Dialogue between religions

Inter-religious dialogue has become a buzzword these days. After the controversy followed by the controversial remarks of Pope, the Church has adopted the line of an inter-faith dialogue. Not only that, it has also become a hip thing amongst the liberals and peace-quacks. And though I have a very high regard for their statesmanship and scholarship, even President Clinton and Prime Minister Blair have joined in the chorus.

But just when everyone talks about the dialogue between the religions and faiths, no one is coming up with the parameters for such dialogue. All they vaguely suggest is a need for debate on role of rationality in faith. Sounds illuminating, but is it practical?

I mean, how can you convince a Muslim to accept the rationale of trinity or how can you expect a Christian to accept that Islam is a true religion of the God of Jesus and Moses and it is here that the God completed his religion (both things fundamental to the respective beliefs of Islam and Christianity). Or how can you convince an Evangelist or a Jew or a Muslim that the creation of the state of Israel should be viewed in context of real polity and not through the prism of their respective religions. And with these differences how can you expect them to respect other’s religion as a genuine religion?

Forget about interfaith issues. There are conflicts of the same intensity or even graver with in the religions. The conflict of Shias and Sunnis in Islam or Protestants and Catholics in Christianity are in many ways graver than the conflict between Islam and Christianity.

With these conflicts and beliefs and knowing that faith is blind, no amount of interfaith dialogue is going to bear any fruit. The need is of an intra-faith confrontation within the religions between the moderates and hardliners in all religions around the World. A debate between moderate Muslims and Osamas, a debate between likes of Pope and Clintons and Blairs, a debate between Noam Chomskys and hardliner Zionists and Jews, a debate between moderate, liberal Hindus and Narendra Modis, a debate between all those who genuinely believe in the ideals of humanity and those who see everything from a radical religious or racial prism. A debate is needed to shape the hearts and minds of the people all across the World and it has to be ensured that the liberals prevail in this debate.

This debate cannot be won unless and until with out any fear, the liberals do not start challenging the clichés that have taken their respective societies and religions hostage and the exploiters who exploiting this assume the divine authority. People who matter and people who consider themselves liberal must have to stand for rationality and liberty with in their own religion and win the hearts and minds of their communities not against the religion but against the bigotry and radicalism of the clergy that keeps their religion and society hostage.

I have a great regard for any and all religions and I believe that religion remains an important part of a human’s personal life and will remain so. However, religion is a private affair and the time has come where a strong push is required by those who believe in humanity and liberty to remove it permanently from polity for a safer and peaceful World. For it is not the religion that in essence causes the problem but the clergy whose influence gets attached to it and since religion and faith remains a sensitive issue in the prevailing environment for any individual, the scope for exploitation is more than anywhere else. The challenge is to kill the exploitation in the name of religion without infringing upon the right to have a faith. And while balancing the two, killing the exploitation must take precedence.

Dialogue between religions

Inter-religious dialogue has become a buzzword these days. After the controversy followed by the controversial remarks of Pope, the Church has adopted the line of an inter-faith dialogue. Not only that, it has also become a hip thing amongst the liberals and peace-quacks. And though I have a very high regard for their statesmanship and scholarship, even President Clinton and Prime Minister Blair have joined in the chorus.

But just when everyone talks about the dialogue between the religions and faiths, no one is coming up with the parameters for such dialogue. All they vaguely suggest is a need for debate on role of rationality in faith. Sounds illuminating, but is it practical?

I mean, how can you convince a Muslim to accept the rationale of trinity or how can you expect a Christian to accept that Islam is a true religion of the God of Jesus and Moses and it is here that the God completed his religion (both things fundamental to the respective beliefs of Islam and Christianity). Or how can you convince an Evangelist or a Jew or a Muslim that the creation of the state of Israel should be viewed in context of real polity and not through the prism of their respective religions. And with these differences how can you expect them to respect other’s religion as a genuine religion?

Forget about interfaith issues. There are conflicts of the same intensity or even graver with in the religions. The conflict of Shias and Sunnis in Islam or Protestants and Catholics in Christianity are in many ways graver than the conflict between Islam and Christianity.

With these conflicts and beliefs and knowing that faith is blind, no amount of interfaith dialogue is going to bear any fruit. The need is of an intra-faith confrontation within the religions between the moderates and hardliners in all religions around the World. A debate between moderate Muslims and Osamas, a debate between likes of Pope and Clintons and Blairs, a debate between Noam Chomskys and hardliner Zionists and Jews, a debate between moderate, liberal Hindus and Narendra Modis, a debate between all those who genuinely believe in the ideals of humanity and those who see everything from a radical religious or racial prism. A debate is needed to shape the hearts and minds of the people all across the World and it has to be ensured that the liberals prevail in this debate.

This debate cannot be won unless and until with out any fear, the liberals do not start challenging the clichés that have taken their respective societies and religions hostage and the exploiters who exploiting this assume the divine authority. People who matter and people who consider themselves liberal must have to stand for rationality and liberty with in their own religion and win the hearts and minds of their communities not against the religion but against the bigotry and radicalism of the clergy that keeps their religion and society hostage.

I have a great regard for any and all religions and I believe that religion remains an important part of a human’s personal life and will remain so. However, religion is a private affair and the time has come where a strong push is required by those who believe in humanity and liberty to remove it permanently from polity for a safer and peaceful World. For it is not the religion that in essence causes the problem but the clergy whose influence gets attached to it and since religion and faith remains a sensitive issue in the prevailing environment for any individual, the scope for exploitation is more than anywhere else. The challenge is to kill the exploitation in the name of religion without infringing upon the right to have a faith. And while balancing the two, killing the exploitation must take precedence.

Whether it comprises true-lies or false-truths?
Whether Mahmood wanted to corner Musharaf and take power or Armitage is lieing?
Whether Kargil was a success turned to failure by Nawaz or a loss covered up?
These are the questions for the history to answer and trust me, history will.

"In the line of fire" is out to narrate tyrants version of history and his grasped the media attention and that of public too.

I congratulate Mushahid Hussain for writing a potential best-seller.

...............

thou smile was shine
to date it brings pine
when party was on
and your eyes were on mine
your hair were straightened
and lips were as wine
and there i made the mistake
of thinking you as mine

(A tribute to the spirit and soul of Splendid Splendor)

Hadood laws and PPP

In the recent times the inaction and lack of direction on part of PPP was a major disappointment for me and people of Pakistan. However, not breaking away from its usual lack of direction the political front, PPP has taken a principled stand on Women Protection Bill and the strategy so far seems perfect. A lot of people will call such thing s sell-out but it should not stop party from standing for the right cause.

PPP has long been a supporter of amendments to injust Hadood Laws and the bill approved by Select Committee, though short of party demands, provided relief to women and was a step in the right direction. For this reason, PPP supported it unconditionally despite the continuous victimization of party workers and leaders. In standing for a principled position, either of the two outcomes is a Win-Win for party. If the legislation goes through as per Select Committee recommendations, PPP and women of Pakistan have won a major battle in the long fight for justice and if the Govt. yields to the pressure of MMA (which it seems is the case) the Govt's real image of pseudo moderation will be exposed.

It also reveals that amongst all the victimization and efforts to corner it, there is a party that has the courage to stand for issues and principles and I salute the spirit of PPP for this despite my reservations about the mellowed and not so daring resistance to the military regime.