Armstrong
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 19,390
- Reaction score
- 94
- Country
- Location
On the contrary if you were to Historically contextualize the Kingdom of Andalusia and the Turkish Millet system...religious and legal pluralism was very much present. Jewish Scholars like Maimonides, who has canonical significance in Talmudic Law, was debating on theology and jurisprudence with some of the leading Muslims polymaths of the time without any fear of reprisal. He along with other Jewish Jurists were consulted when drawing Jewish laws too. And yet the nature of the state was very Islamic. Now, that the concept of citizenry and nation-state has evolved...so must political Islam with it. Whereas in the past disqualifying a Non-Muslim from an officiating capacity of significance and military service could have made sense because most of them were conquered people and the concept of loyalty didn't work anything similar to how it is now; the Nation-States of today are galvanized into one through their patriotism for the said Nation-State...as such this changes the very dynamics of how Citizens ought to be viewed...because they are citizens and not subjects anymore, which means they now have a disproportionate ownership in today's Pakistan or Egypt etc. then they would have had in the past; though one might argue not even then. So a reassessment of sorts is needed - nay it is imperative. Iqbal, the poet-philosopher of Pakistan, tried to set the ball rolling when he wrote his book 'The reconstruction of religious thought in Islam', unfortunately, Pakistan has been so besought by bad governance that we've got a plethora of other problems popping up that neither the educated elite nor the government has done justice to Jinnah or Iqbal's vision of what a modern, democratic, liberal and pluralistic Muslim State ought to look like.
On secularism per se - In a secular system if someone sitting in the parliament proposes that such and such an economic system is derived from the Quran or some other scripture out there, be adopted after scrutiny, more often that not either such a proposition would not find parliamentary support or would be later struck down by the Constitutional Courts. This poses a problem for the vast majority of us, Pakistanis, out there - Islam is far from being just a set of rituals or theological dogmas...it has an opinion on law, economics, social norms of propriety etc. So it would very hard for many Muslims out there to reconcile believing in the Book and then ignoring some of its other Commandments. When I talked about religious impartiality - I meant that a system of meritocracy should be adopted whether in the legislature or the bureaucracy or the armed forces (by the way in the latter two we do have them) and appointments should be solely on the grounds of capabilities and experience alone. Furthermore, a Hindu, a Sikh, a Christian, an Atheist should have just as much right to table a resolution in the parliament in which their respective inspirations are derived from their belief systems, as a Muslim does and then let the People decide what they want. Additionally, keeping in mind with the fact that we, in Pakistan, are overwhelmingly Muslims...there should be iron-clad constitutional guarantees for all religious minorities that they would not be made minorities in a political and social context and if this does happen they've got a strong, independent judiciary to fall back too.
Thats what I meant when I said - Religious Impartiality, Religious and Legal Pluralism and Democracy.
P.S In the above system...I'd be honored to have someone like Justice (R) Rana Bhaghwandas (an outstanding Pakistani Jurist) or Cecil Chaudry (A '65 War Hero) as my President. And they would well within their rights to be eligible for that...as they must be.
P.P.S To the best of knowledge, Sunnis consider the first 4 Caliphs as outstanding individuals and call them the Rashiuddin or the Rightly Guided Ones (because after them the Caliphate went from being something like a presidential democracy to a monarchy). The Shittes on the other hand consider the first 3 of the 4 as usurpers and that the last, Ali ibn Abi Talib - the Prophet's cousin and Son-in-Law - was the rightful successor of the Prophet and that the other 3 along with a bunch of other Companions of the Prophet, bullied Ali into grudgingly accepting their Caliphate. If you'd like to know more...perhaps you can Google in Muhammad's succession and the concept of the Immamat !
