Pak Tea House » Pakistan » Law Unto Themselves
Law Unto Themselves
Courtesy Daily Times.
Ahmad Shah Abdali, the hero of our Pakistani textbooks and a first-class marauder, would have wondered what all the fuss was about when his contemporaries Edmund Burke and Fox took Robert Clive to task in the English parliament for his corruption
All England Law Reports — the most reliable record of English case law — date back to 1558. Recorded case law dates back another 400 years prior to that. In 1558, the English began to see the benefit of compiling and publishing case law for easy reference.
Institutions like Lincoln’s Inn had already been serving the legal community since the 13th century when a papal decree forbade clergy from teaching common law, thereby separating temporal law from the church. Thus, by the time All England Law Reports were being organised, the modern English legal system was already into its third or fourth century. Consider, then, that in 1558, Mughal emperor Akbar the Great ruled as a despot with a remarkable concentration of power and Suleiman the Magnificent ruled the Ottoman Empire as God’s shadow on earth. These two great monarchs were literally the law, while in England, the greatest queen to rule the western world, ruled limited by the Magna Carta — arguably the world’s first modern constitution.
Civilisations are not built overnight. The British Empire was the greatest empire in human history precisely because the English had disciplined themselves into a realm of laws long before others. While the extravagant absolutists who ruled from Constantinople to Delhi, acting on their whims, even the best of them, the queens and kings of England ruled responsibly, allowing fullest expression to ideas of liberty, citizenship and the social contract. Thus, while Aurangzeb Alamgir was getting his brother trampled under an elephant and having his elderly father’s eyes gouged out, John Locke was writing his treatise on the true end of government and when Aurangzeb Alamgir was executing the Sikh Gurus, the English parliament was passing the bill of rights.
Feeling against ancient tyrannies was palpable and while, purely for economic reasons, 13 North American colonies rose up against the British Empire, it was the culmination of a process grounded in the age-old ancient English idea of justice and fair play. The colonies cried out: “No taxation without representation”. This was around the same time the saying in the plains of Punjab was, “Whatever we eat and drink is ours, the rest belongs to Ahmad Shah Abdali.” Ahmad Shah Abdali, the hero of our Pakistani textbooks and a first-class marauder, would have wondered what all the fuss was about when his contemporaries Edmund Burke and Fox took Robert Clive to task in the English parliament for his corruption. Many of our modern day Ahmad Shah Abdalis still would not understand. Even the much touted lawyers’ movement has failed to instil the sense of justice and fair play that fired up Burke and Fox in the closing decades of the 18th century.
There are some who are driven by a vague sense of anti-imperialism and an unfortunate romantic idea of the independence movement. Under Sir Syed Ahmed Khan’s guidance, the Muslims of the subcontinent prospered. Even in his day the great Sir Syed was abused by the likes of Jamaluddin Afghani — the Pan-Islamist revolutionary. Today, the Aga Khan is similarly abused because he stands as a voice of reason and solitary light in a sea of darkness. He is denounced as a lackey of foreign powers by the likes of Jamaat-e-Islami.
It is forgotten, of course, that even today many of our people are forced to live in conditions far worse than feudal England. This is particularly true of places where the British influence during the Raj was limited. The people there are bound by horrendous customs and are left to subsist below a reasonable human level. The excuse given to them is a religious one and the way out is also religious. Mullahs and pirs, our witchdoctors and shysters, mislead the people into accepting their lot. The reaction is even worse — Taliban recruitment. The Taliban give the dirt poor an opportunity to stand up on the authority of religion. In its callousness, the rich Anglophone Pakistani elite has shot itself in the foot.
The solution is for us to take stock of our situation honestly and without any illusions. First and foremost, we must realise that civilisation is one and indivisible and our attempts to stall progress by hiding behind non-existent ‘Eastern values’ and religious excuses is simply indicative of our inability to accept change. Secondly, we must understand that borrowing is an essential part of the human experience and that we ought not to reinvent the wheel. Third, as Pakistanis, we must embrace again, wholeheartedly, the finer elements of our magnificent British heritage: modern institutions and a first rate legal system. Finally, we must realise that, as citizens of the world in the 21st century, we have certain obligations to our people as well as to the world. We cannot live in isolation and in an integrated world, we cannot forever keep our people mired in ignorance and as second and third class citizens in their own country.
Yasser Latif Hamdani is a lawyer. He also blogs at http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com and can be reached at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com
Filed under: Pakistan
92 Responses to "Law Unto Themselves"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- MA
said Hehehe, Well-said wolf. Its funny, I mean what th... - 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...
@Gorki
I’m sorry, I seem to have got your arguments back to front. You may assign this error to a forced choice of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics with Additional Mathematics during school, to the exclusion of other preferred topics.
”’Once you make it the source of inspiration for legislation you are not far from Zia””
No the difference is quiet sizeable. Zia tried to centralise, codify and bring the discourse of Sharia under total and utter state control. He used the coercive nature of the State to foster religioisity. He undermined the independent integrity of the Sharia.
There is practically no epistemological similarity between Zia’s authortarian project and the liberal-juristic project some Muslim intellectuals have proposed which I was talking about. The only basic difference is that we engage with the Sharia, but that’s where the simlarity ends.
In the model I was talking about the clergy have no priveleged place, they are entitled to enter the public sphere within the democratic discourse and public discussion but should not expect their views to be automatically accepted or given special treatment.
Excellent write up,
We are led to believe tales of peace and prosperity in our collective past. But these seem to be exagerrated claims of a nation that is trying to justify its Islamisation by providing false examples of previous rules.
Technically speaking, one should follow an example that they have around them, not some fictious tale of past glories which seems to be dubious at best.
We should take heed from others and follow their pattern in order to emerge as a prosperous and progressive nation.
they are entitled to enter the public sphere within the democratic discourse and public discussion but should not expect their views to be automatically accepted or given special treatment.
they enter the public sphere and then they call you a murtad and kafir and an enemy of god. have you lynched or hounded out. how do you argue with god and those who claim to speak for him and label you an enemy of god? how is that recognisable as any kind of meaningful debate or rational discourse? without god being equal to other participants in the debate, and – ideally – speaking for himself if he must, how can you have a fair debate?
this might be people abusing or misusing religion or god. but how can you guarantee that they won’t?
indeed, it is the state’s job to ensure law and order and not allow any breach of the peace (nor of the law). but a ‘soft secular’ state is that much more likely to lose its nerve under the threat of being labelled a murtad and kafir state than a ‘hard secular’ one.
”but how can you guarantee that they won’t?’
The fact that the clerics will have no political power and will not be priveleged by the State means their threats (in the case they do threaten) will be insignificant and can count as disrupting the public order.
If the clerics have no political power they cannot threaten. The State can step in when the rights of others are being impinged upon by others, and if clerics impinge on the rights of other citizens because of the misuse of their rights they can be penalised.
A ”soft” and ”hard” secular state both emphasize the institutional divide between Religion and State, the difference is in attitudes to the public sphere.
Pakistan was a “soft” secular state which buckled under that pressure. Turkey didn’t. Hence the difference.
”Pakistan was a “soft” secular state which buckled under that pressure. Turkey didn’t”’.
The story is more complex than that, and we sometimes exaggerate the issue of secularism at the expense of democracy. The two are not the same.
Soft secularism (constitutional secularism itself) never took off in Pakistan, hence the frenzy of the ”Islamic State” and ”Islamic Republic”. Even under the notion of soft secularism, a state religion, and a religious state is unfeasible.
By all legal definitions Pakistan was a “soft secular state” from 1947-1956…
Constitutional secularism did not sustain because of the “soft” nature of Pakistani secularism, so susceptible to assault by “pakistan ka matlab kiya” confusion.
One must admit a glaring mistake if one makes it…
It wasn’t Robert Clive… but Governor General Warren Hastings who was taken to task by Edmund Burke.
Even under the notion of soft secularism, a state religion, and a religious state is unfeasible.
if ‘soft’ secularism means the Objectives’ Resolution, then we know what follows – both quickly and eventually. If the OR has no place in secularism, ‘soft’ or ‘hard’, then what we had before that was jinnah’s august 11 speech and the GoI of 1935. i don’t know if you consider either to be incompatible with ‘soft’ secularism.
Yasser Pai,
One must admit a glaring mistake if one makes it etc…
And also about Alamgir sb gouging out his father’s eyes or trampling his brother under elephants as bade miyan pointed out.
Regards
Well Dara Shikoh’s head and an elephant were involved in the nasty transaction according to Abraham Eraly’s “Great Mughals”. Good enough for me.
As for Shah Jahan’s eyes being gouged out …I am not the first person to claim this. This has been claimed by many people.
Yasser Pai,
As for Shah Jahan’s eyes being gouged out …I am not the first person to claim this. This has been claimed by many people.
You will believe any tale fabricated against Moslems, that’s all.
Regards
@YLH
Turkey is buckling now so no guarantees.
In any case, it’s more realistic to think that Pakistanis may be more comfortable with accepting a soft secular state over time (hopefully asap) than become a hard secular state through a revolution. This comfort would be derived from at least some historic familiarity with that concept (even though it was a very poor experience).
If there was ever a revolution, the result is likely to be an Islamist dictatorship (based on the evidence that is around us) rather than a hard secular state.
As I see it, I think the current trajectory is towards more and more Islamic radicalism of the mainstream public opinion – although Pakistani democracy is a welcome change and provides a positive counter narrative and the courts are providing some outlet to public frustrations.
Dear Khalid Sahab:
In a very short period you have contributed substantially to this site. Here at PTH we been used to the generic brand of “secularism” which has meant different things to different people. Your introduction of the terms like “soft secularism” and “hard secularism” adds new meanings to the discourse.
We have understood Mustafa Kemal Pasha – the Ata-e-Turk as a secularist. Perhaps under the definition he could be further classified as “hard secularist” and our own Baba-e-Pak Mohammad Ali Jinnah as “soft secularist”. While Turkey in one hundred years has moved from the position of “hard secularism” to “soft secularism” we in Pakistan under Bhutto, Zia, Benazir and Nawaz have moved from “soft secularism” to a “soft-theocracy”. What lasting impact Musharraf and the follow-ups will have on our national life is perhaps too early to say. My hope is that we move back to “soft secularism”. Thanks.
I wrote about the secularism with a small s and secularism with a capital S.
Also the difference between Ataturk’s secularism and Jinnah’s secularism.
I have nothing against soft secularism except that it does not work against Islamist tyranny.
Majumdar (July 21, 2010 at 3:28 pm, and July 21, 2010 at 4:08 pm):
What is your problem sir. Must you always be a stickler.
In Pakistan we have propaganda masquerading as history. We are not interested in history. We are interested in propaganda. The Islamists are particularly programmed that way but there is no exclusivity.
What I see here is a nice theoretical exercise. At least on the Internet ‘soft secular’ Islam will live and survive, well in the archives at least.
Jiska danda, ussi ki bhains!
The Islamic extremists have guns, lots of guns. The Pakistani Army has a cadre rising to the highest ranks in a few years, who would be the children of the Zia Revolution. They too would be Islamic extremists. They too have guns, lots of guns.
It is their versions of Islam, which will become the dominant version. Even today, Deobandis are chewing the Barelvis, the Ahl-e-Hadees are chewing up the Deobandis. Within 15 years, Pakistan would be a completely Talibanized society.
The Pakistani Liberals’ solution consists of moderating the fire that burns in Islam, but the Islamists would always have more oil than the few drops of water the liberals bring along.
Moderation has only existed in Islam either where it was recently introduced and the local pre-Islamic populace was of moderate world view (soft-secularism) or if some enlightened general forced moderation (hard secularism).
The Pakistanis are way down the road for a soft-secularism and the power-than-be are too vested to the system for the enlightened general to appear.
All this ijtihad is only for the books and blogs but has no meaning on the ground. Face the facts. Islam in Pakistan will only become more extreme. Accept it. The only contribution you can make is to treat your wives a little better.
There is misunderstanding. Soft secularism does not mean that the State buckles under pressure from religious forces. It means that yes there is an absolute and uncompromising division between religion and State. In this respect hard and soft secularism are the same in regards to the nature of the State.
The public sphere and the State are two different things, the confusion lies in confusing and conflating the two.
However, the difference is the attitude towards the public sphere. I think soft secularism has a more democratic attitude to the public sphere when it comes to religiously based convictions than hard secularism.
Our grasp of secularity has to be mindful of diversity and different perpsectives in the paradigmatic analysis of religion and state (if you introduce the public sphere, it can be seen as a tripartite relationship).
There is no one ”secularism”, yes there are some key principles but there can be different models as contemporary sociologists and political theorists have noted.
Raj mian no religion – certainly not Islam- will continue to have the hold you imagine- nay want – it to have.
Pakistan’s future is a normal secular society just like every confessional state in Europe ultimately went secular.
The problem in ijtihad is not winning the theological argument, but rather having the necessary muscle on the street.
As long as the moderates do not have the street power, nothing is going to happen.
If the extremists push you, you have to push back!
Dear Vajra, Bade Miyan:
In my effort to make a point about the weakness of our education system I wrote a small post in haste which itself was not very clear (perhaps demonstrating my own lack of training in humanities
).
Therefore when I wrote the following “No math or physics wizard, no matter how gifted, can possibly bring such unbiased clarity of arguments nor the breadth of information that comes from training in humanities” I did not mean to imply that math training somehow stunts critical thinking in humanities (Bertrand Russell is an excellent example) but rather that an education that focuses solely on developing one’s skills in crunching numbers leaves one unschooled in ideas and concepts that require a knowledge of the wider human experience and historical background.
My post was indeed meant to be read with the qualifiers that BM suggested. More specifically, I do not have a problem with teaching Physics Chemistry Math etc. but with teaching those solely while minimizing the need for humanities and liberal arts.
Also, in addition to having a problem with what is not taught, I have a problem with how the subjects are taught (as BM suggested). There was an article published recently, I think in the Newsweek which mentioned that while India produced more engineers than the US, only one third of those received the same quality of education and as a result many lacked the skill sets needed in today’s economy. An extreme opinion held by some is that even the much admired IITs produce tech leaders not because they provide good education but because they have entrance exams that are very competitive and thus are an excellent way to select out exceptional students.
Most education even in higher levels in India (Pakistan?) is based on memorizing a large number of facts and figures handed down and internalized uncritically.
The result is that in technical fields we produce technicians and rather than leaders in science.
The record is much worse in humanities and as a result we produce citizens and many leaders who substitute emotion to deal with situations which need rational thinking. The recent controversy about Jaswant Singh’s book is a glaring but not an isolated example. We routinely ban ‘controversial’ books to keep peace and yell loudly when someone says something not in line with the official historic hagiography. A few years ago Manmohan Singh very mildly praised the British rule in India while at an official function at Nehru’s former alma mater and was roundly criticized before he beat a hasty retreat. Other examples abound.
I believe such an education and consequently the way of thinking is inadequate and needs to be rethought. We should raise students and citizens who can calmly understand our own history including the effect of Islamic ideas, the Mughal\Afghan experience in much of North India and specifically the British rule in the context of the larger human experience.
It was in this frame of mind I asked AZW to write about the economic evolution of India under the British rule.
I believe there are valuable lessons there.
Regards.
Turkey is buckling now so no guarantees.
the first lady wearing or not wearing a scarf is not what a secular state is necessarily about. other than govt’s failed attempt at lifting the head scarves on campus ban, what real evidence do we have of this alleged ‘buckling’? but what real evidence do we have of the actual diluting or amendment of the Turkish version of laicite?
in france, head scarves are banned in schools, not in universities. both the turkish and french states fund religious educational institutions (sunni and catholic, respectively).
YLH, Pakistan’s future is a normal secular society just like every confessional state in Europe ultimately went secular.
I sincerely hope so. The challenge to the status quo will likely come from something the current dispensation does not even see. One possibility: the sudden and dramatic increase in mobile connectivity. The fallout of 80-90% of the population that is addressable by SMS cannot be underestimated. It could serve as a basis for grassroots political activism for someone who can pull it together.
Not sure if the folks at PTH are politically active. Folks like you are a crying need in Pakistan today. The political spectrum is currently Far Right and Even Further Right. Centrist and Left-of-Center ideas are completely missing from the discourse. Even though I subscribe to Even Further Right, I understand the need for checks and balances. You guys do a great job of articulating those positions.
Pakistan’s mobile connectivity is 55 percent of the population.
For 170 million population we have 95 million cell phone connections.
Pakistan has one of the highest densities of cell phone users in the world.
It doesn’t help.
Pakistan has one of the highest densities of cell phone users in the world.
It’s an enabler that did not exist before.
It doesn’t help.
Too early to say. The serendipities and (positive) unintended consequences are still to be discovered. Here’s an example of venture capitalist with access to big money salivating over the possibilities.
@bciv
It’s true secularism is not buckling (and initial fears are not panning out) but hard secularism – where all possibility of political expression of religion is strictly kept out from state institutions is buckling in my view.
As one piece of anecdotal evidence, see below the reaction of the Army top brass to appointment of Pres. Gul from AKP (the islamic secularist party) to the post of President in 2007.
“In Kayseri, the town where Mr Gul was born, crowds celebrated around an Ottoman fortress where giant portraits of the new president and Ataturk hung side by side.
But amid the euphoria, tensions were already surfacing between Mr Gul and the army, which lobbied hard to prevent his presidency. In an ominous sign, the top brass boycotted his oath-taking ceremony.
A day earlier, General Yasar Buyukanit, the chief of general staff, aired his displeasure about the expected outcome of the vote. He spoke of “sinister plans” and “dens of evil” that were bent on eroding secularism and the unitary nature of the Turkish state.
The armed forces would not hesitate to continue in their duty of “safeguarding the Turkish republic”, he added.
Mr Gul’s earlier bid for the presidency in April failed after millions of pro-secular Turks protested.”
Gorki (July 21, 2010 at 9:18 pm):
Sir, yours is the voice of reason as always. Please allow me to cut & paste:
“We [in India] should raise students and citizens who can calmly understand our own history including the effect of Islamic ideas, the Mughal/Afghan experience in much of North India”
Judging from most of the comments posted here at PTH by the Indian commenters regarding Muslim period of India, your advise is not misplaced. As you have said, Indians must analyse that particular period of their history rationally and with calm understanding. Dismissing Muslim rulers of the past simply as despots and marauder will not do. One must go beyond one’s own raw emotions.
@Tilsim (July 22, 2010 at 12:01 am)
Turkey does indeed provide a good case to be studied by Pakistan. While the challenge before Ataturk was to dismantle the pro-theocratic environment, the challenge in front of Jinnah was to prevent the genesis of such an environment in the newly-born state. It is interesting to note that without the involvement of the Turkish Military, the resilience of the politically ambitious clergy could not be neutralized.
More recently, Bangla Desh has performed the most impressive, in fact admirable feat – first the reversal of the 5th amendment and then banning of Maudoodis books.
@ bin ismail
Pakistan should definitely follow in Bangladesh’s footsteps.
Mubarak,
How about Indonesia? I am surprised no one has mentioned it as yet.
Bin Ismail:
Sir, while I agree with you that here in Pakistan we must study Turkey as a case history in order to understanding our own political developments, I will like you to re-examine your ‘July 22, 2010 at 6:26 am’ post.
Ataturk (1923) did not simply set out “to dismantle the pro-theocratic environment” as you have put it but to modernise what ever was left of the Ottoman (Usmania) Empire. In 1923-24 Turkey there was no theocratic or pro-theocratic environment to be dismantled. There was no “politically ambitious clergy” in 1923 Turkey. Ataturk did not face any such challenge.
Similarly Jinnah, even though initially opposed by some sections of the clergy, did not have a “theocratic” challenge to face. By 1947 Pakistan areas of the Empire were already being run under a modern European-English system. All of her institutions were set and running on modern lines. The Islamist challenge comes later in post-Jinnah years.
While Turkey after independence moved from backwardness to modernity, Pakistan after independence moved from modernity to backwardness. In the post-colonial period, (1960s onward) the rulers of newly independent Muslim states from North Africa to Far East aligned themselves with their former colonial masters and in many cases became their neo-colonial cohorts. Islamist Movements through out the Muslim World were born as a reaction of this development. Turkey and Pakistan were no exception, even though with different results.
And about banning of Jamaat-e-Islami material in Bangladesh. It is more for the political reasons than for the religious reasons. Banning books will not solve the political problems of that country.
@PMA (July 22, 2010 at 6:59 pm)
1.”…..While Turkey after independence moved from backwardness to modernity, Pakistan after independence moved from modernity to backwardness…..”
Agreed. Turkey was able to move “from backwardness to modernity” because its leadership was able to neutralize the ever-aspiring pro-backwardness clergy. Pakistan’s movement, on the other hand was retrogressive. Why? Because the leadership failed in neutralizing the clergy, whose negative influence thereafter increased exponentially.
The mainstay of the Turkish Sultanate/Caliphate was the extremely influential clergy. Even as the Sultanate/Caliphate ceased to exist, the latent pro-theocratic forces carried on until they were systematically dismantled by Ataturk. This was quickly followed by Turkey’s movement from, as you’ve put it, “backwardness to modernity”.
2. “…..Banning books will not solve the political problems of that country…..”
If the books promote religious intolerance and bigotry and coercion, there banning would indeed help solve a lot of political and societal problems.
Bade Miyan
July 22, 2010 at 8:25 am
“How about Indonesia? I am surprised no one has mentioned it as yet.”
Indonesia: Essay: “Is secularism a choice?” by Ali Noer Zaman
Source: Common Ground News Service
“Indonesia in the post-Suharto era has maintained the Pancasila, a political ideology comprised of the belief in one God, humanity, the unity of Indonesia, democracy and social justice. However, demands for the implementation of shari’a remain audible…”
“During his one-month visit to Indonesia between July and August 2007, Professor Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, a Sudanese Muslim intellectual who now teaches at Emory School of Law in the United States, campaigned for Muslim countries to adopt a secular system of governance. In this system, the state is not based on specific religious teachings, whose interpretations, he argues, are monopolised by the authority. The state would also not intervene in the religious beliefs and practices of its subjects, with the possible exception of donating aid to religious institutions.
An-Na’im disagrees with the efforts of those political and social organisations that champion for the adoption of shari’a, a political system based on Islamic principles. He believes that shari’a is based on time-bound religious interpretations from scholars of previous eras. These antiquated interpretations have many shortcomings, such as the relegation of women and non-Muslims to the role of second-class citizens in society.
Indeed, the debate over secular versus Islamic states in the Muslim world is not a new one, and has raged on since the abolishment of the Ottoman caliphate in 1924. In Egypt, the Islamic scholar Ali Abdul al-Raziq provoked controversy with his book Islam wa Ushul al Hukm (Islam and the Fundamentals of Government), in which he stated that the main message of the Prophet Muhammad has to do only with religious matters, while mundane affairs are relegated to the ummah (Muslim community). He rejected the unification of religious and administrative affairs under the control of a caliph who serves as a successor to the Prophet.
It is likely not by chance that An-Naim chose to make this speech in Indonesia, a country with a long history of secular nationalism that still struggles with calls for the implementation of a state governed by religious laws.
Sukarno (1901-1970), the first president of the Republic of Indonesia and a secular nationalist, was the first Indonesian Muslim leader who triggered the discourse on the separation of religion from politics, rejecting Islam as political ideology, and preferring secular democracy as a foundation for the country’s government. For him, Islam within a secular state would not be marginalised, but would instead function as the moral force of the Muslim community.
In response, Muhammad Natsir (1908-1993), an Indonesian scholar known for his Islamist orientation, believed that Islam and the state are inextricably linked; the first being an ideology of the second. In practice, the state has to be controlled by the Muslim authority because it is a medium through which to implement Islamic orders, such as those regulating zakat (alms), religious marriage and the banning of alcohol and adultery.
As Suharto’s New Order administration (1967-1998) reinforced modernisation, the Muslim community in general suspected it as having a hidden agenda to mitigate the role of Islam in socio-political life. To get out of the deadlock, the young thinker Nurcholish Madjid (1939-2005) made a breakthrough by proposing the idea that Islamic values could be realised through spiritual and cultural development. Categorising Islam as a political ideology would only trap the religion in political interest conflicts. In his words: Islam, yes; Islamic political parties, no.
Indonesia in the post-Suharto era has maintained the Pancasila, a political ideology comprised of the belief in one God, humanity, the unity of Indonesia, democracy and social justice. However, demands for the implementation of shari’a remain audible as many Muslim social organisations seek to integrate facets of shari’a by hiding them within an amendment to chapter 29 of the 1945 constitution, which says that the Muslim community should practice its religion fully and through local regulations.
In a 2002 national survey conducted by the Centre for Research of Islam and Community at Syarif Hidayatullah State University, Indonesia’s Muslim community also demonstrated growing interest in an Islamic state. In this study, for example, 71% of respondents supported the implementation of shari’a in Indonesia. However, it is worth noting that only 33% agreed with cutting off a thief’s hand as punishment for stealing, which some would argue is a quintessential example of shari’a at work. These findings indicate that though the majority of respondents diverge in their understanding of what shari’a, would look like.
In addition, the result of the democratic elections of 1999 and 2004 suggest that the majority of Indonesians are still loyal to nationalist secular parties such as the Golkar Party, also known as the Party of the Functional Groups, and the Indonesian Democratic Party of the Struggle, instead of Islamic-based parties such as the United Development Party and the Prosperous Justice Party.
Also, a national poll conducted by the Indonesian Survey Institute earlier in October revealed decreased support for Islamic radical organisations such as the Jamaat Islamiah, Defenders Front for Islam, Indonesian Hizbut Tahrir and the Indonesian Martyrs Council for a variety of reasons, including the lack of financial resources and the incapability to translate Islamic values into socio-political movements.
If these polling results are any indication, Indonesia is unlikely to become an Islamic state anytime in the near future.”
23 October 2007
Ali Noer Zaman is a writer on socio-religious issues. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews)
Another interesting blog on this topic:
http://www.indonesiamatters.com/495/separation-of-state-religion/
Some light relief cross posted from an Indonesian blog..
Riyoz Says:
March 18th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
“Hence despite islam being mentioned as a religion of Peace, the followers did exactly the opposite.
Despite the Christians saying that Jesus spread Love, their followers did exactly opposite.”
hmmm….is it possible that it’s the people, not the religion ?…for to know that a religion is a peaceful religion or not you may have to study it’s core teachings directly from it’s source….that is the holy books….coz’ there are many, many bad and good people in this planet regardless of what their beliefs/religions are….and we cannot judge beliefs/religions just by looking at the actions of the adherents…..
just because a man who has a very bad driving skills, crashed while driving a ferrari, this doesn’t mean that a ferrari is not a good sport car does it ?….and I think, the same principles apply for religions/beliefs….
Shorty Says:
March 18th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
valid point riyoz. the compounding problem is that these ‘bad drivers’ believe we all should drive ferraris, and that they have the god given right to crash into anyone driving something else.
Shorty Says:
March 18th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
ps. people secure in their faith don’t fear, and can tolerate different beliefs.
dewaratugedeanom Says:
March 19th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Riyoz said
just because a man who has a very bad driving skills, crashed while driving a ferrari, this doesn’t mean that a ferrari is not a good sport car does it ?”¦.and I think, the same principles apply for religions/beliefs”¦.
But Ferraris, and in fact most cars, are constantly scrutinized to become better and safer while some religions – and you certainly know which one I mean – are not allowed to change because some prophet once proclaimed that his book was perfect and detailed for all times and that no one could come after him.
Would you still drive an obsolete car only because it’s brand name is Ferrari?
Beter put it on the scrap heap of history.
Riyoz Says:
March 19th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
“ps. people secure in their faith don’t fear, and can tolerate different beliefs”
Yap, you’re absolutely right…I agree…:)
Riyoz Says:
March 19th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
“But Ferraris, and in fact most cars, are constantly scrutinized to become better and safer while some religions – and you certainly know which one I mean – are not allowed to change because some prophet once proclaimed that his book was perfect and detailed for all times and that no one could come after him.
Would you still drive an obsolete car only because it’s brand name is Ferrari?
Beter put it on the scrap heap of history.”
obsolete ? is it ?….:)
Shorty Says:
March 19th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
dewaratugedeanom, riyoz….scrapping the ferrari doesn’t solve the problem………today’s ferrari is a vastly different machine to yesterday’s, yet it owes it’s provenance to it’s predecessors. intelligent people modified and built on it’s success.
the problem is not with the car, but with some of the drivers.
Riyoz Says:
March 19th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
“dewaratugedeanom, riyoz”¦.scrapping the ferrari doesn’t solve the problem”¦”¦”¦today’s ferrari is a vastly different machine to yesterday’s, yet it owes it’s provenance to it’s predecessors. intelligent people modified and built on it’s success.
the problem is not with the car, but with some of the drivers.”
again, I agree….and perhaps those ‘bad drivers’ didn’t even bother to read the manual book that comes with the ferrari thoroughly and carefully….:)
Aluang Anak Bayang Says:
March 20th, 2008 at 6:36 am
again, I agree”¦.and perhaps those ‘bad drivers’ didn’t even bother to read the manual book that comes with the ferrari thoroughly and carefully”¦.:)
I have to disagree. Anyone who would fork out that kind of money would be a car enthusiastic or fanatic. Of course he would read the manual thoroughly and follow the instruction to the dot. .
dewaratugedeanom Says:
March 20th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Aluang said
He claimed he is licensed to perfect and improve the original prototype.
But still who would want to drive a car – whatever its name or make is – that according to its manual is not allowed to be repaired or improved upon, only because the mechanic who has built it said so?
I wouldn’t.
Lairedion Says:
March 20th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
@Mas Aluang,
But I’d rather walk than driving such a car…
Shorty Says:
March 20th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
let’s drop the ferrari analogy before we all vanish up our tailpipes.
do you want people to respect your beliefs? then respect theirs.
let new/alternative/confronting ideas be judged by the community at large – not by those interested in self perpetuation. let’s also ensure that those holding such a view/voice are able to speak uninhibited and without censure.
b4 we rush to legislation, think about the wisdom of pancasila, think about the true meaning of demokrasi
Bin Ismail (July 23, 2010 at 2:19 am):
Respectfully sir, in your effort to make your point about “negative role of clergy in a society” you are over-stressing the role and presence of Islam and Islamic clergy in Turkish society at the time of her independence. Turks, in any period, have never been known to be overly religious or dogmatic people. Even as the Caliphate was on its ‘sick bed’ there was no revivalist Islamic Movement as we see in the case of expiring Mughal Empire.
Modernization of Turkish society under Ataturk and in the following years took place in all spheres of life and not just religion. Ataturk chose to distance Turkey from the Muslim Middle East and Arabs and attempted to bring it closer to Europe. Religion was just one of the many social and cultural institutions brought under direct government control and supervision. Use of all other languages such as Arabic, Persian, Armenian, Greek and Kurdish were disallowed. This placed a negative effect on all religious and non-Turkish ethnic communities. You are probably familiar with the 1920s exodus of Armenian and Greek Orthodox Christian communities of Turkey.
We have to remember that Turkish Republic was born out of long Turkish War of Independence fought on many fronts. Islamic clergy was in no position to stake any claims on the newly born Turkish State. Turkish Military was the controlling force and not the Mullah or the Caliph.
Now look at the circumstances at the time of birth of Pakistan. Pakistan was won through a political and constitutional process and not through war. At the time of independence all of her civic and social institutions were modern and in-place. Although just like Turkey the non-Muslim population of (West)Pakistan had left, but unlike Turkey, Pakistan had received a new group of conservative Muslim clergy from India that greatly disturbed the religious balance. The Barelvi, Deobandi, Shia and Ahmadi clergy upon her arrival started to play an extremely negative role in their new country of choice. Pakistan became a battlefield of sectarian warfare as various sects competed for advantage point. Unrealistic and self-serving religious demands were put on a government that was still finding its way around. Pakistan slipped from modernity to backwardness. There was no Ataturk to save Pakistan from religious sectarian chaos.
How did the “shia” or “ahmadi clergy” play a role to Islamize Pakistan?
*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***
@PMA (July 23, 2010 at 7:23 pm)
Thank you.
1. “…..you are over-stressing the role and presence of Islam and Islamic clergy in Turkish society at the time of her independence…..”
You may like to go back to my previous post. I am not contending that the clergy had a great influence at the time of independence. The influence of the pro-Sultanate/Caliphate Clergy was hardly inconspicuous. What Ataturk did was to systematically and meticulously dismantle it, as soon as he took charge of things.
2. “…..The Barelvi, Deobandi, Shia and Ahmadi clergy upon her arrival started to play an extremely negative role in their new country …..”
The Deobandi clergy, yes but I wouldn’t share your perception on the negative role of the Ahmadi or Shia clergy.
Regards.
[...] Law Unto Themselves « Pak Tea House [...]
Let some non-math/science type author produce a book like Douglas Hofstadter’s “Gödel, Escher, Bach : An Eternal Golden Braid”, and then perhaps we may have an argument that is not a walk-over.