Whose ideology is it anyway?
- Thread starter pak-marine
- Start date
Leader
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2010
- Messages
- 29,159
- Reaction score
- 9
- Country
- Location
from the times of Akbar one can easily find out two ideological streams in Islam of Subcontinent and one of the streams is directly or indirectly linked with creation of Pakistan, we should avoid personality worshipping, even if it is sir syed, jinnah or Iqbal, they are mere pieces in this game ! (learn and remember their role in a grand picture thats what Iam saying)
Jackdaws
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 13,114
- Reaction score
- -49
- Country
- Location
You guys do realize that when there was talk of partition - Jinnah wanted Muslim majority provinces to form Pakistan - he did not want only Muslim parts of those provinces i.e. he expected whole of Punjab (East & West) and whole of Bengal (East & West) . If that had happened, Pakistan would probably still be secular because you would have a very sizable minority.
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
You guys know I'm a huge fan of Abdol Karim Soroush's work -- the piece below is important I think and I hope you will find merit in it:
Torture theology in the devil’s republic
Ahmad Ali Khalid
It has now become clear that what the Iranian intellectual AbdolKarim Soroush had remarked is becoming a reality. A society which lacks religious intellectuals who can freely and unashamedly be critical in the public sphere and call to task fundamentalists and conservatives will inevitably decline into a form of tribalism with a veneer of religious piety. What has come to be in Pakistan is the full evolution and logical conclusion of the new generation of fundamentalism.
Our minister for religious minorities Shahbaz Bhatti was brutally slaughtered at the altar of a cruel and inhuman fanaticism, which is eating away, consuming the very soul of Islam in Pakistan. The philosophy of the Sufis, scholasticism of the jurists and the intellect of the theologians have crumbled under the weight of a new theology — a theology of torture.
It is the radical religious movements in Pakistan that control the grassroots of religious education, not liberals, moderates or even traditionalists. The scholastic genius of classical Islam has been displaced, destroyed by the onslaught of colonialism, authoritarianism and new dynamics of the nation state, only to be replaced by a crass fundamentalism.
This form of barbaric extremism is no longer confined to acts of random violence, but is spreading, becoming sharper and being actively marshalled and mobilised to drive out liberal and moderate voices from all spheres of public life, from the legal culture to the political culture. That is the frightening thing. Educated and well-spoken individuals are being seduced by the hatred and bigotry of this new insane form of extremism.
We suffer from a crisis of religious and moral authority. We can count Javed Ahmad Ghamidi as the only religious scholar who has taken a different view on the whole tragedy. Slowly but surely, over the years, whether it was in opposition to the Women’s Protection Bill, land reforms or any other piece of progressive legislation, a theology of torture has been instituted in Pakistan.
This theology of torture rules in Pakistan, making life hell for women, minorities and ‘lesser’ Muslims. This theology of torture has been sponsored by the state and indeed been given a clearance by other institutions such as the army. The fact is the extremism that was being fostered for purposes of ‘strategic depth’ is now taking on a life of its own. It is becoming intelligent, ruthless and dynamic. It adapts and widens its influence from the media to the judiciary to the extent of ruling over the religious discourse unchallenged and emboldened.
This ‘Islamic’ republic has turned into an instrument for the devil where ‘men of faith’ carry out hellish deeds and turn ‘God as Lover’ into ‘God as Killer’. The very meaning of ‘faith’ in Pakistan has changed in populist religious discussion from something connected with love and reason to something synonymous with hatred and arrogance. This must change.
First, on a more personal level, we can confront the domestic abuse of women in our own families, and consider the Christians of Pakistan (who are socio-economically marginalised, condemned to a life of servitude) as fellow citizens and human beings. The issue of women and minorities is not far removed from our daily lives. In our own dealings and families, we should take note of how unfairly we treat women and minorities, whether it is humiliating and demeaning the Christian servants kept in Pakistani households across the country or the women abused and tortured by gutless husbands. Countless times we have heard about the abuse of women in torturous marriages or the gross maltreatment of Christian domestic servants. We can make a difference just by treating fellow Pakistanis, be they women (our own daughters, mothers and sisters) or Christians, with dignity and respect. We as a society cannot claim to be innocent of this new and violent radicalism because we have condoned and encouraged the mistreatment of women and minorities. This radicalism and extremism did not emerge overnight — it was simply a logical extension of our own cultural practices.
The question of religion in Pakistan is too important and too volatile to be left in the hands of semi-literate ‘clerics’ but it is too dangerous for individuals such as Ghamidi and the late Mr Muhammad Farooq Khan (the liberal Islamic intellectual brutally murdered last year) to work alone. The state has to step up to support the bravery of intellectuals and politicians.
Professor Bayat in a paper talked about the emergence of a post-Islamism in the Iranian context: “In contemporary Iran, post-Islamism is expressed in the idea of fusion between Islam (as a personalised faith) and individual freedom and choice; and post-Islamism is associated with the values of democracy and aspects of modernity.”
The future discussion should be, in the words of author Ali Eteraz, shifted towards: “Structural and political discussions — for example, about separation of mosque and state, the making of a Muslim Left, the ideas of Muslim secularists, the debate over Islamic liberal democracy and the emergence of a post-Islamist Islam.”
Throughout the 19th century, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan heralded just such a movement with his Aligarh initiative and educational reforms. Sir Syed’s reforms influenced a generation of Muslim intellectuals and helped foster liberal religious thinking. Just such a series of initiatives is needed in modern-day Pakistan today, because it is apparent that the isolated works of religious and political reform need to be institutionalised and bring about structural reform.
But there is hope for those wishing to see an alternative — Islamic liberalism. By combining liberal values and religious thinking, this type of politics will appeal to a broad audience and will bring about consensus in the hopelessly useless and polarised ‘secular vs religious’ debate in many Muslim societies. The best example of this is Rachid Al Ghannouchi and his An-Nahda party. The An-Nahda party maintains a synthesis between progressive politics and liberal interpretations of Islamic law, hence combining democracy with suitably liberal moral foundations.
The hope is that Islamist politics in Pakistan (though unfortunately our religious parties are perhaps the most radical in the whole Muslim world) becomes liberalised or undergoes major reform as is the case in the greater Arab world (due to the recent transformative revolutions) combined with a re-imagined democratic Left, after the consistent wretched failures of the PPP, MQM and other parties.
But for this democracy to work as a buffer against radicalism, serious questions have to be asked of our army and its generals.
The writer is a freelance columnist. He can be reached at ahmadalikhalid@ymail.com
Torture theology in the devil’s republic
Ahmad Ali Khalid
It has now become clear that what the Iranian intellectual AbdolKarim Soroush had remarked is becoming a reality. A society which lacks religious intellectuals who can freely and unashamedly be critical in the public sphere and call to task fundamentalists and conservatives will inevitably decline into a form of tribalism with a veneer of religious piety. What has come to be in Pakistan is the full evolution and logical conclusion of the new generation of fundamentalism.
Our minister for religious minorities Shahbaz Bhatti was brutally slaughtered at the altar of a cruel and inhuman fanaticism, which is eating away, consuming the very soul of Islam in Pakistan. The philosophy of the Sufis, scholasticism of the jurists and the intellect of the theologians have crumbled under the weight of a new theology — a theology of torture.
It is the radical religious movements in Pakistan that control the grassroots of religious education, not liberals, moderates or even traditionalists. The scholastic genius of classical Islam has been displaced, destroyed by the onslaught of colonialism, authoritarianism and new dynamics of the nation state, only to be replaced by a crass fundamentalism.
This form of barbaric extremism is no longer confined to acts of random violence, but is spreading, becoming sharper and being actively marshalled and mobilised to drive out liberal and moderate voices from all spheres of public life, from the legal culture to the political culture. That is the frightening thing. Educated and well-spoken individuals are being seduced by the hatred and bigotry of this new insane form of extremism.
We suffer from a crisis of religious and moral authority. We can count Javed Ahmad Ghamidi as the only religious scholar who has taken a different view on the whole tragedy. Slowly but surely, over the years, whether it was in opposition to the Women’s Protection Bill, land reforms or any other piece of progressive legislation, a theology of torture has been instituted in Pakistan.
This theology of torture rules in Pakistan, making life hell for women, minorities and ‘lesser’ Muslims. This theology of torture has been sponsored by the state and indeed been given a clearance by other institutions such as the army. The fact is the extremism that was being fostered for purposes of ‘strategic depth’ is now taking on a life of its own. It is becoming intelligent, ruthless and dynamic. It adapts and widens its influence from the media to the judiciary to the extent of ruling over the religious discourse unchallenged and emboldened.
This ‘Islamic’ republic has turned into an instrument for the devil where ‘men of faith’ carry out hellish deeds and turn ‘God as Lover’ into ‘God as Killer’. The very meaning of ‘faith’ in Pakistan has changed in populist religious discussion from something connected with love and reason to something synonymous with hatred and arrogance. This must change.
First, on a more personal level, we can confront the domestic abuse of women in our own families, and consider the Christians of Pakistan (who are socio-economically marginalised, condemned to a life of servitude) as fellow citizens and human beings. The issue of women and minorities is not far removed from our daily lives. In our own dealings and families, we should take note of how unfairly we treat women and minorities, whether it is humiliating and demeaning the Christian servants kept in Pakistani households across the country or the women abused and tortured by gutless husbands. Countless times we have heard about the abuse of women in torturous marriages or the gross maltreatment of Christian domestic servants. We can make a difference just by treating fellow Pakistanis, be they women (our own daughters, mothers and sisters) or Christians, with dignity and respect. We as a society cannot claim to be innocent of this new and violent radicalism because we have condoned and encouraged the mistreatment of women and minorities. This radicalism and extremism did not emerge overnight — it was simply a logical extension of our own cultural practices.
The question of religion in Pakistan is too important and too volatile to be left in the hands of semi-literate ‘clerics’ but it is too dangerous for individuals such as Ghamidi and the late Mr Muhammad Farooq Khan (the liberal Islamic intellectual brutally murdered last year) to work alone. The state has to step up to support the bravery of intellectuals and politicians.
Professor Bayat in a paper talked about the emergence of a post-Islamism in the Iranian context: “In contemporary Iran, post-Islamism is expressed in the idea of fusion between Islam (as a personalised faith) and individual freedom and choice; and post-Islamism is associated with the values of democracy and aspects of modernity.”
The future discussion should be, in the words of author Ali Eteraz, shifted towards: “Structural and political discussions — for example, about separation of mosque and state, the making of a Muslim Left, the ideas of Muslim secularists, the debate over Islamic liberal democracy and the emergence of a post-Islamist Islam.”
Throughout the 19th century, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan heralded just such a movement with his Aligarh initiative and educational reforms. Sir Syed’s reforms influenced a generation of Muslim intellectuals and helped foster liberal religious thinking. Just such a series of initiatives is needed in modern-day Pakistan today, because it is apparent that the isolated works of religious and political reform need to be institutionalised and bring about structural reform.
But there is hope for those wishing to see an alternative — Islamic liberalism. By combining liberal values and religious thinking, this type of politics will appeal to a broad audience and will bring about consensus in the hopelessly useless and polarised ‘secular vs religious’ debate in many Muslim societies. The best example of this is Rachid Al Ghannouchi and his An-Nahda party. The An-Nahda party maintains a synthesis between progressive politics and liberal interpretations of Islamic law, hence combining democracy with suitably liberal moral foundations.
The hope is that Islamist politics in Pakistan (though unfortunately our religious parties are perhaps the most radical in the whole Muslim world) becomes liberalised or undergoes major reform as is the case in the greater Arab world (due to the recent transformative revolutions) combined with a re-imagined democratic Left, after the consistent wretched failures of the PPP, MQM and other parties.
But for this democracy to work as a buffer against radicalism, serious questions have to be asked of our army and its generals.
The writer is a freelance columnist. He can be reached at ahmadalikhalid@ymail.com
nightcrawler
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,400
- Reaction score
- 0
Now Googling An-Nahda party
mehru
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,645
- Reaction score
- 0
I quite understand that but G.M.Syed turned against the state in the end and that's what matters. Just like Akbar Bugti was not always a rebel but turned into a rebel later on. If things don't go your way then it doesn't mean that you should turn against the state.As for Bacha Khan, i have sympathy for him. He was wrongly accused. Unfortunately his closeness to Indian Congress and his initial opposition to Pakistan and Quaid went against him. His case was thoroughly mishandled.
I don't like many things in Pakistan but that doesn't mean that i will work against it and will start a rebellion. Don't justify a traitor.
I am for a secular state as well but the problem is that we can't go against the wishes of majority. By proper planning, we could work for the rights and protection of people under an Islamic state as well.
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
Mehru
What makes you think the majority disapprove of a secular state?? In fact it is because the idea of religious ideological state is a minority position that it's proponents use the threat of violence and outright violence to impose it upon the nation of Pakistan -- See, we are Muslims for the most part and we have Christians and Jews and Hindus and Parsi or Zardushti, we don't want anyone to give up their confession or conscience - but all Pakistanis want equality before the law - that's all - but violent minorities (research and see who started this model of threatening society with violence unless society agrees to their positon - hint: Jamaat) are bent on undoing the Quaid e Azam's Pakistan
What makes you think the majority disapprove of a secular state?? In fact it is because the idea of religious ideological state is a minority position that it's proponents use the threat of violence and outright violence to impose it upon the nation of Pakistan -- See, we are Muslims for the most part and we have Christians and Jews and Hindus and Parsi or Zardushti, we don't want anyone to give up their confession or conscience - but all Pakistanis want equality before the law - that's all - but violent minorities (research and see who started this model of threatening society with violence unless society agrees to their positon - hint: Jamaat) are bent on undoing the Quaid e Azam's Pakistan
Muhammad-Bin-Qasim
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2010
- Messages
- 2,051
- Reaction score
- 0
The majority in Pakistan do want Islam... the problem is that there is a lot of overlap between secularism and Islam and this confuses a lot of people... but to say that Islam is a minority's desire is wrong... people may not agree with JUI or JI but that does nt mean they want a secular state like the U.K or U.S.A...
mehru
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,645
- Reaction score
- 0
Well there is no survey which could exactly tell what people think. People certainly don't want religious parties in power (going by the votes) but they are also against the concept of secularism too. It's my personal observation. I could be wrong. I discussed this concept with my parents, friends, relatives and everyone in contact. They are against secularism except my brother who supports me. People unfortunately equate secularism to atheism. It's the misconception regarding secularism which we should remove. Interestingly i also thought the same in my childhood but with a bit of research my mind changed and i started supporting it.
That's why i think we should ask for the rights of vulnerable minorities without changing the Islamic identity of the state right now. It should be removed only when people are ready to accept it. It should not be forced. Just my personal opinion.
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
It's important to make sense - it can't be both ways, can it?????
During the effort against the Soviet, we made a deliberate decision, a small but very important decision - we decided that we would refer to the term "secular" not as "Ilmaniyat" but as "Ladeeniyat" .
Ladeeniyat (no religion or irreligiousness) imparted in the minds of Muslims a irrational rebellion, a rejection -- Whereas Ilmaniyat (with reference to Ilm or knowledge or sciences) imparted a more neutral and scholarly sense.
So be clear, even with regard to the secular in society, there is "objective" and "subjective" secularism -- The former refers to roles for confessional identities, ethic and morality a role in culture and in conscience, the latter (subjective) refers to the complete rejection of any role for confessional ethics and morality in society.
We, always refers to Ilmaniyat, the original word and we, for the most part reject subjective secularism - don't for a minute imagine that majorities buy into forcing people into being a particular kind of Muslim, but they are affraid and with good reason.
Bang Galore
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2010
- Messages
- 10,685
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
Do I detect sad resignation in the face of what looks like the inevitable?
Developereo
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2009
- Messages
- 14,093
- Reaction score
- 25
- Country
- Location
We already have a unifying ideology: we are the modern heirs of the Indus Valley Civilization.
twoplustwoisfour
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2010
- Messages
- 1,589
- Reaction score
- 0
Geographically, maybe. But is that an ideology?
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
Actually you are right it's not a ideology and it must not be -- The ideology of the Pakistani state need be the protection of property and liberty and prosperity of her citizens -
Pakistan has been careless, indeed careless with history(s) let them unfold, no need to bridle them, let the histories paint thousands of competing narratives, all open to influence of discovery.
Pakistan has been careless, indeed careless with history(s) let them unfold, no need to bridle them, let the histories paint thousands of competing narratives, all open to influence of discovery.
T-Faz
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2010
- Messages
- 4,962
- Reaction score
- 1
They did not turn against the state but rather its government, like the Bengalis who were asking for what was rightfully theirs, a simple solution could have been reached through dialogue but our idiots went gung-ho on everyone who questions the disastrous decisions that are made by the puppet governments that we have.
Should a person just sit by ideally and let the same people who opposed this nation devour his land and its people. The only people who have worked against this state is that religious clergy, politicians and some generals who sold this nation for their own benefit. This has gone on to this day and only because these people are not labelled as traitors, they are still around and continue to harm this state. G.M Syed did not do any damage to the nation that can match what the rulers of this country do.
Similarly, you have to see what these people had to go through. The Bugti's struggled to the point of despair for no apparent reason apart from asking for revenues that they were entitled to, my family is witness to this fact.
Firstly, we cannot conclude that the majority wants an Islamic state because there is no indicator for this and similarly the majority does not even understand the concept of an Islamic state.
Secondly, the same majority keeps voting the same treacherous parties through elections and later they moan and cry, this is another fact that should indicate that the majority does not know what is good for its own self.
The people who actually propose an Islamic state are only doing so because its will benefit them. They do not care about the people or what happens to the nation, all they want is power and we cant let that happen.
Secularism on the other hand has been tarnished by the same people when in reality it could benefit the state.
Its better to have a system that benefits us then one that damages us.
Similar threads
