aalaap_team

Greetings. This is in response to the excellent articulation by Ms
Ruby Zigrino, link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nabic-l/message/2907

I have some questions and concerns, however, as I noticed some words
in Ms Zigrino's comments such as 'democracy and civil society' and a
'proposition' for a 'Muslim organization' that can be 'forceful' and
eventually become 'formidable' in the rebuilding of Iraq.

How compatible are political organizations founded on religious
frames/ideologies and the ideologies of democracy and civil society?
I ask because my assumption is that a modern, civil society is more
likely pluralist than not.

When a political party proposes solutions that are filtered by its
religious leanings---which will be the case for a 'Muslim'
organization, otherwise such labeling would be needless---how could it
cater to ALL groups within the society and remain fair? Or might it
be that in her proposition, Ms Zigrino implied that religious parties
would propose solutions only for those communities that endorse their
faith position? If the latter, might that not promote separatism than
support the need for people to work together on social issues?

If within a democracy political parties are allowed to form on the
basis of religion, have we addressed the inherent design flaw of most
world faiths that, if truly adhered to and not postured about, could
become serious impediment to upholding democracy for all? For
instance, in the Bible it is said that, according to Jesus, nobody
comes to God but through him. In Islam, superiority of its divine
message above all other faiths is also clearly articulated. Both are
arbitrary at the core, regardless of the sincerity of belief of their
adherents.

I respectfully request that no one offer an interpretive balderdash as
to how these two major world faiths consider everyone as equal. For
if either one did that, it would logically nullify its need to push
its supremacist ideologies and commandments. Therefore, it seems clear
that, for a civil society to maintain its civility where all humans
are treated as equals in regards to rights and privileges, any
religion-centric organization having a political force would impede
the maintenance much more than enhance its balanced perpetuation.

Consequently, in the serious matter of rebuilding Iraq, how could a
'Muslim' organization influence it as a political force by re-framing
all its social initiatives through its version of 'Islamic' prism,
thus affecting the 'balance' and 'independence' that appear to be of
understandable concern to Ms Zigrino?

Some Islamic people have proposed we ignore our religious differences
and focus on our common ground. It can be possible, but quite likely
and only if we approach all social challenges, including but not
limited to rebuilding of a nation, for instance, from a neutral
standpoint where humanity and its common ground is recognized as the
only basis.

As soon as we insist to toss in a religious frame of reference, such
as a 'Muslim' party participating in a political process of a nation's
rebuilding, we run the risk of introducing religion-based arbitrary
hierarchies that cannot be logically argued as having the
design-flexibility to ensure the 'balance' and 'independence'
proponents for such party also claim to seek.

Arguably, it seems critical to acknowledge the fundamental (design)
flaw of the temptation to mix religion with ANY modern political
process that aspires to ensure equality among all citizens in regards
to rights and privileges. Simplistically speaking but poignant
nonetheless, mixing supremacist ideologies with politics while
contending we prefer democracy and civil society can be likened to
drinking several glasses of Electric Screwdriver (an alcoholic
beverage made up primarily of orange juice and a little vodka, etc.,
but it has the visual appearance of plain orange juice) but ignoring
the risk of getting intoxicated, which is but a logical consequence
thereof.

If Muslims indeed seek democracy and civil society in a manner that
subordinates the heritage of religion-based supremacist claims---with
religion-based moral bullyism of the majority serving as a tool of the
government and the law---they ought to exercise prudence to recognize
this fundamental flaw/danger. People can practice their faith at home
but they ought not to support political parties that can play moral
arbiters of everyone based upon religious leanings that are NOT open
to "debate," unlike the secular laws that people can challenge, debate
over, and change---a critical flexibility to ensure their viability
and relevance, in the face of evolution that appears to be only
natural and in accordance with the laws of nature.

If some of us believe that a Creator governs over everything in nature
then they ought to welcome social change as occurring WITHIN that
natural order, resisting the temptation to impede its flow by imposing
upon a modern society moral dictates which are primarily
interpretative and historically diagnosed as having been erroneous
numerous times. Yet when peddled those can't be "debated" for fear of
blasphemy and punishment. Because those are "believed" to be
"ordained," the directive of their proponents, when and if
representing the majority faith, often has been "just shut up and do
what we tell you."

However, there should be a civil process to speculate potential
fallouts from any social change--that is always a probability--but
such process ought not be stymied by inflexible and
primarily-interpretive notions of God's wishes, lassoing its natural,
secular frames to which all participants regardless of their religion
must have equal participatory access.

When offering proposals to help rebuild Iraq, I hope our esteemed
members consider these angles and feel less compelled to tether the
proposals to an Islamic frame of reference.

Respectfully,

S Munir I
__________________________________________________ _
Courtesy: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nabic-l/