Are Secularism and Islam Incompatible?

Ahhhh, yes. And that`s my final answer. Separation of `church and state` is something that no Muslim country has done except Turkey. Islam does not encourage its followers to think independently. It says `here`s the book, now submit yourself.` Submission is Islam`s literal meaning. The religious fanatics have done a tremendous job maligning this once great religion and using it for their own interests. Ask a religious fanatic a question about Islam and he will banish you to hell. But he goes home, puts on porn and will be forgiven because he is not only human, but also a religious nut. I suggest you all, don`t listen to these religious nuts, as they are the most important reason why Islam and we are here in the gutter. Say you’re a Muslim and they look at you and your passport twice. Hey Hey go to jihad, a religious man says. What about your own son is he going too? An intellectual like myself asks. Well no. Why not? He is in England studying. Replies the religious man. What hypocrites.

YLH

A fun read -

Secularization, this set of processes deserves greater by writers such as yourself, so many seem unclear as what these processes are, indeed what secularization itself refers to. I look forward to your exploration of this worthy idea.

re: Ballukhan # 479

When we Hindus entered our dark ages, when we hit the bottom of our intellectual and moral abyss, we began to discriminate against our most productive and most important people - the hard working common folk. Our `moral` and `intellectual` leaders advanced the argument that these common folk were naturally different from the Brahmins. Similar naturalistic arguments were made about the relationship between men and women.

It`s amazing that the mistakes we Hindus made 2,500 years ago are still being repeated by others.

When I talked about Naturalism and Essentialism it is clear that I am attacking the idea of inequality in the SOCIAL and POLITICAL sphere which draws from the in-equalities between man and woman in BIOLOGICAL spheres. I took a long time to understand this distinction because my thinking was also entrenched by the type of Naturalism and essentialism that it typical of the Islamists(including Hinduists) like momek.
Shouting on the top of your voice that Islam is about ``equality`` while trying to push the old tribal patriarchal practices on the women folk in the name of ``Matter-of-fact``, ``NATURE``, ``fact-of -life`` or ``essential differences`` is nothing but distortion of Islam and hypocricy.
i was amazed to see one chowkist arguing for the inequality in the evidentiary value of a woman`s evidence in the court of law because of the biological inequalites- especially the ``fact`` that woman folk suffer from PMT (which is also not true universally).

re: PM # 476

Momekh indulges in the practice that is extremely common in all conservative religious circles: using language that can be easily interpreted in multiple ways, including in some very regressive ways. The practical implications of this language should be clear.

Let`s take his argument:

``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!``

At least for me, it`s possible to read that according to Momekh and his Islam, women do not have the the emotional strength and driving skills that men naturally possess. Of course, it is possible for one to assert that he actually was ascribing greater emotional strength and better driving skills to women. But you can see how the language of double meanings is put to use for advancing religious causes.

Then, what does it mean to be ``treated equally when it comes to Justice?`` Can women get equal justice from the department of motor vehicles if the department assumes that women are emtionally weaker than men and are less reliable drivers of motor vehicles than men are?

Beware all-
The intoxicating discourses of liberation and heavens keeps shrouded the working of SATANIC minds !!

OrdianryHndu:
What ``sense of superiroirty over the feminine [of the] species`` do you detect in momekh`s type of Islam?

Ballukhan`s #474 is a distortion of what momekh has striven to say. Momekh makes clear that in the areas of jsutice and service, complete equality is to be served. OTOH, on proposing a meritocracy in ruling/admininstering, he is no different from Singapore and many a sage`s pronouncements.

re: ballukhan # 473, 474

Ballukhan ji, I was about to get converted to Momekh`s type of Islam. But you destroyed all my sense of superiority over the feminine species :(

The origins of fascism- some people are more equal than others
``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.``

Naturalism at its best-

``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.``

-do you think two men are equal??? Can you compare Bach with Osama in terms of strength, in terms of emotions, in terms of driving skills? think about it, at some places Bach excels, at some Osama, they are not equal and

---

recognizes this all-but-natural FACT OF LIFE.

Secularism at work. When the Talib`s want to do the reverse, everyone crys foul. When these bastards want to do the same, it`s fair game. Hypocrites.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3261147.stm

A German state has begun moves to ban Muslims from wearing headscarves in schools.
The bill was proposed by the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg following a supreme court ruling in September that allowed a Muslim teacher to wear a headscarf.

The legislation is expected to gain approval from the state parliament early next year....

The ban will not apply in religious education classes, and Christian and Jewish symbols will not be banned.

Three states - Berlin, Hesse and Saarland - want headscarves banned in all public services.

Dear Momekh,

Time will tell ... and prove the `preconceived` notion that Democracy + Secularism is the only way to go... is the right notion.

#469 by ballukhan on November 11, 2003 3:28am PT
am I reading too much of the Islamist stuff, or is it because of continous fasting??


Please ignore my earlier post at 469.

It must be because of reading too much of Fosa.

Correction please:
#468 by ballukhan on November 10, 2003 6:25am PT

``those proficient in the non-secular discourses.....`` should be read as ``those proficient in the secular discourses.....``

The para reads as under:
``.....With non-secular discourses becoming prominent, those proficient in the secular discourses would become irrelevant and would lose their credibility as the sole custodians of most exalted public good (``the heavens``). ``

Secularism as a solution to post 9/11 dilemma

The term ``secularism`` appears to have been first used in English toward the middle of the nineteenth century, with a primary ideological meaning. As first used, it denoted the doctrine that morality should be based on rational considerations regarding human well-being in this world, to the exclusion of considerations relating to God or the afterlife. Later it was used more generally for the belief that public institutions, especially general education, should be secular not religious. In the twentieth century it has aquired a somewhat wider range of meaning, derived from the older and wider connotations of the term ``secular.`` In particular it is frequently used, along with ``separation,`` as an approximate equivalent of the French term laicisme, also used in other languages, but not as yet in English.``

So, secularism in the context of ``modern`` societies is about separating its Public Institutions from being governed by any religious books, religious heads or persons. Secularism is about removing the Ummah/Jammat/Dharma Sansad/Church from determining the state`s policies regarding how the people are going to be governed- something which PAkistan can never even think of attempting because they stupidly put religion as the ``foundation`` of their State.
Secularism creates the ``political space`` for discussion of non-religious(secular) issues like poverty, hunger, famines, rain water harvestation, import tariffs, agricultural subsidies, corruption- which none of the Islamist would like us to discuss without referring it to them.
Secularism completely dis-empowers these mulaahs , and takes away the grounds for their intervention in such ``non-secular`` issues.
With non-secular discourses becoming prominent, those proficient in the non-secular discourses would become irrelevant and would lose their credibility as the sole custodians of most exalted public good (``the heavens``).

re. #463 momekh:

Hey, some interesting thoughts there. You seem to suggest that Islam encompasses (or should encompass) all areas of life BUT --importantly -- that this does not necessarily mean a retreat to antiquiated, or static laws.

You imply seem to be making the argument that while equality in justice and service is to desireable, such equality has no meaning in other areas, where we are essentially comparing apples with oranges.

I tend to agree with you.

Now, you brought up the issue of failure to properly define the terms used in this debate. That may have been true up to a point, but I think toward the latter fifth of the discussion here, thanks in no small part to AlephNull, the definitions were in fact clarified, which enabled us to argue more coehrently, if still not reach any happy agreement.

You write: ``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

I think you have greatly missed the mark on secualrism. It was made clear very earlier on in this debate that secularism by no means prohibited the practice of religion, or even of public show of it. Only the state`s involvement in it is a no-no. In other words, in a secualr state, not only are you free to go to your churches, manfies etc, but you are of course free to go out in the street and ``spread the right way`` -- much as the Seventh Day Adventists and Jehoava`s Witnesses do in the U.S. And, of course, there is ``no compulsion`` on anyone to convert.

As per the parameters set by your goodself in your post, this sounds pretty much like an ``Islamic`` system. But if you agree, the practical problem is in convincing the many Muslims who don`t.

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.

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?

re: PM # 411

Agreed that we were simply begining to ``chase the tail`` in our interacts. I think, you did an excellent job of clarifying the concepts, which I was trying to explain and in that sense, I agree with the following quote, which you wrote in your last post.

``If the state is oblivious/indifferent to religion, that is tolerance enough. It need step in only when there is the danger of one religion not tolerating another, or indeed when any religious group seeks to violate its (the state`s) authority``.

I agree with this rubric of religious tolerance in a state`s affairs.

Parentically speaking, this series of interacts with you has really reaffirmed my belief in the value of a dialogue. At the meaning, we both started from opposite ends and through concentrated efforts at coherence and explaining our divergent positions, ended up in a statement of fact (your quote), which was agreeable to both our agruments. The key in my opinion was the ability to compromise our arguments, avoid dogmatic stances and a willingness to tolerate, what the other person was saying without resorting to personal attacks. In that sense, I thank you for a very enlightening discussion. I am sure, we will pick up the logical rapiers another day, upon another topic, but for the present I will stop this tete a tete at our joint declaration.

Again, thank you for a time most well spend!

Ciao

http://www.meforum.org/article/151

A more apt name for the Islamic polity would be the ``kingdom of God`` which is described in English as a ``theocracy.`` But Islamic theocracy is something altogether different from the theocracy of which Europe has had bitter experience. . . . The theocracy built up by Islam is not ruled by any particular religious class but by the whole community of Muslims including the rank and file. The entire Muslim population runs the state in accordance with the Book of God and the practice of His Prophet. If I were permitted to coin a new term, I would describe this system of government as a ``theo-democracy,`` that is to say a divine democratic government, because under it the Muslims have been given a limited popular sovereignty under the suzerainty of God. The executive under this system of government is constituted by the general will of the Muslims who have also the right to depose it.

re PM #420:

bhayya, my point was not that subtle. The pulpit in one way or another was controlled by the powers that be in Islam. In Christianity it behaved more like `Princes` as you imply. An inability to control those princes led to so many kings declaring their own churches. End of story.

re Alephnull #425:

Thanks for clearing it up. I find myself in agreement with your post. I just get a little annoyed when people think that telling the practioners their baby is ugly as sin, their prophet was a pervert or that there are no 72 virgins waiting for them in lala land is the way to bring about a change in attitude. A slogan like `one man one vote one time` to describe Islamists is catchy but flawed in the sense that it ascribes to the Islamists motives they may or may NOT have. It is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.

Idealogies wither away when economic, social and most importantly psychological costs of maintaining them in the face of damning evidence become too high. It will happen in due course of time with Islam. But what path it will take as you point out is open to conjecture.

later
-sac

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

If he can accuse me of being a Turkish Military sympathizer.... I can accuse him to be a Taliban sympathizer.

Some QUESTIONS to ROMAIR ...


1) IF YOU HAVE ADMITTED THAT YOU DON`T READ MY POSTS... WHY DO YOU KEEP LYING ABOUT ME IN YOUR POSTS? BEFORE YOU ACCUSE ME OF SOMETHING ATLEAST BE A MAN AND HAVE THE COURTESY OF READING MY POSTS OR MY ARTICLE...


2) HAVE YOU EVER IN YOUR LIFE PICKED UP A BOOK?


3) DID YOU BOTHER TO READ THIS ARTICLE? IS MY CONCLUSION REALLY WHAT YOU CLAIM TO BE ?


4) BEFORE TALKING ABOUT `YOUNG TURKS` AND COMPARING THE SECULARISTS TO THEM ... MAYBE YOU SHOULD READ THEIR HISTORY... THE YOUNG TURKS WERE IDEOLOGICALLY LIKE YOU... THEY WANTED A `PSEUDO-SECULAR PSEUDO-ISLAMIC APPROACH`... IDIOTIC, STUPID AND NOT VERY WELL READ.... THEIR REVOLUTION ENDED UP IN TAKING TURKEY INTO THE FIRST WORLD WAR... Ataturk had nothing to do with the Young Turks after 1908.

The point my dear friend is that you are the most dense person I have come across on chowk.. Here is what my views on TURKEY were which you conveniently ignored to accuse me of trying to `supercede` democracy:


#282

``I have written about Turkey many times... I have praised Kemal Ataturk and his revolution as being the need of the time in 1924... even there I don`t agree with some of the things he did.. like the dresscode for example.. but over all I think it was a new and dynamic moment in the Islamic history as recognized by people like Iqbal in his famous book Reconstruction of religious thought in Islam.

However... no where have I praised the Turkish Army`s role in Turkey`s politics. Remember Kemal Ataturk himself had resigned his commission before being elected president by GNA.

The problem with the Turkish Army is that it has made a dogma out of Ataturk`s actions in the 1920s... Ataturk had seen Turkey go beyond him. He wanted a transition from Monarchy to true democracy. He never envisaged the Army taking over in his name. As a person he was repulsed by the very idea... and we find his writings full of criticism of military dictators and leaders in Uniform (hint hint). Ataturk`s greatness was in charting a new course ... a course which kept up with the Modern day... the Turkish Army has stagnated... Turkish Military doesn`t believe in Secularism ... they believe in state control of religion. On the other hand Ataturk`s control of religion was temporary. He lifted many of the temporary bans in his own life. A Very different thing. No wonder the thug Zia was a close friend of the Turkish Military... True harbingers of Turkish secularism were people like Adnan Menderes, a true secularist who was hanged for having pro-Islamic loyalties... ``







Indian,


That post was not addressed to you. Go back and have a look at the context.

Belief in your God alone in not sufficient. It must be accompanied by belief in the apostleship of God.

A delegation visits God. He tells the delegates: “I direct you to affirm belief in my God alone,” and then asks them: “Do you know what belief in God really implies?” Then he himself answers: “It implies testimony to the fact that there is no other God, and that I am the only Messenger of God. ”

Other things mentioned are prayer, donation, fasting “that you pay one-fifth of the booty”.

Like Amway?

AlephNull:
re. #426
If that is the appearnace I give, I must be the world`s finest charlatan, though I confess wholly unwittingly! :)

But are you going to keep me guessing on your chief influence?

#426 PM

{{Feyerabend?}}

No. Somebody else, an original thinker and vigorous polemicist. I haven`t read any Feyerabend. I`ve read some Popper (and for that matter Kuhn and Lakatos) - i.e. mostly philosophy of science and mathematics. You appear on the whole better read in Western philosophy than I am.

AlephNull:
Feyerabend?

Sac #395

{{With all due respect to you and well-meaning folks like Sameer, a radical surgery will not do the trick. A more gradual approach has a better chance of success.}}

I will be the first to admit that, in general, I lack a deep knowledge and understanding of Islamic history and institutions. Beyond that, I suggest that you may have missed my point. It may be my fault in letting the surgical metaphor (engendered in the first place by Nasah Sahib’s craniopagus imagery) elope with the sense of what I wanted to convey.

I was not advising radical surgery, simply arguing that the conjoined twins – Islam (political and otherwise), and a society composed of Muslims (by birth, culture, etc.) - cannot live in happy mutual amity in the face of modernity. My prescription, if you want it, is to feed one of the twins on a wholesome diet, strengthen all its limbs, so that it grows disproportionately larger than the other, which eventually shrinks for want of nutrition and becomes no more than a protuberant wart on the skull of the larger twin, disfiguring perhaps and mildly parasitic but not life-threatening. This is of course what SameerJB has been suggesting all along. He says that this could be accomplished in Pakistan by encouraging regional ethnic and linguistic identities. It will also happen in due course through an education system that stresses the sciences, or by exposure to the mass media of other civilizations that thrive without invoking religion at every turn, or by comparison with anything else that by its demonstrated power makes the authority of revealed religion appear patently hollow and bogus.

I do know of the systematic difference in ecclesiastical organization between Western Christendom and Islam, i.e. hierarchical priesthood versus decentralized religious authority, with both systems asserting in different degrees an imagined uniformity of belief and community of believers. Difference in outward organization is not overly relevant to the issue of mind-share exercised by religions. Power in human societies is of many kinds, but it all eventually flows not from the barrel of a gun but from abstract ideas [thus the dictum about the ink of the scholar being more sacred than the blood of the martyr]. Let the mind-share be captured, and the rest will follow. That is why it makes sense to use comparative mind-share in the host human population (rather than, for instance, mere numbers bearing a particular doctrinal affiliation) as the proper index of the influence of a particular religion, or family of religions, or for that matter any theory or system of thought. By this measure Islam has historically had a remarkable degree of success, and has managed to co-opt a great deal of mind-share in non-religious domains in its service. However, Islam – Koranic or otherwise - cannot eventually win against, or win over to its side, a system of thought that demonstrates its efficacy without making any reference to a divinity or to revelation; whereas secularism is dictated by such a system. Islam will therefore eventually suffer the same fate of grossly curtailed influence as Christianity, though the exact sequence in which this happens may be different.

PM #334

Thanks for the clarification. By ‘kinder, gentler’ I meant your letting bygones be bygones. You do have a habit of putting quotations in bold face, which I find acutely embarrassing. I have read some of Hazrat Russell’s stuff in the past (I most recently reread “The Conquest of Happiness”) but I’m probably more influenced, in approach if not my whole creed, by someone else, who I know used to detest Russell.

PunjabiZulu #332, 333

You make me blush beneath my deep South Indian ‘tan’. I haven’t the nerve to submit my ponderous prose as an article. I would have to do thorough homework in anticipating obvious continuations. Moreover, I`d have to actively hang around as a cordial and gracious moderator, offering clarifications, defending myself against hecklers, the intentionally obtuse, and the terminally dense, without losing my temper, etc. That requires the energy of a Manto, the tenacity of a Urstruly, and copious free time, which I don’t happen to have.

Hamidm #347, #355

I found your ex-seminarian friend’s madcap invocation of ‘irreconcilable differences’ most convincing – I need to try it on my parents.

Mantolives #371

I have a query. You write:

{{In sunni Islam obedience towards the ruler is considered mandatory...}}

Now I am sure things cannot be quite so simple. For instance, some regimes are tyrannical, illegitimate by almost any standard. Various schools of Islamic thought must, down the centuries, have developed their own notions of what is or is not legitimate rule. My question, therefore is: what, in any well-known school of Islamic thought that you choose, is required of a ruler or regime or polity, to be considered legitimate (and thus qualifying for mandatory obedience)? Does the ruler have to a Muslim; does Islam have to be the state religion, or does Islam simply have to be tolerated, in the sense of free exercise of the right of worship and perhaps autonomous administration of personal laws? I suspect that a large number of Muslims in India have made their peace with the third alternative, but many vocal ones aren’t ready to accept religion-oblivious secularism.

PM #313

{{What are the limits of the state`s toleration of religious freedom of its various religious communities? … I think it`s all very well to talk, in the abstract, about secular constitutions that tolerate all religious traditions. It`s when you attempt to put this principle to actual use that you might run into some inconvenient conflicts.}}

The fact that individual freedoms, the rights of individuals to petition the state for redress, the obligation of the state to uphold individual rights, is in severe conflict with the supposed rights of religious communities, is one of the strongest reasons for rejecting the notion of secularism as “equal rights for all religions/religious communities, impartial state patronage of religion”. The most salient fact is that individuals precede communities as well as the state. A particular individual’s membership in a specific imagined community, religious, racial, ethnic, linguistic, etc., is a contingent fact, usually a matter of accident of birth or similar happenstance. It can be changed by individual actions and personal choice. Religious communities are not primary entities ordained to exist eternally, though some may see themselves that way.

Secularism as ‘equal tolerance of religion’ requires the state to get into the business of defining what is or is not a religion, deciding which religious communities should be recognized as such, determining whether something is a religion or a sect of a religion and in other ways adjudicating the boundaries between different religions, deciding what an individual’s religion is, weighing in on such thorny questions as whether individuals can have more than one religion at the same time, etc. etc. It is a hopeless can of worms. In the process religions/religious communities have become a new class of quasi-legal entities vying for rights with individuals and demanding protection from individuals and other communities. For instance, these religious corporate entities have obvious interests in preventing defections by their members, which given half a chance they try to write into laws. Secularism as “obliviousness to religion” does not have to brook any of this nonsense.

The following is an excellent exposition of the ‘individual freedoms’ approach to secularism. It was first posted on Chowk a while back by someone who unfortunately is rarely seem here today:

Freedom and Secularism

“very few protagonists stake the simple and obvious claim: each individual has as much liberty as is compatible with a similar liberty for others. This claim has three large implications for secularism. First, secularism is not about respecting this or that religion and granting them due recognition. It is about giving individuals the freedom to realise themselves in whatever way they choose to do so, in whatever religion or without religion at all. The state is not in the business of saving anyone`s soul; it is not in the business of advancing any particular religious conception or conceptions. Its primary function, other than securing security and a minimum of well being for all citizens, is protecting their liberty as individuals.

Second, the state has an obligation to ensure that this freedom is secured for all individuals, sometimes even against the prohibitions that religious communities impose upon them. Third and most importantly, no majority can override the basic rights of individuals, not matter how strong their sentiments. When the state uses the sentiments of the majority as an argument to impose restrictions on what people may think, what they may eat and so forth, it violates the fundamental tenets of freedom.”

It is clear that there are multiple prevalent conceptions of secularism. Manto offered one in his article (Jinnah’s dictum that religion would have nothing to do with the business of the state.) Subsequently there was a vigorous if confused debate on the issue. Definitions offered ranged from “sovereignty vested in the people” to “extinction of all outward signs of religiosity”. Ferozk developed at some length the idea of secularism as state tolerance of religion and state evenhandedness to all religions. This is a conception that is prevalent in India but that I, an Indian, regard as brain-damaged, fundamentally flawed.

I suspect that there is a considerable amount of intentional obtuseness, feigned incomprehension and deliberate distraction in the responses of some of the opponents of a secular polity. But there surely is in addition a fair amount of genuine confusion among more honest and sincere people on both sides of the divide, about which notion of secularism is the ‘correct’ one.

It is instructive to look at the concept of ‘religion’, although IMO it is not properly the dual or opposite of secularism. It will be clear that here again there are many prevalent conceptions and multiple definitions. No two of the commonly recognized world faiths or faith families are identical either in what they regard as their domain or in the approach they take to the problems they address.

Thus on the one hand we have religions such as Christianity and Islam that bluntly insist on the existence of a divinity who cares about human actions, and who telegraphs his commandments to humans via ‘revelations’. Of these two, Islam, as I see it, squarely asserts its relevance in the public and political sphere, not merely in the private one. On the other hand, we have the teachings of Gautama Buddha, which take a positivistic approach to human existence, and attempt a rigorous analysis of the human condition, with no invocation of divinities of deities or supernatural phenomena at all. I’ve had at least one person (a conservative Catholic) inform me that he did not regard Buddhism as a religion at all. I on the third hand, believe that Marxism though ostensibly atheistic has many of the characteristics of the Judaic religions and can fruitfully be regarded as a junior member of that faith family. Finally, there are those – invariably fanatical religionists – who insist that atheism, secularism, secular humanism, etc. are themselves religions and no better than Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc. on that score. There is in fact the same degree of debate about the notion of ‘religion’ as there is about the proper definition of secularism.

All this suggests that the conceptual categorization of this domain is a tangled mess and a clean-up ought to be undertaken. Anyone wishing to advance a viable definition of secularism needs to either untie the Gordian knot himself or else find a way to sever it.

Further, while various religions may contain a great deal that is pure mumbo-jumbo, they may also contain many genuine insights into the human condition. It is a basic rule of debate that the origin of an argument has no bearing on its truth, which ought to be determined on intrinsic grounds. The mere fact that a notion came from some religion should not count in its favour at all; but it should equally not serve to discredit it.

---

I was struggling to express my own take on all this when Nasah’s post appeared and caused some of my opinions to crystallize. One of my central points was that secularism, a notion concerning how a society ought to be run, and a polity constituted, is a consequence of a certain metaphysics and epistemology. This in itself ought to be no surprise, since metaphysics (‘the nature of reality and experience’) and epistemology (‘how we know what we know’) are logically prior to ethics and politics; so one might want to go towards the philosophical roots in the search for a viable definition of secularism.

I assert that state obliviousness to religion is such a viable definition; and that it is a fall-out of: a metaphysics that makes no mention of a divinity, whether immanent or transcendent, and an epistemology that makes no provision for revelation. I strongly suspect that liberal democracy/constitutional republic is similarly a fall-out of the same metaphysics and epistemology (though not the only system of government consistent with that metaphysics and epistemology).

‘Obliviousness to religion’ means, in particular, that the state claims no knowledge of religion, let alone a particular religion (“Religion, whose religion, we don’t have time for this nonsense”). Religion is a domain beyond the state’s declared competence. The fact that something has the tag ‘religion’ attached to it, or is identified with a particular religion, means nothing, one way or another, to the state. The state simply uses different, preferably tangible or positivistic, criteria, in its determinations. The secular state’s laws, and the justifications it provides for its actions, have to be based on such criteria. ‘Divine revelation’ or ‘established religious authority’ do not qualify as acceptable justifications (nor should a lot of junk science). The state chooses to slice the Gordian knot.

Let me spell out the obvious – since it tends to be remarkably unobvious to committed religionists. Secularism as defined above does not require citizens to hide all outward displays of religiosity. It does not bar religious people, or even religious figures, from participation in politics or government at any level. A secular polity cannot prevent religious parties from participating in politics on the grounds that they are religion-based, just as a democratic polity cannot demand ‘internal democracy’ in the workings of a political party as an eligibility criterion. A secular legal code can contain laws that incidentally correspond to some of the injunctions of a particular religion, as long as religion is not used as the justification for putting them there, or for not abolishing them.

A secular country cannot ban the expression of any idea, on the grounds that it is blasphemous, sacrilegious, offensive or hateful to the adherents of some religion, or to anyone at all. Potential openness to all ideas, recognition of the likelihood that our knowledge is incomplete, is an essential part of the epistemological attitude that underlies secularism.

A secular country can declare holidays in its national calendar, that coincide with the religious festivals or high holy days of religions with wide adherence among its populace, as a simple matter of public convenience; just as it can declare holidays that have no such association. It can make basic arrangements for the safety of large number of travelers on religious pilgrimages or masses at religious gatherings, just as it can oversee security at large public sporting events or concerts – the justification, in both cases, being the same, namely a degree of state responsibility for the physical well-being of its citizens. None of this conflicts in any way with secularism defined as religion-obliviousness.

Secularism as religion-obliviousness is however a mortal enemy of the idea that sovereignty should reside in a Revealed Book or in its self-appointed interpreters. This conflict simply won’t go away. No truce is possible here; it is a fight to the death.

hamidm,

``............. but what if the baby is ugly is sin and beyond redemption ?``

Fortunately as someone living the good life in a secular and democratic country my opinion is immaterial. Ask the mother of the baby and you`ll get a different answer.

later
-sac

re. sac #415

``Exactly. Can you say the same thing about the Church? My post was only intended to highlight this difference between Christianity and Islam.``

The implication here seems to be that the Church played a paramount role on politics as religious interpretor of God`s plan. I`m not so sure about the accuracy of this proposition. The Holy Roman empire, did of course spread it`s wings far and wide, but how much of a religious (in the sense of even claiming to interpret God`s word) organiszation it was in those times is moot. Certainly, the bishops were treated as, and often actaully were, princes.

I suppose you could argue that Islam is similarly ``hijacked`` by those wishing to see global domination by the Ummah, but there are crucial differences.. whether or not these Islamists are right in their interpretation, they at least seek and IMHO believe they have, the mandate of the books behind their politics. The Church through the Dark and Middle Ages scarcely felt the need to have to justify themselves theologically thus.

It`s worth noting that as early as the 1215 the most revolutionary poltical document theretofore, made only one reference to God, (that too, in much the same vein as the Founding Fathers` God-given liberties)-- and none to the Bible or the Church. That, I think, is a better indication of the role of religion even back in the days of the Holy Roman Empire, predating nation-states.

sac,

``Lets not throw out the baby with the bath water``

............. but what if the baby is ugly is sin and beyond redemption ?

......life goes on ...........

............so this discussion comes to an end after about 400 posts - mostly by folks who live the good life in secular and democratic countries where they can afford the luxury of being muslims ..........

................ but what about poor ylh?.......... he is stuck with a 130 million idiots who can`t even spell secularism and are confident that they will find salvation and seventy two houris in the hereafter .............

......so what will he do?........... he and his two dozen friends will sit around in their drawing rooms, sipping dudh-pati, smoking gold leafs and wringing their hands while the mullahs run amok in the dtreets smashing bill boards and beating up on fools who dare to eat in the street during ramadhan .........he will fret and fume for a few years; write columns in the friday times denouncing the mullahs - columns that his friends will read in their drawing rooms ............in another few years, if the mullahs don`t declare him a murtad, when he is older, he will give up on this foolishness, go for hajj, grow a beard and start worrying the beads on a tasbeeh....... maybe, then maybe, he will get elected as a liberal member of the shoora of the islamic republic and spend his life arguing with fat men in turbans and six-yard shalwars with black marks on their foreheads ..................life goes on

ylh zindabad......

re sameerJB #414:

``Throughout history, religious side was on the payroll of state.........``

Exactly. Can you say the same thing about the Church? My post was only intended to highlight this difference between Christianity and Islam.

Now coming to your assertion about aristocratic tendencies in Islam, you are looking at only one side of the picture. The egalitarian vein that runs through most Islamic injunctions is more dominant than its biases against let`s say women or minorities. I agree with you on the sad course of events that have led Islam to the crisis it finds itself in today. However I am not sure if the alignment of religion with the state is the major culprit. Aristocracies have used everything from religion to divine rights to IQs to justify their dominance. Lets not throw out the bab