Are Secularism and Islam Incompatible?

Saigalph # 314

But secularists are supposed to be tolerant of all. Isn`t this the message YLH trying to convey here? But from your post one can see that you propose tolerance for some and itolerance for others; tolerance for those who agree with you and intolerance with stern hand of law for those who disagree with you. 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. YLH, help me understand what this secularist democrap is trying to tell us.

Matolives #350

I see a serious integrity issue here; you are quoting your own article. You are doing the same thing as you accuse others of.

tahmed32#346
`` yes, i condemn the killing of apostates and infidels is unacceptable, regardless of what it says in the quran. happy?``
Yes, I am happy and you are not an islamist:-)

``now let me make you happier. go back and tell me where in the quran it calls for killing of apostates?``
I do not have to do that. Even hamidm has admitted that there is no such injunction in the quran. My point was general. And that is that one need not justify one`s ethical position based on quran, bible, geeta, tohra or any other scripture. Ethics and morality are not static concepts - what is considered moral in one society may be immoral in another and may be considered immoral in the same society at another time. Of course, one should be free to choose one`s morals according to one`s religious beliefs, as long as they are compatible with the societal code enshrined in the law.

Last post was addressed to the interactor who calls himself `Indian` and who posted #341

For interactors like the who calls himself `Indian`

Here is the last line of my article :

``Secularism with or without the justification of Islam is the requirement of the time. Ultimately the idea that faith is a personal matter, and that the state has no right to encroach in such a personal sphere will prevail over all ideas of theocracy, oppression and religion’s organized role in the state.``


As for your logic about minorities being scared of some Pakistanis speaking of their faith... should we apply your logic to Gandhi also... and his spiritualism? Or will that be too uncomfortable? Clearly you`ve never ever tried to read the Friday Times, Daily Times, or Dawn... Please point out how many articles in Friday Times, today`s Daily Times, or today`s Dawn start with our faith... our religion etc?


I am a great fan of France and Turkey... and before I met you I was a great fan of India as well... but since Chowk Staff have abandoned their erstwhile policy of not allowing national nicks... I suppose now I will take your ignorant views to be indicative of the entire Indian nation...

Maybe Chowkstaff can intervene and put an end to the misuse of the word `Indian`.

-YLH

PM,

My post 340 is a response to your 313. Now why would I ban you from my MSN list?
Dear friend I am optimistic one day we will achieve the goal that we are looking for... that secular democratic state that Jinnah promised ... but which has eluded as for half a century.. Keep the .. errr.. faith :) aka yaqeen-e-muhkam not Iman :)


-YLH

To the interactor who calls himself `Indian`,

And Your point is?? Looks like you haven`t even tried to read my articles or `ideals` as you speak of them.


-YLH

Hey, Mr. Too-prompt-the-hero! How about opining on #313 :)
And have you blocked me from your MSN buddy list or what!?

#338:
``I support the idea for tolerance of all religions for a couple of reasons. I do not see, in practical terms, how religion can be denied; are we asking people to give up religion?``

Feroz, It is doubtless my bad articulation that has led you to believe, quite outrageously, that I have been advocating the denial of religion in the way the Communists did-- that is, in the private as well as the public sphere. So please allow me to state my case as unambiguously as possible:

1. I believe that, ideally, the state should have nothing to do with religion-- not even take steps to ensure that ALL religions are `respected` or `tolerated`. This is 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.

2. It is not only between different religions that conflicts will arise, but also between religious dicta and seculat principles. I have already spoken, abstractly, about this in #313, which I hoped you would address since it presents, IMHO, an inescapable and ugly problem resulting the principle of state `toleration` of all religions.

``Tolerance can be legislated, because that is what the British did over 200 years and ended up with a society that, today, is basically secular.``

Their society is, but this is despite, not due to, their unwritten consitution, which, if you consider their laws, isn`t really secular. Yes, they are defacto secular today, but hoping that the Pakistani society in due time will take the same shape is rather wishing thinking, given that there is one HUGE variable involved, with a very different `value`.

rgds,
PM

dost mittar #331 i expected more from you than to hide behind generalities and ignore the response i gave to your question.

as for your testing whether i support murder (which is basically what the killing of an apostate or anyone else for that matter amounts to in all cases except in matters of self-defence as generally accepted by law in all civilized nations), here is the statement you wanted: yes, i condemn the killing of apostates and infidels is unacceptable, regardless of what it says in the quran. happy?

now let me make you happier. go back and tell me where in the quran it calls for killing of apostates? indeed, since you have read the quran, go back and show me what is the word used in the quran for an ``apostate``. on infidels, first, remember that it is an english word (like apostate), and the negative connotations are from the early christian tradition (during the dark ages in europe, not today). so if you are to talk about the quran, use words used over there (non-believers).

there are indeed passages in the quran that refer to the killing of christians and jews that are constantly referred to by fanatics on both sides. these constitute a tiny fraction of the quran. what is conveniently forgotten is that there are countless other passages and (indeed entire chapters - like surah kafiroon and surah rum) where the quran talks of living in peace and affection with all people.

you are welcome to accept or reject the above statements. i am not here to defend islam or pakistan or anything, just to waste time a bit. the opinion of a handful of individuals on chowk isnt going to change anything in this world. but surely i have a right to contradict a poster who makes factual misrepresentations and false innuendos (as you just did, i am sad to see in this post).

Manto,
This post is just toward your effort to outdo Hayden :)

jay #335 please dont address nice posts to me, since then i have to respond nicely to you, and a vicious minded individual like you - as you have amply demonstrated on chowk for the past three years - does not deserve that.

as for the moon, rest assured you dont even need a telescope to figure this out. lunar calendars are available across the internet and in a zillion other forms that can tell you exactly what day eid will fall this year, next year and a million years from now. if mullahs still have trouble figuring it out, that is no skin off my back. there are more important things in the world to worry about than the fact that mullahs have such trouble letting go of obsolete ``technology`` in determing the date (the naked eye).

tahmed,

........ to be honest, i don`t have the slightest urge to win any argument - heck, i argue with myself all the time and loose!.......... but as nike says, ``if the label fits, wear it``

....... i like your version of islam based on the first edition of the koran (pre-goat), and if you ever start a cult, called the koranics, i will be the first to join ..........we can then hang out together at the airports handing out copies of the koran to unsuspecting travellers ...........

............. i have used the koran to justify things that are near and dear to me many times - specially drinking.......... i have challenged mrs. hamidm many times to find a verse in the koran that explicitly bans drinking and lays out the punishment for having a few .............the poor woman tried hard, she consulted theologians and pious men, came up empty handed, and finally gave up .............we have worked out an amicable secular arrangement where i give up the tonic in my gin for ramadhan .............. i learned that trick from a friend who spent a few years in a seminary before giving up on god because of ``irreconciable differences with vatican-II``!..................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 ...........

Manto

Please open any Pakistani newspaper, book , article related to Pakistani society and run a quick search on following words. ``We Muslim``, ``Our religion``, ``Our faith``.

Do the samething with French, Turkey and Indian newspapers and see how many times the words related to religion are used. 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.

PM

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.

-YLH

Religion (Islam or otherwise) is so easily discussed threadbare on a full stomach.