Are Secularism and Islam Incompatible?

No Doubt about this. In its present form , Islam is incompatible with secularism and many other ideas of a modern society.

Didn`t Iqbal also say:

``Juda ho deen siyasat se to rah jati hai changezi``

Maybe that was the problem. These founder guys kept going back and forth. Saying one thing one day, and a different thing the next. Maybe they were confused. Maybe, as politicians, they had to appease the crowd, that they happened to be talking to. Maybe they couldn`t figure out how to demand a, ``Secular`` state for Muslims, by breaking away from a, ``Secular`` state of Hindus.

One thing, I think is crystal clear, the founder guys (at least Jinnah) did not want a theocratic state. They were all Westernized, rich ruling class Britisher type fellows, who disliked the maulvi. Everything else is fuzzy. Did they want a non-theocratic state, which was moderately Islamic? Did they want a non-theocratic state, which was mostly Secular? Did they want just a fully Secular state? Different answer, depending on the persuasion of the individual involved in the discussion.

I don`t think theocracy and secularism are black and white. There is a whole grey area in between. Third world countries generally fall into this grey areas. Because there is so much poverty, that people have to rely more and more on God - in both their private and personal life. Jinnah may have realized this, when Pakistan was forming.

Secularism seems to be more popular in the rich countries and amongst rich people. The richer people get, the more secular they seem to become. Even in India, which has (had) democracy and secularism, it has faded, with the society going to other extreme. Perhaps, since it is a third-world country.

Ata-Turk, at least, knew what he wanted. Right or wrong. Even though, his own ideas are slowly being rejected in Turkey, where religious party(s) are now winning in landslides.

All I can say is that Pakistan should be a non-theocratic state. After that, it is only the economy that counts. As long as the economy is good, people won`t care one way or the other about secularism or religion. And if the economy isn`t good, people will reject secularism as quickly as they will reject religious groups. That is why they migrate equally enthusiastically to Dubai or USA - one a non-secular Muslim dictatorship, the other a secular Christian democracy.

manto,

............ good try and i admire your honorable intentions, but it just won`t fly ............ there is no separation of church and state in islam and, for now, the ummah (which does not include jews and ahmedis) has bought into the concept of an islamic state based on seventh century stupidity ............but, it can and will change ......... it will take at least a hundred years or more, but sooner or later the muslims will join the civilized world .........

Romair,


Is AKP religious? Is AKP anti-Ataturk? Is AKP anti-secular? In my opinion AKP is the most secular party there is... and your contentions are based on little knowledge.


This is what AKP`s leader Erdogan wrote:

``Great Ataturk, two years ago on 14th August 2001, the day we established our party, we came before you with the members of the Founders Council. We said that it is our duty to elevate our nation, as old as the history of humanity and filled with glory and fame, to contemporary civilization according to your guidance, to make it democratic, secular, and to bring it into the social law according to the state`s regulations. Right now after two years, we are standing before you again as one big family. With the name Prime Minister of The Republic of Turkey our nation has shown our party enormous consideration and trust. Right now, by being at peace by doing what we promised to do two years ago as the reason for our presence here today, we are promising that we will work with more prodigious effort to continue our way. Let your soul be at peace.``





Think and read before you speak...

The `religious` Party you talk about has huge Portraits of Ataturk at its rallies... its leader openly says `I am secular` and proclaims in Newspapers that I serve beer and he kicked off his campaign standing next to an Ataturk statue... so much for your contention that Ataturk is being rejected by Turks... little knowledge is dangerous. This `AKP` is a perfectly secular Party which wants true secularism in Turkey ... their victory shows the rejection of Army`s control of religion... but not the defeat of secularism.

As for your contention that `non-theocratic` means something other than secular... this is intellectual dishonesty... Besides the fact that you didn`t comment even once about the Mesaq-e-Medina shows that you being the idiot you are have just used to this board to defaecate as usual. Hence may I say this... take your diahorrea elsewhere if you can`t read the article first.


hamidm

In Islamic History there are many models... the point I am trying to make is that Mullah`s contention (which you seem to agree to) that Secularism has no place in Islam is not always true... Mesaq-e-Medina is a proof of a pluralistic multi-cultural federation and secular nationalism ... where `Ummah` means `Jews, christians, Pagans and Muslims` together as citizens of the State of Medina.

Islam`s later models are completely and totally incompatible with this idea ofcourse and I agree that then there is no separation of church and state.

PS: Air Marshal... now that facts have totally discredited your idea about Turkey`s Ruling party... I will come to your other contention .. your question about partition ... you have repeated the same old Mullah argument again and again... but have you tried to answer your question by reading because that is something you seem to be incapable of...

Read Ayesha Jalal`s famous book... see if you understand what she is trying to say.

To others who have actually read the article or are interested in the topic instead of defaecating like our very own Romair...

My contention is that Islam doesn`t necessarily presuppose that the church has to be part of the state... hence the quotation of Allama Iqbal which is very important:

``They therefore reject old ideas about functions of state and religion and accentuate the separation of church and state. The structure of Islam as a religio-political system no doubt does permit such a view.``
(Reconstruction of religious thought in Islam, Sang-e-Meel Publications, Page 135)

Instead of quoting verses from Allama`s poetry which you don`t understand... please debate on the idea...

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

re: this article and chowk idiot`s assertion
``Even in India, which has (had) democracy and secularism, it has faded, with the society going to other extreme. Perhaps, since it is a third-world country.``
Let Romair the Air marshal debate on secularism in Pak. India has a secular constitution, safeguarded by the Supreme Court. President of India today is a muslim. Can this Romair idiot show me another country where a minority has been elevated to this high rank?

YLH has written a good article again and raised an important issue. My short answer is: yes, a muslim nation can be secular but it has to find a way of keeping mullahs out of the power loop. Islam should become just a personal religion and not a state religion. That is why a debate is so essential among the muslim ummah`s intelligentia as to how to keep mullahs out of power.
I will have to find another time for a more detailed answer.
Sridhar

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

Hello Sir Mantolives

You write quite well. Now about Islam and secularism. For a country like Pakistan, where Islam has been hijacked by pseudo mullahs and their secret motives, the call for an Islamic state is the only thing needed to exacerbate the situation even more. Islam is more of a way of life, a Deen. What occured in Medinah 1400 years ago can not be implemented in the current times because first of all we don`t have a sincere leader, secondly too many divisions in our Ummah, so unifying all under one umbrella is not feasible. I think Islam itself does promote the idea of democracy, secularism, natural rights, etc but all these have become ideologies now. Islam is not a religion that calls for a theocracy or the monarchy (Arabs what can you say???). Islam advocates tolerance and in our global community tolerance means the separation of church and state. Thanks for a good article.

Turkey has a terrible human rights record with respect to Armenians and Kurds. It is, in fact, still targeting Kurds.

Does anyone know the details of how Ata Turk handled the Armenians and Kurds? I have always wondered whether his secularism is popular because he, ``shoved the mullahs into the sea,`` or whether it is popular because he ensured equal human rights for all sects, ethnicities, religions etc.

Secularism without humanity, can be as vicious, ifnot more, as religion without humanity.

Romair...

Now that Romair`s stupid assertion that Ataturk has been rejected was proved wrong by the AKP itself... he has come up with more lies about the founder of Turkey.

Ataturk had nothing to do with the Armenian massacre .... again more little knowledge...
The Armenian Massacre happened in 1915... way before Kemal Ataturk was in Power... at that time he was fighting in Gallipoli where he defeated the British and earned a place in the History of warfare.

Kurdish rebellion started off as a religious rebellion and the Turkish state did deal with that ... but that was an ongoing problem, and PKK came into existence much later than the Ataturk himself... In 1971 Pakistan army killed off the Bengalis... is that Jinnah`s fault? The only mistake Ataturk made was to make Turkish the sole language of Turkey ignoring the Kurd language... and that is the mistake if you recall our own founder made at Paltan Maidan in Dacca with Urdu.


Ataturk was in the process of replacing a medieval government with a modern one... and he was busy fighting a war with the Greeks... so he might have been dictatorial... but he gave every citizen of Turkey equal rights... especially women whose position he elevated from Property to equal human beings...

Read before you write.




Faiza Hussain,

That is an excellent vision of Islam.


Rsidhar,

Thankyou... and I suppose the best way to deal with romair menace is to ignore him. He doesn`t read the article often and just likes to defaecate.

-YLH

Problem here is the same as with all such attempts to ``prove`` that Islam is compatible with democracy/modernization/technical innovation/etc: why do we even need to bother? Everyplace else in the world, they keep their religion confined to the private sphere and out of the public. We )(*)#%#) Muslims keep dragging it into the public and dragging ourselves back into the Glorious Seventh Century. Just admit that the Prophet was divinely inspired but not guided, the Koran is not the literal word of God but just man`s interpretation of God`s will and get on with our lives. Ameen!

Yasser:

To me whatever misaq--e-madina represented is miniscule compared to our 1000 years of experience with Islam. Misaq-e-madina was among the people of a city of 50,000 inhibitants, more like current population of Rai Wind or AkoRa Khattack. statistically it loses all significance when attempted to extend it over hundred of millions of diverse people.

The 1000 year history of plunder, looting, murders, exploitation, slavery by Islam in our part of the world is much more documented and valid in order to decide the future of Islam in Pakistani politics. The positive side of it is mostly elitist - things which do not benefit masses, like literature, poetry, archetecture, music etc. Only period which saw any real development was British Raj when Islam was eclipsed by colonialism.

After 1000 years of infatuation with Islam, Muslims stood as second most backward social class in education, business - ahead of untouchables. So much for the love affair and converting to it by hook or by crook. Is 1000 years of pathetic history is not enough eye-opener that we have to bring in Kamal Ataturk and misaq-e-madina to express reservations about Islam?

Despite failing us miserably at every step of our peoples` history, it is parasitically demanding more and more. After 1000 years of calling it ramzan, we are now reprimended by the self appointed custodians of Islam for not calling it ramadhan.

I must stop here. Manto, I have not even touched upon the the other most devastating effect of Islam on us during the last 1000 years besides misery and poverty; the devastating blow to native cultures.

Do you know what is the most effective mean to kick its ass? Just grant native languages the status of national languages and make them into vernacular teaching languages in non-English medium schools. Not only will it send Islam down the drain but also strengthen distinct identity for Pakistanis since our native languages are different than Indian languages.

footloose in lahore ..........

............ it is a long journey from martin luther to ren ............. the muslims have not even taken the first small step towards liberating themselves from whatever it is that plagues them .......... there will be many torquemadas and rev shaw moores along the way .............

............ manto, sorry it ain`t gonna happen in our life time ......... but keep on fighting the good fight and hope that things turn out for you like they did for kevin bacon.............

re. Manto on Romair:
``As for your contention that `non-theocratic` means something other than secular... this is intellectual dishonesty...``

Either that or just plain intellectual vacuity.
No kiddin` Romair. There are limits to the hardness of any nut, but you really do take the cake on this question.

Okay Omair, now go ahead and tell us again how some secularists have been really really bad people, and pretend that you believe that that is actually is germane to the issue.