Re: Accepting Secularism is rejecting Islam
[font=Times New Roman]*Originally posted by Raihan: *
[font=Times New Roman]You didn’t answer my question. Would you be ok with any of your family members saying that they’re homosexual?
[font=Times New Roman]
[font=Times New Roman]I’ll answer this below - but before that I’d like to point out that this question that you originally put forms part of a common thread in all your arguements - in fact they are not really arguements, they are opinions and rhetoric, and they go like this : ‘if you don’t agree with my rational, then you are necessarily for all things bad, including homosexuality, crime..whatever’. AvgAmerican also picked up on this. This position in itself is arrogant - its the ‘you’re either with us or against us’ syndrome - political claptrap, Bushism reversed. Moreover, when confronted with the same issue yourself, you conveniently distance yourself from the bad experiments of religious based governments - Iran, SA, Taliban etc. They are ‘theocracies’, not real Islamic states. I remember when I used to argue against communism and its examples with my communist class fellows at Uni, they would use the same arguement - Soviet Union is not a REAL communist state, a real one would be different etc etc. So these ideological positions are not new. Any way, for what its worth:
[font=Times New Roman]
[font=Times New Roman]My initial reaction would be similar to yours (surprise surprise) - I would be disgusted and would attemtp to persuade my relative to adopt an alternative lifestyle. However I wouldn’t disown them as you would, because whatever their orientation they would still be my kith and kin - and I would continue to try to help them and leave the rest to Allah. Allah brought them into this world and I’ll let Allah pass whatever judgement on them when they return to him. I’m not sure what difference it would make to my response whether I was living in a secular or an Islamic state.
[font=Times New Roman]Originally posted by Raihan:
[font=Times New Roman]*I also read widely the difference between us is I am convinced of the ability of Islam to solve human problems when implemented as a state and not before whereas you see Islam as a mere spiritual religion no different from any other. I have critically studied Islam, Capitalism, Communism and I continue to do so. *
[font=Times New Roman]
[font=Times New Roman]Fine. So we have both studied widely but we reach different conclusions. Why is this so ? Ponder over this for a while - I mean this seriously. Why is it that two people can read the same scripture, but can interpret things, marginally or radically, in different ways ? You keep telling me ‘the difference between me and you is…’ and then you tell me what I am. Now allow me to do likewise: the difference between me and you is that I can accept your point of view as an outcome of your interpretation, but I don’t have to agree with it. Likewise, I can accept that lots of other people can see things in different ways to me - but that’s OK - we can agree to disagree. You, on the other had, believe that only your view is the right view and all others are invalid - and further that the holders of all other ‘invalid’ views are lesser muslims. There are others, I might add, that would construct similar boudaries around their variant of belief and consider all outsiders, you included, as lesser muslims. This is the real difference between you and me, and it is a significant one - please have a good think over it.
[font=Times New Roman]
[font=Times New Roman]Addressing your specific point - yes for me Islam is a continuous, spiritual journey, which defines how I relate to the world around me and to Allah. Individual, personal integrity is the bedrock which defines collective community - you can’t legislate a persons faith onto them. That’s my view and I can accept that you don’t agree - but I won’t judge you as a lesser muslim, unlike you.
[font=Times New Roman]
[font=Times New Roman]Originally posted by Raihan:
[font=Times New Roman]It’s very easy to put a label on someone who doesn’t agree with you like braiwashed, extremist, radical, and people only do this when they can’t prove them wrong.
[font=Times New Roman]
[font=Times New Roman]YOU started it: “…for a muslim to reject the political aspect of Islam is the same as rejecting salah or any fardh…”. What is that saying about muslims who disagree with you ? But anyway, lets start afresh. I shall try hard not to call you brainwashed - even though you continue to issue standard-issue soundbites like politicians do. On the subject of proof - what have you proven to me ? - what do you want me to prove to you ? Is there a mathematical formula ? We are each expressing points of view.
[font=Times New Roman]
[font=Times New Roman]Originally posted by Raihan:
[font=Times New Roman]Ideology is a rational doctrine from which a system emanates. If it was just a group of ideas of a person, group or nation the every nation would have an ideology but they don’t. Most nations mimic capitalist nations. An ideological nation is a nation of people who refer to the same basis to solve their problems. Does Pakistan have an ideology?
[font=Times New Roman]
[font=Times New Roman]Firstly, the definition of ‘ideology’ isn’t mine (i.e ‘Idealogy is the body of ideas, and beliefs of a person, group or nation’). This is from Collins English Dictionary. Look it up if you don’t believe me. If you wish to change the definition then I suggest you write to the official custodians of words (don’t ask me who).
[font=Times New Roman]
[font=Times New Roman]Secondly - " Ideology is a rational doctrine from which a system emanates" - you’ve mentioned this a number of times (standard-issue soundbite ?). Who’s rational are we talking about ? Yours, mine or someones elses ? We can each rationalise and come up with differing ideologies. Communism is an ideology. Is it rational from your perspective? How would a communist answer the same question ?
[font=Times New Roman]
[font=Times New Roman]Originally posted by Raihan
[font=Times New Roman]I know exactly what I meant when I wrote it. I don’t need to be told this. Which part of this is wrong and why?
[font=Times New Roman]
[font=Times New Roman]What you try to state as facts are actually opinions to support your political stance, e.g “..a muslim will never accept that he/she will have to reject about 3 quarters of the Quran so that he/she receives the title of moderate muslim…for a muslim to reject the political aspect of Islam is the same as rejecting salah or any fardh…”
[font=Times New Roman]
[font=Times New Roman]OK here’s a surprise for you. I have read all of Quran, translated, many times and don’t reject it. I consider it to emphasise balance, proportion and the middle way, I do not believe that it legislates any ‘political sysem’ as you imply. If that makes me a ‘moderate’ muslim, fine.
[font=Times New Roman]
[font=Times New Roman]There you go - I have immediately countered your ‘..rejecting 3 quarters Quran..’ hypothesis. Now consider the following view :
[font=Times New Roman]
[font=Times New Roman]“…The orthodox, as well as various reformist movements, must realise that the goal of recreating the ‘Madina of the Prophet’ and implementing an 8th century ‘Islamic Law’ is a recipe for further disasters. Muslims need to understand that implementing the sharia would not empower people but creating a civil society and a just order for humanity might…” Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, Director, The Muslim Institute
[font=Times New Roman]
[font=Times New Roman]or consider the views of learned people at this conference - http://www.islam-democracy.org/
[font=Times New Roman]
[font=Times New Roman]Now - the point is not to show you the many examples of people who don’t hold your views. Nor am I suggesting that any of the above should have any Islamic/interpretive authority over you or anyone else. The point is to ask you : do you think they have all rejected 3 quarters of the Quran ? Have they rejected, in equivalence, salah or any fard ? Think carefully before you write more nonsense (oops didn’t want to label).
[font=Times New Roman]
[font=Times New Roman]Originally posted by Raihan:
[font=Times New Roman]You wan’t me to read history? Can’t you prove it? You hold the idea so you should be able to prove it. ? Unless of course you are the one who is brainwashed and don’t know why you hold the idea.
[font=Times New Roman]
[font=Times New Roman]OK - I begin to lose my cool a bit here. YOU are the one arguing that secularism is rejecting Islam - so argue it. So far you’ve produced nothing. I’ve never argued that secularism is the bees knees, the best thing since sliced bread. But you are making a very specific statement, and you need to follow it through with cogent arguement. Your statement :
[font=Times New Roman]“how is ‘even if God exists god doesn’t have any say in our politics’ a rational conslusion”
[font=Times New Roman]is an opinion, not an unquestionable fact. Besides it itself begs questions - whose rational ? what politics - e.g state legislature or influence in the affairs of state etc etc. Can we consider lessons learnt from experience, e.g all the political assassinations that have occurred in Islamic history (start with the first caliphs in Islam) ? Will you consider all views, or will label the ones disagreeable as ‘unislamic’ ? Argue your statement.