From: hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: After Socialism, it is time for Secularism!
Date: 6 Apr 1992 13:34:51 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: pageboy.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Apr3.133308@IASTATE.EDU> jakhan@IASTATE.EDU
 (Javed A Khan) writes:
>In article <ktfsi4INNgoj@pageboy.cs.utexas.edu>, 
>   hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder) 


>
>
>You have made the case that though Turkey is a secular state, it has been
>unable
>to solve its problems with its Kurdish minority. That it has committed human-
>rights violations in its crackdown on the Kurds is a glaring example of the
>failure of secularism to solve "all problems" and hence the strong case for its
>rejection.[it will die out in any case..]
>
>Its possible that I am reading too much into your post so correct me if I am.
>But if I have made the right interpretation then I have some comments to make:
>
You are right.

>
>I dont think that the problem of the Kurds has any thing to do with Turkey
>practising secularism. 

Yes, it does. Secularism is based on the premise that when a state 
closes its eyes from the beliefstructure-culture-attitudes of an
"individual", most of the determinants of "conflict" are removed.
Whateverelse is left pertains to the collective affairs which
can then be dealt with through "democracy".

i. First fallacy of the above philosophy is diffences of belief don't
	vanish by becoming indifferent to them. More elaboration
	on this point comes later.
ii. Second, is the inherent fallacy of democracy where in the
	the words of Iqbal, opinion is "counted", not "weighed".

It is the conjunction of the above two which results in the 
failure of "secularism" as a bedrock of state.

>Even if Turkey had been an Islamic State the Kurds would 
>still struggle for independence and Turkey would still resist them. 
>That was why I gave you the example of Iran.   
>

I was waiting for you to cast your "real" arguments in the 
correct words. Now, your question is whether an Islamic State
solves "All" problems?. My answer is, yes it does. Then your
contention is because Iran is an apparent failure, this 
destroys my claim for "Islamic State" as an "ideal".

To this I would only say this: In my opinion, Iran is not
the "ideal" which we call the "Islamic State". It never was.
The ideal of an "Islamic" state in the sense you are talking
about, in my opionion, is that of the time of "Mohammad" (pbuh).
It is that ideal which we are aspiring for.

(Aside: 10 years is much too small a time to see the validity
or failure of any "state" experiment, Iran being one. Particularly,
when 95% of time it was being subjected to an international 
war of attrition)

>
>
>I dont think there is any political/religious philosophy that can solve
>"all conflicts". As long as humans are involved problems are going to exist in
>one form or the other or new ones will arise. On that count no philosophy can
>claim to be the final solution to all human problems.
>

I absolutely agree with your above contention. I will only qualify that
no "man-made" philosophy can claim to be the final solution to all
human problems. However, an ideology made by an
"omniscient", Omni-potent being is another matter!

>Secularism is an idea that has been interpreted differently by
>different people.  
>Some reject religion, as was done by the Soviets and some haven't as in
>India.

By the way soviets never rejected "religion". Only considered it
irrelevant and an "opium". They were always at pain to demonstrate
to all visitors that they "still" retained some showpieces of
Mosques and churches, as if they have no problem with the
religion. They contended that for them it is too "insignificant"
to bother (it is another matter how vehemently and cruelly
they tried to suppress it.).

By the way what is the difference b/w rejecting and being indifferent
to a certain phenomenon, only of technicality. An Ostrich while hiding
its head in the sand "rejects" the presence of danger (in the notion
of communist secularism), while if he simply turns the other way round
it becomes "not-rejecting"? (the latter being the Indian approach?)


>
>Secularism as defined by the Indians has always meant equal respect for *all*
>religions. The State does not accord any religion any favour but does not stop
>people from practising the religion of their choice. Instead of being hostile
>or indifferent to religion, the State is actually supportive of *all*
>religions.

Yes, it is another way of putting the same proposition. This is simply
another way hiding "the truth". It is precisely this approach that
Alan Bloom calls "the closing of the American Mind" (a must read
book).
Let me explain:

Suppose you ask a fourth grade class the question about Schrodinger's
wave equation. Every one may attempt an answer, none correct (given that
fourth graders are at a level too low to  understand such theory).

The first approach which you have termed "rejection", will say that
because none of the fourthgraders has managed to explain and
articulate convincingly "Schrodinger's wave equation", so this
implies that no such theoretical equation exists!

However, the second approach which you call "supportive" will say, 
"Well, all
you have replied. Because none of your answers can be proven or
validated to be correct, we are not going to break your hearts
by "rejecting your answers". All of you
are correct and we support and appreciate your tries. However, for
now, let's drop the subject (because attempting to verify your answers is
futile), and see what we can do with what we can understand
__ the collective issues !!!!!"


>Secularism deals with a form of governance and deals with the question of
>religion in public life. 

Does it? Or does it try to find ways and means to "expeditiously"
circumvent such "discomforting questions"? Let me give you one
example __ abortion issue. See how cleverly, even the extreme
right (most of whom are religious and whose conviction solely depends
on their belief in Christianity) have hidden their "belief" 
behind the veil of not-so-disturbing term :pro-life. I have
yet to see such people come out of their shell of hypocricy and
saying confidently that "yes we are against abortion because
we believe in Christ and it is his teaching which makes
it wrong". No, but they are too secularist to come out.

Those who are not hypocritical about their "belief" are
termed "fundamentalists" !!!! So, much for freedom of expression!
And, so much for their "yaqeen" and "conviction".

Iqbal says that  the "yaqeen of Murd-e-Momin" is in the
darkness of the "night of reason", the only ray of hope at
the end of the tunnel!

>> ASIDE ABOUT REVOLUTIONS
>> =======================
>> 
>> By the way who is teaching Iran the lesson of human rights?
>> __ the secularist nations, who installed and perpetuated
>> the dictatorial, imperial regime of Shah who massacred
>> hundreds and thousands of Iranian under tanks, who overthrew
>> the regime of Mussadaq, who tried to install "Shehpur Bakhtiar"
>> when Shah's fall was imminent, and then tried a military
>> dicatotorship and failed, all just to protect their
>> "interests". The same "interests"  which allows them
>> to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to save the
>> throne of Kuwait's royalty and gulf's sheikdoms. The
>> same "interests" which make them futher perpetuate Hitler
>> Sadddam's rule because self determination of Shias
>> around Basra, and the Kurds (with the accompanying
>> de-stablization of Kurds of Turkey) was "too much"
>> for them to swallow. Because, dictators like "Najib"
>> are now again becoming their allies, and because
>> dictators like Noriega, Marcos, Zia, Asad, Nasir
>>  and others were all their allies.
>
>
>
>I agree with you totally. But again what has poor secularism got to do with
>this?

It is not secularism that it is only to be blamed, but to other
man-made gods which have to be sculpted inoder to support the
third god _ seularism. The other too gods are those of "nationalism"
and "democracy". It is the prop of the curse of "nationalism"
that is needed for "secularism" to simply stand, that  demands 
the perpetuation of  "national security" at what ever costs of
other "nations". Other nations are not humans. Even the
third god of "democracy" is only for the "citizens" of
the "nation", not of other people (eg. if a non-US citizen
applies for visa he is considered "guily unless proven innocent").
>
>> 
>> As to the killings in the revolution and its aftermath it
>> was unfortunate. The consequences of such bloody revolutions
>> are always unfortunate. As Dickens puts it "It was
>> the best of time and it was the worst of time", referring
>> to French revolution in the opening sentences of "A Tale
>> of Two cities". Try seeing Pasternak's "Dr. Zhivago", there
>> you find the similar "best of time and worst of time"
>> scenerios. Iranian revolution was no different or better
>> than the two in its "costs".
>> 
>> You see that is the unfortunate cost of revolutions. It 
>> devolves on the people to avoid such bloody mess. But,
>> when the people who could have done some thing but
>> didn't just because they were indifferent or just too
>> timid. Then situation worsens and all such seemingly
>> innocent "bystanders" are caught in the mess for being
>> indifferent. Like "Dr. Zhivago, who did nothing while
>> experiencing all that injustice".
>> 
>> 
>
>
>
> Again I agree with you.
>

But you missed the apparent contradiction with this agreement.
What I am saying in the second paragraph 
above is that "indifference" is an "evil" from which one
society can not detach itself. 

What one does with his life is not "his"
problem, as secularists say. It is the problem of the whole
society. Such costs of "indifference" accumulate and
this necessitates the "revolutions" as I am pointing
out above. Such revolutions then make such "indifferent"
people pay, which were accumulated by their fellow
people and probably not personally by them. See, it was
the duty of that nephew of Monseigneur the Marquis (? I
am probably forgetting his relationship and name) to 
stop his uncle from the injustices he was committing.
Instead he chooses the easy way out, fleeing out of
the country, then later an innocent had to pay with
his life to give the nephew the happiness.

Similarly, it was upto the perceptive people like Dr. Zhivago
who were the "in-people" to have influenced people who were
reveling while the masses were toiling.
(the nephew and Dr. Zhivago simply are symbols)

>
>> Hear Hear! The moment we start a discourse, you start labeling the other
>> side as "highly myopic and illogical", without listening to the others
>> arguments.
>
>I guess I seem to have upset you a bit. It was not my intention to be derisive
>but I guess I made an inappropriate choice of phrase. Apologies...
>

I accept the apologies. 

Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan