Are Secularism and Islam Incompatible?

re: Zakk # 464

I can never accept that women are the equal of men in driving-skills. But everytime I have driven in a car with any woman, she has always known better than me where we were headed :(

Hi Ram, yeh kya injustice hai!

re: Zakkk #464 nahi, re: momekh # 463

Time to call it a day. :)

G`nite everyone.

A swan song for fans, but give it a read if you want to read up on the man..

http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/Nov-2003/10/EDITOR/op3.asp

Ataturk: a history maker
By Mansoor Akbar Kundi
November 10 is the death anniversay of Kemal Mustafa Pasha, better known in history as Ataturk, a leader whose heroic endeavours and nationalist spirit during the formative years of the Turkish Republic have left lasting imprint on the minds of Turks. Ataturk is the surname bestowed on him by the Grand Turkish National Assembly (GTNA) after it passed the “Surname Law” in 1934 as a part of the Kemalist reforms to modernize the Turkish society - thus making it mandatory for all Turks to adopt a surname.
Kemal Ataturk emerged at a critical juncture of Turkish history when the Ottoman Sultanate had lost all the grandeur of its past and was on the verge of disintegration at the hands of colonialism. Turkey had become what Nicholas I of Russia called it in 1853, as the sick man of Europe. Ataturk soon became the moving spirit behind the Republican movement and led his country out of social chaos and foreign dominance to independence and integration through a succession of radical reforms. Toynbee, the great British historian noted that “in the nineteenth-twenties he (Ataturk) was perhaps as revolutionary a programme as has ever been carried out in any country deliberately and systematically in such a short span of time.”
Like many great men in history, Kemal was born in wretched poverty. His father Ali Reza was a low-paid civil servant whose salary was insufficient to support wife and two kids - Kemal and his sister, Makbule. Kemal was born in 1881 in Salonika, today an important and busy port city of Greece. At the time of his birth, Salonika was a port of the Ottoman Empire. The city was captured by the Ottoman Sultan Murat in 1430 and remained as an important Ottoman provincial centre until it was ceded to Greece after defeat in the First World War in 1914. The area was known as Macedonia. Once asked by a Hungarian diplomat, “Are you a Macedonian?” Kemal answered, “Yes, I am. But I do not make territorial claims.” He took pride in his Macedonian nationality and impoverished past. On the eve of opening of a primary school he said, “poverty should not handicap Turk children. We have rather to provide them opportunities.” Today Turkey’s 90 percent population can read and write with an established network of government-run schools and a growing number of universities both public and private sectors.
Ali Reza named the child as “Mustafa” after one of his childhood brothers whom he caused to die by overturning the crib. Kemal was the name added to Mustafa by his mathematics teacher in the Military School at Salonika owing to his extra-ordinary intelligence. He carried the twin names until 1934, frequently suffixed by Pasha (meaning general).
His father’s death in 1892 left the bereaved family in abject poverty. They were forced to migrate to a relative’s ranch where the child Mustafa was assigned the task of keeping the vultures and crows from ruining the fruit crops. Ataturk would later relate his short assignment at the farm to learning how to drive the enemies away from ruining one’s land. Kemal’s mother, Zubeyde returned to Salonika to enroll her son in a government school. Thanks to a retired major and Ali Reza’s family friend who explored Kemal’s talents and got him admitted to a military school. Zubeyde, as Ataturk recalled, wept the day she learnt his son would become a solider rather than a scholar, but allowed him with a promise not to ever let a foreign hand stretch towards his motherland. A journey thus began for the young Kemal to be moulded into a uniformed nationalist and patriot. His stay at the military academy served him opportunities to broaden his vision by mixing with cadets from different sections of society. He made friends. One of them was Ali Fuad, the son of Ali Nizam Pasha, the famous Ottoman general who later on also served as an Ottoman ambassador to Austria. Ali Nizam Pasha once told him, “I see that those who speak so high of you are not mistaken. You are not going to be an ordinary officer like the rest of us; you are going to change the country’s destiny”.
“Responsibility is a burden even heavier than death itself,” Kemal Ataturk occasionally said. “A leader can neither be born nor recognized without responsibilities, but the dominant character of a leader is to do them successfully.” In May 1919 he gathered his troops against foreign invasion. The Entente Powers had surrounded around 70 percent of the Turkish land under the Mondoros Treaty. The 25 article treaty signed in September 1918 allowed Entente/Allied Powers to exercise control over the Turkish soil as a Central power. Turkey was called a Central power after it entered the World War I on the German-Austro-Hungary side.
The province of Adana had been occupied by French; Urfa Maras, Antep, Merzifon and Samsun regions by the British; Konya and Antalia by Italians. The Greek army had captured the Izmir sea ports and its surroundings. Had the occupation continued without resistance, Turkish geographical integrity may not have existed as it is today. He and his comrade generals backed the soldiers as true defenders of his nation. He commanded by saying, “A Turk soldier does not know how to flee from battle. If you see him running away, it is because his commander has deserted.” One can hardly realize the situation without visiting the huge war cemeteries where battles took place and seeing thousands of graves around. The two main war cemeteries are in Canakkale and Galiopoli where the major battles took place between the Turks and Allied forces. The graves containing soldiers from on both sides killed in action stretch on miles.
After the battles were over and the Republic established, Ataturk ordered to decorate the graves of the soldiers fighting against Turks too. On the eve of the commemoration of Battle at Dardenelles he addressed a letter to the mothers of the killed Allied soldiers, “There is no difference between the Johns and Mehmets to us, where they live side by side here in this country of ours. You, the mothers who sent their sons from far away countries wipe away tears. Your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace after having lost their lives on this land. They have become our sons as well.”
Ataturk was generous in paying respect to others, be it the enemies. Soon after Turk forces recaptured Izmir and Greek troops were driven out in 1920, a ceremony was held by the Turk troops in the Karsiyaka House near Izmir to toast the victory. A Greek flag had been spread out for him to walk on. This angered Ataturk. “Why did you do like this? He asked the general. The general replied that it was in response to an event in history wherein the Greek King Constantine had stayed there after the capture of the Island by Greek troops and had trampled on the Turkish flag, Ataturk answered, “But I cannot repeat his mistake. A flag represents a country’s honour and should not be trodden upon. Remove this flag immediately.”
His military expeditions surprised the world and won him great deal of respect. Since the inception as a young cadet to the last battle of Izmir, he actively participated in around 31 battles. The decisive one was the one at Sakarya which continued for 22 days and nights. It was after this battle he was given the title of “Ghazi” and promoted to Marshal. During the battle his famous words to soldiers were recorded, “I am not ordering you to fight. I am ordering you to die.” They did so, winning the day.
He was a soldier and believed in the establishment of a strong army as a bulwark of independence. He acknowledged the fact that army played a role in the establishment of the Turkish Republic. He always relied on army in sensitive matters. Nine days before he proclaimed the republic on October 29, 1923 he intervened in the cabinet meeting for a pay raise for armed services. In 1924 his campaign to abolish the religious office of the Caliphate gained momentum, he traveled to Izmir and the garrisons around to test the atmosphere of army engaged in winter war games. He stayed for two months in close contact with generals before he announced abolishing of Caliphate in March 1924.
Ataturk both emerged as a political and military leader. He, however, was against the direct interference of army into politics. Soon after the establishment of the Turkish Republic he founded his political party, an elite organ to man bureaucracy and the professionals - all designed to rule independent of military support. During the opposition by Liberal Republican Party formed by some very prominent generals, Ataturk advised them to either stay in army or resign their posts and enter politics. In his famous Great Speech of October 1927, He said that the “preserving and defending national independence and the Turkish Republic to the Turkish youth and not the army.” His first task was to elect the GTNA, a final body to approve legislation, and frame the Constitution. He called the Assembly as “the sole fount of political legitimacy in the Republic”. All the major reforms he adopted from 1923 to 1938 were put before the Assembly and duly approved by voting. The amendment which proposed Turkey as a Republic by abolishing Sultanate on October 29, 1923 was carried by narrow margin of 158 to 122 in the 286 member House.
He believed in the promotion of opposition as essential to a democratic society. He allowed two political parties during his life time to play an opposition role, Progressive Republican Party in 1924 and Free Party in 1930, however, both were closed down as they became a focal point for opponents to his ambitious reform programme, including monarchists, separatists and Islamic conservatism, particularly in the backlash against the Kurdish rebellion 1925.
Ataturk raised his nation by means of principles and revolutionary thought. He was a statesman who did not control the country from his table. He would travel far and wide to demonstrate direct contact with the people. For instance on 24 August 1925 he set out on a trip to Kastamou, a small city far away from Ankara. A rule had been passed to ban the wearing of the traditional Turkish cap Fez. While addressing and meeting people he was wearing a hat. When he returned to Ankara, his old friend Rifki asked him why he preferred a very small place like Kastamou and not a big city like Izmir and Istanbul. He replied, “people around these cities have seen a lot of me. If I wore a hat there, they would look at the hat and not at me. But the people who were seeing me the first time accepted me as a whole - me and my hat.”
Ataturk was a born nationalist. He took inspiration from Namik Kemal, the famous Turkish ideologue and founder of Turkish modern nationalism, who said that a “person who does not love his county is not a human being”. To him, country was a concept for which “one should be ready to die. Country is not a piece of land.” He would say that “Turks were hardy, brave and hospitable people, but perhaps their strongest characteristic is their patriotism.” His domain was Turkey and Turkey itself, a concept manifested in his revolutionary philosophy, Kemalism. One of his mottoes “the days of Empires are over, now it is the days of nation-states.” He was a nationalist but his brand of nationalism was neither parochial nor racial. A large number of Jews taking refugee from Hitler’s atrocities were honorably allowed to stay in Turkey. Majority of them chose Turkey as their permanent abode. His principal dentist, Sami Gunzberg was himself a Jew expatriate.
His two favourite generals were Napoleon and Alexander the Great, but he differed with both for being too ambitious to ignore the national interests of their individual countries. To him, Alexander the Great forgot about his country and went far away to conquer the world. About Napoleon he said, “Napoleon started with his country and ended with himself. He was a man without a sound political idea, more concerned with his ambition for world conquest than with national interests of France.” It was a mistake a leader should not make.
Ataturk was fascinated with innovative ideas and believed in their projection to his people. One day he found the French translation of H.G. Wells’ Outline of History. His personal secretary, Hassan Riza revealed that he found the leader reading at a stretch except taking hot showers and strong black coffee for forty hours. He went to sleep only after he had finished the book. And the following morning he asked for the translation of the book in Turkish and make it available to public. He also ordered for the formation of a board of historians to prepare An Outline of Turkish Nation (in Turkish).
Ataturk was committed to the establishment of the Turkish Republic on secular and modern lines. His ideas of secularism may have mobilized resistance and criticism, nonetheless, they are at times misinterpreted too. He wanted to turn Turkey into a modern nationalist state. He met resistance from a number of religious and conservative circles for being anti-Islam. In Kemal’s opinion the first step in solving these two problems could be taken only through the foundation of a secular republic free of religious conservatism and bias. On April 5 1928, the eve of the abolishing of Islam as state religion from the 1924 Constitution he said, “religion is entirely a matter of conscience. Every body is free to follow the dictates of his own conscience. We are respectful of religions. We are not opposed to thought or reflection, but they should not be parochial and repressive. We only aspire to separate matters of state and religion.” He was firm and aggressive in dealing with those who resisted his reforms as counter-religion.
Like many great leaders who devoted all their time to nation-building at the cost of their own family life, Ataturk married life was short-lived too. He married on January 29, 1923, Latife Hanim (1898-1975), a London-Paris educated lady from Izmir, but the marriage ended on August 5, 1925.
Time was very important in his life. He is said to have been very conscious of time. He believed in proper utilization of time for all purposes. The last words he uttered before his death due to cirrhosis of liver on November 10, 1938 were, “what is the time?”
The writer is Professor of Political Science at Balochistan University, Quetta; he was a scholar on Iqbal Chair in Istanbul.
Email: dera1955@yahoo.com

Islam is not to be taken like `just another religion` for surely, anyone who has read the religion itself, not the commentery on it, will agree to this. Islam is a code of life. It`s how things ought to be. And any complete code of life can not-can never be-without a political system in place.
Confusion is evident and inevitable -- for none of us are sticking to definitions. Secularism? God, can we even agree on a single definition of Democracy? The article above portrays Mesaq-e-Madina as the code of all political systems in Islam. I `think` that is not true. Please note, I can be wrong but try to look at the logic, not anything else. First off, Mesaq-e-Madina was not supposed to be a all-time political system, it was devised,successfully I might add, on a need-of-the-times basis. Islam does support democracy, yes -- but all major political decsions are not made by the masses. This is of course against the so called democracy that we so dearly enjoin and in USA`s case, enforce. Seriously, how can you justify a PhD and an illetrate to have the same weightage in an election. Is THAT fair? Logic dictates that it is not. And so does Islam. I am not sayin that it does now...but during the time of Khilaafat (I am referring to the times of Khulfa-e-Raashideen), all major political decisions were made by a `group` -- size not important yet significant -- of learned (not necessarily `educated`), well-read and well-represented individuals. Now ask yourself this, is THAT fair? Islam of course always upheld equality. But is not that for the matters of Justice? And justice alone? How can we justify -- strictly logically speaking -- our picketing for the equality of Men and Women? Do YOU think that Men and Women are equal? In terms of strenght, in terms of emotions, in terms of driving-skills? Think about it, at some places Women excel, at some Men, they are not equal and Islam recognizes this all-but-natural fact of life. By all means, they are treated equally when it comes to Justice -- EVERYONE is treated equally when it comes to Justice, Muslims and NonMuslims alike. And please, I am not here to start a debate on Woman rights -- some other time, can be this place!
Coming back to politics...`Logic` dictates that the truest form of Politics is Public Service. Think about that...Political `leaders` are there not to serve only thier own philosophy or purpose but also to serve the people they are leading. To serve. Not to Rule, but to Serve. That is the essence. Service disguised as Rule, if u may. Islam is not much different from this logic. I am not talking about current issues & implementations, I am talking about a `complete` Code of/for Life (Islam) dealing with the all-too-important issue of Politcal Order/System.
Secularism: If that means that everyone is treated equally in every sphere of SERVICE, then Islam is all for it. But if that means that a Secular State can not have religious affiliations, then Islam is at complete loggerheads with it. For a complete code of life also instrusts its followers to spread the `right way`. Please note again, there is no compulsation in Islam. In the times of the Khulfa-e-Rashideen, convoys of Jews and other religions weould come visit Mekka and stay at the Mosque. Even in the Mosque (the Holy Praying Area for Muslims), the Jews and others were allowed to carry on theri religious duties as they were accoustomed to do it. Now is THAT not Fair? `Logic` and logic alone dictates that it is. No?
Democracy: If that means that everyone gets a say in electing their leader, then Islam is all for it. But if it means that regardless of social standing (in terms of education and general influence), two people would have the same say, then Islam supports a form of Autocracy more than Democracy. (For the sake of clearer definitions, Autocracy here implies that only people of the same field decide the `fate` of that and only that field).
This article is no doubt well-written, but I find it biased on basis of pre-concieved notions that `Democracy+Secularism` is the only way to go. A better approach is what agrees with the mind, tho the one that appeals to the heart has more followers.
Makes sense? No?

``president bush said that islam is okay with democracy (not the same as secularism) ``(hamidm)

if president bush said it`s okay -- then it`s okay..:-)

just curious ............ so what did we decide?............ is islam compatible with secularism or not?.......... the other day president bush said that islam is okay with democracy (not the same as secularism) - is he being politically correct, or is he actually as naive as some of his opponents make it out to be?

............ even after reading some very articulate and profound posts from the likes of alephnull and ferozek, some rather simplistic ones from hopeless optimists like tahmed, and some exceptionally stupid ones from the romairians, i am convinced that islam, as commonly defined and understood, is at extreme odds not only with secularism but also with democracy and modernity ............. now, we can always redefine democracy and modernity, but that is a totally different discussion ............

ballukhan:
``I may sound christian evangelist- but we need to have a new protestent revolution which dis-empowers the mullahs and Imams by spreading the alternative interpretation of Islamic TRUTHS``

Not Christian evangelist at all. Aren`tMessrs. Ashcroft and Bush their spokemen these days? :)

#447 by tahmed32 on November 7, 2003 12:05pm PT
You belong to the few takers of non-violence in the sub-continent.
Yes, I also believe that Gandhian concept of NON VIOLENCE has ``captured``` a huge TRUTH about human existence and its aspirations which cuts across religious dogmas.
It is that the possibility of social existence through brotherhood which Ummah attempts is not to be achieved through dogmas and rituals but only when the human relations approximate the non-violent and tolerant practices within a man`s primary relations of father/son, husband/wife etc..
NON_VIOLENCE is about how to arrive at a peaceful co-existence with one-self and others. The first is when you are NON_VIOLENT towards oneself. And the next is when you are NON_VIOLENT towards others.
It is about how to arrive at a resolution of the human conflict, how to cut the cycle of revenge and counter-revenge, it is about forgetting and forgiving.
I may sound christian evangelist- but we need to have a new protestent revolution which dis-empowers the mullahs and Imams by spreading the alternative interpretation of Islamic TRUTHS.

Islamist extremem is like an antibiotic induced YEAST infection --

once you kill the anti yeast bacteria with lethal doses of a good antibiotic -- the yeast will flourish and overwhelm the body....

-- in 40` and 50`s there was nothing like today`s virulent Islamists running amuck with killings and suicicde bombings beating women in public to cover their heads -- Islam was like any other religion benign and forgiving looking the other way over the follys of its same Umma -- because the bacterias of communism and leftism world wide helped control the Yeast --

with American christian crusade against secular Afghan leftists and communists -- and communism worldwide -- the Talibani Yeast had been encouraged and armed to take over all the orificies of Afghani body --

now the same United States is going after -- with the same zeal -- the same secular forces this time the secular Baathists -- with F-16 and smart bombs -- while pandering to the same Ayatollahs -- the same religious the most conservative, the most fundamentalist elements of politicized Islam -- as they did in Iran -- as they did in Afghanistan and they are doing today in Iraq.

the result in 2005 for Iraq is written on the wall just like it was for Afghanistan --

Iraq WILL be governed by the `democratically elected` Yeasty Ayetollahs of Iraq just the same way as Iran`s `democratically elected` -- terror spreading Ayatollahs -- are governing Iran today --

one cannot help but draw the conclusion that -- The worst ENEMY of a SECULARIZED ISLAM in the world for ALL TIMES to come -- is not the Arab, not the Iranians, not the Taliban not the Ayatollah --

it is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA............

Manto:
Sorry for mistyping your name!

Manot:
Maybe there is an inter-party caucus of women legislature and Sherry Rehman and Qazi`s daughter are both part of the same caucus.

Dear Dost Mittar,

I have had the unfortunate experience of listening to Qazi`s daughter in person... and believe me I have found no one to be more retrogressive in Pakistan than her. I am rather surprised to read this quote.

Will have to research more...

-YLH

Manto:
The following is from a news item in Asia Times. Has Qazi Ahmad`s daughter joined the PPP?

``Like the Maulana (an honorific for religious figures), Sherry, too, is a member of Pakistan`s national assembly. But apart from sharing a surname, they have little in common. Indeed, no two more contrasting figures could be imagined in Pakistan politics. Sherry belongs to the liberal left-of-center Pakistan People`s Party Parliamentarians (PPPP) led by self-exiled former prime minister Benazir Bhutto. She heads the women`s parliamentary group, which has nearly as many members as the opposition Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), an alliance of six religious parties, and contains a number of gutsy women who are determined to seek justice for their gender. Interestingly, this group includes Raheel Qazi, the daughter of prominent religious fundamentalist leader Qazi Hussain Ahmad of the Jamaat-e-Islami, a rival of Maulana Rehman for the leadership of the MMA.``

I am not a Gandhian and I agree with tahmed`s statement ...

Indian...

It definitely didn`t work in 1946... when the majority backed out of the Cabinet Mission Plan... most of that happened beyond what is our `Eastern Border` now... so who knows? Also it will be useful, if you read up on some history before making some comments... having read your interacts, I must say that you are rather ignorant of it.. and cause of concern as you have chosen by your nick to represent an entire nation...

Still I am a patriot of Pakistan ... I don`t believe in a partition of Pakistan. I am just trying to make the Majority in Pakistan aware of the situation and the gravity of it.




PM,

Remember It was a secular Indian Nationalist who said `I am an Indian first second and last` who ultimately partitioned India with little more than his will power and great advocacy skills.


-YLH

[If the `Majority` Muslims in Pakistan are ... and ask for a separate state within or without the Pakistani union.]

This is a bold statement. Why people like you want to break something instead of fixing it. ``Hamne Yeh Tamasha chappan saal pehle dekha hai``. The best solution is to force Majority to uphold rights of minorities within the constitution and force them not to act as Majority. My country is paying a hefty price for it and you want to do the same with yours. Take a peek across your eastern border and you will learn a lot.