> Debate in Pakistan: Secularism vs Islamism

[salman]

A very interesting debate; let's decipher the intellectual bankruptcy and fraud of these Muslims modernists secularists.

In a recent TV debate on this subject, the applause meter would have given the win to Islamism. The debaters, three on each side, faced a small mixed audience — quite a few girls, many wearing hijabs, also young men in jeans and a handful of beards.

The ‘secularists’ appealed, in measured tones, to the intellect, made references to European history, called for tolerance, pluralism and progress. The ‘Islamists’ were assertive, emotional and received applause when they spoke of the ‘moral decadence’ of the West and condemned, to louder applause, the West’s aggression against Muslims in Palestine, Chechnya and Iraq.

So do the people of Pakistan want an Islamist state? Well, yes and no.

A poll of young persons in a recent issue of the Karachi monthly Herald shows the complexity of the Pakistani mindset. A substantial majority (64 per cent) wanted an Islamic state but the religious parties that espouse this cause received only three per cent of the vote. By an emphatic majority they preferred democracy to military rule. Most were optimistic about the future, but even so 53 per cent would leave the country if given the chance. There were other questions that touched on lifestyles, friendship, marriage, etc, the answers to which showed a predictably conservative bent of mind.

During the TV debate’s question time, one young girl in the audience said: “Show me one verse of the Quran that is against tolerance, human rights and democracy. Then I too shall be for secularism.” She was saying in effect that western secularism does not offer anything that Islam as such does not provide, refuting both Samuel Huntington and Maulana Maududi.

It brought to my mind what a French thinker had written at the time of Iran’s Islamic revolution: nothing worthwhile can be done in Muslim countries except in the name of Islam.

However, when someone in the audience recalled the tolerance and progressiveness of Moorish Spain, one debater on the ‘liberal’ side responded: let us not always be talking about past glories. The dismal present of the Islamic world, she said, is what we must face up to — poverty, ignorance, intolerance, and corrupt and autocratic governments. “In the entire Muslim world there isn’t one world-class university.”

What one may make of this, if one takes the Herald poll as representative, is that the Pakistani youth has faith in the Islamic system but does not go along with what is proposed by the religious parties; thinks democracy is compatible with Islam; is patriotic but also pragmatic; and is conservative in the matter of social mores. He/she feels strongly about the West’s policies towards Muslims and is repelled by its sexual permissiveness.

Could one say then that the gulf between Islamists and secularists is not as wide as the 60-year contention on the subject would indicate? The dispute arises from confusion over the terms of the debate. Secularism in its European meaning of separation of church and state does not apply to Islam which has no church, no priesthood. What our Islamist parties want would indeed amount to creating a sort of institutionalised priesthood.

In their view democracy, in which decisions are taken by majority vote and not according to the will of God, is not Islamic. In the first Constituent Assembly they proposed that a council of ulema, which can interpret His word, be established to vet all legislation. They did not get this but the assembly instead adopted an Islamic ‘Objectives Resolution’.

This somewhat ambiguous document, when all is said and done, says no more than that Muslims should be ‘enabled’ (not obliged) to order their lives in accordance with Islam. Otherwise it calls only for all accepted democratic values — equality of status, and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association.

But in due course more substantive measures followed. Only a Muslim could be president or prime minister (what then of equality of status?). Ahmadis were declared non-Muslims. A more draconian blasphemy law was introduced, along with the Hudood Ordinance, the Qisasand Diyat(an eye for an eye) law, and the Qanun-i-Shahadatregulations under which a woman’s word is worth half that of a man. And the list doesn’t end there.Few, if any, of these provisions were introduced as a result of public demand or debate. Most of them, such as the ban on interest, have remained a dead letter, no one has had his hands cut off, no adulterers have been stoned. When the Hudood Ordinance was amended some time ago there was no public outcry. I daresay there wouldn’t be too much if it was done away with altogether.

The real debate is not between Islam and secularism but between democracy and theocracy, and in that context the entire history of our constitution-making shows on which side the people stand.

The situation is paradoxical. The average Pakistani is devout and religion is an important part of his being. Islamic signs and symbols are everywhere but Pakistanis are not willing to be ruled by clerics and do not vote for the religious parties. Yet a rightwing Islamism (the Shariat Court calling land reform un-Islamic, for instance) coupled with an exhibitionist religiosity has been making headway in the country’s politics and hearts and minds.

The Islamists care little for votes and elections but rely on sympathisers in the administration, the education system and the military to promote an agenda concerned with ritual and revival rather than welfare and progress. Obscurantist teachings in madressahs, Friday sermons spewing sectarian bias and, more recently, some religious TV channels have cast a medieval pall over Pakistani society and created an atmosphere of bigotry and intolerance.

It will not be an easy task to bring about a more open-minded, tolerant attitude. Musharraf’s ‘enlightened moderation’ did not go anywhere because it did not have the support of his power base in the army and he did not have the courage of his convictions. For the moment nobody else is even trying. I don’t at all see the Taliban in our future but don’t rule out Taliban-lite, some of which is here already.

Source

Even though, the modernism disease is on the rise in Pakistan due to events which took place in past few years and thanks to heretics like Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, Pakistan is not the only country which has been affected by this disease. This disease has spread in every corner of Muslim world and has given birth to many extreme groups. I don't want to post my comments yet; however, let look at the caption of article's picture which says: "The average Pakistani is devout and religious but is not willing to be ruled by clerics".

This is what modernism, murjism has done to Muslims in every corner of the Muslim world. To these heretics, the Islamists have ruled the Muslim lands for centuries by inventing these old barbaric legislations out of blue. First, how can a Muslim claim to be a religious Muslim when he is denying that Allah is Al-Hakim (the ruler, the legislator). Secondly, how can they accept interpretations of Islam from nut cases but not from the experts? Do these heretics go to a carpenter for medicine? So they don't want to accept scholarly interpretations, backed up 14 centuries scholarship, but they want to us accept and abide by their unscholaraly understanding? Where will that get us?

The whole foundation of their argument is based upon compatibility with modern values, the claimer of upholder these values is none other than the west. On one side, these people claim that they hate the west and their values but one other hand they want us to adopt them because they are 'superior' to Islamism. If the values of the west change tomorrow, what should we do then? Re-interpret Islam again because it doesn't fit modern values? Hence, meaning that current interpretations of these modernists will be labeled as barbaric! So you want us to sacrifice our values for barbarism from which you are trying to 'save' everyone? Mind you, theoretically and historically speaking, the question of changes in current modern values is not "what if" rather it is "when it will". Because the asl (foundation), and the very fundamental aspect of modernism (not just Muslim modernism but generally speaking) is based upon the very notion of changes in values/ethic/morals with time. According to them, our ethics should be changed and ARE changing for better. Allhamdulillah, we have already pointed out some fundemental problems with this ideology at Is Islam intolerant? Divide between Islam & West

Rest later on, insha'Allah

This is what a typical Pakistani and modernist has to say on this:

In my opinion the generalization of secularism or Islam is way too ambiguous. The biggest problem of all is that we don't even interpret Quran properly. Especially for legislation purposes.

If we can for once get out of the centuries old interpretation of Quran which is primarily done under the umbrella of Greek Philosophy, and treat Quranic teachings as a revolution and a challenge to the orthodox "religion" and a challenge to the concept of God being confined in a "Body" or in a "shape" and eliminate the concept of classes or what ever the cause for profiling may be, only then one can understand Quran in its pure sense.

Politically speaking, the whole idea of democracy, the way we know it, seems to make the government so sacred and so out of touch with the actual people that it democracy today is theocracy in disguise.

Democracy as a concept is very close to what Quran says about "mashawarat" but the way it has been desigined today it makes sure that only the favorite personalities get to the top stage.

Especially i have big reservations with the western concept of politics where they define it as a means to exercise power, where Quran and Islam refers to it as process by which you do welfare and serve the society and fulfill their needs. You are a civil servent and not the chairman of the board....

Its important that before we even get into the argument of Secularism and Islam, that we actually set the reocrd straight about what Quran actually says. Only then you can interpret and understand and legislate according to Quran.

[al-boriqee]

Subhanallah. May Allah help and aid the Muslims and bring them back to their millah.

jazakallahu khairan akhee salman for this. I needed this

NOW we have a superb weapon and you may have missed its relevance

the sister said a question by which destroys the very fabric of progressive, secular, and revisionist ideals.

she said

“Show me one verse of the Quran that is against tolerance, human rights and democracy. Then I too shall be for secularism.”

This is like Abu Zubair's coinage of the question on asking an ash'ari "who said Alif Lam Meem"

Now we too, in honor of the sister and to increase her in her good deeds when she dies, will advocate the same destructive question to commemorate her while completely melting the progressives back to the dumpster that he dropped his intellect into when retrieving secularism, reformism, etc.

The sisters question highlights an astounding reality about secularists. It reveals how conceded and arrogant these hypocrites and enemies of Islam are by bolstering the ideas of "tolerance, freedom, rights" AS IF Allah revealed oppression, imprisonment, and the destruction of rights in the Qur'an.

This question is a most suitbale and proper question because not only does it expose the nature of the one whom it is being posed, the mere reply to it being either affirmative or negative are anti-thetical. In other words, if this stupid kaafire replied by saying "here are the ayaah", then he has openly declared his riddah and if they reply in the negative, then there is no real use to his cause to begin with and therefore what he is advocating is a waste of everyone's time.

may Allah bless her for this wonderful question by which she has aided Allah and Islam with.

[salman]

wa iyyka. I have added some quick comments in first post

akh, sorry, I failed to understand your point here. She is arguing for modernism with this question. Are you saying that it is backfired on them?

[al-boriqee]

Shaykh salman
the reason why i said that is because in your post, this is the context of her statement which made me reply in that fashion

.During the TV debate’s question time, one young girl in the audience said: “Show me one verse of the Quran that is against tolerance, human rights and democracy. Then I too shall be for secularism.” She was saying in effect that western secularism does not offer anything that Islam as such does not provide, refuting both Samuel Huntington and Maulana Maududi.

so I could not understand that she was defending modernism

if you have first hand info that she was, then we throw her under the bus and still utilize her statement, but from the above paragraph, it did not seem to me that she was espousing modernism wallahul-alim

asalamu alaikum