What Does It Mean to be a Muslim in a Secular Country?
Mohammad Gill January 10, 2005
#98 Posted by freethinker on January 14, 2005 4:03:47 am
khurram Sahib:
Let me put my view in another way. In a secular government, there is no direct intervention of religion. However religion is not abolished from the society. Jewish voters may be influenced by Judaism, likewise Muslim voters might be influenced in voting by Islamic values. It`s fine. There is nothing wrong in it. Secularism protects people from persecution on religious grounds. As I said earlier, no political system is perfect. If a system works for the ``common good`` it should be okay.
I personally have no experience of discrimination on religious grounds here in the U.S. Although I did experience discrimination in job hunting. That was a difficult time in my life. But once I got my employment, I got rapid promotions and superseded many others because my credentials were superior. We are dealing with human beings who have their inherent prejudices and biases. But the system is free from these defects at least in principle. I could have gone to the court to seek redress against the discrimination that I had experienced but I took it patiently. Patience is my (our) characteristic because I had experienced greater (much greater) discrimination in Pakistan. We have freedom of expression here which is a great gift of secularism; I personally cherish it. Wishing you well,
Mohammad Gill
Let me put my view in another way. In a secular government, there is no direct intervention of religion. However religion is not abolished from the society. Jewish voters may be influenced by Judaism, likewise Muslim voters might be influenced in voting by Islamic values. It`s fine. There is nothing wrong in it. Secularism protects people from persecution on religious grounds. As I said earlier, no political system is perfect. If a system works for the ``common good`` it should be okay.
I personally have no experience of discrimination on religious grounds here in the U.S. Although I did experience discrimination in job hunting. That was a difficult time in my life. But once I got my employment, I got rapid promotions and superseded many others because my credentials were superior. We are dealing with human beings who have their inherent prejudices and biases. But the system is free from these defects at least in principle. I could have gone to the court to seek redress against the discrimination that I had experienced but I took it patiently. Patience is my (our) characteristic because I had experienced greater (much greater) discrimination in Pakistan. We have freedom of expression here which is a great gift of secularism; I personally cherish it. Wishing you well,
Mohammad Gill
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#97 Posted by ballukhan on January 14, 2005 12:58:19 am
``#93 by anilkv on January 13, 2005 9:28pm PT
While the fine points of secularism, majoritarianism, gay marriages, and head scarves are discussed here, this is something from todays dailytimes to munch on:
``Daily Jang (November 19, 2004) reported that Sindh chief minister Arbab Raheem had told 106 policemen suspended for corruption .....................``
What nonsense.............this is a typical consequence when you let the Religions decide the practice of Statecraft................it goes on to show what religions can do to legitimize corruption ............. Pathetic...tomorrow Badal would clean his sins by washing the floors of the Gurudwara or Shankaracharya would fast for a few days and get away with the murder ...........nonsense!!!
While the fine points of secularism, majoritarianism, gay marriages, and head scarves are discussed here, this is something from todays dailytimes to munch on:
``Daily Jang (November 19, 2004) reported that Sindh chief minister Arbab Raheem had told 106 policemen suspended for corruption .....................``
What nonsense.............this is a typical consequence when you let the Religions decide the practice of Statecraft................it goes on to show what religions can do to legitimize corruption ............. Pathetic...tomorrow Badal would clean his sins by washing the floors of the Gurudwara or Shankaracharya would fast for a few days and get away with the murder ...........nonsense!!!
#96 Posted by KaalChakra on January 14, 2005 12:58:19 am
Saminasha
That makes you a true woman of the world, at home everywhere and nowhere :)
That makes you a true woman of the world, at home everywhere and nowhere :)
#95 Posted by rahul_capri on January 13, 2005 9:28:32 pm
stuka #76
``Minor kids do not have a choice. Sons or daughters.``
The right of a parent who wants his child to wear hijab is violated in such a case. But how about a parent who wants his or her girl child not to wear hijab? Norms and customs are more powerful than laws.And I can quote quite a few examples on that . So, isnt that parent`s freedom of choice being violated per se? This is not a major `s right vs minor`s right or a parental will issue.It could have been that if there were some random parents asking their girls to wear hijab, or longer skirts in your case. But here, they are expected by the continuing tradition to do so, hence they are not exactly exercising their free will in having their children wear hijab. It is the issue of the state`s right to legislate over the practices of a community as a whole, though individuals rights are also compromised in such a case.
That is how secularism should be practiced.There can be different civil code for different religions but according to the needs of time and the principles of justice, equity and good conscience everthing should be amendable. There is nothing wrong in this in principle.
``Minor kids do not have a choice. Sons or daughters.``
The right of a parent who wants his child to wear hijab is violated in such a case. But how about a parent who wants his or her girl child not to wear hijab? Norms and customs are more powerful than laws.And I can quote quite a few examples on that . So, isnt that parent`s freedom of choice being violated per se? This is not a major `s right vs minor`s right or a parental will issue.It could have been that if there were some random parents asking their girls to wear hijab, or longer skirts in your case. But here, they are expected by the continuing tradition to do so, hence they are not exactly exercising their free will in having their children wear hijab. It is the issue of the state`s right to legislate over the practices of a community as a whole, though individuals rights are also compromised in such a case.
That is how secularism should be practiced.There can be different civil code for different religions but according to the needs of time and the principles of justice, equity and good conscience everthing should be amendable. There is nothing wrong in this in principle.
#94 Posted by anilkv on January 13, 2005 9:28:32 pm
While the fine points of secularism, majoritarianism, gay marriages, and head scarves are discussed here, this is something from todays dailytimes to munch on:
``Daily Jang (November 19, 2004) reported that Sindh chief minister Arbab Raheem had told 106 policemen suspended for corruption that they would be reinstated if they did two months of Islamic moral training with the Tablighi Jamaat in Lahore. On his orders bribe-taking policemen were sent on a Tablighi daura during Ramazan for ten days after which they demanded to be reinstated, but the chief minister insisted on more moral training. He has charged the imam of Yusuf Masjid in Sukkur to take them in for training and then give him report that they had forever abandoned the practice of taking graft before they would be again allowed to work as policemen .....``
``Daily Jang (November 19, 2004) reported that Sindh chief minister Arbab Raheem had told 106 policemen suspended for corruption that they would be reinstated if they did two months of Islamic moral training with the Tablighi Jamaat in Lahore. On his orders bribe-taking policemen were sent on a Tablighi daura during Ramazan for ten days after which they demanded to be reinstated, but the chief minister insisted on more moral training. He has charged the imam of Yusuf Masjid in Sukkur to take them in for training and then give him report that they had forever abandoned the practice of taking graft before they would be again allowed to work as policemen .....``
#93 Posted by masanamuthu on January 13, 2005 9:28:32 pm
kaalchakra #86:
I`m not putting any one in spot.. I was just wondering what arguments a woman (or even a man) can give when faced with such incidents that are highly despicable..
Was just curious to find out the take of believers.. Either i`m totally wrong (maybe if someone can explain the significance behind marrying a 9 yr old, or marrying a hostage woman after killing her husband and father) (or) the others are believing someone who is not really worthy of their beliefs..
I`m not putting any one in spot.. I was just wondering what arguments a woman (or even a man) can give when faced with such incidents that are highly despicable..
Was just curious to find out the take of believers.. Either i`m totally wrong (maybe if someone can explain the significance behind marrying a 9 yr old, or marrying a hostage woman after killing her husband and father) (or) the others are believing someone who is not really worthy of their beliefs..
#92 Posted by khurram on January 13, 2005 9:28:32 pm
freethinker #85,
Gill Sahib,
What I am trying to contend is that separation of religion and state is not really possible since collective decisions made and enforced by State are based on religious considerations.
The distinguishing feature of modern democracies is absence of authoritarianism. Some religious values prevail over others. However, this is done through a process of collective decision making and the losing side accepts to abide by it.
Modern democracies have 2 fundamental features.
1. All citizens have certain basic rights and freedoms that cannot be taken away by the state, even by majority vote.
2. Beyond #1, a majority vote decides which religious values prevail over others.
Western democracies are essentially religious democracies with Rational Humanism as the majority religion. It is perfectly possible to have religious democracies with other religions as majority as long as the above 2 principles are accepted.
Religion in government has been trouble when it is authoritarian. In fact, secular authoritarianism is just as much trouble,if not more. However, there is not a necessary connection between religion and authoritarianism just like there is not a necessary disconnection between secularism and authoritarianism.
Gill Sahib,
What I am trying to contend is that separation of religion and state is not really possible since collective decisions made and enforced by State are based on religious considerations.
The distinguishing feature of modern democracies is absence of authoritarianism. Some religious values prevail over others. However, this is done through a process of collective decision making and the losing side accepts to abide by it.
Modern democracies have 2 fundamental features.
1. All citizens have certain basic rights and freedoms that cannot be taken away by the state, even by majority vote.
2. Beyond #1, a majority vote decides which religious values prevail over others.
Western democracies are essentially religious democracies with Rational Humanism as the majority religion. It is perfectly possible to have religious democracies with other religions as majority as long as the above 2 principles are accepted.
Religion in government has been trouble when it is authoritarian. In fact, secular authoritarianism is just as much trouble,if not more. However, there is not a necessary connection between religion and authoritarianism just like there is not a necessary disconnection between secularism and authoritarianism.
#91 Posted by Saminasha on January 13, 2005 7:37:39 pm
kaal,
Ah yes...the battle for Saminasha`s soul...I cannot even begin to count how many people want me on their teams..JWs ring my doorbells...Sunnis with one side of their mouths comment on the shararath in my eyes and soogarness with the other...Jews think I`m way cool even when I give them shite about the Occupied Territories...Pentecostal girls tell me we`re sister...Hindus are always inviting me to temple...atheist college kids love me because I wont tell them they are going to hell....so rather than worrying about what ``well informed`` Muslims claim, I`m macking like Kabir...its all good...even the Buddhists...
Ah yes...the battle for Saminasha`s soul...I cannot even begin to count how many people want me on their teams..JWs ring my doorbells...Sunnis with one side of their mouths comment on the shararath in my eyes and soogarness with the other...Jews think I`m way cool even when I give them shite about the Occupied Territories...Pentecostal girls tell me we`re sister...Hindus are always inviting me to temple...atheist college kids love me because I wont tell them they are going to hell....so rather than worrying about what ``well informed`` Muslims claim, I`m macking like Kabir...its all good...even the Buddhists...
#90 Posted by freethinker on January 13, 2005 4:39:18 pm
Romair:
What many people keep on confusing is inclusion of religion in a secular system. Majority vote cannot bring religion back into state because constitutionally state is neutral in as much as religion is concerned. It is never an issue to be decided by the voters.
Homosexuality is basically a cultural issue but it is intertwined with religion historically. If gay marriages are banned, it is not be because religion calls for it although the voters might be motivated by religious feelings. I am not suggesting that there are not attempts to sneak religion into state through back door but such attempts will not succeed. A secular system, in principle, separates religion from the statecraft and what is wrong with it? As I said in my last post, a secular system makes life livable for every one.
Religion is okay at personal level. A religious government is nothing but trouble. Why should Ahmadis lose their civic rights in Pakistan or be second class citizens? Simply because they are not mainstream Muslims. I would hate to be treated like a second class citizen in USA.
Wishing you well,
Mohammad Gill
What many people keep on confusing is inclusion of religion in a secular system. Majority vote cannot bring religion back into state because constitutionally state is neutral in as much as religion is concerned. It is never an issue to be decided by the voters.
Homosexuality is basically a cultural issue but it is intertwined with religion historically. If gay marriages are banned, it is not be because religion calls for it although the voters might be motivated by religious feelings. I am not suggesting that there are not attempts to sneak religion into state through back door but such attempts will not succeed. A secular system, in principle, separates religion from the statecraft and what is wrong with it? As I said in my last post, a secular system makes life livable for every one.
Religion is okay at personal level. A religious government is nothing but trouble. Why should Ahmadis lose their civic rights in Pakistan or be second class citizens? Simply because they are not mainstream Muslims. I would hate to be treated like a second class citizen in USA.
Wishing you well,
Mohammad Gill
#89 Posted by Romair on January 13, 2005 3:53:32 pm
freethinker #85: ``If homosexual marriages are sanctioned by the majority vote, we`ve to live with it whether we like it or not. Our likes and dislikes are personal.``
This is where the argument breaks down and contradicts itself. Secularism is never to be decided by popular vote. Infact, the whole existence and purpose of secularism is to ensure that the, ``majority`` vote of one group does not dominate the minorities. Specifically in the area of religion.
If majority vote is all that counts, then what if a majority of USA decides it wants Christianity as the State religion. It would be stopped by the Supreme Court, since it contradicts secularism. Hence in any secular system, it is the minority judiciary that is supposed to decide on secularism, not the majority population.
Gay marriage (or any other kind of marraige), under secularism, is a personal right that no majority can over-rule at the State level. It can only over-rule it, if it mixes State with politics.
This is the current debate in the USA, where the majority population opposes gay marriage (due to religious reasons), while the courts are supporting it (due to secular reasons). The majority is thus giving its own religious beliefs into the State. In Canada, gay marriage has become legal. If it is illegal in USA and legal in Canada, how can both be considered secular? One of them isn`t or is less so than the other. Obviously secularism means different things to different people........
What is even more interesting is that the gay organizations (that I have heard), themselves, do not support polygamy. They argue for gay marriage, under secularism, yet want the State to keep the ban on polygamy, polyandry, incest etc. Even if the arguments for these kinds of marraige are made under the same idea of secularism......
As I stated, secularism is still in its infancy. It is not a, ``solve-all`` mature product that too many people present it as. We still have to see which direction it goes in. And I think societies will have to make major changes to implement pure secularism. I cannot see these societies giving up their State-based religious beliefs anytime soon. I cannot see even the die-hard secularists in the USA sanctioning polygamy or the ones in Pakistan fighting for gay marriage.
Everyone thus mixes State with Church, when it suits them...........
This is where the argument breaks down and contradicts itself. Secularism is never to be decided by popular vote. Infact, the whole existence and purpose of secularism is to ensure that the, ``majority`` vote of one group does not dominate the minorities. Specifically in the area of religion.
If majority vote is all that counts, then what if a majority of USA decides it wants Christianity as the State religion. It would be stopped by the Supreme Court, since it contradicts secularism. Hence in any secular system, it is the minority judiciary that is supposed to decide on secularism, not the majority population.
Gay marriage (or any other kind of marraige), under secularism, is a personal right that no majority can over-rule at the State level. It can only over-rule it, if it mixes State with politics.
This is the current debate in the USA, where the majority population opposes gay marriage (due to religious reasons), while the courts are supporting it (due to secular reasons). The majority is thus giving its own religious beliefs into the State. In Canada, gay marriage has become legal. If it is illegal in USA and legal in Canada, how can both be considered secular? One of them isn`t or is less so than the other. Obviously secularism means different things to different people........
What is even more interesting is that the gay organizations (that I have heard), themselves, do not support polygamy. They argue for gay marriage, under secularism, yet want the State to keep the ban on polygamy, polyandry, incest etc. Even if the arguments for these kinds of marraige are made under the same idea of secularism......
As I stated, secularism is still in its infancy. It is not a, ``solve-all`` mature product that too many people present it as. We still have to see which direction it goes in. And I think societies will have to make major changes to implement pure secularism. I cannot see these societies giving up their State-based religious beliefs anytime soon. I cannot see even the die-hard secularists in the USA sanctioning polygamy or the ones in Pakistan fighting for gay marriage.
Everyone thus mixes State with Church, when it suits them...........
#88 Posted by KaalChakra on January 13, 2005 2:01:29 pm
re: masanamuthu # 81
Putting Saminasha on the spot isn`t fair. Religions, as you know, by their very nature are riddled with totally weird stuff. Problems arise only when people actually believe in and defend those kinds of things, and use them to debate the validity of their own behaviors. Saminasha does not do that. According to many well-informed Muslims here, she is not even a Muslim!
Putting Saminasha on the spot isn`t fair. Religions, as you know, by their very nature are riddled with totally weird stuff. Problems arise only when people actually believe in and defend those kinds of things, and use them to debate the validity of their own behaviors. Saminasha does not do that. According to many well-informed Muslims here, she is not even a Muslim!
#87 Posted by KaalChakra on January 13, 2005 2:01:29 pm
Khurram
If you believe religion to be all encompassing, then state can never be separated from religion.
If you believe religion to be all encompassing, then state can never be separated from religion.
#86 Posted by Netizen on January 13, 2005 2:01:29 pm
re: #84 by khurram
Sorry for my interruption. I couldn`t help from responding to your statements.
``I also interact with other individuals in social and political settings. How can I leave my religious values behind when I interact with others?``
Do you carry Koran everywhere you go?
``How can I consider these issues without my religious values?``
For a change you can use your gray matter.
``What foundational belief-system do I use when considering these questions?``
Start with morality and ethics.
``Wouldn`t that be religion, no matter what it is called? ``
Nope. I have seen many atheists/agnostics having good ethics and law abiding than religious ones.
``If my side wins the vote, am I imposing my beliefs on others? Or, if my side loses the vote, are others religious beliefs being impoosed on me? ``
Why are you dragging religion in every step. People having similar religious background can differ on other issues, similarly people with different religious background can agree on some issues. It seems that your religion has become oxygen for you, without it you will suffocate.
For a day, try to think rationally not religiously. None of the religion is perfect.
Sorry for my interruption. I couldn`t help from responding to your statements.
``I also interact with other individuals in social and political settings. How can I leave my religious values behind when I interact with others?``
Do you carry Koran everywhere you go?
``How can I consider these issues without my religious values?``
For a change you can use your gray matter.
``What foundational belief-system do I use when considering these questions?``
Start with morality and ethics.
``Wouldn`t that be religion, no matter what it is called? ``
Nope. I have seen many atheists/agnostics having good ethics and law abiding than religious ones.
``If my side wins the vote, am I imposing my beliefs on others? Or, if my side loses the vote, are others religious beliefs being impoosed on me? ``
Why are you dragging religion in every step. People having similar religious background can differ on other issues, similarly people with different religious background can agree on some issues. It seems that your religion has become oxygen for you, without it you will suffocate.
For a day, try to think rationally not religiously. None of the religion is perfect.
#85 Posted by freethinker on January 13, 2005 1:47:37 pm
khurram Sahib:
Religion is a personal affair in a secular system and that is the reason it has been taken out of public schools. When you vote, you vote your conscience; your religious considerations are part of your decision. If your candidate wins, it`s okay. It`s a collective decision and every one has to abide by it. If your candidate loses you have to abide by the collective decision even though you hate it
If homosexual marriages are sanctioned by the majority vote, we`ve to live with it whether we like it or not. Our likes and dislikes are personal.
Homsexuality is an old issue. It is not as abominable as it used to be in the past. My perspective on it is my own personal perspective but I have to live by the majority vote. My next door neighbors are a homosexual pair of men; it doesn`t bother me. They are nice and law abiding people from all appearances.
The great computer scientist, Alan Turing, was a homsexual and many people believe that he committed suicide out of a guilt feeling or having gotten sick of police harassment. It was sad.
We must understand that a secular system is not anti-religion; it doesn`t abolish religion. In a secular system, ``you are free to go to your mosques and you are free to go to your temples.`` It doesn`t interfere in your personal belief system and lets you practice your religion without persecution from other groups. It gives you religious freedom to practice your religion but not to impose it on others.
Think carefully; secular system makes life livable for every one.
Mohammad Gill
Religion is a personal affair in a secular system and that is the reason it has been taken out of public schools. When you vote, you vote your conscience; your religious considerations are part of your decision. If your candidate wins, it`s okay. It`s a collective decision and every one has to abide by it. If your candidate loses you have to abide by the collective decision even though you hate it
If homosexual marriages are sanctioned by the majority vote, we`ve to live with it whether we like it or not. Our likes and dislikes are personal.
Homsexuality is an old issue. It is not as abominable as it used to be in the past. My perspective on it is my own personal perspective but I have to live by the majority vote. My next door neighbors are a homosexual pair of men; it doesn`t bother me. They are nice and law abiding people from all appearances.
The great computer scientist, Alan Turing, was a homsexual and many people believe that he committed suicide out of a guilt feeling or having gotten sick of police harassment. It was sad.
We must understand that a secular system is not anti-religion; it doesn`t abolish religion. In a secular system, ``you are free to go to your mosques and you are free to go to your temples.`` It doesn`t interfere in your personal belief system and lets you practice your religion without persecution from other groups. It gives you religious freedom to practice your religion but not to impose it on others.
Think carefully; secular system makes life livable for every one.
Mohammad Gill
#84 Posted by masanamuthu on January 13, 2005 12:50:20 pm
a small correction:
it`s 3 incidents, i was debating if i should add the ``daughter-in-law`` case bcos i was not sure
it`s 3 incidents, i was debating if i should add the ``daughter-in-law`` case bcos i was not sure
#83 Posted by vertex on January 13, 2005 12:50:20 pm
The practice of Hijaab revolves around several aspects, including:
a) projection/affirmation of religious identity
b) following a perceived religious mandate
c) establishing a new (Hijaab is a modern phenomenon) gender-specific social contract in terms of allowable dress
d) nonsensical rationales, often along the lines of ``benefits of wearing Hijaab``
The issue of Hijaab revolves around things like:
i) gender-specific nature of it - this is considered audacious
ii) the nonsensical rationales for it - although missing the point, it`s irresistible
iii) the social nature of it, especially in a secular context - religions are not to define social contracts in a secular context
Stuka raises a good point about this not being about choice. It`s simply not. Men and women don`t have absolute choice in what we wear...I can`t go running around without pants on. That`s illegal...that is to say, society regulates what I can and can`t wear. No choice in the matter.
The parallels with going around pant-less and Hijaab exist, and are quite strong, if we make the claim that this is all about choice. However, the parallels cease once we bring in the issues people have with Hijaab, like points i-iii above.
a) projection/affirmation of religious identity
b) following a perceived religious mandate
c) establishing a new (Hijaab is a modern phenomenon) gender-specific social contract in terms of allowable dress
d) nonsensical rationales, often along the lines of ``benefits of wearing Hijaab``
The issue of Hijaab revolves around things like:
i) gender-specific nature of it - this is considered audacious
ii) the nonsensical rationales for it - although missing the point, it`s irresistible
iii) the social nature of it, especially in a secular context - religions are not to define social contracts in a secular context
Stuka raises a good point about this not being about choice. It`s simply not. Men and women don`t have absolute choice in what we wear...I can`t go running around without pants on. That`s illegal...that is to say, society regulates what I can and can`t wear. No choice in the matter.
The parallels with going around pant-less and Hijaab exist, and are quite strong, if we make the claim that this is all about choice. However, the parallels cease once we bring in the issues people have with Hijaab, like points i-iii above.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- KaalChakra: DM ji, we will... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 102 Do... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 102 Problem is... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 104 Quetta will... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 94 Jokingly... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- sadna: OK, thanks d_m, that... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- Cobra: Free Kashmir! I'm putting... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- KaalChakra: ok, dm ji, I... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
