This blog is best viewed with the latest browser and an open mind!

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Just what IS Shariah?

Given the extremes of our society and the Muslim Ümmah, it seems impossible for the average person to go beyond just the emotional outbursts for or against the imposition of the Shariah.

I am also unclear, when I talk with some people (especially men), about how they feel that their lives would be affected. The majority of them seem - while not physically flogging females in public - to treat women with such denigration, contempt and 'violence' (not just in their own homes but in 'respected' - if not necessarily respectable - institutions and organizations), in a predominantly Muslim society, that one wonders if some women weren't better off being buried alive - a practice to which Islam is said to have put an end.
Soddy Arabia has Shariah. Alcohol, Porn, Music, Illicit Sex … all are available. Without too much worry, I am told by friends there, to the chosen few and the well-connected. The richest among them even actually remain really pure within the country and fly out on non-Shariah holidays. I am sure that, after the initial 'revolution' - although I doubt that it will succeed (which is not to say that lives will not continue to be lost during the battle) - this place will be no different from the country that supports us and the Wahhabis.
Consider: If all this chopping of hands, flogging, the (controversial by Qur'anic injunctions) 'stoning to death' and the less horrifying — but by no means less restrictive and against human rights — laws pertaining to the status of women, were really abhorrent to all Pakistanis (and to many, including minorities, from the world over) would they sell their principles to go work there for a few Riyaal more? And should they, by this argument, not be equally willing to accept the imposition of similar views here, in their own homes, if the Talibans in power raised their wages in exchange for tacit support?
In a bid, for me and those who read my posts, to understand just what Shariah is, what is its source, and from where does it get its sanction, I would like to invite a guest post from some knowledgeable, unemotional person who could inform us with logic and history as to why we must reject or accept it, since 'Constitutionally' we are bound by it, anyway. (Let's face it, this fact does make the whole debate even more confusing to many here and — judging by frequent queries I get — to non-Muslim friends abroad who are wondering what all this is about, specially given the varying slants their own media offers.)
OK. As I understand it (and I am absolutely open to correction): 1. Qur'an is something that Muslims (generally - for I am beginning to see fissures here, too, and not just of 'interpretation') are agreed upon as The Source that all Muslims follow. 2. The Qur'an states that, other than Itself, Muslims follow the Sünnah — The Way of the Prophet (again, many people mistake the Hadith as being an intrinsic part of the Sünnah ... but I would want to stay, for the sake of this discussion, with the clear-cut distinction of the terms). 3. The Hadith — with all it's shades from Zaeef to Qavi, and the even more arbitrary term, Qüdsi — raises many questions, and not merely of authenticity (when one finds even the Saheehs containing highly doubtful and debatable passages). I am more concerned with the Qur'an claiming, on the one hand, that it is 'simple to understand' and, on the other, believers claiming that it is all but impossible to understand without the Hadith. I just wish that Allah's "followers" would at least accept that He knows better.
Remember, the Qur'an was being recited and preached in the marketplace and was being effective in converting audiences that included the illiterate and non-Arabs, so it could hardly be in an exclusive, high-flown, philosophy-ridddled language — a premise that some modern translators are beginning to consider.
As for the Hadith, here are some Qur'anic references to ponder. Forget how pro-Hadith translators have tried to 'cover up' by translating at is 'stories' or 'legends' or whatever … keep the Arabic before you and notice the use of the word, 'Hadith', or it's dervatives in the 'original'. (Surely, there are several words for stories and anecdotes in Arabic, a very rich language, but - just as surely - Allah must have reason to use a particular word is used at a specific instance.) S45/A6-7 Such are the Signs of God, which We rehearse to thee in Truth; then in what Hadith will they believe after God and His Signs? S31/A6 And among men are those who follow, instead, frivolous Hadith, diverting others from the path of Allah without knowledge … These have incurred a shameful retribution. On at least a couple of other occasions this (or a minor variation) occurs: fabi ayyi hadeethin ba'adahu yu'minoon (= Which Hadith, beside this, do they believe in?) 4. The Fiq'ah: Mainly refers to legalistic interpretations by FIVE accepted faqeehs - FOUR among the Sünnis and ONE among the Shiaas. I have often wondered why DID the Ümmah stop at five? I mean, the "accepted five" were explaining things, to the best of their ability and with good intent, but according to their times and personal müshaahidaat (hence the makroohaat, for example). So why can't there be a modern 'faqeeh', for our times, based on several further centuries of human experience, rather than mere splinter groups identifying themselves within the fiqah of one of these five?
What about a "non-taqleedi" approach that allows one to choose whatever one's mind accepts from each of them? And what of Ijtehaad? So, the questions is, "Is the Shariah a combination of all of the above? Or a mere concoction by theocratic forces … to be interpreted for political gains and throttling 'opposition' however/whenever?"
Send guest-post to me including tiny url references where appropriate, by email. Others, please add your comments so that the guest-post writer can address your questions, too.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,


Blogger Irfan said...

Thanks ZAK for bringing this up.
To me, the thing to consider is, "do the people who call for Shariah to be made the method of governance, do so because they sincerely believe that this will ensure a better society, or because this will give them control over others, and give them a superior stature in the social structure?" To me, the later appears to be the case more often than not. The Mullahs stands no chance of being a part of mainstream society and become useful contributers as they are mostly illiterate, backward, and raw in their demeanor and understanding of philosophical domain of life. This makes imposition of Shariah the only way to elevate their stature and give them control over others.
Your point about a modern day faqeeh, sounds terrific, and is probably what the muslims need, but the problem is that the people who call the shots have created such a shell around their preferred interpretation, that any effort to reinterpret is taken as an attempt to modify the essence of religion. The issue is far more complex than it appears, and in my opinion, has gone far beyond a possibility of alignment with the modern day intellect, which has evolved through ages of experiences. The best thing to do would be to make all efforts to keep Shariah out of state matters and make it remain a personal choice for how one wants to interpret and live by.
Whatever you are discussing makes sense, but only when we have been given a choice; today whatever is happening makes Shariah not a matter of choice but something that has to be obeyed by submitting your right to exercise a free will.
Last but not the least, the question you have raised, "Is the Shariah a combination of all of the above? Or a mere concoction by theocratic forces … to be interpreted for political gains and throttling 'opposition' however/whenever?", well the answer lies not in thoughtful analysis, but a look at the history.

28 April, 2009 14:40

Blogger Irfan said...

Jaun sahib yaad aa gaey:

jis ko bhi shaikh-o-shah ney, hukm-e-khuda diya qaraar
hum ney nahiN kiya woh kaam, haN ba-khuda nahiN kiya

jo bhi ho tum pe mo'atariz, us ko yehi jawaab do
aap bohat shareef haiN, aap ney kya nahiN kiya?

28 April, 2009 15:04

Anonymous Shayan said...

There is a conference happening this weekend about the Shariah in Tufts. I am going to attend and shall report on my findings. I was speaking to a Prof Sugata Bose about this and he says that Shariah was a admixture of religious and social traditions/laws which the British compiled and codified into a coherent doctrine. It seems like the Oriental reinterpretation of indigenous versions of Islam had a lot to do with the idea of shariah we have today. But more on that after the conference.

29 April, 2009 03:19

Anonymous Aasem said...

Loose usages like the 'Islamic code of life' or 'Islamic law' aside, there can be epistemological as well as ontological definitions of Sharia'h. In any case, it is eventually understood as a conceptual paradigm used to express the legislative aspect of the divine being. Therefore, it has been equated with 'revelation' in many traditional texts.

Fiqh is the discursive exercise carried out by humans in order to understand Sharia'h.

I'll try to address your points as I get some time, insha'allah.

regards and salam

30 April, 2009 16:54

Anonymous Anonymous said...


you may "address" his points and yet explain nothing to most of us if you use words and phrases like epistemological, ontological, conceptual paradigm, discursive exercise. ewww.

can you please stick to the language of this site which is mainly english and often urdu? how many words did you find in zackintosh's post that were so technical?

30 April, 2009 18:45

Anonymous Aasem said...

Sorry. My bad. I don't know the technique to dwell into a highly loaded socio-religious enquiry with various historical and philosophical currents without using the language that is mandatory to grasp the subtleties that are part of the discourse. If you think that's long-winded and verbose, I shouldn't waste my time and yours I guess. Sincerely, I don't want to be a bore :)

I am quite an old visitor and I thought the place allows the language that belong to the realm of Chomsky and Russell - at least once in a while.

Anyway, no love lost as I put on my reader's coat again :) Thank you once again.

01 May, 2009 13:51

Blogger Zakintosh said...

@ Aasem It's hardly fair that just one comment from someone and you've pulled out of my blog.

Certainly send in your views whenever you wishes and in whatever form of language you choose, if that makes more sense and helps clarify rather than muddy the situation. I think many of us would not like to be deprived of a scholarly response. I have subscribed via RSS to your writings and am finding them very interesting.

@ Anonymous, I guess you could always ask Aasem for clarifications in specific cases.

01 May, 2009 23:36

Blogger Bystander said...

I am of the opinion that instead of defining shariat, we should only decide whether or not state and religion should have any relationsihp.

Religion to me is strictly a private matter. After all dont Muslims generally believe that each individual is answerable for his/her own deeds? therefore it has to be a purely personal and private matter. State need not have any religion. My faith is purely mine; i cannot allow state or anyone else for that matter to dictate me on matters of religion.

Moreover, with regards to shariat, fiqh and the complicated interpretations that it entails, my take is to follow what the sufis told us... in the words of shah niaz "aql ke madrasay se uth, ishq ke maikaday main aa" ... or to quote from poet siraj orangabadi "wo ajab ghari thee ke jis ghari lia dars nuskha-e-ishq main / ke kitab aql ki taaq par jyun dhari thee tyun hi dhari rahi"... its all about ishq and aql.. if we go on debating the latter, we will never be able to transcend it to experience the reality that is called ishq.. where kitab, aql ceases to matter.

This was the message of bhulle shah also..

PaRh paRh ilm hazaar kitaabaN
qaddi apnay aap nou paRhiya naee
jaaN jaaN waRhday mandir maseedi
qaddi mann apnay wich waRhiya naee
aa-vaiN laRda aye shaitan de naal bandeaa
qaddi nafss apnay naal laRiya naee

yes, yes, you have read thousands of books
but you have never tried to read your own self
you rush in, into your Mandirs, into your Mosques
but you have never tried to enter your own heart
futile are all your battles with Satan
for you have never tried to fight your own desires

To understand the reality, we have to understand ourselves and not go by what the mullahs preach.. these self-proclaimed gate-keepers are largely responsible for the mess around us screwing everything in the name of God. To reach the realm of reality, ishq and to understand ourselves we have to rid ourselves of them and their diktats

02 May, 2009 11:59

Blogger Zakintosh said...

@ bystander

why instead of? what has having shariah 'defined' (so that when people discuss or debate it in any context, they clearly understand to what exactly they referring) got to do with whether or not it should be adopted at a state level?

but to respond to your track ...

while i would be all for separation of mosque and state, the reality, for muslims, is this: islam defines itself - in the qur'an - not as a maz'hab (religion) but a deen (way of life). in such a case, the practice or imposition of islam would include the religious aspect of life as just one of its strains, with legal practices (e.g., crimes, punishments, marriages, contracts, taxation, property division) and social issues (e.g., morality, slavery, interactions with other peoples and the environment) - and more - also falling under its purview.

if the state is to live up to its nomenclature (Islamic Republic of Pakistan) - whether that should be its status or not is a separate discussion - separation of mosque and state are always going to produce conflicts, specially in matters of human rights. and this is not even taking into account the literalists. or the fact that we have enshrined such terms in our state documents like the constitution.

this deen-hood is what makes it possible and easy for parties with a religious bent ("... and what a bend that is, my countrymen!") to enter the political arena.

as for a sufi 'solution', it is unlikely that those of the wahabi and deobandi mindset, will choose to join the followers of sufism, given that they are against all the frills that system entails. ditto for any one solution above others.

it is probably{?) easier, within whatever form this state takes, to demand (before it's to late):
(a) basic rights like freedom of religion and freedom from religion
(b) an end to the hadood and blasphemy ordnances
(c) to ensure that apostasy laws and other draconian derivatives - based on an undefinedshariah - are kept at bay.

it is to this end that i feel that an understanding of what shariah is - and a discussion on whether acceptance of it is essential to being a muslim - would be important. most muslims seem to accept blindly (or are scared to question) anything that uses this unclarified, all-encompassing, ever-expanding term.

02 May, 2009 13:19

Anonymous Aasem said...

@ Zakintosh There is no way I am pulling out of your blog. Its just that the ceaseless demands of oversimplification in matters related to religion always force me to take one step back.

There is nothing scholarly about my response as I am not a scholar. I just blog what I understand from my readings.

Anyway, its timely on your part to bring the religious discourse into mainstream popular blogging.

02 May, 2009 15:36

Anonymous Anonymous said...

@zackintosh To address one of your pet peeves, this is The Same Anonymous Who Addressed Aasem. I am sorry, it IS your blog and I do not have any business asking Aasem to stop writing. That, in any case, was not what I intended since I am a very regular reader of this blog and very, very interested in the question you have raised. Sadly I lack a PhD in English language.

@Aasem I am not being facetious. But I just visited your site. I am sure you must realize that your writing will fly above most heads because of its language. I am not asking for oversimplification. Or even simplication. Just for simpler English.

Since you mention him, I challenge you to show me one passage in Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian that contains such high-faluting verbosity. That is a fairly typical piece among his essays that explains things to us mortals.

02 May, 2009 17:16

Blogger Zakintosh said...

@The Same Anonymous Who Addressed Aasem

Heh! You'll agree that it's better than having No ID.

And it's a lot better than having one's name/nick spelt wrong, my primary pet peeve! It's Zakintosh, sir …

02 May, 2009 17:30

Blogger Rogue said...

Will share my understanding of the terms under discussion and my conclusion. Hope I make sense and I will be happy to be corrected if you find me mistaken.

Here are my two bits.

Three basic terms are relevant to the current discussion - Shar’, Sharia’h and Fiqh.

Shar’ and Shari’ah are often translated as Islamic law. However, the earliest surviving Arabic dictionary (Al Khalil) as well as other documents describe Sharia’h in several different ways. A. Kevin Reinhart says the meanings lead one to another image - “The verbal form of the root sh-r- means entry into something and the noun sharia’h – ‘a place on the bank of a river where animals can enter the water’.” Sharia’h in our context can thus be interpreted as being a point of access into God’s realm.

Reinhart defines Sha’r as a sort of entry by God into the world in order to provide a means (Sharia’h) to Him.

Fiqh is a verbal noun meaning to understand. It is the process of understanding religion, religious conduct and its sources of knowledge and consequent legal positions. Fiqh attempts to transform wahi into moral/legal norms.

So Shar’ is God’s presence in human history. Sharia’h is the moral imperative and its specific content thus revealed. And fiqh is the process Muslims started after the death of the Prophet to discern and act according to Shar’s implications.

Fiqh is actually described as disciplined understanding. It is referred to as Islamic legal science owing to the detailed methodologies developed by classical scholars. Wilfred Cantwell Smith (July 21, 1916 – February 7, 2000) was a professor of comparative religion at Harvard. One of his conclusions about the Shar/fiqh distinction is that actual statutes are a by product when considered in relation to the source and its authority.

As far as the question of being limited to four/five faqihs is concerned, my understanding is that the process of fiqh was taken to several parts of the world by the Sahabah and their disciples. The back and forth exchange of knowledge between prominent centers of such learning led to the formation of at least twenty schools whose knowledge ultimately flowed into The Four (sunni) schools which were accepted by all scholars over time. So these schools were not limited to four but are a sort of essence of the accumulated knowledge.

My readings show that the faqihs have encouraged fresh interpretations and discernment of sharia’h. So the formation of a new school, a modern faqih, is not out of question or discouraged. In fact, a student faqih who has mastered a particular school, is actually required to make his own judgments in the light of his own understanding and is forbidden to follow the earlier decisions. This is probably an attempt to keep things fresh. However, a modern faqih will have to master all four schools and have several other competencies like comprehension of Arabic culture of the time, Quranic language and a number of other listed qualities to be able to form his own school AND be acknowledged by the ulema.

As we were studying Islamic philosophy earlier this year, I found it really difficult to get out of the complex – these four schools are impressively comprehensive in their coverage of issues and soundness of methodology, especially the Hanafi school is the most developed of all in terms of Islamic jurisprudence. In fact, these schools are so comprehensive that scholars have even written documents warning about the pitfalls of trying to get out of the four schools – which are mainly a means to prevent innovation in the religion. I think this is the problem we are facing collectively. The Schools seem to cover everything from the Aadab of drinking water to the matters of qisas and diyat. Somehow, this same comprehensiveness of fiqh has led our ulema to come up with a ruling at every step and warn of the punishment for not following these laws.

I was troubled because I could find no other complex to compare this one with and hence evaluate. I was scared of my own negligible knowledge and did not wish to reject without proof centuries of Islamic erudition which I must say, I found impressive. If I would have done that, I would be no better than the rigid scholars we all keep blasting for not listening to differing opinions.

Now I have finally found a couple of modern day scholars who consider emphasis on hadith to be variable. This, sort of, resolves the issue in my mind. I still don’t reject the current complex, but am more relaxed now. I mean there is a middle ground between being a sinful Muslim – who would be punished for not drinking water in three sips – and being an out and out atheist – which I know that I am not.

Some Notes:
Fiqh – constantly referred to as the Fiqh Process by scholars - is driven from four sources called roots of understanding (Usul-al-Fiqh): The Quran, the Hadith, Ijma and Qiyas.

Quran’s juxtaposition with hadith - the word of God as demo’ed in human life by the Prophet. A scholar of fiqh treats the Prophet’s life as a norm and the traditions from the Prophet’s life are viewed as principles.

Ijma – consensus – between scholars on the interpretation of traditions regarding an action. It is also a record of agreed interpretations derived from the texts in case clear indicator is not found in both Quran and hadith.

Qiyas – analogical reasoning. This method is employed to draw parallels from Quran and Sunnah and decide on the basis of the example.

Ijtehad - Ulema state that Ijtehad cannot be done on Qatii ahadith – the ones on which an Ijma has already occurred. Can be done only on Zanni ahadith under circumstances.

03 May, 2009 04:06

Blogger Bystander said...

Needed: A new nomenclature for this country
Needed: A new constitution, putting aside objectives resolution and two nation theory
Needed: Freedom of choice

Perhaps too much to ask for from a nation obsessed with religion.

03 May, 2009 16:53

Anonymous Aasem said...

@Anonymous Well, what can I say except offering my apologies for being an incomprehensible abstractionist :) Aaindah ihtiat karoon ga, seriously. My wife agrees with you :)

Waisey azrahe tazkirah arz karta chaloon key aap key choice of text per mujhe kuch hairat huee. Russell kee kitaab iss waqt to meray paas nahin magar kuch yaad parta hei key uss key taqreeban shurroo hee mein uss ney khudda kee maujoodgee key baray mein cosmological, ontological aur teleological dalail kaa radd kia hey. Mujhe Abulkalamee ka dawa to nahin, magar aap hum faqeeron ko itni riyaat to dein key hum falsafiana istilahat ka istima'al kabhi kabhi ker lya karein - unn kaa pura matlab likhey bahair. Aur han Russell kee kitab "An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth" parhna mat bhooliye gaa. Aap ko Epistemology ka matlab bhee samajh aa jaye gaa.


Sorry Zak for my ruthless use of vernaculars but I don't think your English speaking readers will be interested in this childish exchange between me and the Anonymous.

04 May, 2009 10:14

Anonymous Ghazala said...

@Zakintosh, am a complete ignoramus as far as the 'meaning' of 'Shariah', Hadith' and 'Fiqh' are concerned. However, my very limited knowledge of the Quran, in translation- which is another problem for those who may like to split hairs over which translation or 'tafeem' is acceptable, leads me to believe that ALL religions, and that includes the pan-theistic religions preach humaneness, tolerance and respect for all humans and animals (including women).
The Quran was not compiled and collected in its present form till well after the death of the Prophet, the 'Ahadth' even later and fiqh much later. As for Ijtihaad - I'm all for it, provided it pulls us out of this endless and meaningless debate and makes us a more tolerant and humane people.
Yes, the Hudood Ordinance must go as must there be freedom of and from religion (we must be the only country in the world where we have to state our religion on our passports). Human Rights is the inviolable RIGHT of any individual anywhere in this world.
That's my very simplistic view on the subject.
So, my question is what's the big hullaballoo about?

04 May, 2009 12:17

Anonymous Ghazala said...

Agree with @Bystander
Needed: A new nomenclature for this country
Needed: A new constitution, putting aside objectives resolution and two nation theory
Needed: Freedom of choice

With the addendum

04 May, 2009 12:20

Anonymous Anonymous said...

@Rogue Not related to Aasem, are we?

@Ghazala "ALL religions, and that includes the pan-theistic religions preach humaneness, tolerance and respect for all humans and animals"

Really? Not in the collection of texts I have, Madam. The Old Testament is full of cruel acts that make Guantanamo seem like the innocent Disneyland. Ditto Hinduism, with its Caste System and Suttee. Ditto Islamic teachings with their idol-breaking traditions. Please don't go all Sufi on me. That's a handful of people and also not acceptable to mainstreamers.

04 May, 2009 14:45

Blogger Bystander said...

I have no issues with religion so long as we confine it to ourselves and not attempt imposing it in any manner and on anyone. I am even against indoctrinating children from a very early age. This goes against the mainstream thinking but this is what I feel.

I dont have any problem with God and with religion that I belong to by birth but (and i have no qualms in admitting) I have huge problems with how God and religion are interpreted by my faith followers; my God is not somebody sitting up there with a cane in hand waiting for people to come up so that he could punish and torture them at the slightest of pretext; hence my concept of God and my religion may perhaps be very different from the mainstream.

I dont find similarities in the holy book and the science. I dont even attempt to compare the two. I dont seek to deepen my faith by discovering miracles and by reading how followers of other religions eulogised the religion that I belong to.

I need the freedom to say all of it and perhaps more in this country and be allowed to believe in what I believe in.

To me this is not blasphemy. I am not denouncing the concept; I am denoucing the interpretations and the monopoly of the self-proclaimed gate-keepers.

I defy all attempts to impose 'shariah' by the zealots because their sharia does not give me the freedom of choice; their level of tolerance and iman are inversely proportionate to each other. These custodians are not acceptable to me.

Can anyone guarantee this freedom to me?

04 May, 2009 15:48

Anonymous Ghazala said...

@anonymous - are you the same one that has been responding with such scathing sarcasm and sullenness because your views differ from those of others who are posting their own viewpoints however inane they may seem to you?
As I said at the beginning of my comment on this post was that I am quite an ignoramus regarding the details of what is being discussed here, but I do have certain views and do have the right to air them, however naive and 'sufi' they may sound.
The violence in the history all religions is all about power politics. It is not the essence of any religion.

Any attempts to curb freedoms, including the freedom to write or say what you truly believe are zealotry.
Just a thought- would we all be having the same discussion on Shar'iah with the same vehemence, if an accident of birth had not brought us into this world in muslim families?

05 May, 2009 08:00

Anonymous Anonymous said...


I have no idea what prompted your angry response, Madam. I gave three distinct examples from three religions, including two from from within holy books. You say violence "is not the essence of any religion."

I said nothing about your views being inane or naive.

I did not state that you should not comment, so don't know where the bit about curbing freedoms came from.

Why did you assume I am a Muslim? Is this some kind of majority chauvinism at work? To clarify, I am not - but I am a Pakistani living working overseas, hoping to come back and settle in my homeland despite advice from my wife. The proposed move to Shariah will affect us all, so I am genuinely interested in this and await Aasem sahib's input. I hope he will keep my request in mind where possible for him. Or provide links to explanations of the more difficult phrases.

I don't see what's wrong with a bit of sarcasm, anyway.

05 May, 2009 09:21

Anonymous Anonymous said...

@ Aasem

Bhaisaab ap ki Urdu to bilkool sir say guzar gai. Translator ki madad darkar hai.

05 May, 2009 09:29

Blogger Zakintosh said...

While not focused upon this issue, since it is a Seerat-un-Nabi, I would recommend Z A Kirmani's 'The Last Messenger'. It will help clarify some of the terms and sources, especially since Shariah is now being equated (albeit vaguely) by some to Vahy - a move that, in terms of interpretation, could have tremendous implications on the laws framed.

05 May, 2009 14:20

Anonymous Aasem said...

@Zakintosh My thoughts@Anonymous
The proposed move to Shariah will affect us all...I agree with you, Sir; rather, I will go one step further by contending that the proposed move to Sharia'h will effect us negatively - muslims and non-muslims alike. However, whether right or wrong, the state has now a nomenclature (as already mentioned by Zakintosh) which is not likely to be changed in near future. In these circumstances, the only possibility left is to bring the religion into public debate for transforming the religious vocabulary of the present socio-political discourse.

I hope I am accessible this time. accessible like a lexicon :)

05 May, 2009 15:00

Blogger Zakintosh said...

Those - (like The Same Anonymous Who Addressed Aasem) who'd rather know what Aasem covers in his My Thoughts post before venturing into deeper waters, here's a Wordle :-)

08 May, 2009 01:31

Blogger Vic said...

Would it be too much to expect that the current strife may result in a reactionary step back from extremism of all kinds?

13 May, 2009 16:46

Blogger Magnetic Crack Detector said...

A new constitution, putting aside objectives resolution and two nation theory.
NDT Machine

06 May, 2013 14:55


Post a Comment

<< Home