Pak Tea House » Uncategorized » Are India and Pakistan ideological enemies?
Are India and Pakistan ideological enemies?
By Dr. Niaz Murtaza (murtazaniaz@yahoo.com)
This article is motivated by the recent TV discussion between Raza Rumi and others posted on PTH. Some of the people in the program essentially argued that India is our ideological enemy and therefore we should cut off cultural contacts with them, especially Indian films. The parameters laid down by the anchor were that the discussion is about secular issues and to keep religion out.
Clearly, there is enmity between us, but is it ideological enmity? What is ideological enmity? For example, America and USSR were considered ideological enemies, while though Chad and Sudan are enemies, no one calls them ideological enemies. So what defines ideological enmity? An ideology is generally defined as a unique and fundamental set of ideas about doing or viewing things or a way of life. Viewed so, ideology could be about economic (e.g., capitalism vs. communism), political (e.g., democracy vs. totalitarianism), religious (e.g., monotheism vs. polytheism) and perhaps cultural issues. However, ideological enmity is not the same as having ideological differences. For example, Swaziland practices a monarchical system and USA democracy but they are not ideological enemies, just ideologically different. Ideological enmity arises when you compete for spreading your ideology with another ideological group regionally or globally, as were America and USSR.
So, first of all, are India and Pakistan even ideologically different? There is no ideological difference in the political and economic sense-both follow democracy and capitalism. Are we religio-ideologically different? Yes, but then the program was essentially about secular issues. Are we culturo-ideologically different? Take religion out of culture and there are hardly any differences between us on cultural issues. Perhaps the biggest cultural difference then would be that they are vegetarians and we are meat-lovers. But is this really the stuff of grand ideological differences or enmity? Clearly not. In fact, I don’t think it makes sense to talk about culturo-ideological differences or enmities in the same way as in the religious, political or economic sphere simply because cultures are less so starkly in clash. Perhaps you could more meaningfully talk about culture-ideological differences between the west and other cultures with the west being highly individualistic and others less so. However, while there may be some cultural differences here and there between indians and Pakistanis, they are not so stark to be considered culturo-ideological differences let alone enmity. They are just cultural variations which exist to some extent even inside pakistan or india, they both being so diverse (again when keeping religion out of the equation).
So the only sphere where there are ideological differences is in the religious realm, just as pakistan is ideologically different from a Buddhist majority, Christian majority country or any officially secular country. More importantly these religio-ideological differences are not the reason for the enmity between us. As I said, ideological differences are not the same as ideological enmity. The latter occurs when you compete to spread your ideology. India and pakistan are not competing to spread islam vs. Hinduism, say for example in Afghanistan where we do compete but for purely political influence. We are not even fighting on the merits or demerits of the two religions. We are basically fighting about Kashmir and some other minor political issues. So our enmity is purely political, not ideological.
There was also a discussion about why we decided to split, with some arguing that it happened because our way of life was so different (i.e., ideological differences), the main examples given being that we didn’t drink or eat each other’s stuff or married each other. True, but then almost every other thing we did do together. Additionally, these limited segregations existed since the very beginning. If the factors that caused this limited segregation were of so much importance to the musilms, why did they come to india in the first place or once they had come there and if they found those factors so important, why did they not go back? Simply because they did not consider the factors producing this limited segregation to be sufficiently important to opt for a deeper segregation, i.e., of having a different country. Muslims opted for a different country only once they felt, rightly or wrongly, that hindus would dominate in india because of their sheer numbers and more advanced education and not because they could not put up with the hindu way of life. Such political/economic domination fears exist in a lot of countries, for example, Bengalis felt the same way about west pakistan and opted out. so are they our ideological enemies? Clearly not. So, overall, there is little merit in the argument that we are ideological enemies. We are just political enemies based on territorial issues.
However, one could argue that even so there are justifications for cutting off linkages with India. The first one could be just egotistical, i.e., that they have grabbed Kashmir, so we should not talk to them, just as children behave when one grabs the toy of the other. I think the world is moving away from that stand point. More and more countries are realizing that territorial disputes should not come in between cultural and economic exchange as such exchanges could even help resolve the territorial disputes. China talks to india even though it claims himachal Pradesh, so do Russia and japan, china and japan, though all of them have some territorial disputes. Eritrea and Ethiopia don’t talk to each other because of territorial disputes. so it is now up to us whose approach we follow: China’s or Ethiopia/eritrea’s. I prefer the Chinese one as it is based on today’s realities while the other one is increasingly out of fashion.
The other justification given for cutting off relationships was that we are experiencing cultural hegemony from India, especially by bringing in Indian movies. Are we really? In what way is our culture getting threatened? Are we becoming increasingly vegetarian? I wish we were, for we would then be more healthy and environmentally friendly. But no, that is not happening. Are people in Pakistan converting to Hinduism due to cultural contacts? No. Yes, ladies copy some fashion from india, but then I think it is two-way and is that something that really threatens our culture that ladies copy each other’s shalwar qameez designs? We watch their movies a lot, true, but many Indians like Pakistani TV dramas. Lot of our artists perform over there. Yes, Indian movies are increasingly having vulgar scenes which we may not like (and even many Indians don’t), but that is true more for English movies and there is a simple remedy for that—the censor person’s scissors.
If one is really worried about cultural hegemony then the main threat is not india, for our cultures are so similar, but the middle east in the form of fundamentalism which is alien to pakistan with its sufi traditions and which is now destroying pakistan. Secondly, there is some cultural hegemony threat from the west. There are a lot of good cultural aspects about the west like fairness, work ethics. But others are less attractive such as over-individualism, over-materialism and over-rationalism. We should guard against those. And certainly we could do without unhealthy macfood and coke drinks. But I don’t see much in the Indian culture that is different and threatening for us.
The last argument could be just based on simple economic arithmetic—their films are destroying our industry (as the scope of justifications shrinks further and further!). So, we now come into trade issues. Overall, there are studies that show that pakistan will benefit more from free trade with india than india, for our industries in Punjab could supply northern india more cheaply than Indian industry since it is mainly located in south india. Then there is the specific issue about films. Was pak film industry destroyed by Indian films? Our industry was doing fine in the fifties and sixties when Indian movies were openly shown in pakistan and continued to do so for a few years more but then started failing in late 70s. but then that was because of the cultural wars waged by Zia. Why were Pakistani cinegoers preferring to see pirated, poor-copy-quality Indian movies cramped in a room on VCR at a neighbour’s house (for those born after the DVD age, this is how Indian movies used to be initially seen in pakistan in 1970s)? its because the quality of our movies went down. So should we attempt to support this industry by banning Indian movies? The main argument against that is that it is counterproductive and impossible to do so in today’s digital age. Better to make it legal and let govt and theater owners make some money and let people watch on large screen rather than driving it underground and letting smugglers benefit.
So I see little merit in the arguments in that show. This does not mean that the basic reason because of which there is enmity between us is superfluous. No, I clearly think that the basic Indian position on Kashmir is wrong. But I also think that we should resolve those differences maturely by dialogue and not by breaking cultural linkage and sending in terrorists. Do we send in terrorists? I think we used to although I believe the trend has gone down now but is not completely finished. Is RAW sending in terrorists to balochistan? Perhaps, and if it is the same argument applied to it.
Filed under: Uncategorized · Tags: India, Indian, Pakistan
195 Responses to "Are India and Pakistan ideological enemies?"
Leave a Reply
PTH biweekly Cartoon
Picture of the Week
-
Sunrise at the Arabian Sea, Charna Island
24 Dec 2011
(4 Comments)
Recent Comments
- Fingolfin
said @raza
again brilliant article!
i think that in a... - roamin
said Pakistanis need a bogey man. Hatred for Amrikis, J... - Babar Baig
said Can anyone please share the these books.
1) Mus... - Fingolfin said to observ
to term the bangladeshi's interpretatio...
- AKB said @ Bin Ismail
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[“The Light...
- AKB said @ Sachbol
BABY, DON'T UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER...
- AKB said @ rex minor
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[Any one with a com...
- AKB said The Mirzai's suffer from Bad Guilt!!
.
Good Guil...
- Syed said @Raj Too
Thank you very much indeed for the kin...
- Sachbol
said Kalchakra .
Good one , Did you notice how he inse...
PTH on facebook
[...] e Paquistão são inimigos ideológicos?”, pergunta [en] Dr. Niaz Murtaza no blog Pak Tea House. Para Murtaza, os dois países deveriam resolver suas [...]
I was fortunate enough to be brought to the attention of this website by one Razarumi with whom I exchange notes occasionally on twitter.
Thanks Razabhai for opening up my eyes to a Pakistan that I would not have imagined existed.. Let us together keep up this very interesting and honest debate going so that untruths and falsehoods are up against more hurdles to overcome to push their nefarious motives
Hayyer:
Pakistan and India will always be the ideological and moral enemies 1000 per cent! How any could be doubting that Fact I do not only know, even. How can a Country like Pakistan founded by our Qaid-e-Azaam on Islamic Truth be not total enemy with Hindu India founded on Bania money-money-money mentality by Gandhi the Biggest Bania?
Quaid-e-Azaam never cared for money. Not in the slightest.
Even Gandhi’s last Bogus fast was to demand Government of India to release funds!
What a money-mindedness!
Welcome back, Malik Sb, where have you been? You left me in the middle of a conversation on the glittering genius of Vajra and YLH (with Gorki also thrown in between). Hope we can get restarted on it.
Don’t mind Gandhi. If I can be frank about him (despite being an Indian) he is not worth your attention. Glad that you mentioned the last fast though. Do you know what he did with the funds? It’s so bad that I will just leave it as $%&$#$.
Its left hand fighting the right, where right reprsents divine (percieved) evil and the left reprseents evil (percieved) goodness. No matter who wins, at the minimum one hand has to go.
no-communal:
With total finalness I say to you: I Cannot agree your comment about such fine persons as YLH and Vajra. Their type is of a variety impossible for the Bania Mentality to dream about, even.
When Thought of Money is everything, you Cannot understand the Greatness which developed the Pakistan Conception, as per Quaid-e-Azaam. the power of mind is not there for that. YLH and Vajra can show the World what is there in the Genius of the Muslims.
What do you mean you say this with total finalness? There is so much more to learn. First, how do we get over the Bania Mentality and Thought of Money. How did you do it? Will horse racing help? Second, how do we develop power of mind? They say some things about yoga and meditation. Will they help? Third, how do we show the World the Genius of the Hindus? Do you think that is even possible?
Mr. Z. Malik,
I suggest you get hold of the Qaid-e-Azam Jinnah papers, editor-in-chief Z.H. Zaidi. There are plenty of letters there, in the middle of tumultuous events, Jinnah inquiring about his shares in various companies and sales of various properties. Nothing wrong with it, Jinnah was a wealthy man no doubt. But your claims are ridiculous.
Their type is of a variety impossible for the Bania Mentality to dream about, even.
A great blessing of Allah on the otherwise accursed banias!
Samachar:
Even the Great Muslims are totally failing to understand the Greatest Mind of our Quaid-e-Azaam. For that only YLH and Vajra have to give explanations. You think you can understand?
Not at at all. Not in the least.
Quaid-e-Azaam is too much money interested because look see he is buying shares in companies. That is the claim of you. Totally wrong.
Quaid-e-Azaam is buying shares why? To STOP Bania Gandhi from getting it. Gandhi was looking for shares here there and everywhere every minute. To use for his private greed and to undermine the honest Muslims.
That, Jinnah had to stop. Not for Money Money Money like Banias.
NC/Samachar etc,
Z Malik is a troll most likely an Indian Hindu reminds me of that Abdullah character who used to act like a Keralite Muslim.
Regards
Amar,
Did you stop taking your medication?
@Samachar
Malik Sb to Samachar:
“Even the Great Muslims are totally failing to understand the Greatest Mind of our Quaid-e-Azaam. For that only YLH and Vajra have to give explanations. You think you can understand?
Not at at all. Not in the least.”
Samachar, with all due respect to your scholarship and sagacity, Malik Sb. is right on this one. You are venturing into dangerous territory that even great Muslims fear to tread. And you think you can understand? Not at at all. Not in the least. Better for banias to count our shares, and leave the understanding part to the Greatest of all Muslims of our time.
@Malik Sb.
How do we develop power of mind? Can yoga and meditation help?
Majumdar bhai , good to see you here. This website looks like a newer version of chowk. Dont you get tired of the same hindu-muslim, India-Pak stuff that is played out day in and day out…. God such stuff makes me puke these days.
@Majumdar
See what I mean?
Ranger bhai,
No, some good discussions are still to be had here just as we had on chowk in its golden days. The best of the lot have already fled chowk and all we have these days are:
Prof Riaz ul Haq sb and some Indians indulging in pissing contests
Masadi sb abusing all and sundry.
My only regret is that I have not been able to convince my fellow thinking right-wingers- Zee sb, Chacha Boom Boom and Kaal bhai to take up residence here.
Btw, I dont see you either on chowk or desibukbuk. What’s up? Or are you posting under some other nick.
Regards
Majumdar bhai,
I have moved on
no-communal:
You are Hindu? Then you can Try to develop the Genius in the Mind by Yoga. But you Cannot succeed to achieve that. Only be reading the Books on Quad-e-Azaam can you Begin to see the Gleam only even, of far Genius. Read YLH and the Comments of Vajra. This is the Rightful Guidance.
Ganpat Ram:
Please b****r off.
one self proclaimed commie writes
“A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.
The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, inter-regional prejudice, gender and sexual orientation, homelessness, various medical disorders particularly behavioral disorders and addictive disorders, religion or spirituality and reality creation beliefs. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.”
This commie needs to read the green book and understand that the above definition fits no one more than the so called last messenger .
@poke
February 23, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Whenever you try to deal with facts, you tie yourselves in awful knots. I am not, in fact, a commie, let alone a self-proclaimed one. I am a liberal democrat. You, however, remain bigoted anti-Muslim scum.
It is widely known that these fine distinctions are difficult for you, and therefore, you should confine yourselves to repetitive venomous slanders without proof. Practyse makyth perfect, after all.
@ Z Malik (February 23, 2011 at 6:55 am)
You are unquestionably a “friend” of Jinnah. The nature of your friendship, however, somehow reminds me of the following words of Ghalib:
“Huway tum dost jisskay dushman usska aasman kyoon ho”
Religion comes in and makes enemies out of human beings. This is especially true of religions that think of themselves as the last and final and perfect and unquestionable. Religion contains a lot of conceit and self-deceit and if these get strengthened through this “final-perfect belief thing” then it leads to sociopolitical disaster.
@ wow (February 24, 2011 at 5:59 am)
“Religion comes in and makes enemies out of human beings.”
Dear wow,
Wow! The religion of Hitler made many many enemies and also caused the deaths of many many humans. The religion of Stalin, too, made many enemies and obliterated humans in hundreds of thousands. The religion of Truman wiped out two entire cities from the face of the earth. The religion of Mao did similarly amazing befriending tricks. The religion of the Hutus and Tutsis was equally friend-making.
Wow!
“Perhaps the biggest cultural difference then would be that they are vegetarians and we are meat-lovers. ”
hmmm…
Only around a quarter of the Indian population are vegetarians, as per the 2001 census.
“Are we becoming increasingly vegetarian? I wish we were, for we would then be more healthy and environmentally friendly.”
Healthy? It may be true, but does not necessarily follow. It depends on the vegetarian diet.
Environmentally friendly? Again it may be so, but does not necessarily follow. A Cornell University study (I think in 2007) said that addition of small amounts of meat may be better for the environment.
Ibn-e-Maryam
Very idiosyncratic definition of religion you have there
Ibn-e-Maryam wrote
Hitler, Stalin, Truman, Mao, Hutus, etc did they
a) claim their deeds to be for the survival and glory of a particular religion, and if yes, which one?
b) claim to have the sanction of God for their deeds, as per some particular religion, and if yes, which one?
If you can’t name their religions, then probably because their deeds were not because of their religion, but rather independent of their religion.
@ Ibn-e-Maryam (February 24, 2011 at 4:43 pm)
Well said indeed. Blaming Religion for all human aggressiveness has been in vogue for a while and blaming Islam is the latest fashion. Sometimes, this fashion needs to followed merely to prove ones intellectual capacities, specially when they do not exist. Human propensity for violence is as old as humanity. The story of Able and Cane is not exactly the story of violence due to Religion, is it. What some of these monuments of wisdom fail to notice is that it is the untamed Man that is violent – not Religion. Religion harnesses man’s faculties and tames his energies. Some of our sages also fail to distinguish between “Religion” and “Clergy”, specially the politically oriented priesthoods. “Clergy” is known to have inspired and instigated violence, irreligious violence in the name of religion, for the sake of its political motives. As I said, it is very much fashionable to lay the blame on “Religion” and then it costs you nothing. Man escapes clean and Religion is judged guilty.
Corrigendum:
“…Abel and Cane…”
Religion is no different than any other (man-created) ideology. An Ideology starts with good intentions, at least good according to its authors. As the follower base expands, inevitably the ideology is exploited in all sorts of ways, good, not so good, and downright evil. As someone else pointed out on these pages, there is no *true* interpretation of an ideology. Nobody can be at fault for false interpretation, because the word “interpretation” is relative by definition. Therefore, what we need is less and less ideology of any kind, beyond some basic human principles (such as “no stealing”) which can be easily enshrined in the constitutions. This is especially true for mass-based ideologies such as religion (communism, nazism etc. also fall in this category) which can be easily exploited to fan fanaticism of a disproportionate scale.
Just realizing this does not solve anything, because human beings do acutely need to believe in something and quite often religion fills that gap. Therefore, it can probably be never pushed in the oblivion, and even if it were, something else (like communism) would probably fill the void, which can be equally devastating. What society needs, therefore, is less and less emphasis by the thought leaders on faith in the public sphere, and less and less justification of one act or another using faith-based principles. At some point universal humanistic principles like tolerance and love, which have the advantage that they cannot be misinterpreted, must replace faith-based principles for debate in the public domain.
Bin Ismail wrote:
No doubt about it, that violence is part of Man, just as non-violence is also part of Man.
Religion, or a particular religion, can enforce the violent or the non-violent tendencies in Man. The only way to find out, whether a particular religion encourages violence or not, is through empiric means. If a particular religion has a Multiplier-Effect on the violent nature of Man, as determined through empiric means, than such property of that religion needs to be acknowledged.
If within a particular religion, in its dogma, a sanction or encouragement is given to organizing religious practices in groups, and a classification within society is encouraged on the basis of one’s knowledge of the dogma of that religion, then the particular religion is indeed encouraging the existence of “Clergy”!
If a religion encourages the building of identity around the religious beliefs of a person, the religion is indeed giving the reins of leadership of this religious-identity based group in the hands of the “Clergy”!
In fact the particular religion has introduced “Politics” into the religious aspects of society. After that, organized religion will function according to the principles of politics.
Whining later on about the politicization of religion, and clergy acting irreligiously is a fallacy.
Depending on how a religion encourages organization of society and building of identity, it can give a sanction to the Clergy to dally in politics.
Religion has to answer for its imperfections!
no-communal wrote:
This is not true.
Religion is an ideology that asserts the existence of a higher authority than man, which sits in judgment over the actions of man, or otherwise influences his life!
Non-Religious Ideology on the other hand postulates that the rules and laws of the ideology are man-made, and as such need to be argued on the basis of rationality, something that is within the scope of every Man! It is a different thing, that many ideologies put up barriers to an open discourse on the rationality of the ideology!
Within Religion often any discourse based on rationality of man is not given due importance.
@Raj (the unfortunate one)
“If a particular religion has a Multiplier-Effect on the violent nature of Man, as determined through empiric means, than such property of that religion needs to be acknowledged.”
Yes it needs to be acknowledged that hinduism is an woman hating religion requiring women to caste themselves into the fire after their husbands die, or… practice female infanticide.
Religion or “Revealed Law” is indeed attributed to a “Higher Intelligence”, but is not always interpreted by a higher intelligence. In fact, it is at times interpreted by considerably low forms of intelligence – but then, so is “Man-made Law”. Scriptures are not unique in having been subjected to “misinterpretation”. Man-made constitutions and man-made laws have, equally been susceptible to misinterpretation and manipulation. All this goes on daily in Parliaments and Courts of law. But that would not imply that we do away with these institutions or with the Human race itself.
What needs to be appreciated is that while Religion, I mean a specific religion, is applicable and relevant only to those who endorse that specific religion, State Laws, in contrast, are relevant and applicable to “all citizens” of the state, irrespective of their religious affiliation. Now a certain state can house citizens subscribing to a variety of religions, but all would be citizens of the same state. So, the common denominator is the State-Citizen relationship. But the moment you bring in Religion, and again I mean a certain religion, into the affairs of the state, that certain religion begins to touch and influence the lives of even those citizens who do not subscribe to that specific religion.
With specific reference to “Islam”, may I add, and possibly to the inconvenience of some, the Quran has laid down the fundamental principle of “no compulsion in matters of religion”. We read in the Quran,”laa ikraaha fid deen” (Quran 2 : 256) meaning ‘there is no compulsion in matters of religion’. The rationale behind this teaching is that man is accountable before God only if he has the liberty to choose his actions. If that liberty is not there then he is not accountable. When you mingle Religion with State, the state begins to enforce a certain interpretation of a certain religion and thus contravenes this fundamental principle of Islam. The element of “compulsion” supersedes “free choice”. We thus, land in a situation in which “Islam”, as interpreted by a certain brand of clergy, becomes compulsively applicable to even those citizens of the state who do not subscribe to that brand of Islam or to Islam itself. Thus the mixing of State and Religion leads to the following disasters:
1. Religion, which is essentially “personal” is made “public”
2. Religion, which is apolitical is politicised
3. Religion, whose very existence is based upon the principle of “free choice”, is made “coercive”
4. Religion loses its soul, which is “love for God” and “love for His creatures” and is reduced to a mere corridor to political power
5. State is theocratized
6. A “politically powerful clergy” is created, whose powers are coveted by other brands of clergy
7. State is rendered incapable of looking upon all its citizens as “equal citizens” and thus of justice.
Hence, Religion and Rationality both would require us to completely separate State and Religion.
Regards
Bin Ismail
@Bin Ismail
Politicization of Religion and Religionization of Politics is part and parcel of any organized religion.
Secular conduct of State, Separation of Religion and State is a derivative issue, and one of only theoretical interest, if the underlying society is organized according to religion.
The influence of the religious organizations and their leadership in politics would be palpable, regardless of any superficial attempts to delineate State from Religion.
I’ll come to this issue a little later.
I would like to ask you, out of curiosity, what do you believe to be the case:
Would you consider Prophet Mohammed and the first four Khalifas to be religious, political or military leaders?
Regards
@ Raj (The Other One) [February 25, 2011 at 2:33 pm]
Thank you. In response to your points and questions, let me submit my opinion:
1. We are talking about two different planes – the plane of society and the plane of state. Organization is better than disorganization, be it of religious groups or any other form of association. Chaos and disarray, in any case, are not very desirable. If a religious community is organized, at the level of “society”, it will contribute positively to the general discipline of the society. However, when you have religious groups with a political agenda or political parties with a religious agenda, religion is more liable to be exploited for political purposes.
2. The State should be unrelenting in maintaining its secular conduct, when it comes to the business of the State. The State may even have to be tough to ensure that all its citizens enjoy “equal rights” and have “equal responsibilities” as “Citizens of the State”. To achieve religious harmony at the level of the society, the State would have to ensure that there is no favoured religion, hence no State Religion. Legislation of “Anti-hate Laws”, to ensure that religion is not used to disrupt the harmony of the society, is also necessary. The Canadian system offers a good example. Religious freedom should be guaranteed with Anti-hate laws in place.
3. The influence of religious groups “can” become palpable, indeed, but then the state has to keep its eyes open.
4. The Holy Prophet and his four successors were Spiritual Leaders.
Regards
Dr Niaz Murtaza//India and pakistan are not competing to spread islam vs. Hinduism, say for example in Afghanistan where we do compete but for purely political influence. We are not even fighting on the merits or demerits of the two religions. We are basically fighting about Kashmir and some other minor political issues. So our enmity is purely political, not ideological.//
I think this is purely ideological and eventually political in nature. Even if Kashmir is resolved, so called problems of Junagadh, Hyderabad and Assam ( all mostly fictitious and 1940′s in nature perpetrated by mullahist bullies) shall remain and grow….these were ideological / rather religious divides that may not solve very easily. Largely inculcated by the military forces in pakistan who have ruled for close to 4 decades
The only way problems would get resolved is by a strong democratic pakistan DEVOID of armed forces influences…strong democracy in pakistan is the only way to stymie these and foster camaraderie ala USA and Canada
Bin//Well said indeed. Blaming Religion for all human aggressiveness has been in vogue for a while and blaming Islam is the latest fashion//
No offence rally but why would you blame people who blame islam for all the trouble worldwide – be it stoning, be it killing or for that matter lets say Godhra/ Gujarat/ or for that matter Mumbai terror attacks ( 2008)
I think this is to do with the mullahist propaganda to the uneducated that doing such horrible acts against non believers will lead them to heaven and huge benefits afterlife…
If you sum up history ( even 9/11 and 26/11) you will find Islam as a prime factor for raking up murders and blood baths
There is a huge disconnect between your understanding of islam and lets say a kasab’s understanding of islam…afterlife/virgins et al…
@ Prasad (February 25, 2011 at 9:40 pm)
Thank you. There are many violent interpretations and violent actions based on such interpretations, to be found, in relation to all religions. Just as I would not attribute violent interpretations found in Hinduism to Krishna, or the Inquisition to Jesus, I would also not attribute violent interpretations made by the mulla to Muhammad the Messenger of God.
Regards.
@Bin Ismail
With all due respect Sir, a religion is defined not by its most benign interpretation, but rather by the empiric data on the behavior of its followers, who ascribe that behavior to their own religion.
I appreciate very much your efforts to bring Islam to a path of peaceful coexistence with people of other faiths and to a peaceful existence with itself, and applaud your enlightened thoughts on this.
It is not my intention to denigrate Islam in any way, irrespective of my opinion on it.
The reason, why I point out some weaknesses in your perspective of considering the structure of Islam as not being responsible for the situation today, is because I wish to underline that there are aspects of Islam which make it especially vulnerable to exploitation by people who have political and militant agendas, and as such the need to put safeguards in a Muslim environment is particularly high.
I’ve noticed, sometimes you show a tendency to wash away the sins of practiced religion by making comparisons with other religions.
Each religion needs to answer for itself. Comparisons are deceptive and highly superficial.
Contrary to what you said, I would ascribe violent interpretations in Hindu Dharma to Krishna. The State itself claims to have a monopoly on violence. Violence in itself is not prohibited or wrong.
Most important responsibility of a religion however is to ensure that violence is not misused against the innocent and is used wisely against those who should deserve it. This marks the robustness of enlightenment in a religion.
@ Raj (The Other One) [February 26, 2011 at 1:49 am]
Thank you. Let me offer my response to the points you’ve raised:
1. In my opinion, a religion is defined primarily, by its Sacred Revealed Scripture. We may have a difference of opinion on this.
To elaborate, Islam would be defined primarily by the Quran. Hinduism would be defined primarily by the Vedas and the Gita. Buddhism would primarily be defined by the Tipitaka. Zoroastrianism would primarily be defined by the Zend Avesta. Judaism would primarily be defined by the Torah and Christianity by the Bible, and so on.
2. The “…aspects of Islam which make it especially vulnerable to exploitation by people who have political and militant agendas…”, as you have said, are not exclusively a feature of Islam. Here, we are dealing with a special brand of interpreters. For instance, if there is a text that reads, “Extend peace”, and the worthy interpreter puts the other fellow to death, arguing that eternal peace can be found in death alone, we would not hold the “text” responsible. As for people with negative and oppressive agendas, they will draw justification from almost anything – even from Rationality. The greatest and most gruesome forms of human massacres were committed in the name of “World Peace”. So, do we abandon the idea of “World Peace”?
3. You have said, “Most important responsibility of a religion however is to ensure that violence is not misused against the innocent and is used wisely against those who should deserve it. This marks the robustness of enlightenment in a religion.”
If I were to reword this, I would do so by stating, “Most important responsibility of Man however is to ensure that violence is not misused against the innocent and is used wisely against those who should deserve it. This marks the robustness of enlightenment in Man.”
Regards
Bin Ismail
@Raj (the other one)
‘With all due respect Sir, a religion is defined not by its most benign interpretation, but rather by the empiric data on the behavior of its followers, who ascribe that behavior to their own religion.’
Indeed. But the question is which followers? Who speaks for the religion itself?
I think that the founder of that particular religion and his immediate companion followers deserve all right to interpret and represent religion.
The behaviour and conduct of this group of people offer the ‘right’ interpretation as they are the pioneering members of the faith.
By applying this standard to the Prophet Muhammad, we find that even his bitterest enemies become diehard companions – certainly a sign of a religion which turns enmity into friendship, hostility into peace. Umar bin Khattab, a man who was sworn to killing the Prophet, had such a change of heart that he went on to become the second successor of Islam. Hinda and Washi were responsible for murdering the Prophet’s uncle and desecrating his remains. They become so ashamed at the forgiveness of the Prophet that they turned into devotees who would risk their lives for the sake of his faith.
So, in short, these empirical facts speak for themselves.
Correction:
“Umar bin Khattab had such a change of heart that he went on to become the second successor of Islam.”
Umar, a bitter opponent of the Islam, became a Muslim because he saw incredible grace ad dignity from the Prophet. His contributions were so immense that he was chosen to lead the Muslim community a few years later.
@Raj (the other one)
1.”there are aspects of Islam which make it especially vulnerable to exploitation by people who have political and militant agendas”
Not really. In a ‘democratic freedom-loving’ America, a group of neo-cons
whipped up such pandemonium that their country invaded and destroyed a non-hostile nation Iraq – all in the name of democracy and freedom. This vulnerability cannot be attributed to Islam but rather to human nature.
2. “The State itself claims to have a monopoly on violence. Violence in itself is not prohibited or wrong.”
Islam has’nt taught that individuals should take law in their own hand. On the other had Islam has defended the right of self-defense and the right to protect freedom of religion through a state’s agency.