Monthly Archives: August 2017

Why Spinoza is revered by many secularists, atheists and religious people alike!

Posted on by
Reply

(One may not agree with the views expressed in the article, but it is a fascinating article by Steven Nadler on Spinoza, especially his understanding of God and core message of sacred scriptures. f.Sheikh)

In July 1656, the 23-year-old Bento de Spinoza was excommunicated from the Portuguese-Jewish congregation of Amsterdam. It was the harshest punishment of herem (ban) ever issued by that community. The extant document, a lengthy and vitriolic diatribe, refers to the young man’s ‘abominable heresies’ and ‘monstrous deeds’. The leaders of the community, having consulted with the rabbis and using Spinoza’s Hebrew name, proclaim that they hereby ‘expel, excommunicate, curse, and damn Baruch de Spinoza’. He is to be ‘cast out from all the tribes of Israel’ and his name is to be ‘blotted out from under heaven’.

Over the centuries, there have been periodic calls for the herem against Spinoza to be lifted. Even David Ben-Gurion, when he was prime minister of Israel, issued a public plea for ‘amending the injustice’ done to Spinoza by the Amsterdam Portuguese community. It was not until early 2012, however, that the Amsterdam congregation, at the insistence of one of its members, formally took up the question of whether it was time to rehabilitate Spinoza and welcome him back into the congregation that had expelled him with such prejudice. There was, though, one thing that they needed to know: should we still regard Spinoza as a heretic?

Unfortunately, the herem document fails to mention specifically what Spinoza’s offences were – at the time he had not yet written anything – and so there is a mystery surrounding this seminal event in the future philosopher’s life. And yet, for anyone who is familiar with Spinoza’s mature philosophical ideas, which he began putting in writing a few years after the excommunication, there really is no such mystery. By the standards of early modern rabbinic Judaism – and especially among the Sephardic Jews of Amsterdam, many of whom were descendants of converso refugees from the Iberian Inquisitions and who were still struggling to build a proper Jewish community on the banks of the Amstel River – Spinoza was a heretic, and a dangerous one at that.
What is remarkable is how popular this heretic remains nearly three and a half centuries after his death, and not just among scholars. Spinoza’s contemporaries, René Descartes and Gottfried Leibniz, made enormously important and influential contributions to the rise of modern philosophy and science, but you won’t find many committed Cartesians or Leibnizians around today. The Spinozists, however, walk among us. They are non-academic devotees who form Spinoza societies and study groups, who gather to read him in public libraries and in synagogues and Jewish community centres. Hundreds of people, of various political and religious persuasions, will turn out for a day of lectures on Spinoza, whether or not they have ever read him. There have been novels, poems, sculptures, paintings, even plays and operas devoted to Spinoza. This is all a very good thing.

It is also a very curious thing. Why should a 17th-century Portuguese-Jewish philosopher whose dense and opaque writings are notoriously difficult to understand incite such passionate devotion, even obsession, among a lay audience in the 21st century? Part of the answer is the drama and mystery at the centre of his life: why exactly was Spinoza so harshly punished by the community that raised and nurtured him? Just as significant, I suspect, is that everyone loves an iconoclast – especially a radical and fearless one that suffered persecution in his lifetime for ideas and values that are still so important to us today. Spinoza is a model of intellectual courage. Like a prophet, he took on the powers-that-be with an unflinching honesty that revealed ugly truths about his fellow citizens and their society.

Spinoza is a role model for intellectual opposition to those who try to get citizens to act contrary to their own best interests

Much of Spinoza’s philosophy was composed in response to the precarious political situation of the Dutch Republic in the mid-17th century. In the late 1660s, the period of ‘True Freedom’ – with the liberal and laissez-faire regents dominating city and provincial governments – was under threat by the conservative ‘Orangist’ faction (so-called because its partisans favoured a return of centralised power to the Prince of Orange) and its ecclesiastic allies. Spinoza was afraid that the principles of toleration and secularity enshrined in the founding compact of the United Provinces of the Netherlands were being eroded in the name of religious conformity and political and social orthodoxy. In 1668, his friend and fellow radical Adriaan Koerbagh was convicted of blasphemy and subversion. He died in his cell the next year. In response, Spinoza composed his ‘scandalous’ Theological-Political Treatise, published to great alarm in 1670.

Spinoza’s views on God, religion and society have lost none of their relevance. At a time when Americans seem willing to bargain away their freedoms for security, when politicians talk of banning people of a certain faith from our shores, and when religious zealotry exercises greater influence on matters of law and public policy, Spinoza’s philosophy – especially his defence of democracy, liberty, secularity and toleration – has never been more timely. In his distress over the deteriorating political situation in the Dutch Republic, and despite the personal danger he faced, Spinoza did not hesitate to boldly defend the radical Enlightenment values that he, along with many of his compatriots, held dear. In Spinoza we can find inspiration for resistance to oppressive authority and a role model for intellectual opposition to those who, through the encouragement of irrational beliefs and the maintenance of ignorance, try to get citizens to act contrary to their own best interests.

Spinoza’s philosophy is founded upon a rejection of the God that informs the Abrahamic religions. His God lacks all the psychological and moral characteristics of a transcendent, providential deity. The Deus of Spinoza’s philosophical masterpiece, the Ethics (1677), is not a kind of person. It has no beliefs, hopes, desires or emotions. Nor is Spinoza’s God a good, wise and just lawgiver who will reward those who obey its commands and punish those who go astray. For Spinoza, God is Nature, and all there is is Nature (his phrase is Deus sive Natura, ‘God or Nature’). Whatever is exists in Nature, and happens with a necessity imposed by the laws of Nature. There is nothing beyond Nature and there are no departures from Nature’s order – miracles and the supernatural are an impossibility.

Read full article

posted by f.sheikh

“Afghanistan” A Brief Thought by F. Sheikh

Posted on by
4

President Trump decided to Vietnamize Afghanistan with an open-ended commitment. Mr. Trump also praised India and at the same time scolded Pakistan for its reluctance to eradicate terrorism.

Pakistan’s Army considers Afghanistan vital for Pakistan’s security interests and will never accept at any cost India’s dominance in Afghanistan. Nawaz Sharif’s demise is a clear indication of such a policy. Cyril Almeida, in Dawn today, advises Nawaz Sharif to say openly”

I, your rightful prime minister, believe that the military has colluded with the judiciary to remove me because I want friendship with India and peace in Afghanistan.

This isn’t corruption, this is about power and control and conflict over what kind of country Pakistan should be.”

Pakistan’s army will try to keep its influence in Afghanistan and proxy war with India no matter what the cost and no amount of pressure will change it. Pakistan’s Army considers such a policy vital to Pakistan’s security interests. India, especially its current government’ and USA’s recent tilt towards India has reinforced these concerns.

According to recent reports Russia and Iran are now supplying weapons to Taliban. Saudi Arabia, despite all the denials, is still fueling militancy in Afghanistan and Pakistan for its own interests. By increasing the commitment to Afghanistan, USA is being drawn into a bigger trap that will bleed it like Vietnam with no good outcome. Russia is already drooling to return the favor to USA of its earlier defeat in Afghanistan war.

If the goal is that no more militant attacks originate from that region, then make a deal with Pakistan by accepting and addressing its security concerns in Afghanistan and in return Pakistan guaranteeing and being held accountable for any militant attacks originating from that region. USA should also abandon the policy of not interfering in Kashmir dispute and pressure both sides to resolve the issue.    

F. Sheikh 

 

Subject: Fw: Society of Pakistani American Secularists – Discussion

Posted on by
1

Subject: Fw: Society of Pakistani American Secularists
On Friday, August 18, 2017, 8:06 AM, Wequar Azeem <azeemtranscriptionservise@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Mirza Saheb,NS advised to hold back a comment on your email until others have responded to it. No one did.So here’s my comment.Secularism is the social contract for governance of a country and its people. Its the best system so far. Like all other systems, Secularism also suffers from occasional viruses like White Supremacy, Hindutva, Wahabism elements and so on.. You take out the virus when it inflicts, not the system itself. Karl Marx’s political philosophy was built around the economic policy where individual ownership was replaced by People’s collective ownership. The reward of economic activity was to be divided equally in a classless division of fruits. That system of course failed like many other philosophies, including some religious and social philosophies.21st century is in transition from the old 20th century technology to modern blue tooth and nanotechnology of current century. The common behavior in transitory times is always chaotic. Besides, the technology is upgrading from moment to moment and hence the transition time is of uncertain duration. All you can do on individual basis is to keep pace with upgrading technology. On a collective basis it remains compartmentalized to highly educated societies, to less educated societies to illiterate bodies of masses. There is no way to apply one technique to all.Having said all this, please focus on the scene in Pakistan and suggest ways and means based on your wisdom and intellect, to change Pakistanis’ perception of Secularism and how to win overwhelming votes in favor of it. WA
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:22 AM, Mirza Ashraf <mirzashraf@hotmail.com> wrote:
Wequar Sahib,
Secularism today is becoming a problem for all the nations with secular political system. In European countries, America and India, it is being misused particularly by the Muslims and is being counter-misused by other faiths as well as the state authorities. Because of freedom of religion clause in secularism, 9/11 atrocity has made a big dent in it. It is becoming difficult, rather I would dare say, ideologically impossible to save secularism as it is in practice today. Consequently countries with secular political system are step by step imposing restrictions on freedom for all and are framing new rules and regulations to control the rising “faith-awakening.” By faith, I do not mean only religious faith; it can be faith of white supremacy, faith of black victimization, faith of ethnicity, faith of atheism and we can keep on counting.
Before you started discussion, I remember I had suggested that the world needs a new political ideology. Carl Marx was the last political ideologist. Since his ideology has failed, the gap is being filled with religions. Today, with a piece of machine in every one’s hand, every one is individually free in getting informed according to one’s own choice, but is globally connected with every other person. Surprisingly, with all this global connectivity of “every one is connected to every one” the world is rejecting globalization. It is not only Pakistan, or Muslims, Hindus or Christians, and believers and non-believers, but the whole humanity is in crisis.
I believe mankind needs a new political system. Modern technology is bringing a new social evolution. We need to think and work on different level rather than wasting our time and energy on the sick-secular system. It is clear that out of our group of 23,  only two or three have seriously participated in our discussion on secularism, while two to three have just shown some interest.
Mirza
From: Wequar Azeem <azeemtranscriptionservise@ gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 11:30:27 AM
To: Mirza Ashraf
Cc: Suhail Rizvi; Mian Vequar Ahmed; Khalid Sayyed; Saqlain Malik; Noor Salik; Saiyid Ali Naqvi; Sarwar Ali; MM Abbasi; Rizvi Syed Suhail Rizvi; Mehfooz Rehman; Azeem Farooki; Dr. Shoeb Amin; Zafar Khizer; Dr. Syed Ehtisham; Asad Mahmood Sayyed; aziz ahmed; e Irfan Hussain; Nisar Kidwai; Dr. Rashid AHMAD; Syed Ajaz ud Din Shah; Dr. Fayyaz Sheikh; Babar Mustafa; Imtiaz Syed Bokhari; Dr. Nasik Elahi; Noor Salik
Subject: Re: Society of Pakistani American Secularists Mirza Saheb,Did you read my mail ?Wa
On Aug 14, 2017 10:57 AM, “Mirza Ashraf” <mirzashraf@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why don’t you ask Noor Sahib.
Mirza

From: Wequar Azeem <azeemtranscriptionservise@gma il.com>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 9:41:14 AM
To: Mirza Ashraf
Cc: Noor Salik; Dr. Nasik Elahi; Mian Vequar Ahmed; Suhail Rizvi; Khalid Sayyed; Saqlain Malik; Sarwar Ali; Saiyid Ali Naqvi; Noor Salik; MM Abbasi; Rizvi Syed Suhail Rizvi; Mehfooz Rehman; Azeem Farooki; Dr. Shoeb Amin; Zafar Khizer; aziz ahmed; Asad Mahmood Sayyed; Dr. Syed Ehtisham; e Irfan Hussain; Nisar Kidwai; Dr. Rashid AHMAD; Syed Ajaz ud Din Shah; Dr. Fayyaz Sheikh; Imtiaz Syed Bokhari; Babar Mustafa
Subject: Re: Society of Pakistani American Secularists Mirza Saheb,Once again, please advise what did Noor Saheb say about Secularism in India as I have not seen such e-mail from him.I stand corrected; I found the email sent by NS to NE and ccd to all of us about Secularism in India. Yes Indian Secularism is not perfect. Its dysfunctional in some aspects because It provides partly theocratic laws for Indian Muslims at the expense of secularism. We are aiming for real Secularism like in Scandinavian countries etc. However to achieve real Secularism, a long and hard struggle is needed to reshape people’s perception, as so rightly pointed out by NE. Under real Secularism Islam will remain unchallenged as a religion of the great majority, but discontinue as a modus oprandi for governance. 14 centuries ago there was no concept of common law. They depended on age old customs and traditions of the past elders. Which is why Islamic rules (Sharia evolved as a school of law much later) filled the void and became law of the land. Every thing evolved over time with changing circumstances in the whole world. Hence, Deen remained intact but Mazhab evolved and will keep on evolving because it is tied to local conditions, customs and traditions. Therefore it only makes good sense to adopt a system of governance that suits all human beings on exact same level of rights, obligation and access to opportunities. That purpose is served by real Secularism. Deen, the essence of Faith, remains on the high pedestal and Muslims should not be wary of its divine position as Secularism does not cross its path. But Secularism offers equal rights and position to all the minorities, which is where the whole world wants to see us, except KSA and the molvi brigade.
On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Mirza Ashraf <mirzashraf@hotmail.com> wrote:
Wequar Sahib, whatever my poor understanding could reflect on Noor Sahib’s presentation regarding Secularism in India, I have already expressed. However, an intellectual like yourself can only give an ENLIGHTENED exposition. Please explain to every one in this group the in and out of Secularism in India and enlighten us with your deep thought.
Mirza

From: Noor Salik <salikain@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 4:44:07 PM
To: Dr. Nasik Elahi
Cc: Mian Vequar Ahmed; Suhail Rizvi; Khalid Sayyed; Saqlain Malik; Sarwar Ali; Saiyid Ali Naqvi; Noor Salik; MM Abbasi; Rizvi Syed Suhail Rizvi; Mehfooz Rehman; Azeem Farooki; Wequar Azeem; Dr. Shoeb Amin; Zafar Khizer; aziz ahmed; Asad Mahmood Sayyed; Dr. Syed Ehtisham; e Irfan Hussain; Nisar Kidwai; Dr. Rashid AHMAD; Syed Ajaz ud Din Shah; Mirza Ashraf; Dr. Fayyaz Sheikh; Imtiaz Syed Bokhari; Babar Mustafa; Noor Salik
Subject: Re: Society of Pakistani American Secularists Secularism in India~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Secularism in India means equal treatment of all religions by the state.

With the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution of India enacted in 1976,[1] the Preamble to the Constitution asserted that India is a secular nation. However, neither India’s constitution nor its laws define the relationship between religion and state. The laws implicitly require the state and its institutions to recognise and accept all religions, enforce parliamentary laws instead of religious laws, and respect pluralism.[2][3]

India does not have an official state religion. In matters of law in modern India, however, the applicable code of law is unequal, and India’s personal laws – on matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, alimony – varies with an individual’s religion.

Muslim Indians have Sharia-based Muslim Personal Law, while Hindus, Christians, Sikhs Muslim Indians live under common law.

The attempt to respect unequal, religious law has created a number of issues in India such as acceptability of child marriage,[4] polygamy, unequal inheritance rights, extrajudicial unilateral divorce rights favorable to some males, and conflicting interpretations of religious books.[5][6]

Secularism as practiced in India, with its marked differences with Western practice of secularism, is a controversial topic in India.

Supporters of the Indian concept of secularism claim it respects a Muslim person’s religious rights and recognises that they are culturally different from Indians of other religions. Supporters of this form of secularism claim that any attempt to introduce a uniform civil code, that is equal laws for every citizen irrespective of his or her religion, would impose majoritarian Hindu sensibilities and ideals, something that is unacceptable to Muslim Indians.[7][8]

Opponents argue that India’s acceptance of Sharia and religious laws violates the principle of equal human rights, discriminates against Muslim women, allows unelected religious personalities to interpret religious laws, and creates plurality of unequal citizenship; they suggest India should move towards separating religion and state.[9][10]

Secularism is a divisive, politically charged topic in India.[10][11]

On Aug 13, 2017 4:59 PM, “Nasik Elahi” <nasikelahi@yahoo.com> wrote:

WA the foundational, secular basis of the U S constitution and bill of rights of a majority Christian country fits what you describe.  The societal behavior is guided by religious beliefs but the laws are supposed to be neutral.  The push and pull of the two guiding principles continues to this day.  In other words no country in history has or can attain the perfect balance.  We humans are too self centered to allow such absolute standards to exist.
Nasik
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Sunday, August 13, 2017, 4:33 PM, Wequar Azeem <azeemtranscriptionservise@gma il.com> wrote:

Mirza Saheb,What political system can there be in the name of Secularism, other than what I described ? Can you cite an example? Are you referring to a government chosen by a means other than universal suffrage?WA
On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Mirza Ashraf<mirzashraf@hotmail.com> wrote:
Wequar Sahib, here it is important to add that the secular law of the state is to be based on natural moral law. If you have any other secular legal system in mind, please clarify this in your statement.
Mirza

From: Wequar Azeem <azeemtranscriptionservise@ gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 12:27:04 PM
To: Mirza Ashraf
Cc: Noor Salik; Dr. Nasik Elahi; Suhail Rizvi; Mian Vequar Ahmed; Khalid Sayyed; Saqlain Malik; Noor Salik; Saiyid Ali Naqvi; Sarwar Ali; MM Abbasi; Rizvi Syed Suhail Rizvi; Mehfooz Rehman; Azeem Farooki; Dr. Shoeb Amin; Zafar Khizer; Dr. Syed Ehtisham; Asad Mahmood Sayyed; aziz ahmed; e Irfan Hussain; Nisar Kidwai; Dr. Rashid AHMAD; Syed Ajaz ud Din Shah; Dr. Fayyaz Sheikh; Babar Mustafa; Imtiaz Syed Bokhari
Subject: Re: Society of Pakistani American Secularists What I understood from the comment of Dr Nasik Elahi is the impression one gets from reading many different perceptions and definitions of Secularism. To that extent I agree with Dr Nasik Elahi.
To avoid any confusion I would draw the attention of the recipients, at the risk of belaboring the point, that the Secularism we are talking about is the same that Jinnah had persuaded. Jinnah’s  sense of Secularism was to have a government which does not carry any one particular religion  on its sleeve. All citizens are to be on one and same level as far as rights and opportunities are available in the country, regardless of their individual religions, sects, gender, race, ethnicity or their mother tongue. It also means that following any religion and its rituals, or not following any religion at all, is the fundamental right of each  and every citizen. Neither the government, nor any individual or organization can supercede that right in a Secular government.Hopefully, all of us are on the same page, as far as mission objective is concerned.
WA
On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Mirza Ashraf<mirzashraf@hotmail.com> wrote:
Regarding the issue of “secularism” Nasik Sahib’s comment was right–“Dilettante.” So let us take up cosmology, which means “close secularism and open cosmology.”
Mirza

From: Noor Salik <salikain@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 7:07:57 AM
To: Dr. Nasik Elahi
Cc: Suhail Rizvi; Mian Vequar Ahmed; Khalid Sayyed; Saqlain Malik; Noor Salik; Saiyid Ali Naqvi; Sarwar Ali; MM Abbasi; Rizvi Syed Suhail Rizvi; Mehfooz Rehman; Azeem Farooki; Wequar Azeem; Dr. Shoeb Amin; Zafar Khizer; Dr. Syed Ehtisham; Asad Mahmood Sayyed; aziz ahmed; e Irfan Hussain; Nisar Kidwai; Dr. Rashid AHMAD; Mirza Ashraf; Syed Ajaz ud Din Shah; Dr. Fayyaz Sheikh; Babar Mustafa; Imtiaz Syed Bokhari; Noor Salik
Subject: Re: Society of Pakistani American Secularists Hi ALL in CC List,Yesterday I sent you an article on COSMOLOGY.Please read it and we can talk about it, if anyone will be interested.
For a Muslim believer there is a comprehensive and intellectually satisfying answer in Qura’an for the question:How the UNIVERSE came into existence?Qura’an says:کن فيکونWe will talk more, if you are interested..I also sent you an article published in daily DAWN in Pakistan by Imran Hussain.The article speaks for itself.We can also discuss this article, if anybody will be interested.In my humble assessment, these issues are linked to Secularism.If you disagree, please say so….NE {Dr. Nasik Elahi} and/or ALL in CC List.Can you please share with us – What is your definition of SECULARISM?
NS

On Aug 12, 2017 11:28 PM, “Noor Salik” <salikain@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi All in CC List!Last item I forwarded to you was from Wequar Azeem.It has more than one item -a speech and music video/s.Speech is great.But music videios can touch you really deep inside!      بقولِ فيض !وهيں لگی جو ناذک مقام تهے دل کے
Shared by Wequar Azeem!Must watch !!

On Aug 12, 2017 11:16 PM, “Noor Salik” <salikain@gmail.com> wrote:

Shared by Wequar Azeem!Must watch !!
https://www.facebook.com/mashh ood.e.khan/videos/vb.528243784 /10154164725353785/?type=2&the ater

https://www.facebook.com/mashh ood.e.khan/videos/vb.528243784 /10154175800798785/?type=2&the ater

https://www.facebook.com/mashh ood.e.khan/videos/vb.528243784 /10154175800798785/?type=2&the ater

https://www.facebook.com/mashh ood.e.khan/videos/vb.528243784 /10154175841948785/?type=2&the ater
| | Virus-free. www.avg.com |
On Aug 12, 2017 10:28 PM, “Noor Salik” <salikain@gmail.com> wrote:

IH {Irfan Hussain}Dear Irfan Hussain Saheb!I read your article in daily DAWN.I forwarded your insightful article to our group in USA.Let us see how they respond.
Without asking your permission I included your email in the CC list.You are most welcome to participate in this discussion.We are talking about:”Society of Pakistani American Secularists”.
If you decide not to be part of this group, please let us know, your name will be taken out.
My assumption was that by publishing your article with your email address in daily DAWN, you are already in public domain.
If you get a chance, please access WWW.ThinkersForumUASBlog.orgYou might like this intellectual environment.
We are Thinkers Forum USA.Through Ghalib this group can described as:رندانِ درِ مے کده گستاخ هيں ذاهدذنہار نہ هوناطرف ان بے ادبوں سے
Best regardsNS {Noor Salik}

On Aug 12, 2017 9:57 PM, “Noor Salik” <salikain@gmail.com> wrote:

NE {Dr. Nasik Elahi}The following article about partition of India in 1947 is from daily Dawn.We should talk about it.~~~~
irfan.husain@gmail.com

I WAS three years old when our family came to Karachi from Delhi at Partition, 70 years ago.

While I have no memory of the journey, I learned later that our train had been attacked on the way, and we had been saved only by the presence and courage of the handful of soldiers who escorted us. Hundreds of thousands who fled the madness on both sides of the new border had been less fortunate.

Years later, I asked my late father — a well-known writer and Sanskrit scholar in undivided India — why he had taken the decision to migrate to the new state. “Well,” he replied. “My Hindu and Sikh friends said they were not sure they could protect us at the height of the rioting. Also, I thought there would be more opportunities for you children in Pakistan.”

So what have we gained from Partition?

Since then, I have often wondered how life would have turned out had he decided to stay. Until a couple of decades or so ago, it was less clear he had made the right choice. This was when India still seemed to be following the secular path charted by its founding fathers, a path abandoned long ago by Pakistan.

However, as the extreme Hindu nationalist philosophy of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has taken root, India is becoming a depressing mirror image of Pakistan, something columnist Mahir Ali noted recently in these pages. Over the years, I must have received scores of emails from Indian readers saying how glad they were that Pakistan had gone its own way, otherwise India would have had to cope with millions of more Muslims.

Similarly, Pakistanis have justified Partition by pointing to the plight of millions of marginalised Indian Muslims. But as I wrote at the 50th anniversary of Pakistan, an undivided subcontinent would have had around 600m Muslims. This is not a small minority that could have been easily kicked around by the majority.

So what have we gained from Partition? And what have we lost? In 1947, the land that now constitutes Pakistan was among the most undeveloped areas in India. There is little doubt that much physical progress has been made since Partition. Universities, colleges and schools have proliferated; hospitals built; an elaborate network of roads links villages to towns; and telephone lines and electricity connections are available to millions.

But at the same time, the perpetual state of hostility with India over Kashmir has ensured a huge and continuous drain on our resources. And there has been the immeasurable cost caused by our powerful army’s constant meddling in politics. This has skewed and stunted democratic institutions, and given birth to the Islamist militancy used by our establishment to further its regional agenda. And this, in turn, has led to a shredded national reputation abroad, and the loss of thousands of lives to home-based terrorism.

In search of a national identity, Pakistan has looked west to the parched deserts of Saudi Arabia for cultural inspiration. Disregarding our rich South Asian heritage, there have been plans to impose Arabic on schoolchildren; the establishment of madressahs has been encouraged, often with Saudi funding.

These multiple threads of enforced religiosity have produced an overarching environment where reason and rational thought are rejected as western inventions. To illustrate our backward trajectory, Hafiz Saeed — leader of the Jamaatud Dawa, and a man with a $10m bounty on his head posted by the US government for his alleged history of armed militancy — is setting up a political party to contest the next elections. Unsurprisingly, he is using a new version of Mr Jinnah’s party, the Muslim League, as a vehicle for his political ambitions.

The growing fundamentalism in Pakistan is the result of the inescapable logic of demanding a state in the name of religion: sooner or later, it will come to dominate the social and political landscape.

A dearth of vision, imagination and political courage has defined the leadership we have been cursed with for most of the post-Partition years. Mr Jinnah and his colleagues and contemporaries must be turning in their graves at the thought of the pygmies who succeeded them. Nawaz Sharif, Imran Khan, Asif Zardari and Tahirul Qadri are only some of the political stars on our horizon, though the latter is more like an asteroid who makes an annual appearance to sow further discord.

At Partition, we were a country of around 32m; since then, we have multiplied like rabbits, and now number 200m. Had so many Pakistanis been educated, we could have been a powerhouse of creativity and productivity. As it is, millions live in abject poverty with no access to schools, hospitals or clean drinking water.

So while many middle-class urban Pakistanis will celebrate our country’s 70th birthday with much fanfare, millions of women and members of our minorities will have little to cheer about.

On Aug 11, 2017 12:42 PM, “Nasik Elahi” <nasikelahi@yahoo.com> wrote:

Should this discussion chain be placed on the Thinkers forum website.  What say members of the group.Nasik

Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 10, 2017, at 11:55 PM, Noor Salik <salikain@gmail.com> wrote:
Malaysia government minister calls for atheists to be ‘hunted down’ and ‘re-educated’
Atheists in Malaysia should be “hunted down” as they violate the constitution, a government minister in the increasingly fundamentalist Muslim-majority nation has said.

Shahidan Kassim, who serves in the Prime Minister’s inner circle, called on Islamic scholars to re-educate non-believers.

Apostasy is not a federal crime in Malaysia, but critics say the country’s increasingly conservative trajectory is threatening religious freedoms.

“The [Federal Constitution] does not mention atheists. It goes against the Constitution and human rights,” Mr Kassim said during a press conference.

“I suggest that we hunt them down vehemently and we ask for help to identify these groups.”

The MP for Arau, a town in the far north of Malaysia close to the border with Thailand, said atheists were “misled” and claimed they “don’t want to be atheists but it happens because of the lack of religious education”.

Mr Kassim called on “all muftis [Muslim religious scholars]” to “return them to the faith”.

It comes as the Malaysian government ordered an investigation into an international atheist organisation that is operating in the country.

A photo of a meeting of the Kuala Lumpur chapter of Atheist Republic sparked uproar among some Muslims and lead to death threats against the group on social media.

Malaysia’s deputy minister in charge of religious affairs, Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki, said on Monday he had instructed the Federal Territories Islamic Religious Department to investigate the Atheist Republic chapter to see if any Muslims were involved.

“We need to determine whether any Muslims attended the gathering, and whether they are involved in spreading such views, which can jeopardise the aqidah [faith] of Muslims,” he told Reuters.

Ex-Muslims in the group would be sent for counselling, while attempts to spread atheist ideas could be prosecuted under existing laws, Asyraf said.

“We need to use the soft approach with (apostates). Perhaps they are ignorant of the true Islam, so we need to engage them and educate them on the right teachings,” he said.

Atheist Republic’s founder, Armin Navabi, said the group’s gatherings caused no harm to the public and were not considered a threat in other countries.

“They [atheists] are treated like criminals. They are just hanging out and meeting other atheists. Who are they harming?!” he said in a post on his Facebook account.

Malaysian states, which have their own laws governing Islamic affairs, do not allow Muslims to formally renounce Islam, preferring instead to send them for counselling, or fining or jailing them.

The country’s apostasy laws have left many former Muslims in legal limbo, as they are not allowed to register their new religious affiliations or legally marry non-Muslims.

In 2007, Lina Joy, a Malaysian convert to Christianity, lost a high-profile legal battle to have the word “Islam” removed from her identity card. In delivering judgment in that case, the Federal Court’s chief justice said the issue was related to Islamic law, and civil courts could not intervene.

Additional reporting Reuters

On Aug 9, 2017 10:08 AM, “FAYYAZ SHEIKH” <fay707@hotmail.com> wrote:
I agree with the statement by Wequar Sahib. None of the major three religions per se are compatible with secularism and want to control the political power. Church has done so for centuries and was pushed out by politicians by ignoring Bible teachings that were not compatible with modernization and secularism. Israel does not have constitution, and is ruled by parliament laws as necessity arises because constitution cannot be above sacred Torah and extremist insist on making Torah constitution. Both Christians and Jews has found a way around religious hurdles by ignoring the teachings that are not compatible with secularism and modernization. Muslims mostly on individual’s levels and few Muslim countries on national levels are doing the same but major hurdle is the collaboration of West and Saudi Arabia like monarchs in blocking this to move forward for personal interests. As soon as middle east monarchs, especially Saudi Arabia, fall the change will be rapid.
Fayyaz

From: Wequar Azeem <azeemtranscriptionservise@gma il.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 7:51:06 AM
To: Aziz Ahmed
Cc: Noor Salik; Suhail Rizvi; Mian Vequar Ahmed; Khalid Sayyed; Saqlain Malik; Syed Suhail Rizvi; Saiyid Ali Naqvi; Sarwar Ali; Nasik Elahi; Mehfooz Rehman; Azeem Farooki; Dr. Shoeb Amin; Zafar Khizer; Dr. Syed Ehtisham; Asad Mahmood Sayyed; Nisar Kidwai; Dr. Rashid AHMAD; Mirza Ashraf; Syed Ajaz ud Din Shah; Dr. Fayyaz Sheikh; Babar Mustafa; Imtiaz Syed Bokhari
Subject: Re: Society of Pakistani American Secularists No Aziz, I’m not saying that Secularism should replace Faith of any person. Secularism is not a religion. If you follow secular approach, you respect the Faith, no matter which, of a fellow human being. My desire is to have the leading persons of our community to spear head a campaign to bring back Secularism in Pakistan’s constitution. That will give complete freedom to all Pakistanis to practice their Faith and religious rituals without fear or favor from any body. Pakistan should keep religion out of its constitution thereby making it an even playing field for Hindus, Sikhs, Parsees, Christians and Muslims alike. All people of whatever faith they belong to, should have equal rights and equal opportunities, period!Are you in agreement with this campaign ?
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Aziz Ahmed <aziz.ahmed76@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello all,
I have not read all the emails on this thread but I will sometimes later.If I (we) for an instant accept my learned friend WA theory, he has just deliberated that Muslims had been following something blindly what their elders told them but with no logic. So there is no place for religion which is outdated and Secularism should be the way of life. Suppose we wipe clean our minds, burn all the Holy Books forget about the teachings of the prophets. Let the scholars and intellectuals who are secular tell me how the world was created. Who told mankind about good and evil. When did the first marriage between a man and women took place. Show me a book or books, scripture written before the first prophet was sent, that tell us about the way of life. Aziz
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 8, 2017, at 9:49 PM, Noor Salik <salikain@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All in CC List!WA {Wequar Azeem} has written a thoughtful response to Syed Imtiaz Bokhari’s input.It is an important topic which confronts the modern day Muslims.Please read WA response and share your comments with CC list.I will definitely share with you my views about this topic – especially what WA wrote.~~~~Here is WA’s latest comment for ready reference….Dear Mr Bokhari,Yes, Islam and Secularism is not compatible. Yes, Pakistan is a state whose overwhelming majority is casual Muslims, because they were born in Muslim families and raised to be CASUAL Muslims like their parents and several generations of fore-fathers.Times demand a rethinking and adjustment with modernity which the orthodoxy does not allow. Orthodoxy is a conspicuous minority, although its numbers are ascending due to forced indoctrination from official podiums, public places and pulpits of Mosques during last couple of decades. The irony is that the real Orthodox Islam does not provide room for clergy, because it is always directly between the Creator and the created, without any via media like a Mullah, Molvi, Maulana, Pir/Murshid, Mufti, Mohaddis to spoil the broth. The Mohaddis and Mofassir belong in the madressa, not in public life. The only position allowed in public life is Mujtahid, to keep updating the Mazhab (Not Deen, as Deen is unalterable) according to changed circumstances with advancement in technology and its impact on universal human life. Ijtehad and Mujtahids were regretfully shot down by Imam Ghazali. Instead, the clergy has occupied the pulpits, (which actually belongs to govt functionary) and are abusing it for furthering their cause.I have to disagree with you that the majority of Pakistani diaspora in USA is orthodox in their compliance with Islam.The majority in Pakistan too is unorthodox and casual in their Faith. Secularism is the right prescription for regaining their place in the comity of nations with the prestige they deserve. In short, the campaign to restore Secularism in Pakistan is in no way intended to maul and disfigure Islam, but to leave religion out of public policy making. Public policy should be formulated on the golden principles of progressive humanism. Theocracy, however diluted, is not tenable in the 21st century.

On Aug 8, 2017 4:49 PM, “Noor Salik” <salikain@gmail.com> wrote:

WA,There is a story behind every story:هر کہانی کے پيچهے ايک کہانی هےYes you are right.You are the only guy in this CC list whom I can hit hard, if a situation arises.Normally I am not an overtly confrontational type of guy.
Actually I wanted to make a point that CC list should be checked before SEND button is pressed.Sayed Imtiaz Bokhari wrote an important input but he chose to send those people whom he know personally – about 6 to 7 people.
I asked his permission whether his input can be shared with all CC list, and I put your name in his CC list.After his permission I sent his input to ALL.So you received Syed Imtiaz Bokhari’s input twice.First with truncated list and then with complete CC list.
You picked up the truncated one and wrote your comprehensive response.If you had checked your CC list before sending, you would have asked me why I sent you a truncated list.It did not happen.
I did not point out to Mirza Sahib.I did not publicaly point out to Syed Imtiaz Bokhari.In your case I did, but you came back with your explanation..Now the point is clear to everybody in CC list to verify that CC list is not truncated because this topic is so important.
In real life some time we have to truncate the CC list.It depends upon the situation.
NS

On Aug 8, 2017 3:35 PM, “Wequar Azeem” <azeemtranscriptionservise@gma il.com> wrote:

NS,I did not intend to truncate the list serve. I simply pressed the ‘reply all’ button in response to your mail.WA
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Noor Salik <salikain@gmail.com> wrote:

WA: First truncation was done by Mirza Ashraf, second truncation was done by Syed Imtiaz Bokhari, third truncation is done by Wequar Azeem.I requested all of you before to make sure your CC list is not truncated.Now there are 23 people in CC List.NS~~~Latest input from WA {Wequar Azeem}Dear Mr Bokhari,Yes, Islam and Secularism is not compatible. Yes, Pakistan is a state whose overwhelming majority is casual Muslims, because they were born in Muslim families and raised to be CASUAL Muslims like their parents and several generations of fore-fathers.Times demand a rethinking and adjustment with modernity which the orthodoxy does not allow. Orthodoxy is a conspicuous minority, although its numbers are ascending due to forced indoctrination from official podiums, public places and pulpits of Mosques during last couple of decades. The irony is that the real Orthodox Islam does not provide room for clergy, because it is always directly between the Creator and the created, without any via media like a Mullah, Molvi, Maulana, Pir/Murshid, Mufti, Mohaddis to spoil the broth. The Mohaddis and Mofassir belong in the madressa, not in public life. The only position allowed in public life is Mujtahid, to keep updating the Mazhab (Not Deen, as Deen is unalterable) according to changed circumstances with advancement in technology and its impact on universal human life. Ijtehad and Mujtahids were regretfully shot down by Imam Ghazali. Instead, the clergy has occupied the pulpits, (which actually belongs to govt functionary) and are abusing it for furthering their cause.I have to disagree with you that the majority of Pakistani diaspora in USA is orthodox in their compliance with Islam.The majority in Pakistan too is unorthodox and casual in their Faith. Secularism is the right prescription for regaining their place in the comity of nations with the prestige they deserve. In short, the campaign to restore Secularism in Pakistan is in no way intended to maul and disfigure Islam, but to leave religion out of public policy making. Public policy should be formulated on the golden principles of progressive humanism. Theocracy, however diluted, is not tenable in the 21st century. Show quoted text

On Aug 8, 2017 1:23 PM, “Noor Salik” <salikain@gmail.com> wrote:

Syed Imtiaz Bokhari wrote the following:~~~~~“Society of Pakistani American Secularists”
It is an intriguing article not worthy of discussion we discussed lot of topics of such nature in our monthly discussions but to no avail.
Islam is declared to be incompatible with secularism because in a secular state there is no place for divine laws, and secular laws are unacceptable to Islam. Also it is believed that in Islam religion and politics cannot be separated. On these grounds secularism is totally rejected by orthodox Muslims.

This standard definition clearly manifests that Islam and secularism are not compatible based on religion and spiritual dimensions.
John Esposito, Professor at Georgetown University, has stipulated that most Muslim countries struggling how to reconcile Islam with Secularism, they adopted Western institutions with ease but they are reluctant to separate religion from governing. Majority of the Muslim countries chose a middle ground in nation building, borrowing heavily from the West foreign advisors and Western educated elites. Parliamentary government, political parties, capitalist and socialist systems like Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Iran and Tunisia adapted this expediency.
Most government retained  a modest Islamic façade, incorporating reference to Islam in their constitution such ruler must be Muslim and Sharia must be source of law and design religious courts to adjudicate cases bordering on blasphemy laws.
Coming back to Pakistan American they have hard time to reconcile Islam with secularism, they are extremely devoted to traditional Islam with slight modification not impinging the very fabric of Islam as practiced in most of the Muslim countries. They even don’t allow a discussion on Islam in their masques and other intellectual forums, discussions often resulted in shouting.
Imtiaz
On Aug 8, 2017 12:37 PM, “Wequar Azeem” <azeemtranscriptionservise@gma il.com> wrote:

Dear Mirza Saheb,Deen is the essence of Faith called Islam. It focuses on Tauheed (Monotheism) + Risalat (Divine Ordaining). Mazhab is the way Deen is complied with in conjunction with local traditions and pre-existing customs, some of which may be rejected by Deen, but most of them continue as part of new Mazhab. This is why the Mazhab aspect of Islam in Hijaz is different and distinct from Islam in Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia, China, Libya or Indo-Pak separately.  Using Mazhab in place of Deen and vise-versa non-challantly, causes confusion to the less aware Muslims and non-Muslims alike.Yes I agree that these questions entail in-depth knowledge on the part of all participants to conduct a sensible discussion. Most people are like me, only casually and inadequately informed.
Wequar
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Mirza Ashraf <mirzashraf@hotmail.com> wrote:
Wequar Sahib, these three questions need a lot of discussion. Mazhab, religion in English, is dogma. Deen, way of life is what, you once showed an intention of writing Islam as Deen-e-Muhammadi. Deen-e-Islam is a continuum of the ways (not essentially beliefs) of all the prophets, for example, 3 time talaq, hlala, stoning, hand cutting, animal sacrifice, and so many are the ways and traditions of almost all the previous prophets.
Mirza

From: Wequar Azeem <azeemtranscriptionservise@gma il.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 9:13:57 AM
To: Noor Salik
Cc: Mirza Ashraf; Suhail Rizvi; Mian Vequar Ahmed; Khalid Sayyed; Saqlain Malik; Saiyid Ali Naqvi; Sarwar Ali; Rizvi Syed Suhail Rizvi; Mehfooz Rehman; Azeem Farooki; Dr. Shoeb Amin; Zafar Khizer; aziz ahmed; Dr. Syed Ehtisham; Asad Mahmood Sayyed; Nisar Kidwai; Dr. Rashid AHMAD; Syed Ajaz ud Din Shah; Dr. Fayyaz Sheikh; Babar Mustafa; Imtiaz Syed Bokhari; Dr. Nasik Elahi
Subject: Re: Society of Pakistani American Secularists NSI like to share my two bits on the difference between Mazhab and Deen and how this difference manifests itself in the context of Islam. However, I think it is prudent to wait till after Mirza Ashraf Saheb has responded to your questions.The incident of mass killing of a jewish tribe soon after conquest of Medina, like all other such horrors of history, has the two versions i.e. one of the conquerer (biased muslim historians) and two, of the independent, objective and unrelated scholars. The incident itself is not denied. Most readers overlook the condition and causes leading to creation of Misaq e Madina, why it was drawn and on whose behest. Those circumstances form the significant causation of the effect called Misaq e Madina
Misaq e Madina too has been viewed in opposing lights. A secular document in hagiographic terms, or, a strategic document, based on cunning maneuvers with certain objects to achieve in the end. Misaq e Madina is one of the reasons why the warring factions in Madina invited Prophet Muhammed to migrate to Madina, not only for his own safety, but primarily for him to arbitrate and decide terms of retaining peace in war torn Madina. Misaq e Madina is not a role model document unless the circumstances are same as those in Madina at the time of Hijra.
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Noor Salik <salikain@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi All in CC List:I asked 3 questions addressing MA {Mirza Ashraf}.Actually those questions are for all of us.If you feel like you can answer those questions too.I am sure most of you can.Here are questions again:~~~~MA {Mirza Ashraf}You are one of those people who have added to my limited knowkedge of Islamic history.I respect you for your knowledge but I disagree with lot of your inferences you draw from that knowledge..Let me ask you few questions.(1)What is diffetence between DEEN & MAZHAB                       { دين اور مذهب}Based on your definition, Islam is a DEEN orIslam is a MAZHAB.
2nd Question:Would you please share with us your information about Jewish killing by Muslims in 5th year of Hijra in or around Madina?
3rd question.You mentioned many times that that “Charter of Medina”was a secular document.In your opinion, if it is so, then please elaborate and explain why you classify “Charter of Medina” as a secular document.ThanksNS
On Aug 8, 2017 8:20 AM, “Noor Salik” <salikain@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi All in CC List!I included Saiyid Ali Naqvi, Sayed Aziz Ahmed, Saqlain Malik, Mian Viqar Ahmed already.I am including Azeem Farooki in CC list as well.Azeem Farooki is an Islamic Scholar with no beard.
He is the head of ICR {Islamic Centre of Rockland} interfaith activities group.He teaches various courses on Islam in local collges.He is a prolific writer and a consummate speaker.Hopefully he will enlighten everybody  in CC list with his profound Islamic insights.Last time I spoke to him, he was going on a European tour for two weeks.I am not sure where he is now at present.If you have any question about Islam and Modernity,you may ask in this email loop which was initiated by WA {Wequar Azeem} and expanded by NS {Noor Salik}.More later on.
NS
On Aug 8, 2017 7:10 AM, “Noor Salik” <salikain@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi All in CC List:Yesterday I added two names in CC List.(1) Saiyid Ali Naqvi(2) Sayed Aziz AhmedToday I added two more names:(3) Saqlain Malik(4) Mian Viqar AhmedNow the total numbers in CC list is 23.Whenever you add a new input to this important discussion, please make sure that your CC list is not truncated.It is imperitive that every input should go to everybody in CC list.Thanks for this consideration.~~~~~~~~MA {Mirza Ashraf}You are one of those people who have added to my limited knowkedge of Islamic history.I respect you for your knowledge but I disagree with lot of your inferences you draw from that knowledge..Let me ask you few questions.(1)What is diffetence between DEEN & MAZHAB                       { دين اور مذهب}Based on your definition, Islam is a DEEN orIslam is a MAZHAB.
2nd Question:Would you please share with us your information about Jewish killing by Muslims in 5th year of Hijra in or around Madina?
3rd question.You mentioned many times that that “Charter of Medina”was a secular document.In your opinion, if it is so, then please elaborate and explain why you classify “Charter of Medina” as a secular document.ThanksNS
On Aug 7, 2017 8:56 PM, “Noor Salik” <salikain@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi All in CC List:Two new names have been added to CC List.(1) Saiyid Ali Naqvi(2) Sayed Aziz Ahmed
The latest input to this discussion of “Secularism in Pakistan” by Mirza Ashraf is below:~~~~~
Wequar Sahib, your argument, what happened after Jinnah’s demise, is as true as an eyewitness account. British form of democratic system is not fit for the uneducated masses in Pakistan. A Prime Minister has to rely on members of the Parliament who are mostly landlords. The PM, in order to keep the support has to feed them and corruption starts. Bhutto, in order to get support from Mufti Mahmood and his other accomplice was forced to declare the Ahmadis kafirs and laid the foundation another bad example.
I agree with you that “Secularism” is the only solution for Pakistan; rather before you raised this issue here I had mentioned it in my book Islamic Philosophy of War and Peace in the chapter on Political Islam. In my latest book, I have at many places mentioned the importance of secularism. When I write critically, my argument is not to discourage your efforts, but to explains the hurdles which our efforts will have to face.
Mirza

On Aug 7, 2017 8:34 PM, “Mirza Ashraf” <mirzashraf@hotmail.com> wrote:
Wequar Sahib, your argument, what happened after Jinnah’s demise, is as true as an eyewitness account. British form of democratic system is not fit for the uneducated masses in Pakistan. A Prime Minister has to rely on members of the Parliament who are mostly landlords. The PM, in order to keep the support has to feed them and corruption starts. Bhutto, in order to get support from Mufti Mahmood and his other accomplice was forced to declare the Ahmadis kafirs and laid the foundation another bad example.
I agree with you that “Secularism” is the only solution for Pakistan; rather before you raised this issue here I had mentioned it in my book Islamic Philosophy of War and Peace in the chapter on Political Islam. In my latest book, I have at many places mentioned the importance of secularism. When I write critically, my argument is not to discourage your efforts, but to explains the hurdles which our efforts will have to face.
Mirza

From: Wequar Azeem <azeemtranscriptionservise@gma il.com>
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 7:08:30 PM
To: Noor Salik
Cc: Babar Mustafa; Suhail Rizvi; Khalid Sayyed; Sarwar Ali; Rizvi Syed Suhail Rizvi; Mehfooz Rehman; Dr. Shoeb Amin; Zafar Khizer; Dr. Syed Ehtisham; Asad Mahmood Sayyed; Nisar Kidwai; Dr. Rashid AHMAD; Syed Ajaz ud Din Shah; Dr. Fayyaz Sheikh; Imtiaz Syed Bokhari; Dr. Nasik Elahi; Mirza Ashraf
Subject: Re: Society of Pakistani American Secularists Liaquat was a good second but not fit for #1 spot. He did not have the strength of conviction nor an steely resolve like Jinnah. Soon after Jinnah’s death all Islamists who had initially opposed Pakistan ganged up to usurp the initial decision of pre-partition Muslim League leadership to draft a Secular constitution for Pakistan. Liaquat was weakened by the fact that he did not have a constituency of his own being a Mohajir and he needed enough supporters for the first general election to be held after independence. Hence he succumbed to the pressure of Islamists and undermined Jinnah’s legacy. The Objective Resolution became the preamble of the Islamic constitution in years to follow and the rest is history.What

Secularism in India

Posted on by
1

Commentary by Imtiaz Bokhary

-Thanks NS, for commenting on Secularism in India, you also submitted some comments. Indian constitution proclaims equality for all but in reality is different as you pointed out Muslim communities treated differently they never get a day in court, decisions are slanted toward Indians.
I assume you belief Indian Constitution is Secular, it is a good document only for libraries, but reality tells something different especially in Mod’s administration, where Hindu nationalist are in majority and get away with everything illegal. Constitution is not faithfully implemented; same is true about Pakistan so called Islamic Republic of Pakistan?
Mob violence perpetrated against Muslims “cow vigilantism” is rampant in Muslim areas carried out by BJP (B. Ajanta Party) unabated.
Since independence India hailed in Western world as a secular democracy but it is a farce.
Since N. Mod’s BJP won election political norms are perceptibly changed regardless of what constitution has stipulated as you pointed out so called secularism has been trashed; minorities have no rights, shows antipathy to Islam.
Muslim minorities are vulnerable their rights are being usurped and court system is very corrupt, they have no mechanism to redeem or rectify injustice done to minorities.
Indian secularism is does not protect minority’s rights especially Muslim religious rights and violates egregiously, no protection of Sharia laws it is a scarified at the altar of Hinu nationalism.
To support my thesis I am submitting an article appeared in today’s NYT by a Muslim journalist who live in New Delhi.
India’s Muslims and the Price of Partition
By AJAZ ASHRAF
AUG. 17, 2017

Riots that took place in the streets of Calcutta in 1946 between Muslims and Hindus claimed thousands of lives. Credit Keystone-France/Gamma-Keystone, via Getty Images
NEW DELHI — Seventy years after independence, India’s Muslim population has begun to fear that the dark fantasies of the Muslims led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the Muslim League in the 1930s and 1940s — who fought for the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan as a homeland for the subcontinent’s Muslims — could well be coming true.
The Muslim League, a party established by Muslim landlords and the educated middle class, claimed that it alone had the right to represent Muslims and their interests. This brought it into conflict with the Indian National Congress of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, who argued that they represented all Indians.
In 1936-7, the British decided to conduct elections to 11 provincial legislatures. A large measure of administrative powers was to be transferred to the governments thus elected. The Congress, the League and a slew of provincial parties participated in the polls. Despite its claim of representing Muslims’ aspirations, the Muslim League polled less than 5 percent of their votes, which inspired fantasies and fears.
The League began to argue that the Hindu majority of undivided India would swamp Muslims and suppress their religion and culture. As evidence, the League pointed to Hindu-Muslim riots in the northern states of Bihar and the United Provinces (now Uttar Pradesh), both ruled by the Congress, as an ominous portent. They argued that the movement to ban the slaughter of cows, led by an assortment of religious leaders, Hindu nationalist groups and some members of the Congress, was aimed at subverting Muslim culture. Unlike Muslims, Christians, Jews and animists, a segment of Hindus worship the cow and don’t eat its meat.
In 1937, Congress adopted as the national song of India some verses from “Vande Mataram,” or “I praise you, Mother,” a poem written in the 1870s by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, a Bengali poet and novelist, as an ode to the Hindu goddess Durga. The League objected to its singing as it depicted India as Mother Goddess, which the League construed to promote idolatry, anathema to Muslims.
Over the last three years, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party government, some of the League’s fears in the 1930s and ’40s have returned to haunt India’s Muslims — who acount for 172 million of India’s 1.3 billion citizens.
Punishment for cow slaughter, which is proscribed in most states of India, has become more severe. A conviction can lead to sentences ranging from five years to life imprisonment.
The foot soldiers of Mr. Modi’s party and its affiliates have run aggressive campaigns demanding that, apart from giving up beef, India’s Muslims must not date or marry Hindu girls or women. They should reconvert to Hinduism, the B.J.P. and like-minded others say, because their ancestors were Hindus who were forcibly converted by medieval Muslim rulers. They must sing “Vande Mataram,” the national song, these proponents say, to prove their loyalty to India, and their children must perform yoga in schools to show respect for India’s culture.
Since some medieval Muslim kings demolished temples to build mosques, the B.J.P. and affiliates say, Muslims in modern, democratic India should voluntarily hand over various mosques and shrines to the Hindus.
The most alarming trend has been the lynching of Muslims suspected of possessing beef, for ferrying home cattle purchased legitimately from cattle markets elsewhere.
The markers of Muslim identity — beards, skullcaps and head scarves — invite frowns, even violence, in India. On a late June afternoon, Junaid Khan, a 15-year-old Muslim boy, was stabbed to death on a train near New Delhi. Mr. Khan was traveling with his older brother and two friends. They were identified as Muslim because of their clothes and skullcaps. After an argument over a train seat, their fellow passengers threw religious slurs at them, killed Mr. Khan and injured the other boys.
Hindu nationalists haven’t forgiven Muslims for the partition of India, but their fury is a little misguided.
Despite the mass violence and displacement of the partition, around 35 million Muslims stayed in India after the creation of Pakistan, which was carved out of Muslim majority provinces. Some of them might have subscribed to Pakistan but chose India because they didn’t wish to forfeit properties or sever ties with their extended families. Many might not have had any political opinion whatsoever. Many Indian Muslims, including religious scholars, ferociously opposed the Muslim League’s demand for Pakistan.
Hindu nationalist ideologues have argued that Muslims can’t be loyal to India, as it might be their motherland, but it is not their holy land.
India’s Muslims have evolved their own survival strategy since 1989 and the rise of the Hindu nationalist politics under the banner of the B.J.P. They combined with other social groups to vote for the party best placed to defeat the B.J.P., but this strategy has yielded diminishing returns. Mr. Modi’s B.J.P. won the national elections in 2014 despite being mostly rejected by Muslim voters.
In an unconscious imitation of the strategy that is the obverse of what the Muslim League adopted between 1937 and 1947, the B.J.P. has propagated fictitious ideas of Muslim assertion. These ideas have acquired traction because of widespread Islamophobia and the insurgency in Muslim-majority Kashmir. Although Muslims outside Kashmir do not identify with the demand for independence that their culturally different co-religionists are waging, these factors have fanned the insecurities of a substantial number of Hindus. They perceive the B.J.P. as their savior, which was how a large segment of Muslims saw the Muslim League in 1946.
India’s Muslims didn’t feel secure and weren’t flourishing before the B.J.P.’s rise. There were Hindu-Muslim riots then as well; Muslims were targeted and discriminated against. Their representation in elite government services has been less than 5 percent, according to the Indian government report in 2006.
Today India’s Muslims are apprehensive. Before sectarian violence was often orchestrated to win elections in a clutch of seats, almost always followed by a process of reconciliation. The Hindu-Muslim rivalry never constituted the political language of the Congress Party, the principal recipient of Muslim votes for much of India’s 70 years. The B.J.P. seeks to permanently consolidate Hindus against Muslims and keep the social caldron simmering.
For India’s Muslims, their recompense is that their status is better than that of Hindus and Christians in Pakistan and Bangladesh. That is no consolation for Muslims whose ancestors did not succumb to the Muslim League’s fears and fantasies, which seem to be slowly spinning their way into the orbit of Indian reality.
Ajaz Ashraf, the author of the novel “The Hour Before Dawn,” is a journalist based in New Delhi.