Are Secularism and Islam Incompatible?

Dear Manto Bhai

Are you trying to tell us that you in fact did not have a point and you were merely responding to the criticism of the article pointlessly?

Dear Islamist loser 368,

Are you really this dense, or do you have a serious problem with integrity.

I was not making a point... you were. I was merely responding to a criticism of the article`s name and intent... not its ultimate object.

-YLH

But You Secularist Fascist, that was exactly what I was doing - trying to support a point that I was trying to make.

Mantolives,

Would like your opinion on AlephNull`s post #316. Especially the part about the foundation of secularism being a philosophical framework that is ``at a deep and fundamental level, a mortal enemy of the ‘revealed’ ‘divine’ religions`` . Seems like a resounding No to the question at the title of your article.

By the way, I think #316 is by far the best post in this thread. I agree with everything in it (except the prediction) .

This is a very fast moving thread. I have not read all comments but I commend those who have taken stand for the reformation of practice in Islam.
The most efficient way to evolve any religious practice is to shift the emphasis from unhelpful practices to fair and positive practices. It is never achieved by trying a wholesale denunciation of the state of practice.
The important difference, to the detriment of Muslim populaces, between Islam and almost all other religion has been the aggresive stance of Masjid. There are decent Muslims as there are Hindus and Christians.
Due to the West`s vested interest in keeping the general population backward and ineffective against the tyrannical Muslim rulers the mellowing of Islam has been prevented. It is alot easier to exploit the resources of West Asia and North Africa by manipulating a few rulers than evolving a good for all policy in the Muslim countries. Now the total situation is not the responsibility of the West so there is no point in shifting blame on them. But the scientific enlightenment in aforementioned regions was not spread and supported by the West`s powerful nations.
Another example of this selfishness is analogous treatment of India vis a vis China. It is much easier to manipulate the so-called communist government of China than the painful democratic set up of India. American and British companies much rather make quick bucks than worry about the improvement of the lot of people in nations they trade with.

Feroz,
Further to my #343 and your hope stemming from GB history:

Earlier, I wrote ``[The state should be oblivious to religion] becuase the very (and unforunate) nature of religions render them incompatiable, and seeking to equivalize them in the eyes of the law is a small step from recognizing them as legitimate law-sources, among other problems such as legislating for conflicting principles in two or more religions.``

Let`s illustrate with an hypothesis: What if cows were sacred in Islam, and their slaughter for religiously mandated upon Christians/Hindus. Do you think, given the `tolerance` principle, a secular Pakistani law would realistically enable legislation allowing the latter group/s to practice their religion in this case? How would it legislate to the satisfaction of both parties?

I think the state`s role should be to just quash any possibility of actual violence resulting from inevitable doctrinal comflicts between religions or, importantly for Pakistan, between sects of the same religion.

rgds,
PM

re Urstruly 354
``By giving the axample of Algeria you are implying that secularists believe in democratic values as long as they are winning and when they feel they are losing unleash Ata Turk on the winning opponents. ``

You and I have had this argument before and you are purposely trying to obfuscate the issue. My argument stands as before: Secularists or pluralists have to be tolerant of everybody in the system EXCEPT THOSE WHO OPENLY ADVOCATE THE DESTRUCTION OF THE SYSTEM. This latter category includes Nazis, Communists, Islamists and the like. The biggest mistake secular pluralist democrats make is assuming that once co-opted into the system thru elections, such extremists will play by the rules. As Germany, the USSR and Iran showed, such elements do NOT play by the rule but rather use democracy to end it. In other words, the one man, one vote, one time formula. That cannot be allowed. Ataturk knew it and the Algerian leadership knew it. Generally those who advocate communism or shariah law cannot be counted as honest players.

hamidm #347 the idea of starting a religious cult is certainly worthy of consideration. for example, as founders, you and i would have first pick at all the women who would no doubt coming running to our welcoming arms. of course the respective mrs. may need to be convinced why this is a sacrifice we must pay for the greater good.

but...on second thoughts, maybe not. i am just happy to send naqshbandi flaming to the ground every time he pops his head on chowk by giving him a dose of his own medicine by announcing that he cannot be a muslim because he worships men and not God.

more seriously, we dont even need to bother with the zillion cults, sects, legal traditions and what not in islam. none of these dares to directly challenge the quran. they ignore it no doubt, but when confronted with their nonsense vs. the quran, i have always seen them back down (not just in chowk, but back in pakistan as well).

Dear Urstruly Bhai...

My quote was in response to a claim about my article in the interacts of the same article. I was not quoting it as an authoritative reference but just as a defence of the article itself...
the context is revealing :


[Indian #341

``As a matter of fact the title of your article is a testimony of that. How do you think the minorities in Pakistan feel when the see such things. I have absolutely no personal grudges against you or your ideals. Just stating the fact. ``]


Do I need to quote the context of your quotation?

Why do you insist of having a can of whoopass opened on you?

-YLH

Dear Mantolives Bhai

Why my point that I rose thru my article is esoteric while that you rose thru your article was not. What is the criterion of such judgement?

Dear Islamist thug aka Urstruly,

My quoting of this article was in direct reference/response to `Indian`s` comment (341) about the nature of my article... How is that similar to you quoting your article to make an esoteric point.

Dude you have some issues with that thing called integrity... Like I said you would fit right in with the judges of our judiciary... especially that fella... whats his name Qayyum?

-YLH

Dear Harimau,

With all due respect... my father is an Ahmadi... so I can speak with some authority on the matter. I don`t see any real signs of `reformation` amongst the Ahmadis... for all practical purposes they are Hanafi Sunnis by faith who believe in fiqh of Abu Hanifa dogmatically. The only difference between them and the `mainstream` is that they have their own interpretation of the word `Khatim`. Infact I would go so far as to say, that sometimes their zeal is such that their women are not allowed to leave the house without a Burqah... other than the fact that my mother is a shiite... this is one of the many reasons I am not an Ahmadi... The Ahmadi-Islam is highly restrictive, dogmatic and puritan.

On the other hand what Hamidm has suggested to Tahmed has already happened... the `Koranic` sect was founded by Allama Pervez in Lahore in the early 20th century... it still has some loyal followers, including I might add my wife to be. Talk about pluralism in my own family. To my knowledge the `Pervaizis` haven`t been persecuted yet.


PM,

Yaar... jews nay tumhara kiya bigara hai?

-YLH

aleph #316,

........ thank you!........ now i can heave a sigh of relief and rest easy.......... your post has been a source of great comfort to this tortured soul.............

``What is true of Christianity is true, even more, of Islam, another ‘revealed’ ‘divine’ religion. Unlike Christianity, Islam does not seem to possess scriptural crutches or historical precedents for a dignified fallback where it cedes authority in temporal matters. Its inevitable defeat will be more humiliating than that suffered by Christianity. Secularism cannot coexist with Islam in its present state. What has happened to the Church is the complete emasculation of its political, intellectual and moral authority. When the same surgical reduction happens to Islam, it will be even more complete and enfeebling. Those who take Islam seriously understand this perfectly well, though their arguments against secularism are typically disingenuous in the extreme, as this thread demonstrates.``

........now, if i could only get the mother-daughter axis of evil to stop starving themselves on fridays because it is ramadhan, i should be home free .......... for a man who can`t even maintain a secular household, i do talk big, don`t i??.......... but i am working on it and there is hope for my younger one who, at the age of six, asked, ``how come we don`t have elections for god?``

Ref PunjabiZulu #333

[AlephNull

Please consider submitting articles for the main page of this website, not just responses and individual posts.]

A write-up on a visit to Mississauga is what the Chowkies want! We just had one on that mysterious and hard-to-visit city of Toronto.

Ref hamidm2 #347

[tahmed,

........maybe you should also declare irreconciable differences with imam abu hanifa, shaafi, hambali, maaliki, ghazali, khomeni, maudoodi and everyone else who did not talk directly to god or gabriel and then go out and form this koranic sect .............. you never know it might work ........... ]

You think you are cleverer than Prophet Muhammad? You think you are cleverer than Allah?

Together, they figured out this thing called katam-e-Nabuwwat just to foil people like you who think thay can put one past Prophet Muhammad. A man from Qadian tried just what you suggested and look at what is happening to his followers.

7th century Arabs did have some analytical skills!

``As the old saying goes: `Your liberty ends, where my nose starts`... ``
This is the criterion for tolerance of any religion within a secular state.

hmmm... I suppose...

But what happens when we inlcude the Jews? Wouldn`t application of this principle deny all others their liberities? :)

aur, bhai... eeman bhi rakh sakte. I actually consider myself quite relgious, in my own way.