Dear Professor Imran Khan

These days, a couple of experts in Political Philosophy are lecturing people of Pakistan about what "True Democracy" means by citing, according to them, the fundamentals of "True Democracy". The principles they keep on repeating have little or nothing to do with the idea that is democracy. Those principles are about good governance and the rule of law; none of which requires "true democracy" as a prerequisite.

I am going to ignore Alama Tahir-ul-Qadri in his quest for his dream system. He is too smart for the likes of Pakistani people. I am going to focus on Professor Imran Khan, ignorant of history (I can prove that) and ignorant of the dynamics of polling day (I can prove that too) who keeps claiming to know EVERYTHING (he said, "yeh police walay bhi Tehreek-e-Insaaf ke saath hain" before he accused the same policemen of murdering people whose dead-bodies are yet to be found) and who keeps telling people of Pakistan that he knows what "True Democracy" means  (citing Scandinavian countries.)

Democracy, as an idea, embodies some very fundamental tenants. One of them is, "the will of the people would be the supreme law." That one rule means that a true democracy HAS to be Secular. When a state adopts a faith, it disenfranchises a large number of the populace. When the constitution of a country says, "Sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone, and the authority to be exercised by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust;", that's not true democracy Doctor Imran Khan. That is not a democracy being practiced in Scandinavia sir. Abul A'la Maududi was smarter than you.  He had an intellect you can not even  dream of achieving and he knew what "True Democracy" meant and he never wished for that. Maududi wished for "Islamic Democracy". 

Come on Imran bhai, tell your followers what you want. "Islamic democracy" or Scandinavian democracy? Also, please tell them that there are no Anti-Blasphemy Laws in Scandinavia (remember those cartoons? yes.). Or, tell them what your version of democracy is, since Jamaat Islami is your coalition partner in KPK, and see how many face-painted youngsters are willing to follow you into a Maududi-designed decmocracy,  

Dear Paksitani Liberals

Congratulations! Another voice has been silenced. Shahbaz Bhatti was killed because, unlike most of you guys, he spoke up and now that he is dead, his voice has joined your deafening silence.  He died because most of you stayed silent when Salman Taseer was speaking up, you remained silent when Taseer was killed and most importantly, you chose to remain silent when Taseer's murder was being celebrated in the streets of Pakistan. That was the time when you should have been shouting at the top of your lungs. But you remained silent. And they killed Shahbaz Bhatti. And I am sure your silence will prevail.

Some of the liberals who did speak up and continue to speak are not at the mercy of the crazed fanatics (and please don’t tell me that they are being funded by USA or UK. You know and I know that it’s not the funding that’s doing the killing. It’s the lethal ideology that is doing it. Do you mean to tell me that America funded the people who were distributing sweets in the streets after Salman Taseer was killed?), the ones who still choose to speak are really at your mercy and part of their blood, when it is spilled, will be on your own hands.

Almost all of you know that the blasphemy laws have no place in a modern democracy and yet none of you has said that so far to the best of my knowledge. Some of you have just talked about how it is ‘misused’ and ‘abused’ when in the hearts of your heart, you know that the law shouldn’t even be used in this day and age. It shouldn't be in the books of law, period. You chose to mince words and skirt the issue when the need was to speak clearly and unambiguously. If no one says what needs to be said, the others can’t agree. How can one support the unspoken?

I have no reservations about the other side. They are not silent like you. They have their cards right on the table faces up. We know what they want. It’s you who worry me. You  want to play your cards close to your chest so the rest of the world doesn’t even know what are you holding.  Well, guess what, the game in Pakistan is almost over. You can take your cards and shove them.

Hypocrisy; that’s what killed Salman Taseer and that’s what killed Shahbaz Bhatti. It killed them by not trying to save them. By not joining them saying, “yes, we agree with them!” and telling the fanatics that just by silencing some voices, the message will not die.

So stay silent my friends. But if you think that your hypocritical silence will be enough to save your own necks, you are sadly mistaken. When all the voices are silenced, they will come for you. The irony is that there will be no one left to speak for you.

Charles Darwin's Silence

Writing my previous post (The Myth of Arrogant Atheist) reminded me of an incident that I wanted to talk about but never got around it. I will take this opportunity lest it slips my mind again.

Some time back, I was in Toronto attending a Darwin Day gathering. A very dear friend of mine and I were speaking at the occasion. My topic was why believers feel so antagonized by Charles Darwin’s theory and my friends was talking about Darwin's life. Prior to that gathering, he and I had been talking about, for some time, about my rather militant manner in discussing ideas and ideologies. He had reprimanded me several times for focusing on winning arguments instead of winning hearts (and I plead guilty).  During his talk, my friend mentioned Darwin’s loving relationship with his wife Emma who was a devout and practicing Christian. He also mentioned how Darwin let his wife editorialize his books so that they didn’t offend believers.

After his talk, someone from the audience asked him why Darwin never professed atheism and why was it that he let his wife modify his work. That is a very frequent question and it is worth wondering why a person whose work is responsible for making more atheists than anyone else in the history of human kind and who made it possible for atheists to become “fulfilled atheists”, in the words of Richard Dawkins, never publicly renounced his own faith.

My friend, uncharacteristically for him, thundered that because Darwin was not among the people who don’t give a damn about other peoples’ feelings. That made me smile because I had a hunch that my friend’s answer had something to do with my presence there. The hunch was proven next day when I received a very endearing and affectionate note from him explaining the causes of his spontaneous outburst.

Anyways, what I wanted to say to him that day, but didn’t because I didn’t want the event to become an argument, is that it may very well be the case that Darwin was protective of his wife’s religious feelings but that is just speculation (as far as I know). I have always felt that Darwin’s silence about his own faith can be because of something else (which is also a speculation) and that something else has a little bit of explaining to do. (This point onward I am borrowing heavily from the research done by Christopher Hitchens on this very subject).

We are one decade deep into 21^st century and in a day and age when humans are looking at Mars to set feet on. Even in these modern times, being an atheist is a kiss of death on many levels. In many parts of USA, being an atheist is worse than being black (or even being a Muslim, no kidding!). Once you profess atheism, you have to kiss any ambitions you might have of holding a public office goodbye because a known gay person can win (and have won) elections but a professed atheist can’t even think of doing that. (The only direct physical threat I have personally received didn’t come from a frothing at mouth Muslim fundamentalist. It came from a redneck in Georgia who, after knowing that I didn’t believe in god, told me to be careful and try not to be in his presence when he has his gun on him.) To my knowledge, there is not a single atheist (or even agnostic) in the US House of Representatives or US Senate although atheists constitute a sizable number among US population. This is in 21^st century where the church doesn’t have direct political power. Think about the times it did.

In 18^th century, when David Hume wanted to opine on religion, he had to present his views in a fictional dialog in which he himself wasn’t a participant. A century before him, Baruch Spinoza was excommunicated just for questioning the immortality of soul. Galileo faced death for making a genuine scientific discovery that contradicted church’s official position (and the Vatican only recently apologized for that). Thomas Paine whose “Age of Reason” was the first full frontal attack on Old and New Testaments and organized religion refused to accept the label of “atheist”.

In the times when Benjamin Franklin invented lightening rod, the lightening bolt was believed to be a direct act of god. When he introduced his invention to the general public, he was obviously apprehensive about people claiming him to be competing with god so following is what he wrote in the introduction of lightening rod.

“It has pleased God in his Goodness to Mankind, at length to discover to them the Means of Securing their Habitations and other Buildings from Mischief by Thunder and Lightening.”

So, he, in a nutshell had to give god the credit of his invention (and the inclusion of the words “at length” makes me smile every time I read the sentence and I am sure Benjamin was smiling too when he wrote them. If those two words were not there, one could mistake Benjamin Franklin to be a devout Christian. I am happy that he included those two words in sort of a wink to the future generations.)

Darwin’s era was only a slightly after Benjamin Franklin’s. If introduction of lightening rod was such a risky adventure, one can only imagine how dangerous was the introduction of Darwin’s theory; a theory that shook the very ground on which religion stands; that we, the humans, are a special creation of a designer. Humans could now understand the diversity of life without invoking a designer. Benjamin Franklin couldn’t publicly claim to defeat the god and here was Charles Darwin, with one of the biggest, if not the biggest, discoveries of human history in his hands. He was not just talking about defeating god. He was about to make god irrelevant as far as the diversity of life on Earth was concerned. This could ruin Darwin’s personal and professional life utterly but more importantly; this could ruin his work based on years of study and hard work.

No wonder Darwin was apprehensive of his work being rejected without review just based on the ideological repercussions. Maybe that is why, printed on the cover of the first edition of “The Origin of Species”, was Frances Bacon’s suggestion that one should not only study god’s words but also god’s “works”. I am quite certain that Darwin was on pins and needles in the first few weeks (or maybe months) of the publication of “The Origin of Species”. The subsequent editions did not have that inscription of studying god’s work.

It was his latter book, “The Descent of Man” that actually created significant ripples and this was the book Emma reportedly editorialized. But even after her editing, you can see Darwin being much more outspoken than his first book and I completely understand that. For a scientist, the most important thing is the propagation of his work because science, truly, is a team sport.  If a work isn’t communicated to the other scientists, it’s wasted work. Once the core of his theory was out, Darwin took more liberty with his ideas in his subsequent work and you see the supposed influence of Emma decreasing gradually.

So, my friend may very well be right that Darwin didn't publicly admit the loss of his faith (which he did admit in personal correspondence and his autobiography which wasn’t meant to be published) protecting his wife’s feelings. But I suspect that the real cause was the concerns for his own safety and the preservation of his work.

Rafi

Richard Dawkins welcomes the pope to UK - Dawkins style