From: jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed Ahmed Khan)
Subject: Re: Pakistan
Reply-To: jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed Ahmed Khan)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 22:10:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.152133.994@cs.tcd.ie>, ahmed@cs.tcd.ie (El-Habbash Ahmed)
writes:
> jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed Ahmed Khan) writes:
> 
> 
> 
> >Syed Irfan Hyder writes:
> 
>
>==============================================================================
> >>Doesn't answer the question. Why is a *political state* required to
establish
> >>an "islamic" society ?
> 
> >Answer is very simple. Islam is a DEEN, not a religion.
> >It has "laws" and "regulations" that need the political instrument
> >of the "state" for their enforcement. As Islam is not simply
> >some obscure set of rituals that can be practiced in isolation
> >it needs some political expression. Remember need for the Medinite
> >State?
>
>=============================================================================
> 
> 
> >I had some questions. 
> 
> >How is the DEEN of Islam (if we were to accept that Islam was not "just
another
> >religion") different from the civic laws of today?
> 
> >Why is it necessary to cause such convulsion in human history, cause so many
> >innocent deaths to bring in something which, IMO, is already part of the
civic
> >laws of any civilised society?
> 
> >Take the spirit and intent of the laws in any society and one can see the
> >amazing similarity in the guiding principles which shaped the laws of
society.
> 
> In fact all the laws of any society are tailored to emforce certain
> aspects of whatever system available in the society, and to protect the
> interests of the people who are contributing effectively to the system.
> 
> The laws you are talking about:
> 
> - Do not forbid interest, in the banking system, because this is a main 
>   feature of capitalism.
> 
> - do not forbid free sex, because this makes it easy to exploit women.
> 
> - Do not forbid intoxicants, gambling, ...
> 
> This is just a simple example which shows how such laws contradict with
> Islam. 




In Gujrat (a state in India) liquor is banned. The state lawmakers decided
that liquor was ruining many families and went ahead and banned it. The 
lawmakers were probably guided by the sensibilities of the culture in which
they lived, the sensibilities of their constituents many of whom are intensely
religious and the factual effects liquor was having on families. 

Again in many other states liquor is not banned. That does not imply that the
state forces people to have liquor. People of many religious communities live
in mixed societies and its very possible that if it violates their (religious
or not) principles to tke liquor, they will not have it. If the society as a 
whole decides to ban liquor it will do so.


The point is that a secular state (as modeled in India) does not favour any
particular set of people based on their religious beliefs. It respects all
religions and their beliefs.

Since the people making law are selected by the people, they are expected to 
take their sensibilities into account while framing any law.


One example is the Muslim Personal Law in India. A muslim male can take on
four wives when he meets the criteria laid down in traditional "islamic"
custom while other religious groups forbid polygamy and therefore its an
offense for them to practise polygamy.

People may argue against the wisdom of having such diverse laws, but the point
is in a secular country such debates/arguments are allowed to take place and
if it is decided that polygamy must be banned for muslims too, that can take 
effect. The state has an apparatus to let people question any law and believes
in the ability of society to come up with laws that is right for the survival 
of society and its well being.




> 
> Islam is a System and must have its laws to protect the interest of this
> system. It should not be understood that the laws of Islam will force
> people to become Muslim. It is a divine system which is made for the
                                   ^^^^^^
> interest of all people not just the people who are running the system,
> be they capitalists or communists or whatever.
> 




A lot of people may end up feeling uneasy about a law which is projected as
divine. Islam has no way of dealing fairly with such people.





> >Why is there a compelling need to drive a wedge between peoples in the name
of
> >religion ?
> 
> Why capitalism, communism or secularism do not drive such wedges ?



I don't know about communism or capitalism (that is not connected with the
debate at hand) but you have to show me how secularism drives a wedge between
people. As far as my experience goes, I have seen that the very essence of
secularism is based on bringing people together.





> 
> They do, and you will find many people who are not satisfied, but who
> cares!!!!
> While in a muslim state, the law is part of your Deen. You must know it
> and you have to accept it, or what is the meaning of declaring yourself
> as a Muslim. 


Go right ahead and accept and practice your beliefs. A secular state gives
you full freedom to practice what you believe in.





> 
> For the nonmuslims, the law in Islam, has many similarities
> with the civic laws in many of the non-islamic countries, so why
> shouldn't it be accepted? An Islamic law gives more consideration to
> morals, and I don't think nonmuslims would object to that.




Perhaps you can explain why in an Islamic state non-muslims or women can
never become head of state or serve in the army ?
 


> 
> 
> Ahmed 




--Javed.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan