What Does It Mean to be a Muslim in a Secular Country?

There is also the important aspect of free will and who has access to it. Algerian French Muslim girls and young women dont have much of a choice in between the forced dress code at school and the forced hijabing as policed by ``authentic`` Muslim male community in their housing projects. Several Muslim women scholars have pointed out that Algerian women in Algeria had more rights over what they wore in Algerian villages than they do in France...

Naqshbandi

``I think we will gradually develop our own European Islam with its roots in classical orthodoxy but removed from all of the cultural baggage and ties of our parents` homelands and distinctly European in style. ``

I agree, but I think European/North American Muslims will then be burdened by European cultural baggage instead of that of their parents`. I also think that while this transition is being taken place under our watch we must facilitate at this time to the emergence of a sort of Islam that is free of any cultural baggage at all - a sort of truly global Islam. Now that when world has shrunk into a village and means of communication have been facilitated immensely as compared to the times when this Empire of Faith was spreading in its initial stages. I think it is responsibility of us - the parents - at this stage to make that happen rather than burdening it solely on the shoulders of our offspring.

Several

The figure of 60 million was a typo. I wanted to write 6 million instead. Out of those 6 millions, close to 3.5 mil. lived in refugee camps in Pakistan for well over a decade and about 2.5 million in Iran. A substantial number was also dispersed all around the globe.

Thanks for the correction.

It is a long way before we can shout down the voices of the extreme elements.....Saudi Money has already created those institutes of learning which clearly teaches a theocratic form of government in the guise of Khilafat as divinely ordained....

Read what Abdal-Hakim Murad has to say about all this in his article ``Muslim loyalty and belonging some reflections on the psychosocial background``. Unfortunately, such voices like those of Syed Hussain Nasr have been around for long......but the dominent political voices have plotted to silence them....................interestingly these recent converts display a far more deeper understanding of Islam than our nth generation mullahs..............


``Alternative mosques and institutions of learning need to be established as matrices for the proclamation of authentic, mainstream, spiritual, moral Islam. There are strong reasons why this must succeed. Firstly, because everyone who has an interest in social cohesion wants it to succeed. Secondly, because unlike the Islam of those who distrust the divine purposes in history, traditional Islam is optimistic and brings sakina to the human soul. And finally, and most momentously, because this version of faith happens to be true.``
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/loyalty.htm

Gill sahib, the answer to your question is as follows - In Rome, do as the Romans do. If you are a muslim in a secular country, you have to be secular in your outlook. That means keeping your religion a personal matter and living harmoniously with people of other faiths. If you try to change the system, you will face hostility and a sharp reaction. If you cannot accept the system, feel free to leave. It would be no different than if a secular person went to an Islamic country and tried to change the system. Guess how long that person will last?

bbabu

``In no way it is perfect. But it is closer to your religious ideals than you think.``

You have just encouraged the claim that the US and Canada have adopted the Islamic system, while Afghanistan and Saudis are following the Western model.

The rape of human language is already too common. Please don`t prompt it any further.

Mr. Gill,
This article reminds me of the situation Europe finds itself in. Because of the growing muslim population in these countries they have realised that the muslims are not integrated with the mainstream. They are concerned about this as this will create more problems in the future. I think it will be difficult to secularise/integrate the majority of muslims as they fear that it would dilute their culture/religious beliefs. So many North African Muslims are living in France for several generations, still the French had to bring in a law to stop them from wearing scarfs. It has been realised that the muslims do not make any effort to get into the mainstream. THe french found that a significant percent of the french muslims could not even speak french. They live like a nation within a nation in ghettos of French cities. After decades of living in Norway, it was found that the muslims still import their spouses from their native land. Hence the idea that all immigrants would eventually get mixed in the society never materialised. Britain is also going to enact a law to reduce this mail order brides/grooms from asian countries especially from pakistan. The Germans/Dutch gov. will implement a program to educate foreign-borm imams on the local laws and customs so that they respect/obey them. Just recently I read an article about how a imam in england was caught asking the muslims in his mosque to ``use democracy to further their cause``. Recently I heard some muslims in england want to introduce Muslim Parliament/Shariah in england. Many European countries have started to question their idea of multi-ethnic, multi-cultural societies. People have started to realise that its better to keep different societies away simply because they are non-compatible. Bringing them together will not succeed, will create only tensions. Even in India, muslims will never accept uniform laws, they want to preserve their personal laws. Hence I say it will be tough, very tough situation. Simply because muslims wherever they go want to Islamize that place.

re: #1 by Urstruly

Mr. Urs-not-so -truly
``That was an unfortunate, dishonest, and shameless comment. A country that was ravaged by a brutal foreign invasion and years of civil war which cost well over 1.5 million Afgan lives and renedered 60 million of Afghans (close to half of the population) refugees in neigboring countries; ``

1979 census put the entire Afghan population around 15 million. How come 60 million of them poured in to Pakistan/Iran during the turmoil. In 2004 it was around 28 million.

re: #1 by Urstruly

Mr. Urs-not-so -truly
``That was an unfortunate, dishonest, and shameless comment. A country that was ravaged by a brutal foreign invasion and years of civil war which cost well over 1.5 million Afgan lives and renedered 60 million of Afghans (close to half of the population) refugees in neigboring countries; ``

1979 census put the entire Afghan population around 15 million. How come 60 million of them poured in to Pakistan/Iran during the turmoil. In 2004 it was around 28 million.

A designation such as ‘Muslim’ that associates a person with a religion can be viewed in at least three ways:

(1) Nominal: it is a mere label that adheres to the person solely as a consequence of accident of birth, heritage, or history. It captures little or nothing of his or her human individuality.
(2) Descriptive: it describes or captures significant aspects of the person’s habits, behaviour, convictions and outlook on life. However, it does not demand strict adherence to a particular template – two very different, even mutually incompatible worldviews or behaviours could both be associated with the religious designation.
(3) Prescriptive: it prescribes in detail how a person bearing the designation should think and act. Little freedom is granted to the individual in areas of life that are regarded as the prescriptive domain of the religion.

This classification can of course be applied to all kinds of designations – racial, ethnic, gender, etc. It is especially useful for religious designations.

---

Using the classification scheme, one can ask how various people view different religions, and how they view the relation between a specific religon and the people who bear the designator of that religion.

For example, it is instructive to look at the connotations of ‘Jew’. My take on ‘Jewishness’, as commonly understood in contemporay North America, is that it is part nominal and part descriptive, but has very few prescriptive connotations. The nominal aspect is typically a consequence of being a descendant of immigrants from Eastern Europe (and thus being of Ashkenazi heritage). The descriptive aspect includes a common set of surnames, a particular brand of humour, a tendency towards intellectuality and towards various kinds of social activism, strong opinions on Israel; just as much as it includes varying degrees of involvement with Judaism the religion. But these are just tendencies and none of them are compulsory attributes; a particular ‘Jewish’ individual may buck many of the trends and still be regarded as unmistakeably, even irredeemably Jewish. Einstein, who was not conventionally religious, certainly not a theist, is regarded as Jewish, as is Richard Feynman, as are Woody Allen and Barbara Streisand. At the same time one has moderates such as Alan Dershowitz, political and religious conservatives such as David Gelernter, and the ultra Orthodox, the Hasidim and so on, who are all Jewish. And while Jews used to be ‘liberals’ more than any other religious group, there is a very prominent set of Jewish conservatives such as Norman Podhoretz, and more recently a group of neo-conservatives. At this point one might ask whether the descriptive term ‘Jewish’ is completely vacuous and could be applied to everyman. More than ancestry, what marks all these people as Jewish is that they view contemporary events and non-religious issues through a historical or ethical consciousness that is strongly or vaguely ‘Jewish’. Thus Einstein’s ‘Jewishness’ found expression, for example, in his being a Spinozist, and also, involuntarily, in his having to flee the Nazi regime. Spinoza is perhaps the first prominent instance in the modern age of a Jewish individual breaking from prescriptive Jewishness and yet not casting off the label.

Of course the question of how Jewishness is to be regarded is contested. In particular, the ultra-Orthodox often have a strongly prescriptive take on Jewishness; a pattern found in many other religions.

One could similarly look at Christianity in North America. Because it is typically presented as a credal religion with no racial component, the ‘Christian’ label is rarely regarded as nominal, except when qualified with such adjectives as ‘lapsed’. I see it as part descriptive and part prescriptive. Literalist and born-again Christians tend to view the term ‘Christian’ as wholly prescriptive, to the point that that many Christian fundamentalists claim that Roman Catholics and various other Christian denominations are not really Christian. On the other hand liberal Christian denominations tend to use ‘Christian’ more in the descriptive sense, allow a fair degree of latitude in both belief and practice. There is also the fascinating phenomenon of ‘non-denominational Christians’, who can be regarded as the ‘nominal’ version of Christian in North America.

One might also survey the historical evolution of popular attitudes towards religious designations. My take is that, in the West, there was a period going back to a couple of hundred years ago, where religious designations were universally regarded as prescriptive; and that the shift to descriptive and then nominal labels coincided with the Enlightenment and the discrediting of literalist and revealed religious faith.

One might next look at Hinduism, a non-credal ‘religion’ (or family of religions). My take is that Hinduism often prescribes a person’s practice but places almost no constraints on his personal creed. Further, a deviation from orthopraxis may be frowned upon but is not regarded as expelling you from the religion. The nominal/descriptive/prescriptive classification tends not to be very useful for non-credal decentralised religions.

---

Finally, one might turn to Islam. My take on the Islam of the Quran is that it views itself in absolutely prescriptive terms – one cannot be a Muslim without absolute compulsory adherence to a clearly enunciated set of tenets of the faith. Further, there is widespread agreement among Muslims to regard ‘Muslim’ as a prescriptive designation, requiring a confession of faith. This attitude is common among Muslims even though they might disagree among one another about exactly what the faith entails. Thus the widespread practice of anathematising this or that or the other schismatic Muslim sect, as not being Muslim.

No daylight is to be allowed to appear between the Muslim and his religion – for instance, criticism of the religion is to be immediately regard as a personal attack on Muslims everywhere. The Islamic faith appears to be set up in such a way as to absolutely resist and reject compartmentalization of human life. Yet compartmentalization – also known as specialization, division of labour, delegation of functions, separation of concerns - is one of the key principles that make modern industrialised societies run.

Because of this rejection I do not see any way in which Islam the faith – as usually understood - can make peace with the modern world. Individual Muslims will be able to adjust to life in a non-Islamic milieu only to the extent that they come to regard ‘Muslim’ as a nominal or descriptive label rather than a prescriptive one, in the same way that ‘Jew’ is regarded today.

Ref Urstruly #1

[That was an unfortunate, dishonest, and shameless comment. A country that was ravaged by a brutal foreign invasion and years of civil war which cost well over 1.5 million Afgan lives and renedered 60 million of Afghans (close to half of the population) refugees in neigboring countries...]

According to the CIA Worldbook that gives brief information about the various countries of the world. the population of Afghanistan is 28,513,677 (July 2004 est.)

[...do you expect them to have harvard educated aristocrats and capitlists running their country?]

But we do expect that, though you might personally lack a Harvard education, you would have enough computer skills to look up basic facts about the country you are talking about. Or have the decency to shut the fcuk up.

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

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

Naqshbandi #3

`` I also agree with you that in practise the socialist democracries of Western Europe with their mix of free market economics and the welfare state are far closer to an Islamic ideal than any other country in the world or in recent history. America, with its pure capitalism and callous attitude towards social medicine is not.``

USA provides social security and medicare for its residents above 65 years old, free schooling to all kids, student lunches to any qualifying poor kid, food stamps to the poor, subsidized student loans to any poor student, student loans for anyone irrespective to social status, admission to universities irrespective of age, limited amount of subsidized housing to residents of limited income, limited amount of welfare and medical care to the poor, political assylum to persecuted people from certain states.

In no way it is perfect. But it is closer to your religious ideals than you think.

Gill sahib, I have to say I agree with almost 100% of what you have written in this essay of yours (there`s a change!) The only sentences I do not agree with are these 2: `` Show by example that Islamic system (whatever it is) is better than secular system. Our historical examples are horrible.``

I think it is not fair to generalise so bluntly. Madina at the time of the Blessed Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, the time of the rightly guided caliphate and Muslim Spain are examples of tolerance and multicultural societies especially the latter.

I think though that you are right: Muslims of my generation in the West (certainly Europe, don`t know about USA) and the next generations are much more secularised and Westernised than may at first seem apparent except for a tiny fringe--I think we will gradually develop our own European Islam with its roots in classical orthodoxy but removed from all of the cultural baggage and ties of our parents` homelands and distinctly European in style.

I also agree with you that in practise the socialist democracries of Western Europe with their mix of free market economics and the welfare state are far closer to an Islamic ideal than any other country in the world or in recent history. America, with its pure capitalism and callous attitude towards social medicine is not.

Read this article by Dr. T J Winter of Cambridge University (now Shaykh Abd al Hakim Murad) where he asks the question, `` Is Western Islam inevitable?``
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/TradorExtrad.htm

He (and Hamza Yusuf) are examples of the kind of Westernised orthodox Muslim leader of the near future.

Gill sahib, I have to say I agree with almost 100% of what you have written in this essay of yours (there`s a change!) The only sentences I do not agree with are these 2: `` Show by example that Islamic system (whatever it is) is better than secular system. Our historical examples are horrible.``

I think it is not fair to generalise so bluntly. Madina at the time of the Blessed Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, the time of the rightly guided caliphate and Muslim Spain are examples of tolerance and multicultural societies especially the latter.

I think though that you are right: Muslims of my generation in the West (certainly Europe, don`t know about USA) and the next generations are much more secularised and Westernised than may at first seem apparent except for a tiny fringe--I think we will gradually develop our own European Islam with its roots in classical orthodoxy but removed from all of the cultural baggage and ties of our parents` homelands and distinctly European in style.

I also agree with you that in practise the socialist democracries of Western Europe with their mix of free market economics and the welfare state are far closer to an Islamic ideal than any other country in the world or in recent history. America, with its pure capitalism and callous attitude towards social medicine is not.

Read this article by Dr. T J Winter of Cambridge University (now Shaykh Abd al Hakim Murad) where he asks the question, `` Is Western Islam inevitable?``
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/TradorExtrad.htm

He (and Hamza Yusuf) are examples of the kind of Westernised orthodox Muslim leader of the near future.