Questions and challenges to the statements of OSHO

[Badlun]

4: What do you know about the power of the lobbyists? It is an inherent aspect of a democracy. So what do you have to say about lobbyists?

Lobbyists are men and women who speak to legislators and other government officials on behalf of "special interest groups" or those who have a strong interest in a certain piece of legislation. Lobbying is considered a controversial practice, and it is generally regulated by the government to different degrees of effectiveness.

Though lobbyists do often have a negative impact on democracy, that is not the full story. Lobbyists also work for many important causes and have had prominent roles in securing landmark legislation like the Violence Against Women Act. Lobbyists are not all corrupt and do not do all of their influencing with bribes and fancy dinners; sometimes they simply use statistics, logic or moving stories. Further, lobbying can sometimes be private citizens' only way to have a meeting with their elected officials and have an influence on issues that have personally affected their lives.

Lobbysts do influence the policies and decisions of their representatives. Some are motivated by their own or their shareholders' interests; others by a desire to achieve particular outcomes which they believe will be of benefit to the society or some more narrowly defined sectional interest. Most people would regard such contact as a legitimate and basic right in any democracy

Briefings given by the lobbysts are often very informative and helpful in the legislative side of work in terms of understanding of issues.Lobbysts are just technical advisors and consultants as well as motivators for legislators.

No doubt that more transperancy is required on lobbying. Always good democratic states have checks and controls on lobbying. Election Commission, Press, Anti corruption departments etc regularly check lobbysts and dont let them do any thing which is against the constitution, law or the public interest.

parts of this post is taken from

http://www.ehow.com/about_4678137_lobbyists.html

[pir_Rokhan]

While I would not like to intervene Osho's answers to the grey-matter-less questions of Sangar ,but would simutaneously challenge his concept and understanding [or misunderstanding thereof] of Sharia or what he calls Sharia?Let us learn some sharia from sangar at the same time?

So my first question is :
What is your concept of Sharia? [P.S: Am not asking what is sharia ?]

[Roshina]

While I would not like to intervene Osho's answers to the grey-matter-less questions of Sangar ,but would simutaneously challenge his concept and understanding [or misunderstanding thereof] of Sharia or what he calls Sharia?Let us learn some sharia from sangar at the same time?

So my first question is :
What is your concept of Sharia? [P.S: Am not asking what is sharia ?]

Thanks to both Pir Rokhan and Osho for their explanations. I agree with almost all of what you two have said, and Pir Rokhan raises a very, VERY good question about the Shariah. I especially that Sangar is posed the question: "What is your concept of Sharia" and not "what is Sharia."

I also agree with Osho that the material should be paid heed to instead of the source. Sure, I think that all sources must be authentic and we're not allowed to use Wikipedia in academic papers, but even Wikipedia proves sources for its points. So I'd suggest you check the sources it presents there.

I also wonder if Sangar wror here knows how the Sharia was formulated. That is to remind you that the Sharia we know today is a product of "consensus"... and the question is: Whose consensus? And who said what kind of consensus should be given more legitimate authority and power to than another? One thought that interests me is: What if in contemporary times, we get another consensus that wants to pose the challenge that the Sharia needs to be, say, re-interpreted or critically studied and analyzed before it's enforced? Then what happens? But nope, when we hear such arguments and challenges, we wanna say "oh anyone who says that is NOT a Muslim! They're kafir, atheists, disbelievers, heretics, blasphemous, and EVERYTHING else that's bad in our minds, and we should ignore them!" See how we love carving labels on people and don't care about WHAT they have to say? (This is not to imply that Sangar or anyone else here is the same way. I'm speaking in general term here, from my own observations and experiences with Muslims.)

I wonder, too, if he's aware of the *fact* that there are many things in Sharia that are NOT derived from the Quran and hadiths (this, I'll give examples of in forthcoming posts, ka khair wee)... and I further wonder if he's aware of the whole idea of hadith science and whatnot, what with all the emphasis he tends to give to hadiths in his posts. *This should NOT be taken to mean I'm calling for a rejection of all hadiths.*

Anyway, I'm longing to write more here, So much more -- on Sharia, Islam, democracy, etc. -- but at the moment, I've got a lot of stuff to do for upcoming exams, which will end around May 2nd. Eeek. Until then, my responses will be either extremely short or then not available at all.

Nonetheless, I'm gonna paste here what I wrote in another thread in response to Sangar's question of what is democracy.

Umm... well, democracy = people control their state/country. As in, no dictator or monarchy, but the citizens (majority) elect their ruler -- in other words, it's not hereditary. Democracy guarantees all people, REGARDLESS of their religion and gender, equal rights (political, economic, social, etc.). Now, whether all countries that claim to be democratic actually DO this or not is a whole different story. But since you asked what democracy is, I figured I should give my thoughts.

In that same thread, he asked Osho if he (Osho) knew what democracy was. So in response, I asked him (Sangar) if HE knew what democracy was.

Then I went on to say:

Interesting. Did you know that the political system created by Prophet Muhammad is argued to have been a democratic one? Did you know that the western concept democracy (as practiced in the west and not when the west dominates/controls the east) is far more Islamic than the political systems in ANY Muslim country? Particularly the U.S. constitution -- which gives citizens the freedom of, among many things, religion -- is far more Quranic than a Muslim might like to think.

More later, ka khairee.

[Badlun]

Thanx friends. Actually this is not strange that lots of obscurantists like the famous Sufi Muhammad or many salafis, wahabis , still exist who deny the importance of democracy in todays modern world.

Also I try to reply to these questions of my brother sangar for the benifit of all and for egnerating a healthy discussion for the reformation of Pashtun society . I try to go from simple towards complex issues.

On the question asked by Pir rokhan and others , I am starting a new thread in religion section where Sangar or other friends may participate. The link is

http://www.pashtunforums.com/showthread.php?p=14609#post14609

This discussion here in this thread will remain limited to democracy and secularism and its relevance to Muslims and Pashtuns.

[Badlun]

5: What do you think of the power the bureaucracy has over the decisions taken by the legislature and implementation of laws and policies? Does that in any contradict your democratic dogma?

Bureaucrates are technical people and are only the executers or implementers of what politicians or legislators decide to do. Legislators are policy makers while bureaucrates are policy implementers. Usually there is a limited number of legislators or members of parliament or assembly or congress members and they cant reach every where to implement what they legislate. Bureaucrates are not only working in democracies but also in others politicals systems and forms of governments.

If a law is made for example on education or health, then who will implement it? Bureaucrates, and whom the people can contact for solution of their problems in their cities, towns and villages,,,Bureaucrates. One memebr of parliament from a vast area of his or her electorate cant reach every where to solve problems of general public.Bureaucrates have to implement what public reps think better for the people they represent.

Democracy always has checks and balances on bureaucrates. Bureaucrates are subordinates to the members of parliament and they have to obey what the public representativesb Muslim countries bureaucrates may abuse their powers but even there the situation is improving and they have to obey the orders and intructions of the public reps and are accountable to them.

If bureaucrates misuse or abuse their powers then its not the problem of the institution of the democracy but the politicians themselves. Education of the society also plays a role in this regard. The more the society is educated, the more powerful are the public reps and the weaker the bureaucrates. In the developed world you will even not know who are bureaucrates- Every where only the public reps have their sway.

For further details you may read
Bureaucracy and democracy , a Happy Marriage BY William T. Gormley.

[Badlun]

Isn't Democracy as dogmatic as believing in different castes in a society? Yes/No and why yes or why not.

No democracy does not believe in different castes in a society. Democracy is another name for equality. I dont understand where from you have taken this notion that Democracy is dogmatic as believing in different castes in a society? If you explain your question a little more with examples then I ll try to elaborate on it.

[Badlun]

Secularism

1: Give us an example of a secular society that is actually secular. That is, a society where the laws of the land are not based on religion.

Secularism is separation of religion and politics . Another aspect of secularism is giving freedom of the choice of religion and no one should be forced into any religion. Secularism is totally in line with islamic approach as Islam never claims to be a complete system with its own political system and it forbids compulsion in religion.

Most of the societies in the world have one or another kind of religion but the religion is limited only to faith , worship and some times morality.

Religion has influence on the laws of the land only in religious affairs nit in political , economic or other affairs. A religious leader does not head the government or run the parliament.

Even in Saudi Arabia the rulers are kings and princes not mullas or religious scholars. Secularism is the main policy in Turkey and violating secularism is a crime. the whole developed world separates religion from politics.


2: Isn't rejecting influence of religion in the government by itself not a sign of dogmatic beliefs of some sort?

Religion is meant for religious aspects of life like faith, worship and personal morality. It has nothing to do with government or other political or economic issues. Church must be separated from the state as both are two different things. Spiritual and mundane are to be delt by different people. Popes and Mullas may run theur religious institutions and politics may be left for politicians.

As Khushal Baba says that

TORA CHI TERIGI KHO GUZAR LARA KANA
ZALFI CHI WALAWAL SHI KHO KHPAL YAR LARA KANA

WALI RATA WAYE CHI PA KHKOLO NAZAR MA KA
STARGI CHI PAIDA DI KHO DEDAR LARA KANA

SHEIKH DE MONZ ROJA KA ZA BA DAKI PIYALAI AKHLAM
HAR SARAI PAIDA DAI KHPAL KHPAL KAR LARA KANA


Now I wait for your comments on my replies to your questions and we can continue this discussion further with more details with the spirit of learning and sharing not winning , defeating or ridiculing.

[karachipashtun]

In a speech in the House of Commons on 11 November 1947, Winston Churchill said:

No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

[شمله ور خراساني]

Democracy:

1: Explain what democracy is.

Democracy is the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives . Democracy is a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them. In Islamic or other religious societies the religious aspects of life like faith, worship an dmorality may be goverened by the religious injunctions as described in the holy scriptures or other religious books.

Democracy is a political government carried out either directly by the people (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people (Representative democracy).

Etymologically the term is derived from the Greek: "rule of the people",which was coined from (dêmos) "people" and (krátos) "power", in the middle of the fifth-fourth century BC to denote the political systemsAthens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.
then existing in some Greek city-states, notably
Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes: equality and freedom.These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to power. and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution

Mainly taken from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

As salaamu aleikoum wa rahmatullah wa barakatuhu,


I am very busy lately. I am helping my family to move in to a new house. And when I get the chance to come online, I use my telephone. And it is very difficult for me to type long pieces with an iPhone. So that's why I postponed replying to this thread.



I do want to tell you that I am not finished yet. Below is somethings that I wanted to say even before I go into the answers you posted to the questions.
Feel free to wait replying to this. I will be writing more responses as soon as I am able to take some time and type on my laptop instead of a cell-phone. It will take some time.



------------------------------------

Its not a win or lose situation but we should make it a win-win situation. I keep my mind open and learn from others and the same I request from other friends that just give a try to understand what the other says and may not make a rigid approach that what I say is the final truth and the other one is totally in the wrong.


The reason I opened this thread is to challenge you to convince us that you know what you are talking about. Why I think you should do that? Well, because it is very common to see Pashtuns and people of other ethnicity from backward and primitive societies suddenly becoming extremely arrogant and condescending towards their own values and traditions. This occurs usually when people leave their own primitive society to live in prosperous and advanced societies. And the prosperity and wealth takes these poor souls in awe. For this reason they assume that because they have tasted the better life elsewhere, they should and are entitled to, go back and teach their fellow countrymen and preach the gospel of the new religion of the advanced modern society. They neglect root causes of the problems that are preventing weak and poor societies from developing. They attribute everything evil to the beliefs and culture of their own society. In this case Islam and orthodox Islamic methodology.


The illness they suffer from is their limited comprehension of times and situation we are living in. The arrogance and the all knowing attitude of them give away where they get their inspirations from. In most cases, you can actually see how they imagine themselves as the philosopher-king in Plato's The Republic, who escaped the dark cave and saw the true light, the sun, and now this philosopher-king is returning to rule his fellow cave-dwellers.


We have experienced this type of radical and high-modernist extremism during the communist revolution in Afghanistan. And from the preachings of you, you seem like the successor of those radicals and extremists who opposed our religion just because they tasted the sweet life in Moscow. Not knowing that the ideology and culture they wanted to impose on Muslims in Afghanistan by force was bound to fail, not just in Afghanistan, but even in Soviet Union.


From the tone of your comments here on Pashtunforums.com, you seem to be a modern type of the same kind of young, ignorant and over-zealous people who brought destruction in misery to Afghanistan by allying themselves with communist atheists.


And before you get any ideas of accusing me of something I am not, the same critique is applicable to the Muslim Brotherhoods over zealous and extremist ambitions to change the society by force.


So, if you do claim to have a good intention, and I am assuming you are being truthful by stating that you are Muslim, learn to be humble. And if your intention really is to engage in a healthy discussion which will bare fruits we both can benefit from, I suggest you double check what your intention is, and consider the description of the over-zealous modernists here above as a mirror. And if you recognize yourself in the above description, then I don't think this discussion will benefit any of us. The only result could be a humiliating experience where we will end up shouting back and fort without listening to each other or giving a second thought on what is being said. And trust me, in the past 5 years, I have encountered at least a dozen Afghans if this type. And in some cases, I just as guilty as the opposite party.


I assume that you might be slightly agitated by all of this. Note, that I am not here to teach anyone. I, am like everybody else here just a humble creation of Allah sub7ana wa ta3la. And the reason why I am confronting you is not because I want to humiliate you. Neither do I consider this as a zero-sum game.


I joined this forum to interact with my people and discuss matters that concerns all of us. We don't have to agree with each other. Neither do we have to become arrogant and unfriendly towards each other. But if you are going to reject aspects of Islam and talk in a condescending tone about divine law (Shari'ah), don't expect me to just let you get away with it without confronting you. And you will be confronted by refuting the reprehensible statements you make.


Yes I promote the idea of democracy and secularism in Pashtuns but I dont reject Sharia.

Yes I consider Sharia only for religious issues not for secular issues. From religious issues I mean faith, worship and morality. From secular Issues I mean, culture, society, politics, economics, philosophy, psychology, social sciences, natural sciences, law, mathematics, technology etc etc.


Even before you tried to answer my questions, you started by making, yet again statements which are highly reprehensible. You consider Shari'ah only applicable for religious issues. This implies that you have an understanding of what religion means. Your exertion of the words “faith, worship and morality” implies that you know what faith, worship and morality means in Islam.


Regarding this statement of yours, I want to ask you what your understanding of religion is? Are you using Emile Durkheim's definition of religion?


A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden -- beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them 1


Or is it that you are going by Clifford Geertz definition of religion:


Religion is a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and
longlasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order
of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods
and motivations seem uniquely realistic2


In western academic literature, both definitions are held, among a few others, to describe religion in sociological and anthropological studies. Yet, none of these two definitions describes Islam. But sadly, from your statements I can only conclude that you have inter mixed these to definitions to arrive at your own definition of what Islam and Shari'ah are. In Islam we believe that the Qur'an is the words of Allah. And we understand the world in accordance to Allah's guidance. And what our religion is, is described in Qur'an. We don't define our own faith by definitions of Durkheim or Geertz.


In Islam, we have commandments from Allah in Qur'an regarding economy (prohibition of usury) and politics (prohibition of making our own laws regarding matters already decided upon by Allah such as legalizing the forbidden (fornication) or prohibiting something prescribed by Allah (jihad). Abiding by the laws of Allah revealed to us via the Qur'an or via the prophet sal allahu alayhi wasallam, we are committing acts of worship. This however does not prevent us from pursuing studies in sciences. Neither does it prevent is from philosophy (although philosophy regarding religion and Allah's names and attributes is heresy which is prohibited). And even the pursuit of studies in sciences and arts can be considered as acts of worship and will be rewarded by Allah in the afterlife provided that the pursuit of these studies are with a clear intention of subservience to Allah (ikhlas).


If Pashtuns can talk better, can communicate better then its some thing positive. At least we can express ourselves. Now communication is gold as before silence was gold. Challanging soem one in a positive, constructive way is healthy but not to humiliate the other.


What is the purpose of talking and communicating when you talk nonsense? We don't need talks. We don't need people who talk allot. We've heard enough. Let us study and learn something thoroughly before we go about and preach without actually understanding the meaning of the words we are using. Let's take you as an example. You talk about Islam, Shari'ah and democray. But you don't even know what those words mean. I just showed you how your conception of religion is totally wrong.


I am not a typist. For your information I am on an executive post in a multinational company and have 3 people who type for me in my job. I dont like these kind of passing judgement about the private life of a person. We should be interetsed in what one says not what he is.

I would like to clarify it that the questions you asked are of theoritical nature and these are not mathematical formulas to which I ll reply in digits. Still I ll try to be to the point and may not beat about the bishes.


I did not say you are typist by profession. Any profession is an honorable profession as long as you earn your money in a lawful halal manner. I would not even think you are one considering all the typo's I see in every paragraph of yours. I am very happy for you that you have an executive post in a multi-national company. But what I tried to say, is that you type allot. So you won't have any trouble typing more to answer my questions. You should have learned from the secular and democratic advanced society to loosen up and don't get offended so easily. If you want our society to modernize and change, start with your own self by being less sensitive. You don't need to prove yourself. This is btw, not to be interpreted as an ad hominem attack.



Democracy is the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives .


Thank you. That was more than enough. The rest of the Wikipedia piece was unnecessary. We can carry on our discussion from this point onwards.


If democracy is government by the people either directly or indirectly, doesn't it imply that people decide what laws and what regulations are there to be held up in the commonwealth they are members of?


In Islamic or other religious societies the religious aspects of life like faith, worship an dmorality may be goverened by the religious injunctions as described in the holy scriptures or other religious books.


How Islamic is it, for people to make their own laws regarding matters that have been declared forbidden by Allah in Qur'an? How about matters that are halal in Islam but go against universal human rights? Like stoning adulterers to death? What if a Muslim society becomes influenced by the media and Western propaganda and people decide that they just ban polygamy or wearing full veils? Isn't that going against fundamentals of Islam? Don't you see the risk of giving the people too much power?
What if a deviant sect such as the Shi'ites in Afghanistan demand that the laws of the land adapt their practice of starving their wives because the wife refuses to have sex with her husband?


Should we as Muslims go about and let everyone decide whatever they want and have people governed by their whims and desires? Doesn't that contradict Islam?


If you have studied the history of Islam, you might have come across the constitution of Madina ( http://www.constitution.org/cons/med...ion_medina.doc). In the constitution of Madina there was no democracy. The Jews were not allowed to make laws for the commonwealth. The laws were for Allah and his messenger as it states in the constitution. Not for the people.


Yet, people did participate in decision-making, people did attend councils and opnions were shared. On one occasion, the prophet sal allahu alayhi wasallam gave in to the will of his followers and took the battle against the polytheists and their allies to Uhud. The dynamics of the society the prophet sal allahu Alayhi wasallam was leading might have similarities to a liberal democracy. But it would be absurd to go around and claiming democracy and Islam can co-exist.


We have the principe of Shura or Jirga if you like, where public representatives participate. And participants of Shura's and Jirga's are appointed based on their merits. Meaning, they have either a status as upright individuals within their constituency, or they are scholars and learned men.


Furthermore, in Islam it is highly immoral to engage in self-promotion. Yet, to hold elections, you need people to promote themselves, their ideas and attract people with commercials, speeches and false promises of change, prosperity, tax cuts etc. How are you going to have an election in accordance to the non-Muslim morals of self-praise and deception? I am not saying Muslims never deceive. But I do not understand how you want Muslims to behave in such manner and participate in activities contrary to the morality in our religion?


In a liberal democracy in a non-Muslim society like the Netherlands, you can have practically anyone competing for a chair in the parliament. We have dozens of out of the closet homosexuals in the Dutch parliament representing the liberal parties. These liberals have successfully managed to pass laws allowing gay couples to marry. And if I am not mistaking, soon the gay couples will be allowed to adopt children. Because the man-made constitution of a liberal democracy allows people to do that. And if it doesn't they can change the constitution. Although changing the constitution does requite approval from two parliamentary terms, it is still possible to change it.


This brings our discussion to the core of the problem of democracy. The constitution. In Islam, the constitution is divine law. The Qur'an, it's classic interpretation, not the interpretation of heretics, grave-worshippers and idolaters.


Basically, if you abide by what you refer to “universal laws” we will be committing a grave sin of rejecting Allah's decree. For Muslims the Qur'an is the universal law. And anything contradicting the Qur'an and the sunnah is irrelevant. Because as Muslims we live by the laws of our faith, our religion.


Technically, we can make laws about the implementation of policies just the way it is done in non-Muslim countries. Because implementation of policies by coining them in to laws can easily coincide with a Shari'i constitution, given that no laws shall be passed contradicting Islam.


And the system of checks and balances existed in Islam before the revolt and the reformation in England and John Locke's Two Treaties of Government. In Islam, the Amir of the Muslims was suided by his people because the people objected his decisions. Islam allows you to sue even the Amir. You can also have a council or a shura of experts who can serve as watch-dogs on the dealings of the executive body. If you spend more time studying the history of Muslim leaders from the early ages, you will realize that many concepts in Western democracies existed long before they were invented by philosophers of the enlightenment age.


What I am trying to explain is that, the practical aspects of a government as it is in a Western democracy can to a certain extent, exist in an Islamic society. If I did not believe it to be possible, I would have never studied political science and policy studies at a Western university where they make us read books written by Oxford, Harvard, Yale and Cambridge professors.


The point I am trying to make, is that their man-made laws, and their poltical orientation is good for them. But for Muslims, we can perfectly adabt the good and practical aspects of their government, but we cannot immitate their liberal democracy and their conepts of universal laws.


Besides, when was the last time the Western liberal democracies abide by their universal laws? Have you seen anyone being convicted for the bombing of hundreds of thousands of Afghans in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Have you seen anyone being prosecuted for the invasion of Iraq and massacre of over one million Iraqis? Have you seen any Jew being prosecuted for the 65 years of occupation and prosecution of Palestinians?


Yet, you sound like you hold their universal laws higher than Islamic laws.

1 Excerpt from Emile Durkheim's The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Translated and with an Introduction by Karen E. Fields. New York: The Free Press (Simon & Schuster), 1995 [1912], pages 39-44.

2 (1985). Religion as a cultural system. Anthropological approaches to the study of religion. M. Banton. London, Tavistock: XLIII, 176.

[Badlun]

Dear Friend take your time . I am also very busy. These discussions will take days and months may be years.

I would like to clarify here that I dont belong or did not belong to any primitive society. I was born in a highly educated Afghan family and my grand father was a great scholar of his time while his father was General in the army of that time while my father was head of an important educational institution. Yes I am impressed by the material devolopment of the West and depressed by the poverty and miserable lives of Pashtuns back home.

The reason I consider for all this is the lack of modern education and considering Islam as a complete way of life which entails in terrorism, religious extremism and fundamentalism. I wana change the situation where we are living in and this change will only be efefctive if we accept modern values like democracy and shun religious exremism and considering Islam as a complete system of life.

I dont like communism. Still the introduction of communism in Afghanistan brought enlightenment specially in Pashtuns. They became more nationalist and less religious fanatics. It was unfortunate that the West used Mujahideen against communists and now we are reaping the results of using religion in politics in the shape of Taliban and Alqaida and the lethal combination of religious extremism and Pashtuns.

I have very good intentions for this discussion and this you can note from my tone. I never desrespect you as a person and I understand that many like you have been brain washed by the religious pandits and the stooges of the arab imperialism. You are not the only one who consider Islam as a complete way of life and hate democracy. There are many like you. May be there are few like me among Muslims who consider Islam only as a religion and consider true democracy as a panacea for all the ills of Pashtuns specially and Muslims generally.

I wish our discussion should be impersonal and only dedicated to what is said not who says it. I am learning a lot from this discussion and I hope we ll reach a very good conclusion. We just make our minds open to new ideas and may be ready to break the idols already we have in our minds. You can first reply to all my answers to your questions an dthen may comment on my these posts as replies to your replies to my posts.


On the definition of religion, I would like to tell you that I have read lot of books on the comparative study of religions , theology and religion it self. But as like any other definition , you cant give a deifintion on which all agree. Defining some thing is the most difficult task in the academic world and always you have controversies. After reading all importnat definitions of the religion I have reached to the conclusion that almost all definitions include these 3 basic elements. FAITH+WORSHIP+MORALITY.

I also agree with both the definitions you have referred to, as well as your concept of religion which you consider as the sum of what Allah says and what the Prophet did. I agree that Quran have injunctions about beliefs, worship and all Ahkam what you have referred are basically moral or ethical. We dont find any constitutioon in Quran or a complete economic system like capitalism or communism in Quran nor in Hadith.

All the commandments are about moral aspects of life like adultry, drinking, usury(exploiting others by exorbitant interest) etc. I agree that Quran describe few economic aspects of life like inhhiretance, zakat(which is also moral being equivalent to charity) etc but all these are very rudimentary and have moral underpinnings and can never subtitute a complete economic , political, legal or cultural system and were never never applied in the 1400 years of muslims except few years when there was no other alternative as monorchy at that time.

If we separate religion from politics, economy, culture and society then the laws made will be only for these aspects of life while the religious institutions as church or mosque will look after the religious spheres. State or government will not interfere in those religious spheres and may support the religious institutions.

The problem arises when Muslims like you and religious people as Mullas, taliban etc start interfrerring in political and other non religious aspects of life. They want to make laws, implement laws and do every thing about each and every activity of life and the result is the chaos we see now a days in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Arabs and other Muslim countries except Somalia, Iran, Sudan are safe from this menace as they have separated religion from government and have relatively more peace and stability. I dont say that they are democracies but still they keep religion under political control and dont let the religious bandits to be at the helm of affairs. Pashtuns are specially suffering from this lethal combination of Religion and Politics.

Laws regarding secular spheres of life are to be made by parliament and religious aspects may be governed by Holy books etc.

Please explain it further as how it is absurd to claim that democracy and Islam cant co-exist???If democracy can function in the majority of the countries of the world why not in Muslim countries. And you may know that even in non arab Muslim countries democracy is funtioning including the REPUBLICS of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Presenting yourself as candidate for a post is something very normal and natural. The whole world go for interviews for jobs and present themselves. The same happens in political world. How can you say that its not good for Muslims?

Quran and hadith is for the religion not for the non religious speheres of life. How can you get injunctions from religious books about modern sciences, technology, politics, economy etc. these dont exist in Quran or Hadith. Whatever you refer to are moral injunctions or very fundamental concepts not a systematic description of laws regarding politics, economy etc.

Their man-made laws, and poltical orientation is good for the non Muslims as well as for the Muslims including Pashtuns. Whatever is harmful we may rejcet but the practical implementation of these laws have made them developed and we may not remain behind by considering them not Islamic.

The Iraq, afghanistan wars by the West may be better understood if we think sincerely that how Arabs started from Makkah and Madina and conquered the whole world known at that time. Arabs not only invaded all those countries and civilizations but conquered them completely and made them part of the Arab kingdom of that time. USA may have their presence but still local pople are ruling these countries and USA has not made yet Afghanistan and Iraq as their states.

The questiuon of Israel can also be understood if we think impartially that Jews have conquered that part of the Middle east by power and design because they think it belongs to them as their promised land. Arabs inpite of their numerical strenght could not oust them. Every one of us have the right to expand and develop. Its all power politics , struggle for the balance of power and Realism.

[شمله ور خراساني]

The reason I opened this thread is to challenge you to convince us that you know what you are talking about. Why I think you should do that? Well, because it is very common to see Pashtuns and people of other ethnicity from backward and primitive societies suddenly becoming extremely arrogant and condescending towards their own values and traditions. This occurs usually when people leave their own primitive society to live in prosperous and advanced societies. And the prosperity and wealth takes these poor souls in awe. For this reason they assume that because they have tasted the better life elsewhere, they should and are entitled to, go back and teach their fellow countrymen and preach the gospel of the new religion of the advanced modern society. They neglect root causes of the problems that are preventing weak and poor societies from developing. They attribute everything evil to the beliefs and culture of their own society. In this case Islam and orthodox Islamic methodology.


The illness they suffer from is their limited comprehension of times and situation we are living in. The arrogance and the all knowing attitude of them give away where they get their inspirations from. In most cases, you can actually see how they imagine themselves as the philosopher-king in Plato's The Republic, who escaped the dark cave and saw the true light, the sun, and now this philosopher-king is returning to rule his fellow cave-dwellers.


We have experienced this type of radical and high-modernist extremism during the communist revolution in Afghanistan. And from the preachings of you, you seem like the successor of those radicals and extremists who opposed our religion just because they tasted the sweet life in Moscow. Not knowing that the ideology and culture they wanted to impose on Muslims in Afghanistan by force was bound to fail, not just in Afghanistan, but even in Soviet Union.


From the tone of your comments here on Pashtunforums.com, you seem to be a modern type of the same kind of young, ignorant and over-zealous people who brought destruction in misery to Afghanistan by allying themselves with communist atheists.


And before you get any ideas of accusing me of something I am not, the same critique is applicable to the Muslim Brotherhoods over zealous and extremist ambitions to change the society by force.


So, if you do claim to have a good intention, and I am assuming you are being truthful by stating that you are Muslim, learn to be humble. And if your intention really is to engage in a healthy discussion which will bare fruits we both can benefit from, I suggest you double check what your intention is, and consider the description of the over-zealous modernists here above as a mirror. And if you recognize yourself in the above description, then I don't think this discussion will benefit any of us. The only result could be a humiliating experience where we will end up shouting back and fort without listening to each other or giving a second thought on what is being said. And trust me, in the past 5 years, I have encountered at least a dozen Afghans if this type. And in some cases, I just as guilty as the opposite party.

All you have done sofar is just confirm that you fit the above discription.

That's not a very good sign.

Dear Friend take your time . I am also very busy. These discussions will take days and months may be years.

I would like to clarify here that I dont belong or did not belong to any primitive society. I was born in a highly educated Afghan family and my grand father was a great scholar of his time while his father was General in the army of that time while my father was head of an important educational institution. Yes I am impressed by the material devolopment of the West and depressed by the poverty and miserable lives of Pashtuns back home.

The reason I consider for all this is the lack of modern education and considering Islam as a complete way of life which entails in terrorism, religious extremism and fundamentalism. I wana change the situation where we are living in and this change will only be efefctive if we accept modern values like democracy and shun religious exremism and considering Islam as a complete system of life.

I dont like communism. Still the introduction of communism in Afghanistan brought enlightenment specially in Pashtuns. They became more nationalist and less religious fanatics. It was unfortunate that the West used Mujahideen against communists and now we are reaping the results of using religion in politics in the shape of Taliban and Alqaida and the lethal combination of religious extremism and Pashtuns.

I have very good intentions for this discussion and this you can note from my tone. I never desrespect you as a person and I understand that many like you have been brain washed by the religious pandits and the stooges of the arab imperialism. You are not the only one who consider Islam as a complete way of life and hate democracy. There are many like you. May be there are few like me among Muslims who consider Islam only as a religion and consider true democracy as a panacea for all the ills of Pashtuns specially and Muslims generally.

I wish our discussion should be impersonal and only dedicated to what is said not who says it. I am learning a lot from this discussion and I hope we ll reach a very good conclusion. We just make our minds open to new ideas and may be ready to break the idols already we have in our minds. You can first reply to all my answers to your questions an dthen may comment on my these posts as replies to your replies to my posts.


On the definition of religion, I would like to tell you that I have read lot of books on the comparative study of religions , theology and religion it self. But as like any other definition , you cant give a deifintion on which all agree. Defining some thing is the most difficult task in the academic world and always you have controversies. After reading all importnat definitions of the religion I have reached to the conclusion that almost all definitions include these 3 basic elements. FAITH+WORSHIP+MORALITY.

I also agree with both the definitions you have referred to, as well as your concept of religion which you consider as the sum of what Allah says and what the Prophet did. I agree that Quran have injunctions about beliefs, worship and all Ahkam what you have referred are basically moral or ethical. We dont find any constitutioon in Quran or a complete economic system like capitalism or communism in Quran nor in Hadith.

All the commandments are about moral aspects of life like adultry, drinking, usury(exploiting others by exorbitant interest) etc. I agree that Quran describe few economic aspects of life like inhhiretance, zakat(which is also moral being equivalent to charity) etc but all these are very rudimentary and have moral underpinnings and can never subtitute a complete economic , political, legal or cultural system and were never never applied in the 1400 years of muslims except few years when there was no other alternative as monorchy at that time.

If we separate religion from politics, economy, culture and society then the laws made will be only for these aspects of life while the religious institutions as church or mosque will look after the religious spheres. State or government will not interfere in those religious spheres and may support the religious institutions.

The problem arises when Muslims like you and religious people as Mullas, taliban etc start interfrerring in political and other non religious aspects of life. They want to make laws, implement laws and do every thing about each and every activity of life and the result is the chaos we see now a days in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Arabs and other Muslim countries except Somalia, Iran, Sudan are safe from this menace as they have separated religion from government and have relatively more peace and stability. I dont say that they are democracies but still they keep religion under political control and dont let the religious bandits to be at the helm of affairs. Pashtuns are specially suffering from this lethal combination of Religion and Politics.

Laws regarding secular spheres of life are to be made by parliament and religious aspects may be governed by Holy books etc.

Please explain it further as how it is absurd to claim that democracy and Islam cant co-exist???If democracy can function in the majority of the countries of the world why not in Muslim countries. And you may know that even in non arab Muslim countries democracy is funtioning including the REPUBLICS of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Presenting yourself as candidate for a post is something very normal and natural. The whole world go for interviews for jobs and present themselves. The same happens in political world. How can you say that its not good for Muslims?

Quran and hadith is for the religion not for the non religious speheres of life. How can you get injunctions from religious books about modern sciences, technology, politics, economy etc. these dont exist in Quran or Hadith. Whatever you refer to are moral injunctions or very fundamental concepts not a systematic description of laws regarding politics, economy etc.

Their man-made laws, and poltical orientation is good for the non Muslims as well as for the Muslims including Pashtuns. Whatever is harmful we may rejcet but the practical implementation of these laws have made them developed and we may not remain behind by considering them not Islamic.

The Iraq, afghanistan wars by the West may be better understood if we think sincerely that how Arabs started from Makkah and Madina and conquered the whole world known at that time. Arabs not only invaded all those countries and civilizations but conquered them completely and made them part of the Arab kingdom of that time. USA may have their presence but still local pople are ruling these countries and USA has not made yet Afghanistan and Iraq as their states.

The questiuon of Israel can also be understood if we think impartially that Jews have conquered that part of the Middle east by power and design because they think it belongs to them as their promised land. Arabs inpite of their numerical strenght could not oust them. Every one of us have the right to expand and develop. Its all power politics , struggle for the balance of power and Realism.

[imb706]

Osho may just be this persons name, but Osho was also the name of a cult leader who´s cult carried out the first bioterror attacks in the US. I doubt they are related or anything, but just reminds me of that.

Give us an example of a secular society that is actually secular. That is, a society where the laws of the land are not based on religion.

I´ll help Osho out on this. While secularism in the US has been somewhat eroded in recent years (with a resurrange thankfully), it´s the first secular government ever established. The founder of the US, Thomas Paine, was a deist who rejected all religion (even wrote about how Islam, Christianity and Judaism were man made scams) and most of our first presidents were either irreligious or progressive on matters of religion.

Yeah, under God was added to certain sayings in the 1950s, but thankfully they are being slowly removed. We´ve gotten all those ten commandment statues removed from courthouses recently. And in some states, clergy cannot run for office.

For more on American secularism read the book Freethinkers: A history of American Secularism. A good book.

Here´s a few quotes from American leaders on Secularism:

¨Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.¨ Thomas Jefferson.

¨

"My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege...It is a motto which it is indeed well to have inscribed on our great national monuments, in our temples of justice, in our legislative halls, and in building such as those at West Point and Annapolis -- in short, wherever it will tend to arouse and inspire a lofty emotion in those who look thereon. But it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements." Teddy Roosevelt on the motto ¨In God We Trust on money.



"I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be non-sectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools." Theodore Roosevelt, Address, New York, October 12, 1915

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_mott.htm


http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/history_of_the_separation_of_chu.htm


http://nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm


http://nobeliefs.com/facts.htm#anchor244591

http://www.theocracywatch.org/separation_church_state2.htm

http://www.au.org/resources/brochures/the-faith-based-initiative/

France is the most secular country on Earth I´d argue, where even religious symbolism in public institutions are banned. It´s been like that since 1905, and it´s really a callback to what was one of the main goals of the French Revolutionaries. They even make religious private schools not discriminate on sectarian basis. I´d say French Secularism, called laicite, is the best form on Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9

And of course there´s many other examples but I think that´s enough for now.

[شمله ور خراساني]

Osho may just be this persons name, but Osho was also the name of a cult leader who´s cult carried out the first bioterror attacks in the US. I doubt they are related or anything, but just reminds me of that.



I´ll help Osho out on this. While secularism in the US has been somewhat eroded in recent years (with a resurrange thankfully), it´s the first secular government ever established. The founder of the US, Thomas Paine, was a deist who rejected all religion (even wrote about how Islam, Christianity and Judaism were man made scams) and most of our first presidents were either irreligious or progressive on matters of religion.

Yeah, under God was added to certain sayings in the 1950s, but thankfully they are being slowly removed. We´ve gotten all those ten commandment statues removed from courthouses recently. And in some states, clergy cannot run for office.

France is the most secular country on Earth I´d argue, where even religious symbolism in public institutions are banned. And of course there´s many other examples.
[/B]

Isn't democracy dogma and secularism by itsel not a new religion?

[imb706]

Isn't democracy dogma and secularism by itsel not a new religion?

Democracy just means majority rule. There are no values or standards in democracy other than the majority says what happens. Yes, western democracy implies secularism and human rights, but it´s not some defacto power of democracy that does that, it´s western culture. Having democracy in Islamic societies would just bring theocracy.

Secularism isn´t an established organization of believers, it´s just a policy that says the organized religions cannot be in politics, that´ś all. In the UK that´ś not so, that´ś why they have so many problems with Islamic fundamentalist, but it is a bit exaggerated by the right wing parties there.

Anyway, calling secularism a religion is like calling a policy of public education a religion. Itś not using the term religion correctly.gl

[شمله ور خراساني]

Democracy just means majority rule. There are no values or standards in democracy other than the majority says what happens. Yes, western democracy implies secularism and human rights, but it´s not some defacto power of democracy that does that, it´s western culture. Having democracy in Islamic societies would just bring theocracy.

Secularism isn´t an established organization of believers, it´s just a policy that says the organized religions cannot be in politics, that´ś all. In the UK that´ś not so, that´ś why they have so many problems with Islamic fundamentalist, but it is a bit exaggerated by the right wing parties there.

Anyway, calling secularism a religion is like calling a policy of public education a religion. Itś not using the term religion correctly.gl

Secularism and belief in democracy as majority rule is a dogma. It is based on beliefs. And many scholars of political science, sociology and philosophy have pointed this out ever since Alexis de Tocqueville's book Democracy in America.