Question:

I found your site very informative. As an American, I wish the best for Pakistan and its people and lament the problems your country is dealing with.

However, I have read several articles and analysis concerning the West-vs-Islam conflict that does not ring very true. The most important difference I have is that many of your contributors seem to feel that much of this has its root in actual religious ideologies. That certainly is not true in America where Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindi, Protestant etc., work and live together, enjoying the fruits of their individual faiths but agreeing not to run our government or businesses based on literal interpretations of the Bible, Koran, Torah, Book of Morman, etc.. I happen to be a Roman Catholic who has Muslim, Jewish, Christian and Atheist friends. Some adhere strictly to their religious doctrines, some not. But you would be amazed at how similar the guiding philosophies are between all these religions. Most importantly however, we treat one another with respect and would be more likely to have an argument over politics or a sports team than religion.

This country was founded upon, and I believe has grown great through, the tenet of religious and personal freedom. The whole concept of running a nation on the basis of strict interpretation of books written millennia ago seems foolish to the average American of any religion.

As far as being a atheistic society, I can only point out that we still have "In God We Trust" on all of our currency and there are hundred of thousands of Churches, Mosques, Synagogues, and chapels in the US all regularly attended.

The average American citizen is alarmed at the rhetoric we hear call for the domination of Islam in the world. To us the concept of religious domination is abhorrent.

Certainly the United States has made a number of mistakes in dealing with the politics of the Middle East and Asia. First, in an effort to combat communist influence and then to protect the oil reserves of the Middle East. There is also a growing realization in the US that our support of Israel is way too lopsided and it is time to deal with the religious zealots there as well. But in all of this, there is no religious motivation whatsoever.

Indeed U.S. soldiers have lost their lives in the protection of Muslim lives in many areas of the world. Ask Kuwaitis or Eastern European Muslims if we did not assist them in their time of need. We tried to help in Somalia but quickly realized that this was a quagmire and people there, Muslim or not, were determined to kill one another. No one mentions this.

At any rate I will continue to watch developments in Pakistan and Afghanistan and hope that our Military Mission will be over soon and pray that a sane government will be formed that will allow all Afghans to live in peace, freedom and tolerance.

JTNolan
Philadelphia
USA

Answer:

JT Nolan!

I shall leave it to you to form your fresh considered opinion about Afghanistan, where you "hoped" the Allied Military Mission will be over "soon". The head of the Mission is reported in the press to have said only very recently, that the operation may continue for 100 years. So, there are people who appear to be quite serious about the "crusade" and the "clash of civilizations" and wish to drag them as long as they used to be in the past.
Still I feel happy - not merely complacent, but really happy - to find friends like you pressing their viewpoint but quite decently. You have the right to look at things as you see and feel, and then offer your comment where you believe we were wrong. That gives me lot of hope that I shall also be allowed to explain our position, as we understand. This is the spirit of dialogue that helps patch up differences and eliminate false fears.

Now let me have my frank opinion about the important area that you touched.

You have yourself identified the bone of contest. I borrow it from you with thanks and declare: "In God We [also] Trust". But it is not confined only to "currency", or the construction of some churches, mosques and synagogues. We go a step further. We also accept the "Word of God". Luckily, we are not constrained like the others. Qur’s is not the Book "written" millenia ago. If that were the case, I would not have hesitated for a moment to reject it outright. Why should we literally follow some fallible beings like ourselves, who could talk about their age, and had no means to know the complexities of life that we see today and offer lasting solutions. Only God could do, and He did it, as it was required of Him.
Whereas I respect your position, it will be hard for you to believe but my firm conviction, based on sound reasoning and historic facts, is, that the Qur’an (not Koran, please), unlike other books, is not written (by Muhammad or any human being), but is the un-altered and fully protected "Word of God", revealed. I know Christian church has been making similar claim about the New Testament. Knowing also well that scriptures make collection of history books compiled by fallible men like us, that claim has never been accepted, but then an analogy is wrongly created and the Qur’an is also declared "written". Remember, it is not a small "clergy", but the whole lot of Muslim Believers believing Qur’an was revealed to the last word.
That is where we differ in our present discussion. The West had to revolt against the self-styled authority of the clergy, and the coercive enforcement of a doctrine that common sense, and historic critique could not accept at all. but why should we abandon the Qur’an, where we have never found a single statement that contradicts the observed and tested scientific phenomena. I am myself a scientist (biologist) to make this bold statement, but I would suggest you read the famous French Physician, Maurice Bocaille (the Science, the Bible, the Coran) and you would realize the importance of what I claim. Well, you may or may not agree, but this is my position, the position of the Muslims at large.
With this starting point, let me now explain that we need not have the fears of the style of "theocracy" that you are thinking about. Our’s is certainly a concept of religious domination, in the sense that God - the Creator and Master of the Universe - is supreme in this scheme, but there are no intermediary self-posted authorities to impose their interpolations and interpretations in the name of God. The only source we refer to is the institution of prophethood, because that is the only possible and practical point of contact between God and His subjects. Keeping this in view, let me explain, how we look at theocracy and democracy, and where lies the difference with the western concept. This will also help you understand why we insist the role of Islam in our worldly affairs, which we believe is not a religion in the commonly understood secular terms, but is a Way of Life or a Social Order.

Theocracy:

Of the three components of the Western concept of theocracy, only one has been accepted by Islam, that is the faith in God’s sovereignty. Its second component, i.e. some class of bishops to enforce God’s sovereignty by self-appointing themselves as His spokesmen, is absolutely non-existent in Islam. A scholar may speak out as a specialist, by way of interpretting a certain injunction, but it is not binding for anyone to accept his viewpoint. It is only the strength of argument that prevails. As for the third component of theocracy - getting the self-made commandments recognized as Divine Commands - the Qur’an fulfills this purpose with its comprehensive commandments. Further, for the interpretation and explanations of the Book, both verbal and practical instructions (Hadith and Sunnah) from the Prophet (pbuh) are available. Well established means and instruments are also there to verify the veracity of the Prophetic instructions and deeds. Only that much which comes through these two sources is from God. As against this, no jurist, imam, saint or a scholar enjoys the privilege that his words and deeds be followed unquestioned like the Commandments of God. With this vivid difference, it is absolutely wrong to call Islamic state a theocracy in Western terms.

Islamic Democracy

What the West calls democracy is combination of two basic concepts:

Legal and political sovereignty of the people, that practically comes into effect through the majority of the people or their elected representatives; and
Installation and dismissal of the government to administer the state with the free will of the people.
Islam takes only the second concept. As for the first, Islamic again divides it into two parts:

(i) Legal Sovereignty, and
(ii) Political Sovereignty

While legal sovereignty rests with God - the Creator and the Master - whose commandments whether in His Book or in the Sunnah (sayings and deeds) of the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) are reckoned as unalterable laws of state. The political sovereignty is named vicegerency (i.e. the vicegerency of the real Sovereign - God), which is entrusted to the citizens of the state. Thus practically vicegerency will come into effect through the majority of the trusted representatives of the people. This being the position, it will again be wrong to call it democracy in the accepted Western sense.

But do you not see the essential similarity? Installation and dismissal of the government and exercise of political sovereignty are wholly based on popular consent - secret ballot appears the best way to ascertain that.

If West has various shapes of democracies (read Bernard Lewis, 1995), - the presidency, the constitutional kingships etc - why not allow Islamic Democracy as well, when essence is the same?

Now you must be thinking of the existing position in the Muslim world and wondering where this kind of democracy exists - de facto. No where, it is true. That is where the Muslims at large still fail. But what I have explained above is based on original sources, which every Muslim ought to follow. If there are autocratic monarchies, despotic and tyrannic rules, or some window-dressing in the name of democracy, in the Islamic world, none has Divine sanction. They are all-wrong and perpetuate against the true wishes of the Muslim masses, because the Western expendiency finds in them "useful" collaborators and traitors and helps them with money, material and diplomacy to sustain.

I wish J.T Nolan! You could help us have that form of democracy that at once pleases God, and is agreeable to you to the extent possible. I further wish you give a deeper consideration to my submission. It will certainly not look that "abhorrent".
With regards.

M. Haq

Index Q&A