Are Secularism and Islam Incompatible?

This may not be completely relevant to the philosophical side ofthe debate here, but I it`s worth mentioning, if only because it is naee taazi :)

(Also, Manto can now shoot for Lara`s rec. :) )

An ex-pupil of mine has just told me that a sentence he`d written in his English exam has been marked wrong. The reason, given by the teacher, ``It is against Islam.``

The sentence, (which I had earlier okayed,) was made to illustrate the use of an idiom:

``In Islam, some punishments appear harsh, but that is because it is better to nip evil in the bud.`` (verbatim)

My ex (-pupil, that is) goes to the head teacher to appeal, who informs him that he will get the mark after all, because the English is correct, but that he shouldn`t make such sentences in the Board Examination, as it could raise hackles.

Both teachers are Muslims, though not at all what you`d consider particularly conservative
types. I mention this only to discount the element of fear-of-Majority.

I think this little anecdote is a good example of the general level of irrational fear that tends to pervade a society when religion is made such a big deal of. I have Chiristian friends who will, sometimes even in private, not use the word `Muslims` (they use `M` instead) -- even when not speaking ill of Muslims as a group. In public places, I imagine they don`t even allow themselves to THINK the word.

tahmed#448
Thanks for clarification.

dost mittar #444 a clarification to my previous post: the ``self-defense`` i referred to in the context of jehadi terrorism in kashmir should have read ``self defense by indian society through its police and armed forces``.

i make this clarification so there is no question on whose part i see this as being ``self-defense``. the jehadis on the other hand are promoting violence in society and are NOT fighting in ``self-defense`` by any means.

dost mittar #444 apologies accepted with thanks. i do indeed quote often from the quran, and perhaps need to explain where i am coming from on that. i started doing that a few months after joining chowk with the intended audience being islamic fundamentalists on chowk (like a gentleman name adnan, who no longer shows up on chowk). my aim at the time was to confirm my own understanding of what i had read in the quran (and discussed with my late father who wrote a book on the subject) and to see if the fundamentalists knew something that could change my understanding: it did not take me long to realize that i wasnt missing anyting, and the islamic fundamentalists were basically quite insincere in their respect for the quran.

i would have ended there. but then, given that there are so many things attributed to islam, that i have found myself correcting misrepresentations made not just islamic fundamentalists but others as well (the latest being when hamidm incorrectly wrote that the quran calls for the killing of apostates, and which to his credit he immediately corrected which brought us to this discussion).

incidentally, i am not alone in using the quran to fight the mullahs - yesterday on public TV they talked about a group in malaysia (``Women in islam``) who have reached the same conclusion as my father did, as i did, and are in fact using it to fight the mullah in court. my own father`s write-ups were used at the lahore high court to challenge nawaz sharif`s attempt at getting himself declared mard-i-momin.

Thus: the quran is the main weapon that muslims have against the scourge of the islamist. the fact that hindutvas get exposed as well is only incidental to the main purpose, since hindutvas are a threat to indian society only and my main concern is pakistan.

on kashmir: what i had asked you to repeat after me does not imply by any means accepting jehadi terrorism in kashmir. this is clearly self-defense - the only time i have mentioned i would support the killing of another human being. i happen to have great respect for gandhi, but do not wish to get labelled as a gandhian or anything - that would make me an unthinking ideologue, and i would rather use my own mind than follow any ideology. having said that, gandhi`s idea of nonviolence is i believe - as i have said on chowk - probably the single most important idea for the existence of the human race in the 21st century. and national boundries are becoming increasingly irrelevant anyway. that is why i say that where the boundries are drawn in kashmir is not worth a single life. what i say today may not find many takers on chowk, but will no doubt be taken for granted as something natural a hundred years from now.

finally, i too apologize because my previous post went over the line as you correctly pointed out.

re. Manto:

``If the `Majority` Muslims in Pakistan are not ready to give the Non-Muslims their rights... I think it is about time, the Non-Muslims take a leaf out of the history books, and organize a Minorities League.... which should demand parity at the center... and ask for a separate state within or without the Pakistani union.``

hmm.... interesting idea.. quite tempting, if probably foolhardy and extremely dangerous.
But then again, nothing worht fighting for was ever won easily.

Will you join in the ranks of the conscientous objectirs if it comes to that?

Thanks for the many edifying points and facts you`ve presented here, Yasser.

feroz bhai, re. #434

The pleasure, as has always been the case when discussing with you, was equally mine!

Thank you.

tahmed32:
First of alll, I am sorry for having irritated you. No, I never had any doubt about your opposition to the murder of anyone. But what I did imply was that you seemed to seek the justification for your stance in the holy scripture and not on the other principle that you enumerated, namely, ``dont do to others what you dont want to others to do to you!``.

``while i am on the subject, i must be the only poster on chowk who had said not once but many times that all of kashmir is not worth one single life, indian or pakistani, civil or military. No one has ever seconded this view, and that is fine. Would you be willing to repeat the above after me? ``
Only a Gandhian would agree to this statement and I am not a Gandhian. This would amount to saying that the jihadis should not be challenged. Even Gandhi supported India sending troops in Kashmir, so obviously even he would not agree with that statement. My stance on Kashmir was fully elaborated in my article on Kashmir (The Beginning of the End of Kashmir Problem). What I can say, however, is that Kashmir is less important than the amity between India and Pakistan, and the killing or human right abuse of even a single civilian is not justified in the interest of Kashmir.

``and yet you find it emotionally impossible to accept that an individual can respect the teachings of the quran and be a good human being at the same time.``
Now it is my turn to be irritated. How can you say that? I have said it before and will say it again that I believe that good and bad human beings are more or less equally distributed among all religions. Our only difference of opinion has been on whether or not Islam needs any reforms. And that I call your islam Deen-e-Ilahi:-).

to all slim shaddy Indians,

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/xml/uncomp/articleshow?msid=272624

secular demoracy in India, yeah right. It maybe the thing of the past.. I guess no one is perfect Indians should realize that.

dost mittar #435 i dont mean to interject in this discussion, but i see the need to clarify something: i did have some ``irritation`` (no discomfort though) as you say in being asked by you to say that i would never support the killing of an apostate regardless of what it says in the quran.

HOWEVER, the irritation was not at saying the above, as you imply, but at YOUR nerve to even think that i would support the murder of an individual on account of his views; and at your nerve to keep implying that the quran says that despite having just admitted that there nothing about killing apostates in the quran (and indeed everything to the contrary), despite the zillion times i have heard the ill-informed and hate-trained indian posters on chowk make this claim.

while i am on the subject, i must be the only poster on chowk who had said not once but many times that all of kashmir is not worth one single life, indian or pakistani, civil or military. No one has ever seconded this view, and that is fine. Would you be willing to repeat the above after me?

The fact is that our views are shaped by the prejudices of the environment we grew up in. i was wrong in getting irritated at you. just sad that you are among the handful of indian posters on chowk whose maturity and decency i can respect - and yet you find it emotionally impossible to accept that an individual can respect the teachings of the quran and be a good human being at the same time.

re. ``ATTENTION CHOWK PEOPLE: Romair is a Taliban sympathizer...``

You didn`t know this earlier!? :)

Khurram,

Maudoodi doesn`t envisage the role of non-muslims except as `protected community` or Dhimma.

Zakk #431

What would be the role and status of non-muslims in this `theo-democracy` ?

Correction: `Inherently unacceptable` in place of `inherently acceptable`

Correction: `Inherently unacceptable` in place of `inherently acceptable`

Zakkk,

This `theo-democracy` crap is the invention of that sick mind Maudoodi (Do we need to recall his instigation of the anti-Ahmadiyya Riots in 1953 and his verbal abuse of Jinnah) ... there is Democracy or there isn`t... and while many half wits here will not accept it... Democracy in of itself is a secular concept.


Here is what is utterly wrong and inherently acceptable of the Islamic System for a country like Pakistan :

``The executive under this system of government is constituted by the general will of the Muslims who have also the right to depose it.``


Despite whatever pretensions or imaginary history that people like Romair and anew have in their mind, the fact remains... Pakistan is not just inhabited by Muslims... but many Non-Muslims... even in the post Bangladesh phase the number of non-Muslims is substantial... even if we were to accept the `Official` figure of 3% Non-Muslims which is an understatement and contested by the non-Muslims... that is some 5 Million Non-Muslims in Pakistan.... 5 million Non-Muslims .. that is a huge number... that is more than the population of some odd 100 independent and sovereign countries` population. It is some 2 million more than the votes of the most popular political party... the Pakistan Peoples` Party... that polled 3.3 million votes.

Should a country of 5 million non-Muslims be subjected to MMA`s views on Politics whose entire vote bank is barely more than 1 million? Is this Romair`s Democracy?

If the `Majority` Muslims in Pakistan are not ready to give the Non-Muslims their rights... I think it is about time, the Non-Muslims take a leaf out of the history books, and organize a Minorities League.... which should demand parity at the center... and ask for a separate state within or without the Pakistani union.

-YLH

AlephNull:
You are in a league of your own:-).
I have a comment re. your concept of secularism as “obliviousness to religion” . The concept is wonderful and I agree with it as a concept. It is because of this concept that I was earlier pestering tahmed (if you saw those interacts) to say that he opposed the killing of apostates and blasphemists regardless of what the quran says. While he did say that, it was not without some irritation and discomfort. And this is why I wonder if this is the right approach in deeply religious societies such as India and Pakistan.
If this concept was to be implemented in India, for example, I should be free to kill a cow in a public place as long as there are no health or hygenic reasons against it. I should also be free to burn a copy of the quran or to make public speeches casting slurs on the life of Prohet Mohammed. Either of those acts will cause a major disturbance to the peace of the society. Instead, why not adopt a concept of secularism which resonates with the ethos of the society. Thus hindus would react positively to the concept of ``sarva dharma sam bhava``, muslims to the concept of ``no compusion in religion`` and christians to the concept of ``give unto caesar what is caesar`s``. This may be less appealing to the purist but it will still bring out the desired result. Aren`t there more than one ways to skin a cat?