Are Secularism and Islam Incompatible?

Arjun:
re. 384
I had posted a letter to the daen editor, from Aitza Ahsan I think, some months ago, pointing out the irregularities of the inital ruling, beginning with the fact that a lower-court magistrate had conducted the investigation (probably at the behest of some high ranking cronies of the Pak embassy there).

I guess it`s time for Romair to rub the soap off his face now!

Arjunm

I don`t think that BB was able to skate. As a matter of fact BB and Zardari had filed an appeal against the megistrate`s decision in an upper court, and upper court has agreed to hear the case, this does not mean that BB and Z are releived of the original charges.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

tahmed32:
``treat others as you would have them treat you``.

No disagreement at all. Indeed, I have said the same thing myself, regardless of whether it applies to holy scriptures or not.

``It is the enemy of the `revealed` religions in their dogmatic phase. ``

I submit that we need the use of the state policy and machinery to keep the dogmatism (which always exists anyway--even in Christianity, for intance) from impinging on the grounds of politics.

PM,

Bechara Mathew Hayden...

Dear Khurram,

No..

It is the enemy of the `revealed` religions in their dogmatic phase.

Mantolives,

Thanks for your prompt reply. I just want to clarify if you agree with this specific assertion in AlephNull`s post,

The foundational framework underlying secularism is ``at a deep and fundamental level, a mortal enemy of the ‘revealed’ ‘divine’ religions``

re sigalph #363

Good post! Nothing new therein, of course. You, and many others, have made this point umpteen times in the past, even directly to HisFalsely.. but then, wheat else can he do but obfuscate? The danger of his contention taken to its conclusion probably scares him to much to accept, so he will go on mouthing inanities like ``secularists (when he actually means agnostics) have no basis for ethics; only religionists do`` even though I`ve showed him the innate inanity of that contention already.

Let this hypocrite who preaches anti-secualrism from the USA be left to grovel in his own anxieties and contradictions, I say!

``Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is--
Mohandas Gandhi ``

We all agree that it DOES. We`re jsut saying it SHOULDN`T. :)

PM,

I enjoy exposing Urstruly for what he truly is... I think we have given him far too much importance than he deserves. I think the way he got his butt whooped the past two days is enough of a lesson for him.

As for the organization ... not so far.


Zakkk 372,

The distinction that Iqbal made is the same as the distinction that Gandhi made... they both envisaged the role of religion in politics... but there is enough evidence to suggest that they didn`t envisage the role of religion in the state.

-YLH

PM

I am not laying any trap for YLH. I am only deflowering this young man to help him tread into the world of men - the world of reality and not that of mangled idealism.


Oh by the way, it is intellectual ``deflowering`` I am referring to (in case you get any ideas:)

Now let me see what is the geeddaR singhi in post # 313.

Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is.
Mohandas Gandhi

dost mittar #353 beg to differ.

while on the margin the line between ethical and nonethical behavior may shift, the fundamentals are universal in time and space. these fundamentals are encapsulated in kant`s categorical imperitive which is basically a more rigorous way of saying ``treat others as you would have them treat you``.

all the world`s religions basically expound on this basic truth: the quran calls repeatedly for being honest in one`s dealings; being merciful; and so on for example. the bible talks about mercy as well, although in a more allegorical and indirect manner. these are details, and that is all.

Manto,
re. my Jews comment. LOL! looks like the reference to, and joke on, the fabled olfactory giftedness ahs been lost on you. But I can see why, you are busy falling into the trap that Urstuly has laif.. the one that keeps the acutal, important, issues from being debated. he will not touch #313 if his life depended on it, so he will get into silly arguments over `personal integrity` and the like.

btw, have you anything to do with this organization?

Khurram,

I generally agree with Alephnull`s analysis but with some reservation. The concept of `Rendering unto caesar` is present in Islam as well... In sunni Islam obedience towards the ruler is considered mandatory... something Musharraf tried to invoke during the hey day of the September 11th crisis ... it was a well tried method... and most of sermons in the mosques of Turkey historically in 1924 consisted of the pro-Republican propaganda which used the same theme.


I especially agree with his final comment:

``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. ``