[Reader-list] A response to K Kaul

[Aditya Raj Baul]

Must be a result of 200 years of reform in Hindu society that Hindus kill
their sons and daughter in the India of 2010 for daring to love outside
caste. Must be a result of reform that last time I checked, thousands of
Dalits everywhere in India are killed, raped, burnt alive - and when I say
thousands I only mean the recorded FIRs. Must be a result of reform that
Hindus need Narendra Modi and Abhinav Bharat and Sadhvi Pragya. Must be a
result of reform that so many godmen are caught is prostitution rackets and
paedophilia charges made against them.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Reform now! (Nadeem Paracha advises Muslims)
To: Aditya Raj Baul <adityarajbaul at gmail.com>
Cc: sarai list <reader-list at sarai.net>


Dear AR Baul

Nadeem Paracha would be pleased at your approval of his advices.

Though I hold no brief for "Hindus" yet I would point out that substantive
'reform' has been undertaken by "Hindus" in the last 200 odd years. It has
happened both by introspective corrections adopted by the "Hindus"
themselves as well as through Legislation.

There is still a continuation of some extremely inhuman attitudes which
though "Illegal" have been difficult to get rid off just by 'stroke of the
Law' since they are embedded since quite a few hundred years.

Most such attitudes and their practice are intricately linked to their
serving the perpetuation of holding on to ill-gotten Control and Power.

So while "Laws to Reform" are in place, there is still a gap between them
and widespread adherences to those Laws. There are though more than quite a
few voices from amongst the "Hindus" themselves who are dedicated to closing
such gaps

Kshmendra

--- On *Sat, 7/17/10, Aditya Raj Baul <adityarajbaul at gmail.com>* wrote:


From: Aditya Raj Baul <adityarajbaul at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Reform now! (Nadeem Paracha advises Muslims)
To:
Cc: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
Date: Saturday, July 17, 2010, 2:54 PM

Pity the Hindus don't even have a Nadeem F Paracha

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Kshmendra Kaul
<kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=kshmendra2005@yahoo.com>>
wrote:
> Reform now!
>
> by Nadeem F. Paracha
> 07 15th, 2010
>
> The twentieth century was a dynamic epoch for ideology. Some of the most
invigorating (and controversial) ideological experiments were conceived and
implemented, reaching a peak in the 1970s.
>
> Twentieth century ideology was a product of Modernism a direct off-shoot
of the ‘Age of Enlightenment’ (in Europe) where science and reason were
established as primary systems of thought over superstition, organised
religion, feudalism, and monarchism.
> Rational humanistic ideologies such as Marxism/Communism, secularism,
democracy, and socialism were all early products of Modernism that looked
forward to a world powered by rational thought, science, and industrial
development.
>
> Also emerging from these set of Modernist criteria was the concept of
nationalism and capitalism that replaced monarchism and feudalism.
>
> By the early twentieth century, various Modernist ideologies clashed among
themselves with the Marxists on one side trying to implement Marxism as a
‘scientific,’ economic and political system that would lead to equality and
progress, and the bourgeoisie-driven capitalist democracies pushing forward
their favoured system as a rational political expression against feudal
exploitation, organised religion and dictatorship.
>
> This gave birth to the notion of social engineering, in which mass numbers
of people were mobilised and hastily made to conform to the political and
economic ideals of Modernism. This mobilisation did witness rapid
industrialisation, scientific progress and social mobility, but at the same
time the economic tensions and social ruptures it caused also resulted in
certain disasters, such as the economic collapse in capitalist democracies
(the United States and Europe), violent purges against millions of people in
the communist world (Soviet Union) and the rise of fascism (in Germany and
Italy).
>
> Modernism’s demise came sometime during the 1970s – a decade that saw the
widespread intellectual revolt against the concept of the Modernist
meta-narrative. The revolt was led by the so-called ‘post-modernists’ who
began to render the all-encompassing nature of Modernist ideology as a
destructive force. Post-modernists also attacked the implementers of
Modernist ideology as being coercive agents of social and political
engineering that suppressed the common wisdom and moorings of localised
cultures.
>
> As post-modernist thought evolved, Modernist meta-narratives like Marxism,
Fascism and colonial capitalism was gradually replaced by causes based on
the genius of localised cultures. Anthropological sources replaced ancient
written sources to determine history; an emphasis on pluralism and diversity
became the focal point of democracy while multiculturalism overtook the
notion of universalism and cultural homogeneity.
>
> So how did the Muslim world react to Modernism?
>
> Islamic Reformism (in the Modern Age):
>
> Modernist thought emerged when the Muslim world was facing a decline (in
the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries). Its empires were collapsing and
being run-over by European colonialism. Two strains of Muslim response
emerged: The first advocated the absorption of Modernist ideas such as
rationalism, science and ‘secular education,’ within the Islamic cultural
fold.
>
> These reformists tried to prove (both, through historic as well as
scriptural reasoning) that the essence of Islam was based on rational
thought and action, and was also compatible with scientific study and
progress. Keeping in mind Modernism’s emphasis on universalism, they began
to see the Muslim people as a homogenous collection of people (Ummah).
>
> This strain of reformism gave birth to modern nationalistic movements
(such as in Turkey), where the ‘decadent’ monarchical past was done away
with and replaced by secular Turkish nationalism based on developmental
economics. In places like Iran and Egypt regimes under Reza Phelvi and
Gammal Nasser adopted Modernism’s industrial development models as well.
This reformism was also witnessed (during the Ayub Khan dictatorship and the
Z A. Bhutto regime), led by groups of people steeped in nineteenth century
versions of modern reformist Islam in the subcontinent, and, in case of
Bhutto (and Egypt’s Nasser), hybrid socialism.
>
> However, the reason this reformism when put into practice failed to
revitalise the Muslim world was because although its implementers adopted
Modernistic notions such as industrial progress and nationalism, they failed
to implement those elements that help such notions sustain themselves
politically and socially.
>
> For example, industrial development and modern education were attempted
without allowing a vibrant democratic culture to prevail. This created
dictatorships which were always venerable to becoming myopic and elitist at
the first sign of economic and political failure.
>
> This happened in Iran (during the Islamic Revolution), Egypt and Pakistan
(during Zia-ul-Haq’s regime) where the state based on modern reformist
Islam, failed to implement related Modernist ideas like democracy.
Consequently, in the event of the state’s economic and political failure, it
turned inwards, replacing politics based on Modernist meta-narratives with a
parallel meta-narrative formed by conservative Muslims.
>
> The second strain of reformism in the Muslim world that took place at the
arrival Modernism advocated Islamic traditionalist thought as a reaction to
Modernism. As opposed to using rationalism and contextual-ism to interpret
religion and law, it encouraged the textual (literal) reading of the Quran
and Shariah. It also rejected nationalism, claiming that nationalism is
opposed to Islam which is universal and has no borders.
>
> This strain of reformism consequently gave birth to puritanical and
radical ideas such as Wahabism and Salafia-ism – ideas that manifested
themselves as thought and policies that rudely retarded reformist Islamic
social and political discourse in countries like Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan,
Algeria and Afghanistan, triggering the emergence of violent fundamentalist
movements.
>
> Islamic Reformism in the ‘post-modern’ age, some suggestions:
>
> - While formulating Islamic laws, a rationalist and contextualist approach
to Islamic sources should be taken, keeping in mind Islam’s core values,
i.e. justice and mercy.
>
> - Purpose of Islamic legislation regarding punishments should be to reform
people and not to exact revenge.
>
> - We should define Islam in such a way that it does not undermine its
global standing.
> - One cannot force someone to become a believer.
>
> - Islamic rules should always meet the following three criteria:
Compatibility with reason; compatibility with the requirements of justice;
compatibility with the requirements of (modern) times and people’s
preferences.
>
> - Most current Islamic rules regarding women’s rights do not meet the
criteria of either justice or rationality and therefore should be reformed.
>
> - No religious principal should be imposed by force, because Islam has
declared that there is no compulsion in faith.
>
> - Democracy is the best system of government in today’s conditions.
>
> - Islam has neither proscribed nor prescribed a particular form of
government. It only wants to ensure that governments, whatever their form,
are based on justice.
>
> - Islam should not be identified with politics because political Islam has
led to repression, disregarding the people’s constitutional rights and
encouraging religion’s abuse for individual and group advantage.
>
> - Quran is a book of guidance. So neither fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) nor
government can force people to observe rules intended as guidance, because
judgment, punishment and reward in this respect belongs to God.
>
> - All administrative and political matters are human affairs and hence,
not subject to religious rules.
>
>  -Religious extremism should be condemned. It is caused by: *exaggerating
what is prohibited; * a literalist (textual) reading of religious sources;
ignorance; and the myopic anathematization (denouncement) of so-called
sinners that leads to intolerance, arrogance and self-righteousness.
>
> - Jihad is a means, not an end. It does not permit self-destruction and it
does not legitimise killing civilians.
>
> - Preachers are spiritual guides, not judges (and vice-versa).
>
> - Islam and Islamic law should be understood and implied by each
generation according to its own conditions.
>
> - The gates of ijtihad should be swung open.
>
> - Shariah was formulated according to conditions of a particular time and
place. It is man-made. It needs to be updated, refreshed and revitalised
through ijtihad and according to the needs of the time.
>
> - Power of Islamic legislation should flow back to the people from the
hands of ulema, politicians and the clergy.
>
> - Islam is represented by the people not by political parties,
organisations, or the clergy because Muslims commune directly with God.
>
> - The usage of hadith in legislation should be handled carefully and
critically because many are unreliable and difficult to authenticate.
>
> - A dynamic reading and understanding of Islam should be encouraged
because a stagnant, conservative and traditionalist reading are against the
spirit of the religion.
>
> - A lack of official clergy in Islam makes it most compatible with
secularism.
>
> - Islam provides the ethical basis of a society, while government is based
on rational premises. Thus, there is no need for the caliphate as a model
for the exercise of power.
>
> - State/government has political functions; religious functions belong to
the people according to their own will, need and consensus.
>
>  - To avoid dictatorship, repression, state coercion and stagnation,
Muslim political systems must not rest on theological foundations.
>
> - Everything under the unity of God is plural. There is only one God, but
many kinds and types of Muslims. Nobody but God can determine exactly who or
what a real or true Muslim is, and/or who or what a kafir or an ‘infidel,’
is.
>
> (Nadeem F. Paracha is a cultural critic and senior columnist for Dawn
Newspaper and Dawn.com.)
>
> http://blog.dawn.com/2010/07/15/reform-now/
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=reader-list-request@sarai.net>with subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
_________________________________________
reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
Critiques & Collaborations
To subscribe: send an email to
reader-list-request at sarai.net<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=reader-list-request@sarai.net>with
subscribe in the subject header.
To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>