Dear Mr. Rafi Aamer: 

I would try and answer your questions you have asked in your recent posts: 79, 80 and 81. All questions may not be for me but while at it, I will throw in my opinion any way.  

Post #79:

You have asked the meanings, the scope and limits of ‘democracy’. A million dollar question – we have been trying to answer for a very long time – ever since the term was coined by the ancient Greeks over 2000 years ago. In time, the word has become ‘republic’ but the word ‘democracy’ is still around with a meaning that is more or less understood without putting an exact boundary or well defined envelop around it. The modern republics that we admire are a recent phenomenon, it took them a long time to get to this point. (I believe I have provided discussion on journeys to establish democracy for couple of the countries elsewhere) 

With reference to your Malaysian example, all I can say is that it takes time for a system to evolve. Most Muslim countries achieved their political freedoms only a few decades ago. Comparatively speaking, Malaysia has done wonderfully well. But all societies have their peculiarities and quirks which get ironed out in time. I like your term, “democracy in-progress”. At least that is a start – better than what they have in the oil kingdoms. 

Regarding your question about Maududi, yes, this is the same one. He proposed a God centred or a theo-democracy. What I understand from this is that the Quran to be as the basic Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  

Every one has their own ideas of what a government system should entail. Israel is considered to be a democracy – ask an Arab living in Israel about his thoughts about the Israeli democracy. 

Post #80:

I do not believe that those three criminals will be awarded Victoria Cross medals and I never claimed that they are being considered as the ‘Heroes of Christianity’. The religion is not a big thing in Britain. Make no mistake about it; terrorism is terrorism, whether it is supported through an act of parliament or cooked up by a bunch of back ally thugs – for geo-political reasons or religious beliefs.  

The British citizens may not be coming out in processions to call them the ‘Heroes’, but their support for the government policy of terrorism (immoral and illegal invasion of a sovereign country is terrorism in my books) is quite obvious when they brought Blair back into the office in the last election. This is an endorsement from the voters to go along with the well planned terrorism act and the huge big military infrastructure to support it. 

These kinds of incidents are happening in Iraq round the clock since the invasion took place. The death toll for Iraqi civilians is given any where from 30,000 to 250,000. Take any figure you like. I realize, all these deaths are not caused by British troops, the lion’s share of this crime goes to the American ‘heroes’, but still the question is what are these ‘heroes’ doing there? If not terrorism, what else? Were they sent there to “serve and protect” the Iraqis? Did they not play this game 80 years ago?  

While on the subject, I assure you that in my mind, those Muslims who attacked the London tube (under ground railway station) are also terrorists. Islam does not allow or support such actions. There is no evidence that any Muslim country or its parliament paid them to do what they did. 

Mr. Aamer, what is your real point that you have tried to make by your post #80? Does it embarrass you that I criticize the criminals in uniform? 

Post #81:

I am aware of religious riots of early 1950s, but no sect was officially declared by the government as non-Muslims until the conference held during Bhutto’s time, as I understand, according to his instructions and wishes. Many other Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia (it matters most because of Hajj reasons, as the non-Muslims are not allowed to enter Mecca). The riots therefore, are irrelevant as the riots have been a part of every day life in that region since early 1900s, (originally initiated by the British Raj to confuse and discourage the people of the region as they had started talking of the political freedom, but that is a discussion for another day).  

I can see the reason for your confusion, perhaps due to my careless paraphrasing. When I used the word ‘origin’ and Ahmadi problem, what I meant was that it was an extraordinary event of declaring a Muslim sect as non-Muslims and that it was done for political gains by winning the popularity among the Mullahs. This event became the origin of a big problem for all involved. The point I had tried to make was that often religion is used for political gains. This has been done in the West as well.  

Regards,

Javed I. Chaudry

May 3, 06