Secularism: Another face of Masonic Lodges? PART III

By Naveed Tajammal

Islam & Christianity  

Religion is religion, when it is believed in as ‘Free from any defect’. A religion ceases to be a religion when its  ultimate principles is believed ‘Not to be absolute and unchangeable’. The Fundamentals of the Faith cannot be subject to the ‘Law of Evolution’, like social institutions.

The Holy Quran is preserved and the ‘SUNNA’ (the social life as led by the Prophet) ‘ is recorded as far as possible. The divine part of the “SHARIA” (The Islamic Law or Jurisprudence), being a divine act, is in a state of “Absolute Perfection”; Hence it is exempt from any evolution or progress.

As to the term, SECULARISM, it was coined by an Englishman, named George Jacob Holyoake (1817-1906). He was convicted on account of Blasphemy, in a public lecture, and was sentenced to undergo a six months imprisonment and upon his release he invented the term “Secularism” – as descriptive of his “Opinions”. And so, he also established the “Reasoner”  in support of his NEW THEORY, in the various books he wrote. The author of the term “Secularism” has the dubious honor   for being convicted for a second time also, for publishing a illegal newspaper. He was the author of a number of books, including two volumes of his own reminiscences, “Bygones worth Remembering” (1905). He died at Brighton, England on the 22nd of January 1906.

All works of the author, of this term, have been in support of his argument which justifies the separation of state politics or administration from religious or church matters. It is pertinent to note here, that, secular education is a system of education / imparting knowledge in which religious teaching is excluded in the school teachings.

Pakistan is a country composed of people having one faith, which is ISLAM. Christians, Hindu and Parsees, remain a fraction of our total population. We are an Islamic State and as a State it is unfortunate, that we have a tendency to adhere, and still cling with, the laws and traditions of our previous rulers. As to the mindset and people, who still think as per the western education and see things as per their perceptions, and as they gradually ease out, the national character of our nation will re-emerge, in which no doubt exists, as the chain reaction is already in motion. The point to be borne in mind here is; what is good for Christianity Need not be good for us as Moslem’s.  Christianity never had the chance to flourish as did Islam.

Islam, immediately after it’s coming in force and establishing itself as a world power in the known corners of the then known corners of the world and since the last almost 1400 years, has flourished without a break as a power and a code of life. Christianity, on the other hand, originated within a community that was under the domination of a powerful state and that had no hopes for political independence. Islam on the other hand flourished among a people, free from external domination, which had the capacity and established an independent state. And a state means a public authority which has the power to enforce its judicial rules over the individuals whose safety it undertakes. At the time of rise of Christianity, the Roman State and its laws were in force. Christianity found a political organization already in existence, and thus it took the matters of organizing a government and maintaining laws as matters outside the concern of religion. It accepted the separation of state and religion, as a principle, and formulated it in the slogan, “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto god that, which is gods”.

Thus, Christianity seems, at first sight, like a religion that has left judicial powers entirely to the government and has concerned itself exclusively with pronouncements on matters of righteousness and ethical teachings.

The real nature of things, however, was not that way at all. Christianity by accepting the State outside of Religion was relegating the state to a non-sacred realm. It did not appropriate the state to itself, because it looked down on it. This attitude, originally, was due to the fact that the Romans were foreign to the early Christians; both from the point of view of nationality and religion. And this did not disappear, even when the conditions changed. Although Christianity took on political government outside of the realm of religion, it nevertheless brought to the world a new government under the name of heavenly kingdom.

Thus, two kinds of governments came into existence in Christendom, one as the non-sacred, temporal government, and the other as the sacred spiritual government.

Now, ‘IF’ Christianity had not found an already existing order of state at the time of its birth, it would have attempted undoubtedly to create one. And then, it would have regarded it as a sacred being of its own creation. As this government would have been within the religion, and as such a sacred institution, no need would have been felt to establish a spiritual government. If this had happened, there would be no duality of temporal and spiritual governments, BUT, something similar to the case existing in ISLAM.

Europeans who have compared Christianity and Islam usually believe that Islam’s acceptance of judicial matters as part of religion, and of the state organization, as part of religious organization, is a DEFECT, in Islam. More so, unfortunately, our own Muslims and Pakistanis, born and bred in western circles, who have received their ideas from the same sources of knowledge, as the Christians do, also think like them.

However, when the problem is investigated more carefully, it appears that this is NOT a defect but, on a contrary, ‘A MERIT’. In Islam religious provisions are divided into three categories; those relating to piety, to morality and to judicial affairs. All of them are religious because they are sacred. Religion, is the sum total of all beliefs, that are taken as sacred by the “Ummah”. Aesthetic and rational rules are non-sacred and therefore they are outside of religion.

Islam takes ethical and legal rules as religious rules and thus makes them sacred. This conception is contrary to the interpretations of ethics and law, from the point of view of utilitarianism, historical materialism, and the doctrine of social contract. And this creates among the Moslems the bond of “Ummah” which goes beyond the limits of national boundaries, a natural threat to the west of such a bond. And this has always existed. This was the rational of breakup of ottoman / Osmanli Empire, as was also seen when British defused the Khilafat Movement in British India, or they have tried their best not to let Pan Islamism germinate.  It is not that in Christianity, the effort on the part of the Pope, has not been there .The “Popes” used every charm in their inventory to claim authority over the political matters, but the Christian rulers declined to accept such claims because, according to rulers – Monarchist, no power can overrule them. And in the Orthodox Church, as we see in the historical perspectives, that the Christian religion was indeed sacrificed for the sake of the ego of the Christian rulers.

The idea and the theme of separating Church from the State originated within the sphere of these petty kings of Christendom. And the history, or political history, of Europe is full of such “CONCORDATS” (agreements between a state and the Church on Church affairs) continuously changing and always dragging both sides into conflicts.

The French parliament decided to separate these two powers from each other, completely. From that time onward, France did not have an ‘Official Religion’ and the Churches ceased to have any official character. They remained, just a private association, under the “Statute of Associations”. As was seen in the Ottoman Empire, the French Concord of 1801 became the source of inspirations of the French Oriented Ottoman Intellectuals whose culmination was the Turkish Constitution of 1924 where secularism became part of it.

Continued….

(The writer has over 26 years of experience in Investigative Historical Research).

Advertisements
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Saulat Khan  On August 22, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    What about those who argue that Islam cannot accommodate or tolerate the ‘secular’ aspect of modernity? There are many Muslim thinkers in the world today who argue that as Muslims we cannot and should not accept any of the values which come under the general label of ‘secular’.?
    Comment Dr Tajammal?

    • Naveed Tajammal  On August 22, 2010 at 4:11 pm

      Dear saulat,
      I feel that no ambiguity,should exist, our religion is simple,what is in the book,is laid out and as is the Islamic jurisprudence, as stated in the article,as to the sunna,well mostly it covers the social life,i.e,the basic parts(human nature can never change nor the basic instincts,or the reactions), as to the interpreters,and their views,and the options,which they give are unending,in each era.As to secularism,as i have stated,that is a different aspect,it is based on ,beside the aspect of rendering unto Caesar,that which is Caesars,and unto god that,which is gods”.The christian rulers,wanted full powers,they limited the powers of the church,hence the concordats.

  • Tarek Rahman  On August 22, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    Secularisation is often seen as a process that is associated with the “West” and modernisation, as a process that is opposed to islamisation. In his doctoral dissertation, anthropologist Sindre Bangstad shows that processes of secularisation also emerge from within Muslim communities.

    Bangstads dissertation ‘Global Flows, Local Appropriations: Facets of Secularisation and re-Islamization Among Contemporary Cape Muslims’, is based on 15 months of fieldwork in Cape Town, South Africa between 2003 and 2005.

    Bangstad stresses that processes of secularisation and re-Islamization are not opposed to each other. They must be seen as implicated in, and interlinked with, one another:
    or instance, I demonstrate that prison ‘ulama’ in Cape Town have been able to draw on human rights notions and precepts enshrined in the Constitution in arguing for an expansion of religious rights for Muslim inmates. They have done so, in spite of the fact that the mainstream Cape ‘ulama’ are for all practical purposes opposed to many of the secular and liberal principles of the same Constitution, and many of the legislative and societal changes that they have resulted in.

    (…)

    It is difficult to understand the discrepancies between the normative models of the predominantly middle-class mainstream Cape ‘ulama’, and the actual practices of Cape Muslims in underprivileged townships and informal settlements, without reference to prior processes of secularisation understood as a decrease in the regulatory capacities of religious authorities.

    In his dissertation, Bangstad present findings from his ethnographic research on black African conversion to Islam in the black African townships and informal settlements, on Muslim women in polygynous marriages in underprivileged communities, on Muslims living with HIV/AIDS, on the status of religious rights for Muslim inmates in a prison, as well as on public deliberations between reformists and Sufis on the appropriateness of certain Sufi rituals.

    Muslims in South Africa represent a small minority, with a mere 1,46 percent of the total population in 2001. However, Muslims in Cape Town, the historical heartland of Islam in South Africa, represent approximately 10 percent of the population.

    • Naveed Tajammal  On August 22, 2010 at 5:24 pm

      Dear Tarik,
      Thanking for providing an insight in the works of ,sindre Bangstad,however,whatever is laid out in the south African constitution would be difficult to change,as the Turks to-date have been unable to change that of 1924,as to the Sufi Rituals,well ,less said the better,as they are based on scholastic values.but the stance of Bangstad,that Secularism, and re-islamization are not opposed to each other,sounds strange.

  • Ronald Turner  On August 22, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    Every society is made up of different people, different jobs, different values, and different classes. Nevertheless, students of history tell us that no society can survive or function without a unifying system of thought. The unifying system of thought that acts as a glue that makes the various parts of a society adhere is called a “world view.” This world view may be built on a philosophical system like Platonism, or on a religion like ancient Israel. It may be built on a common mythology, or on a devotion to the state, or on some political philosophy. In every society there is a competition between philosophy, religion, mythology, and politics for dominance. One of these elements will eventually emerge as the principal world view.

    Originally, a Biblical world view was the unifying system that dominated American society; but, this is no longer true. In our modern topsy-turvy culture, the principal ism or system of thought that is being reflected in our creative arts, in our popular literature and music, on our TV screens, in our educational institutions, and even in our churches, is secularism. In secularism, all life, every human value, every human activity must be understood in view of the here and now. There are no windows into the eternal. If there is a God—and the secularist is either an atheist or agnostic—He is totally irrelevant. All that matters is now. In the secular world view, human beings are not created in the image of God. They are, instead, wholly physical. Consequently, humans are the outgrowth of an evolutionary process, and are, at best, nothing more than a chance collocation of atoms. Because there is no hope of life beyond this present physical world, the secular humanist declares that man’s highest end is happiness, freedom, and progress for all mankind in this present world. To this end the secularist “assigns to man nothing less than the task of being his own savior and redeemer” (Corliss Lamont, The Philosophy of Humanism, page 283).

    In stark contrast to secularism, which says, “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you die,” stands Christianity, which says, “Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.” Christianity speaks of something more than the here and now. While secularism takes the short view, Christianity takes the long view. While secularists talk about the here and now, Christians speak of an eternal life beyond the grave. While secularism, which teaches man is the product of evolution, validates narcissism, hedonism, materialism, and pluralism, Christianity, which teaches man is created in the image of God, refutes all man-made isms with the admonition, “Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man” (Ecclesiastes 12:13).

    The Bible tells us that faith comes as a result of hearing God’s Word (Romans 10:17). In Hebrews 11:3, the writer says that faith has its starting point at Genesis 1:1. Consequently, the starting point for a Biblical world view is the first verse of the Bible. Before the here and now, God, who transcends this current time-space world, existed in eternity. This means there is more to reality than the here and now. But, there is more. Apart from “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” there are no real ethical obligations; no such things as absolute norms of conduct—no moral absolutes. If there is no Creator who is Sovereign of the universe, then man is under no moral obligations and is absolutely free to do as he pleases. It is here then that we arrive at the crux of the matter. Man, in his arrogant pride, does not want to do what God wants him to do. As a result, man attempts to suppress the truth about God in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). Why? Because if man can be persuaded to believe the lie that there is no Sovereign God who lives in eternity, then he can be comfortable involving himself in all sorts of uncleanness and ungodliness (Romans 1:19-25). Secularism, of course, is the perfect vehicle for such unbelief.

  • Fizzy Fiz  On August 22, 2010 at 4:38 pm

    hmmmmm….. good point needu

  • Naveed Tajammal  On August 22, 2010 at 5:02 pm

    Well said,Ronald,
    I agree,that secularism gives the human being,the escapism they seek,but the religion binds them within its ambit.

  • Haidre  On August 22, 2010 at 6:56 pm

    @Ronald Turner. Is Secularism the same thing as Atheism ? If not, then what is the difference between them ?
    @Naveed Tajammal. Your comment on what Ronald Turner has said ?

    • Naveed Tajammal  On August 23, 2010 at 6:47 am

      Haidre,let me first, state the definition of a ‘concordant’,as that is what it is all about,the authority i will quote at the end,it is a,compact,covenant,or agreement
      concerning anything.2)An agreement made between the pope and a sovereign or government for the regulation of ecclesiastical matters with which both are concerned,as was the ‘concordat’ between pope LEO X and FRANCIS l of France,in 1516.
      Secularism,and atheism are well defined by Ronald,But ,to further add in this aspect,secular is defined as,’pertaining to this present world or to things Not spiritual or Holy;relating to things not immediately or primarily respecting,the soul,but the body; worldly.as in secular music,any music or song,not adapted to sacred uses;the definition of ‘secularism’, the state of being secular, a secular spirit,secularity’,now secularity is defined as,supreme attention to things of the present life;worldliness.(page-1193)
      As to ‘Atheism,it is the disbelief or denial of existence of God, or the supreme intelligent Being. and a ‘Atheist’ is,’without God’ one who disbelieves or denies existence of God,or the supreme intelligent Being : Infidel,unbeliever.see Infidel.and so on….(page-87)
      i hope that clears the issue.
      ref; Dr.Websters complete dictionary of English Language.by Chauncey A.Goodrich,D.D,LL.D and Noah Porter,D.D, the revised edition to 1847.published 1864.London.

  • Ronald Turner  On August 22, 2010 at 7:12 pm

    There are a lot of people out there who lack a good understanding of what secularism and atheism are. This is unfortunate, but need not be a problem so long as they don’t also pretend that they know something about those topics and don’t presume to lecture others – thus ultimately spreading their ignorance further and wider than is really necessary. Sam Weaver, sadly, is one of those people.
    In the American Daily Sam writes an article which would win an award for “how many myths, errors, and misconceptions can you pack into one piece,” if such an “honor” existed:

    The religion of the modern liberal is atheism (a/k/a, secularism, humanism, or “secular humanism”). One might think that atheism is not a religion. Rather, one might argue, atheism is the complete absence of any and all religious ideology.

    Atheism is not the same as secularism. Atheism is not the same as humanism. Atheism is not unique to liberals, nor are all liberals atheists. Atheism is not the absence of religious ideology. Atheism is just one thing: the absence of belief in any gods.

    Consider, if you will, the very nature of every religion. Every religion contains two postulates: 1) an explanation of origins, and 2) an ethic. An atheist (or, a secularist), by definition, rejects any notion of a Supernatural Creator. This rejection leads to the atheistic (or, secular) ethic.
    Actually, there is quite a lot more to religions than what Weaver describes. Such a truncated definition allows him to make his point, sure, but once we realize that his “point” is based upon a definition that just doesn’t stand up, his point falls as well. We should ask, however, whether he knows better or is just as ignorant about religion as he is about atheism.

    Notice once again how Weaver equates secularism with atheism. Perhaps he doesn’t realize that secularism is a philosophy about the role of religion in political and public life – thus allowing religionists and theists to be secularists while atheists could, if they were devout adherents of an atheistic religion, be non-secularists.

    Or perhaps he does realize it and just doesn’t care because that would undermine his effort to equate liberalism with atheism and, by extension, political conservatism with True Christianity. This is the basic arguments of Christian Nationalism, a ideology promoted by theocrats who would like to see our secular political system replaced with a religious system founded upon (their interpretation of) Christianity. If achieving that goal means distorting the truth, then I guess the ends justify the means, right?

    • HINA  On August 23, 2010 at 9:18 am

      Ronald,what input can you give on,the ‘concordats’ signed by the popes,with kings and queens of Europe ? and why so ?

      • sadia hameed  On August 28, 2010 at 2:20 pm

        Ronald the question put across remains unanswered?????

  • Ghayur Ayub  On August 23, 2010 at 1:50 am

    Dear YAA

    An excellent assessment by Mr. Naveed Tajammal. I have two observations though;

    1. He wrote, “In Islam religious provisions are divided into three categories; those relating to piety, to morality and to judicial affairs.” According to my understanding of Islam, I take morality a subsection of piety and not as a separate entity portrayed in this sentence.
    2. He wrote again, “The Holy Quran is preserved and the ‘SUNNA’ (the social life as led by the Prophet) ‘ is recorded as far as possible. The divine part of the “SHARIA” (The Islamic Law or Jurisprudence), being a divine act, is in a state of “Absolute Perfection”; Hence it is exempt from any evolution or progress.” Does it mean Sharia has two parts; Divine, and Temporal? If it has I would appreciate him throwing light on it.

    Kind Regards

    Dr Ghayur Ayub

    • Naveed Tajammal  On August 23, 2010 at 7:17 am

      Dear Dr,Ghayur,
      long time no see or exchange ??to your query,as i had stated in my first part of these series that i will quote from works of Ziya Gokalp (1876-1924) and there was a reason why,but to clear your mind i am quoting his words,as quoted in the book,whose reference you will find at the end;
      ………in other words,Islamic ‘shari’a’ is both divine and social.The transmitted principles of ‘fikh’ are absolute and unchangeable.The Holy Quran is preserved and the ”sunna’ is recorded as far as possible.The divine part of the ‘sharia’,being a divine act,is in a state of absolute perfection;hence,it is exempt from any evolution or progress,the fundamental of the faith cannot be subject to law of evolution like social institutions………..’
      The Social principles of the ‘fikh’ on the other hand,are subject to the transformations taking place in the forms and structures of society,and hence are subject to changes along with society.Every ‘urf’ is invariably the ‘urf’ of a certain social type.A norm which is customary in a certain social type maybe a norm rejected in another social type .Even a glance at history and ethnology will show us that the customs,the usages,and the folkways do change,from time to time and differ from society to society………’
      page-195, Religion,Education & Family,1959 published in Great Britain by George Allen and Unwin Ltd.

  • Yasir Hashmi  On August 23, 2010 at 2:43 am

    Nice Article .. A lot of people in our society are confusing the younger generation about Islam and secularism. Many of the reknowned proffessors as well who are working for the western interest. Islam cannot be separated from the politics and the governing of the state because Islam is a complete code of conduct for people and the society as a whole. A lot of people argue these days that religion is a personal matter between the person and God, yes worship can be your personal matter but Islam does not put a full-stop on worship, it has its own social/financial system which has to be followed of we are to practice Islam. Thats what makes Islam different from other religions and that was the basis on which Pakistan was created. However, In last 63 years, we have practiced everything but Islam. This is the reason why we are suffering moraly and economically. Ummah is the base of Islam, which quite beautifuly bounds all the muslims without the limitation of any boundary. “Muslim hain hum-watan hain, sara jahan humara”.
    Iqbal also describes it as,
    In taaza khudaon men bara sab se watan hai
    Jo perahan is ka hai wo mazhab ka kafan hai

    Regards.
    Yasir Hashmi

  • KHAN ZIA  On August 23, 2010 at 5:56 am

    Against my better judgement I would take issue with this statement by the writer: ‘The divine part of the “SHARIA” (The Islamic Law or Jurisprudence), being a divine act, is in a state of “Absolute Perfection”; Hence it is exempt from any evolution or progress.’

    The word ‘sharia’ in the Koran does not specify a Constitution or a code of laws. The only thing Divine in Islam is what is in the Koran, the rest is human endeavour which cannot be Divine. This is the fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity. There is Divine Law in Judaism specified in the Torah which came to be interpreted and elaborated as Halakha around the fifteenth century, rather like Sharia in Islam.

    If Sharia is ‘Islamic Law’, where is it codified? Without detailed civil, criminal and procedural codes it will all be left to the whims and fancy of individual judges. There will be no uniform application of law which is a fundamental principle of justice and Islam. If there had been a Divine Sharia there would not have been different schools of Islamic Law. Yet, all the main jurists like Imam Abu Hanifa, Malik, Hunmbal, Shaafi and Jaaffer have serious differences. Imam Abu Hanifa even forbade his disciples from recording his judgements stating that these may no longer apply at some time in the future. In doing so he signaled that Law was an evolving process and not frozen in time. If further proof of this is needed please refer to Fatawa-e-Alamgiri, the last known attempt at codification of Islamic Law in the sub-continent in 17th century AD. It is a bewildering and often contradictory collection of legal opinions. It would be sacrilege to call it Divine.

    Constitution forms the basis for a country’s law. The Koran does not specify even a form of government let aside a detailed Constitution (see Maulana Maudoodi’s Khilafat-o-Malukiat). He also states on record in his book ‘Sood’ that ‘the rules of Sharia formulated by the theologians in the past were relevant only to the conditions that existed around them at the time’ (pp. 183-4): ‘We accept, conditions in the world have changed. A great revolution has taken place in cultural and economic fields and it has completely altered the financial and commercial environment. Under these new conditions the evolutionary stipulations that were put into effect in the early days of Islam, based on the economic and cultural conditions in Hijaz, Iraq, Syria and Egypt, do not meet the present requirements of Muslims. The rules of Sharia formulated by the theologians in the past were relevant only to the conditions that existed around them at the time. Many of these conditions are no longer relevant and many new situations have arisen that did not exist in the past. Therefore, the provisions concerning commerce, finance and economics found in the old books of Fika are in need of considerable elaboration and broadening in scope. There is no disputing the fact that the Islamic laws governing economic and financial matters need to be revised. All that remain to be determined are the lines along which this should be done.’

    There are only 70 verses in the Koran that deal with personal law, another 70 with civil law, about 30 with penal law, and 20 with issues of testimony and justice out of a total of 6,666. In other words, less than three per cent of the Koran is about laws and related legal matters. This in itself should be an indication of the relative emphasis to be laid on this particular aspect of the religion. If the people advocating imposition of Sharia as the law in Pakistan were any serious they would have at the very least prepared and presented an alternative workable Constitution as well as civil, criminal and procedural codes to the people. The fact that it has not happened may mean that either the task is beyond their capability or that the purpose is to use the call only as a means for gaining political power.

    Preoccupation with taking control of the instruments of government in the name of religion is a dangerous notion that will not serve the cause of Islam. If the object is to make good Muslims it can only be achieved by personal endeavour and not through coercion by the state (The Koran 2:256). The latter will inevitably lead to the institution of Spanish-style Inquisition and we all know the grotesque tragedy it inflicted in Christian lands the world over. Islam is much more than controlling the levers of power and manipulating personal lives of individuals. Let us not defy its spirit and spoil its good name through misplaced zeal as happened under the Taliban rule in Afghanistan and a few other places.

    The writer is author of ‘Muslims and the West: A Muslim Perspective’ and ‘Pakistan: Roots, Perspective and Genesis’.

    • Naveed Tajammal  On August 23, 2010 at 7:31 am

      Dear khan zia sahib,
      i have already quoted the source of the terms used to Dr.Ghayur Ayub,please do read it.in the words of Ziya Gokalp,page 103,of the book above quoted,…But the ‘fikh’ did not exist until one and half centuries AFTER the hijra,Until that time religion and sharia consisted of the Quran and sunna……….’

  • Arif Khan  On August 23, 2010 at 5:59 am

    Dear Sir I was raised in Jinnah’s Pakistan in the early Fifties when religion was not “Such a big deal” as it is now…Jinnah was not a very Religious man, He had lived in England for 35 yrs, he Drank, ate Pork, and married a Non Muslim, and no way, Jose, without him Pakistan would have come into existence??? No Way! He was against Theocratic Rule in Pakistan , and Liquor was legal in Pakistan until 1977 .. My Parents being rather Religious still sent us kids to Catholic Schools as they gave the BEST EDUCATION at that time… So I can make no Comments about the People raised and Brain Washed during Zia Ul Haq’s Pakistan… I liked MY Pakistan of the50’s and 60’s better any day of the Week….I do not like what Pakistan has become Now under influence of Wahabis and Zia ul Haq… I love “Sufi Islam” of Peotry, Love, Music, Architecture, Tolerance and COEXISTENCE… I do not like Soldiers in the Pakistan Army with Unkempt beards and lack of Professional Looks.. I miss the Looks of the 1965 Army… Jinnah must be turning in his garve as to what he envisioned Pakistan and what it has become…… Arif

    • Naveed Tajammal  On August 23, 2010 at 7:45 am

      But with due apology sir,you are indeed a product of a different times SIR.as had been those earlier to you,we have moved forward.hence you see what is around you ,a reaction to the educational whip of lord Macaulay party disciples. The present English Medium schools, and the syllabus taught in them.see the billboards all over the country which define their syllabus.contrary to one taught in the English medium.and they stress on imparting English too.The destruction of ‘mektab’ and letting it stagnate destroyed our structure or the fabric.which created the pro verbal generation gap, in the masses.

      • Arif Khan  On August 24, 2010 at 4:28 am

        My Dear Naveed I think there should be a Common Syllabus for ALL Schools.Because of the fact that English is a MUST for all students if they want to learn new invention sand Communicate with the World and are NOT lost as soon as they move to Dubai or beyond or surf the net… So i would say English, Urdu, Math, Science, Computer literacy, Typing, Moral s, Hygiene and Psysiology, (Forget about Religion as thats the responsibility of the Parents not the State) but MORALS is a MUST, and there will be no contention, between Muslims /Christians/Parsis as we do have a WHITE stripe on our Flag… Then we will Progress and there will be no sense of Depreviation between Classes Sincere regards Arif

  • Ayesha  On August 23, 2010 at 9:10 am

    A good write up, we need more like these,to draw analogies from,what has apparently happened with the turk,is being staged for our country.

    • Arif Khan  On August 24, 2010 at 2:51 am

      Dear Ayesha Maybe i am living in the Past, but remember Where is Turkey sitting now and where is Pakistan ? According to Naveed Sahib, Change is all over Pakistan and it is Correct. But Pakistan needs to Practise ISLAM at home and in Private, not in every word they utter as we have 72 Denominations of Islam with different ideologies and Thus begins the Clash and the Killings in the Various Mosques and against Shia, Sunnis, Wahabis, Ahmadis etc etc . This would have happened in America also if they had NOT separated Church and State… Why cant we take a cue from Dubai or Malaysia and Move beyond these Narrow interpretaion of Islam , Live and Let live Arif

      • naveed tajammal  On August 24, 2010 at 8:36 am

        Sir, human-beings have a major failing,we re-sought to escapism,hence the schools of thoughts in all religions,the
        ”rah e farar”,which we seek leads us in the pit falls,otherwise all orthodox religions are ,very clear on good and bad.Only once we go interpretations that hell breaks lose.

      • ayesha  On August 24, 2010 at 1:36 pm

        you have a strong case,arif, as goes your argument,yes we have to move forward,in any case,but how so ? with divisions as seen,none willing to follow the other,in the matters relating to our religion,what better option then to stick with orthodox scriptures ?? alone ??

  • ADNAN  On August 23, 2010 at 9:24 am

    Here more stress is being given on the interpretations of terms, then on the subject under discussion,the causes of why secularism came about in Turkey.

  • najaf  On August 23, 2010 at 9:48 am

    I feel the author is correct in his assessment that,what can be good for the Christians need not be for us,if they want secularism,good for them why does it have be thrust down our throat.Anyway,technically as stated by the author,if the popes had their way,secularism would have failed in the west.Even the soviets are reverting back.

  • SADIA  On August 23, 2010 at 9:56 am

    Poor muslims are still trying to find their bearings

  • Mohammad Ajmel  On August 23, 2010 at 10:03 am

    About Turkish connection. In 1978 when we went to Nawabshah under Khalid Nawaz Malik, a gentleman walked into my office as he wanted to see ASMLA. He introduced himself as some Zardari , step brother of Hakim Ali Zardari and he narrated that their forefathers came from Turkey. Rest you would know better as in second tenure under Masood Aziz Ch you enjoyed this family’s hospitality in their BEDROOM…….
    YAA to take care of the rest……….I am off for couple of days till storm subsides.

    Regards.

    Ajmal

    • naveed tajammal  On August 23, 2010 at 11:02 am

      Dear Sir,
      you are grossly in error,and mixing up the dates,after the burial of ZAB,at garhi khuda bux,we did move to nawabshah,i was the adjutant,so should know,there was no zardari who visited,the mess,yes there was a long list of others,as we had been tasked to find the land holdings of prominent landowners and their incomes too,or the orbit of their influence, in the first tenure of the units move from dera bugti, i was in quetta,yes it is quite possible as then we where on marital law duty.as to zardari being a turkish tribe well it seems too,far fetched,as the actual turkey or turkestan is the sinkiang province on our north.

  • Haidre  On August 23, 2010 at 5:56 pm

    @Arif Khan Sb. Regards. “Mae nay yeh jana keh goya yeh bhi meray dil mae hay.”

    Thanks.

    • Arif Khan  On August 24, 2010 at 3:00 am

      Thank you Arif, I knew Gen Tajamul so did many of my Course mates and Friends..He was the greatest General this Country has ever known. He was a broad minded and a Chrismatic person , who if he had succeeded against Zia could have Changed the Destiny of Pakistan and we would have been on a different Plain… But Alas it was NOT meant to be, as that Zia was a very Shrewd man surrounded by Psychophants…. They dont people like him anymore….. Maybe Naveed can take the ball and run with it…..

  • naveed tajammal  On August 24, 2010 at 8:16 am

    Thankyou sir,for very kind words,about my father.
    salaam.

  • 監視器  On December 3, 2010 at 10:40 am

    It is certainly a lovely post. An information something like this demonstrates just how steeply the concept is actually thought of by creator.

Trackbacks

  • By Visita el siguiente documento on October 14, 2014 at 5:02 pm

    Visita el siguiente documento

    Secularism: Another face of Masonic Lodges? PART III | Pakpotpourri2’s Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: