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
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???
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.
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.
Kumar,
Or, “fools seldom differ”?
I prefer not to generalize – it’s best to look at every individual issue by itself and then decide.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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
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.
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.