A liberal dilemma

[Developereo]

The recent debates about Islamic v/s secular rule in Pakistan have forced me to ask myself some very basic questions.

As a liberal, I personally miss the 70s era Pakistan of my childhood. However, I also believe in democarcy and the right of the people to form the kind of society in which they want to live -- as long as minority rights are respected.

So, assuming that the Islamists actually represent the majority and are not just a vocal minority themselves, if they manage to control their extremists and renounce violence, and agree to Constitutional guarantees for minority rights, what right do the minority secularists have to deny an Islamic republic to the majority?

How are they any different from self-righteous zealots who look down their noses at the unwashed masses and feel it is their duty to drag them kicking and screaming into modernity?

When does liberalism become elitism? When does it start obstructing democracy instead of promoting it?

(keep in mind the bold part above about violence and minority rights.)

 

[lonelyone]

You're right. A state in which everyone is treated equally, but is based on Islamic cultural values, is the only way forward for Muslim countries. Just like how, for example, England is a 'secular' state based on Christian values, there is nothing evil in itself on a democratic state which has full rights for all citizens, but based on Islamic values.

The problem is that now we try to force a majority of the Muslim population to accept a foreign system. As a result, the majority of the people do not feel "patriotic" to the state. On the other hand, allowing the Mullahs disproportionate power, too, is suicide, as anyone can become a Mullah, in in the end it becomes a war with each side declaring each other as 'kafirs', and killing each other. The only solution, as I see it, for Muslim countries trapped in poverty, is a democratic state, but one based on Islamic values.

That state will not come into being out of thin air, but people who share such a view must come together and work for it.

 

[greatsequence]

The recent debates about Islamic v/s secular rule in Pakistan have forced me to ask myself some very basic questions.

As a liberal, I personally miss the 70s era Pakistan of my childhood. However, I also believe in democarcy and the right of the people to form the kind of society in which they want to live -- as long as minority rights are respected.

So, assuming that the Islamists actually represent the majority and are not just a vocal minority themselves, if they manage to control their extremists and renounce violence, and agree to Constitutional guarantees for minority rights, what right do the minority secularists have to deny an Islamic republic to the majority?

How are they any different from self-righteous zealots who look down their noses at the unwashed masses and feel it is their duty to drag them kicking and screaming into modernity?

When does liberalism become elitism? When does it start obstructing democracy instead of promoting it?

(keep in mind the bold part above about violence and minority rights.)

This question is core to the debate. Extremism is a plague but to counter it by just abolishing every law which is based on shariah will take us nowhere.
As in case of minorities. If some one hits on the core of religion and expects to remain untouched (Qadiyani) it goes against an Islamic state.
Other minorities have right to practice their religion and I think every one will support that.

 

[architect_cobb]

Would the OP please define whats the definition of an "Islamic Republic" and has any such state ever existed in human history?

 

[Developereo]

Would the OP please define whats the definition of an "Islamic Republic" and has any such state ever existed in human history?

I don't know what is an "Islamic Republic" because I am not the one advocating it. The people who want such a state need to define what they mean by it. My only point is that, in a democarcy, peope have the right to work towards any kind of society they want.

This question is core to the debate. Extremism is a plague but to counter it by just abolishing every law which is based on shariah will take us nowhere.
As in case of minorities. If some one hits on the core of religion and expects to remain untouched (Qadiyani) it goes against an Islamic state.
Other minorities have right to practice their religion and I think every one will support that.

The issue of Qadiyani is a touchy one. For straight-out non-Muslims, there is no confusion. With Qadiyanis, the question becomes should the government decide who is and is not a Muslim? Is it enough that a person considers themselves Muslim or must it be validated by someone else?

 

[architect_cobb]

I don't know what is an "Islamic Republic" because I am not the one advocating it.

I asked the question cause you mentioned establishment of an Islamic Republic in your original post.

The people who want such a state need to define what they mean by it. My only point is that, in a democarcy, peope have the right to work towards any kind of society they want.

That is not correct. In a democracy people donot have the right to work towards any society they want. Majority enjoys more rights but a democracy guarantees certain rights to all individuals regardless of which ethnic/religious group they belong to. In most western democracies the parliament/congress cannot pass any such law which violates these guarantees/rights.

Thats the difference between democracy and Nazism. In Nazism majority can bulldoze everything!!!!

The issue of Qadiyani is a touchy one. For straight-out non-Muslims, there is no confusion. With Qadiyanis, the question becomes should the government decide who is and is not a Muslim? Is it enough that a person considers themselves Muslim or must it be validated by someone else?

If the validation is required than you are giving a group of people, may be the majority, or may be the clergy a veto power. Which would amount to them being superior than the rest of the population. And that in itself would be a grave violation of democracy.


Democracy is based on the principle that all citizens of the state enjoy the same rights and are equal not that followers of a certain faith would be more equal than the rest.

 

[Developereo]

Democracy is based on the principle that all citizens of the state enjoy the same rights and are equal not that followers of a certain faith would be more equal than the rest.

Please read my original post, especially the bold part, again.

 

[Majnun]

Liberalism does not become elitism. Many conservatives like to say this to discourage liberals. They will either call the liberals elite and thieves, who have plundered the nation, or liberal extremists.

 

[architect_cobb]

Please read my original post, especially the bold part, again.

I guess probably I should rephrase my posts. Here is the bold portion from your original post.

if they manage to control their extremists and renounce violence, and agree to Constitutional guarantees for minority rights, what right do the minority secularists have to deny an Islamic republic to the majority?

WHat I was trying to say was that:-
1) Its not a matter of if. These rights have to be guaranteed in a democracy.
2) Now once these rights are guaranteed all citizens are equal so no preferential treatment could be given to a certain class(clergy) or a certain ethnic or religious group.

Thats why there can be no such thing as religious republic. Religion and democracy cannot go together as far as the state is concerned. As soon as a state has a religion it pronounces a certain sect to be superior which is antithesis of democracy.

Hope I conveyed it more clearly this time.

 

[mikkix]

the problem Pakistan is facing is because of liberals and extremists.
They are sitting on north poles and south poles respectively.
Allah defined the laws for us to live, Allah gives the boundaries to us to prosper and we can live under that boundary and can have peace of mind.
But the problem is we want to sit in the corner point of those boundary and the boundaries having two ends which can be described by upper limits and lower limits and we want to sit on each limits, we can choose some middle points of it but we are not agreeing on it because of the two and that are extremists and liberals.

 

[Developereo]

WHat I was trying to say was that:-
1) Its not a matter of if. These rights have to be guaranteed in a democracy.

Which is precisely what the 'if' part conveys -- that Constituional guarantees are in place to protect minority rights. Democracy by itself is just a fancy name for mob rule. It is the Constitution that protects minorities from the mob's excesses.

Not sure what you are having trouble understanding there.

2) Now once these rights are guaranteed all citizens are equal so no preferential treatment could be given to a certain class(clergy) or a certain ethnic or religious group.

Thats why there can be no such thing as religious republic. Religion and democracy cannot go together as far as the state is concerned. As soon as a state has a religion it pronounces a certain sect to be superior which is antithesis of democracy.

That is simply not true. I can give you countless examples from Western secular democracies where this simplistic interpretation of equality is violated.

- USA: the Ten Commandments are framed in many US courtrooms.
- USA: people take oaths over the Bible, including the POTUS.
- France: schoolgirls cannot wear a headscarf, but small cross pendants are allowed.
- Switzerland: construction of minarets is forbidden.
- Germany: schoolteachers may not wear the headscarf, but small cross pendants are allowed.

In most Western countries, Christmas and Easter are official holidays, but Eid, Diwali and Yom Kippur are not.

In most European countries, you can insult the Qur'an or Bible all you want, but you may not mock the Holocaust. The state has decided that some sensibilites are more worthy of protection than others.

 

[Kompromat]

Developero: The last thing we want in Pakistan is yet another divide between so called Islamists and Liberalists.

Pakistan is a democratic society and in a democracy the will of the people prevails , whoever is in majority rules and makes decisions.

Pakistan needs reforms but not through confrontations but through dialogue and Education. If Salman taseer wouldn't have called The Toheen e Risalat (SAW) a "Black Law" he wouldn't have been dead , what he said was outrageous in itself. Many people in Pakistan wont give a chance after such a thing being said by a leader and lack of education as in this matter leads them to take law in their own hands thinking that our own lawmakers have betrayed us. Then they kill and smile.

Education is my ace in a hole , we need to get down , both groups and think again why did we created Pakistan and start working on reforms.

What i cannot understand is , even a Full fledged Islamic state which Pakistan is NOT in any understanding of a word , will protect the minority rights ordered by the Quran.

How we can get Pakistani society to go slow and show some restraint towards their minorities while we amend these laws by consensus and through democratic process.

 

[architect_cobb]

Which is precisely what the 'if' part conveys -- that Constituional guarantees are in place to protect minority rights. Democracy by itself is just a fancy name for mob rule. It is the Constitution that protects minorities from the mob's excesses.

Not sure what you are having trouble understanding there.



That is simply not true. I can give you countless examples from Western secular democracies where this simplistic interpretation of equality is violated.

- USA: the Ten Commandments are framed in many US courtrooms.

I am living in USA and I know for a fact that this is not correct and as a matter of fact a few years back when a judge tried to do that the 10 commandments were removed by force in Georgia.
But IF for a second even I budge and agree that this happens it doesn't mean that the state has a religion. No religion is taught in public schools, if you plan to do that there are Sunday schools in mosques and churches and syngogues and you can send your kids there but not at the state expense.

- USA: people take oaths over the Bible, including the POTUS.

Not correct!!!! Where are you getting all this information. You can take oath on anything based on your religion(remember individuals can still have faith, its only that state has no religion).

- France: schoolgirls cannot wear a headscarf, but small cross pendants are allowed.

Any overt religios symbols are banned may it be skull cap, or a sikh turban or a hijab. Small cross pendants are allowed cause they are not visible enough. You can also wear muslim pendants with Ayat ul Kursi or Allah engrave on them.

- Switzerland: construction of minarets is forbidden.

Even in USA in certain suburbs there are building codes where construction beyond a certain height is forbidden cause of privacy concerns of people in that neighbourbhood. Its not specifically about minarets but you can't even build a tower over there even if its besides anything. Cause of building codes.

- Germany: schoolteachers may not wear the headscarf, but small cross pendants are allowed.

already explained.

In most Western countries, Christmas and Easter are official holidays, but Eid, Diwali and Yom Kippur are not.

Well and then there is a debate if to say merry christmas or happy holidays. Also the biggest holiday as far as USA is concerned in not Christmas but thanksgiving. Which has little religious significance. These holidays are more secular now. But again people are not stopped from practicing religion only state has ne preferences. You don't want to celebrate Christmas nobody would force you to and you would not be charged with blasphemy if you dont believe christ is the son of god or if you tear down a poster of christ.

In most European countries, you can insult the Qur'an or Bible all you want, but you may not mock the Holocaust. The state has decided that some sensibilites are more worthy of protection than others.

Again misinformation. The only such country where its legally a crime is Germany and they have their historical reasons for that for they were the perpetrators and don't want the nazis to have any chance of coming back in power. So even the nazi symbols are banned in Germany but you can say all you want elsewhere.


I am not sure where Pakistanis get their information from and do they even vet the info before reposting it over and over again. No wonder they are in so much of a mess.

 

[ajay]

Uk is a multicultural society not based on 'Christian' concepts like some members here posted

 

[Meengla]

So, assuming that the Islamists actually represent the majority and are not just a vocal minority themselves, if they manage to control their extremists and renounce violence, and agree to Constitutional guarantees for minority rights, what right do the minority secularists have to deny an Islamic republic to the majority?
(keep in mind the bold part above about violence and minority rights.)

I think @Architect-Bob has some very good points in general about removing some mis-conceptions.

I will here only address the above quoted part:
No one is denying the 'Islamists' power in Pakistan. This is not Egypt where the state machinery is being used to pummel Muslim Brotherhood.

In fact, in the 2002 elections, the religious/conservatives of Pakistan did come to power in the then NWFP and Baluchistan. And I think this happened before in the 1970 elections as well.

@Developereo,
I thought you would know these things. I am surprised that you did not bring up these examples.

Again, there is no state-inspired 'liberal fascism' or 'liberal extremism' inside Pakistan. There simply can't be in a society where most 'liberals', such as myself, have family members who offer prayers, slaughter goats on Bakra Eid, grow beards, and wear hijabs. So am I going to disown my own family members for these? Hell no. To each their own.

On the other hand the religious fanatics have successfully hijacked the political discourse to such an extent that the private lives of 'liberals' like Salman Taseer is often quoted to justify his MURDER!

I think the religious fanatics know that they can't win--at least not yet--in free and fair elections and that's why, feeling dis-enfranchised, they resort to violence.