo in the Muslim countries [3]. 

[1] Read John Espositos books. They have a good description of the four
    approaches. For instance, "Islam and Politics".

[2] Hrair Dijkeman [sp?] "Islamic Fundamentalism".
[3] Hasan Turabis recent interview and cross questioning 
     with the academia of USA. I have the article for those interested.

>"These people, because of their mental attitude, have come to view 'din'
>in the form of political order (riyasti nizam). For them 'din' has to
>do with things government (hukumati umar) and not with personal reform
>(dhati islah). They conceive it as their religious responsibility to
>establish and to implement 'din' as a political order on this earth.
>Yet, since in the Koran there is no verse from which a 'dini' mission
>of this kind could be derived, therefore, their mind has devised the
>easy way of twisting the meaning of personal injunctions (infradi
>ahkham) into social ones (ijtima iyyat): 'weigh correctly' they take
>to mean: 'correct the scales of the people.'"
>

Please, read [3] to understand better why a political response was
needed today and why it has to encompass all spheres of life.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.bangladesh