Pak Tea House » Islam, Islamism » Understanding Islamic Revival In Its Proper Context
Understanding Islamic Revival In Its Proper Context
By Yasser Latif Hamdani
My secular comrades and friends will probably disagree with me or maybe not, and it is nothing less than sacrilege for a self proclaimed secularist like myself to say so, but the core values of any civilization are drawn from the dominant religio-cultural system. There are contributory factors from other minority strains but ultimately the way society is organized is around the religio-cultural system the majority of its adherents follow. So for example, the Western civilization- as we know it today- has for evolved out of a Judaeo-Christian cultural norms and as it is secularized, it is enriched by other cultural strains but it remains manifestly a product of Judaeo-Christian evolution. It certainly has strong heritage in Hellenistic past but that itself is expressed through established Christian traditions (for example Christmas which is an adopted Hellenistic holiday), much like Islam adopted a lot of pre-Islamic Arabian heritage as its own.
We – who live in the Muslim World- are going through painful pangs of an accelerated evolution. Our predicament has been exacerbated by the information age and what we see today – the terrorism, the in-fighting, sectarianism, absolutism and religious extremism of the worst kind is part of a process that has been accelerated at a greater pace. Very often secularists – self included- are guilty of ignoring the bigger picture and the process when we express our impatience to irrational and apparently dogmatic adherence most of our co-religionists (to put it loosely) express on a daily basis. Our analysis has often fallen short on account of our inability to rise above a sense of self righteousness that we justifiably exhibit when interacting with the Mullah and custodian of the mosque. While we don’t resort to violence like many of the religious bent are given to, we need to also understand how this process works.
Islamic revival has been a long and painful journey for its adherents. It often becomes very hard to adequately distinguish between reform movements and revival movements as the two have often complemented each other when these have not been antagonistic. Take for example Jamaluddin Afghani (not his real name – he was actually a Iranian Shia from the city of Hamadan)– the main force for Islamic unity as well as global Islamic modernism in the late 19th century. He was a Sunni revivalist, reformist as well as a prominent freemason all in one. His most direct influence was on Muhammad Abduh, the liberal Islamic jurist who wanted to reconcile Islam with 19th century rationalist thought. Muhammad Abduh’s most noted disciple was Rashid Rida who was the most influential scholar of his time. He founded – ironically - the “Salafiya order” which seeks to purify Islam from all western influence. Amongst his followers can be listed men like Hassan Al Banna, Syed Qutb and Syed Abou Ala Maududi – three most influential Islamists of our time. Syed Qutb’s influence on Abdullah Bin Azzam thus creates a direct link between Al Qaeda’s Islamic terrorist strain and Syed Jamaluddin Afghani- the Islamic modernist, liberal and freemason. Hassan Al Banna similarly influenced a number of Palestinian Islamists who founded the “Hizbut-tahrir” in 1952-53. From within Hizbut-tahrir has emerged two strands – one a more virulent version of the same called “Al-Muhajiroun” and the second an exact opposite- a modernist, secular interpretation as forwarded by Majid Nawaz and his associates in the Quilliam Foundation.
There is another side to this coin though: Afghani inspired Allama Iqbal’s Ijtehadi thought as well. Iqbal inspired another interesting thinker , the Islamic Marxist, Ali Shariati. Ali Shariati was the ideologue of Islamic Revolution in Iran and this makes the same freemason Afghani directly linked to his own original country’s Shiite Islamic revival. It doesn’t stop here though. Most of Afghani’s work was in the Ottoman Empire and his influence on young Turk and then Ziya Gokalp cannot be underestimated. Therefore Afghani had a direct impact on the secular ideology of Kemalism as well. Similarly his work in Egypt inspired the modernist nationalist and in a way Gemal Abdel Nasser and his socialist secularism.
Taking Afghani’s Islamic strains in consideration for a minute - Muslim Brotherhood which can directly be traced back to Afghani’s efforts as well through Rashid Rida and Muhammad Abduh has shown remarkable evolution from a subversive Islamist movement of agitation to a democratic Islamist movement which more inclusive and even accepting women’s rights. Hassan Al Banna – another follower of the salafiya political Islamist strain – was assassinated in 1949. His grandson Tariq Ramadan- a Swiss citizen- is the foremost scholar at the frontline of reconciliation – to use late Benazir Bhutto’s term- of Islam and the West. Banna’s youngest brother Gemal El Banna is a learned Islamic scholar from the same strain who forwards complete equality and secularism as tenets of Islam.
Similarly, the Ali Shariati strain de-generated into Khomenism but indirectly created Islamic Republicanism and in the last 15 years we have seen a newer version of this Islamic Republicanism in form of Khatami and Mousavi who have emerged as a liberal and progressive opposition to the conservatives.
In Pakistan Syed Maududi’s “Jamaat-e-Islami” and its student wing Islami Jamiat e Talaba has long been at the vanguard of the “Islamic Movement” in Pakistan. Given their antipathy to the Pakistan Movement and Maududi’s opposition to Mahomed Ali Jinnah, the founding father of Pakistan, they’ve been never been successful at a direct election, but they have infiltrated by placing their people and sympathizers in key places within the Pakistani establishment thereby thwarting the state’s growth as a modern nation state. However Maududian thought itself has splintered into diametrically opposing groups. Maududi himself took a giant leap in terms of political maturity when he supported Fatima Jinnah’s candidacy in 1965 despite having held the view that women should not be entrusted with the business of running the state’s affairs. A faction within Maududi’s Jamaat-e-Islami broke away under the leadership of Maulana Amin Islahi whose school of thought was then carried forward by Khalid Masud and Javed Ahmed Ghamidi. Javed Ahmed Ghamidi today is probably the most liberal and progressive scholar in the entire Islamic world. This Maududi-trained Islamic scholar has come a full circle by claiming that Islamic state is not an objective of a Muslim but rather the objective of a Muslim is individual reform. Contrast this to another breakaway Maududian faction - Dr. Israr Ahmed- whose Tanzeem-e-Islami is a religious movement working towards “Non-violent attainment of Khilafah”. Interestingly like Hassan Al Banna, Maududi’s own family now leans towards liberal interpretations of Islam.
The essential issue is not of whether a strain is good or bad, but whether there is some intellectual movement forward. Individual Muslims, thinking outside the narrow confines of taqlid and madhab- have often found themselves with new ideas and “taabeers” of Islam. In addition to the above mentioned, this may include Sir Syed Ahmed Khan – the great Islamic Modernist- , Syed Ameer Ali whose intellectual contribution to modernity in Islam is second to none, the Muslim Internationalist Ubaidullah Sindhi (whose disciple Zafar Hassan Aibak went through a profound evolution from a Jehadi to a Marxist to a Kemalist) and Allama G. A. Pervez . The last one was a rationalist Quran scholar in the finest Qaramtian tradition of late. Similarly the “heretic” movements within Islam are also in a way an expression of this trend. Abdul Baha of Iran and Mirza Ghulam Ahmed of Qadian presented themselves as Mujadads and reformers. Mirza Ghulam Ahmed’s movement produced geniuses like Sir Zafrullah- whose legal and political contributions to Pakistan and the world at large make him a towering figure- and Dr. Abdus Salam who claimed that his remarkable theory which won him the Nobel Prize in Physics resulted from his profound study of the Holy Quran. Meanwhile Abdul Baha’s Bahaism is one of the fastest growing religions in the US.
There has often been a tendency by some Non-Muslim observers (and now some secular Muslims) of the process of Islamic revival and reform to draw a distinction between a “traditional Muslim scholar” and a “radical Muslim ideologue”- a distinction which is not always useful or fruitful. This view tends to conclude in general that “traditional Islam” whatever that creature is better than “political Islam”. This ignores the basic fact that Islam is – whether we like it or not- largely political. Those who wish to resolve the issue of terrorism by supplanting “political Islam” with Sufism and “traditional Islam” are going against the current of history. It is political Islam alone that needs to evolve to a secular-leaning paradigm i.e. Ghamidi or Gemal Al Banna. Indeed Sufism and “traditional Islam” are likely to fail in this respect because they don’t have any political application because Sufism is at the end of the day an intensely personal creed whereas “traditional Islam” is a misnomer and refers to the Madrassah educated Maulanas who in the long run are even more harmful as they oppose modernity more trenchantly than Islamic revivalists, who over a generation or two seem to be more adaptive.
Islam’s on-going Lutheran Movement has not emerged from within the confines of Darul Ulooms and Jamias. This movement has come from the middle class – and for a time it will remain confused and shall be violent for a while as it is now- but ultimately it will reform the Muslim World and usher upon it an age of reason, enlightenment and I daresay modern secularism. Lucky us that thanks to the information age, every thing is accelerated and exaggerated.
Filed under: Islam, Islamism · Tags: Abdul Baha, Abdullah Bin Azzam, Abdus Salam, Ali Shariati, Allama Iqbal, Allama Pervez, Bahaism, culture, Egypt, Gemal Al Banna, Hassan Al Banna, Iran, Islam, Islamic Revolution, Jamaat-e-Islami, Jamaluddin Afghani, Kemalism, Liberalism, Lutheran, Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadiani, Muhammad Abduh, Muslim, Muslim Brotherhood, Nasserism, Ottoman Empire, Political Islam, Rashid Rida, Reformist, secularism, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Syed Maududi, Syed Qutb, Tariq Ramadan, Turkey, zafrulla
193 Responses to "Understanding Islamic Revival In Its Proper Context"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- real muslim
said tahir is jews agent. we can sacrifice millions of... - Dark Knight
said @Sachbol (May 18, 2012 at 12:19 am)
//...There is... - Rex Minor
said @Kalchakra
Very well said! But do you have any... - Sachbol
said Parliament-Certified Muslim
Ahmadis are not p... - Milestogo
said There is no such thing as Sunni Islam. There is on... - kaalchakra said Not sure what the problem is with seeing Pakistan...
- tajender
said Pak hindus were hoping that saeed will protect the... - Parliament-Certified Muslim said @ Majumdar
According to Article 2 of the Constitu...
- tajender said AHEM,u people preapre a story far away from ground...
- Parliament-Certified Muslim said @ Sachbol
Aha so you think that Ahmadis are not...
@hoss
(Excluding Mirza Sahib who opposed Jihad and that is perhaps the primary reason his followers were declared non Muslim).
I’ll like to clarify this. Mirza Sahib (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani) was NOT the first to oppose Jihad against British Raj. He came much late into the picture. There were many prominent political and religious Muslim figures in India who opposed before him. And of course many opposed after him. It is interesting why he had to publically acknowledge his allegiance to British Raj. It all started after Mirza sahib made claim of ‘Al-Mahdi’. Before him ‘Mahdi-Suddani’ (in Sudan) started a militant movement against British Rulers and even killed their Governor General Gordon. So, British raj people got suspicious of Mirza sahib. In addition Mulla opponents of Mirza sahib held belief that ‘Al-Mahdi’ will be a ‘bloody’ Mahdi i.e. he will start a militant struggle against Christianity and with force will break their Crosses (demolish Churches) and literally kill swine (eaten by Christians). So when these Mulla opponents of Mirza sahib could NOT defeat him in arguments, e.g. on subject of Death of Jesus etc; they started conspiring with British raj that this guy has claimed to be ‘Al-Mahdi’ and will wage war against Christian British rulers etc. As a strategy to lock him up, and prevent any possible rebellion, false court cases were initiated against him. To save his time, legal distractions and troubles Mirza sahib went publically to announce his allegiance and dispel misunderstandings about him. So, he took the stand that since rulers have provided peace and security in the country and Muslims are allowed to practice their religion freely and safely (unlike previous Sikh rule in Punjab and Frontier provinces). So we should be loyal to the government. Mirza sahib approach was to propagate Islam in a peaceful environment. Historically Islam has propagated in peaceful circumstances. He was going for a bigger catch. His plans were to convert Christian rulers in India to Islam and also those in Great Britain. (His plans were to repeat history when Mongol rulers of Baghdad converted to Islam).
On the other hand Mirza sahib also prophesized 60 years in advance (in 1905) failure of Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri prediction and repulsion of Indian army attack in 1965. I would say Mirza sahib was NOT talking about defense of geographical boundaries of Muslims homeland, by his opposition of Jihad.
Gorki:
I too feel that in essence you and I have the same hopes.
I can very easily understand a Sikh’s bitter disillusionment with Hindus and Hinduism after what happened in the 1980s.
What perhaps not enough Sikhs realise is what a terrible shock that whole Hindu-Sikh violence has been for Hindus in general.
Apart from those Hindus in the Delhi and Punjab area who got caught up in all the sectarian fury, it came as an unbelievable tragedy to other Hindus who have always regarded Sikhs and Hindus as part of the same family.
We had all grown up taking that kinship for granted, and then we had to see men from a community that has so often distinguished itself as protectors of Hindus cutting innocent Hindus down and the “secular” Congress goons killing Sikhs in unbelievably vile ways and Hindus being tainted with the foul deeds. Yet the Congress had long sneered at everything Hindu.
No doubt the whole sorry affair disgusts you with the very idea of a Hindu state in India…..Only too understandable.
I was thinking along the lines of Nirad Chudhuri, no Hindu chauvinist, who once said that the claim of needing to have a “secular” state in India was an insult to Hinduism, which only has to be itself to assure freedom to all religions.
I will like to make two points regarding this essay.
True, “the core values of any civilization are drawn from the dominant religio-cultural system” and that Western Civilization “has strong heritage in Hellenistic past”. I will go one step further and add Roman Civilization in to the mix as well. No doubt the Western-Christian societies have its roots in the preceding ancient Greco-Roman societies.
But it would be wrong to say that the Western Civilization has “evolved out of Judaeo-Christian cultural norms” because in reality no such juxtaposed society and its norms, neither cultural nor religious, exist. For any thing, the Jewish and the Christian norms, values (legal as well as cultural) and believes are in direct conflict with each other.
The term ‘Judaeo-Christian’ is a twentieth century American invention coined for political expedience. The very basic Christian concepts of ‘trinity’ and ‘father god’ and ‘son of god’ are derived from the Greco-Roman theological believes. They stand in contradiction to the Jewish (and Muslim) believes of ‘separation of man and god’. To the contrary, in the Judaeo-Muslim Abrahamic tradition the laws are given by the ‘god’ and not by the ‘man’.
Once we realise this distinction, it becomes easier to trace the reasons of the evolution of democracy and secularism in the Western-Christian societies and also the lack of it in the Middle Eastern Jewish, Christian and Muslim societies. How could a man make laws when he is neither ‘god’ nor a ‘prophet of god’; a question that plagues all Muslim countries.
In the Western societies it is the adaptation of the Hellenistic concept of democracy and Roman concept of republic that manifests and not the Jewish concept of absolute submission to god.
On my second point, I agree that “Islam is largely political”. Therefor political revival and religious reforms must go hand in hand. They are the two sides of the same coin. Sufism as it is practised in the Sub-continent today has no answers to our predicaments. It is totally irrelevant today. At the same time the ‘traditional Islam’ as practised and preached by Mullah will not bring about reform either. It is not in his interest to do so. The next phase of the reform and revival movement, as its first phase at the turn of the twentieth century, will be led by the middle classes. But are they ready and willing to take up the task?
PMA:
I am in agreement with you to a large extent.
The new idea you have thrown up, that God-centred societies derived from Jewish monotheism CANNOT be democratic because they lack confidence in the human being, and give everything to God, unlike the polytheistic societies, is a fascinating insight.
I do not believe Israel would be a free society today had it not been for the Jews’ emancipation by the post-Christian Enlightenment.
I too think Christianity with its man-god Jesus was the result of Greek polytheistic influence on Judaism. No wonder Jews reject it so fiercely.
The idea of God having a “son” and even a wife is true abomination to the Jews !
In a very real sense, Christianity is a Greek invention more than a Jewish one.
@Rashid
I can, I think, comment, strictly as an amateur of law, on one or two of the points raised by you. All that I say subsequently is subject to correction by the two known lawyers whom we know of, YLH and BCiv, who are being very irritating by holding aloof in a very marked manner, considering how easy they could make matters for you and I with a brief intervention and with clarifications.
In the Texas case cited by you, a lot depends on which branch of Jewish law was involved. My understanding is that the three main branches of Judaism recognised in the West have slightly different systems.
It is interesting that it was claimed that in Jewish law, no divorce is possible, since it was explicitly permitted by Moses, and there was no contradiction of this authority until as late as Jesus Christ, centuries later. It was Jesus who said firmly and without permitting exceptions of any kind that divorce was not permitted. To me personally, discovering this in the Bible was a shock (I confirmed it externally afterwards), as in most respects, His interpretation was a far more relaxed one than the Mosaic. One more exception was His furious outburst against moneylending and usury, one of the rare occasions – I think the only occasion – when He lost his temper.
What I get from this is that originally, Jewish law derived from Moses permits divorce and Christian law derived from the teachings of Christ forbids it. This aspect of Christian law of course superseded the explicit Roman law on divorce, which was a matter of civil contract, in Europe, for some centuries.
However, we must remember that in Roman law, divorce was explicitly permitted, including a woman’s right to seek a divorce, for both, man and woman, to be initiated at will. This is centuries old, and precedes Islamic law by centuries, around six centuries. As I mentioned, it was briefly superseded by the ban under Christian law, because of that specific teaching of Christ. This was the original position, and it changed very rapidly. A quick aside: divorce was also permitted in Greece, but not at will; the parties had to appear before a magistrate, who could determine if the reasons given, whatever reasons, were sufficient.
Islamic Law is the first law that permitted wife to divorce her husband for whatever reason.
Sorry, this is not true.
Coming to Hindu law, there is no divorce permitted under Hindu religious law, since marriage is a sacrament, not a civil contract; the sacrament performed with Fire as a witness cannot be undone, under any circumstances. However, under subsequent enactments of law by legislative bodies, which modified the four prevailing Hindu codes of law (popularly and wrongly considered to be two codes of law, Mitakshara for the most of what was called India by commentators from the Early Middle Ages, Dayabhaga for the Bengalis and some eastern peoples), marriage was a civil rite, and divorce thereby became permissible. This was a direct consequence of the introduction of western concepts through legislative action, and a good thing too.
Sati is not a legal concept, it was a social practice and differed radically between western and eastern India. In western India, it was largely limited to the Rajput community, and may have been an ancestral practice retained by them through their induction into Hindu society. To understand this, it has to be remembered that Rajputs, and Gujaratis too, may have been descended from the Saka-Pahlava invasions of India sometime after the Bactrian Greek kingdoms and before the Tocharians, or the Kushanas. As far as I know, mediaeval sati incidents were restricted to the Rajputs and were voluntary; no virtue could possibly accrue to an involuntary sati. Sati is banned now, but there is an incident every decade or so.
In the east, it was a horrible and repulsive form that the practice took, and I cannot bear to dwell on it except to say briefly that the possession of property permitted to women under Dayabhaga became a death sentence for widows of rich men.
In neither instance is it a legal provision, sati is in both cases a social practice, neither accepted nor condemned by traditional law, but explicitly banned by legislation subsequent to the codification of Hindu personal law.
Regarding your consideration of western systems as Judaeo-Christian-Islamic, this is both illuminating and obscuring.
First, there was nothing known as Judaeo-Christian law. The term Judaeo-Christian is a modern day invention of some American political commentators (I know I am being sloppy and subjective and a more accurate description may be possible, but this is sufficient for the argument here). There was no admixture of Jewish law into the law codes followed by western society. None.
Second, law in Europe follows one of two paths, common law in England, later extended to the constituent parts of the Union of Great Britain, later extended to the parts of the British Empire, including what later became the United States of America, and including the Indian Empire. We follow common law.
On Continental Europe, in sharp contrast, the system followed was Roman Civil Law for the secular person, the person who was not a member of a recognised religious category, and a parallel but similar system for the clergy. This was originally a unified system throughout Europe, but over the pressure of national legislation through the last three centuries, variants have appeared.
My rudimentary understanding is that there is little or no overlap between Civil Law and Islamic law. To my surprise, I have found authorities who argue that there is clear evidence of the influence of Islamic law on Common Law! Their arguments are convincing, and to that extent, it is interesting to note that we in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka follow that branch of European (Western?) law that was influenced by Islamic law in certain aspects.
Incidentally, you will be intrigued to learn that the path for this was not, as I have seen some argue, Spain, through al-Andalus, but Sicily. Sicily had enlightened Norman rulers, and they formed the maternal line of the great Frederick II Hohenstaufen, whose rule was completely anachronistic, anticipating the Renaissance by some centuries. I urge those of us not already familiar with his life and times to look him up, and join the rest of us left wondering at this Stupor Mundi. The connection between Sicily and UK is clear and obvious.
It’s pointless saying Muslims once had elements of progress and enlightenment. So had many others.
What is important is to have progress and enlightenment now.
Those Muslims and their sycophants who prate about Muslim advances in the past are usually the very ones who fear a no-ideas-barred debate on reforming Islam root and branch today.
Instead of saying Muslims have everything to learn, these apologists feed themselves laughable conceits such as claiming the legal system in lower Patagonia shows clear inflences of Islamic law.
It’s like the nineteenth century Hindus who used to say the Mahabharata proves Hindus had spaceships. The only difference is, the Hindus did not foster terrorism and eventually tended to grow up.
@PMA
It is a relief to read your intervention, as there have been others which have derived a host of conclusions from the Greeks, without any indication of awareness of what was Hellenistic civilisation and what was the composite Roman-Hellenistic culture subsequent to 146 BC.
Again your comment about the so-called Judaeo-Christian cultural complex is timely in this context; even though that label is useful in a political context, it is a piece of nonsense in cultural or legal terms. As you have pointed out, the branching away of Christianity from strict monotheism began with the homoousion/ homoiousion controversy, which had to be reconciled by the Council of Nicaea. Some students of philosophy seem to suggest that these developments were due to the injection of neo-Platonic thought into the original dogma of the early Church, which was very largely Jewish in derivation.
There is little or nothing to add to the excellent analysis presented in your subsequent paragraphs.
People quibbling falsely about the “chief moderator” should consider this following email from Chowk.com’s chowk staff:
“Your following post was filtered for objectionable content. For the next 24 hours all your posts will be reviewed before they appear on Chowk. Failure to follow Interact Guidelines may result in your account being suspended.
Faiz whiskey alcoholic etc … Surely that is a self defeating argument given that Jinnah was given to good scotch as well. And he was pura musalman … He drank whiskey and ate pork as well!
Why discriminate then?”
Since the obvious comparison is drawn between PTH and chowk… PTH allows for complete expression …there is banning at anyone’s whim. Those complaining about the so called chief moderator know they are lying when they claim this nonsense because none of their posts have ever been deleted.
rex minor March 16, 2010 at 12:17 am
“The poison for terrorism is in the US foreign policy.”
I consider that a cop out. Yes, there are many facets of the US policy that you can and should disagree with but dumping the whole terrorism enchilada in Pakistan on the US is neither accurate nor is desirable. The strands of fundamentalism appeared in Pakistan immediately after independence and the Army really started cashing it in the late 60s, when the movement against Ayub took a definite left turn. Army supported the Islamic fundamentalists parties with cash and the army patronage. The fundamentalists parties pressured the civilian government in to declaring Ahmedis non-Muslims and I think that was really the turning point and Pakistan began its plunge in to the abyss. The process accelerated in 1977 and the resulting army role has really pushed Pakistan to where it is now.
It was Pakistan that initiated the interference in Afghanistan and prepared first lot of mujahideen. The US saw an opportunity because it was there for taking.
“And the poison for Jehad is mainly coming from the misguided clergy in various parts of the world.”
I see that happening in a few countries but Pakistan is the breeding ground of terrorism and we should really be concerned with Pakistan first. It is not about just a few misguided mullahs, it is all about an army that has for decades sponsored, aided and abetted many terrorists groups and still calls them jihadi and not what they are, the terrorist. I think you are mistaken in believing that the terrorism in Pakistan would end after the US leaves or stops playing big brother. At least, in Pakistan’s context that is not going to happen. I support the withdrawal of the US forces from Afghanistan, yet I also dread the day when the Pak army and the terrorist groups in Fata, Afghanistan and Punjab would be re-united in victory celebrations. The Pak army’s credo is Jihad fisabilallah and that is what the army teaches to its officers and other recruits. With that kind of mindset no one should expect anything good coming out of that army.
I think article likes this in the guise of pseudo intellectualism help the fundamentalists to reinvent and protect themselves from the rising public outcry against terrorism.
Terrorism in Pakistan has nothing to do with the Kashmir issue. Kashmir was just used to raise the number of terrorists in Pakistan whose primary job was to obstruct the growing demands of democracy in Pakistan as much as possible.
Rashid March 16, 2010 at 2:41 am
Thanks for taking the time to write that post to me. The groups that emerged from Punjab in the late 19th and in the 20th century taught basically one thing and that was to Revive Islam to where it was in the 7th century.
Some of those groups were outright fascist and others marginally fascist. Except for a few things here and there probably just to establish distinction from the competing groups, Ahmedi relied on some minor changes but Mirza Sahib’s primary message was still about reverting to fundamentalism and the revival of Islam of the 7th century. That is one reason I believe most Ahmedi are conservatives and religious fundamentalist.
However, I have no problem with the people’s faiths and beliefs as long as it is a personal matter and people are not using the political space to propagate the revival of Islam or any other religion.
Dear VRV,
Since you are reading intently.
Thank you for your comments and feedback.
Have two points really to make -
1. Socialist secularism- Read the Indian constitution.
2. Dr. Salam believed that the Quranic concept of Tauheed was a reference to “theory of everything”.
The rest of your points I could not follow.
On the issue of Jamaat e Islami, I thank you for your concern. Their mouthpiece “Daily Ummat” has dedicated no less than a dozen articles to proving why I am at the vanguard of Dahria movement. You should read them. Entertaining stuff. I have my old fan – Kashif Hafeez Siddiqui who is as talented and skilled in the use of English language as you dear VRV- to thank for it.
@Vajra
“You probably know under Judeo Law married woman cannot divorce her husband (I read a Texas Court case in which Jewish couple married in Israel, and wife asked Texas court to grant her divorce. Husband took the position that as they were married under Jewish law and wife cannot get divorce under Jewish law).”
Probably, I did not make my point clear enough. I would say again. Under Jewish law, husband can give divorce to wife, but wife can NOT give divorce to husband. Recently, a Jewish woman in UK got “unchained” after death of her husband. Although she got divorce from him, through court, over 50 years ago.
It is information for me to know women could divorce their husbands in pre-Islamic era.
Dear Ganpat:
I must say that while I think your comments are sincere and written in a spirit of empathy with the suffering of the Sikhs and I would be lying if I did not say that they left me more hurt than relieved.
Let me explain. While the Sikh terrorist of the 1980 claimed to fight in the name of the Sikhs many Sikhs, I dare say that up till the attack on the Golden Temple, a majority of the Sikhs did not feel these guys represented them and many held them in open contempt. That was the reason that throughout the period of the insurgency in Punjab, a little more than a majority of the victims were fellow Sikhs. While the massacre of bus passengers made big news, these were random victims; while the Sikh victims were selected targets; families of officers, politicians, social workers, even ex freedom fighters. The communists were special targets. The father of the current police Chief of Punjab, (a respected politician and a family friend), was himself a victim. To most of us opposing the terrorists, it was never a Hindu versus Sikh fight but India’s battle versus obscurantist fundamentalists. Thus the first let down to us was when the Golden temple was attacked, since it was felt that the GOI had itself let things fester to the point that it had to attack a symbol of Sikhism and discredit the nationalists. The second time we were discredited when the riots in Delhi were indirectly condoned by no less than the PM of India. Yet as I wrote earlier, the battle was won by the Punjab police. I know several instances where families lost members to both the terrorist violence and the police. Also remember that in spite of railing by separatist leaders, Punjab never saw riots. The reason was that we never felt we were fighting our battle for anything other than our country.
Today when rex minor wrote his little incomprehensible rant, I had no desire to respond since he means nothing to me and has very poor understanding of our affairs.
Yet when you, a fellow Indian sympathized with me not as an Indian to another but as one Hindu to a Sikh; it hurt for it made me feel that I was the ‘other’.
For looking at it from my POV, the crime of 1984 was not one committed by Hindus against the Sikhs but by the fascist of society on India and its citizens.
I am not alone in feeling this way.
Many of us, Sikhs and Hindus, have lived all our lives as Punjabis and Indians, oblivious of the accident of our birth in one faith or another.
It is this feeling I hope you and other educated Indians can help inspire among the rest of our countrymen as well.
Regards.
@hoss
“Except for a few things here and there probably just to establish distinction from the competing groups, Ahmedi relied on some minor changes but Mirza Sahib’s primary message was still about reverting to fundamentalism and the revival of Islam of the 7th century. That is one reason I believe most Ahmedi are conservatives and religious fundamentalist”
My understanding is prophet Muhammad talked reason, rationality, peace, love, and inspiration. If that is what you mean by “fundamentalism” then I don’t disagree.
Mirza sahib students would have never been able to convince the intellectuals in Europe if they could not present their arguments with reason and logic. I could recommend number of his students, but here i will only recommend two who extensively wrote in English. Khawaja Kamal ud Din and Maulana Muhammad Ali. I think reading their writings will change your opinion about students and their teacher.
rashid mian,
Don’t be too bothered by Hoss. He doesn’t know how to make sense.
Only a complete dodo will call people as diverse as Afghani, Sir Syed, Pervez, Ubaidullah Sindhi, Ali Shariati, Mirza Ghulam Ahmed, Abdus Salam, Zafrulla, Khatami, Mousavi, Ghamidi and Tariq Ramadan …”terrorists”.
The only person who is a fascist in that list is Maududi.
Basically Hoss mian is still smarting from all the times is gaps in knowledge are woefully exposed.
PS: Syed Qutb, Maududi and Abdullah Azzam are the failure of the process…
But as time goes by… more and more Ghamidis will outnumber Qutbs, Maududis, Azzams and Isrars.
Be Civil:
I may have set up a strawman as YLH says but the unexpressed idea is probably implied. Even if it is not and I am imagining things I should like to clarify what I was getting at.
The terms ‘political Islam’, ‘revivalism’ and ‘reform’ were used though the article never did make any normative political recommendations, so I am probably trying to connect dots into a pattern that was never intended. But I ask you to bear with me.
“… This view tends to conclude in general that “traditional Islam” whatever that creature is better than “political Islam”. This ignores the basic fact that Islam is – whether we like it or not- largely political. Those who wish to resolve the issue of terrorism by supplanting “political Islam” with Sufism and “traditional Islam” are going against the current of history. It is political Islam alone that needs to evolve to a secular-leaning paradigm i.e. Ghamidi or Gemal Al Banna. Indeed Sufism and “traditional Islam” are likely to fail in this respect because they don’t have any political application because Sufism is at the end of the day an intensely personal creed whereas “traditional Islam” is a misnomer and refers to the Madrassah educated Maulanas who in the long run are even more harmful as they oppose modernity more trenchantly than Islamic revivalists, who over a generation or two seem to be more adaptive.”
I was responding to this particular thought even if taking it beyond the intention of the author. The following quote indicates that even if I was misled I had some cause to be.
“Islam’s on-going Lutheran Movement has not emerged from within the confines of Darul Ulooms and Jamias. This movement has come from the middle class – and for a time it will remain confused and shall be violent for a while as it is now- but ultimately it will reform the Muslim World and usher upon it an age of reason, enlightenment and I daresay modern secularism. Lucky us that thanks to the information age, every thing is accelerated and exaggerated.”
Vajra’s is a sympathetic understanding of what YLH is leading to but I expressed disagreement with the possibilities of that line of thought and still do, because I was talking of the political possibilities.
“i don’t think the article claims that true democracy would come from religious reform. or that, even more preposterously, science would come from it. but that those amongst the religious who do not reject scientific method out of hand are a better hope for bringing the religious to democracy and to science than those who do.”
And that is my point of departure.
“these agents of change may go in completely the opposite direction at times, despite using the right tools. on the other hand, at precisely those times, those who reject or are too ignorant and unimaginative/introverted/small-minded to understand or bother with scientific method might appear mild and peaceful enough to present the better hope. but it is a false hope in the longer run. or that’s what i thought YLH is saying and Vajra has understood him to mean.”
That is undoubtedly true.
“i think the point the article makes reinforces the justification for the state to ignore religion. but, as YLH has clarified, the article is not about the state or what it ought or ought or not to do about religion. if the state can wise up to the stupidity of placing any kind of (false) hope on the wrong kind of religious people (in the context of what has been said above, in the previous post), it will do both itself and the religious and their culture (and its future course) a favour.”
That is precisely the point. The state, the secular state cannot put any kind of hope in any kind of religious people.
I know that Muslims need to relate to politics in a Muslim way, but the problem is universal. After Mustafa Kemal Turkey showed that a secular discourse could take hold out of nowhere. In Indonesia under Sukarno and till quite recently, the state discourse was openly non religious. A determined effort had to be made by Islamic groups to reintroduce Islam into the political space. In Kashmir in India the dominant Sunni Muslim Kashmiris follow a determinedly secular politics. The Jamaat has its following but can never win more than five seats. Even in the so called rigging of 1987 the Islamic grouping would not have got more than twelve. There are always voices for interjecting Islamic values into the body politic but voters respond to agendas of development and justice not those of piety and exclusion. The straw man is just a straw man.
In the Muslim world dictatorships as in Iraq and Egypt or Syria have suppressed their peoples who never were given a chance to evolve modern democratic political systems. Their straw man may have been Islamic fundamentalism, but in Pakistan the Islamic straw man has been introduced by politicians and even by the army for selective use to resurrect or co-opt as needed.
Which is my point. No amount of religious reform or revival will lead to secularism and political enlightenment-Democracy possibly, of a strictly religious kind such as seen in Iran, but it cannot be a modern multi-party political democracy. Political power has had to be prised out of the hands of the Church ever since St Ambrose appropriated to the it a power that the Catholic clergy is even now loath to surrender, in places such as the state of Kerala in India for example. I have heard a little about Ghamdi but too little to offer comment. It does not change my feeling that faith based nostrums are inappropriate in this day and age, unless the faith changes, or is ignored as present day Hinduism and Christianity are, in the poltical and even social sphere. In the later half of the twentieth century there was a fresh attack on political space in the Indian Punjab by the ignorant and illiterate jathedars of the Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee and the Akali Dal. Faith is a means of exercising power and it is the only path available to those whose vocation it is .
Hayyer,
I am not sure why you are complicating the matter by going on tangents that cannot be imagined given my record. Like I pointed out that this is not about state’s relationship with religion… nor am I sure how Kashmir’s politics is relevant… how many seats do you think Jamaat has won in Pakistan? Fewer than the proportion that 5 seats in Occupied Kashmir’s legislature is. This is besides the point.
Am I suggesting that the state place any hope in any religious people?
Answer is No. On the contrary I am questioning the strategy which does so. Since I am not religious myself I don’t believe in any religious revival. All I am saying is that allowing religion to be interpretted outside the Darul-uloom has a much better chance of it being rationalized than inside the Darul Uloom. As I see it… Europe would have never secularized or ignored religion, had reformation not taken place…. No one is comparing Iranian Islamic political democracy to modern multi-party democracy…. Khatami and Mousavi are not the dissenting trends in Iranian system not its reinforcement. What is more is that Indians forget Hinduism itself went through a century of reform before the independence movement. This was key.
The problem – which you sidestep- is that the believer has to be convinced to ignore religion in a public sphere… but the believer will not do so so long as he keeps wedded to the mosque and the Mullah in the mosque keeps reminding him of the glories of Islam.
I would rather the believer would come out of the mosque, become his own priest and I believe that while 1 out 5 times it would lead to Maududiism … 4 out of 5 times it would lead to a greater rational discourse. Do you think the West would have been able to ignore Christianity if reformation had not taken place? What if the majority of Hindus believe that it is their religious duty to establish Ram Rajya?
So … you are completely off on a tangent – especially if you think I am placing any hope on secularism to emerge from within religion. What I am hoping for is evolution within Islam to make it more amenable to accepting secularism … much in the way Hinduism and Christianity have at different times. When Ghamidi now says that Islam does not obligate the believer to establish an Islamic state, I see that as progress towards secularism.
@Hoss
I do not live in your country. Nevertheless, even as an observer and very limited knowledge of the dominant military I would agree more or less with your comments. However, I should like you to consider the following exceptions;
. Fundamentalism does not equal terrorism. Senator Lieberman is a fundamentalist jew, but no one would classify him as a terrorist.
. Pakistan civilian Govt. asked the army to crush the civilian demonstrations in karachi and this was the beginning of military involvement in running the Pakistan Govt. I know that the military Generals were very reluctant at the time to become military administrators.
.Mr Bhutto was an erratic personality and some what machiavellian in politics. How could a civilian Institution become so sick to declare willy nilly a group of people as non-muslims?
. In my view Pakistan has some basic problems. After having the independant State the task of Nation building was never completed. Pakistan military has not been reformed to become a true national army. Today, the civilian central Govt. is in infancy and needs a certain period of orientation and maturity. Is PA going to break the country further or would be content to go back to their barracks. At present Pakistan civilian and military elites are under the control of the US administration. How are they going to counter this pressure, with the help of chinese?
. Pakistan Army had a very limited involvement in supporting jehadi groups. Pakistan ISI was involved simply as a go between for the CIA.
. The resistance groups built in Afghanistan by the Arab outfit apparently included people from the occupied Kashmir. Pakistan Army is not directly involved.
Perhaps you would reconsider and not classify the groups of people who are resisting occupation as terrorists.
I would still maintain that there are no terrorists in the sub-continent. Try to analyse Mr Gorki’s comments about the ruthless suppression of the sikhs community in India by the sikhs members of the police and the military. They are no different from the participation of the Pashtoon police and the frontier corp and other local militias against the Pashtoon civilians. This is the same music which was played in India for centuries under the Brits. And in my view is the main source for creating radicalism in the country.
Have a nice day.
Regards,
@YLH
Well said!!
Hayyer
i did not state my point clearly enough. the sufi and traditional mullah and aalim seeming milder and more peaceful at certain times does not mean the state should be fooled into taking any notice of them, even if it is with the view of countering the threat to the state at that particular time from the religious ‘reformers’ and ‘thinkers’. otoh, the reformers and agents of change within religion need only be taken any notice of by the state when they challenge the state, which they will at times. and i’ve already said that this ‘taking notice’ can only mean imposing the law and the writ of the state. that the state must never put any hope in any religious types is precisely what i was trying to say as well. indeed, it is what this logic reinforces. perhaps i’ve clarified it better now.
the two types of religious ‘leadership’ having been taken care of in terms of what view, if any, the state should take of them, what remains is the so-called ‘flock’. that is where YLH has made observations and an analysis which is very much within the cultural domain. an interesting observation is that the non-traditionalist type is at least thinking for himself. that these types, more often than not, come from the middle class. and YLH’s view that it has better hope of achieving progress just as it carries the danger of going extreme and violent. this is what we expect from people who start to think for themselves.
the wider implication that while the few who will become some kind of (religious) thought leaders to whatever extent, what is more interesting is the much larger number of those ordinary members of the middle class who shall not become any kind of leaders in thought, except their own. they shall remain unknown and just ordinary people. but this process offers a better hope for progress – again, nothing to do with the state or anything other than culture.
“-Democracy possibly, of a strictly religious kind such as seen in Iran”
that is no democracy, since there can be no full democracy without full accountability before the law and there can be no meaningful accountability without equality before the law. and full equality means the law must be blind to religion, race etc. with selective accountability under a selective law there can only be selective representation. that is not democracy. our friend milind kher agreed to call it “quasi-democracy”, i believe, which is typically not a victimless crime.
YLH:
I apologize for having inadvertently created an opening for others, or misrepresented what you intended.
Vigilance is the eternal price of secularism of course. That one in five figure coming out of the mosque seems to confirm to the 20:80 ratio of general theory.
BC:
With YLH’s latest post I have nothing more to say.
“I would rather the believer would come out of the mosque, become his own priest and I believe that while 1 out 5 times it would lead to Maududiism … 4 out of 5 times it would lead to a greater rational discourse. Do you think the West would have been able to ignore Christianity if reformation had not taken place? What if the majority of Hindus believe that it is their religious duty to establish Ram Rajya?
“So … you are completely off on a tangent – especially if you think I am placing any hope on secularism to emerge from within religion. What I am hoping for is evolution within Islam to make it more amenable to accepting secularism … much in the way Hinduism and Christianity have at different times. When Ghamidi now says that Islam does not obligate the believer to establish an Islamic state, I see that as progress towards secularism.”
There is hope then-if PML (N) can be persuaded to pursue this line.
But in general I believe that Pakistan’s particular circumstances may not be applicable across the Muslim world, which is why I brought in other Muslim countries into the discussion.
“There is hope then-if PML (N) can be persuaded to pursue this line.”
i suspect they’ll be followers rather than leaders. they won’t be the last in the queue but will have no intention to be near the top. but then most politicians and political parties cannot be expected to be much different. hence the emphasis on what is happening in society. as that is the sphere most of us function in, we should know what we need to do. will cultural regression undermine and overrun the state or will there be progress which will allow the state to be a source of some good as a means of how society organises itself for practical reasons? lets see… as we fight the fight.
vajra (March 16, 2010 at 6:29 am):
So you and I are in agreement. But what can we say about Mr. Ram (a pseudonym I believe) who is bent upon proving the supremacy of his religion and culture over that of others. He reminds me of that one American general who famously said that he knew that his god was bigger than the god of his enemy! Ridiculing other people’s religion and culture is the silly game that this commenter won’t play. Coming back to the essay and its subject matter. I think other than the ‘Judaeo-Christian’ reference of convenience, the author has done a half decent job in tackling this important issue of Islamic reform and revival.
The lies keep flying. I never said anything about Dr. Salam or Sir Zafar. One was a British bureaucrat and the other was great scientist. There is no way they could possibly be listed as terrorist. As far as I know they were not selling religion to the people either.
Rashid,
Reason, rationality, peace and love were not invented by Mohammed and there is nothing in his teachings of the 7th century that needs reviving. Religion should never have any space in political space at the state level. It should just be a personal matter. In Muslim countries the fundamentals and revivalists have polluted minds so thoroughly that now known fundamentalist such as Ghamdi and Banna are called liberal and progressives. The conduct of followers of the rest of the scholars mentioned in the articles is before us too.
Rex Minor,
Lieberman is no fundamentalist. He is an orthodox Jew and his record in Senate on liberal and progressive causes can put many liberal and progressives to shame. Btw, there is a sea of difference between the religious groups in a secular and political mature country and a country that can’t shake off the influence of religion from its political discourse. Religious groups in secular country are often just pressure groups. In developing secular democracies sometimes they have more influence but they don’t make policies and often fail to sway the middleclass in to following them.
@PMA
There are many of us who have missed your presence and your incisive reasoning. Your absence was painful. I, personally, deeply regret it. Please consider that statement in the spirit in which it is made.
The troll in question is a carbon copy of G. Vishvas, and of Tathagata Mukherjee before that, and of the entire unimaginative breed. He doesn’t deserve to have time wasted on him. Unfortunately, before realising the truth, one of us gave him some encouragement in the belief that it might be you. The rest, as they say, is history; inaccurate, twisted, misleading history.
YLH’s essay was another brilliant effort, but if possible, I would like to examine Simon Sharaf’s intervention and see what the relationship is between the two sets of views. One or two others have written similarly.
Rex Minor
I am not sure I comprehend your query entirely, however, my answer should cover most aspects of this predicament.
The principle is quite simple, we know that the Islamic philosophy is far more advanced then the Hindu or the Judeo-Christian, and if it is employed at individual, national or global level, in a manner that at least within we are at peace with it and with the co practitioners, the result would be highly elevated standards in every sphere of human existence, unencumbered by clever, opportunistic temptations.
The purpose is not self aggrandizement, or to come at loggerheads with other cultures/religions, but to put our own house in order, and should we succeed at that, others will come not as aggressors, but to learn and emulate.
rex minor (March 16, 2010 at 2:48 pm):
“Senator Lieberman is a fundamentalist Jew”
hoss (March 16, 2010 at 8:07 pm):
“Lieberman is no fundamentalist. He is an orthodox Jew”
Gentlemen: I contend that the Senator is all of the above. On social issues that mostly do not involve or affect his Orthodox Jewish community, he is liberal and progressive. But on political and economical issues that may have an implication on American Jewish community he is very conservative. Being an Orthodox Jew he believes in the fundamental tenets of the ancient Jewish faith. In that sense he is a ‘fundamentalist’. His unconditional support for Israel and Jewish cause world wide, even at the cost of American interests is well known. He was the first one among Democrats to support American invasion of Iraq. He has sided with neo-conservatives on many issues. In 2008 elections he campaigned for Republican McCain against liberal Obama. Now he will like America to go to war against Iran. His political position is deeply rooted in his fundamental religious orthodoxy. He is liberal, progressive, orthodox, conservative and fundamentalist all at once.
Rex Minor
I am not sure I comprehend your query entirely, however, my answer should cover most aspects of this predicament.
The principle is quite simple, we know that the Islamic philosophy is far more advanced then the Hindu or the Judeo-Christian, and if it is employed at individual, national or global level, in a manner that at least within we are at peace with it and with the co practitioners, the result would be highly elevated standards in every sphere of human existence, unencumbered by clever, opportunistic temptations.
The purpose is not self aggrandizement, or to come at loggerheads with other cultures/religions, but to put our own house in order, and should we succeed at that, others will come not as aggressors, but to learn and emulate.
I am sure this will work.
ylh,
“the believer has to be convinced to ignore religion in a public sphere”
The only thing you need to convince the believer is not to impose his religion on others. That’s it.
Don’t waste time arguing about the scope of his religion. That’s his business – as long as he is not imposing.
@Hoss
I understand that sometimes people go in circles particularly when they keep on relying on knowledge and logic;
. I have a different opinion about Lieberman.
. Please bear in mind that logic is not truth.
. I fully agree with you that the religion is a very personal matter. However, when a group of people having the same religion organise themselves democraticaly and form a State, the religion takes a political dimension.
And this is the soup your compatriots have created in a country named Pakistan. The country has since been violently raped by the military elite and the civilian politicians alike and right now, from the outside view of an observer you are looking at country not far away from becoming the second Somalia. The US ground forces shift in the Pashtoon territory could trigger this off at any time.
Giving these circumstances, I believe that YLH approach is brilliant,the most logical and practical. Most people want freedom, peace and prosperity but not at the expense of taking away their belief.
PS
I am not aware of any religion political party in Europe. The only comparable muslim country which has a secular constitution and is now ruled by a muslim party is Turkey. Your military elite is very fond of Turkey and wanted all along their constitution and the military veto power in the Govt. Well, the military veto has now disappeared and is governed by the religion party.
@PMA
I wanted to write about Lieberman somewhat similar to what you have described more aptly. But this would have been a diversion. After all the article is not about the Americans. Most of the Americans and Europeans who criticise muslim states or their leaders , I immediately take them under my lupe and analyse their background, ethnic as well as religious includind that of their ancestors. In the future it would be possible to look at their genetic heritage to even forecast their attitudes towards other humans.
Have a nice day.
vajra (March 16, 2010 at 8:32 pm):
Pak Tea House, the brain child of my friend Raza is much bigger than the sum of all of its contributors and commenters. Absence of one does not make any difference to the bigger picture at all. Thanks anyway. But I am somewhat puzzled when you say: “one of us gave him [Mr. Ram] some encouragement in the belief that it might be you”. Now why would I be anybody but myself! Is he that awful?
@PMA
No, it was an honest mistake by the person concerned (the person is not I). The first three or four posts were very engaging; I think all of us found it a refreshing breath of fresh air. The initial approach was distinctly different from previous trolls. It was at this point that the mistake was made. That it was a mistake became amply clear within another three posts or so.
The premise of the excellent post by YLH about various thoughts within Islam has been set aside, for the most part.
Instead, the discussion here is dominated by many commentators who proclaim or accept India’s “secular” claims without question. The reality on the ground is very different, and there is no clear separation between state and religion when you see that almost every government building in India has a prominently positioned picture of a Hindu deity and Hindu rituals accompany the inauguration of all public works, without exception.
While India is “secular” on paper, it’s state is anything but secular in practice.
Here’s how an Indian columnist Kapil Komireddi describes the situation last year in the Guardian newspaper:
“For decades Indian intellectuals have claimed that religion, particularly Hinduism, is perfectly compatible with secularism. Indian secularism, they said repeatedly, is not a total rejection of religion by the state but rather an equal appreciation of every faith. Even though no faith is in principle privileged by the state, this approach made it possible for religion to find expression in the public sphere, and, since Hindus in India outnumber adherents of every other faith, Hinduism dominated it. Almost every government building in India has a prominently positioned picture of a Hindu deity. Hindu rituals accompany the inauguration of all public works, without exception.
The novelist Shashi Tharoor tried to burnish this certifiably sectarian phenomenon with a facile analogy: Indian Muslims, he wrote, accept Hindu rituals at state ceremonies in the same spirit as teetotallers accept champagne in western celebrations. This self-affirming explanation is characteristic of someone who belongs to the majority community. Muslims I interviewed took a different view, but understandably, they were unwilling to protest for the fear of being labelled as “angry Muslims” in a country famous for its tolerant Hindus. ”
The author also describes how “Indian Muslims in particular have rarely known a life uninterrupted by communal conflict or unimpaired by poverty and prejudice.”
@Riaz Haq
There are two distinct schools of thought in India on secularism: one is the Congress’ brand of all-inclusive secularism, which leads to the kind of practice that you have described. The other is the normal type and practice that excludes religion – any and all religion, and their symbols and signifiers – from public vision.
Your complaint is justly placed against the former. There are many Indians who object to this variety of secularism, which makes little or no sense to secularists who wish to avoid the seepage of religious practices into public life.
@ylh
“When Ghamidi now says that Islam does not obligate the believer to establish an Islamic state, I see that as progress……”
You made the above statement in a comment but within ur article did not acknowledge that one of the mentioned reformers’ (Mirza Ghulam Ahmed) reform agenda rested on this principle also, predating Ghamdi by a few decades. Mirza’s focus was on the spiritual revolution of each Muslim on an individual level, for which no top down “political Islam” approach is needed. His view on Jihad was also an extension (of sorts) of this philosophy. Although ur mention of two of his followers is valid (esp. Dr. Salam as his religio-scientific inspiration may have stemmed from Mirza’s philosophy regarding the relationship of the physical to the spiritual) it would have been pertinent, within the context of the article’s topic, to mention the name of the prominent Lahore Ahmadi, Maulana Muhammad Ali (the first Muslim to translate the Quran into English), who has argued on the concept of a moral democracy in Islam. In fact much of what the Ghamdi school of thought is currently expounding is strikingly similar to what Muhammad Ali wrote until his death in 1953. Given that the works of Muhammad Ali have been certified by Al-Azhar Univeristy (the late Shiekh Tantawi was a fan) and the Arabic translations of the same are being used as text books there, the impact of this follower of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad on Islamic Revival may not be apparent in Mullah infested countries like Pakistan where Ahmadis have been forcefully shut out of public discourse, but is becoming apparent elsewhere in the Muslim Ummah (eg. the changing Muslim stance on Jihad in the West pointed out by some other posters earlier.)
my idea is puritanical secularism (based on importance of individual as opposed to community, such as in west) leaves us very poor. I feel everything should be celebrated rather than being excluded.
If i need not be Italian to enjoy pizza, or Indian to CBM then why cannot one enjoy islam and christianity being a hindu.
@karunx
Individuals should be able to celebrate as individuals whatever is legal within the state, including practicing their religion. But a state that claims to be secular should not favor or endorse one particular faith over other faiths, even if it happens to be the faith of the majority. Display of Hindu deities and use of Hindu rituals by India’s “secular” state clearly crosses the line.
Hindu deities do not decorate government buildings at least not of the government buildings that I am familiar with, but Hindu rituals have over the last two decades replaced the tape cutting ceremonies while inaugurating public projects. That is definitely unsecular and arises when the Hindu mind confutes Indian with Hindu.
Let the state restrict its interest to providing security to the citizens, to providing prompt and uncorrupted justice, to providing a cleaner, healthier and greener environment, to building the infrastructure, to consolidating the economy and to improving the image of the country on the global stage.
As for Religion, God will take care of it. He will reform and revive it, as He chooses. He always has. If we stop meddling in His business, I’m sure He’ll help us out of the mess we’ve created by mixing Religion and Politics.
It is a huge improvement since days gone by, that there is mention of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed and the readers are not going into a tantrum, calling it blasphemy. Taking on board opinions of contributors from across the border by Sikh or Hindu is also a healthy sign. Whether these contributions are surfacing due the fear of an impending threat to their recently acquired economic competency, or for an open ended intellectual dialogue seems hard to ascertain at this juncture. I hope that our historical prejudices will not stand in the way of welcoming such disparate thoughts and luckily forums such as this are not bound by time constraints and everyone gets an opportunity to speak to their hearts content some off the cuff and others with their very considered research.
The question is do we hope to accrue any practical advantages thereof, most people are here under pseudonyms and we don’t know if they have any political leverage or executive authority. It would be a pity if all of this is lost to the archives of cyberspace.
@Midfield Dynamo
Taking on board opinions of contributors from across the border by Sikh or Hindu is also a healthy sign. Whether these contributions are surfacing due the fear of an impending threat to their recently acquired economic competency, or for an open ended intellectual dialogue seems hard to ascertain at this juncture.
You might consider asking such contributors.
They – some of them – might be able to answer coherently and logically, giving due weight to the individual personalities who contribute the most often. Or they might not.
Why not try and see what is the result?
Incidentally, without sounding too cheesy, your contributors from across the border – discounting the Chinese, Afghans, Iranians, Emiratis, Sinhala and Bangladeshis just for a brief moment – are Indians.
Of these regulars, you have a Sikh, two Hindus, coincidentally from the same provenance and of precisely opposed political, social and religious views, a Muslim and a gentleman, the person most deferred to, who has not declared an affiliation to any religion, and whom nobody dares to ask.
They number among them workers in information technology, doctors, industrialists and very senior persons from administration.
The question is do we hope to accrue any practical advantages thereof, most people are here under pseudonyms and we don’t know if they have any political leverage or executive authority. It would be a pity if all of this is lost to the archives of cyberspace.
This was actually addressed in a recent thread.
The answer was more or less on the lines that if anything concrete emerged, those with access to decision-influencing circles would ensure that the idea was heard and given attention.
A minority opinion felt that even writing for the archives of cyberspace was not a totally wasteful exercise, but due to the nature of the interactions that these produced, they would contribute to a generally helpful climate of opinion, initially in the minds of people engaged in this discourse on both sides.
@Riaz Haq
you are beating around the bush for inconsequential things.
As Hayyer pointed out earlier, no hindu deities adorn govt. offices. Its a figment of your imagination.
As far as Hindu rituals, you are supposed to fight against ‘lighting a lamp’!!, or breaking a coconut! Sounds useless to me that someone should get worked out bcos of this.
You should ponder why jesuits follow indian traditions in their churches and Mother Teresa’s missionaries of charity wear sarees.
Cultural symbols are often mistaken for religious ones and sometimes they do co-exist.
Hayyer:
India is Hindu, whether anyone says so or not.
The Muslims certainly think so. Otherwise why Pakistan?
Why do MUSLIM Kashmiris want to secede?
The question is, can India be a tolerantly Hindu nation, as the UK is tolerantly Protestant.
Muslims complain of non-secularism only when they are a minority.
This stand has zero credibility.
You can’t get if you don’t give.
Still stoking the bonfire of banality eh, Ganpat?
Ganpat Ram:
I am still not clear what exactly you mean? India is a predominantly Hindu country in that over 80% of its people are Hindus. The Hindu ethos seeps in everywhere, naturally, as say Christianity does in the US. And it seeps in sometimes as in those bhumi pujan and inauguration ceremonies of the public sector, though lighting a lamp instead of cutting a ribbon may have nothing overtly Hindu about it even if Hindu derived. I am not sure about breaking coconuts. They used to launch ships by breaking a bottle of champagne on its hull and Gandhian India decided to use coconuts.
Beyond that I am afraid it means nothing to say that India is a Hindu country. Not J&K, not Punjab, not Arunachal, Nagaland, Mizoram, Meghalaya and certainly not Bengal and Assam.
North Indian culture and language again is influenced by Islam so deeply that it would be a travesty to call it Hindu.
If you mean that India is a Hindu political entity then I think you would have to line up in the ranks of the Hindutva vadis who are, self admittedly, only aspirational as yet; but in that case you are not only proleptic, but also in cloud cuckoo land.