It is in response to the writer of the post # NN and henceforth we will designate him by writerNN (NN = 98)

In his opening paragraph # 1 (para. 1), the writerNN admits that: “I have certainly benefited from some thought-provoking comments” and then goes on (in para. 2) to make his mea-culpa:  “I did stray from the definite limits of the topic”. But his comments show no thought-provoking effect nor any respect of the limit of the topic.

The writer93 (Dr. Tahir Qazi) asks : If Islam (or any other religion) has the seed of rationalism in it. In his answer the writerNN gives a list of Islamic scholars during the period of 8^th  to 19^th centuries. Obviously, the writerNN has grown a tree out of this seed in his private garden and now he is trying to sell the Fruit.

These learned scholars were great free thinkers and rational individuals. Is this rationalism of these scholars inherent in Islam (or any other religion)? This is the question that the writerNN has still to answer.

The lamentation (para. 5) of the writerNN over the ignorance of  the West (and also of the Muslim countries) about the advanced civilization and culture of Arabs in Spain, is justified but how does it explain the lack of democracy in most Muslim countries?

The statement (para. 6) “Ahsan Khan has pointed out Islam as the common factor whereas the common factors are three: Islam, lack of mass education, and poverty. And when I see that in Latin American and African countries the common factors are Christianity, animistic belief, lack of education and poverty; the global common factor, it is evident, is definitely not Islam.”

As usual the writerNN does not want to talk of the group “most Muslim countries” (MMC) where the democracy has not taken root” but he prefers to talk of the entire globe. So, it appears to me that he does not know what is a “group” in mathematical terms of “Group Theory”.

A “group” is composed of a number of elements and each element has a characteristic property that is common to all. This common factor is also referred to as the operator (or factor) of identity. In case the writerNN talks of all the countries in the world, then the common factor will be “Human” . The same way if you consider all Muslim countries, the common factor will be Islam (religion). When you divide this group in two sub-groups on the basis of the system of government, then you will find that one group is keeping Islam in the affair of the government and the other is not.

Since in this debate we are talking of the MMC where democracy is lacking. So, whatever the reasons of the lack of democracy in Latin America and Africa may be, we are not concerned in the present debate. As for the group of MMC, there are many rich countries and also there are some where the mass education is better than in India or Bangladesh; but alas, there is no democracy. In the light of this, we can only apply the factors of lack of mass education and poverty to a few members of the group MMC and not to all of them. Thus, the only common factor which is applicable to all the member states of MMC is “Islam”. Now, I hope it is evident to writerNN that “Islam”  is definitely the only common factor which identifies all those Muslim countries where democracy is absent.

Considering individual members of the group MMC, other different reasons like lack of mass education, poverty, patro-dollars, army, clergy, mafia,...may also be valid but they will not be the common factors for the whole group of MMC. Hence, in answer to the question: “ Why has democracy not taken root in most Muslim countries?”, the only response is:

“The reason is Islam”.

In para. 7 the writerNN is misquoting me by attributing his unbalanced chemical equation:

belief = doubtful conclusion,

to my two statements in post. # 95 which may be written as:

belief = doubtful reality , and

any conclusion based on belief = doubtful conclusion.

These equations stand correct even if the writerNN pays me a glass of “beer”.

Concerning the remark of the writerNN:

“As regards “Family Affair” the term is applied more in the sense of  descendants “from father to son”, which have never been the case concerning the first Four Caliphs.” ,

in response to the writer97 (Mr. Aziz Ahmad), the term “family”  has been grossly deformed and adjusted according to the will of the writerNN to suit his purpose.

When the writer97 is talking of the first four Caliphs and the family affair, he is talking of the family as it existed at the time of these four gentlemen and not in an arbitrary term that writerNN would like it to be. The writerNN is well aware that 1400 years ago in the Arab society that we are talking of, the family was not only “father to son” but it was very extended and included all the members of the clan. The inter-marriages were the means to extend this family. Even a slave or a fugitive once he was taken under protection of the clan was given the same rights as other family members. The fourth Caliph is very often referred to as “nearest and dearest of the his (Muhammad’s) blood relations” by many scholars of Islam. Because of the inter-marriages and clan relationship according to the criteria of those days, they indeed formed a “family”. The writer97 is right to consider the reign of first four Caliphs as a family affair and not a kind of democracy that the writerNN would like us to accept.

Finally in the para. 10, the writerNN gives an answer to  a question: “Why did Muslim societies fail in pursuing their intellectual develpment?” that no one, except himself, has asked him. It is a simple exercise to show off the historical awareness of the writerNN. Bravo!

yArab nah woh jamjh*eY hayN nah samjh*eyN geY mery bAt

deY Awr dil Aun kw jw nah deY mujh* kw zabAN Awr

Regards to all.

Ahsan

Note;-We use the following Urdu alphabet in Roman letters to write any Urdu word in Roman Script (RS) exactly as as it is written in Urdu Script.(US):     

A (A^)  b  p  t  T  c  j  j*  H  K  d  D  Z  r  R  z  z’  s  s*  S  Z*  t*  z*  A’  G’  f  q  k  g  l  m  n (N)  w (W)  h  h*  a’  y  Y

In place of diacriticl signs, zabar, zer and pesh in US, we use small letter vowels (a, e, i, o, and u) in RS.  Thus Urdu will be written ArdW (ie alif, re, daal and wao). When the diacritical signs are removed we exact Urdu letters as they are written in US.