From: hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Pakistan: Ideals of democracy and secularism
Date: 6 Jan 1993 11:00:30 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: pageboy.cs.utexas.edu

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.

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.

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!!!

>> 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.

>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.

>> 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.
>
>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.
>
>> 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.


>
>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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!