[Reader-list] Taliban is the future

[yasir ~يا سر]

>
>
> Liberal = We accept you; You accept us; On a mutuality of terms
>
> Islamic = We accept you on our terms; You accept us on our terms.
>
> This Non-Liberal facet of Islam holds true not only for Inter-Faith
> relationships, but also for Intra-Faith relationships depending on which is
> the dominating Group who can dictate terms.
>


i am sure you would't mind if i added:

Hindu = We accept you on our terms; You accept us on our terms.
Indian Secularism = We accept you on our terms; You accept us on our terms.
(In case you are fooling yourself we are still Hindu)

But i dont buy this self-fulfilling prophecy or logic. for one or the other
religion, whether its muslims christians in india, hindus christians in pk,
christians in syria, maronites, muslims druze in lebanon, jews in iran,
muslims in israel, muslims orthodox xtians albanians, macedonians in
ex-yougoslavia ....or whatever___ its a wrongly framed question. Religion is
just that: an ideology being used by the group in power, which has various
consequences, predictable and unpredictable, further below and much further
below. The way things are run politically is purely that: political-social.
If you are vouching for secularism, you better take out 'religion' as an
explanatory factor, and see the groups, especially religious groups, in ways
social-political. i agree that will give the right picture of the govt's
position and make-up. to target religion for wrong doing is to add something
extra which is not required. one can find religious principles to suit one's
taste in ideology. In pk as in india the religious false principle is much
abused in politics as well as by religious thanedars and thekadars to make a
living. there is too much religion which is hardly religion, is much
nationalism & fake idealism if not buffoonery chicanery & charlatanry, is
blatantly populist, making for the worst examples of human behaviour on the
planet. The positive examples are rare, short and has positive implications
for 'religious freedom'. But then we will not be able to explain this
through a 'religious' explanation, which i am arguing is totally flexible
and in fact at the disposal of the group in power.  I think this will settle
the question.

In actual practice the term secular is a problem in itself - its not talking
about what it seems to be talking about. and i will interpret this
differently from you, kk. In a total reversal, in the US govt buildings are
prohibited from using religious symbols in /on buildings, but they you will
see displays of symbols, on christmas, chanukkah, eid, _ _ _ -  legally
these are taken as cultural symbols rather than religious, as people may be
non practicing celebrators of christmas, eid, hanukkah _ _ _ this is a much
better interpretation than the opposite which holds in turkey and france
that the identifcation of scarf as religious symbol to be banned in schools
and government institutions - which is just flawed principle designed to irk
a smaller of weaker scapegoated people endlessly for a populist / ruling
group's cause - and not a bit more. so i might not have a problem with what
you are calling 'secular' (altho you go a bit overboard with the
anti-islamic bit) but with how the problem has been described & framed.

best