Are Secularism and Islam Incompatible?

re:PM

PM, 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? Surpressing it will not work either. Communist Soviet Union tried that and 70 years later, it was still going strong despite all the harsh measures against it. My choice is, based on my understanding of the English religious experience, that only tolerance will work.

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. If you have a way to get out of this problem and explain, how a secular state with out any religion can exist, I am all ears!

Ciao

hey ...

I am prompt too...

:(

AlephNull, re #327
``I’m a bit nonplussed – not quite sure how to interpret your remark.``

hmm... A little guarded, aren`t we? :) Aleph, I`d have thought that given the nature of our past correspondence, there`d be little doubt as to how my remark should have been interpreted. But if you`re one of those folks who don`t take the slightest risk of accepting anything but unambiguous kudos, well, I`ll spell it out: I think your logic is unassailable, your breadth of knowledge breathtaking, your analyses unfaultable and your articulation quite superb.

(I would like you to let your hair hang a little loose around here once in while, but then, that might cramp your ishtyle :) )

``Contrariwise, do you feel I ought to be tarred and feathered? Am I supposed to be playing to some sort of peanut gallery? Please explain.``

Wow! do I detect a hint of ``I might actually care (about the gallery) there?`` Did I do that? I`m... speechless! ;-)

(Thankfully, still digitally enabled though :) )

``And to continue in a flippant vein...``

Ahem.. let it be known that PM induced the first indication of flippancy from Sir AlephNull on this, the third day of .... :)

``... your Chowk persona perchance undergoing a makeover? I personally infinitely preferred the hard-edged, take-no-prisoners PM of yore to the kinder gentler version into which it seems to want to metamorphose.``

I admit to the change, but not to any conscious effort to do so. It`s not just the persona. It`s the real McCoy too. And I would like to think that I still take no prisoners when it comes to logical (in)consistency, as I would hope is evidenced in my rather passionate participation on this board, where my constant strain has been that, no matter how ennobling a `personal faith` Islam may be, it is too dangerous to be allowed any play in the public sphere.

OTOH, if it is my willingness to accept Islam as at least a possibly ennobling system that you are referring to as the ``kinder, gentler`` side of me, well, I guess we live and learn, and sometimes unlearn and re-learn. The truth is, in only the past couple of years, I have come across many wonderful human beings, the source of whose goodness I would not be so arrogant as to deny, at least in large measure, to their Islamic faith.

Also, I don`t discount the subconscious factor stemming from my choice to live in Pakistan-- the verb being the operative word there! :)

``More seriously, I’m not very happy with #316. Had I Hamidm’s divine gift, I’d have made my point in six brutal jeering sentences. Being a pedestrian writer, I had to plod on for a page and a half of quasi-academic verbiage to say what I wanted.

tsk, tsk... self effacement also part of your repertoire, I see. How charming! :) Hamidm`s gift is not brevity. It is irony. And of course his excellent wit, which only Urstruly, Romair and a bad hair day can cause him to lose. ;) But you sell yourself way too short! I scarcely think Saint Russell, of whom you are no doubt a votary, could`ve done a better job with the expression in #316, expcept, perhaps, to punctuate with some clever witticisms.

I am so very glad that someone has repsonded to my #313, since I did feel it cut through all the academic mist (mess) surrouding the issue (some of it quite deliberately created by certain posters) and cut right to the heart of the matter. Incidentally, a poster going by the nick `PunjabiZulu` has raised a similar question on a thread called ``American Constitution`` in the Off-the-Wall section of the Unplugged forum. You might want to visit.

So, once again, your #316 was, IMHO, easily the most informative and insightful on this board. I found the concluding paragraph, especially the conlcuding sentence, to be particularly astute.

So, please, don`t burden yourself with the unnecessary need to alter your style. I don`t imagine it could get any better anyway.

rgds,
PM

Challenge to islam and tahmed,

While the pakistanis are dicussing the subtlties of secularism and various interpretations of killings, there is a much simpler problem.

It is common in pakistan to have different eid days because many cannot agrre to the sighting of the moon. In general NWFP has a day later.

It has been argued that moon has to be sighted by the naked eye as it was done by the man.
The modernists of pak cities believe that telescopes are OK which the traditionalist oppose.
The islamists of the urstruly kind argue that the mullah sighting the moon should not even use glasses as there is historical evidence that during the mans time, eye sight correction with glasses were not there. Urstruly is still witing for his first eid since the mullahs are usually old and use glasses.

I know that the pakistanis on chowk will not be able to have a concensus view just like their country men.
As a kafir I support the use of telescope as long as the image is not digitally processed. Any takers for this kafirian view.

Higher education in pakistan

``As part of the effort to bring rigour and discipline to the campus, and keep illegal residents out of the hostels, a new security system was put in place. It was made mandatory for students to carry identity cards in order to enter the hostels, special gates were installed and a private security agency hired, since our own chowkidars are easily intimidated by the students. Barriers were put up on either end of the campus, to monitor and check the vehicles which entered the premises. A new Provost was appointed to take charge of the new system, which had been put in place.``

Above is a quote from jang of today, you could not have guessed it, it is about a premier university in pakistan, Quadi azam University, built in the mans honour, and where prof hoodbhoy teaches. There is no wonder that pakistan has offered educational opportunities only for the kashmiris from india, and QAU should be the place where they should be trained.

The silence from pakistanis about this fantastic offer to india loud and clear.

AlephNull

Your post No.316 was absolutley superb. Thank you for taking the time to write it and express your thoughts. I learnt a lot.

AlephNull

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

tahmed#326
My comment was based on your stance in general and not just on this thread. In any case, I look forward to your posts where you say that killing of infidels and apostates is unacceptable regardless of what is said in the holy book.
PS: You get my nomination for the most-prompt-respondent-of chowk award:-)

Anew...

Again you haven`t answered the 8 questions... but please explain what the pressing need was there to appoint Jogindranath Mandal as the Law Minister?

Please do explain why couldn`t Jinnah just appoint a Muslim Law Minister.... are you suggesting that in the 100 million or so Muslims of South Asia there wasn`t one Muslim who was good enough to take over as the LAW minister of Pakistan... that a little known Hindu Lawyer/politician from Bangladesh whose entire claim to fame had been his nomination on a League seat in the Interim Government and his role in strengthening the Suhrawardy ministry in the Bengal of Pre-Partition era ?



-YLH

Are Secularism and Islam Incompatible?
YES!! But then secularism is incompatible with any religion. It is sad that centuries after reformation and what not, the ummah is still grappling with this basic stuff. The ummah will be in fine shape once it figures out that religion should have nothing to do with ``business of state``. What are the odds of that happening?

dost mittar #323 the discussion had started because hamidm had incorrectly said that the quran called for the killing of apostates. i responded by saying that he was being factually wrong. he came back and agreed that he was being factually incorrect (although this of course did not change his mind on anything)

could you tell me exactly how i could have corrected him on his false references to the quran without referring to the quran?

PM #321

{{Are you selling rights to ownership of a fan club? :)}}

I’m a bit nonplussed – not quite sure how to interpret your remark. I suppose you’re reacting in some way to #316. Do you agree, or like the form of the argument even if you don’t fully agree? Contrariwise, do you feel I ought to be tarred and feathered? Am I supposed to be playing to some sort of peanut gallery? Please explain.

And to continue in a flippant vein, is your Chowk persona perchance undergoing a makeover? I personally infinitely preferred the hard-edged, take-no-prisoners PM of yore to the kinder gentler version into which it seems to want to metamorphose.

More seriously, I’m not very happy with #316. Had I Hamidm’s divine gift, I’d have made my point in six brutal jeering sentences. Being a pedestrian writer, I had to plod on for a page and a half of quasi-academic verbiage to say what I wanted.

I do have something to say about your query in #313, i.e. about the conflict between the rights of individuals and the purported rights of religious communities. In fact, this very point is at the heart of my absolute rejection of secularism defined as “state impartiality to religion”, in favour of secularism defined as “state obliviousness to religion”. The latter is consistent with my philosophical framework and can IMO be defended consistently within that framework. The former I believe is so hopelessly riddled with contradictions as to be utterly worthless. As usual I am struggling to formulate a reply which may or may not see the light of day.

PM #325 fair enough. let the record show that i believe the islamists rest on feet of clay theologically speaking while you consider that to be a dubious proposition.

Religions have done great deal of damage to unfettered human social evolution. All major religions carry the baggage of plenty of blood of innocents and stopping natural social evolution. Islam can not be singled out on these counts but since this discussion is about compatability of Islam and secularism, the guilt feeling of terrible Islamic history must come into play here. Unfortunately, the guilt of belonging to Islam is much less than the guilt expressed by the followers of other religions. Muslims almost unianimously declare bad governance and ruthless Muslims as deviants from the true Islamic spirit or path, yet they happily name their children Taimur, Osama and Aurangzeb.

Muslims can not shed the guilt of bad Islamic history by falling for the same trap again - actually more decisively now than ever in the history. Only solace and neutralizing come from distancing it in public life, so that it can not be used or misused again and history is not repeated.

Muslims should be immersed fully in guilt for the multidirectional damage caused by the Islamic history, from increasing poverty to poor education, to poor status of women in societies to poor treatment of minorites to bloody treatment of conquered, ravaging, plundering and giving absolutely nothing in return. The miseries, the sacrifices, the submission and slavery to Islam was all in vain for most Muslims and particularly to the Muslims of subcontinent.

Due to the fixation with the 7th century level morality and social order, Islam has been incomaptible with the human thoughts, philiosophies and achievements for the last several centuries. Even more than 300 years ago, Ottoman Khliafat was termed sick-man of Europe for no other reason than Islamic model. If something was so terribly out of shape with the world 300 years ago, how can it be compatible or valid given the tremendous achievements of mankind during the last 300 years in all fields? The time for Islam in politics or public life has been over long time ago except for the ignorants.

If Muslims keep shifting the guilt of bad history to bad interpretation and human weaknesses, so will nazis and communists. They would feel no guilt for the actions of Hitler and Stalins if adopting Muslims line of arguement. In this kind of distancing when things go sour, as afterthought and postmortem thoughts, nothing in the world could be ever found guily after the passing away of guilty party.

If nothing else, guilt alone should make desi Muslims extra careful in siding with Islam over modern and dymnamic world views and philosphies of governamce, human rights and social interaction. As I said in a previous post, there is nothing to be proud of and truckload of stuff to be ashamed of for Muslims of subcontinent. They gained nothing by converting and servitude to it.

TAhmed:
``thus, the truth in this case (as we discussed) is that the entire concept of ``political islam`` or an ``islamic state`` rests on feet of clay.``

I don`t remember characterizing the situation as such. I think it`s still a very dubious contention at best.

Tahmed:
Are you an islamist? No, I am not kidding! Why do you need the cushion of quran to justify everything temporal in this world? While your stance on various issues is almost always correct, you unfailingly end with some such statement as ``...and this is quite consistent with what the quran says.`` You will have arrived successfully as a secular person (and mind you a secular person can be a deeply religious person, too) when you can make a statement without seeking the ``takiya`` of quran to justify it. I am waiting for you to one day say that killing of a kafir or apostate is wrong, regardless of what is said in the quran.