Guest post: Religious law hinders Muslim countries
Shaukat Malik is a Muslim-American Certified Public Accountant from Potomac. He left his native Pakistan in 1972 and has been living in the United States since 1980.
Infusing religion and nationalism can produce a people totally obsessed with their relgious identity. Many Muslim countries are suffering from the effects of this combination.
Religion of every denomination provides us hope and solace in moments of despair. However, whenever religion becomes the rallying cry of a nation’s system of government, it can easily become a tool for suppression of minorities and result in fascist states.
Imagine the United States and Europe declaring themselves Christian republics, with orthodox Christianity of the inquisition era enforced by the state. I think the Muslims of Europe and the United States, with populations of 37 million and more than 6 million, along with the Jews would find life a living hell.
The developed democracies and economies of Europe have experienced persecution under religion during the inquisition and learned from it. People were burned at the stake, thrown into burning oil and decapitated, all in the name of religion.
While the West has successfully reined in the power of religion after centuries of conflict and bloodshed by removing the state from the enforcement of religious beliefs, the Muslim world has been unable to accomplish this. Only Turkey has succeeded in some measure in its endeavor to join the common market.
Separation of church and state has not led to anarchy in the west. Individual behavior in conformity with moral and social codes can easily be enforced through a set of common laws developed over centuries of legal practice in an endeavor to create a just and fair society.
Outdated practices of a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye, beheadings and amputations as prescribed in the Bible, which like the Quran is the word of God, have been set aside as cruel and inhuman punishments that are out of step with the times.
Religion in Muslim countries has been incorporated into the constitution and rule of law and politicians of every color must embrace its inclusion to win votes. Every country with a Muslim majority will sooner or later incorporate the word Islamic, thus inadvertently empowering the religious clerics whose street power is sought by dictators and kings everywhere. With few exceptions, all Muslim countries – including Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq – have clauses in their constitutions stating that no law shall be constituted that violates Sharia law as laid down in the Quran 1,400 years ago. This makes Sharia laws superior to common laws developed by human civilization to maintain just and orderly societies.
In Muslim countries there is an obsession with religion and using it as a tool to control human behavior. Self-serving clerics believe that Islam is God’s final message and Mohammad is his last prophet and anyone on planet earth who does not agree with them is an infidel. The fail to register that God’s message is intended for those he has chosen to receive it by virtue of being born as a muslim and the rest of humanity is also God’s creation and lives and prospers by God’s will.
Muslim clerics, without fully understanding the Quran, walk around with a sense of arrogance and superiority as members of a religion chosen by God for his final message.
They forget that only 25 percent of the population on planet earth is Muslim and the remaining 75 percent is made up of more than two billion Christians, Buddhists and Hindus who like the Muslims are also God’s people and exist and prosper with God’s will.
The Saudi cleric tolerated and supported by the Royal family has this very limited view of Islam. Extraordinary oil wealth precludes economic considerations when adopting laws that clearly discriminate against women and other faiths. For example, there is no Christian church in Saudi Arabia, in total violation of God’s message in the Quran, which clearly states that there is no compulsion in religion and that there should be complete freedom of religion.
Drinking Alcohol or having sex outside marriage is a bigger crime then the open and documented corruption of Saudi princes living it up in Europe and elsewhere. The clerics know human weakness for alcohol and sex. Alcohol is available in the private bars of the Saudi elite. Such is the hypocrisy of these laws.
In the Quran there is one verse that deals exclusively with alcohol. The verse states that in alcohol there are benefits (confirming its medical and recreational utility) but that the disadvantages (abuse, traffic accidents and money better spent at feeding a family) are greater that the benefits.
By stating alcohol’s benefits and disadvantages, God clearly is leaving it to us as thinking beings to decide whether the benefits in each individual case outweigh the disadvantages.
Other verses do not forbid alcohol, as is clearly the case with swine meat, but counsel that it should be avoided. For self-serving reasons clerics will translate and interpret Quranic verses to support prohibition of alcohol.
The U.S. government tried to prohibit alcohol. But Americans resisted and the law had to be withdrawn. Unfortunately, prohibition inadvertently facilitated the birth of the Mafia, which became rich overnight by selling illicit alcohol to willing buyers.
Human beings are mature enough to decide for themselves in the light of their individual circumstances whether they want to drink alcohol or not. Nobody is forcing anyone in Western countries to buy alcohol.
Saudi Arabia, because of its enormous oil wealth, can ban alcohol but will still draw tourists and visitors because of its Muslim holy sites.
However, other countries that embrace the Saudi brand of Islam and ban alcohol and impose other restrictions on women will lose visitors to countries that do allow the consumption of alcohol. It is simple business. This is clearly illustrated by Dubai’s success.
The rulers in Dubai have caught on and cashed in with liberal rules for consumption of alcohol. Notwithstanding the present credit crises Dubai has become the future Disneyland of the Middle and Far East.
Dubai’s success when compared to its orthodox neighbors is partly because there is no prohibition on alcohol and no restrictions on dress. It has become a holiday destination for Pakistanis, Indians, Iranians and Arabs. Arabs from neighbor states simply drive to Dubai for a good time without fear of being flogged for enjoying a glass of beer.
In the process Dubai is earning billions.
In today’s world information travels fast and the Internet makes it easy to attract tourists. Tourism, especially from the upcoming economies of China, Russian and India, is on the rise and is a source of revenue for many European countries. Unfortunately, tourism evaporates under prohibitions on alcohol and dress codes.
Muslim leaders should consider creating “Sharia-Free Zones” to encourage tourism and create employment for their struggling populations.
If the Quran is to be a book of guidance for all times, then surely God intended us to use it to make laws that create a just and fair society, and not marginalize women and minorities that make up more than 50 percent of every population concentration on earth.
Crimes of blasphemy, drinking alcohol and committing adultery are not crimes that should lead to death or flogging of anyone. These are indeed minor crimes easily dealt with through civil law. Blasphemy laws in today’s Internet world of free speech are indeed laughable. In Muslim countries they are so broadly defined that is easy to trap anyone you wish to lock up.
Cunning clerics exploit human weakness for sex and alcohol. There is an inordinate focus on these crimes in Muslim countries. The premise behind this emphasis is to control and crush opposition. Similarly, women are controlled through rules permitting a man to marry up to four women and divorce women without the consequences of having to share 50 percent of his net worth, as is the case in the West.
The punishments along the lines of a tooth for tooth and eye for an eye are the same as would have been handed out 1,400 years ago in Arabia.
Crimes such as drinking, adultery and blasphemy are classified as crimes against the state as opposed to crimes of a personal nature. In Pakistan, the punishment for blasphemy can be life imprisonment or death. Flogging for drinking a beer and stoning to death for adultery are suggested punishments. In the Muslim world the Muslim women carries the flag of family honor and must behave in a manner prescribed by men.
Women are whipped in Saudi Arabia for simply being in the company of men who are not related to them or for not wearing their Hijab. Women cannot go out alone or drive a car in Saudi Arabia. Ironically, considering its leader King Abdullah was photographed taking a walk holding hands with President George W. Bush, the protector of the free world, coming across as childhood friends reminiscing a childhood spent playing in the schoolyard.
Through these laws the ruling party – generally operating within a dictatorship or a one-party pseudo-democracy – ends up controlling more than fifty percent of the population.
Such laws inevitably limit interaction with visitors and the exchange of ideas and knowledge. Non- Muslims, feeling totally alienated, will be reluctant to interact or share their ideas and knowledge developed through their superior education systems with Muslim countries due to the unwelcome environment.
Pakistan’s founding father, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, struggled against the British with Mahatma Gandhi, and like Gandhi believed in complete freedom of religion. Unable to negotiate majority rule for Muslim Majority States as part of India, Mohammad Ali Jinnah demanded a separate state for the Muslims. The religious Khilafat Movement opposed him because of his secular views on religion. He clearly envisioned a democratic state for the Muslims that came into existence as Pakistan. He never envisioned a theocratic state, as confirmed by many of his speeches.
His demand for a separate homeland for the Muslims was exploited almost 30 years later by Pakistan’s military dictator Zia ul Haq, who declared that idea behind the creation of Pakistan was to create a theocratic state along the lines of Saudi Arabia. Muslim clerics who until then had been marginalized as prayer leaders suddenly found a political role under a loving military dictator. Elevated to the role of legislators, these dictator-appointed defenders of Islam started a process of converting Pakistan into a blurred image of their patron Saudi Arabia.
Pakistan had remained a secular country from its birth in 1947 until December 1984. Its name was simply Pakistan and nobody referred to it as “The Islamic Republic”. People knew they were Muslims and quietly practiced their religion. People lived peaceful lives.
Zia-ul-Haq, in an effort to cover up his illegal takeover of an elected government and to protect himself from the consequences of hanging Pakistan’s dynamic Prime Minister Zulifiqar Ali Bhutto, used the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 as a pretext to avoid holing elections. He volunteered Pakistan’s services to America and used Pakistan’s involvement in the Afghan war as an opportunity to transform a Pakistan that had remained steadfastly secular into a blurred mirror image of a theocratic Saudi Arabia.
In December 1984, to have himself re-elected for another five year term as President of Pakistan, General Zia held a referendum with a trick question asking the people of Pakistan if they were happy with the changes he was making in line with the laws and practices of the holy prophet and whether they wanted Pakistan to be governed in accordance with Sharia laws as stated in the Quran. Of course any Muslim answering the question is only thinking about Sharia as a guide for rules that create a just and fair society and would probably answer, yes. No one had imagined that by answering this question in the affirmative they were signing on to a Saudi-style Wahabbi Islam involving whipping, executions and complete violation of all women rights.
Unfortunately, the United States, obsessed with defeating the Soviets, assisted Pakistan’s military dictatorship in de-secularizing Pakistan and did not pay attention to the dangerous game Pakistan’s military dictator was playing. Islamization transformed Pakistan into an artificial and confused pseudo-theocratic state. Today’s Osama, the Taliban and the war in Afghanistan are a legacy of America’s war against the Soviets.
Relgious belief, especially of the orthodox brand, can easily turn into extremism at the expense of local communities. Extremists always find support by cunningly exploiting religious sentiments by labeling their target as an infidel whose elimination has been sanctioned by God. This, combined with nationalism, as is evident in Iraq and Afghanistan, will drive men to sacrifice their lives. Belief is a human trait that will lead a man to do anything to attain his goal. Belief is what makes great sportsmen and also great tyrants.
Adolph Hitler used anti-Jewish propaganda by instilling a belief in the majority Christian German population that as a nation they were a superior race – and almost succeeded in conquering the world. In the process millions of Jews and others considered undesirable by the Nazis were simply murdered.
Religious beliefs, reinforced by lack of education and self-serving interpretation, lead to high birth rates among poor Muslims. Contraception is rarely practiced and ignorant men burden their wives and family with childbirths every two years in the belief that God will provide. Unfortunately most of these surplus children will become recruits for terrorists.
Islam does not stop us from contraception. In the Quran God instructs man to sow his seed as you would sow a crop. A lot of thinking must go into the decision of having a baby. The religious fanatics oppose contraception without understanding the Quran. Family planning is a must for all Muslim countries. This is another area that is holding Muslims back.
America’s success is confirmed by its freedom of religion and separation of church and state. America’s founding fathers were indeed very fortunate to embrace theses principles of inherent human rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Religion is acknowledged by the inherent nature of these rights and allows the individual to practice his faith according to his personal beliefs. This confirms Islam’s overriding principle that there is no compulsion in religion.
Muslim governments must focus on improving the lives of their people through better education, healthcare and happy lives. Wealth presently enjoyed by a few must be shared with the masses through democracy and accountability. Muslim countries must take advantage of the vast experience of Europe with the inquisition and its devastating effects on society that ultimately led to the separation of church and state.
Muslim countries must learn from Turkey’s transformation into a secular Muslim state that can rub shoulders with its European neighbors. Muslim countries have been blessed with vast wealth in the Middle East. This wealth should be utilized to realize the promise that this world holds for all who endeavor to find it.
You cannot force anyone to believe. Freedom of religion is very important for a free society.
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public life in its report in October 2009 estimates that the global Muslim population stands at 1.57 billion, meaning that nearly one in four people in the world practice Islam.
We cannot deny 1.57 billion Muslims the fruits of liberty and happiness and a better life.
Muslim countries must initiate a change by separating church from state by giving divine inherent freedoms to their citizens, namely the freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This effort must be supported in equal measure by the United States and Europe as custodians of these divine liberties.
However, to help Muslim countries rein in their religious establishment, the United States, as a leader of the free world, must confront Saudi Arabia, a close ally, on its status as a theocratic state that is directly and indirectly supporting an ideology of Islam that has been embraced by the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Theocracy and its offshoots have no place in today’s world of free speech assisted by the Internet revolution. It will inevitably produce tomorrow’s Osamas.
Although vested interests in industries that profit from war and war on terrorism may not support a change in Saudi Arabia’s theocratic system of government. It is vital and crucial that we convince Saudi Arabia to embrace a moderate brand of Islam with complete freedom of religion. Saudi Arabia, as custodian of Mecca and Medina, is a symbol of Islamic practice in the Muslim world and can easily become a benchmark for moderate Islam.
The true essence of Islam is its followers’ ability to have a one-to-one relationship with God. A Muslim does not need any intermediaries to regulate his relationship with God. The time has come for Muslim states to remove themselves from the management of religion and leave it to the individual and his conscience to practice his true faith.
Comments
Excellent article Mr. Shaukat Malik.
For a CPA you are indeed not boring like your contemporaries.
Religion should be practiced at a personal level. The State should not play the role of inquisition police.
I wish Muslim countries would learn from fellow countries like Dubai and Qatar that have become centers of commerce by engaging the developed world
Israel could teach a lot to its neighbors and also share its technologies, however the trade off is for Israel to settle with the Palestinian people.
Israel could become the largest trading partner with its neighbors.
The US government must confront the Saudi Government on its Theocratic status. Saudi Arabia is indirectly and through its efforts to promote theocratic Islam responsible for most Taliban and Al-Qaeda movements. The recent bomber was trained and equipped in Yemen a neighboring country. The Al-Qaeda Yemem boys are Saudis upset with the Saudi Dictatorship. Princes loot the treasury while the ordinary Saudi and resident struggles.
Where did Prince Walid who owns a private Air Bus 380 get all his money.
By inheritance of course, not hard work.
Many of us do not follow what the Saudis are up to. A Theocratic state must be feared as it is in essence a Fascist state.
It is because of Iran's theocratic status and a government of one-party fascist mullahs that we fear Iran.
Democracy brings about some measure of control and reason.
Posted by: concerned Citizen | February 11, 2010 10:13 AM
Mr. Malik, it is great article, like a
prophetic voice. Times have changed,
and the nations of the world will have to
understand the fact that religion is a
personal choice, and the the state can't
dictate that personal liberty of each
individual. I hope and pray that, millions
of people may read this great eye-opening
article: if followed by all the countries;
there is will more peace on earth.
Posted by: A.S.Mathew | February 11, 2010 11:15 AM
Mr. Shaukat Malik CPA -great article. I hope we can convince Iran to give freedoms to its citizens and embrace freedom of religion.
Like Saudi Arabia Iran is also a theocratic state and must be feared
The reason we must fear Iran's nuclear bomb is because Iran is a one-party Theocratic state run by the Khomeni who has the status of God's representative on earth for Shia Muslims.
Iran does not hold free elections and all candidates are vetted by the Mullahs in Qom (religious headquarter of the Mullahs) before they can run for office.
The opposition also supports the Khomeini so any dissent from the Party of Mullahs is not permitted.
Iran has a regular army and an army of Mullahs who go around beating up people.
All income from Oil goes into non-profit charities run by Mullahs. This way they are able to feed and control their armed militias.
Iran like Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship.
The only difference is King vs Khomeini and Princes vs. Mullahs
Otherwise they are both theocracies.
Time has come for the World to clearly confront Iran and especially China, Russia & Europe who are more concerned about making money than the security risk posed by mad-mullahs
Posted by: DARAKHASHANDA | February 11, 2010 2:54 PM
we should pray in times on crisis, its often the best way to ease our souls suffering , even tho we still ask are self's who is god http://www.who-is-god.us is he here to help me , can I serve him better ? What path should I take, lord take my hand guide me.
Posted by: Scott Thomas | February 11, 2010 4:11 PM
Shaukat Malik,
You are a fraud--the essence of Islam, you say, is a devotee's one on one relationship with god, with no intermediaries intervening. Wow, man! And what was Mohammed, the prophet, if not an intermediary? God?
As for Jinnah, he was another fraud. Only on these blogs, among people who neither understand Islam, nor comprehend Indian history can you get away with giving the version according to Malik, of Jinnah's machinations. He left India because he couldn't get majority rule for Muslim majority states within India? What does that mean? No wonder he couldn't get it. It is nonsense what the man asked for.
He was a power monger and master of self aggrandizement.--as for his belief in religious freedom--that's hocus pocus, if ever I heard hocus pocus. The man himself practiced no religion but when he saw an opportunity to use Islam to advance himself--up he jumped and grabbed for himself the banana republic now called Pakistan.
What sort of stupid idea is the creation of Sharia Free Zones, man? Just for tourists you say? And you don't expect any Muslim stray cats, chafing under sharia, to come looking for pleasure, women and alcohol in the sharia free zones, from the Sharia stifled zones?
And when they do come in droves, what are the authorities to do? Abolish all sharia--O no--you wouldn't advocate that! Or should the stealthy pleasure seekers be caught and flogged for their libertine ways? O no, that wouldn't be right either. So you want Sharia Apartheid--and you are being praised on these blogs for your perspicacity! You would create two regions within the same country. One for Muslims, kneeling, praying numerous times, no alcohol and no open sex, the other for the licentious tourists and you would say, "Heavenly father, the one and only--thank you for helping me create this most idiotic dichotomy so I can make money!"
As for Pakistan ever having been a secular country, I posit it was Zia who represented what the country stood for candidly and openly. What was Pakistan from its inception, if not an Islamic Republic? Man, Jinnah wanted to walk out with Muslims, not with Hindus or Christians--he wanted a separate state for Muslims and such a state can be only theocratic not secular, not diverse--Pakistan is a hell hole for ethnic minorities--the Ahmadiyyas, the Christians, the Hindus, even the Shias-- it was never, even from its inception, a good place to be for minorities.
As for General Zia's trick question, even a baby could see through that so called trick, but not the Pakistanis--of course they didn't you say, because the question was phrased in such a way that any good Muslim would automatically sign on to that buffoonery--why? The question contained the key words Prophet and Koran--you understand why the Pakistanis said yes to that one because you would have blindly said yes too--because fundamentally despite all your grandiose eloquence on freedom this and secular that, you are a creature of Islam, conditioned to say ,"Yes sir, yes sir!" as soon as flash cards appear with the words Prophet and Koran in them.
So you blame Zia, not the stupidity of the Pakistanis for the arrival of Wahabbism in Pakistan. But heck it did not really matter. If the Pakistanis had voted "No" on the referendum, Zia would have miscounted the votes and would have declared a Saddam style victory anyway. He was a quintessential Pakistani and Muslim--a man confident in the divine right of kings procured from Allah.
You call the US and Europe custodians of divine liberties? What do you mean, they keep these concepts in an antique bureau designed by God Vulcan and they have to open it periodically to let a little bit out here and there so lesser mortals like the 1 billion plus Muslims can taste it?
Get real, man. Liberty is liberty because it has no custodians--no confinement, no guardians--it gallops free, its yours to take and the Muslims will only grab this steed when they rid themselves of the religious yoke that chokes them--the yoke you so meticulously lay on their necks even as you espouse a hundred ways to break their manacles.
In the Koran God instructs man to sow his seeds as he would sow a crop--now, am I to assume that somewhere in those words there is a reference to crop rotation-- most clearly there isn't-- and there are any number of agriculturists, even today, who sow a crop as many times as it can be sown in any kind of soil--by that token if men sow their seeds as they would sow a crop--they would be sowing seeds endlessly and fecundity would be their only pursuit--I don't see at all where the Koran clearly advocates for birth control other than your imagined meaning for a single command which most sane people would take to mean, "Go forth--be fruitful and multiply!" And the Muslims who are procreating at the speed of light are simply following the edicts of Allah despite what you fabricate. Right there my man, I am showing you all religious texts are subject to interpretation--and the trouble with Islamic states is this: they live by the concoctions in an ancient text written by a Prophet in direct communication with god--so they say--that concoction, the one you subscribe to so fervently, is the downfall of the Muslims, not the rest of your babbling.
As for your paean to Dubai and Turkey: Dubai has become the future Disneyland of the Middle East on the heads and the shoulders of the Indians and the Africans and all the other indentured servants, whose passports are impounded upon their arrival in Dubai; virtually incarcerated these brave folks toil and moil for this oil rich plutocracy. And Turkey is no shining beacon on the hill for liberty. The Turks have stacked up an impressive mountain of human rights abuses--you don't want to go into one of their jails--they are terrible to political dissidents, they persecute the Kurds, and they still are to accept that they murdered scores of Armenians. What's to love about Turkey--I'll take Pakistan any day--at least in the case of Pakistan if I call it a banana republic there will be a minimum of one half dozen people who will see eye to eye with me--in the case of Turkey the impersonation of a wolf as sheep is consummate--and you obviously have swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
On that note I close the curtain Shaukat Malik--you should stick to accounting--it is tax time anyway.
Ravensfan Anon
Posted by: Anonymous | February 11, 2010 11:18 PM
Religious law hinders ALL countries where it rears its ugly head.
Posted by: Robert Littel | February 12, 2010 10:59 AM
RAVENS FAN:
You are a fraud and a frustrated one at that. You are the Anonymous nagger.
You have nothing to suggest on how to get rid of Sharia from Muslim countries that is costing us Billions.
All you can do is criticizes others for making an effort.
Mr. Malik has done a great job.
Why don't you write something positive since you know everything.
By the way I have read my history of the world. Unless you are from India must google Indias Partition and demand for majority Majority Muslim states.
It was Nehru and Patel who did not want to give majority rule to Muslims because this would have meant sharing power with almost 20% of the Muslim population. They opted for partition that led to the death of one million people and hatred between Muslims and Hindus who before the British got there had lived together for thousands of years.
In any case,come up with some suggestions and stop foaming at the mouth.
It is easy to criticize. Mr. Malik is offering a solution to slowly bring Muslim contries into the mainstream through Sharia free zones. I think it is a fantastic Idea. They already have these in Pakistan and Afghanistan and throughout the Muslim world including Malaysia and Indonesia. where you can openly buy a drink in certain hotels and clubs.
Now that is a start.
Let us hear your solution to what should be done with all these Islamic regimes like Saudi Arabia our ally and Iran.
Please educate us. Thank you
Posted by: concerned Citizen | February 12, 2010 11:37 AM
Anon – Why is it you can’t simply rebut or disagree without making a personal attack on someone? You are partially right about liberty. It is also the freedom to repudiate that nonsensical doctrine you and Robert seem to cling to that both religion and liberty can not both exist. Your attempt to use liberty as a as a Trojan horse in your anti-religion crusade rather than proclaim it for what it the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will. While I’m sure you will disagree you are only fooling yourself. If you were concerned about individual rights you wouldn’t feel the need, like Robert, to insult, malign and attack those whose will deviates from your own. Instead you would stick to making a superior argument for what you believe.
Posted by: ravensfan | February 12, 2010 1:33 PM
Ravensfan:
I think Mr. Malik is on target with respect to these theocratic states.
What do you think?
I am impressed by your knowledge and very concerned about Iran vs. Israel and Saudi Arabia trained terrorists.
What if Israel bombs Iran's Nuclear facilities?
Will that not make the price of oil go up and destroy an already destroyed economy?
What suggestions do you have for Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: DARAKHASHANDA | February 12, 2010 2:20 PM
concerned Citizen – I am not Ravensfan Anon. That is an entirely different person. The use of Ravensfan Anon is the result of exchanges we had quite some time ago. Next time I suggest you ask before making baseless accusations.
DARAKHASHANDA – I’m assuming your question is directed as Ravensfan Anon since he is the one who posted the lengthy response. Despite what concerned citizens thinks we are not the same person.
Posted by: ravensfan | February 12, 2010 2:49 PM
On that note I close the curtain you should stick to........
Ravensfan Anon
Posted by: Anonymous | February 11, 2010 11:18 PM
Ravensfan & Ravensfan Anon:
Stop playing games. You are childish and stupid. Your using two names to confuse people I do not understand why.
If you have nothing useful to say then kindly stay out of these important discussions.
Posted by: concerned citizen | February 12, 2010 8:44 PM
ConcernedCitizen--
Interesting that you would say "The State should not play the role of inquisition police," when you would have the State enforce religious dogma regarding homosexuality. I guess one man's sharia is another's "good public policy."
Posted by: BankStreet | February 13, 2010 6:48 AM
Separation of church and state will automatically remove the state from management of homosexuality.
Muslim countries including India have very severe punishments for homosexuality. In Hinduism homosexuality is a sin and one is a reject and an outcast. Worst than the untouchables of India who clean the soil of the night.
They are still stuck on the story of Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible and Quran when God destroyed people who were practicing homosexuality.
Most Muslim Countries including India do not accept or admit that they have homosexuals in their population.
Also homosexuality is very closely identified with the spread of aid and is considered a Sin.
there are no numbers on homosexuals in Muslim countries or India that has 150 million Muslims and practice sharia law for family matters like marriage and divorce.
Maybe Homosexuals in America should organize the Homosexuals in Muslim populations by establishing a United Populations of Homosexuals.
Good luck
Posted by: concerned citizen | February 13, 2010 10:17 AM
One of the best articles I have seen on the reason behind backwardness in Muslim countries.
This is a must read for the Fundamentalist Muslim in America
Posted by: Ashoka | February 13, 2010 6:43 PM
The whole point of America being blessed for so many years as a Christian nation and being punished with things like 9/11 (God saying that it isnt your military or economic power that makes you a great nation it is I) when we stray from Him is that Christianity isnt forced by the government on anyone. It is lovingly accepted by our leadership who try to show the correct example of how to be. If people dont choose Christ then they are prayed for, by the president and all our leaders, not forced into anything. This is the most successful our nation could be in all respects, short of all citizens following Him. That is why we won World War 2, why we had a good economy then, etc, when astronauts werent afraid to read the book of Genesis from their Apollo spacecraft. They may lock people up in Iran for not following state religion. That isnt how it is done, and the more we stray from God the more problems we have.
Posted by: Clay | February 14, 2010 6:24 PM
Clay - Why do you work so hard to prove your idiocy to us. We get it already, you are nuts.
Posted by: Robert Littel | February 15, 2010 9:15 AM
Concerned citizen,
You are an overly concerned overwrought individual. There is a clear difference between Ravensfan and Ravensfan Anon--but of course that would be too much for your pea brain to discern wouldn't it?
What does it matter--the substance of what is being said is more important than names--unless of course you are all set to unleash your vituperations and you need names to direct them at with force.
No games being played here--you have addressed me Ravensfan Anon with your blah blah about whether I have something constructive to say on the subject of Islamic terror--I realize the almighty concerned citizen has condescended to address me the lowly Ravensfan Anon and that he or she won't listen to any reason because his or her mind is already made up. But I will dare to answer your irate heckling from the stadium stands of these blogs--wasted breath and time, I know, but I will try.
Somewhere down below there is a very good article for Bankstreet to read about Gay rights in India--a dismal state of affairs with no rights would be closer to the truth-- that is slowly changing. In July of 2009 gay sex was decriminalized in India by the Delhi High Court----but India is stuck in medieval times when it comes to any sex--as are many on these blogs--by the way Concerned Citizen--the disease is AIDS not AID--you are complicit Concerned Citizen, with the rest of Hindu India and the Islamic moral cops, in blaming homosexuality for all the disasters of the world and in carrying on about anal sex as though it is the dirtiest thing you heard of.
That aside, your stout defense of Shaukat Malik's article is astounding. Malik wants America to lay down conditions to Saudi Arabia--that, my Concerned Citizen, is a complete laugh--without Saudi Arabia's oil America would languish--after all of Obama's promises about alternative energy technologies, it is the auto industry that has been rescued and stimulated--Detroit has won one more time and it is not wind or solar or biofuels that are sitting pretty--under the circumstances what clout does America have with Saudi Arabia, to order it to back off from its Wahabiism or from its encouragement of world wide terrorism? Empty threat it would be, if America threw down the gauntlet to Saudi Arabia.
Concerning your account of the Partition and your interpretation that refusal to accommodate Indian Muslims in majority Muslim states and give them majority power in the Indian Assemblies, is what led to Jinnah's separatist thrust--you are way off--why should Nehru and Patel have ceded majority rule to Muslim states in India when the two men yearned for secularism and unity for India? The 150 million Muslims of India do not live in majority Muslim states within India at this time--that is like Apartheid--certainly there are many segregationists in America who have suggested that Blacks should have their own majority states--is that feasible? Is that just? Is that how visionaries would cede a country's well being to the separatists and the power mongers?
Jinnah belonged with the latter--he wanted to be leader of a separate country and wanted to puff himself up--on that note began the journey of the banana republic of Pakistan and ever since it has been hurtling toward disaster and it would like to drag others with it as it hurtles.
As for the millions dead during partition, blame the British Viceroy, the useless good looking one called Mountbatten for it--the man could have called British soldiers and Indian sepoys in to protect the moving masses--instead the massive migration occurred under the most adverse of circumstances, with no security or supervision of the process by the British--Jinnah's thirst for raw power and Mountbatten's callous neglect of the moving masses caused the violence and the havoc--Mountbatten simply cut and ran and left security issues up to the new national leaders of India and Pakistan-- two nascent countries that did not have the wherewithal to manage this migration--hence the genocide--please do not rewrite Indian history with the ink of your ignorance--Nehru and Patel are not the only two people who opted for Partition--Nehru, Patel, Mountbatten, the bloody rapacious British huddling on their island bemoaning their perishing importance, Jinnah, the whole kit and caboodle acceeded to the Partition and they didn't consult the people of India-- your exoneration of Jinnah, your leaving Mountbatten out of the equation and your implication of Nehru and Patel as the sole architects of this disaster are revisionist gobbledygook.
How does one bring Muslim countries into the mainstream with Sharia free zones--how do these zones, where Muslims themselves are not allowed to roam free, enhance the liberty of the native populations of these countries? What have these zones done for the UAE? Diddly squat--Dubai is extremely backward in its treatment of foreign nationals--a British woman who cohabited with her boyfriend and kissed him in public-outside a Sharia free zone---- found herself at the mercy of the Dubai authorities who wanted to throw her in prison for violating Muslim customs and disrespecting them. In other words kiss in the Sharia free zone even if you are a foreign national--do it outside your zone of freedom at the risk of having your mouth mauled--and you believe that Sharia free zones, no more than eyewashes, will advance modernity in Islamic lands--more fool than what I could ever imagine, you are, O Concerned Citizen.
(By the way what's the difference between Concerned Citizen and Anonymous? Anonymous by any other name including Concerned Citizen is still Anonymous.)
So you are thrilled that people can walk in and buy drinks in clubs and so on in Sharia free zones in Malaysia, Afghanistan and Pakistan--do you not see that dichotomy as one of the causes of the radicalization of the Muslim masses in these countries--"Look what the political class is doing to our country !" they scream, "Selling us down the river to the West with these zones of licentiousness and decadence!" and the truck bombs and the IEDs roll in response--even in Malaysia Muslim unrest is not uncommon.
There are only few things that can save these countries. One of them is land reform--the peasants are no more than vassals in these places--under Indira Gandhi, India had a land ceiling act and also urban land reform--these were highly unpopular and even now vilified--but they started the ball rolling toward a more equitable distribution of wealth--the Muslim countries have entrenched feudal systems and the Koran is law--as long as people cling to some religious text of yore, arguments and counter arguments about the meaning of this text, food even for the modernists and moderates like Malik, Muslim countries will be hopelessly mired--for the Prophet cannot return to settle scores or arguments and Allah is a silent watcher of the melee-- the text has to be abandoned--Malik wants separation of church and state but he wants Sharia in place- his excuse? Sharia he argues, is no more than the dispensation of justice. O yeah? But how that justice is dispensed is what divides Muslim reformists from literalists--the modernists from the radicals.
When Sharia is the law of the land then how meaningful is the separation of church and state--Malik does not repudiate the Koran or Islam-- he wants religion to go private even as he wants Sharia to remain in force for Muslims with Sharia free zones for non-Muslims-therein lies the root of my own disparagement of his advocacy--it is half assed--he may think that slow reform is better than no reform--I don't see his advocacy as slow reform--I see it as the desperate attempt of a Muslim, inured to Koranic teachings, trying to argue that the Koran is not incompatible with modernity--he is always challenging the Koran literalists as to what this or that actually means in the Koran and he hopes his moderate and modern interpretations will stand against the more brutal and archaic ones--good luck Malik, is what I say--radical surgery not cosmetic surgery, will cure Islam of its radical elements--the Koran has to go into hiding--don't argue about what the Prophet meant by this or that--who cares man?
Rewrite the constitutions of these countries--forget the Prophet and the blabs of yore. Redistribute the land--give women the vote--let people kiss and romance in public--stop arguing about what Allah wants--who the hell knows--don't display terrible ambivalence or confusion--stop talking endlessly about what the Prophet actually meant--how does Malik know his meaning is the true one?
The winners of these religious arguments are usually the politically powerful or those armed to the teeth--what use is a philosophical win for Malik on these blogs if the political class or the radicals insist he is subverting the Koran or Allah's exact message?
As long as people of the ilk of Malik are too afraid to leave the Koran out of the great debates there is no hope for Muslim nations--Ataturk left Allah out--that is why Turkey advanced a little and now the radicals agitate even in Turkey and take that country backward--
Dharakashanda,
Once we subscribe to conservation and develop public transportation as well as alternative sources of energy the Saudis will stop wagging their tongues and tails--but do we have the political will for it? As for Iran--it is like the former Soviet Union--it will come crumbling down in a bloody revolt--only an implosion not external interference, will bring it down. What if Israel bombs Iran's nuclear facilities? What if the Taliban acquires Pakistan's nuclear weapons--these are rhetorical questions. The power of any superpower to stop the menacing ones of the world is limited-this is clear. Israel has already bombed an Iranian nuke facility before-- if they do it one more time it will be nothing new--Iran, armed with nuclear weapons will be dangerous--but the mullahs will not sell these weapons to the terrorists for fear the opposition will get these weapons and throw the nukes on the mullahs themselves--that is the way of nukes--they tie the hands of the ones who own them because the owners could be hoisted by their own petard if they use them--
That said the following is for Bankstreet--I hope you read it Bankstreet--by the way--I enjoy your writings immensely--
A victory for gay rights in India
The Delhi high court's decriminalisation of homosexuality is the first step towards equal rights for gay Indians
o Balaji Ravichandran
o guardian.co.uk, Thursday 2 July 2009 14.00 BST
o Article history
A protracted legal battle has finally come to an end. In a landmark ruling, the Delhi high court scrapped parts of Section 377, a colonial law that criminalised gay sex – and indeed anything other than heterosexual vaginal intercourse – in India. Hence, consensual sex involving two adults of the same sex can no longer be a criminal offence.
The importance of this verdict cannot be understated. This is the first time that an Indian court has gone on record to say that sexual minorities are not second-class citizens, and that they cannot be discriminated against. Granted, the anti-gay law was seldom used to secure convictions. However, for decades, the police and sometimes society at large used the law as an excuse to persecute gay men and women, who were harassed, blackmailed, detained or raped, unable to seek any protection or justice from the law. In addition, the law was also a significant impediment to fighting HIV/Aids among sexual minorities.
No longer. More importantly, the ruling may finally pave the way for sexual minorities to lead open lives, and ultimately to provide them with legal equality. At least, that's the hope.
But is it too soon to be that optimistic? No sooner had the judgment been passed than all the religious groups in India started opposing it. While the law minister has said that the Congress-led government will study the judgment carefully, the main opposition party, the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata party, is firmly opposed to it. Gay sex is immoral and unnatural and Indian society does not approve of it, they say. The usual pseudo-arguments invoking a nebulous notion of "Indian culture" also abound.
There is a very real worry that in order to appeal to the religious groups, and regional political parties, the government might choose to appeal the decision to the supreme court, though preliminary reports suggest otherwise. After all, only a few days ago, after initially conceding that it might consider scrapping the law, the home ministry backtracked the next day when the news made front-page headlines in national newspapers, triggering opposition from religious groups. Even if the government doesn't, religious groups and opposition parties have indicated that they will challenge the ruling.
What if that happens? It is quite possible, though unlikely, that the supreme court might overturn the current verdict. It is easy to forget that when the public-interest litigation was first filed eight years ago, the same Delhi high court rejected the plea twice, if only on legal technicalities. And the same court had ruled, only a decade ago, that society's disapproval was sufficient enough for the law to remain in force, an argument that was used by the previous Congress-led government.
In my opinion, Indian society does still overwhelmingly disapprove of homosexuality. A neighbour walked into my apartment in India as I was watching the story unfold on BBC world news. "What's gay sex?" she asked. When I explained, she was shocked, and believed that this was further evidence that India was becoming morally depraved; that urban Indians imitate the west with unquestioned readiness. Such sentiments are widespread. Indeed, it is telling that none of the regional television channels in south India have yet to report on this story, which has made national headlines.
I also worry that today's verdict might trigger a flurry of state legislations, and perhaps national ones too, that are blatantly anti-gay. For example, same-sex marriage and adoption may well be outlawed. In a country where 11 states have independently banned sex education in schools, it is very possible that acts similar to Section 28 in the UK might be enacted. Perhaps I am being overly pessimistic. But having grown up in conservative India where sexuality in general is a big taboo, and having been repeatedly told that homosexuality is abnormal and disgusting, I cannot help but wonder if things really have changed that much. It is easy, and comforting to believe so, but not necessarily true.
Hoping that homosexuality remains legal for good, the most important task ahead is to educate the public and raise public awareness about sexual minorities. Sure, popular culture might help. But gay rights activists need the support of the national and state governments, which need to take a secular, long-term outlook, and invest the necessary resources. Unfortunately, where that kind of support is often considered political suicide, achieving equality will take a long time. Today's verdict is just the first step in the right direction.
Written by balaji--in the London Guardian
Here I sign off--
Ravnsfan Anon--
Not the same as plain old Ravensfan--a different person from me.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 15, 2010 2:13 PM
Ravensfan Anon,
Ravensfan and Anonymous:
If Alfred Hitchcock were alive today, he would use your triple personality in his new movie, entitled " the Mad Ravensfan Anonymous papers"
Posted by: Charles Martin | May 4, 2010 12:33 PM
Charles Martin,
I have no triple personality--I write under only one name---Ravensfan Anon. Ravensfan is an entirely different person and there are many Anonymouses on these blogs--I never sign off as anything else except Ravensfan Anon and there is a history to that--but you again are a man more concerned by this name bit than about what I write--most people who are regulars on these blogs, and now that includes the dense Concerned Citizen, know that I am neither dichotomous nor trichotomous--you are another in a long line of petty trollers, to pick on the name as a point of contention--if Alfred Hitchcock were alive, he would make a movie about a man like yourself, seeing three people where only one clearly exists and he would call it "The hallucinations of Charles Martin!" and a hit it would be too, considering a confused man or woman, as the case may be--like you-- would have the starring role in it.
Ravensfan Anon
Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2010 6:11 PM
Whoever wrote this article has draconian views of Christianity especially the "dangers of a Chrsitian" republic.
The danger does not lie with a country calling itself or consideruing itself a WHATEVER type of republic, but when that WHATEVER has no allowance for everyman to worship God as he/she sees fit.
Many Christians RAN, RUSHED, SCRAMBLED to America to escape the intolerance of the Catholic and sometimes the Anglican Church.
They looked forward to a reasonable separation of church and state where religious practices are not prohibited by WHATEVER entity, faction, cult denomination, religion or faith.
It is not true separation of the Church and state when the state can make you take down a nativity scene becasuse somebody doesn't like it. Atheism is a religion. And when a state is supportive of this to the point of being oppressive to those who reasonably believe in a Creator.. it is oppressive. It makes the state supported religion atheism.
As we know, to say nothing makes a statement.
To not believe is a belief.
And freedom of religion is a basic constitutional right.
Oh yeah... and that snide remark about "an eye for an eye" concerns the CIVIL laws of Ancient Israel.
As we all know, Jesus is famously known for saying "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone". This statement is not considered to take precedence over CIVIL law. which is why Jesus asked the accused wioman ... "Has any man condemneded thee?"
Your draconian views concerning religion is the only oppression I see at this point.
Let a brother believe what he wants in peace. Would you? Could you? Are is a belief in God upsetting to you and cause you to take the draconian measure of throwing the baby out with the bath
water?
Posted by: Papa_De_Q | May 6, 2010 3:06 PM
Papa:
I think the writer is referring to the Inquisition in Europe that persecuted Jews and Christians.
whenever and wherever the state becomes involved in religion, we end up with despotic regimes.
Just look at Saudi Arabia and Iran. They are in fact one-party in the case of Iran and Kingship in the case of Saudi Arabia.
America's founding fathers God Bless them were very smart, maybe through divine intervention to keep religion out of the affairs of state.
In God we trust but let us practice whatever we believe in.
Posted by: Charles Martin | May 7, 2010 12:34 PM