What is Secularism?

Romair#44:

I have seen secularism translated into la-deeniyat in Urdu.

Pakistanis and other Muslims are willing to come to the greener pastures of the West because, as I had said in my earlier post, most of them have accepted the separation of personal and public aspect of their religion. I suspect that you have too unless you think that you are duty-bound to kill anyone who renounces Islam. They are unwilling to openly admit it because doing so is fraught with danger.

But I do think that Islamic reformation will take place, and it will take place in a country where challenging religious dogmas is par for the course, in other words a non-islamic country. Muslims living in non-islamic countries all swear by secularism. I do not know of a single Indian muslim who would like to be governed by Manu Smriti (not many Hindus would like that either, but that`s another story), nor do I know many American Muslims who would like to be governed by strict biblical laws. In the global village that we live in, Muslims living in these countries will increasingly face the challenge of resolving the conflict between enjoying the secularism of the West while supporting rule by sharia in islamic countries. This change will not be led by a Rushdie or a Manji but by a Muslim whose muslim credentials are impeccable, someone like Rafique Zakaria of India.

BeeJay:

You misunderstood my post. I was not offended by ``keechad ka kanwal.`` I probably do not deserve the compliment implied by it. But this is quite okay. If you read my e-mail again,you`ll find no offence there. I just described the kinds of sewers that we have in Detroit.

Regarding ridiculing the authors and make fun of them; that in my book is preposterous. You can make your point and disagree with the author without being offensive, I don`t want to belabor this point but you understand what I mean. Be well,

Mohammad Gill

Re:Romair#43

You are right that the ground realities of a particular country will dictate the contours of the system of governance there. India is secular today largely because hindus have evolved a different mindset towards their religion by restricting it to spiritual matters. Hence the concept of secularism fits in well with their present mindset. 200 years back, hindus did not think in this manner. In fact, orthodox hindus were obsessed with a literal interpretation of scriptures with all kinds of superstitions including sati, untouchability being considered a part of hindu faith. It may seem totally weird today, but even travel to foreign countries was banned and you became an outcaste if you travelled outside India. So ground realities certainly evolve.

If the present ground reality in Pakistan is in favor of a religious society, there isnt much that anyone can do, except try to implement the best system within that context. As the ground reality evolves, the system may evolve with it.

So assuming you were in power in Pakistan, how would you architect a humane religious society there? What would you do to make it truly equitable for everyone and prevent abuses (like hudood laws, blasphemy laws etc) from creeping into the system? How would you ensure non-discrimination, equal opportunity in education/jobs for non-muslims, same protection under law, civil rights etc? I think if you lay out a practical example of building a humane religious society, it will be easier to evaluate the idea.

Re: # 46

I`d like the answers to those questions as well... But ... the standard answer is... none of these things matter... only economics does...

I salute you for thinking that this discussion between you and our friend is a 2 way process...

Reply to #32 Freethinker.

Dear Dr. Gill:

For the record, “keechad ka kamal” is considered a very fine compliment (probably one of the finest around) in MY part of India. It was intended to be conveyed in that spirit, but obviously I inadvertently stepped on some ‘sore toe’ in the process. Sorry about that, and I solemnly pledge that I will never call you “keechad ka kamal” again (oops!).

And while I am at it, I extend my sincerest apologies to the designers and builders of the Detroit sewage system whose sentiments I may have mercilessly although inadvertently trod upon by making light of that fine accomplishment, although I suspect that most of those folks are no more around (considering that the sewers “were built in 1850s”) and the builders may have passed on to Bigger and Better Things (God, for example).

The rest of your response raises some interesting issues. You talk about “trashy” interacts. How do you define those, sir? Is there a standardized definition of trash? Is that definition physical or metaphysical? If physical, for example, “something the trash truck comes and hauls away” I am not aware of an internet-based trash truck which would (or could) accomplish THAT job. I won’t even get into the metaphysical part of it (best left to many senior chowkees who seem to have made a life long pursuit of it). The way I understand it, you may see it as one of those things that you know it when you see it. Please note the YOU part of it, i.e., it is highly subjective. To use the hackneyed phrase: one person’s trash may be another’s treasure. Just imagine the filth that passes those mighty and sturdy walls mentioned above-the millions and millions of bacteria, microbes, and other lower forms of life running through those waters (if only those walls could talk!) Guess what, Dr. Gill, each of those lowly forms of life, that filth, is a work of art and was created by the same Artist!

Also, if one constructs a strong building, should it not be able to withstand the onslaught of what you call “trash” or “filth”? If someone throws trash at a building and that building comes crashing down do you blame the trash or does it mean that maybe, just maybe the engineer did a lousy job and did a lousy design which was not based on realistic assumptions. It would be called a highly faulty design. Furthermore, if the engineer knew those faults and still certified that building for public occupation (which the internet essentially is) he would not only get fired, but will probably also lose the shirt off his back (at least in the U.S.)

Another interesting issue is the expectation of privacy while choosing to enter the public domain. (Sometimes called the “look but don’t touch” expectation, also known as “eating your cake and having it too” expectation.) It is a myth. In this day and age, putting personal information up on the web then expecting that some people won’t get creative (or “filthy” from somebody else’s perspective, or are you going to define “filthy” for the rest of the crowd?) with that information is highly unrealistic. Will that be “free” thinking (unless “free”thinking literally refers to the amount of payment from Chowk for those labors, in which case it may be absolutely accurate)?

I have pretty much exhausted what I needed to say. Hopefully, I will have more at some other time (unless this user gets removed for violating somebody’s Chowk guidelines).

Sincerely,
BeeJay.

Dost-mittar #33: ``I think the issue of muslims and secualrism is perhaps even more complicated than your article suggests. There is this confusion between secularism and laa-deeniyat, which would appear to equate secularim with a lack of morality, which it is not.......including maybe yourself, do not want to come to the heart of the issue - it is not Muslims but Islam which needs to be reformed.``

You have hit the nail on the head. This is what most Pakistani secularists are unwilling to debate and discuss. And this is the core issue......I don`t think Muslims equate secularism with laa-deeniyat. They do migrate to secular societies in a heartbeat. Urstruly does live in USA. And Naqshbandi in the UK.

Obviously secularism is not laa-deeniyat. That would be an incorrect statement. At the same time, the point that the author seems to be pushing that secularism allows religions to exist, as they are designed is incorrect also. And I think your statement highlights that, i.e. to introduce secularism, there has to be a rejection of part of Islam itself (what you refered to as reformation). This is not laa-deeniyat. It is, however, not Islam, as designed, either.

Religions don`t just present personal rulings. Let`s take Islam. Islam has rules on personal behavior and on public behavior. While it is impossible to get agreement on the exact interpretation of these rulings, the fact is that they clearly exist. Anyone who has read the Quran, can see them in black and white.

What secularism demands from people is to keep the personal rulings. But discard the public rulings of their religion (in this discussion, Islam). It thus practices religion at the personal level, but athiesm at the public leve. This discards a large portion of Islam. Lets say x% - 50% - of the Quran relates to public life. Secularism demands that one consider that part of Islam to be incomplete, incorrect, wrong, inefficient etc. and unworkable. So that part of the religion has to be put in cold storage.

This is what Western (and other secular populations) have done. A majority of their populations, due to various reasons, has accepted the fact that God did not get it right when laying down public rules for present-day society, through their religion. And this, as you pointed out, is what citizens of Muslim countries are unwilling to accept.

This is also what the Pakistani secularists are unwilling to accept and debate. They keep ignoring this point, and keep saying that secularism does not demand a rejection of any part of religion. When, in fact, by its own definition, it demands a rejection of the public portions of religion.

How will the secularists convince Muslims to disregard the public parts of their religion? That is their challenge. For starters, they have to accept and understand this point and understand secularism, as a philosophy, rather than as just an anti-mullah movement.......

In the context of Pakistan, how do you convince a country, whose 2/3 population believes in the public rules of their religion (albeit in various levels of moderation) that those public rulings, by their God, are inefficient and wrong...........? And only the personal rulings are correct......

An answer to this question, is what will introduce secularism in Pakistan.....I have not heard anyone on this site, arguing in favor of secularism, discuss (or even accept) this.

Amit #28: ``So right now secularism is winning due to the existence of provable examples, while I am yet to see examples of ideal religious societies.``

To some extent, you have a point. At the same time, most of the violence, deaths, colonizations of humans in the 20th century (the most violent century of mankind) have been carried out by secular entities. For example, the USA has just killed 100,000 human beings. On the other hand, Canadians don`t even kill a fly. Both are secular societies. Saddam Hussain apparently killed a hell of a lot of people. While Sistani won`t kill a fly either. Then again the Taliban killed a lot of people.

It all depends on how one views religion and secularism. I think most individuals view them as the end, in itself. I view them as a means to an end. And I view them as two of the means. As the human race advances, these philosophies will be replaced by other philosophies. But the end goal of humanism should remain constant.

The problem lies with those who see religion and secluarism as the ends. Not possible means to and end. These are the individuals who will introduce rigidity and intolerance in a society. You can see it on this site. They are the ones who will carry out the most abuse and will be the least willing to listen to anyone who does not agree with them. Be they from the religious extreme or the secular extreme.

However, it is impossible to live with extreme absolutes. Sooner or later such individuals will have to comprimise their beliefs. For example, anyone living in the USA and still pushing Shariah is contradicting his own belief system. Or anyone opposing the Religious Right in Pakistan and Iran, while supporting it in the USA and Iraq is contradicting his/her principles.

If secularism and religion are absolute ends, then we should just immediately support either in every situation. For the more secular, Democrats will always be the option. And for the more religious, Republicans will be the option. For the secular Saddam will be better than Sistani. For the religious, the other way around, etc.

Just the simple fact that hardly anyone makes such decisions, is an indication that the goal is something else. And there are different means of reaching that goal. When one highlights those means, one has to disassociate one`s own beliefs from that goal. Even if I believe secularism (or religion) to be better than sliced bread, I would not push it today in Syria and Iraq, becaue the secular forces are evil in that country. While I would push it in Canada and USA.

This brings us to Pakistan. Pakistan could become the victim of the mullah-hating and mullah-lovers that exist in the society. They are least interested in what Pakistanis think. They have the answer and they want to shove it down everyone`s throat. A solution like that, even if well-intentioned, never works. It gets rejected.

One has to gauge the tendencies of the people. And then present a path to humanism. If 2/3rd of a country wants religion in public life, rightly or wrongly, then how in the world will shoving secularism down their throat work (even Jinnah realized this, early on). Once again, I am not pushing my own opinion. I am looking at this objectively, not subjectively.

If in such a situation, someone declares himself ata-Turk, rest assured he will only create a counterforce that is much stronger. One of the reasons that mullahs in Pakistan have never been as strong as, say, mullah in the Arab lands, is becuase mullahs in Pakistan have been given their political space. They have not been locked up, nor shoved into the sea. Due to this, they have never become a strong counterforce, and uptil the last election could barely win 2% of the seats.

There is, thus, no equivalent of something as powerful as BJP in Pakistan. Nothing even close. Even though Pakistanis are far less secular in their beliefs, than Indians. The MMA has never even come close to running Pakistan, and it is far less militant and communal (though far more socially conservative) than the BJP. If someone were to rigidly push secularism down Pakistan`s throat, I can make a bet Pakistani BJPs would start popping up all over the place, in Pakistan...........At the same time, there is no party in Pakistan that is remotely clsoe to as secular as Congress.....each country has its own social dynamics....which need to be kept in mind.....

So I am neither pro-religion nor pro-secularism. In a way, I think politics need to be independent of both. One needs to look at solutions, based on the ground realities of each society, and then come up with the path that will lead to the most humane society. There is no cookie-cutter absolute path that will work identically in each country. In all countries, it will be in the grey area between secularism and religion (including the West, which is working with its own religious issues with gay marriage and its issues with the Western leader nation - USA - becoming more and more religious in its politics).

Those who want Pakistan to be fully secular, have every right to their agenda. As do those who want Shariah. What they should never be given the right to, however, is to dictate their demands onto everyone. They should have to convince everyone that their approach is the best. Not by yelling and screaming and abusing anyone who disagrees with them. But by argument and pesuasion. And if they don`t succeed, then they should accept that also.........After all, if their main aim is the betterment of society, then they have to let the society decide what is better for it.....

I don`t think Ata-turk will work in Pakistan (his politcal philosophies have been rejected politically even in Turkey, now, which has elected a relgious party). I don`t think Al-Ghazali will work in Pakitan either. The Shariah approach has not worked in any Muslim country, either. Infact those pushing Al-Ghazali, on this site, oddly enough, themselves, like in UK and USA.

Even if Ata-Turk or Ghazali`s philosophies are correct, what is the point of pushing them, if they will never work?

So to have a good discourse on this, people need to stop pushing their own personal beliefs as a solution, just because they like it. They need to take a more practical approach looking at what will work and what won`t, in a certain dynamic. Not what they want to work.

This is what I am trying to do...........

Re: # 43
Romair
You are probably the most misunderstood person on chowk, apart from Nazis and communists (and we all know what disaster they’ve been) I don’t think there is a purely secular country, certainly not turkey and as for USA they have thanks giving day, Christmas day and every time bush opens his mouth, he says god bless America (whats all that about).

Ireland has banned abortions and in the uk, church still performs important functions of ‘hatching, matching and despatching’ and education and welfare for the poor.
In my opinion most western countries are qausi-secular.

The ultimate aim for humanity should be humanism, I don’t think we can have that without cradle to grave welfare state something along the Scandinavian model.

Re:Mantolives#30

You wrote:``Amit yaar... why the hell are you hitting your head against the wall ? ``

Actually I like debating Romair. Firsly he never loses his temper nor does he use abusive language, personal insults etc. Secondly he likes to participate in serious wonkish discussions and learn from others as mush as he expresses his own views. Anyway as hamidm or ahmedmadani puts it, it is all lafangebazi :-).

Re:stuka#35

You wrote: ``It is rather ironic that Indians (middle class educated ones) follow Jinnah`s beliefs as compared to Gandhi who believed in the sanctity of religion in political life. Pakistanis by and large (like Romair) seem to be following Gandhi`s ideals on this score.``

The reason is because there is a huge difference in the role hindus give to religion in their day to day lives as compared to muslims. We hindus want religion strictly for our spiritual needs. We have no illusions about our religion or scriptures providing any answers to our modern day to day issues. We do not look to religion for guidance in political matters, science, economy or any other field. This dissociation happened in the past 200 years since reformers like Raja Rammohan Roy, Dayananad Saraswati etc. came and thoroughly repudiated the ability of religion to answer our modern day problems. In a way, Gandhi was a throwback to the past because of his fetish for religion. Every other modern Indian leader like Nehru, Subhash, Patel etc had no interest in religion.

As compared to hindus, muslims have not reached the same conclusions about their faith. Vast majority of muslims look to their faith not only for spiritual matters, but also to provide complete guidance in politics, economics, science etc. Even on a board like Chowk that represents the upper crust Pakistani society, we can see long articles on Islamic science. As far as politics is concerned, except for hamidm and manto, literally everone else in Chowk support a role for religion in politics. One can only imagine how much more intense these feelings must be among ordinary Pakistanis. So it is a very different outlook on religion which is responsible for the irony that you mention.

Mr. Gill

The Islam-Secularism debate is always so fascinating.

Has anyone studied how long this same debate has been going on, and what the sum total of all intellectual achievements during this period has been?



re: Delhiwala # 38

The role of Wahabism is rarely acknowledged or openly presented. Muslim Leaguers were more likely to have viewed themselves as some sort of progressives or defenders of Muslim rights.

Re: # 39
I agree, though the seeds of Pakistan were planted by UP Muslim Leagues. But the culmination of Pakistan was acheived by 3-Piece Suit wearing, Pipe smoking Jinnah.

I don`t want to go old history too much, as it only pisses some people off. My goal is to use reference of History only align in present context. There are very sad stories with partition.

I`d sum by saying what my elders, long gone had to say.

In a Pakistani village Jumman and Bashir would work side-by-side with Santa and Banta. They would eat and make merry together. Only difference would be at the time of marriage, birth or death, Maulvi and Granthi would do the religous duty. Everyone would use Urdu script to write, and be respectful of the Chaudhry or Jamindar(wheather Sikh or Muslim).
In Lahore, the vortex of North India at that time. Hindu, Sikh and Muslim would goto colleges together and participate in cultural activities, prior to 1942.

UP muslims originated the demand of Pakistan on religious grounds, Punjabi warriorship took betterment of sanity. Resulting in same UP muslims being sidelined after 1947.

All,
I must say that this is the first time in recent years that I have heard someone from Pakistan talk such enlightening words while presenting his opinion so freely.

As responsible Chowkies, we should pass a motion and give Mr. Gill A++, 4/4.
Saadey wallo ``Kudos Janaab``!

Being an ISTJ type, I will say following about what I sense and percieve between Indians and Pakistanis.

1) Each time there is a discussion on similar topics, Pakistanis respond and remind with Gujrat and 1984 pointing towards India.

2) Either they do not want to or avoid talking about 2 nation theory, fearing any weakness will be construed as a denial of IRP(Islamic Republic of Pakistan).

3) Fear of reprisals from their countrymen or hardcore right-wingers.

4) Majority of them truly wants peace with India along with prosperity.

5) There is enough goodwill to move further.

Challenges:
Pakistan was founded on Religious principles by Muslim League, comprising mostly of UP intelligensia, who were driven by Wahabi Islamic code that came in earlier 20th century, indirectly originating from struggle of Holy Mecca and Medina between various tribes.

Same values are still holding roots in the modern Pakistani state. Even though there is a Western educated, Ex NY CEO running the country as vizeer. Unless, Pakistani Citizens do not come together as a force and change their Islamic ideologies, similar to what happened in Turkey in early 1900s, there cannot be any change.

In 1947, both the countries started with same level of economic prosperity(not size). In India, Nehru saw this and his first step was FiveYear(Yojana) plans for growth and development for Infrastructural. I am not saying that he was the greatest, but among the circumstances, he was the best that was avaliable and he took the challenge, he kept the religous-right away from mainstream politics. (He had a very dark side of his personality also that led to many problems later on.)
Unfortunately, Pakistan`s most brilliant mind i.e. Jinnah(Nehru`s counterpart) passed away too soon to steer the ship. Under lack of guidance only capable people left were the English educated Army Generals, who grabbed the power. They Political base was provided by Feudal lords in parternership with Religous right-wing.

Having said all of the above, What can be done now::

Let the unhindered trading resume between India and Pakistan, comingling of people can precede trading.
Trading unification will lead to economic prosperity more in Pakistan than in India. It will change the social outlook of the society as Feudal Lords will be left with no slave laborers. They will see the power through economic parity. Ulema may feel that they are being sidelined initially, but even they will follow the trend, like in Turkey, Indonesia and Malasia.

Folks, this is what happend in India and led to the present prosperity that is driving people back there from USA.

Those who think that Economic Prosperity is independent of Tolerance and Secularism.
Let me ask you a simple thing.

``Most of the Chowkies are living in Western Societies and we all are definitely economically prosperous than our root countries(there will be some exceptions).
Haven`t we become more tolerant in our treatment of others than what we were before``

Close your eyes and ask this question!

Echoboom as usual has the last word on the subject:

``In Pakistan the dunda is on the white side. In India the dunda is inserted equitably & fairly.``

Good one...

Jinnah defined secularism very well. Just because the state is secular does not mean that Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims in the personal sense. But their religious beliefs will not be the business of the state.

It is rather ironic that Indians (middle class educated ones) follow Jinnah`s beliefs as compared to Gandhi who believed in the sanctity of religion in political life. Pakistanis by and large (like Romair) seem to be following Gandhi`s ideals on this score.

dost mittar,

.......... i think you are on the right track, but let`s see you risk your neck and present your enlightened agenda to the ummah .......... you can start right there in missisagua where the mounties can protect you and, if worse comes to worse, irshad manji can eulogise you ; here is how you do it:

......... go down to the local mosque - after a stop at the neighborhood bar, if necessary - and declare that you have had a vision in which god himself (not that pesky, unreliable gabriel) asked you to bring his four new directives to the ummah .......... you can renounce your pagan ways, weep a little bit, chant allah-hu and perform a minor miracle like urinating while standing up without being struck by a thunderbolt and see if the believers will listen to you ...........

....... good luck !