Islam, Democracy And Violence

By Asghar Ali Engineer 1,205 views Published: September 4, 2008 comment Comment

(11 votes, average: 3.09 out of 5)

Loading ...

I was invited last week to Indonesia for a series of lectures by Asia Calling International Radio to speak on Islam, Democracy and Nation state. These days Indonesian intellectuals are rocked with questions we were faced with in early fifties in India. Also, all over Islamic world the question is being asked is Islam compatible with democracy and nation state? In Indonesia too, a largest Islamic country in the world the radical Islamists have raised this debate. The progressive Islamic thinkers there, are therefore, seized with these questions.

In a Asia Calling talk show where number of prominent public figures and diplomats were present these questions were raised by many. Also I spoke at Wahid Institute founded by former president of Indonesia and a leading scholar of Islam Abdur Rehman Wahid on experiences of Muslim minority in secular India. Indonesia, though a largest Muslim country in the world is still not an Islamic country but a Panchsila State. The doctrine of Panchsila was adopted during president Sukarno’s time.

But now Indonesia is under pressure to become an Islamic state where Shari’ah law would be the official law and religious minorities like Christians and Buddhists and others would become second-class citizens. Still, it seems, Indonesian people are resisting this demand and are hence keen to know the experiences of secular countries like India. Also what is the experience of nation building in South Asia including Pakistan and Bangla Desh. I was also asked to speak on the concept of human rights in Islam as in a democratic country human rights have fundamental importance. Indonesia, a largest Islamic country, is also faced with this question as minorities are coming under attack and their human rights are being violated.

Of course it is not at all correct to say that Islam is incompatible to democracy, I said in my talk. This myth is being spread by the supporters of authoritarian regime in the Islamic world. Kings, Sheikhs and military dictators are spreading such ideas, doesn’t matter if Islam gets bad name in the process. I firmly refuted this myth and maintained Islam does not come in the way of democracy; it is dictators and monarchs who come in its way.

We should remember, I said, that the Qur’an does not give any concept of state but a concept of society. Qur’an wants to establish a just society and what other way could be better suited to establish a just society than a democratic society. Also the Qur’an emphasizes equality of all human beings and equal dignity for all despite different languages, colours and race and nationality. How can it be achieved except through democratic society?

The authoritarian societies negate all these and hence not democracy but monarchy and dictatorship is un-Islamic, not democracy. During medieval ages, the concept like equal dignity, gender equality and human rights were just non-existent and hence monarchy was quite acceptable. It is no longer so. The modern society is emphatic about human equality without any distinction and human rights and gender equality are of great significance and hence democracy is the only way out for Qur’anic concept of just society to be realized Some people, especially radical Islamic groups do argue that the only just government could be through institution of khilafah. Let me say that the institution of khilafah has not been sanctioned by the Qur’an as pointed out above Qur’an does not recommend any form of government at all. The institution of khilafa was a result of historical situation. It was not even a part of Prophet’s (PBUH) Sunna.

That is why there were differences among Muslims about the question of succession. Even most prominent companions of the Prophet (PBUH) were not sure about the mode of succession of the successor. Shia’s maintain that the Prophet (PBUH) appointed his cousin and son-in-law Ali to succeed him. But only the supporters of Ahl-e-bait agreed with this view and others gathered in Saqifa Banu Sa’ida to discuss the question of his successor. There too there was no unanimity and after lot of suggestions and debates Umar proposed the name of Abu Bakr and did bay’ah on his hand and others followed.

Then there was no unanimity in electing the Caliph. Many said the Khalifah could be only from the tribe of Quraish of Mecca and Ansar of Madina who were from other tribes like Khazraj and Aus maintained that caliph should be from among them as they had helped the Prophet (PBUH) in Madina. It was also suggested that two persons be elected one from Quraish and one from Ansars. But this viewpoint was also rejected and ultimately Abu Bakr of Quraish was elected.

Then it was said that there could be only one caliph at one time but this concept also proved to be fragile as when the Abbasid defeated Umayyads, one of Umayyad’s family fled to Spain and founded another empire there and at a time there came into existence two caliphs and when Buwahids captured power and caliph became merely a nominal head, caliphate turned into sultanate. The institution of Caliphate also lasted only for thirty years and Mu’awiyah captured power without any sanction from Muslims as in the case of first caliph and what is more he nominated his own son Yazid against the wishes of all Muslims and against the wishes of prominent companions of the Prophet many of whom were then alive.

All this clearly shows that the institution of khilafah was a tentative historical construct, not the result of any divine injunction either based on Qur’an or Sunnah. Thus it cannot be argued that the institution of khilafah be restored and that is the only way out. Also, institution of khilafah, whatever way it came into existence was after all more democratic than monarchy or sheikhdoms and dictatorship which have no sanction of any kind at all.

Also, in case of electing a caliph tribal experience of the time was used as successor to a tribal chief was elected by the members of the tribe. There was no concept of one-man one vote at the time. In the institution of modern democracy one man one vote is the tried and tested method for electing public representative. New historical experience has resulted in new methods of election. There should be no hesitation in excepting and assimilating new experiences. During the period of Khilafat many institutions were readily borrowed from Roman and Sassanid empire like keeping salary register for soldiers from Iran. Earlier only share in the loot was given to those taking part in the fight.

Another question which is raised by Islamists is imposition of Shari’ah law. They argue that in democracy there are man made (human made) laws and Shari’ah law is divine law and this cannot be allowed in an Islamic state as only Shari’ah law should be enforced. This is also an erroneous concept. Shari’ah laws can be divided into two categories: ‘ibadat and mu’amalat (i.e. laws pertaining to salah, saum, haj etc. which are part of ‘ibadat.

Then the laws pertaining to mu’amalat which include relations between human beings and human beings. Laws about mu’amalat cannot be permanent. Of course no changes can be made as far as Shari’ah laws concerning ‘ibadat are concerned but as for mu’amalat laws cannot be permanent and parliament should be empowered to make laws in those respects. All modern democracies allow people to pursue their respective religions and do not interfere in their religious affairs. In all secular democracies also right to religion is a fundamental right.

Also, as far as ‘ibadat are concerned it does not require enforcement by any state but its importance lies in its voluntary nature. ‘Ibadat pertain to ones heart and soul and real ‘ibadat is one which is done most sincerely and from ones core of heart. It cannot be enforced. And it will cease to be ‘ibadat if it is enforced by a state machinery. This is what Qur’an also maintains when it says there is no compulsion in matters of religion.

Thus no Islamic state is required even to enforce provisions of Shari’ah. An Islamic state again would mean the majority of Muslim sect who live in that country would enjoy real freedom and those Muslims who belong to other sects would be persecuted. We see this right in the beginning of Islamic history. The Abbasids initially subscribed to the doctrine of createdness of Qur’an and all those who rejected this doctrine were severely persecuted. Even eminent Imam like Abu Hanifa was flogged for rejecting this doctrine.

In modern Islamic states too we see this phenomenon. In Saudi Arabia only Wahabi Muslims enjoy real freedom of religion. Those who do not subscribe to this doctrine are persecuted or do not enjoy freedom like Wahabis to practice their religion. Similarly the Shias are persecuted in Sunni majority states and Sunnis in Shiah majority states. In Iraq a Sunni minority dominated and persecuted Shi’ahs and in Syria, Alawi minority dominate over Sunni majority as it wields political power.

Real freedom of religion is possible only in democratic state where all enjoy equal rights irrespective of caste, creed and colour. Large number of Muslims today live as minority in various secular democratic states in various Asian, African and Western countries and enjoy right to freely practice their religion. This it is not correct to maintain that you need an Islamic state to practice Islam freely.

Every democratic state permits Shari’ah laws pertaining to personal laws like marriage, divorce, property, inheritance etc. In secular India too Muslims are completely free to practice these laws. Indian Muslim refuse any reform in their laws and state does not insist on that though in many Muslim countries these laws have been reformed.

Now the question about criminal laws whether it would be permitted in a secular democratic state to be permitted. The answer is certainly no. In India the Britishers had abolished Islamic criminal laws in 19th century itself and enforced a criminal code drafted by their parliament. The Muslim Ulama agreed to abolition of the Islamic code and agreed to enforcement of common criminal code. Today in the modern world many Muslim majority countries have also taken similar steps. Criminal punishments are largely contextual. In the tribal Arab society certain punishments were thought to be more effective and hence they were recommended. The main purpose is to prevent crime and nature and extent of punishment can certainly change. Also, there is provision for tazir punishment also in Islam and the rulers did enforce tazir punishments too. So it is not matter of principle whether hudud laws are enforced or not. Main thing is to check crimes.

Thus it would be seen that a secular and democratic state is equally good as long as it permits Muslims to practice their religion. It is also important to note that the Indian Ulama voluntarily opted for a secular state as opposed to an Islamic state in the form of Pakistan in 1947 when India was divided. They vigorously opposed creation of separate Muslim country and preferred to have a secular democratic and multi-religious, multi-cultural country. And who knew Islam better than the Ulama of Darul Ulum Deoband.

An Islamic state itself, as pointed out before, is a historical construct and not a Qur’anic concept and hence it is in no way obligatory for Muslims to set up an Islamic state. Those who argue in favour of Islamic state cannot produce any argument from the Qur’an and Sunna. In every country there are certain forces who adopt majoritarian aggressive postures and want their religion to be associated with the affairs of the state. In India, for example, a section of Hindus want India to become Hindu Rashtra (i.e. Hindu nation) but secular Hindus resist that demand.

In any religious state all citizens of different religious persuasions cannot enjoy equal rights and no modern state can allow this. The very essence of modern polity is that all citizens irrespective of their religion should enjoy equal rights. Maulana Maududi of Jamat-e-Islami of Pakistan had argued that no non-Muslim can become head of the state or prime minister of Pakistan. He or she cannot even hold any key post in the government. Sure in secular states also no person from minority religion will find it easy to become head of the state but theoretically it is not ruled out. In India a Sikh, a non-Hindu became a prime minister and three Muslims could become president of the country.

Another objection raised by many Islamists is that in secular democratic states human rights are sacred and the very concept of human rights is un-Islamic. This is also not in keeping with the Qur’anic teachings. Firstly, most of the Islamic countries with few exceptions have signed the UNO’s Human Rights Declaration. Some countries who did not sign the declaration their objection was that one who renounces Islam cannot be put to death as freedom of religion is a fundamental principle of human rights.

However, as pointed out above Qur’an itself upholds right to freedom of religion and the Qur’an pronounced it much before modern world realized its significance. It is very strange that now some Muslims in contradistinction to Qur’anic principle, of which they should have been justly proud, reject the doctrine of freedom of religion as modern western and hence unacceptable. The Shari’ah rule that one who renounces Islam should be given death sentence is highly controversial and there is no unanimity on this among Muslim jurists. Maulana Aslam Jairajpuri, for example, disagrees with it and advances several arguments from Qur’an and Sunna to show death punishment for renouncing Islam is not justified.

In fact freedom and faith go together. One cannot genuinely believe in any religion unless one is completely free to accept or reject it. If one is forced to accept a religion it cannot be accepted by his heart and soul. He may accept it outwardly but his heart and soul may resent it. It is precisely for this psychological reason that Qur’an made principle of freedom of religion so important. The Shari’ah provision for death sentence was more for sedition than for renouncing religion. It was feared that a Muslim living in an Islamic state, if renounces Islam, he may join hands with the enemy and conspire against Islamic state. Punishment for sedition world over is death.

The fear of sedition was genuine because Muslim states were surrounded by Christian states and there was direct political, though not religious confrontation between the two and hence anyone renouncing Islam there was genuine fear that he may help the Christian state. The crusades are well known from 11th to 13th century. That period of confrontation between Muslims and Christians was most intense. Thus death punishment for renouncing Islam makes sense during that period. This context must be kept in mind but in the long run the Qur’anic doctrine of freedom of religion must be upheld.

As for other principles of human rights even the most orthodox Muslim cannot object to them. For example, equality of all human beings is very central to Qur’anic teachings too. Human dignity is sacred in Islam as well. Gender equality is also clearly enunciated in the Qur’an. Moreover, woman has been given equal rights for contracting marriage and husband and wife have been described as each others garment. All these are enshrined in declaration of human rights issued by the UNO. Those Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia who did not sign Human Rights’ Declaration also did not object to these provisions.

Those who argue that implementation of Shari’ah is an obligation of Islamic State should understand that Shari’ah evolved gradually and there were great deal of differences among the Muslim jurists on many issues. Thus Shari’ah, as one Islamic scholar Prof. Muhammad Mujeeb maintained, is a human approach to divine injunctions. That is very apt description of Shari’ah laws as evolved by many eminent jurists during first four centuries of Islam.

The great Urdu poet Iqbal from Indian sub-continent also maintained that every generation of Muslims should be entitled to rethink Shari’ah issues and in a Muslim majority country parliament will be the right forum to do so. He also maintained that ijtihad is the dynamic principle in Islam and ijtihad becomes necessary in changed conditions in modern society. Thus a democratic society with an elected parliament would be a better institutional arrangement for making Shari’ah more relevant to our contemporary world. Many new issues have arisen which need use of ijtihad quite urgent.

And where Muslims are a minority and live in secular democratic state should evolve their own forums to bring about necessary changes. Today more Muslims live in minority situation than in majority and hence they would have to evolve their own institutions to do ijtihad with the cooperation of Ulama and modern scholars. No secular democratic state can stop them from attempting these creative changes in their laws. All this has to be done within the framework of Islam. No changes can be brought outside this framework if they are to be accepted by Muslims at large.

To accept democratic state would be far more beneficial to Muslims and would enable Muslims to practice their religion faithfully and fearlessly than in so called Islamic state where sectarianism and fundamentalism will prevail. A democratic state is much better guarantee of genuine freedom of religion than a state based on any religion. This seems to be contradictory but in fact true.

Thus we must properly educate Muslim masses and prepare them for acceptance of democracy in Islamic world. They should be made aware that those who oppose democracy in the name of Islam are really serving certain vested interests rather than Islam. Islamic world is still reeling under the impact of feudal and medieval forces who serve their own interests in the name of Islam. Islam is quite compatible with democracy. It is rather interests of rulers of Muslim countries which are not compatible with democracy.

Indonesia, I said in my lectures, has achieved democracy after a long spell under dictatorship and it must be protected at any cost and all religious minorities also should be guaranteed full freedom to follow their respective religion. Tolerance of differences is an important principle of democracy and due tolerance should be shown to all different religious opinions too. It will not violate any Islamic principle at all.

Photo: Abid Bhat

Sponsored Links

55 Comments on "Islam, Democracy And Violence"

vinod on Thu, 4th Sep 2008 12:48 pm

One of the best articles that i have come across in IM.

If this line of thinking becomes mainstream in muslim communities…..all prejudices and fear psychosis will be removed from the hearts of non-muslims. But for that to happen, muslims views have to converge with what other countries,communities and soceities stand for…which is

“Equality and freedom in every sphere of life.”

Great Article, Asghar Saab!!!!

Banusiddiq on Thu, 4th Sep 2008 3:27 pm

Asghar Ali,

“Those who argue in favour of Islamic state cannot produce any argument from the Qur’an and Sunna”

This is either sheer ignorance or a great lie. I would not write such an article just because I dont subscribe to a particular view. Your complete denail or ignorance about verses of Quran which talk about rule by Quran and Sunnah is pathetic. And this for what? I can quote numerous verses of Quran which talk about rule by the word of Allah, numerous ahadith which talk about imamate or khilafa.

I CHALLENGE YOU TO COME TO LONDON AND HAVE A DEBATE REGARDING YOUR VIEW THAT QURAN AND SUNNAH DOES NOT STATE ANYHTHING REGARDING KHILAFA.

And if you convince me, i’ll spend my whole life propagating secularism with you.

PS: Moderators, Please do not curtail or ignore my posting.

Moderator’s Note: Comment Edited

Mohib Ahmad on Thu, 4th Sep 2008 3:52 pm

Banusiddiq:

Comments are edited or not approved only when they are not in accordance with our comment policy. Thanks!

Sridhar on Thu, 4th Sep 2008 4:37 pm

Banusiddiq,

I guess you live in London. If so, why do you live there under a quasi-secular law, if you are so concerned about Khilafah and living under your, supposedly enlightened and superior, Islamic law?

May be Saudi Arabia or Iran may be a better place for you?

If you hate secularism so much then others, too, have an equal right to hate Islam and Islamic law, isn’t it?

M Naqqaad on Thu, 4th Sep 2008 4:39 pm

Mr Engineer,

Who told you that minorities will become ’second class citizens in a Shariah country”? In your own writing you wrote that the attack on Islam is due to despots and dictators and kings ruling the Muslim countries. This does not make Islam incompatible with democracy. There have been unfinished experiments with ‘democracy’ in Algeria, Palestine and Jordan. If these were curtailed, they were due to the influence and intervention of force of the very democracy of France and USA. If we stick to the word ‘democracy’, why we reject Iranian one. Surely, all the ‘democratic’ countries have different models of it so the Iranian model should not be rejected as we do in case of the German model. Or, do you mean to say that any Islamic population cannnot have democracy? We need to be Hindu, Christian etc for this. Mr Engineer, there are people who shall praise you for this very ‘unbiased’ (mean biased against Islam) article. I, people call me a hardliner or fundamentalist of rigid, consider the laws made by state and union of India as part of ‘Shariah’ though they are most of the time anti-human or anti-nature, because we have the option of changing these any time as is the idea of a ‘Islamic society’. For exampled, resale of a PDS item illegal by law as well as Islam?
Now, being strategically poor, do we need to take certificates from all these ‘forms’ of democracies, to be called democratic? The unfortunate part of Muslims and Islam is that the bad boys are onl projected and they are shown to be more than 99.9%!! whereas Islam never uses deception as we have examples of Israel, USA, France and Germany and even my beloved India. Laws are made which have great faults and frauds and the misuse is called ‘abberations’, killing of innocents is called ‘collateral’ damage and occupying a country is called ‘enduring freedom’.
In this scenario tell me, where you fit to be a democrat as well as a practising Muslim.
IM: Please grant me the freedom which you did for Mr Engineer. I did not criticised anybody exacept Islam and sure, I have conviction that all laws made on this earth are part of the ‘Shariah’ till we have the option of ‘purging’ or ‘modifying’ it.

Mohib Ahmad on Thu, 4th Sep 2008 5:22 pm

Banusiddiq/Naqqaad:

Except for the few early years, Khilafat is a system that has been shown not to work and certainly does not have any relevance in contemporary society.

Muslim countries must provide equal treatment to minorities and Shariah, Quran, Hadith or any other smoke-screen should not be used to deny them this basic right.

Freedom of religion and expression is a basic human right that every human being on this planet should be provided with.

Just because there are faults in the western societies doesn’t mean that we look over major flaws in Muslim societies. And vice-versa.

Separation of church and state is required to protect not only the state from the church but the church from the state as well.

Kaatib on Thu, 4th Sep 2008 5:58 pm

Mr Engineer must be drawing accolades in hundreds if not in thousands. He should keep in mind that the advantage of mis-application he gives to ‘democracy’ must be given to Islam as well. The very time he questions the application of democracy and seeks what is enshrined in our constitution, he will not accrue the same and would be castigated to be too vocal or demanding. He should under that the demands legitimacy or admissibility depends on for whom is it demanded. Here we have a ‘deobandi’ imam of a mosque telling people after the taraweeh that you are not Muslim if your neighbor is not happy with you. The imam in question is very harsh on the people listening upto him and we should castigate him hardliner. We come out of the mosque and find that a VJ is blaring masala music in the nearby pandal which has been erected this year for ‘Genesh’ celebrations. This has not been the case and its almost 2200 hours IST. Come morning and the church in semi-slum nearby blurts out prayers and you can set your watch at 0500 hours when it starts.
It reminds me of the application of law in our country. More than 2000 are killed and nothing happens. The 70 odd killed earlier in a train are paid Rs 500000 whereas the public of 2000 people get burial with the distinction of ‘salt burial’ and ‘funeral’ which they never were likely to get, had they died out of the purview of the ‘law of the land’. Still I find their community is not happy for the state favour.There are people who tell us that there is discrimination in ‘blood money’ in Islamic countries, so much so for the info age we are living, should I call it participation by merit, for the meritorious studies of Islam by these fellows.
The we go far off land to abuse the co-religionists of this land. We understand only one language, the language of the powerful. We cry when a Sikh is killed for looking like an Arab, but never question why an Arab has to be killed after 11 Sep 02? May be they did our job, albeit at a far off place! We never question why Obama should be a Christian to become a candidate for US president elections. Don’t we want to be in good book by calling ourselves Indian and not Asian. We have gone there to earn to have a life of human being and support building a humane society which we have been experimenting in Delhi since 1984, Gujrat since 2002 and Orissa this very year. We had the distinction of doing this on small scale since 1920.
Why is Shabana complaining for not getting a dwelling. She is from UP so she should move out of our Bombay (Mumbai!!). Its long since she and her husband received Ms Nasreen at the airport. They need to do more to pay for the fee which ‘Our India’ demands. She needs to ask a Danish to draw the cartoons of all Islamic figures including arranging the famous ‘Muhammad’ paintings in our India so that her community people are made to understand how to live like human being. She need to drag MF Husain to courts and ask Muslims to own him as we want him to be a Muslim. We do not love Muslim obscurantism of not allowing the paintings of Islamic figures because we are running out of ideas how to protect our own deities.

M Naqqaad on Thu, 4th Sep 2008 6:16 pm

Dear Mohib,

Here we are not discussing what happened to the Islamic state or Shariah. Shariah means a system of law. Why we need to be so rigid when it comes to Islam. By your own words, if the Islamic state died in its infancy, how is so much fuss allowed on IM by all who do and oppose the Islamic state. To any sane person, all systems are Islamic till they have the provision for all be it India or the US or Iranian. Now, if you abuse Iranian system for failure of its application or even provisions, why to blame the ‘dead in infancy’ Shariah of your definition, blame the system prevalent. I mean, you cant point a finger on a non-entity or accept that there is something. For example, Malaysia to me is a Islamic state because the news of demand of 10% not so indigenous population was allowed to be seen by the world. Here, in India, we only got ‘aberrations’ for Gujarat. Will you allow me to criticise India with a sweet mouth. Will you not sing pangs (incidentally I too is in habit) for India despite the misdeeds of a few. Did we ever painted Hinduism with the Modi brush? So why do we need to allow others to do anything like this to Islam. Do you mean we do not belong to this very land and we need to pay a price? Come on, the Tamilians are alien to Malaysia whereas we are not. If being powerful makes Indians to make noises for Hindus in Malaysia, the thing boils down to simple one word ‘POWER’. To be powerful without human approach has never been a trait of Islam and despite the onslaught, there is not going to be change for power and its abuse. Are IM readers able to understand. Indian Muslims are for India and Islam OR Islam and India. If you say, these are contrary, you believe neither.

vinod on Thu, 4th Sep 2008 6:20 pm

Mohib,
Well Said!!!

To all hardliners who dont accept with Asghar/Mohib’s view.

I got only one question…..all the jingoistic views you have becoz of you being a muslim….you must agree that then other non-muslims can also have jingoistic views based on their religion….if they feel that hindu-rashtra or christanity should be the way of life in India…..what will happen to muslims and their beloved sharia law? Will you be willing to live under another religion?

This is the reason why DEMOCRACY is the best suited way of life for all. Not Sharia !!!

No offense, but for non-muslims who do not believe Prophet being the god-messenger and ISLAM being the true religion……..whats the point of telling them…….that a law created based on a religion that was not accepted by non-muslims, is the best for all mankind?

As long as people who beleive in equality exists…i dont think you hardliners can do much!! DEMOCRACY WILL PROSPER!!

Kaatib on Thu, 4th Sep 2008 6:25 pm

Dear friends,

We cannot sell our wares just by wrapping them in attractively. This applies to all producers and if Islam is a smokescreen in Muslim populated countries, we find use of ‘democracy’ and ‘secularism’ in non-Muslim countries. I am convinced; a society based on well thought out ideas just like in Islam is the remedy. One need not to be a Muslim to espouse for this idea. To generalise, any just and humane society is Islamic and I am proud that with removal of minor ‘run-time-errors’ we’ll have one in India. Have we forgotten Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar,Maulana Azad and Dr Zakir Husain?? I must add here that we can take lead in making South Asia Islamic with the Pakistanis joining first if we have this ‘version’ of democracy, I call Islam.

Massod Saleem on Thu, 4th Sep 2008 6:58 pm

In Islamic countries, no non Muslims should be allowed to hold offices related the functioning of the State. I fully agree to that and believe it will be good for all of us if that is taken into consideration.
Just like in India, no Muslims is allowed to be Prime Minister or President. Similarly Muslim countries have policy and what is wrong with that.

Mohib Ahmad on Thu, 4th Sep 2008 7:18 pm

Massod:

Just like in India, no Muslims is allowed to be Prime Minister or President. Similarly Muslim countries have policy and what is wrong with that.

Which India do you live in?

Sridhar on Thu, 4th Sep 2008 9:12 pm

Mohib,

To your comment “seperation of church and state”, I would make a small but very important correction “seperation of FAITH/RELIGION from state”. It is not the mere seperation of the a religious BODY (i.e. church/clergy) from the state that is important, it the the separation of RELIGION, itself, from the state and its administration while granting full freedom to practice and preach it freely at a personal level within HUMANly defined limits for it (i.e. no to any expression inciting explicit violence, cruelty or exploitation).

vinod on Thu, 4th Sep 2008 10:08 pm

Sridhar,

What you explained…..is what is meant by “separation of Church and State”….its a phrase which generally is not meant literally….means keeping religion and state separate

MASSOD SALEEM,
Please think before you write something thats utterly and terribly wrong. Please dont make a fool of yourself.

Greatest Prime Minister of India - Indira Gandhi.
Greatest President of India - DR. Abdul Kalam.

Sahil Khan on Thu, 4th Sep 2008 11:55 pm

Many people say that in an Islamic state Non Muslims will have greater rights and will be free to do anything they want. Example of the medina Charter are also there with us. This is true but the sole reason no Islamic country has been able to give a just treatment to Non Muslims is because these rights or for example the implementation as in medina charter was during the time of Prophet Mohammed(PBUH). Thereafter no such implementation ever happened simply because the vision, direction and mercy of leaders vanished. Everyone fought for their own greedy means. They misused Islam for their own means. This has resulted to non Muslims becoming second class citizens in many Muslim countries. And the worst has happened to them in pseudo Islamic and pseudo democratic countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh. This is WRONG. We should become aware of others pain as we want to show our pains. All humanity everything is part of that One God then how come we should have different approach for everyone.

Indonesia is strugling between the indigenous Islamic and the wahhabi Islamic factions. Normal Muslims there along with Prophet Mohammed(PBUH) also consider Ram and other Hindu prophets as messengers of God. People who want Islam to spread should at least take a page out of indonesia. This is as per Quran as well because messengers of God were sent to all parts of the world. Even the first prophet of Islam Adam(PBUH) is said to have been in India.

The true sum up of Islam is that ”There is no God but God”. One God. Almost reiterated in all religious books. If you believe in him then you are a Muslim. Dressing in a lungi or skull cap or feeling superior about being Muslim or denigrating other faiths is not ISLAM.

I agree with Asghar’s article. There is nothing wrong in it.

banusiddiq on Fri, 5th Sep 2008 1:58 am

To all the likes of Vinod,

Certainly my comment was not for non-muslims, so they shouldn’t have bothered replying in this case. And when I do subject them I’ll have a reference to quote. Anyhow I will still reply to your comment. Yes, non-muslims can aspire for hindu-rashtra or a christian state, but in the end for us it doesn’t make any difference whether be it a democracy or hindu-rashtra. They are all same (un-godly). By the way, on what basis (jurisdiction,economy,foreign policy….?) would you make india a hindu-rashtra without brorrowing systems or part of from either capitalism or communism or islam. Hinduism or any other faith system (except Islam) is just a religion. They are not an ideology (which provides solutions to complete way of life). Only capitalism, communism and Islam are idealogy.

Sridhar,

I would happily leave the west, should the west do so from our lands. You see when they have puppet rulers who swing on west’s tune and rule over us, their armies stationed in our lands, their think-tanks continously spewing policies of usurping our resources and of enslaving us by dividing us in nations and nationalities, we cannot really go back.

Yes, please hate Islam as much as you can and we don’t care. We care when you start hurting muslims and their sentiments.

Mohib,

I am confused with what you wanted to say Mohib. You said “khilafa died in infancy” and then you said “we cannot have Quran, sunnah and ahadith become some-screen to do injustice to non-muslims”. What are you writing mate? Did you mean that injustices to non-muslims were done during khilafa-e-rashida (which I guess you are refering to as died in infancy (30years)), or did you mean injustices committed under khilafa based on kingship? If you were refering to the later, then I am sorry, we are not trying to resurrect anything as such. We are trying to establish khilafa-bil-minhaj-ul nabuwat as phrophesized by Nabi Kareem SAS.

I do not believe any muslism country today is a khilafa or either an Islamic country. I would prefer to call them muslim majority lands. A land can be called khilafa or islamic land only if it has all its institution based on sharia and no muslim majority country qualifies under this. So to quote from or of happenings in any of these country as doing injustice to non-muslims or even muslims is due to it being a kingship, dictatorship, or democracy.

ASGHAR, I AM STILL WAITING FOR YOUR ANSWER?

Mohd Gayasuddin on Fri, 5th Sep 2008 2:17 am

Asgher Ali Sahab

i think you want to apease some non-muslim.but the law given by ALLAH is superior than all.if any body try to change that law will get severe punishment in akhirat.

Kaatib on Fri, 5th Sep 2008 5:42 am

Oh! Lets resolve that a law based on human values is ‘Islamic’ and none of the Muslim countries have that. That we will not blame Islam for not having a system of governance. Please stop blaming the great religion because if cant take the Khulafate’ Rashidah as a model and starter, nobody will buy the ‘democratic’ order either. We need the Islamic system of ‘Jamhoor’ and we already call the voting democracy ‘Jamhooriyat’. Will we now stop blaming ills of any country on Islam?

M Naqqaad on Fri, 5th Sep 2008 6:51 am

Vinod,

I dare you to write the same even on a so called mainstream site, set aside the Hindu one. Only Islam allows you this liberty at IM. Muslim, most of the time are hardliner when it comes to words and sure, deception is a strict no-no. If you find a deceitful person who carries a muslim name, please observe that he is not a good human being.
Well! you are for the people who sound toeing your line of thought. Not be in a illusion, already India is a Hindu Rashtra for all practicle purposes and the use of religion in government is more than a proof. I find the religious contents of DD and NDTV more relgious (Hindu) than even a Q TV. Same holds true for the western world. Where is the separation of religion & State whereas in India we see only religion being separate from religion, the case of Thirupathi, Vashnodevi and now Amarnath is open to all. There is lot of money involved and the people who run these, do not want the State to part with the records. Our own very ‘nationalists’ VHP demands in Orisa that there is no need of a permission for Togadya to carry the ashes of the ‘re-conversion’ Saami in a procession accross the state. They are already a State in a State and we seem to be using the ’secular’ smokescreen to deny this. You may seek my e-mail ID from IM so that I tell you the tale of how you feel when you are treated for being a Muslim. Please remember that I do not live in a area you call ‘ghetto’.

vinod on Fri, 5th Sep 2008 10:30 am

@ M Naqqaad,

Next time when you have something to say against my comments……….please be a little clear on which part of my post you found offensive. I am unable to respond to your comment, becoz i have no clue what part you are talking about.

QUOTE>Not be in a illusion, already India is a Hindu Rashtra for all practicle purposes<UNQUOTE

Please understand that if you think this is true….then by definition, India will be a country with Hindu as state religion. By extension, Mr.Naqqaad, you will not be able to practise ISLAM.

Since that is not the case, YOU ARE ACTUALLY WRONG.

But for all practical purposes, i dont see any sikh or christian saying that India is a hindu-rashtra ….meaning that Sikhs and Christians are able to raise with the mainstream hindus.

Again for practical purposes, I do agree that Hinduism does dominate every sphere of life. See, how i am willing to admit the truth here….it will be welcome if you can do the same.

Kaatib on Fri, 5th Sep 2008 11:13 am

I do not find any clash of vision between Mr Engineer and Banusiddiq. Actually Mr Engineers intentions are to educate all. Unfortunately the Islam haters take it as a ‘modification of Islam’ which they seek. As a muslim, I can question a thing or two of Islam and set the things right, if one has gone wrong. This is the ‘Ijtehad’ and I hope Mr Engineer subscribe to this Islamic facility. We need not to see and judge by the ‘pseudo Islamic’ deeds of some. I am taking liberty to quote Dr Asrar Ahmad (who has been castigated by one of IM people in recent past). I happened to hear him on one of the media files I shared with my brother. In his speech, Dr saab was telling how can we implement the sentences administered at the time of Khulfae-Rashideen. He sighted the example of amputation of hand of a thief, stoning of a ‘zaani’ as well as capital punishment. He must be sounding very liberal by this utterances but we never know what is the reason for this modification. The reason for this questions on Islamic sentence was due to the absence of Islamic administrative system where there is facility for a poor not to steal but to claim sustenance, there is no need for adultry nor we have the pacifist style of living so as to avoid murder and consequential capital punishment. In almost all countries except EU, we find that the capital punishment is in vogue. We need to examine how harsh we are in these democracies and the Islamic scholar/preacher like Dr Asrar tells that it is not justifiable in our life style. The lifestyle required to practice the old Islamic system is not found anywhere in the world including Saudi Arabia and Iran. So are their rules, modified. Do we deserve capital punishment in India with the road rage and hit and run cases?

Karoly on Fri, 5th Sep 2008 1:03 pm

“The doctrine of Panchsila was adopted during president Sukarno’s time. But now Indonesia is under pressure to become an Islamic state where Shari’ah law would be the official law and religious minorities like Christians and Buddhists and others would become second-class citizens.”

(This quoting is enough to sum up Mr.Engineer, and which might explain his acceptance as a progressive Islamic scholar.)

So Panchshila is more welcome than Shariah, where religious minorities would be first-class citizens! Could you please expound the doctrines of Panchshila to this effect, and elucidate how it scores over the Shariah on minority rights? For example Prophet Muhammad once said, “If any Muslim robs a non-Muslim citizen of his rights I myself will bring testimony against him on the Day of Judgment”. Could you bring forward any thing like that?

“The Qur’an does not give any concept of state but a concept of society.”

False! Among the quotings of Prophet Muhammed you can find the corner-stones of democracy, which are essentially founded in his vision about a just and equitable society.

“The institution of khilafa was a result of historical situation. It was not even a part of Prophet’s (PBUH) Sunna.”

So you wanted Prophet Muhammed to nominate somebody as the next leader, so that he could be accused to be undemocratic?

True, Prophet Muhammed did not introduce the modern vote per man method, but then he was a expounder of eternal values, and not an inventor. It was just the failure of Muslims to apply their mind how to best put his ideas into practice. Still Khilfah was the rudimentary form of democracy, the best they could manage at that time!

“Another question which is raised by Islamists is imposition of Shari’ah”

We should be aware that Shariah is not just about laws on marriage, divorce, property and inheritance, but encompass the entire humanistic values of equality, democracy, social justice and morality, which are indeed permanent, but can be applied to various situations, and many of which have been adopted by the entire world. So don’t think about the separation of Church and State here. Even values like equality are just faith, and not science, and historically which had many rivals as in the form of caste system etc.

So don’t say that only laws on polygamy and chopping hands are Prophet Muhammad’s, while other nice things are “every-body’s”, unless you can offer some proof for such discrimination.

“Real freedom of religion is possible only in democratic state where all enjoy equal rights irrespective of caste, creed and colour”

But remember that a Godhra is yet to happen in the Islamic countries, whether run by the shariah or the despots.

“Those who argue that implementation of Shari’ah is an obligation of Islamic State should understand that Shari’ah evolved gradually and there were great deal of differences among the Muslim jurists on many issues”

But this “evolution” was still within the frame work of ijtihad, ijma and Qiyas stipulated by Shariah, and not defying shariah!

“Thus it is not correct to maintain that you need an Islamic state to practice Islam freely.”

Still at least allow the poor Muslims their right to say that they want an Islamic state and not a PanchSila state.

Girish on Fri, 5th Sep 2008 3:40 pm

Karoly,

You are joking about a “Godhra” not happening in Islamic countries, aren’t you? If you were serious, it must require some gall to say that, particularly with the example of Muslim-majority countries in our neighborhood. One country killed or threw out its entire non-Muslim minority (Pakistan at partition) and the other (Bangladesh) has reduced its minority population from 20% at the time of its independence to less than 8% even as per official figures. During the operations in Bangladesh from March 1971 onwards, the Pakistan army was given explicit orders to exterminate the Hindu minority of the country, since that was held responsible for the Bengali pride that residents of then East Pakistan showed. It achieved that too - almost the entire Hindu population of the country was killed (anywhere between 50000 and 1 million Hindu casualties) or a refugee in India. It was no coincidence that the first target in Operation Searchlight was the Jagannath Hall of Dhaka University, the Hindu students hostel.

In most Muslim majority countries, the state itself successfully suppresses minorities. In such a situation, there is no place (and no self-perceived need) for people to take the law into their hands. As an example outside the Indian subcontinent, the Shia minority in Saudi Arabia is so suppressed that their presence is hardly noted. Conflict happens only when there is at least some perception of symmetry (or even potential symmetry). When the communities are highly asymmetric in power, and the might of the state itself is actively used to sustain these asymmetries, there is hardly any scope for conflict of the kind we have witnessed in India.

In sum, absence of conflict may indicate that communities are at peace and enjoy rights, like in many Western democracies (and hopefully in India, when it evolves to that state). Or it might indicate that there is so much asymmetry between communities that there is no scope for the downtrodden to rise up in revolt and no need for the oppressors to indulge in violence when the state does that on their behalf. The latter is the case in most Muslim-majority countries.

Mohib Ahmad on Fri, 5th Sep 2008 3:41 pm

But remember that a Godhra is yet to happen in the Islamic countries, whether run by the shariah or the despots.

Did you meant to say Gujarat? In any case I am sure you would have read about this particular incident in Saudi Arabia:

Saudi Arabia’s religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress, according to Saudi newspapers.
In a rare criticism of the kingdom’s powerful “mutaween” police, the Saudi media has accused them of hindering attempts to save 15 girls who died in the fire on Monday. [BBC News 15 March 2002]

No one is arguing that democratic societies are one step away from Utopia. However, the basic framework within which the democratic societies operate is right and there are checks and balances in place. A religious based system, on the other hand, is not only inherently discriminatory to those who have profess a different religion but is more prone to be abused.

Karoly on Fri, 5th Sep 2008 8:47 pm

Mohib

I agree that there are many instances of aggression by the despots in Muslim countries against their Muslim citizens, including their Sunni/Shia minorities, but our talk was about other religious minorities. Moreover I find it hard and stupid to believe the incident in your BBC link. I admit that BBC is a relatively reliable news source, but my skepticism is based on the ampleness of the anti-Muslim propaganda being present in the media. Even in the case of BBC, for example, there are enough evidences of prejudiced and biased news-reporting engineered to balance the atrocities of Israel vis-a-vis Palestinians and other Muslim countries. Saudi Arabia is a key ally of the west as well as a multi-cultural country with lot of expatriates working there, and your incident, even if true, could not have been condoned by the state machinery, and if it had been, would not have been reported by the local newspapers. So that must have had been an isolated incident of religious extremism, with no responsibility on the part of the state or the religion. You certainly cant prove that this is reflective of Islamic values.

Similarly with Girish, I am not in a position to refute your arguments, as my general knowledge is pretty poor. But still I am afraid that figures like one million Hindu casualties etc are pretty intriguing and perhaps padded with a few extra zeros, for it would have made such an incidence among the fore-front of world’s genocides and certainly a much-talked about one. Still I am sure that there are too many minorities in the Muslim countries including Saudi Arabia working as expatriates, and I rarely hear any bad thing done to them. More over symmetry of power doesn’t have anything to do with treatment of minorities; rather it has to do with the doctrines controlling the masses in the absence of law and order. For the Muslim countries and the West the masses are inhibited from genocides by their fixed moral values and belief in the hereafter and hence they cannot be mobilized against the minorities. So you see I didn’t want to tarnish the Hindu community by my comment, whose intelligentsia fortunately sure wants to adhere to high standards of ethics, and has succeeded on that to a commendable extent, but still are limited by their doctrines at the grass-root level, which is not at all their fault.

Milind Kher on Fri, 5th Sep 2008 11:24 pm

@Mohib,

What happened in Saudi Arabia in the incident cited by you is positively barbaric. Muslim society as a whole needs to be repulsed by this, and it needs to be condemned unequivocally.

No development can ever happen at the religious or spiritual level unless everything is first OK at the human level.

Mohib Ahmad on Sat, 6th Sep 2008 1:44 am

Karoly:

The incident was widely reported in the media at that time. You can search Google News for relevant keywords to find alternate news sources.

I am pretty sure that the incident is not reflective of Islamic values. And that is exactly my point. The religious policemen that prevented the girls from escaping because they were not wearing proper Islamic dress did not do it as an act of vengeance but rather as their moral and religious duty. A classic case of throwing baby with the bathwater. This is a major flaw in religion based societies whereby state feels obligated to enforce religiosity onto its citizens thus creating Frankensteinian monster along the way.

Come to think of it, this is the treatment Muslims meted out to their fellow Muslims. I am not even going into the whole minority issue yet.

Mohib Ahmad on Sat, 6th Sep 2008 1:52 am

Banusiddiq:

When a system could not work even when the situation was most ripe for it then how would you convince anyone that it might work now?

Girish on Sat, 6th Sep 2008 3:37 am

Karoly,

I have indeed indicated a range between 50,000 and 1 million - nobody really knows what the exact numbers are, but the range is fairly accurate. The total number of people killed in that campaign ranges between 300,000 and 3 million. However, the point is that even a number of 50,000 is greater than the number of all people killed in communal riots in India since independence. And all within a matter of a few months. The Bangladesh campaign surely ranks amongst the worst genocides in history. It is a different matter that geopolitics of the cold war intervened (the Nixon administration’s closeness to the Pakistanis, coupled with their desire to get close to the Chinese to neutralize the Russians and the role played by the Pakistani dictator in that process). Hence, the Pakistanis got off lightly. But read up more about it, including the despatches of Western journalists and diplomats and it will be obvious that the Pakistani army’s campaign in 1971 was genocidal, with one of the primary objectives being extermination/expulsion of all Hindus. The first such campaign against an entire minority after Hitler’s final solution.

You can remain in denial about the reality of most Muslim-majority states. But the reality remains that their record is amongst the worst in the world. When the state does the bidding for the citizens, citizens can easily afford to take the back seat. People point to Malaysia and its peaceful record wrt its non-Muslim citizens. But they forget that Malaysia had a terrible record of race riots, until the state stepped in and instituted an overtly discriminatory system in the constitution itself, which would make Modi’s Gujarat seem like a liberal paradise in comparison. Malaysia demonstrates exactly my point. When the minority is suppressed to the point of not even being able to raise its voice, there is almost no overt violence. Of course, the act of suppression can itself be considered an act of violence.

It is quite clear from your writings that no amount of evidence will make you change your view that Muslim countries flow with milk and honey and are as close to paradise for their minorities as is possible. However, it only demonstrates how little you know and/or care about facts.

Milind Kher on Sat, 6th Sep 2008 4:24 am

@Mohib,

The Muslims have unfortunately landed up being their own worst enemies.

Look at Karbala, Pakistan, Afghanistan, modern day Iraq. How Muslims treat Muslims has to be addressed before addressing how Non Muslims treat Muslims

triple on Sat, 6th Sep 2008 5:44 am

Kelroy,

here’s a fantastic opportunity to brush up ur GK, as it makes u look silly when u make such outlandish claims that no ‘godhra’ ever happened in any muslim countries.

http://www.gendercide.org/case_bangladesh.html
http://www.genocidebangladesh.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_atrocities

pls note, not a single person has been prosecuted in any country for this. so much for brotherly love and protection of minorities.

Banusiddiq on Sat, 6th Sep 2008 11:13 am

Mohib,

It will definitely work, that is atleast is what I hope being a true muslim. My trust in Allah and his Prophet SAS is not based on logics and calculation. It is pure and without any doubts. Yes, some may see it as an blind faith but then it is what it is. I do not cast aspersions on the saying of Prophet SAS (which I quoted you in another article (about return of khilafa-bil-minhaj-ul-nabuwat)), I firmly believe this will happen even if the whole world tries to stop it.

Allah’s deen is not dependent on Asghars and Mohibs to spread. Don’t you see many christians accepting Islam everyday in west even after the unprecendented vitriol and bashing from every sector of this part of the world. That is a proof, when we being muslims don’t work to spread Allah’s deen He will choose others and we will be damned. I chose not be damned by His wrath and spend my eternity in hell fire. If you still wants logics and sanity of how this will happen then I don’t think you will ever believe in Surah Feel, where small birds picked pebbles in their beaks and destroyed the army of elephants.

kafir#01 on Sat, 6th Sep 2008 11:14 am

“But remember that a Godhra is yet to happen in the Islamic countries, whether run by the shariah or the despots.”

Karoly, All I can say about your GK is Aap Panchvi Pass Se Bilkul Bhi Tez Nahib Hain!
Just to refresh your memory: Forgot Saddam’s gassing of the Kurds?

Karoly on Sat, 6th Sep 2008 1:59 pm

Thanks for your links, Triple. As per Girish’s statistics the Bangladesh genocide by the Muslims against the Hindu minority must be a unique case. Out of 3 million casualties only 1 million is that of Hindus; so the other 2 million should be obviously that of Muslims, right? So it must be the first genocide in history in which the casualties of the community which perpetrated the genocide outnumber that of the victim community. Anyway I would like to quote and note some interesting things from these links…

“Operation Searchlight was a planned military pacification carried out by the Pakistan Army to curb the Bengali nationalist movement in erstwhile East Pakistan in March of 1971 ordered by the government in West Pakistan”

“The original plan envisioned taking control of the major cities on March 26, 1971, and then eliminating all opposition, political or military, within one month. The prolonged Bengali resistance was not anticipated by Pakistani planners. ”

“A large section of the intellectual community of Bangladesh were murdered, mostly by the Al-Shams and Al-Badr forces, at the instruction of the Pakistani Army”

“Eighty percent of the raped women were Moslems, reflecting the population of Bangladesh, but Hindu and Christian women were not exempt. … ”

So first of all what I see is that this is not genocide by a majority community against a minority in the country. Rather it is a war crime done by an invading army.

Second when the two third casualties of the genocide are of the same community of the invading army it may not be logical to find any communal basis for this act. Bangladeshi Muslims and Hindus bore the brunt of the Pakistani atrocities together here, and it is not ethical to be concerned about only one’s own community in such a common human disaster which affected a whole country. Probably India’s assistance to Bangladesh in the war too might have led to disproportionately large casualties of Hindus. Also I think there are large numbers of Muslims too among the refugees from Bangladesh to India.

So this cannot be quoted as an instance of genocide by a majority Muslim community against a minority community under its protection. But here what I am really concerned with is how the skewed perspectives and interpretations of historical facts can lead to bigotry and sedition among communities living amicably and peacefully together as happens in India. What probably should motivate us are not such tit-for-tat interpretations or holier-than-thou bearing, rather the true instances of self-sacrifice and love, as in the example of Gandhi undertaking satyagraha to put an end to the communal riots in India on the eve of independence.

Asif on Sat, 6th Sep 2008 2:19 pm

Interesting topic and close to my heart. To the blog owners lets start a debate in which I will like to open eyes of some of fellow Muslim brothers. I am a Pakistani, A Punjabi and a Sunni. So in name of Allah, I start and keep it in front of him my intentions. And to the momins I tell that an islamic state as wanted by Islamists is a real but a romantic illusion.

Today, there is violence on Pakistan if women do not cover their heads.
When the Prophet’s wife Aisha was asked why she never covered her face, she answered: “Since Allah, May He remain blessed and exalted, has put upon me the stamp of beauty it is my wish that the public should view that beauty and thereby recognise His Grace unto them.” Just look at the deplorable Islamists who will throw acid on Girls in name of an Islamic state.

Today, The islamists want that only knowledge of Quran is to be there.The Ulemas verbose the quran like anything and yet they forget that our beloved prophet(Peace Be upon him) was an illiterate. Yet he declared: “He who leaves his home in search of knowledge, walks in the path of god and the ink of the scholar is holier than the blood of the martyr.” He said to seek knowledge from buddhists of China and yet we are afraid that true Islam will die if we try to learn from others.

Today, we are afraid to borrow knowledge from others. To make a Non Muslim as a learning example and yet when the knowledge of Baghdad was there it was a shining learning example from Hindus, Persians and Christians. There came, however, some time in the history of lslam when. somebody seems to have decided that no book except the Quran, was worth reading. Independent thought was banished and the Gates of Ijtihad were closed for ever.

Today I find Muslim minorities in India, west, east, South east in doldrums demanding Islamic state, professing violence in case of few wrong incidents. The imperative of religious synthesis intimately connects with lslamist attitude towards minorities in an Islamic State. If the Islamic State is, by definition, an ideological State and the ideology is wholly Muslim, it is manifest that minorities can never be treated equally and justly. What has happened to the Ahmediyas in Pakistan, Bahai’s in Iran and to a lesser extent, the Copts in Egypt, is not a very heartening experience or experiment. And I have never been allowed to shed tears on the Hindus who were part and parcel of this nation before 1947 and yet my human feelings cries out and yet seems my eyes are not permitted to drop water.

But I am all for a debate on this matter which seems to engulf not only Muslims in Islamic state but also in non islamic ones. Lets have an open debate and yes from the horses mouth itself.

Khoja on Sat, 6th Sep 2008 3:42 pm

In my discussion and opinion people in Muslim countries sometimes tend to be more rational to an idea of an Islamic state but in non muslim countries people tend to be more inclined for this idea as emotionally they feel more love for the same.

Let us ask as individuals as to what difference does it make to a common man to be under any system. Does he stops sleeping at night or eating his food three times. Does any system prevent him from falling ill, dying, getting old, marrying, giving kids etc etc.

Folks, its all in our minds. Rest is as they say ego and pride to be felt in a particular system. Its ur pride in a secular democracy or in an Islamic system or in a Communist system( Yes Do ask Chinese). So please get a life, go out and help a poor or teach a child irrespective of his religion. And for God;s sake be happy and feel joy in whatever system you are in.

Girish on Sat, 6th Sep 2008 4:40 pm

Karoly,

I don’t really see what you gain by trying to whitewash others’ crimes. Nobody is holding you responsible for what happened in Bangladesh, so I don’t understand what explains the overall defensiveness, except perhaps a transnational bonding with all other Muslims.

The Bangladesh campaign did involve the murder of large numbers of Bengali Muslims and more of them than Hndus there, but there was never an order to exterminate them or to evict them from the country. There was an explicit order to that effect for Hindus in East Pakistan. Read the book by Siddiq Salik (a Pakistani army officer himself and aide-de-camp to the Martial Law Administrator of East Pakistan) and others (and don’t read any Indian sources if you distrust them - there are plenty of non-Indian, including Pakistani sources) for evidence of this. And the Pakistanis and their collaborators always thought of Bengali Muslims as not real Muslims, because of their love for a common culture with their Hindu counterparts (e.g. love of Tagore, celebration of Poila Boisakh - the Hindu new year, the clothes they wore etc.). Hence, it was, in their minds, not a murder of Muslims.

I don’t think we have a sterling record in this respect and I have no desire to prove that. However, the claim that Muslim-majority countries have largely not mistreated their minorities is far from the truth. I find it surprising how many people here on this forum (you are not the first I have debated this issue with) think otherwise and how much at variance that is with the views of people from those countries themselves.

Milind Kher on Sat, 6th Sep 2008 5:45 pm

@Asif,

You have mentioned that the Holy Prophet (SAWA) was illiterate. That is incorrect. He was untaught.

Ummi in the context of the Holy Prophet (SAWA) does not mean illiterate, but it means somebody from Mecca (UMM AL QARA or MOTHER OF CITIES). Please refer Hayat ul Qulub by Allama Majlisi.

I do know of a specific instance for a pen and paper to be brought to him, but I do not want to go into that incident because this is not the right forum.

However, I must hasten to add that I find your attitude positive

Amit on Sat, 6th Sep 2008 6:24 pm

on’t you see many christians accepting Islam everyday in west even after the unprecendented vitriol and bashing from every sector of this part of the world. That is a proof, when we being muslims don’t work to spread Allah’s deen He will choose others and we will be damned.

Banusiddiq, shouldn’t you also look at the proof of Muslims leaving their faith and criticizing it? One can make any case by selectively looking at the data. How about also looking at Ayan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq and many others, along with Christians joining your faith?

One more thing. If you really have so much confidence in your faith, then number of people joining or leaving should be irrelevant to that confidence, no? Or do you always go by what the majority thinks? Many examples from history where majority was wrong.

Venkatesh on Sat, 6th Sep 2008 6:48 pm

A really good article. Keep it up, Engineer Saab.

Kumar on Sun, 7th Sep 2008 6:18 am

Amit, interesting reply. About majority being wrong, I remember my initial turbulent stock trading period where I failed to read the famous phrase ” majority always wrong majority of times”.
Intelligent people are always a minority???

Mahesh T on Sun, 7th Sep 2008 6:24 am

I do not see any issue in anyone accepting Islam or a Muslim choosing any other religion. Its a personal matter. Both cases exist. There is nothing special about any religion. Not Even Islam or Hinduism. There is nothing special about any system as well.

However, I believe that majority of the Muslims want an Islamic state which is not possible in countries with Non Muslim populations. I also agree that India is a country with 80% hindus and dominated by Hindus and there is nothing wrong in the same. The same majority did not wish for a Hindu state and does not wishes the same now as well. But they do not wish any other system here as well.

In Indonesian context I feel they should find indigenous system for their well being. All countries are unique and need their own system. You can not ask a person in siberia to walk in a T shirt or a person in africa to put on woollen sweaters. Indonesians have had Bali Bomb Blast and many troubles in their back allready which the west did not do and neither BJP/RSS did. And they also had many people who were caught and later proved innocent. But they surely have noticed that these were people who wanted an islamic state and had ideals hithertho unknown in that part of the land.

Asif on Mon, 8th Sep 2008 12:29 am

Milind, My use of that term was to attack the so called scholars of Islam who in the entire beautiful book of Quran find ways and mean of spreading hate, war.

Someone has mentioned about people accepting Islam in west. That is very true .But Please note the type of Islam that they are talking about. They talk about flowers, humanity, mankind, balanced message, peaceful message and what type of Islam do people from sub continent talk about. Guns, Jihad, Islamic state, Burqa. And so vehemently defend these concepts and give their hate garb of Islam.

This hate is also a gift of the war mongers. Pakistan was inherently a liberal society but in name of Afghanistan and Kashmir islam has been misused to excite people and fight. From my birth I have heard Kashmir . Probably partition didnt happen the way it needed to happen or probably we all believed that humanity when divided into walls of religion fails to love each other. Thats why the pain on killing of a non muslim seems to be giving joy of giving him his rightful place in hell. In name of Ummah all people in sub continent want is become slaves and take pride and satisfaction in that slavery.

Lets take a look at the life of Prophet of Islam. He was deeply religious himself and his living habits made a deep impression on his followers. He lived in austerity even after he had achieved great prestige and even political power. His houses were invariably cottages of un-burnt brick and the furniture no more than a mattress and a few pillows spread upon the floor, He stitched his own clothes and often mended his shoes, kindled the fire and swept the floor. He lived on dates and barley bread, and only rarely allowed himself the luxury of taking milk and honey. He was courteous and affable, dignified and indulgent. He tended the sick and joined funeral processions of the humblest. He spent little upon his family, less upon himself and much in charity. When he began, Arabia was a tribal desert. He left it a strong nation.
And while he lived, the Muslims had not secluded their women. The two sexes exchanged visits, moved freely through the streets and prayed together in the mosques. The Prophet neither preached, nor envisaged the bloody conflict of rival religious creeds. He himself had not indulged in wars of aggression. Conscious Arab expansion and military conquests for baser motives was a later development. That Arab state is gone now and so is the prophet( Peace be upon him) . So which state are you going to revive except becoming slaves of someone. And if in the many Islamic states not one could safeguard its minorities, women or even its majority then what state are we arguing for.
And I am all for a debate, peaceful, rational.

Amit on Mon, 8th Sep 2008 1:10 am

Intelligent people are always a minority???

Kumar,

Or, “fools seldom differ”?

I prefer not to generalize - it’s best to look at every individual issue by itself and then decide.

Karoly on Mon, 8th Sep 2008 5:29 am

Those who are repulsive of the so called “Islamic rule” should explain what they exactly fear about it. I guess the major contention should be over the criminal law in Islam, since the Islamic personal law is already allowed in countries like India anyway. Any objective analysis including statistical studies points out that the crime rates are the least in the Muslim countries and that they are the safest places to live in. For example, as per one statistics, during King Abdul Aziz’s reign in Saudi Arabia over 24 years, only 25 hands were cut for thievery. This means only 25 thefts had happened in Saudi Arabia during that period. Compare this with that of India, where countless thefts, robberies and murders take place on a daily basis, resulting in innumerable loss of lives and livelihood. Even in the “progressive” West the Indians, Arabs and other non-whites face racial discrimination including racially motivated attacks. Can any one show too many incidences in the Arab countries where Indian or white expatriates have been subjected to racially motivated attacks by the Arabs? Those who shed crocodile tears for the murderous criminals by opposing capital punishment never realize the value of human life and dignity, nor the illogicality of their own stance. For example if you argue that a rapist should not be given capital punishment, then be aware that a woman who manages to kill a rapist during the rape attempt is not guilty of murder before law. So if a rapist chooses to rape a 3 year old girl who cannot put up any resistance to him, and you advocate that his life be spared “for love of human life”, what logic or justice is there in it? Being strict on sexual morality will only help a country to build strong family values and let not itself be engulfed by deadly sexual diseases. Similarly if you do not condone capital punishment for murder, just imagine the immense seditions and strife it can engender in the society in communally sensitive cases. Even the abundance of communal riots in India may be the result of lack of strong laws including capital punishment, for people feel that unless they take the law into their hand, their grievances would never be redressed, and that the criminals even if convicted would only be reprised with free food and accommodation at the expense of the tax payers including the victims, without even having to pay any tax. If we understand that the life for the criminals inside the Indian Jails are better than for 30 percent of the Indian population, you will realize the futility of showing pity for the felons to the detriment of the human rights of their victims.

Amit on Mon, 8th Sep 2008 1:28 pm

Those who are repulsive of the so called “Islamic rule” should explain what they exactly fear about it.

Karoly, if you do not realize how absurd your statement is, then no amount of explanation is going to help you see why (though I wouldn’t use the word “repulsive”). If you are so desirous of living under “Islamic rule” please move to Saudi Arabia. You’ll be happy, and we’ll be happy too. But it seems to me that what you really desire is for *others* to live under Islamic rule because you think it’s wonderful.

I’ll let Asghar Ali Engineer or Kaleem Kawaja answer your queries in detail (in a language that you can understand) in a future post of theirs.

Asif on Tue, 9th Sep 2008 1:47 am

Karoly, I believe we all are for a rational discussion here . Islam has many good things to offer and surely they can be integrated in any society for its benefits. However as per my understanding and EXPERIENCE Islamic laws are generally misinterpreted by the very scholars to further interests of some individual or for their own machinery. This happens across the Islamic world and their is no protest or questioning at many times because either such a scenario is not possible, complexity of the laws or either it is implemented in such a way.

The point I began was the welfare of minorities in Islamic state. The generally held belief is:-

”An Islamic state not only protects the fundamental rights of all the individual citizens irrespective of personal faith but it also gives cultural and religious autonomy to different communities at a level yet to be recognized in any democratic State.”

But as I said and there are number of examples that nothing of this sort could be guaranteed or achieved. So definitely I do not blame Islamic laws. But if in the history of Islam we failed to protect minorities in any state then the very same reasons existed everywhere. If you are a so called ”DEFENDER” of Islam you will either blame the links, reports or media to be unfair and biased or to remain quiet in name of Islam getting benefitted. But if the truth needs to prevail then we failed in cases to protect Muslim minorities itself what to say of Non Muslim ones. Islam is the final word for me but we must respect that its not for others. They need to be free to worship or analyse their scriptures as they want.

You referred Statistics. Let me take a case from Saudi Arabia. According to the Statistical Yearbook published by the Ministry of Finance and National Economy there the most common crimes in 1988 were theft (7,553 cases), the production, sale, and consumption of alcohol (5,085 cases), altercations and quarreling (3,651 cases), and moral offenses (2,576 cases). There were many other cases and there were many unreported cases as well. Few of them got capital punishment so as to remind others that such laws exist and the society needs to be safe. Smart isnt it?

You referred Rape. Let me take the example of why most rape cases go unreported in an Islamic state. The official Islamic law is death to a rapist I agree. But why this law is difficult to be implemented. Zina or Illegal intercourse requires 4 Muslim mail witnesses to testify that the rape has happened. This is the simplest scenario. I am not going into cases involving Muslims and Non Muslims. The official stand in Islam is that the requirement for zina is to protect women from wrong charges. However its actual implementation has become practically impossible in many islamic countries including Pakistan because:-

”Muslim scholars derived some ethical principles from the Quran, hadith and sunnah related to zina. First of all, it is preferable for a person who witnesses an act of zina not to report it, and instead to cover the shortcoming of others while at the same time advising them to change their behavior. This principle is in harmony with the hadith that states whoever covers the shortcoming of a Muslim, God will cover his shortcomings here and in the thereafter.”

I will here not even go into a situation where a women fails to prove the charges. So we see that whatever actually Islam wants is not possible because either we find interpretations that suit a person of the time or to hide a wrong doing.

You referred Sexual Morality, Family values, Sexual Diseases. Without going into sexual morality of many of the Sheikhs, Harems and concubines which I am sure for a priveledged few I find that the family values in most Arabic states are at an abysmal low. Definitely in the sub continent we do have more focus on the same. I find family values much stronger among south asian families.

You referred Racism. If you are referring Saudi Arabia or even South Asia let me without mincing words put straight out that racism is yet to get out of anyones mentality. Definitely its nothing to do with Islam. This is all cultural I guess. You have fair colour and you have not. Just get caught maybe in a traffic charge in Saudi. If you are an arab you will sail easily through, if you are a british/american maybe a warning and if you are a Indian/Pakistani then you might be in trouble. Least to say that in many areas as far as dhahran or abu dhabi there are many hot spots and clubs to welcome the american guests. If you pick up fight and get hurt with an Arab in an arabic state then which law will save you. Morality Huh?

I am sorry I will not be able to go into specifics of India related cases but its positive to know that Islamic personal laws are there. I believe the same attempt is being done in UK as well. The most recent rise of an Islamic state was in afghanistan. To be fair on them they did start out initially well. To relieve people from the warlords and drug dealers the state did destroy poppy fields, put in laws for betterment of the society. But from then on any sort of interpretation was a fair interpretation. Women and minorities were treated as animals. Historical structures were decimated. Attack against far flung western countries were planned all in name of Islam. The zenith of Islamic laws was the moral police out checking beards of males with inch tapes. I feel that it was a return of a system to a tribal state.

I prefer religion not to be meddled in anything. And I mean any religion. Lack of religion can be shown in moral or human aspects but what if the religious interpretation is used for the same downfall. Then there is no saving.

Asif on Tue, 9th Sep 2008 3:02 am

Amit, sending a person of to anywhere is not a solution. Maybe Karoly had enormous goodwill in what she was saying. Ideologically what she is saying is right. Its the practical aspects that become wrong.

If you are a software engineer in UK or US you wont go back to India just because you had a hate incident.

We all need to discuss rationally what is wrong and what is right. This is the mark of a sane society.

Karoly on Tue, 9th Sep 2008 7:43 am

Let me make myself clear on my previous comment on Islamic rule. As a firm believer in democracy I wish each nation should be allowed the right to choose for itself the laws they want. Let the Indians choose the laws they want, the Americans what they want, and the Mongolians what they want. That is because the major practical difference between religions is the system of law they want to enforce in the public domain, and hence it is their most characteristic identity. My comment on Islamic rule was to send home the message that there is nothing to worry about it in case the Muslim majority countries want it. However I admire our own constitution and judicial system very much, which protects the principles of democracy in almost an ideal manner in theory, as well as ensures equality before law for all people to a great extent in practice, despite the complex and diverse social strata of the Indian society, with little uniformity or finality of moral values, and which bears the legacy of caste system. This is in sharp contrast to the even the Muslim countries, who may boast of too much original ideals in this regard in their religion, but still are not able emulate an India in this regard.

Milind Kher on Tue, 9th Sep 2008 9:36 am

Asif,

I agree with you completely. The way Islam has been taken up in the West and the way it is being followed in the subcontinent are two different things.

Also, in the days of the Holy Prophet (SAWA), there was no intolerance and segregation of the sexes.

Keep writing in. I find something very positive in your writing.

Mahesh T on Wed, 10th Sep 2008 12:00 am

Asif, You know! Sometimes when truth is said perceptions change. Seldom do I praise someone. A little puzzled that it has to be a Pakistani. You can probably change some ills within your own people. Ills that they have lost the ability to notice even.

Anyways what I saw in Kashmir is enough for me to feel that the very mentality that yearns for an islamic state is dangerous because seldom is there a place in it for so called others. And therefore in an Indian context when someone even thinks of the same I find it outrageous. India is a Hindu country and that is guaranteeing its secular structure. Its the only place left for them and if they dont protect it then noone is going to protect them and not the secular politicians. Allthough a reactionary force Hindu Fundamentalism will die down if the very nature of India is not attempted to be changed. The attempt has been on for 1000’s of years yet it failed and its total success will never be there. But in the process India has been maimed, tortured, partitioned, terrorised, humilated and what not.

All I hear even after the kashmiri hindus are languishing in tents in cold weather, killed, tortured, driven away is that they were only 1% and how much were they enjoying. They have been compensated, this that, blatant lies. Leave empathise(No Sympathies Please) there is a whole lot of space for lies.The state except in few years of inception started showing inclination towards an Islamic state. If I remember right even in early 80’s people started showing all secessionist tendencies. Yet the goverment losing its goodwill was not encouraging the moderate kashmiris. They were playing with Jamiat and Farooq. Appeasing those very feelings which were igniting seperatism, Islamic state. Same is being done in India now in other parts by our very intelligent politicians. Albeit Muslims being in a minority find themselves discriminated here.

To be fair on them as well I find they are scapegoats. They cant escape that circle. They are ignited to be at logger heads and then they find themselves against a system that wants to protect the Secular nature of India . Friction is the reason they feel discriminated. However if someone wants an Islamic state I will maintain India is not the place. Please choose some other place. And this is not for attacking them but to mitigate the friction and for peace.

Milind Kher on Wed, 10th Sep 2008 9:15 am

@Karoly,

I fully agree with you. The way our constitution is applied and the way the judicial system operates is yet to be matched by any Muslim country.

To enforce Islamic rule too, any Muslim country has to see to it that there is an abundance of aalims and mujtahids that can give a proper opinion. The law which is finally firmed up must be endorsed by a marjae taqlid.

Learning makes a lot of difference. That is why the rulings of even an individual like Ayatollah Seestani are more scholarly than entire Islamic legal systems operating in many countries.

Jay kactuz on Fri, 12th Sep 2008 1:16 pm

I am an infidel. The fact is that Islam discriminates and oppresses non-Muslims. Look at history. Look at the Muslim world.

Please do not pretend that being a dhimmi or “protected” minority is anything but discrimination. Protected is not equal and never was. Why do they have to be protected? from whom?

Also spare us the talk about the example of the Caliph or Khalifah. If you read history this was a time of war and conquest of non-Muslims. It was a time of violence - Muslim killing non-Muslims and also each other. The Caliphs grew wealthy through the loot and conquest of others. It was also during this time that dissention broke out between Muslims, each accuring the other of not being pure and faithful and true Muslims. Blood flowed. Nothing has changed.

The fact that a site called “Indian Muslims” can ignore the obvious and that people will advocate a “Muslim state” and sharia shows how bad things are in the Ummah. If Muslim Indians want to see a Muslim state in action, just look West. Is this that they want? Oh yes, the Pakis are not ‘real’ Muslims or they are not doing it right like ‘pure’ Muslims will when they have their won state. I won’t hold my breath.

At least a few Muslims here have some sense and understand that an “islamic state” means discrimination against non-Muslims.

Kactuz

Comment Edited

Milind Kher on Fri, 12th Sep 2008 9:20 pm

Pakistan is a dissater. That is because it is a state which got its mandate from communal hatred.

Contrast that with the Islamic state of Mecca, when the Holy Prophet (SAWA) gained victory and declared a general amnesty.

However, in today’s context, it is difficult to envisage a perfect Islamic state.

MeAgain on Tue, 16th Sep 2008 4:55 pm

Again, my point is that humans should recognise that anything that has been written on any medium. (A book or Stone) is the work of man; it has no basis for being deemed as fact.

Any religion that says its writings are the word of god is fundamentally flawed. This so called word of god has to be modified with the on going evolution of knowledge. There are numerous examples. The Christian church has to continually back peddle on statements in the Bible that it stated as fact (word of god) and often killed for (people burned at the stake) ‘The world is flat’, ‘Earth is the centre of the universe’ etc etc etc.

Realising this, the Christian faith has ironically become essentially an invitation for most of the western people to be (Atheist). Interestingly only America has large segments of the population which are blind faith followers and countries where the church is new and/or still holds political sway such as some Pacific Islands (i.e. Samoa, Tonga) and Philippines etc.

Most of Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand and many more such countries have no silly religious rhetoric holding them back. Religion only has a symbolic presence here.

The church has taken a backseat in all enlightened societies. They enjoy the humour they derive from the Bible rather than follow it blindly. Jesus is often a cartoon character in many serials see: “South Park” or “Family Guy”. Most western stand up comics (see: Ricky Gervais – “Animals”) benefit from the freedom to vilify the false logic in what their ancestors blindly followed. I have hundreds of such examples as I enjoy a good laugh at the expense of illogical human fallacy.

Once people recognise that all that is written in the hand of man cannot be followed blindly. All statements have to be filtered by the rational mind. No book is the word of god. These same books contain universal wisdom in some aspects; the rest is “BS”.

Swami Vivekananda: “To believe blindly is to degenerate the human soul. Be an atheist if you want, but do not believe in anything unquestioningly.”

“All who have actually attained any real religious experience never wrangle over the form in which the different religions are expressed. They know that the soul of all religions is the same and so they have no quarrel with anybody just because he or she does not speak in the same tongue.”

“True religion is not talk, or doctrines, or theories, nor is it sectarianism. It is the relation between soul and God. Religion does not consist in erecting temples, or building churches, or attending public worship. It is not to be found in books, or in words, or in lectures, or in organizations. Religion consists in realization. We must realize God, feel God, see God, talk to God. That is religion.”

“No man is born to any religion; he has a religion in his own soul.”

I would also finally like to add that I feel that I have to use the Christian faith as examples in the above, as this way I will not receive a backlash (Fatwa) issued against me. I would prefer to be silent and safe then beat a dead horse. As people brainwashed by illogical religious doctrine cannot be awakened. Its really sad that India the land that gave birth to such amazing Philosophy is still tied down by religion.

Islam, Democracy And Violence

Recent Posts By Asghar Ali Engineer

Sponsored Links

Related Posts

IM Latest