From: jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed Ahmed Khan)
Subject: Re: Pakistan: Ideals of democracy and secularism
Reply-To: jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed Ahmed Khan)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:02:31 GMT

In article <lkm41eINN5hl@pageboy.cs.utexas.edu>, hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan
Hyder) writes:
> In article <1993Jan3.135641@IASTATE.EDU> jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed Ahmed Khan)
writes:
> >In article <lkc288INNovn@pageboy.cs.utexas.edu>, hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed
Irfan
> >Hyder) writes:
> >> 
> >>  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.
> 
> So the proponents of the above view have two criterias about democracy.
> For Muslims to excercise their right of self-determination, they MUST
> be 100% in their state, whereas other communities can excercise their
> right of self-detemination when they have a simple majority.




I guess the difference of opinion lies in the fact that the concept of a
nation-state is defined by such people more on the basis of territorial and
cultural ties rather than solely on religious affiliation. Therefore Indians can
concieve of a nation state on the bedrock of a common culture even though its
citizens may profess different religious faiths. The binding ties are of
culture. Now religion is also part of such a culture and can also go a long way
in uniting people.


I wanted to ask you a question. Coming back to the recent events in India (I
think they provide the perfect example of what I am trying to say), there are
approx. 20% non-hindus. The RSS-BJP etc. want to establish a "Hindu Rashtra"
very similar to the "Islamic state". Since hindus are in an overwhelming
majority, if they (the entire Hindu populace) were to one day decide that they
want a Hindu state against the wishes of the remaining 20%, would you consider
it to be okay that these people are forced to accept laws which may be
discriminatory or are even hounded out of the country.
 



> 
> Didn't we see the same double standards in applying the rule of 100%
> in Algeria. Note that in Algeria, overwhelming majority of the people
> decided for its self-detemination, not some "simple" majority.


I for one support the will of the Algerian people in the vote and condemn
the subversion of democracy there. What we have there is a military junta
ruling there and can no way be considered a free state. 

But what is your point? How does this discredit democracy or secularism?
Your complaint may be the indifference to and even ouright support for by other
countries to the junta there. I agree with you absolutely and I detest their
attitude. But what has that got to do with the credibility of secularism or
democracy?
 



> 
> The demand for a 100% of following is impractical if not ridiculous
> from the stand point of democracy.
> 
> >
> >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 ?
> 
> So, Muslims should not have their right of self-determination just
> because there are some people who have doubts, and irrational fears!!!
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



Isn't it legitimate to be concerned about a system that will govern you which
can be unfair to you.




> 
> >> 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 entirely alien to Islam. 
> 
> >
> >Thats what the RSS-VHP-BJP say about the Hindu Raj which they want to bring
> >about. Would you believe them ?
> 
> Probably they say the same thing. But their example of Babri Masjid 
> nullifies the claim. The same is not true for Islamic history.



Not really. Considering what happened in Pakistan and Bangladesh after the
demolition may say a lot about the claims of tolerance and respecting the
rights, properties and lives of minorities bythe supporters of "Islamic" states
too, don't you think so? The Arabs and other invaders who were muslim were not
necessarily very benign to the native population or their religious beliefs
either, were they?





 
> >I'm not sure what your definition of a theocratic state is 
> 
> A theocratic state is ruled by clergy, or some thing like papacy. 
> Islamic state has no equivalent to the rule of a clergy or the papacy.
> Islamic state has a constitution; Quran and Sunnah. You can compare
> the rule of the constitution with the rule of (say) constitution in
> USA.



The RSS says that the reign of Purshottam Maryada Lord Ram was the ideal
state and must be transplanted into the Indian polity if India is to be saved.
Besides he is also believed to be God by 80% of India's population. If God
himself left behind the such an ideal example of a state, whats the sense in
using such "man-made" systems.

Doesn't this give a familiar ring?




> 
> >> 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. 
> 
> But similar problems of interpretations also do occur in (say) USA.
> Note for instance the problem of interpreting freedom of expression;
> does freedom to kill your fetus is also included in that freedom?
> 
> A  constitution always has some rules for  resolving such 
> contentious interpretations. Islam has its own rules. The fear people
> seem to have is that the Mullah's will interpret. However, I claim
> that Mullah's do not have any more right than me and you provided
> of course that we interpret Quran and Sunnah using its own spirit.
> The problem comes when liberals start interpret Quran and Sunnah
> according to the spirit of (say) USA's constitution.
> 
> >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. 
> 
> Note that you mentioned here the "principles".
> 
> >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. 
> 
> By definition a "principle" has to be independent of time and place,
otherwise
> it is an "implementation of that principle". Probably, you have concerns
> about the "implementations" of those principles propounded today.
> What I am contending, is that we need to experiment with the
"implementations".
> The experimentation will teach us the best way of implementing the 
> principle that is according to our own era.
> 
> 
> 
> >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 ? 
> 
> Note that the fundamental of interpreting a certain phenomenon is
> that the interpretation should be internally self consistent.
> The only way your interpretation of Quran can be un-islamic is when one
> clause of your interpretation contradicts another clause of that
> interpretation.
> 
> >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 ?
> 
> You ignored my example of the reason why the Afro-Americans felt the need
> for ROOTS. If the majority of our people are willing to own 
> the Western history, ethos, waltenshaung as their own, then there
> is no problem. However, the fact is that they are NOT. In much
> the same way that Afro-Americans are not prepared to accept the
> history and ethos of the Spanish conquistadors and the  Europeans
> who enslaved them as their own.
> 
> Are you willing to own and admire the subjugation of your own ancestors
> by the European colonizers? No I am not.
> >
> 
> >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.
> 
> This is is the fundamental point. If you agree with this point than we
> have a basic understanding of the problem. Now we can take a look
> at our history, selct the most inspiring examples, ignore the bad
> examples as anomalies, and devise our own set of principles and goals.



I agree with you and that is exactly what I'm saying. The difference in opinion
seems to be that you are linking the history of the west with the principles of
democracy today and are rejecting it because of its link with an unsavoury
western history. That is not how I look at it though. I want to assure you that
its possible to find that the principles stand on their own right without 
being linked to any particular history.
 



> >
> >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 ?
> 
> Importing and subjugating a population with a system aliean to the population
> without their choice, is different from learning, understanding and
> internalizing a system. Though I have learned much from the West, it
> is not necessary for me to copy blindly each and every thing that it
> offers. I have the discretion to selct for my ownself things that
> are in sync with my history and sense of purpose. I can discard the others.
> >
> >Our forefathers did the same in the case of Islam didn't they?  
> 
> Note Islam was not thrusted on them. THey accepted it learned it
> and made their own. The difference between British invasion of India
> and Muslim invasion of India was that British didn't make the India
> their own home and didn't make the Indians their own brothers and family
> members. However, Muslims came here, made it their own home, and made
> the people their own kith and kin.


Its not that clearcut. How many people of Arab descent do we find in the
subcontinent? You'll find so many Christians in India. So what does that prove?
The British couldn't settle here because the culture was totally alien to them.
Tell me what would be the probability of Indonesian Muslims assimilating
themselves here if they were to invade India? The muslims that you see in India
are more that 99% converts from Hindus. Again its easier for an Afghans or even
Persians to be assimilated into India when compared to Arabs, Turks, Brits  and
the like. So what has that got to do with religion.

Again Islam did not necessarily have a benign entry into India. Not that it
had anything to do with Islam than with the rulers who were practising it.




> >
> >> 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?
> 
> May be it is right for them. We are not responsible for their actions.
> Without arguing about this, let them go their own way. 
>We will do what we feel is right. What is
> more productive and what has been proven by past. 
> Let the time and History of the future  decide who made the  right
> decision today and and who was wrong.


So what do 12-20% of non-hindus scattered throughout India, who would be laden
with this unilateral decision by the hindus, do? Abandon their homes and look
for another country which will accept them just like the non-muslims of Pakistan
were forced to do in 47? Or should they physically resist the formation of such
a state (which would concievably be discriminatory to them) and risk large scale
violence?  


If you can answer this question categorically, it will answer my very first
original question and I may not need to pursue this thread any further.


> 
> 
> >
> >These are exactly the same arguments made by the BJP etc. when they agitated
> >to bring down the Babri masjid.
> >
> I don't know why BJP has to decide what I want to do. Their arguments
> lead to destruction. Our arguments lead to construction !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 



--Javed.










Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan