How Islamic is Pakistan meant to be?
The relationship between the mosque and the state in Pakistan needs to be examined.
Even among our most mature thinkers, columnists or critics, the discussion of secularism lacks substance.
Nearly all articles on secularism within the Pakistani press conflate liberal political theory with secularism (I use secularism in this context as a paradigm of mosque/church-state relations). Out come the arguments for rights, progress, science, rationality and tolerance, but to any student of political theory, this is the sign of a confused mind. These are not ‘’secular’’ concepts at all, but political values that are borne out of the liberal tradition of political thought.
Liberalism and secularism are not the same
Indeed, secularism itself is not a political ideology but just one part of a wider array of critical questions.
The real substance in any discussion on secularism must be about religious authority, religious law, the role of religion in the public sphere and the relationship between religious and political institutions (mosque and state relations).
Religious authority and the nation state
In this post, I am concerned with just religious authority. What is to be the nature of religious authority in a modern nation state? Can religious authority be democratic? We need a discussion on the relationship between religious authority and the nation state.
The nation state marks a paradigm shift for Muslim societies who have traditionally been ruled by sultanates, self proclaimed caliphs and monarchs. The concept of the nation state itself arguably borne out of the experiences of the French and American Revolutions, which gave rise to the phenomenon of constitutionalism, codification of a positivist law and separation of powers, has presented unique challenges to Muslim societies. Indeed the modern era has perhaps plunged Muslim societies into a crisis of legal authority.
The first Shari’a-based modern code of law which sets the pattern for all future codifications of the Shari’a, was not in the medieval age, but in the age of modernity initiated by the Ottoman Empire in the sixteen books of the Mecelle (subsumed under the Tanzimat Reforms) during the decade just preceding the drafting of the Ottoman Constitution, 1869–1876, which can be seen as an attempt to create an ‘’Islamic Constitutionalism’’ in response to the perceived encroaching juridical-political hegemony of the Europeans.
Religious authority can assume a number of functions from establishing orthodox and orthopraxy normative to establishing a canon of authorative texts and interpretations. But defining and constructing religious authority in a nation state presents unique challenges.
What do laws have to do with it?
This question is even more pertinent given the recent changes made to the Council of Islamic Ideology and the appointment of a new head who some say is unrepresentative of the religiosity of the general public and regressive. Senator Shirani the new appointed head belongs to the Jamat-e-Islami party, a party which is one of the worst performing at elections and achieves a small percentage of the vote. Hence the question which is rightly asked by many is how can such an unrepresentative political agent be given such an influence on legislative authority? Is it simply because this is ‘’religious legislation’’, and hence democratic principles are suspended when constructing religious authority in a legislative context? Why is there this ‘’religious exceptionalism’’?
Should not the bodies and organizations which have influence on the legislation of a nation state be held to account, and scrutiny, even if they be religious. After all religion is divine and infallible but the musings and reasoning of no particular cleric progressive or regressive is infallible, and human knowledge whether religious or secular should not be treated as Divine.
But was religious authority always so coercive and authoritarian? The picture is different, historically speaking; religious authority in classical Islam was pluralistic and tolerant of divergent view points:
‘’ By codification and state promulgation, the movements that aim to reintroduce Islamic law through the political power of the state end up changing radically the nature of Islamic law, which was traditionally epistemically [the structure and theory of knowledge] grounded and contained a variety of equally valid and orthodox viewpoints.’’
The history of religious authority in the Islamic traditions is too expansive a topic to tackle here, though we can safely say religious authority in Muslim societies never had full control of political power and usually religious authority was subordinated or independent of the sultanate etc. Historian Mubarak Ali in a recent interview said:
‘’ Almost all the rulers in Muslim history applied the model of secularism during their rule. During the Abbasid period, ulema were not allowed to interfere in the political affairs of state and the caliph was not allowed to meddle in religious affairs.’’
Which Islam represents the state?
The concern today is how to reconcile the authoritarian and coercive structures of religious authority present in Pakistan with the country’s stated allegiance to democratic principles. With the rise of the new and unprecedented political construct of the Islamic State (or Islamic Republic) in the post colonial era, questions about the role of Sharia in this new political reality and how and who is to determine it have become more important. We are faced with a flood of questions:
- Who speaks for Islam?
- Who has the right to interpret the foundational religious texts?
- Can there be a ‘’State Islam’’, a state sponsored religiosity which all have to abide by?
- Furthermore, even more tricky questions arise as to the nature of ‘’true’’ ijtihad, who performs ijtihad, who defines it, what is its scope?
Does Islamic law stop becoming the will of God and the political will of rulers when the State enforces it? Professor An Naim seems to think so, in his book ‘’Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating The Future of Sharia (pg 261):
“Any Sharia principle that is enforced by the state only represents the view of the ruling elite and becomes the political will of the state rather than the religious law of Muslims’’
All these questions arise when we try and merge republicanism, with a legal discourse which spans over many centuries and many schools of thought with immense complexity and diversity. In effect a clash of mindsets arises, a democratic psychology when it comes to determining temporal authority, but a more subdued, devotion based psychology when it comes to religious authority. It marks a dissonance and the conflict and challenges modernity brings to the dynamics of the Islamic traditions.
The innate pluralism, flexibility and diversity of Sharia it seems is only quashed and repressed in the new political reality of the nation state. Historically speaking:
‘Throughout the development of Islamic legal theory, there has been
widespread divergence in the interpretations of the Muslim
jurists qualified to expound God’s sharia.
This captures the tension between unity and diversity in Islamic
legal doctrine which goes to the very core of Muslim jurisprudence. ‘’
In an effort to codify and centralise the dispensation of Sharia the pluralism, complexities and subtleties of the legal tradition are being cast aside. One wonders whether merging the political structures of modernity in the manifestation of the nation state with the dynamics of such a vast and tradition based legal discourse as Sharia is a wise decision. Who does the State turn to in the absence of a divinely ordained clergy and ‘’church’’ as in the case with Roman Catholicism to determine these religiously based legislative norms?
Iqbal too was keenly aware of adapting notions of religious authority in a legislative context with the new political paradigm, in a lecture in his Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam:
‘’ The growth of republican spirit and the gradual formation of legislative assemblies in Muslim lands constitute a great step in advance. The transfer of the power of Ijtihad from individual representatives of schools to a Muslim legislative assembly which, in view of the growth of opposing sects, is the only possible form Ijma can take in modern times, will secure contributions to legal discussion from laymen who happen to possess a keen insight into affairs.’’
Iqbal keenly aware of the challenges of the nation state argued for a modernization of the Islamic legal tradition:
‘’ The only effective remedy for the possibilities of erroneous interpretations is to reform the present system of legal education in [Islamic] countries, to extend its sphere, and to combine it with an intelligent study of modern jurisprudence.’’
Indeed in the editor’s introduction in a particular edition of the Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, the following remarks are revealing:
‘’ In a press interview, a little before the second Round Table Conference, the Allama expressed his intention of writing a book on ‘the system of fiqh in the light of modern knowledge’, another ‘work of reconstruction’ on the legal aspect of Islam, much more important than its purely theological aspect. To this second work of reconstruction, his present work of reconstruction on the philosophical aspect of Islam, he added with his usual modesty, was ‘necessary as a prelude’. The much cherished book: ‘The Reconstruction of Legal Thought in Islam’ was, however, not written: but the bare fact that the Allama wanted to write it and the great importance that he attached to the writing of it, signifies, perhaps, his will to posterity.’’
Could such a work be conceived in modern Pakistan?
The rupture of the juridical tradition of ‘’classical Islam’’ in seeing the determination of Sharia as a matter for a class of individual scholars, compared to the need of legal centralisation in the context of a modern nation state is a critical clash . This conflict and rupture will continue to take place until serious questions about the nature, legitimacy and scope of religious authority is once again robustly discussed.
Ultimately, the fundamental question is: who speaks for Islam in Pakistan?
The views expressed by the writer and the reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of The Express Tribune.
First and foremost,
Secularism: Government without religion
Islam: Way of Life, ALLAH being the sole authority of each and everything in a Muslim’s life(including state affairs).
So who do you follow with secularism ?.
Secondly, for Mr. Mubarak Ali’s info, if a ruler or a dynasty, particulary Abbasid didn’t follow Islam truly, that doesn’t mean Islam was always like that.
Thirdly, After the Prophet S.A.W.W, the best of the govt. in the Muslim History was of Hazrat Umar Ibn Al-Khattab R.A and he never separated Islam from politics, i’ll urge u and Mr. Mubarak Ali to please read about his govt. as well before passing comments as:
“Almost all the rulers in Muslim history applied the model of secularism during their rule”.
When you give examples on such things, you look at the best of people i.e. Prophet S.A.W.W or Umar Ibn Al-Khattab R.A (if you want to be more practical), rather than the bad one’s (i.e. the Abbasids)Recommend
This piece of writing is a clear reflection that the writer has no knowledge of Islam.
I have forgotton the name of the person who first coined the term “secularis” but he clearly said that secularism means atheism. Secondly the writer has mentioned that Sherani is the head of the CII which is wrong. Sherani is a senator and his party has tried to make him chief of the CII but failed.
It is for the information of the writer that Sherani belongs to Jamiat-e-ulema-e-Islam of Maulana Fazlur Rehman (JUI-F) and not to jamaat-e-Islami.Recommend
truly in the land of the blind the one-eyed are stoned to death:.:P @Ghafar..secularism=atheism? did u even read the article? @faizan..read the article again..did u miss the part about which version of Islam to follow? u might’ve noticed things have changed from the time of the Holy Prophet(SAW).
this is a great article and kudos to the writer for writing on a topic that has been made a taboo by the lot of vociferous ignoramuses ..:)Recommend
Islam is a way of life….Bout whose Sharia are you gonna follow mine ? a shiites ? a deobandis ?
Pakistanis can not and will not agree on sharia or islamic laws and if one sect is made to dominate the government than there will be problems.
Its better if our government takes a neutral and a secular stand on religion or else these problems will continue.
P.S : nice articleRecommend
appreciate the article ahmad….problem is…the majority of readers are too far behind on the pscychological evolutionary scale to analyse it without bias….
religious dogma should not be a part of the day-to-day running of a state…religion is personal and specific.Recommend
@taha..well put..:)Recommend
if pakistan was a secular society we woul not be in the trouble we are in today.religous fanatics blowing up & killing ppl,because they have been taught to shun rational,critical thinking since birth( in which they are religously supported by their apologists who blame all of society’s ills on foreign elements.)
Constraining half of our population inside the “chaar diwari”,to be hidden away from the world,in reality using religion to conceal our men’s possessiveness & insecurities has led our society being at the bottom of any social index, be it business competitiveness,literacy,healthcare.
It’s time we opened our minds & question rationally what we have been fed since birth.Recommend
Thank you for the kind comments and critical feedback so far.
I would point out it is depressing that many of the dogmatic posters are resorting to the good old, ”secularism=atheism” fallacy. Secularism in the sense I am using is just a political paradigm. Its about determining the role religion should have in society. I feel that religion should have a prominent role in public discussion, public policy debate and ethical discussion, but I do not think that religions should be given preference by political leaders.
The purpose of the state and religion, it seems, are inevitably different, but there is a link. That link is mainly a concern for justice, sincere ethical conduct, morality and order throughout society, but that is not to say that our religion is a political ideology and our state should be synonymous with religion. It is neither prescribed in our faith, nor was it the vision of our founding father.
The institutions of religion and the State should be separated, but religion cannot be kept out of public life (because it would involve authoratarianism). That is the distinction we must make.
One can have religious convictions and participate in public life, but the notion of a ‘state religion’ is contradictory, with no theological or rational justification. The state is concerned ultimately with this life, with the rights and status of its citizens, and the aim of security, health, peace and prosperity.
Religion, though not cut off from the world, is ultimately concerned about the salvation of human beings. Mixing the machinations and murky business of statecraft with the intensely spiritual and virtuous experience of religion is detrimental to the latter. The Quran mentions that the Prophet (PBUH) was not sent to sort out the personal affairs of others, but convey a message (10:108, 17:54, 88:21-22).
Did no the Prophet PBUH say, ”I am no more than man; when I order you anything respecting religion, receive it; and when I order you anything about the affairs of the world, then I am nothing more than man.”
And:
”You know best the affairs of your worldly life.”’ (Prophet PBUH)
Government and politics is not other-worldly, hence there is no ”eternal” model of government. We must be allowed to exercise our own human rationality and be able to have a sensible discussion.
Quashing God-given liberty (free will), stifling debate and criticism in an attempt to safeguard power under the pretence of religion can happen all too often when we cannot clearly separate religion and the state institutionally.
Toleration is the fruit from which the fine arts of persuasion and gracious preaching can flow. Our own scripture points us in this direction: “[Prophet (PBUH)], call [people] to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good teaching. Argue with them in the most courteous way, for your Lord knows best who has strayed from His way and who is rightly guided” (16:125). Propagation of faith was never a political activity based on laws and punishments, but one based on discussion and reasoned argumentation.
It is worthwhile to note that the historical scholarship of Abdullahi An Naim and Abdelwahab El-Affendi in their respective works prove that there is no theory of government in the Quran. The Quran has no theory of government, what the Quran has are precious values and ethical teachings. The late Pakistani intellectual Professor Fazlur Rahman noted that in our times Islam has come more to mean more about the dirty business of politics and less about ethical and moral reasoning.
Those who argue that the State must enforce religion, must have no confidence in the Truth of the faith they practice hence they feel force and coercion is necessary to establish religion.
Coercion breeds hypocrisy and as such cannot be justified for the greater good. The Quran itself recognises this notion. “There is no compulsion in religion: true guidance has become distinct from error” (2:256).
Ultimately the fundamental quesiton is, why use political force to establish faith? This is a question that many who argue for a ”State Islam” will try and avoid…..Recommend
@Ghafar Ali: ignorance like yours is stupefying. the reason why you cant remember the name of the person who coined ‘secularism’ is because there is no one person which the term can be attributed to. secularism is simply the division between church and state. what on earth is so difficult to understand about that? its not atheism. come to think of it, people like you always use ‘this person has no knowledge of islam’ as a convenient way of dismissing a person’s argument without engaging with it. and it definitely doesn’t help in hiding your ignorance and lack of knowledge, whether its to do with worldly or islamic matters.
next time. read first. (remember what iqra stands for?)Recommend
About Quran merely being just a book about Ethical and precious values, Quran is the most sophisticated book one can find in the world EVER, from explaining the birth of a human being to his death, and the affairs which he involves himself/herself in this world, and how to behave in this world perfectly, and this includes Government.Recommend
i urge the all the people to read this
http://faizan-chaki.blogspot.com/2010/10/secularism-and-moral-values.htmlRecommend
@Taha. Intelligent comment. I ask Mr FAizan and all the others to read Taha’s comment and explain how can a nation state can be created according to Islam when the definition of Islamic laws is different among sects? How can we as a nation reconcile to these difference in interpretations. I have no answer to it maybe the enlighten ones can answer.Recommend
@Faizan Chaki
As your ludricous assertions about science in the Quran, this is a modern fallacy as Muslims feel threatened by the scientific prowess of Europe. In a feeble attempt to prove their rationality and compensate for the hopeless state of scientific investigation, some Muslims have resorted to linguistic gymanastic, stretching the meaning of the Quran’s grammatical and linguistic structure to breaking point in order to justify ”scientific discoveries”.
May I ask why the early classical scholars and interpreters of the Quran never practiced this? Why did many Muslim scholars like Al Biruni instead say that the science is independent from religious teaching?
http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2008/08/quran-muslim-scientific
What these thinkers are doing is to take scientific developments and fit them into the Quran,and the proof of this is that for the last 1400 years Muslim scholars never claimed to find scientific facts in the Quran. This phenomenon was begun by Maurice Bucaille. Before Bucaille no one attempted this ridiculous idea, because of the immense scientific and linguistic problems involved. Its a method of interpretation which is hopeless.
Could you cite the words ”Government” and ”Politics” in the Quran directly? Can you even cite the word ”State” in the Quran in the context of the modern nation state? Why are we resorting to this hopeless textual literalism instead of using God given reason?
The Quran speaks of justice,compassion, mercy, impartiality, wisdom and knowledge as values, moral commandments and encourges the reader to ponder over its verses and to travel the world in search of knowledge. The Quran does not contain political theory. Where in the Quran are the concepts of ”separations of power” ,”independent judiciary”? The Quran has no theory of government, instead the Quran urges upright moral conduct not political engineering and how to construct a State.
Also those who call for the supremacy of God in political rule are falling into an old fallacy:
Khaled Abou El Fadl in his essay, ”Islam and the Challenge of Democracy” first writes:
”Although Muslim jurists debated political systems, the Qur’an itself did not specify a particular form of government. But it did identify a set of social and political values that are central to a Muslim polity. Three values are of particular importance: pursuing justice through social cooperation and mutual assistance (Qur’an 49:13; 11:119); establishing a non-autocratic, consultative method of governance; and institutionalizing mercy and compassion in social interactions (6:12, 54; 21:107; 27:77; 29:51; 45.20). So, all else equal, Muslims today ought to endorse the form of government that is most effective in helping them promote these values.”
The fact of the matter that Al Ghazali, Al Mawardi, Ibn Khaldun and Al Farabi who were all excellent philosophers and scholars reached different conclusions about government and politics proves that the Quran does not have one theory of government. These scholars recognized this and hence constructed different theories.
And El Fadl then writes:
”Early in Islamic history the issue of God’s political dominion (hakimiyyat Allah) was raised by a group known as the Haruriyya (later known as the Khawarij) when they rebelled against the fourth Rightly Guided Caliph ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib. Initially supporters of ‘Ali, the Haruriyya turned against him when he agreed to arbitrate his political dispute with a competing political faction led by a man named Mu‘awiya.
‘Ali himself had agreed to the arbitration on condition that the arbitrators be bound by the Qur’an and give full consideration to the supremacy of the Shari‘ah. But the Khawarij—pious, puritanical, and fanatical—believed that God’s law clearly supported ‘Ali. So they rejected arbitration as inherently unlawful and, in effect, a challenge to God’s sovereignty. According to the Khawarij, ‘Ali’s behavior showed that he was willing to compromise God’s supremacy by transferring decision making to human actors. They declared ‘Ali a traitor to God, and after efforts to reach a peaceful resolution failed they assassinated him. After ‘Ali’s death, Mu‘awiya seized power and established himself as the first caliph of the Umayyad Dynasty.
Anecdotal reports about the debates between ‘Ali and the Khawarij reflect an unmistakable tension about the meaning of legality and the implications of the rule of law. In one such report members of the Khawarij accused ‘Ali of accepting the judgment and dominion (hakimiyya) of human beings instead of abiding by the dominion of God’s law. Upon hearing of this accusation, ‘Ali called upon the people to gather around him and brought a large copy of the Qur’an. ‘Ali touched the Qur’an while instructing it to speak to the people and inform them about God’s law. Surprised, the people gathered around ‘Ali exclaimed, “What are you doing? The Qur’an cannot speak, for it is not a human being!” Upon hearing this, ‘Ali exclaimed that this was exactly his point. The Qur’an, ‘Ali explained, is but ink and paper, and it does not speak for itself. Instead, it is human beings who give effect to it according to their limited personal judgments and opinions.
Such stories are subject to multiple interpretations, but this one points most importantly to the dogmatic superficiality of proclamations of God’s sovereignty that sanctify human determinations. Notably, the Khawarij’s rallying cry of “dominion belongs to God” or “the Qur’an is the judge” (la hukma illa li’llah or al-hukmu li’l-Qur’an) is nearly identical to the slogans invoked by contemporary fundamentalist groups”
Taken from http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html
This essay is one of the best commentaries on Muslim political philosophy and dismantles all the fundamentalist arguments one by one using reason and religious texts.
The fact is that, ”God’s sovereignty provides no escape from the burdens of human agency”. You still have free will, you still have human reason and the fact you choose to ignore, surrender or not use these blessed faculties is depressing.Recommend
Can anyone provide any evidence from the Quran that establishing an Islamic State, or a religious-political institution is an obligation? Where does the Quran say that making a religious state is an obligation?
I say it is easier and more rational to justify a secular state, where all citizens are treated equally (as all human beings are honoured by God see Quran 17:70), and no citizen has extra priveleges on account of their religion and no citizen is discriminated on account of their religion.
The secular state is more moral and humane, which is why it is completely compatible with the Islamic traditions.Recommend
How Islamic is Pakistan meant to be? What a loaded question!
The 1953 Munir-Kayani report should be mandatory study for each and every Pakistani. The report contains detailed answer to the question. An excerpt from the report is included below. The 63 years long experiments of mixing state and
religion have failed precisely for the reasons documented in the report.
The evil of the failed experiments has come home to roost. The reality on the ground demands that people acknowledge the problem and implement a solution that is already known to work. While the ummah continues to wait for the Messaih, in the meantime if Pakistan is to exist as a respectable nation, the nation must re-write the constitution based on the Jinnah’s mandate of August 11, 1947, guaranteeing the basis freedoms. Jinnah’s mandate meets all the Islamic guidelines and is based on tolerance and harmony. Hence, a sincere muslim should not have any issue or objection to this change. The nation must adopt the time tested attributes of respect and honor, namely unity, faith, and discipline. There is nothing un-islamic about these traits either. Also, it is the individual and not that state who is accountable for his/her deeds on the day of judgment. So let the individual be responsible for managing his or her covenant with the Creator.
“Pakistan is being taken by the common man, though it is not, as an Islamic State. This belief has been encouraged by the ceaseless clamour for Islam and Islamic State that is being heard from all quarters since the establishment of Pakistan. The phantom of an Islamic State has haunted the Musalman throughout the ages and is a result of the memory of the glorious past when Islam rising like a storm from the least expected quarter of the world—wilds of Arabia—instantly enveloped the world, pulling down from their high pedestal gods who had ruled over man since the creation, uprooting centuries old institutions and superstitions and supplanting all civilisations that had been built on an enslaved humanity…………..
He (the Musalman) therefore finds himself in a state of helplessness, waiting for someone to come and help him out of this morass of uncertainty and confusion. And he will go on waiting like this without anything happening. Nothing but a bold re-orientation of Islam to separate the vital from the lifeless can preserve it as a World Idea and convert the Musalman into a citizen of the present and the future world from the archaic in congruity that he is today….
It is this lack of bold and clear thinking, the inability to understand and take decisions which has brought about in Pakistan a confusion which will persist and repeatedly create situations of the kind we have been inquiring into until our leaders have a clear conception of the goal and of the means to reach it.
And as long as we rely on the hammer when a file is needed and press Islam into service to solve situations it was never intended to solve, frustration and disappointment must dog our steps. The sublime faith called Islam will live even if our leaders are not there to enforce it. It lives in the individual, in his soul and outlook, in all his relations with God and men, from the cradle to the grave, and our politicians should understand that if Divine commands cannot make or keep a man a Musalman, their statutes will not.”Recommend
Secularism is simply the division between mosque and state.
The father of Pakistan created this country as a homeland for Muslims.
Pakistan was never envisaged as a theocratic state.
Today we are still struggling for an identity. The comments of @Taha Rizvi and @Parvez Ahmed are very relevant.Recommend
Islam has no geographical limits while a state has control over people living in a specific geographical area. State policies are not based on high morals but national interests and its purpose is welfare and security of the people. State is not responsible to shape up the religious beliefs of the people living in it. The idea of islamic state is self contradictory. The idea of political islam is a 20th century phenomenon. Decentralized governance during the era of empires had no state apparatus to enforce islam. There was no religious police or an official moral brigade to ensure that people are growing beards etc. If state adopts a religion, then it has to adopt a specific interpretation of that religion, which will lead to conflict with those who dont agree with that interpretation. Further, it will shun any reinterpretation of religion and as long as the state exists and the citizens will be coerced into following that particular interpretaion.Recommend
@Ahmed Ali can u explain to me as you are praising the secular state and secularism that why then that the Protestant Movement(which was the secular version of Christianity) had the most suicide rates in the whole world, according to Emily Durkheim’s Suicide?
and can you please tell me why u removed the quotes from Iqbal i gave, who gave the idea of Pakistan in the first place on the name of Islam ?Recommend
@Ahmed Ali and thanks for writing this, to me my religion, to you yours, May ALLAH guide us ALL on the right path, PEACE BE UNTO YOU :) May u achieve success, prosperity in your life :)Recommend
Interesting points and views.
But what concerns me in particular is:
The discussion and the article both are somehow having a particular notion of secularism, public sphere and religion which are foremost outcomes of liberal-western political thinkers and thinking. My point is not that secularism is a western ideology which has nothing to do with Islamic principles of governance, but that other (his-)stories and understandings of secularism are marginalised or ignored – and the liberal understanding is at the heart of the discussions about secularism and the favourable place of religion in modernity. In “Why I Am Not a Secularist” Connolly reminds us that the liberal narrative “is not the only story that could be told about the origins and legitimacy of secularism.” He makes clear that there exist a “dominant self-representation by secularists in several Western [and also non Western] states” (p.20f.).
I think “we” – as Ahmad Ali put it – have to be more critical about this essentialized, “wanna be” neutral and objective character of liberal secularism. To ignore that would mean to ignore the epistemological power of liberal-western hegemony which is still working and influencing discourses in Pakistan, Egypt and India about the advantages and disadvantages of secularism. The purpose of the struggling with secularism shouldn’t just be to show how Islam and the Shari’a could (or could not) be modernized or made compatible with “modern” doctrines. I think it is also important to question the functions and dynamics of secular states and secularism in generally.
In the last comment Ahmad Ali is declaring the secular state as a “more moral and humane”. In doing so, I think he is not just essentializing again and reducing the idea of secularism to the liberal notion, but ignoring other perspectives and realities.
I think he is missing the fact, that it is the same secular state/secularism which is differentiating between the modern, secular and progressive “we” (for example the European Union) and the religious other (for example Turkey/ or look at the Danish cartoon controversy). This secular state which is nowadays declaring Muslims as strangers within Europe and America and in consequence is chopping off rights with discursive strategies connected to the separation of religion and politics or questions of religion in the public sphere (veil discourse, mosque discourses, etc.). It is the same liberal-western secular state which is very much concerned about his own power and will and is regulating something called religion, putting it constantly at the margin of its own– far away from the gravities of power. It is also this secular state which has specific economic interests, which has established modern warfare, intelligent strategies of destruction, control and penetration – which are always connected to power as we can see in history, especially in the colonial and world war period.
In my opinion the question about the purpose of secularism is one of the most important. In the liberal-western context secularism is commonly associated with peaceful and democratic structures, freedoms, pluralism and tolerance.
But another possibility to understand secularism is in relation to power – to have particular understandings of humane, time, politics and religion, of freedom and rationality. In my view secularism is not just about ending violence, but about shifting it – shifting it from something called “religious” to something called “worldly”! Including new warfare and horrible individual/collective strategies, economic, ecologic and labor exploitation in the name of progress and modernity, particular notions of what is humane and what is not, citizen control through schooling, national culture and so on…Recommend
@Humanity:Also, it is the individual and not that state who is accountable for his/her deeds on the day of judgment. So let the individual be responsible for managing his or her covenant with the Creator.
Can you please explain to me then that why ALLAH declared the one’s not judging according to HIS law as KAAFIROON ?
5:44 We did send down the Torah containing guidance and a light. By it the Prophets who always sincerely submitted to Allah (allatheena aslamoo), judged the Jews. And the rabbis and the priests judged according to Allah’s Scripture as they were commanded to observe. For to them was entrusted the protection of Allah’s Book, and they were witnesses to it. So, fear not people, but fear Me and do not trade away My Revelations for petty gains. Whoever does not judge and rule according to what Allah has Revealed, such are the disbelievers (Kafiroon).
ALLAH says in the Quran: Surat Al-Baqarah [verses 208-214] – O you who have believed, enter into Islam completely [and perfectly] and do not follow the footsteps of Satan.Recommend
All this depends upon how strong your faith and your beliefs are, if you have faith in ALLAH without the shadow of a doubt for the solutions of the “burdens of human agency” as Ahmed Ali puts it, you will get the solution, ALLAH is All-Competent and he will surely give u a perfect solution for all of your problems
And i mean practically speaking, even in this world, who do you listen to, The Creator or his Creation ?Recommend
Religion should be separate from the state.Recommend
@Faizan Chaki. You are beating around the bush and shying from answering the question which is how do you reconcile different sects in islam who all say their interpretation is allah’s word? Copy pasting ayats from Quran to put your point across is not gona solve the main issue that we interpret the ayats differently according to his/her sect i.e to me my sect, to you yours!Recommend
@Suhail A: is it very difficult for you to understand that the Islamic idea of a state is to recognise ALLAH as the sovereign authority ? is ALLAH different in all the sects ?Recommend
It seems like the case that Allah is different in different sect. One sect uses Allah’s so called words and kill the non muslims, another one wants to kill the muslim who visit shrines, another wants to kill shia’s and qadiani’s. I can go and go. They all hide behind their interpretation and think they are doing Allahs work and spreading his word. So don’t you think Allah’s word are different for all the sects. To answer your question yes it seems Allah is different for all the people depending on which sect they adhere to. Mr Ahmed and few other above have very strong arguments for what kind of law is required for our lawless land.Recommend
you’re right about the different meanings people give to Islam, but without doubt, secularism is not the solution. ISLAM IS PEACE, it means peace and it propagates peaceRecommend
@ Faizan Chaki
The root of your illusion is to see secularism as a political arrangement as a religion and to see Islam as a religion as a political ideology. You need to realise that this conceptions is simplistic and quiet frankly wrong.
@Zubair
I have read Connolly’s and indeed Talal Asad’s work on the epistemology and underlying power narratives of secularism. Indeed I would have liked to mention these author’s work but I am restrained by the space available.
I am talking about secularism as an IDEA not as an historical reality. I think we should separate secularism from ”Europeanization”. We need to dissociate secularism as an idea from the experiences of other societies. Yes we should take on board their experiences but we should not appropiate them for ourselves.
The epistemology of secularism is important but that is beyond the scope of my discussion. I am discussing as I made clear ”Political Secularism”. I realise there are sociological and philosophical connotations but I deliberately ignored these because again due to the limitations of the space available to me. Keep it simple, secularism as a political idea. I have accepted secularism is distinct from liberalism, and indeed I think a secular State as I describe will lead to the development of a ”liberal public Islam”. I am very much interested in preserving the public role of religion, I just don’t want Islam to be manipulated by the State. All will be made clear in the next post……
Indeed we should question the secularist State as we see it in France and other European countries. My next post elaborates more fully on the different types of secularism. This post was concerned about religious authority and religious law. The next one is concerned about the type and varieties of secularism and which is one best suitable for Pakistani societiy.Recommend
The fundamental questions remains:
Why do we need political force to
establish Islam?
That is the logical conclusion for the proponents of ”State religion”.
I oppose ”State religion” but I welcome and encourage ”Public religion”. The two are separate, the former is coercive the latter is the result of free human reasoning, dialogue and discussion.
Iqbal too argued for a secular state (where religious and political institutions are kept separate and independent) because he was dead set against the clergy and theocratic tendencies. What Iqbal argued for was a ”ijtihadi” Islam, instead of the ”taqlidi” Islam.
Iqbal’s Islam was free, public and independent of State control. Iqbal proposed ”Public Islam” not ”State Islam”.
My final question is, ”What are the virtues of State Islam?”Recommend
@Ahmad Ali
I understand the points you’ve made, but isn’t there a stronger interrelation between historical circumstances, the definitions and understandings we make – especially considering the fact, that definitions (what is religion at all and what is religious (authority), what is public sphere) are not natural and given categories and are framed in particular contexts. How could you take a western idea as it would be a natural and theoretical category, without looking at the specific circumstances of the “birth”, the historical framings of definition and practice? Isn’t that an epistemological and practical failure? Epistemologically, because you’re taken the separation for granted – putting religion far away from state power and so on- and just discussing the public role of religion – why that? And practically, because you’re missing the difficult realities which I mentioned above. Isn’t the separation of religious and non-religious power universal because of the power of western modernity – similar to human rights? What, by the way, is religion – isn’t it a post-reformation/post-enlightenment category, which has its roots in Christian theology and serves the modern nation state to confirm his own power and will? Why should this category (religion) and his secular state location should be acceptable in the context of Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism? How similar is Islamic “Din” and “Iman” to the category of religion?)
In the article you’re mentioning that “defining and constructing religious authority in a nation state presents unique challenges” and my point is just, that this is not a pure abstract and theoretical activity, which “we” and “others” do! You’re reminding the reader actually on that putting the questions “Who speaks for Islam?”, “Who has the right to interpret the foundational religious texts?”, “who performs ijtihad, who defines it, what is its scope?”
So if religion is a social and historical fact, which has legal dimensions, domestic and political dimensions, economic dimensions and people have specific reason for defining things one way or another, why are you looking at secularism as a pure theoretically idea, which should be discussed?
Isn’t exactly this essentialization – “political secularism” or separation between religious-political authorities – a step of Europeanization?
If you’re talking about “preserving the public role of religion” and wanting a ”liberal public Islam” (what does the last term mean?), aren’t you already favouring an understanding of the right place of religion and religious authority in secular contexts which is framed by western hegemony and leaves little or no place for indigenous concepts of society, governance and “religion”?Recommend
This is a fruitful discussion brothers. I like it. Here we are talking about different interpretations and future of religion in state. Here, we are talking about Islam where at least ONE thing GOD is common for Us. But how would we be able to reconsile it when we have to see divide in all different religions accross the world. How we can create harmony accorss the world. Which is a kind of fragile due to this divide.Recommend
@Zubair
My fundamental question remains:
• Why use political force to establish Islam? Can you answer that?
• And does not the coercive nature of the State undermine the voluntary nature of religious faith?
These two questions were central to my article, and as far as I can tell neither of these points have been disputed or challenged.
To your point of defining categories in particular contexts I have to answer yes and no. There is an element of historical contextualization, but I do not buy relativistic arguments from culture or history. I think this is over-exaggerated and exploited by and large. Furthermore, the hermeneutical philosopher Gadamer makes the point of ‘’ ‘historically effected consciousness’’. We all are affected by this but we can overcome this by reasoning, and broadening our cultural experience focusing on discussion (Gadamer’s ”Fusion of Horizons”)
Secularism as the division between religious and political functions is an historical reality within Islam aswell. Functional secularity as described by Allama Iqbal, Al Ghazali and in its philosophical dimensions by Ibn Rushd is very much in line with the Islamic tradition.
I do not take the separation of religion and the State for granted, I take a practical viewpoint. Religion get’s corrupted by the levers of State power. The aims of religion and the State (which in itself is a modern political category) are totally different.
The arguments of ‘’western hegemony’’ do not hold stick, and is a corollary towards the fallacy of cultural relativism. Cultures, religions and traditions have been in dialogue with each other for centuries. The point about religion being a post-reformation and post-enlightenment category is indeed a serious one, made by Talal Asad who revolutionized the field of religious anthropology. This is a serious question, but one beyond the scope of the article. I am simply taking a phenomenological viewpoint of belief.
The reason I use secular as an abstract entity, is because it is abstract in the context I use. It’s not a world-view or moral position but simply a paradigmatic anlaysis of mosque-State relations. I look at it secularism as clear theoretical or pure term in this article for the sake of simplicity. I am aware of the historical evolution and development of secularism.
But nevertheless, the idea of making religious authority separate and independent from political institutions is one which has roots within the Muslim historical experience. What does not have roots in the Muslim historical experience is the marginalization of Islam from the public sphere. Religion should have a public role but not state role. Giving religion a state role means conferring human agency to clerical authorities who presume to speak in the name of religion and hence hold a monopoly over religious truth. Islamic law historically speaking has never been suited towards the tendencies of the nation state. The nation state has a legal set up which includes codification and centralization. Islamic law was anything but codified or centralized in Muslim history. So throughout my article I did use Muslim or ‘’indigenous’’ experiences of law and society. I showed a correlation between this phenomenon and the congeniality this scheme of legal arbitration has with the secular state.
The issue of my article was that of religious authority. I operated on a specific definition of secularism which I feel is most accurate given the context of the discussion. I am aware of other competing models of secularism and the plurality of the concept and indeed have submitted my next blog post to the Tribune discussing this issue. This article is merely one part of a much larger discussion, and I did not have pretensions of this particular blog post being in anyway comprehensive.
Categories of ‘’religion’’, ‘’secularism’’ are notoriously difficult to define in anthropological and sociological settings, I accept this. Indeed no two anthropologists it is said have the same definition for ‘’religion’’! But I see this as a separate argument.
The points made in the article still stand. You have not disputed the underlything themes of the article but made scholastic points (which are still valid but do not touch the substance of the article).
I dissociated secularism from its European backdrop in this article because of the limitations of space. But I argue that if we take the most basic premise of secularism (using a minimalist definition) as the dividing spheres of authority then it is compatible with the Muslim tradition. Muslim scholars historically speaking have been suspicious of highly centralized centers of political control because they felt their epistemological independence was being threatened. Muslim scholars treasured their epistemological independence and freedom of inquiry. You are confusing the sociological phenomenon of ‘’secularization’’ with the political set up of secularism. ‘’Secularization’’ and ‘’secularism’’ are two different things and I also add there is no link between the two.
I do not see Islam and Secularism as competing terms or concepts. Islam is a faith and way of life indeed and secularism is a paradigmatic setting for sorting out institutional relationships. The two are completely different. Separating religious and political institutions which did take place in Muslim societies is not Europeanization at all but is demonstrably logical. The Muslim historical experience is familiar with divisions of religious and political authority.
‘’Western hegemony’’ which is an over-emphasized phenomenon which is used as an excuse to silence religious intellectuals who wish to achieve synthesis and inter-cultural understanding did not have an effect on my decision.
I made a distinction between the State and public sphere. This is valid as far as I can tell. ‘’Liberal public Islam’’, is a form of political theology independent from institutional State control ,with the basic premise that religion can have a liberalising effect. That religion allows scope for moral autonomy, freedom of conscience and the capacity for making free moral choices. Again there can be other strands of public Islam aswell, but my point is that by fusing Religion and the State we are limiting the scope for religious discussion and mixing the coercive nature of the State with the voluntary nature of religious faith. The simple matter is that religion should be independent of State control.
You have critiqued my arguments and for that I am grateful, but what alternatives do you suggest?Recommend
Sirf Aik He Ooloo Kafi Hai Barbade Gulistan Karne Ko,
Har Shakh Pe Ooloo Baitha Hai, Anjame Gulistan Kya Hoga ..??
Friends …. Insaan Ka Insaan Se Ho Bhaichara, Yahee Paigam Hamara. Let us all pray together that almighty for peace in different sects and religions rather than confusing each other.Recommend
@ all who are in favour of secularism !
1. the position we are now in is not due to non-secularism but due to the LACK OF PRACTICALITY OF ISLAM!
2. yes… islamic sects DO have different beleives BUT the core Islam is the same! if we follow it ..really follow it and practice ijtihad and concensus ..we can come to a suitable reasoning and act upon that! (that is if we want too .. which we apparently dont)
3. ISlam is not only personal…but involves EVERYTHING!..literally everyhting!
4. Islam doesnt only involove Quran..it includes sunnah, fiqh,doings and saying of tabaeen..and taba-tabaeen….we’ve got to look at every placit of this diamond to figure out the right ways!
thats all i’v got to say to you guyz..cuz i am NOT inclines towards replying to every censuring reply that will await me when i open this blog again! (that is IF i open it )
call my statement ANY thing you want too! cowardness..unconfident…..shying away..not having answers!Recommend
@Sana The most learned comment of them all. Thanks :)Recommend
@Sana
Point1 : Bare assertion. There is an assertion that somehow the implementation of religious faith can alleivate all problems. But that is simply not the case. How and who will implement this ”Islam”?
Point 2: Islamic sects may believe the same fundamental principles such as the Unity of God. But unforutnately nation states are not constructed on a common belief of monotheism. We need jurisprudence, and all Islamic sects pretty much have different ideas of jurisprudence. This is not a bad thing, this is absolutely normal. There can never be just one interpretation of Islamic law, in fact there never has been one interpretation of Islamic law. There have always been many, in fact in the medieval age there were are as many as 100 schools of law!
Point 3: Bare assertion. Does the Islamic tradition have anything about bioethical reasoning related to genetic research? No, hence we have to use our God given reason. This is the whole point of ijtihad. To take the over-arching and moral values of the Islamic tradition and use our reason to apply them in everyday situations in our own sociological enviornment.
Point 4: How does this prove that Islam needs to be established on the basis of coercive political force?
My fundamental questions remain for all those who advocate an ”Islamic State” (a modern concept born out of post-colonial experiences):
Why use political force to establish
Islam? Can you answer that?
And does not the coercive nature of
the State undermine the voluntary
nature of religious faith?
As far as I can tell no one has even attempted to answer these questions…..methinks its because these questions demonstrate the superificiality of the concept of the ”Islamic State”.
People shout from the rooftops this concept of an ”Islamic State”. But when you ask them how will you establish it, why do you need an Islamic State, who will interpret Islamic law, and other such practical questions, there is no answer forthcoming……Recommend
@ Zubair
I have come to the conclusion that religion should not be monopolised by the State, hence it should remain independent and separate from it and that religion should have a public role not because of ”Western hegemony”, because it is eminently sensible and rational.
I leave you with a quote from the great Muslim philosopher Al Kindi:
”We ought not to be embarrassed of appreciating the truth and of obtaining it wherever it comes from, even if it comes from races distant and nations different from us. Nothing should be dearer to the seeker of truth than the truth itself, and there is no deterioration of the truth, nor belittling either of one who speaks it or conveys it.”Recommend
@Ahmad Ali:
I am with you that religious legitimating and authority is something different as non-religious one and could be separated – or as you say should be separated for the matter of a more just and save society, where Islam could establish freely and may be more progressively. I am not claiming that the idea of a general separation between spheres of religious and non-religious is a specific western one. But what I am claiming is that the “separation of religion from power [that means the separation from politics, because last one is in the modern context the field of power] is a modern Western norm, the product of a unique post-Reformation history” (Genealogies of Religion, S.28). This specific separation from power is something which I understand, like Asad, as a particular western outcome.
One another point is that I don’t wanted to silence someone in mentioning the point of “western hegemony” or cut religious intellectual tendencies. What I meant and couldn’t make clear so far was just that there’s a general framing in which discourses are taking place, history is explained and understood and theoretical conceptions are approached and articulated and knowledge is achieved. In my opinion it is a matter of every critical mind to be aware of this framing – and in this context it is important to figure out whose bunch of knowledge, conceptions and historical understandings are at the center of discussions and whose’ on the margins/periphery and so on. It is obvious that there’s not just one and only framing, but nevertheless I tend to the opinion, that a general “western” framing and its hegemony is surrounding us, that is what I stamped as “western hegemony”.
There’s a good example for this and that’s the discussion of Palestinian suicide bombers. Are they Freedom Fighters or Terrorists? Whose framing the definitions, the knowledge involved in that and other cases? Whose conceptions and approaches are discussed and “distributed”? And as we can see in the media for example – I just can speak for the few English and German one – they’re declared as Terrorist and not as Fighters for Freedom. What I want to make clear is that the general discourse is occupied by “western hegemony” and their knowledge and conceptions, “their particular understandings are at the centre of the discussion and others at the margin. Another example is the discourse on the muslim women in Europe and America, where the Muslima itself never ever get the possibility to explain herself and her body serves as a ideological battle field between traditional and modern life style. There’s clear to me that these discourses are framed by “western hegemony” which is framing and leading discourses.
Now let me come to “my” suggestions after having the opportunity to discuss your interesting approach:
I think I remain sceptical of the free exercise of religion in the public sphere and the possibility to separate religion clearly from the state. At least, it is the secular state which has to define constantly what genuine religion and religious (symbolic) is, and where its boundaries should be. So in my eyes secularism is very much connected to the formation of religion and somehow vice versa. The state has the function to define the appropriate definition and public face of religion. Another point is that the “nation-state requires clearly demarcated spaces that it can classify and regulate: religion, education, health, leisure (…)” (Formation of the Secular, S.201). Like Asad, also Van der Veer mentions this Foucaultdian notion that “religion becomes one of the fields of disciplinary practice in which the modern civil subject is produced”. That’s why secularism and secular are not at all generally free and just circumstances to me and as I put it in the first comment:
“Secularism is not just about ending violence, but about shifting it – shifting it from something called “religious” to something called “worldly”! Including new warfare and horrible individual/collective strategies, economic, ecologic and labor exploitation in the name of progress and modernity, particular notions of what is humane and what is not, citizen control through schooling, national culture and so on…“ And the regulation of religious power from secular is part of this. And that’s what I see beyond theoretical exercises in my surrounding.
Simultaneously secularism is medicine and poison – for sure it leads to more free circumstances but this is just a little part of the story. I also would like to close with a general quote of Asad, which hopefully makes my comments and approaches more accessible:
“Of course there are people who are trying to rethink the Islamic tradition in ways that would make it compatible with liberal democracy. But I am much more interested in the fact that the Islamic tradition ought to lead us to question many of the liberal categories themselves. Rather than saying, “Well yes we can also be like you,” why not ask what the liberal categories themselves mean, and what they have represented historically?”Recommend
@ Zubair
Yes I can agree with the idea that separating religion from power absolutely is very much borne out of European experience. But what I was not arguing for that in the article. I make a distinction between the State and politics (public sphere). I do not think religion should be fused a priori with political institutions. By all means religious citizens should participate in the democratic process freely in the public sphere, having their political parties and institutions but they should be prepared to accept criticism and allow freedom of expression and association. I have said Islam should be kept separate from the State but not marginalized from the public sphere. The public sphere is distinct from the State.
Your point and examples about ‘’western hegeomony’’ are thought provoking and valid. Yes we should understand historical contexts and alternative narratives, and should question categories and narratives. However, that I feel is a discussion for elsewhere, and I indeed feel can be a fruitful discussion for another time.
I think I remain sceptical of the free exercise of religion in the public sphere and the possibility to separate religion clearly from the state. At least, it is the secular state which has to define constantly what genuine religion and religious (symbolic) is, and where its boundaries should be. So in my eyes secularism is very much connected to the formation of religion and somehow vice versa. The state has the function to define the appropriate definition and public face of religion.
This is again very much stemming from Talal Asad’s work and it is a valid point. However, as I will argue in my next post there are different models of secularism. I cannot reveal too much at the moment, but I do urge you to read my next blog post which is an extension on the discussion of secularism in this post.
As I said I agree with you that secularism is not inherently about freedom, as I said secularism and liberalism are distinct phenomenon and are not one and the same. I agree with your metaphysical categorization of the secular as ‘’this worldly’’. So in this sense even the Islamic traditions took a very secular view towards life, talking about this world (dunya) and the Hereafter. Your point about the nation-state is well taken, and this is precisely why I argue that trying to impose Islamic law via the nation state will always end in failure. The nation state operates on a fundamentally different juristic-epistemic than classical Muslim political theory. In Islamic law there has historically been no conception of centralization or codification of the Sharia, as I mention in the article.
Simultaneously secularism is medicine and poison – for sure it leads to more free circumstances but this is just a little part of the story.
We agree on more than you think. Again without revealing too much about my next post, I do agree that secularism can only create conditions. In the next post I talk about the nature of political secularism in greater detail, since this post was preoccupied with religious authority.
Talal Asad is right of course. But I do not think I have been guilty of the charge, ‘well yes we can also be like you’’. Many hardcore secularists (in the French tradition, which is tinged with agnostic and atheistic philosophy) and as you have seen on this blog itself on the ”Islamic right” have been critical of my conception of secularism. On one side many complain I do not condemn religion ( I fundamentally believe in the goodness of religious faith, I am existentially and intellectually convinced of my belief) and on the religious side I am accused of surrendering my faith. Go figure….
I do agree fundamentally with Asad and you that we must scrutinize liberal categories and take an historic-critical method, as I myself take this view point. So I do not see myself as being guilty of making those mistakes in my article.
If anything the particular model of secularism I argue for (which again I will go in more detail in my next article), stems from my reading of the history of the Islamic legal tradition. My reading in Islamic law has prompted me to take the position that I do. It is my understanding of the nature of religious faith, which calls for a separation between the State ( a coercive instrument) and religion (which is of a voluntary nature). It is this psychological, almost epistemic difference that I deduce from my reading of Muslim history, philosophy and law which causes me to take the position that I do. I make a point that religious faith is voluntary in nature and is contingent on freedom of conscience, and that the State is effectively a coercive force (which is checked by the democratic structure and process). Hence the two cannot be fused together, since it renders religious faith useless….
( I talk about this point in detail in my articles ”Letters Concerning Toleration”:
Part I http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C08%5C04%5Cstory4-8-2010pg3_5
Part II http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C08%5C11%5Cstory11-8-2010pg3_4
Part III http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C08%5C18%5Cstory18-8-2010pg3_5
If anything my arguments for a secular state stem from a particular reading of Muslim theology and ethics.
PS Thank you for this wonderful, mature and robust discussion on this most important of issues. It’s a shame that we cannot have such high powered debates of substance more often in the Pakistani media space!Recommend
Though I am cautious about over historicising and contextualising categories and words, that we fundamentally create an epistemic block towards understanding said categories in today’s context. It’s as if rather than opening up new vistas of understanding, the contextualisation process (sometimes) empties words of their meaning entirely to the point we refuse to engage in the substance of the category (what are the actual principles involved and what do they mean for our society today) and are too concerend about the form (how were these categories constructed and conceived) hence sliding towards a deconstructionist form of postmodern idle talk.Recommend
The lesson to be learned from Pakistan is: Never create a state on the basis of a divisive theory or how different your faith is to others.Recommend