Blasphemy Law of Pakistan

Blasphemy means irreverence towards God, religious people, religious books and other religious things. Most of the religions have also some punishments for blasphemy. These punishments are assigned in blasphemy laws. Different religions have different blasphemy laws. In the Old Testament of the Holy Bible, which is the authority for both the Jews and the Christians, it is stated as “And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: (Book of Leviticus 24:16). Similarly in Manusmriti, the Law book of Hindus, it is stated “If a man born of a lower class intentionally bothers a priest, the king should punish him physically with various forms of corporal and capital punishment that make men shudder.” (Manusmriti 9:248). In Islam, the law is stated in the Holy Quran as ““The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;” (Surah Al-Maidah 5:33).

     Despite of these religious laws for blasphemy, different muslim countries have different blasphemy laws. Some countries have made amendments in the blasphemy laws. Among these countries, one is Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Although Pakistan is a muslim majority state, the blasphemy law of Pakistan is different from other Islamic countries. Pakistan has blasphemy laws in constitution comprises on the articles 295-B, 295-C, 298-A, 298-B and 298-C. In article 295-B, it is mentioned “Whoever willfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Quran or of an extract there from or uses it in any derogatory manner or for any unlawful purpose shall be punishable with imprisonment for life”. Article 295-C states that “ Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment of life and shall also be liable to fine.”  . Article 298-A states that anyone who passes any offensive remarks about companions of Holy Prophet (PBUH), about wives or member of family of Holy Prophet (PBUH) should be punished with three years punishment, or should be fined or imposed both. The other two articles 298-B and 298-C are some specific groups like Ahmadis and Qadyanies. (Pakistan Penal Code)

     In 1927, the British Government said that any deliberate and malicious act intended to infuriate religious feelings of any religious group by insulting its religious belief will be mentioned as crime act. The maximum punishment for breaking this law was 3 year imprisonment. In 1984, Ahmadies, a minority sect were banned from calling themselves muslims. In 1986, death penalty was introduced for those who pass any derogatory remarks against Muhammad (PBUH) and this amendment made Blasphemy Law of Pakistan the harshest in the world. In 1992, resolution was passed in parliament for the death penalty in blasphemy law. (PKPolitics Discuss Forum)

     Pakistan is an Islamic state and it represents Islam. Islam is the religion of peace. As Allah Almighty says in the Holy Quran “You who believe! Enter peace (Islam) totally. Do not follow in the footsteps of satan. He is an outright enemy to you.” (Surat al-Baqara). The blasphemy laws of Pakistan consist of six sections but the main concern are the two sections, 295-B and 295-C, because these are the laws with the strictest punishments of death and life imprisonment.  Actually the blasphemy laws were made to protect Islam from any type of desecration and for the betterment of Pakistan, but it has been largely misused since 1986. Many people including important politicians and religious people have talked about the matter as the blasphemy laws should be revised or not. Although many people argue that any amendment in blasphemy laws will encourage unislamic practices in the country, these laws should be revised as they are poorly defined and thus it has become the weapon of hatred used by muslims against other muslims and minorities to intimidate and harass. The purpose of the amendment is not to abolish the law which is basically the perception of the religious people but to make the law in such a way that the frequent abuse of law should be avoided and to find a way forward for our society so that the persecution of the minorities and the innocent Muslims in the name of this law should be stopped.

     Many critics say that amendments in blasphemy laws of Pakistan will not be tolerated. It is because they say that this encourage unislamic practices in the country. But the question arises have these unislamic practices decreased after the implementation of these new laws? The answer will be negative. It is because if we go through the statistical data of cases reported of blasphemy before the introduction of death penalty and life imprisonment, there is a great increase in the number of cases reported. Before 1986, when there was blasphemy law in Pakistan which was made by British Government, there were only 13 cases of blasphemy reported in the Pakistani courts. But after 1986, the year of introduction of death penalty in blasphemy laws, this number have reached 647.( Express Tribune) Why this number has increased in such a large proportion? Despite that people should be frighten of these tough laws and should be careful about these things, the number of blasphemy cases have increased. So the critics’ argument is not valid. Firstly it is that these laws are used in our country sentimentally not judicially. People when just only hear that somebody has passed derogatory remarks about our Holy Prophet (PBUH) or about Quran Majeed, they do not think anything about whether one has really said or done malicious things about Muhammad (PBUH) or Holy Quran and they just take harsh steps against those individuals.

     

             The people do love Muhammad (PBUH) and the Holy Quran, and thus mad in love every one want to become Ghazi Illmudin Shaheed, and in the struggle of becoming Ghazi Illmudin, both innocents and criminals are pissed off.  Ghazi Illmudin was a Pakistani muslim who killed Indian writer Raj Pal in 1929 for publishing a book “ Rangeela Rasool” which contained derogatory remarks about Muhammad (PBUH). When Ghazi killed him, he was declared hero by muslims and even by personalities like Quaid-e-Azam and Allama Iqbal.( Siasat.com) People go in sentiments and do not go for logical. Recently, Punjab governor Salman Taseer was killed by his own guard Mamtaz Qadri on Jan 4, 2011. He only talked about that the law need amendments because it is largely misused. Although, he himself did not pass any type of offensive remarks about Muhammad (SAW), he was killed because he said that the blasphemy laws are misused and should altered. Now this approach is wrong. He was right and the law is misused in the country. But that does not mean that Islam is so harsh that the one who only talk about the law should also be killed. And the interesting part is that millions of people represented Mamtaz Qadri as a hero. On Jan 4 2012, people were ready to give Rs 100 million for his gun and named it as “Hole Gun”. People threw flowers on him and lawyers were fighting with each other to fight his case without taking a penny from him.(Express Tribune) In the same way, minister for minorities Shahbaz Bhatti, a non-muslim minister was also killed in 2011. He also spoke for the same thing about blasphemy law. After the execution of Shahbaz Bhatti, the minorities really felt themselves unsafe in Pakistan.(Express Tribune)

     

            Mainly the problem is not with blasphemy laws; the problem is with its judgment. How should it be investigated whether someone has really broken these blasphemy laws? This is the place which needs a lot of attention. Because without proper investigation; both innocents and criminals are pissed out. Sometimes criminals are not punished even he would have broke the law and sometimes innocents are punished who do not even know about blasphemy.

     

            Country is already on a fragile turn and this violence would really push it over the edge if this is not controlled.  The blasphemy laws needs to be reconsidered. The punishments that are given should be properly investigated and made with proof. Vague terms in the laws have caused these laws to be used for purposes other than their intended use. The long sentences in the laws give the leeway so that these laws can be used for other uses. The long sentence’s meanings can be changed to suite one’s purposes. These laws should be revised in the way so that the concept for justice is made clear. For example, these words have been used by people for their own purposes and to convict people in their innocence, to take revenge and for other purposes. The material evidence in these cases was not enough but the cases were won by the use of these sentences. This is against the clause that one is innocent until proven guilty.

     

                 The claims of the Pakistani officials which state that none of the prisoners or other people has died under these laws are also wrong. They fail to take in account the scores of people who are accused unfairly under these laws and then executed unofficially. Also, the killing of minorities who are accused is not also recorded by these officials. The wordings of these laws have been used to carry out injustices and have been used for purposes other than their original purpose.       The real time when these laws would be considered is when a famous personality and specially those who are against the revision of these laws are accused under this law and then the wording of these laws would be brought under the attention of the parliament. It is not far away these wordings start being used in sectarian violence, when a shia would yell “blasphemy” against a sunni and a deobandi would use it against a berelvi. So this law actually becomes the source sectarianism as well.

     

                 Since 1986, Pakistan authorities have charged 647 people under offenses of blasphemy law. There are thousands of cases who have not been registered which were not reported in the court but are rather deal by police or by local people. The court or anyone cannot even ask about that why the law is taken by police or by other civilians in their own hands. If someone asks that it is the simplest reply that Islam also allows that anyone who breaks blasphemy law should be executed. While the law under Islam is that if someone is caught under offenses of blasphemy law should be tackled by the government or state. (Justice, Huminity, Self Esteem)

     

               The second problem is that the criminal intent is not taken in account. The judge or others jury members do not find out why some individual has passed derogatory remarks about Holy Prophet (PBUH) or defiled The Holy Quran? Due to this reason as well the law is misused. Recently, Asia Noreen, a Pakistani Christian woman was accused for passing offensive remarks about Hazrat Mohammad (PBUH) on June 2009. She was brought to the court of Sheikhupura. Later on judge Muhammad Naveed Iqbal sentenced her to death by hanging and charged her fine of $1100 additionally. This news spread in the whole world like fire in the jungle, and this was because if she would have died, she would have become the first women in Pakistan to be killed lawfully for blasphemy. The case was later on sent to Lahore high court. (DAWN)

     

                Asia has spent one and half years in the jail and still the case is not finalized. When the investigation went forward, this result came in front that she did abusive language against Holy Prophet (PBUH) but after accidents. The story was that Asia worked at a farm hand with other muslim women. She then went to drink water from the pot belonging to muslim women. When she touched that, the other women started to abuse her and that you are “napak” means unclean, and why have you touched our equipment? They started to abuse her and later on the mater went on to such offensive level that she said offensive things about Holy Prophet (SAW). “Did she blaspheme Muhammad (SAW)?” If this was the mater, one cannot punish her because the criminal intent is not to heart the feeling of the muslims or to defame Holy Prophet (SAW), but this offense is done in sentimental way.  It looks like that it was just a sentimental debate about each others religion and such debates are actually common. Whatever the situation was, the law is executed in an improper and an unjust way over the powerless people of the society and also hinders the freedom of speech in the society which is the basic right of an individual.

     

                   Under this scenario a large agreement was there that there are some problems with the applicability of the law. Therefore the law needs some amendments so that it can bring culprits under the prosecution and also to keep the balance of tolerance and freedom in the society intact.For this purpose on 30^th November 2010 Jinnah institute arranged a seminar where the members of civil society, religious scholars, lawyers, NGO representatives and the Minister for Minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti, gathered to discuss the amendments to the Blasphemy Laws in light of the recent case of Aasia Bibi and the blatant abuse of the legislation to persecute minorities. The whole purpose was to make the law in such a way that it should provide justice and protection to the people but not the persecution of the minorities. In this seminar a bill was submitted by Sherry Rehman, former federal minister, and President Jinnah Institute. The Bill seeks to amend the Blasphemy Laws, sections 295A-C and 298-A of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCrP) as amended under General Zia. It is intended, that the Bill will ensure that all citizens of Pakistan have an equal right to constitutional protection and that miscarriages of justice in the name of Blasphemy are avoided at all costs. (Jinnah Institute)

 Sherry Rehman, president of Jinnah Institute, stated in the conference regarding blasphemy laws:

“The law currently stands the definition of the term blasphemy is vague, yet it carries a mandatory death sentence under section 295C. The Amendment to the Blasphemy Laws Act 2010 will not only rationalize the punishments prescribed for offences relating to religion provided under section 295-C and 298-A of the Pakistan Penal Code but ensure that the concept of criminal intent is taken into account when charging an individual with this offence. Other amendments include new sections (198E and 203A) to ensure that charges brought frivolously under the Blasphemy Laws will be punished. Similarly, advocating religious hatred will be penalized. Cases brought under these sections will be heard in the High Court to ensure more public scrutiny” (Let Us Build Pakistan)

                   Ali Dayan Hasan (Human Rights Watch and Board of Advisors Jinnah Institute) compared the ongoing persecution of minorities under the Blasphemy Laws to apartheid in South Africa. Dr Anis Haroon (Chair NCSW) also spoke in detail about this mater. Anis Haroon said that “We live in such an intolerant culture where mosques take over the role of the judiciary…any laws which take away the rights of any culture should be repealed.” (Let Us Build Pakistan) Asia’s case is an evident example of how innocent and powerless people can be unjustly charged and sentenced to death under the unfair execution of these laws. The important thing to note in this seminar was that all parts of the society were represented in it. In it civil society representatives, NGO’s representatives, minorities’ representatives, lawmakers and most importantly religious scholars were also present and they all agreed about the vagueness of the law and they also agreed that this law need to be amended.

     

                    The amendments in the judgment of the blasphemy laws should be done. All cases of blasphemy law under section 295-B and 295-C should be brought to high courts rather then Session Courts because in Session Courts the lawyers and jury members may have pressure from mobs.   In High Courts, there will be no such cases and further more cases will be judged more thoroughly. Moreover High Courts are always under a higher degree of scrutiny.

     

              It is the need of the day that Pakistan needs a new way to judge these laws to put off religious motivated discrimination. The new way of judgment of laws will be very different from that of present ones and will help in defending religious minorities equally with Muslims. Pakistan is amongst those countries which prohibit brutal and demeaning and unjustified punishments. Now it is the time we should honor the commitments of the Pakistan and stand up to stop radical purveyors’ f hate. As Pakistan is made In the name of Islam so we should respect and follow the laws of Islam but in the proper way. By proper use of laws we can tell to the world that Islam is the religion of peace and should show the real face of Islam to the World. 

Works Cited

 . "Blasphemy laws in Pakistan ." Offenses relating to religion: Pakistan Penal code . N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Jan 2012. <http://rationalistinternational.net/Shaikh/blasphemy_laws_in_pakistan.htm>.

. "Blasphemy Law in Quran and Sunnah and Ijma." Justice, Huminity, Self Esteem. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Jan 2012. <http://www.insaf.pk/Forum/tabid/53/forumid/1/tpage/1/view/topic/postid/98014/Default.aspx

. "History of Blasphemy Law in Pakistan." Discuss PKPolitics Discuss Forum. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Jan 2012. <http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/history-of-blasphemy-law-in-pakistan>.

"Jailed Christian mother Asia Bibi." DAWN. N.p., 4 Jan 2012. Web. 6 Jan 2012.   

 <http://www.dawn.com/2012/01/04/jailed-christian-mother-asia-bibi-well- 

husband.html>.    

. "Salmaan Taseer assassinated." The Express Tribune. 4 Jan 2011, n.d. Web. 6 Jan 2012. <http://tribune.com.pk/story/98988/salman-taseer-attacked-in-islamabad/>.

. "Shahbaz Bhatti assassinated." The Express Tribune. N.p., Mar 2 2011. Web. 6 Jan 2012. <http://tribune.com.pk/story/126287/shahbaz-bhatti-attacked-in-islamabad/>.

. "Sherry Rehman submits bill in National Assembly for amendment to blasphemy laws." Let Us Build Pakistan. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Jan 2012. <http://criticalppp.com/archives/31087>.

 "The current Blasphemy Law is mis-used for injustice." Jinnah Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Jan 2012. <http://jinnah-institute.org/events/196-the-current-blasphemy-law-is-mis-used-for-injustice->.

"The history of the blasphemy law." The Express Tribune. N.p., 5 jan2011. Web. 6 Jan 2012.

            <http://tribune.com.pk/story/99414/the-history-of-the-blasphemy-law/>.

The Qur’an. Translation. Muhammad Marmaduke Pickhall. New York: Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an,

            2006.Print.

. "The Story of Ghazi Ilm Din Shaheed ." Siasat. 3 jan 2011, n.d. Web. <http://www.siasat.pk/forum/showthread.php?53028-The-Story-of-Ghazi-Ilm-Din-Shaheed>. 

American and French Revolutions- Comparison

The study of human history reveals that man is greatly influenced by revolutions. Although the revolutions witnessed in the past had some effects on nations but there are some that changed the philosophies of this world completely. Among these the widely discussed are American and French revolutions. Although both the revolutions occurred in the same century and both rose against the established monarchies of that particular time, yet there were differences regarding their ideologies, type of regimes and their ultimate aftermaths.

    

          Both American and French revolution occurred in the same century. The American revolution started in 1763 and ended in 1775. In American revolution, French people helped the Americans both economically and militarily. When the French returned from America after the American revolution, they felt same situation of injustice and unfairness among the people as it was in America, which became the most prominent reason for the occurrence of French revolution. French revolution started in 1789 and ended in 1799.  There was the difference of only fourteen years between the ending of American revolution and the beginning of French revolution. Actually the occurrence of French revolution was primarily influenced by the American revolution.

     

            The rebellious nature of human beings is natural and obvious when they are oppressed and subjected to brutality.  The American and French revolutions were the result of the said nature of human beings. French revolution occurred because the local aristocrats and monarchs were very biased with the lower class. The lower class was not getting its rights. Similarly, in American revolution, the citizens were fed up of their ruling monarchs because of the biased attitude of monarchs towards them.

     

              On the contrary, both these revolutions were based on different ideologies. The French Revolution occurred because the people of France were tired of their miserable life which was due to the variation of rights by monarchs with them. The poor people of France were demanding the following three words agenda “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”, and later on these three words became the slogan of the revolutionists of France. Although the slogan of people of France comprised of three words “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” yet they mainly focused in the term “Equality”(French Revolution, an over view). As there lived three different classes of people i-e monarchs, aristocrats (middle class) and common people, this was their slogan that every class should enjoy same rights and enlightenments and should share all types of burdens. Montesquieu, the most important political philosopher of the French Revolution, in his masterpiece “L'Esprit des lois” first published in 1753 claimed that a liberal constitutional monarchy was the best system of government for a people who prized freedom, on the grounds that by dividing the sovereignty of the nation between several centres of power, it provided a permanent check on any one of them becoming despotic (Cranston).

Similarly Locus stated:

In the eighteenth century, the French bourgeoisie had become aware of the increasing disparity between its wealth and social usefulness, on the one hand, and its social prestige and opportunities on the other. It way was blocked and recognition of its worth was denied by a decaying class of parasitic, hereditary privileged, noble landowners. Its vitality was further jeopardized by a monarchy not only committed to antiquated aristocratic values, but also incapable of giving the country that firm yet benignly restrained direction under which the initiative of men of business might flourish(“A Comparison of the French Revolution and American”).

     

      Unlike French revolution, American revolution was most likely as the war of independence. The Americans wanted to get rid of the operation of British Colonial System. Unlike French revolution as it was within the country against their rulers, American revolution was against those rulers which were not inhabitant and were governing them from miles away from America. They wanted to make their own rules and regulations to live their own lives. They wanted their own government and policies to run their country. Thus there was the difference between the ideologies between people of France and people of America, because of France were fighting for their rights while the Americans were fighting for independence.

    

                     Both these revolutions also differed from each other in the regime type. In French revolution, there was monarch system which was governing the country. The king held the absolute power, and he was controlling the whole system. No local person was the part of the government. On the other hand, American revolution started because of the unrest that was found among the masses due to the British colonization. The British Colonial System was controlling the whole America. There was almost no share of the local inhabitants in the government. The British Colonial System was a foreign system, so they were treating the Americans very harshly. In this system, the whole government was controlled by British governor, who was elected by the Queen of England and in turn he was bound to follow the orders of Queen. The unjust behavior of the British governor with the American masses caused the American revolution against the British rule.

   

                 Although both American and French revolution occurred on the basis of their own distinctive ideologies, yet only American revolution achieved its respective goals. After the American revolution, the Americans fought war of independence. The Americans were now self-determining. American revolution gave birth to the democracy. They made their own laws and rules to govern their country. They made their own constitution and made their own government. Unlike the consequences of American revolution, the outcomes of French revolution were quite different. Although the French were able to abolish the system of feudalism yet they were still unable to get rid of the monarchy system. After the French revolution, France was again governed by the aristocrats and then by a dictator. So the people of France were unable to achieve their ultimate goal of liberty from monarchy system.

    

               The American and French revolution had a huge impact on the pages of history. These are the  revolutions without which our society would never have achieved the milestones which we have achieved today. A thorough and systematic study shows that American and French revolutions have some aspects in common like they occurred in the time spam of fifty years and raised against the monarchies system but they differed in ideologies, types of regimes and their aftermaths. 

Written By: Haris Khan

Case Against Religion: A Critique of “Religion Poisins Everything”

Christopher Hitchens is an Anglo American author. He is famous for his atheist views and has written on topics ranging from politics to religion. Due to his atheist views, the author remains a controversial figure among many scholars. “Religion Poisons Everything.” is an extract from the book “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything”.  This book was published on April 25^th 2007 and later on was published in the weekly magazine “Slate”. This specific article targets the academic society and is against the religious dogma surrounding the present society. The author informs the audience about the drawbacks of religion, the chaos it causes in the society, its detrimental effects and how it plagues our society, and how it is a man-made concept.

     

       Christopher Hitchens starts his article by criticizing religions and discussing four main flaws of religious faith. In the article, the writer has discussed how religion has badly affected the personal and social lives of people. He insists that science must be the base of all ethical values and he openly argues that religions make us conservative and compel us to perform such actions which readers would otherwise regret.

          Although the writer employs proper use of language and ethos to impress the audience, the writer jumps to hasty generalizations and uses illogical reasons to establish hi arguments. The offensive tone of the article leaves the believers offended and may produce doubt within the reader’s mind about the credibility of the author.

   

               The author employs ethos and logos to build on his argument. Referring to the historical practice of the Aztecs to sacrifice a human being so that the “Sun would rise”.  The author, through this, tries to strengthen his point that religion is the cause of violence and in essence, it causes discord as well as anarchy. Similarly, referring to the atheist, the author tries to use statistical figures to imply that if a survey was conducted with authenticity, incidences of “greed and violence” amongst the believers would far exceed the number of instances among disbelievers, who does not even believe in the concept of the “after life”. The author mocks the paradox of the believers, who call themselves as the “virtues” and the “all-knowing”. The author gives support of his argument when he implies that it is the view of science that he prefers over all other concepts and not the ideas or concepts that the believers of religion have, which are in discord with each other. The author tries to humor the fact that when new discoveries in science come to surface, the religious believers try to link them with their religion and tries to explain these new concepts with the help of their “contortions” and to “fit” the new insight of science through their religion. The author also tries to logic by referring to the believer’s incapability to leave the atheists alone. The author explains that the atheists are logical, living their lives with their own concepts and not infringing upon the lives of others, while believers find it very hard to accept this simple concept. He supports his argument by referring to believers planning the “destruction” of the author and his co-workers.

    

      The author employs several modes of development such as narrations, examples and descriptions. The author tries to imply a personal touch in the essay to further support his purpose. Referring to the absurdity of religion, the author explains that not even before his “boyish voice” had broken, he was convinced that religion was the fabrication of man and that it did not contribute to the society on any level, let it be social or moral. Also, the author talks about his experience of meeting several people that believed in the fabrication of religion. These people belonged to different backgrounds and had different believes to begin with. The author explains that religion poisons everything not according to him only, but to the beliefs of hundreds of people, ranging from common men , to literary scholars. Furthermore, the author describes and refers to the “bar mitzvahs” (the ceremonial celebration Jews have, when a boy turns 13) (Peter) and “Gothic Cathedrals” of the Christians. With these descriptions , the author further augments his point that he is willing to go to these ceremonies and places of the believers, that he is ready to continue his relations and daily life activities with these believers, lest they leave his beliefs and his life alone and free from their influence. The author uses exemplification when he talks about Professor Stephen and Professor Richard and their arguments about the evolution of life. The author explains that although these literary scholars have disagreements with each other, these disagreements are based on “real science” and not the fabrication of man. Each of the scientists gives support to their arguments through science which has solid proofs behind it.

     

                    The article is constructed through effective use of language, tone and style. The author implies heavy use of metaphors and sarcasm. Referring to the believers, the author tries to explain how the beliefs of these religious people fail to make any sense when they grovel before deities and pretend that they are “part of a divine plan”. The author further mocks their beliefs that they need to feel unworthiness and servility so that they then think of themselves as a part of something bigger, perhaps a divine plan. Referring to atheist as “infidels” , the author ridicules the behavior of the believers who believe that they are the only people in the world who know about the morals and ethics of life and that the “infidels” , who do not believe in religion , are somewhat of a lesser class of people in the society. Through the use of this word, the author also questions the strong impressions of the believers about the atheists. The author adds to the arguments in his essay through the use of demeaning and strong words. Referring to the atrocities committed by the believers in the name of religion, the author implies that even “brothel keepers and ethnical cleansers” would think twice about committing these atrocities. The author conveys that those who commit these atrocities are in a way even worse than the individuals who believe in deity greater than man. The author employs repetition in the essay to further strengthen his argument. The use of “We” is extensive in the essay. Through this word, the author links all the people who share his school of thought and implies that he is not alone in believing in the concept that religion poisons everything.

     

              Author talks about the distortion of ethical values by religious believe. He says that believers are less ethical than non believers. This happens due to the belief of the believers that the deity they follow is “all-knowing” and that their chosen path is the true path to follow. However, ethical values in every region of the world are different due to different social and moral backgrounds. Therefore, an action can be considered ethical by someone and unethical by another. For example, sex before marriage is considered not as abhorrent in the western society as it is in the eastern societies. Therefore, to have common ethical values, religion is necessary for the establishment of these values. Furthermore, the writer once again enforces his own school of thought on the readers by using the term “We” in place of “I”. This gives the readers the idea that the article is an opinion of many atheists and not the author alone. He cannot use “We” because not all atheists may agree with his ideas and thanking. As the arguments in the article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily of others, he should not use the term “We”. The writer also tries to convince his audience by giving references to different scientific theories and different scientists and philosophers. He uses names of great writers like William Shakespeare, Schiller, and Tolstoy. The writer says that compared to moral values presented in Holy Scriptures, the logics of these people in their masterpiece works are more convincing and effectual. This may be true as far as the beliefs of the author are concerned, but deep analysis shows that the work of these personalities was more fictitious than real and by no means can be related to any ethical values. Real life cannot be ruled with fictitious school of thought. The audience is influenced by the writer’s point of view due to combination of many literary techniques. He uses logical reasoning to support his assertions very effectively. He uses ethos and pathos to prove his points and support his claims. He explains the inhumane nature of religious beliefs by emotional support which explains the reliability of his assertions. He gives many examples and provides many names of personalities to increase his credibility. The mixture of narration, examples, rhetorical analysis, description and assumptions makes the article very appealing, interesting and fascinating. On the other hand the tone of this article is very informal and degrading. The writer uses terms like “foolish people”, “brothel-keepers” and “ethnic cleanser” while explaining the religious class. He also uses many words and phrases which are disdainful and sarcastic. Also, he mocks the religious practices of many religions and explains that atheists do not need to follow them. In response to Hitchens article, the scholar Mark D Roberts says that

“I want to take the point of Hitchens that I am deeply concerned on present conditions of world and the extent to which the ridicule and its cousins are hurting us. Even if Hitchens is right that God is not great and religion poisons everything, I would say that this tendency to be little people will not make the world a better place to live. And if those who follow him do the same, it will make matters worse”. (Christopher)

     

               The audience is usually offended by this tone of the writer because in this world there are millions of people who follow certain type of religious belief while atheists, who do not follow any type of religious belief, are comparatively low. The writer somehow achieves his purpose in making his audience realize the severity of this topic by his harsh and demeaning tone. Moreover, the tone of this article also decreases the article’s appeal. The writer conveys his message which is hate for religious beliefs by giving many examples.

     

         The author expresses his point of view in a very biased manner. He organizes the essay with many fallacies and jumps to conclusions with vague arguments. He also switches between different topic without proper use of transitions. The essay could have been improved and the audience could have been more convinced if the author had given the counter argument and then refuted it.  This would have further strengthened the audience assertion that the author is not biased and that he has researched both sides of the coin.

Written By: Haris Khan

A critique on the theories of Edward Tylor and James Frazer

            Since the era of Renaissance and the dawn of modern science, religion as cognitive, intellectual, doctrinal and dogmatic phenomenon gained prominence and many intellectualists have engaged in the debate that whether science, that accumulates knowledge based on empirical evidence and observation, or religion and magic, that holds strong belief in the supernatural powers or powers that control human destiny, is the superior source of knowledge. The science versus religion debate reached at its peak during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century when anthropology and sociology emerged as new disciplines which provided an alternative views on this debate. Moreover, many anthropologists have concerned themselves with the demarcation between science, religion and magic. For example Bronislaw Malinowski and Emile Durkheim explained religion and magic from a functionalist perspective and explicated that they both play an important role in a society; Evans Pritchard, a structural- functionalist, based on his field work in South Sudan among the Nuer people came up with his theories on religion and witchcraft; similarly Levi Strauss, Mary Douglas are among other anthropologists who engaged themselves on this subject matter. But in this paper I will thoroughly examine and critically analyze the workings of Edward Tylor and James Frazer, two Victorian anthropologists, in the light of science versus religion debate. To fully understand and grasp the relationship between the two phenomena, magic will be discussed in contrast to science and religion. The paper will look at the three evolutionary stages of human beings divided up by James Frazer that roughly correspond to the ages of magic, religion and science. The hypothesis and theories of other theorists will be brought under discussion in contrast to the theories of Tylor and Frazer.    

            

                Edward Tylor and James Frazer were two eminent Victorian, evolutionist and armchair anthropologists. Their main contribution to the field of anthropology was that they demarcated the boundaries between religion, science and magic and believed that there were three basic ways of looking at the world: that of science, that of magic and that of religion. Tylor regarded science as a dominant source of knowledge and deemed religion and magic as inferior to science. He defined religion as belief in the ‘spiritual beings’ (Tambiah, 1990). He held that the essence of primitive religion and the true natural religion was animism, a belief that every object including non human entities in this world has a soul (Strenski 2006). Animism is the foundation of all religions. Tylor held that this belief has been originated from the rational but consistent interpretations of dreams, visions, hallucinations, cataleptic states and similar phenomena which human observe and experience. As an intellectualist, he viewed that the institution of religion has been developed from the very rational thoughts and observations of the individuals when they attempted to interpret their dreams. Edward Tylor also developed the theory of ‘survival’. He asserted that when a society evolves, certain customs, processes, opinions, and rituals are retained that are unnecessary in the new society (ibid). He posited that religion is a survival, the fact that the modern religions still believe in the spiritual beings so they have been evolved from the early form of religion that is animism.   

           

             Based on the works of Edward Tylor, James Frazer made an effort to arrange the categories of science, religion and magic in developmental schemes. Frazer argued that the inception of magic precedes religion in the history of human kind and that science will inevitably dissolve its two predecessors in our time. He said that an age of magic started when the primitive people, having less knowledge of science and technologically backward, desired to control the nature by using magical spells and rites. But then the more intelligent people realized the falsity of some of the theories of magic and that most of the times their magical spells and rites did not work. They came to know there is something else, the superior beings, that is controlling the nature of universe and they need to get the attention and help of these superior beings to get their businesses functioning. The age of religion began at this time. Frazer defined religion as “propitiation and conciliation of powers superior to man which are believed to direct and control the course of nature and human life” (Tambiah 1990). The move from magic to religion involved an assumption that nature is to some extent elastic or variable, subject to deflection by a mightier power. Frazer argued that when the advancements in technology were made and with the age of Enlightenment that advocated the use of reason and individualism instead of tradition and established doctrine, the scientific knowledge became dominant and prevailed magic and religion. Science provides answers to all the events that the primitive people thought were supernatural. Thus human beings have been evolved from the age of magic to religion and at the end moved to the third stage that is the age of science, which rejects both the previous modes of thoughts.   

            

            Both Edward Tylor and James Frazer have discussed the phenomenon of magic in detail. Tylor asserted that magic was based on a general human propensity, namely the principle of “association of ideas” (Tambiah 1990). According to him, the procedures of magic were purely rational and the way magicians carried out their activities resemble to that of scientists. They knew that certain effects will be produced if particular magical spells and rites are performed. The only error, he said, the magicians made was that he or she postulated a causal connection between the things classified by resemblance and contiguity and thus he referred to magic as a ‘harmful delusion’. For example, the primitive people thought that the sun will only rise if a cock is crowed before the sun rise. So they would do magical spells and rites to make the cock crow. Through false and mistaken association, the primitive people tried to control the nature. Later, Frazer took forward Tylor’s views on the relation between magic and science and maintained that the fundamental conception of magic is identical with modern science, namely the ‘uniformity of nature’. As in nature, every event is proceeded by another in a veracious and accurate manner which shows that the nature is always uniform whatsoever happens. Similarly, the magicians believe that the same cause will always provide the same results and as long as he performs the ceremony in accordance with the rules laid down, the desired results will inevitably follow. Due to these explanations, Frazer and Tylor fused science and magic in one sphere which is profane in contrast to religion which was placed in sacred sphere. They asserted that magic is a phenomenon that is always aimed at specifics that is rainfall for crops, betterment of health; carried out by individuals and it compels the Gods or any supernatural agents to get things done. While religion is a communal phenomenon carried out a collective group of body and beseeches the Gods. Magic is a means to an end while religion ends in itself.

          

              Though Edward Tylor and James Frazer ideas and theories were highly respected and their contributions to the field of anthropology are recognized with gratitude to this day, yet some criticisms were raised against the works of these two anthropologists. Tylor and Frazer were armchair anthropologists which mean that they gathered their data through secondary sources and relied on the information and accounts of other anthropologists, missionaries and on the tales of colonialist soldiers. They had never been to the field and never had a firsthand experience of a specific culture. Moreover, Tylor’s non conformist Quaker parentage and his educational, intellectual and religious background gave him a strong aversion towards religion and his biasness is reflected in his workings. He referred to magic and other occult sciences as ‘bastard science’ and asserted that there was no truth value at all in the ‘whole monstrous farrago’ (Tambiah 1990). He linked science with reform and asserted that science is the only way to human progress.  He had a profound commitment to the science of social development. He concluded his second volume of Primitive Culture, his famous book about the minds and culture of primitive people which was published in 1871, with these words: “To the promoters of what is sound and reformers of what is faulty in modern culture, ethnography has double help to give. To impress men’s minds with a doctrine of development, will lead them….to continue the progressive work of the past ages” (ibid).

            

           James Frazer evolutionary theory that divides the human history into the age of magic, religion and science was disapproved by Bronislaw Malinowski. He argued that human history has not evolved through time but all the three phenomena coexist and are present in a society at all times. Malinowski did an extensive fieldwork among the Trobriand Islanders during the First World War. He explained that though the Trobriand society is technologically backward and science has not developed and flourished much yet science exists in its rudimentary shape here (Tambiah 1990). He backs up his argument by pointing out to the canoes built by Islanders for the purpose of fishing and other activities. He argues that the buildings of canoes mean that the people have some sort of skills and craftiness which indicates that science is not at all nonexistent in this society. Malinowski said, “If by science be understood a body of rules and conceptions, based on experiences and derived from it by logical inference, embodied in material achievements and in a fixed form tradition and carried on by some sort of social organization” then even the lowest savage has science however rudimentary (ibid). Moreover, Malinowski while rejecting the evolutionary theory argues that the primitive people did not rely merely on magic for their activities. They believed that empirical and scientific knowledge is also necessary to get things done. For example, at the time of wars other than magical spells and rituals physical strength and fighting skills were also necessary to win the wars. Furthermore, to get better crops the Trobriand Islanders made use of both their scientific knowledge and magic. Moreover, Malinowski negates the fusing of magic and science in one sphere and religion in another. He argues that magic and religion should be put together in one sphere i.e. sacred because these phenomena involve traditional acts and observances that are regarded by natives as sacred while science belongs to the profane sphere which he related to arts and crafts which were carried out on the basis of careful empirical observation of natural processes and a firm belief in nature’s regularity (ibid).  

           

             Malinowski defined religion and magic from a functionalist perspective and argued that it plays an important psychological and social function in a society while linking science to purely empirical or practical functions. He explained that every religion has two entities that is a firm belief in ‘Providence’ and ‘Immortality’. Providence means that every individual who believes in the existence of God communicates and make connection with Him for his troubles and problems because the supernatural agent is in sympathy towards man’s destiny (Tambiah 1990). Immortality deals with the question of death and the life after death whether it is reincarnation or some other form of afterlife. Malinowski argues that the belief of individuals in these aspects of religion help them to cope with their psychological stress and uncertainty. In contrast, science does not answer these essential questions and someone who only lives his life on the principles of science would find himself in complete hopelessness. Religion is a social and moral phenomenon that keeps a society cohesive and provides a light of hope to the people. Max Weber in one of his writings dispels the idea that science is the way to true being, the way to true art, the way to true nature, the way to true God, and the way to true happiness (Weber 1918). Tolstoi has quoted the value of science in these words, “Science is meaningless because it gives no answer to the only question important for us: what shall we do and how shall we live?” (ibid).

            

       The evolutionary theory put forward by James Frazer says that human history started with the age of magic followed by the age of religion and in the end that is in our time science arrived and rejected its predecessors because science gives answers for the events that people before explained with the principles of magic and religion. But if we look at the most technologically advanced and so called civilized societies like that of the United States of America, we find out that religion or the belief that some supernatural agent exists still persists in this highly secularized society. For example, with regard to the origin of human beings Americans and Europeans are exposed to a creationist account on the one hand that is God placed humans on earth and an evolutionary account on the other that is humans evolved from different kinds of living things (). Even in the primitive societies like that of Azande in South Sudan people do not only believe in the naturalistic explanation when a granary collapses on a group of men (Evans-Prichard 1937). They ask that why did the structure of granary collapse at this particular time on these particular men. They turn to supernatural phenomenon that is witchcraft for the explanations. So whether it’s primitive society or an advanced, people use both the natural and supernatural explanations to interpret the very same events.

          

            Edward Tylor and James Frazer in their comfortable armchairs collected the ethnographic material and based on those materials formulated the theories and demarcated the boundaries between magic, religion and science. They referred to science as a savior of human kind while looked down on the institutions of religion and magic and argued that they are the ‘survivals’ of our barbaric past. Throughout the history of mankind we come across that when one institution becomes powerful it marginalizes and relegates its predecessor institutions to the lower edge. During the medieval times, when the Church got powerful it marginalized magic by labeling it as a leftover from a barbaric past. Due to which the history saw a brutal massacre of about 50,000 people over the period of two centuries mostly by the religious figures in the name of witch hunts. Similarly, Islam, Judaism and other major religions of the world reject magic with contempt. With the decline in the power of Church and the rise of science as a dominant source of knowledge, the latter marginalized religion and also magic by arguing that science now explains all those events that the primitive and less technologically advanced people explained through religion and magic. In this context, we cannot blame Frazer and Tylor for their biasness towards magic and religion in their writings; they were just a part of the whole historical scenario. Moreover, it is assumed that science and religion are on the two extreme ends and those who believe in the principles of science like natural and social scientists do not usually believe in religion and vice versa. Nietzsche, an influential German philosopher remembered for his rejection of Christian values, admitted the fact that science cannot exist without the presence of some faith in the hearts of scientists. As he said,” But you will have gathered what I am driving at, namely, that it is still metaphysical faith upon which our science rests-that even we seekers after knowledge today, we godless anti metaphysicians still take our fire, too, from the flame lit by a faith that is thousands of years old, that Christian faith which was also the faith of Plato, that God is the truth, that truth is divine” (The Gay Science).   

Written By: Jawad Karim

Public and Private - Defining The Boundaries

The divide between the public and private sphere has long been a contentious issue for political theory. With relation to modern forms of democracy, a strong need for defining the boundaries for the two spheres has emerged. However, with new complexities surfacing they remain blurred. Several theorists such as Seyla Benhabib, Saba Mahmood, Jean Cohen and Will Kymlicka, have viewed this subject with varying perspectives. The divide between public and private has always been such that the distinction is made on the basis of masculinity and femininity. Household roles have always been considered fit for women, whereas the political and social activities are considered suitable for men. This has made notions of progress and rationality attached to the public sphere, and the concept of traditions and religious allegiance to fall into the private sphere. (Herzog and Braude). This paper aims to review Benahabib’s, Mahmood’s and Kymlicka’s perspective regarding the debatable topic of defining boundaries between what constitutes public and private.

It is impossible to ignore feminist scholarship when viewing the public private debate. The main aim of many schools of feminist thought remains to defy the defined roles for women in private sphere and to take their access to those fields which have always been considered public. Therefore, which arenas constitute the private and public sphere is something of immense importance to them. Benhabib talks about the L’affair du foulard or the scarf affair that sprung up in France in 1989. Three girls were banned from wearing a head scarf at the public school they attended. With the support of the ex-president of the National Federation for Muslims in France, they continued to wear the scarf and gathered supporters. This in real terms implied that they were now viewing the scarf as a political gesture and an outward manifestation of their personal identity and beliefs. In 2004, the French National Assembly banned the wearing of all religious symbols in public schools. This was felt by most as an attack mainly on the headscarf worn by Muslims. The state did not want such religious symbols to be worn by students as being propagated in the public sphere. The Supreme Court wanted the state to remain neutral. Therefore, in 1989 they issued a judgment in which they allowed the wearing of religious symbols but prohibited the propagation of any such beliefs on to others. They left the decision of defining the headscarf on to the school. (Benhabib, 184-188). This was a major weakness since this was a matter the state should have addressed directly. A contention was visible over the divide between personal liberty of wearing a headscarf that appeared to be a private matter and the neutral atmosphere a liberal and democratic state needs to maintain in the public arena.

Benhabib brings forth the concept of democratic iterations through which issues such as the scarf affair can be better dealt with. These would include the public arguments and exchange of claims through which such concepts can be contested. (Benhabib, 179). France faced the dilemma of whether boundaries of public - private should be breached in relation to maintaining a balance between the long cherished liberal values of freedom of expression and the growing pressures exerted by multiculturalism taking root. In her opinion, the state should have made use of democratic iterations to take into account the viewpoint of the girls wearing the scarf. (Benahabib, 197). It is possible that most of them felt it to be a sign of liberation from tradition and a way to come out in the public sphere and express their inner identity.

Similar to this was the German headscarf case.  When the matter went to court a substantial case could not be made in favor of respecting pluralism with allowing religious symbols to be worn by civil servants working in public space. Thus, the wearing of the headscarf was taken to be a sign of the teacher’s specific allegiance towards the religion of Islam. (Benhabib, 200-201).

Benhabib - belonging to the Kantian school of thought - suggests that the boundaries between the public private need to be expanded. In view of the conflicts arising between pluralism and upholding liberal values, Benhabib proposes that the state is justified in defining some sort of boundary between the public and private. However, it is noteworthy that even the measures of democratic iterations as suggested would take place on the framework of moral universalism. Therefore, there appears to be a chance that the discourse of moral universalism might end up undermining what may be liberation for the other.

However, Benhabib’s solution of democratic iterations is not very much in line with postmodernists such as Habermas, who feel that discussion on public issues - those that involve everyone - must not be debated upon as every perspective cannot be granted equal weight. Benhabib feels that debate regarding the conception of the good life must be brought forward into the public sphere. If this does not happen then the existing gender bias will define the universal norms that must be followed, leaving no room for difference.  Benhabib is in line with some major concerns of postmodernism as she is also of the view that through discourse an idealized form of reason can be achieved. (Canaday). However, she is skeptical of the ideals of equality and liberty in today’s democracy. This is because the very norms of equality and tolerance fail to account for difference and the rhetoric of enlightenment creates an illusion. She is a defender of difference as she argues that debate in the public sphere should not aim to achieve knowledge on the “general interest”, since this is likely to suppress differing voices.

Jean Cohen’s article on “Democracy, Difference and right of privacy” also argues for the place of difference. Infact similar to Benhabib she is of the view that a true democratic state must guarantee voice to difference. She cites the abortion issue as a matter pertinent to the issue of the public private dichotomy. According to her the right to abortion should be provided by state but whether it is used or not is  a private matter and so must be left to the individual involved. (Cohen, 207). If we consider the scarf affair in this light it is reasonable to think that defining legislation in terms of banning the headscarf is not appropriate rather it should be a matter left to the individual. The abortion issue also came to light in the changing social circumstances of women’s growing emancipation and so a need was felt for providing this right to the public to choose for themselves albeit it would be legally allowed. Similarly with today’s multicultural societies and the growing identity crisis among minorities living in foreign homelands it seems quite appropriate to allow the wearing of religious symbols such as the headscarf.

            

In her essay “The Rights of Others”, Benhabib talks about the right to hospitality. She is a follower of Kant’s conditional hospitality theory. According to Kant, anyone has the right to space in a foreign land for a temporary time as long as he or she does not become the cause of any destruction. This rests on Kant’s notion that hospitality is basically a right and not a virtue or favor that one country does to another. Every human being has equal rights over the surface of the earth and these boundaries are created by man. (Benhabib, 26-39). In contrast to this, postmodernists such as Derida feel that hospitality for foreigners should be unconditional. Such an approach, however, leads to crises such as terrorism. (Rosenfeld). What Derida is essentially proposing is that a form of care and love that exists in the private sphere usually is projected on to the public sphere. Unconditional form of care is generally found in personal relationships. However, applying that to the level of the state will not be without a cost.

In order to bring forth a perspective based on liberalism and the public private dichotomy Kymlicka’s “Multicultural Citizenship” is an insightful resource. Kymlicka talks about the conflict which arises in a liberal state when it has to balance the ideals of liberty and tolerance. A question crops up with respect to the states responsibility of protecting religious minorities and giving them freedom. What if the tenets of a minority go against the principles of liberalism? It is not clear whether liberalism cherishes individual autonomy more or tolerance. Today the Western notion of religious tolerance, for instance, is based on the concept of freedom of conscience. (Kymlicka, 158). This, however, may not be in line with some particular religious values.

             

             Kymlicka discusses the Rawlsian point of view regarding this dilemma. Rawls argues that the extent of autonomy should be limited. For instance, he feels that in the public sphere everyone must adhere to liberal ideas and values. In other words, people should be communitarians in public and must uphold the values most cherished in their society. Rawls is also of the view that not every community will be able to accept liberal principles as supreme, such as in the case of individual freedom. (Kymlicka, 158-165). In religions such as Islam, apostasy is a sin which is punishable by a death sentence. This creates a dilemma for the state since a liberal society would provide every individual with the right to choose or renounce their faith. However, a Muslim community residing in such a society would differ. Therefore, if the Western model of freedom of individual conscience is applied, then in effect we are sidelining difference and imposing the majority’s standpoint. Kymlicka feels that it is not appropriate for the state to impose liberal values on all its citizens or else it will amount to an infringement into the private life of individuals. The state’s role regarding religion should be such that the autonomy of the minorities is taken away.

                

          In this respect Kymlicka quotes the example of Wisconsin v Yoder which concerned the Amish community in America. They wanted to restrict their children’s education from the age of 16 onwards so that their knowledge about the outside world would be limited. The Supreme Court accepted the claim of the Amish although it went against the basic principle of autonomy. (Kymlicka, 160,161). Sandel - being a communitarian - also agrees with this decision of the court as according to him greater good for the society would result. This is an example when the State did not intervene in the private sphere of the individuals of a certain community and so respected the public private divide. However, the state’s success in defending its liberal conception of autonomy remains questionable. Kymlicka is quite considerate towards difference and feels that it is not appropriate to enforce liberal values through legislation. Rather, they should be popularized through reasoning. (Kymlicka, 168). Therefore, multiculturalism and difference in his point of view must be respected and minorities must be given their due space.

 From the lens of most feminist scholarship, traditional Islamic societies tend to support clear cut divides between public and private spheres - keeping women’s roles confined to the private. Saba Mahmood, in her book “The subject of Freedom”, talks about the Women’s Mosque Movement in Egypt since the 1970s in which the women initially held lessons at home and then at mosques. (Mahmood, 3-4). The mosques are generally considered male domains however this movement was a breakthrough since it transcended the definite boundaries.

            

       Saba Mahmood also considers the issue of modesty in Islam. The veil in many Islamic cultures is seen as the only rightful way of realizing modesty. However, a debate continues to exist in Islamic circles as to whether such a necessary relationship exists or not. The issue is a result of cultural norms in most cases which bring the issue of the veil into the public sphere despite it being considered a private act. Mahmood takes a radical approach as she argues that the foundations of the public private dichotomy need to be reassessed. She feels that there is no need for discourse to take place on issues such as veiling as they are matters of rights. Moreover, discourse on such issues as proposed by Benhabib and other Kantians would tend to take place on the framework of moral universalism as suggested by Kant. This in reality would lead the viewpoint of one party to overdo the “other” whereas according to Mahmood the “other’s” voice must essentially be heard.  

            

          What today’s secular and modern societies entail is a limitation on religion to the private sphere. Religion entering the public sphere is assumed to bring forth regimes such as the Taliban in Afghanistan - where certain interpretations of religious practices are forced upon the entire society leaving very little room for individual liberty. Saba Mahmood contends that the state policies of banning the wearing of headscarves, such as in France, are not justifiable considering the public private boundaries. She feels that when the state imposes such a policy, it is in effect making a private decision a matter of public concern. If religion is strictly to be an issue of the private sphere then the state’s attitude of banning religious symbols is not plausible. (Mahmood). Further adding to the injustice is the fact that the women involved in these affairs such as in France, Germany and Turkey were never heard. The weakness of the feminist normative argument is also brought forward since they fail to view the argument of those women who see the wearing of headscarf as a liberating symbol with pride attached to it.

            

         Saba Mahmood is of the view that the framework of a clear cut divide between public and private especially with regards to religion creates immense problems. The problem with this standpoint is that it leaves no space for understanding issues such as the veil with a different perspective. Either an individual is labeled as oppressed or as liberated simply with regards to her manner of dressing. This is somewhat limiting the scope defining liberation. Mahmood argues for understanding the concept of issues such as the headscarf and in defining public private boundaries with a different perspective, as it is a complex issue regarding more insight. At first sight Mahmood’s argument appears quite radical. However, considering the complexity of the issues she has addressed it seems quite reasonable to keep the issues of multiculturalism away from public debate and consider them solely a private right so as to respect difference.

            

       Overall all three authors that this paper has reviewed have considered the public private dichotomy in the context of democracy and difference in considerable depth. I have found Kymlicka’s argument to be most satisfying. He has suggested that the liberal majority in a society must sit together with the minority, not for the purpose of convincing them to adopt liberal values, but for the attainment of peaceful coexistence. He has discussed this issue not just with respect to a majority minority conflict but also with the conflicts that liberal and illiberal nations face. It is not appropriate for liberal nations to judge others, especially third world countries, along strict liberal standards. It is important for them to realize that liberalism may not be the most suitable ideology for any society - especially those third world countries which are at a different historical point and which possess a completely different culture and tradition. Therefore, it is essential to realize the existence of multiculturalism in today’s world and have an open attitude towards difference.