From: jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed Ahmed Khan)
Subject: Re: Pakistan
Reply-To: jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed Ahmed Khan)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 22:35:16 GMT

In article <ljs476INN923@pageboy.cs.utexas.edu>, hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan
Hyder) writes:
> In article <1992Dec25.164037@IASTATE.EDU> jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed Ahmed
Khan) writes:
> >
> >So how does the example of USA justify the contenion? 
> >
> >When any muslim country is taken as an example to justify some unfavourable 
> >view about Islam, why is recourse taken by many to the claim that these
muslim
> >countries do not represent an Islamic system?
> >
> >Its easy to pick up isolated events to use as a stick to berate a system
> >whether it is Islam or secularism.
> 
> 
> Let me clarify the point I wanted to make when I gave the example
> of USA and its tussle with Communism.
> 
> The world today "generally" holds 
> 	(i) secularism as the most "equitable" policy towards people
> 	(ii) Democracy as the most "effective"  system
> 		of government
> 	(iii)  Bill of rights are taken to be the ultimate RIGHT
> The imperative of holding this as an ultimate
> solution of all the problems (at least all major), compels the holders
> of the solutin to  fight any other system that challenges the solution.
> 
> Thus, it is a natural imperative of holding some thing to be the ultimate
> soultion and panacea for all the  problems of a society, that  "compels" 
> the holders of the solution to fight any system
> that challenges it for that place. Communism challenged it and found
> itself being faught against by the West __ the upholders of such panacea.
> 
> If one considers  i-iii to be the solution and grants holders of i-iii 
> the right  to fight any  Y that challenges it, 
> then they must also give the same
> right to Islam. The concept of secularism defines the perimeters
> in which any other belief and creed can co-exist within i-iii.
> It is not necessary for all other systems to have the same perimeters.
> 



It is true that many, especially in the west, tout "democracy" and "secularism"
as the panacea to all conflicts and evils afflicting 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
belief is that these ideals are true and ncessary for the survival of
society. The need for humans to be treated with respect and dignity and
presented with a chance to take a measure of control of their destinies is the
driving force behind the recognition by many that democracy and secularism are
systems which will hopefully deliver them this dream.


But these are only concepts which depend on their survival on the will of the
people who stand to benefit from their implementation. As usual the degree of
understanding people have of these concepts wil vary and can be seen in the
total refusal of the govt. in western and communist countries from having any
thing to do with religion and the version practised in India, where religion
is not treated with such disdain. 

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.

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. 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.



--Javed.