@
Chak Bamu... a must read article. To have a proper debate on the matter we need to separate what was taught by Zia from our minds. He promoted the concept that Islam and secularism are 2 distinct concepts and run on opposing tracks. This is the one thing I have noticed that limits or destroys any chances of debate with an Islamist. I have been having the same debate with Zarvan and co and it is tiring. Plus no one cares about the posts either and I feel like I am talking to myself.
If you can think of a hypothesis where the two are one I may try to convince you of the benefits of a secular system.
I would personally favour mu'tazili school of thought though but do read this article if you favor Sufism:
There are certain qualities of Islam that meld with secularism... but its the different schools of thought that are the issue. Hanafis are neutral, Wahabis are terrorists, Sufis mystics and Mu'tazili's secularists. We adopt mutazili thought and we are secular already.
Many Sufis would not be bothered by secular / Theocracy debate. But then some might be. There is no fixed rule here. It has much to do with the flexibility of thought and a perspective suitably introverted (sinfulness) and / or extroverted (virtue) as be the need of a particular moment.
Like I mentioned earlier, Sufism is an intensely private and practical path. Talking about it and reading Sufi poetry and philosophizing would get one no where. It is merely beating about the bush. I really do not look forward to having a discussion of what is or what is not Sufi. What one elder in this century or what another saint said in that century. At the core all such discussions are distractions and rather pointless. The heart of the matter is the change within. The re-orientation is important. But before anything else, it is the willingness to change. And for that you have to give yourself up to a Master. That, believe me, is the single hardest thing to do. Particularly for someone who thinks he knows a thing or two, has read a book or two, and can teach a fellow or two. Very very hard to do.
So you can go on and talk about what Bulhay Shah said, or what a particular school of thought teaches, or what particular philosophy is all about. But to me an engagement would be out of politeness, and not out of a desire to learn or contribute knowledge.
Sufi texts warn about a quest for political power for accomplished and established Sufis. My own Sheikh sb asks us to keep away from attaching to any political parties or putting our trust in any politicians. A pir-bhai decided to run for elections, and asked our Sheikh sb's blessings. He was told to not repeat this mistake. Consequently, out of the blue and against odds this guy got elected from around Sahiwal as an independent, spent five years in assembly and has never thought of re-election because for him certain values have a higher priority. Spirituality always trumps politics and occupies a higher moral plane. That is how our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was a politician. Out of necessity and without compromising on Morality. Takes a Sufi to understand in what way Politics and religion are combined. Not religion for politics, or politics for religion, but morality and spirituality above politics. Precious few can do it.
Secularism gets a bad rap for various reasons. It is only bad if it divorces spiritual morality from politics. In our country secularism is associated with Alcohol, heterodoxy, anti-religious behavior and what not. Blame whom ever you wish, but this is what it is. In opposition to that practicing Muslims like myself opt for the safe and traditional, because that is how we are going and we can fix our course with minor adjustments. Path of least resistance a-la-1973 constitution.
You have to pay close attention to the rhetoric coming from a fringe and vocal minority who are militant in their approach. They are deluding themselves and others if they think that their prescriptions would create Utopia in Pakistan. The problems lie somewhere else in my view. Most people understand instinctively as to the place of religion within politics. It is by no means the only concern. In the order of priorities it is not even top five when it comes to elections. Some people would always use religion for personal gain, no matter where they are and no matter what religion they belong to. For example, do you really think that TTP wants some Islamic system in the country. No - their leadership is not even remotely concerned with religion. It is only a power game played by some Pathans, only because they can do it using religious rhetoric.
Obsessing about secularism would do nothing for us. The source of our troubles is elsewhere. The most secularism can do for us is introduce more instability in an already charged environment. A bunch of hyperventilating Mullah-types would make it another cause for the sake of Islam, and give a call of jihad against irreligious alcohol chugging conspirators. The cause of secularism is best left by the side for now. We are busy finding answers to questions that we have purposely avoided so far. These must be answered. The process would determine what we do with secularism next. Not vice versa.
