What is Secularism?

Gill Saheb:

Nice elaboration of secularism!

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.

I can sympathise with Muslims who find secularism imcompatible with Islam. Many Muslim freethinkers, 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. It is islam which ordains that sharia is an integral part of the religion. Even if one can claim that it is Quran and not sharia which is the core, one still cannot escape the fact that sovereignty belongs to Allah and Allah alone and not to the people.

In my opinion (as a sympathetic outsider, of course) a reform agenda of Islam would include the following, among others:

- Religion is a matter of individual faith, nothing more nothing less.
- Matters between an individual and his god should remain so without state making any interference in such matters.
- Allah is sovereign as far as an individual is concerned, but as far as the nation state is concerned, sovereignty belongs to its people.
- The concept of ummah is obsolete, a citizen`s loyalty to the state cannot exceed her or his loyalty to an ummah.

Fortunately, most ordinary muslims (not just freethinkers) innately believe in the above. Unfortunately, very few of them are willing to say so openly.

Finally, I wish you had not brought Mukhatran Mai`s case into this. This barbaric biradari justice has nothing to do with Islam or Secularism.

nazarhayatkhan:

Thanks for your one liner. Once an article is published or posted, it is no longer restricted to anyone. Qazi Hussain Ahmed can read it and ``think`` if he considers the article ``worthy of any thought,`` or just move on. There is a wide spectrum of readership at chowk also although none of them has the same ``political and religious authority`` as Qazi Ahmed has.

BeeJay:

Your reference to the Detroit sewers was amusing. Some of them are really old. They were built in 1850s with brick and they are still in use. Many of these old sewers are ``egg-shaped`` and the workmanship is superb because concrete had not yet been invented.The variety in size is also amazing. It varies from 1 foot (the house leads) to in the order of 20 foot (storm sewers and interceptors).

Regarding your ``You give us very little room for letting OUR creative juices flow (by poking fun, which is OUR true trade),`` I think it was cruel. I don`t understand why chowk lets such ``personal`` and ``trashy`` interacts find their way into print. It degrades the quality of the website.

Personally, I believe Mr. Meer`s article was immature and inconsistent; it should not have been published in the first place. Secondly, if it had fallen through cracks and got published, the contents of the interacts should have been ``generously`` edited to ensure no personal hurt to the writer. I know of one good writer who has stopped publishing at chowk due to ``trashy`` interacts. We should try to ``clean up`` chowk because here we get together and exchange our ideas. We should stop flinging filth and dirt at others because it makes chowk a filthy site.

Wishing well,

Mohammad Gill

Dear Gill sahib:

You are one of my favorite writers (although I consider myself a newcomer and probably have a lot of reading still ahead of me)! I have just a couple of comments on this article.

[When I published my articles “What is Islamization of Science?” and “Planting Democracy in the World – A Mantra for Freedom” at Chowk, there were heated discussions, which brought the doctrine of secularism into arguments.]
Sorry Gill Sahib, I don’t want to take anything away from you, but the Chowkies (humble BeeJay included) had a LOT more fun with Mr. Meer’s article. You give us very little room for letting OUR creative juices flow (by poking fun, which is OUR true trade)!

Also (sorry I can not resist this, in view of your more “standard” line of work), it would be fair to say that you, sir, are a true “keechad ka kamal” (kamal as in lotus, not as in wondrous magic) from those sewers of Detroit!

Sincerely,
BeeJay

Gill

Try telling this to Qazi Hussain Ahmed. He will say it is Jewish-Indian-American Conspiracy.

nhk

Re:Romair#26

Thanks for the compliments!! While we can agree in principle that an ideal religious society can be humane and provide equality, I am hard pressed to find any actual examples. In Indian mythology there is ``Ram Rajya`` which is the reign of Lord Ram after his war with Ravan. This is supposed to be the pinnacle of an ideal society in terms of humanism. Since it is a mythology, only Lord Ram knows whether it really existed!! On the other hand, there are quite a few secular societies in Europe, Canada etc. that are humane and have truly lived up to the expectations. So right now secularism is winning due to the existence of provable examples, while I am yet to see examples of ideal religious societies.

Re: # 28

Amit yaar... why the hell are you hitting your head against the wall ?

To Romair... PPP which says that ``Islam is our religion`` and is the architect of the theocratic constitution of 1973... including the Ahmadi amendment... is a secular Party... but hypocritically... BJP which stands for a uniform secular code is a religious one....

He is very confused and contradictory....

Leave him alone.

Amit #15: ``In other words, would a believer and non-believer face the same punishment for the same crime? Will believers and non-believers with the same financial background pay the same taxes?.....If your answer is yes, then the ideal religious society is fine. ``

That is a good question. You have started asking a lot of good questions and making a lot of good points, lately. Perhaps it is a result of the long interacts with me.........What do you think........Unfortunately, these long interacts have had the opposite effect on many other Indians (and Pakistanis, for that matter)..

Now you are talking about humanism. Something that I have been pushing as a replacement to secularism and religion. The point you have made is what everyeone should aim for. And to answer your question:

There is no certainity that a religious govt. or a secular govt. will allow equal rights to all members of the society. Some will. Some won`t. Those that do, should be supported and those that do not, should be opposed.

But, as I always say the basis of support should never, ever, be purely the fact that the govt./party etc. is good because it is secular or because it is religious......For example, in Pakistan the groups claiming the religious space (MMA maulvis) and the groups claiming more of the secular (or non-religious) space (PPP/PML feudals) are both regressive groups. Both will lead Pakistan to the dark ages...........One sits over hadood laws......the other sits over jagirdari based honor killings, Quran marraiges etc.......The head of the PPP has four sisters married to the Quran........Imagine......Neither of the above two groups is humane..........Though one is religious, the other more secular.........

Re: amit #15

``Will he have equal access to jobs, education and civil rights?
would a believer and non-believer face the same punishment for the same crime?
Will believers and non-believers with the same financial background pay the same taxes``

The answer to all of the above is - yes, why not.

Interesting article Gill. Its important to note that ``secularism`` in its European sense arose under specific historical circumstances where the authority of the Church was to be thwarted. It had nothing to do, at that time, with tolerating religious diversity. In fact, Europe`s history of racism, anti-semitism (includes Judaism and Islam) and persecution of non-Protestant, non-white peoples goes back pretty far. Diversity as an *ethic* was never on the agenda of European political theorists who spoke of secularism. It was the result of a power struggle between the Church and the bourgeoisie.

Fast forward to the colonial state - say South Asia. A whole different situation exists. First of all - the importance of religion in political life varied vastly in pre-colonial times from region to region. Most regions - unlike Europe - had a genuine mix of people from different religions. Europe seems a monoculture in comparison! In short - rulers of whatever religious stripe administered states and had institutions in place which *had* to account for and manage religious diversity somehow. I`m reading a history of Malabar right now - and I`m astounded by the kind of creativity and brilliance with which people worked out this business of religious diversity. In Malabar, for instance, different communities interacted in extremely complex systems of festivals, exchange of food, grain, mutual patronage of places of worship etc etc. It wasn`t necessarily some wet-eyed bhai-bhai thing, but a creative, canny working out of a well-oiled system in a highly cosmopolitan part of the world. Malabar had been cosmopolitan for at least 1500 years at that point - sea-trading with Africa, the Middle East, SE Asia etc. This was under Hindu *and* Muslim rulers - Tipu Sultan was pretty popular and very liberal - not a ``persecutor`` by any means. He even admonished people who protested against inter-religious marriages etc. saying it was only a ruler`s business to protect the peace and property of the people, not to interfere in matters of the heart.

So it really astounds me that ``secularism`` is thought of as some kind of western import when people *all* over the world long before the Europeans got to them had figured out ways to be religious *and* coexist with others of different beliefs. I think whoever said - maybe we should abandon that word. And instead focus on what ways people found to accomodate diversity outside the European rubric, which I actually think is one of the *least* tolerant historically. YOu just have to look at Ireland and Bosnia and the basques and Cyprus and remember all the religious genocides they have carried out to know that there`s nothing they have to teach the world about harmonious co-existence.

Oh, how I wished that freethinking around ``Secularism`` was limited to one passage....

Here is an extract from ``What Price for God in Europe?`` (The Christian Science Monitor) quoted by Yahoo! News February 22, 2005.

``In Europe, secularism is not understood as necessarily hostile to religion. In France, the term denotes a level playing field, on which the state allows all religions to operate freely, but stands aside. Elsewhere, it means an indifference to faith.``

Secularism is just one component of the government ensuring it to work for the `common good.` Other essential components are democracy and constitutional liberty thus constituting the framework of a liberal and secular democracy.

Mohammad Gill

I have a feeling that a religious state is not only detrimental to the minority who dont follow the religion , but also to the majority among those majority who follow the religion. Equal respect to all religions is not the correct concept of secularism. religion and state should be separate, but thats saying a lot in the current context.
An ethical framework that is not open to reason cannot help us decide between right and wrong. It can only mandate right and wrong, and that too with the burden and guilt of sin if we go against it.

Secularism is where people of all religions have equal opportunities. Religion is the subject of the individual and the state does not show any preference for people from a particular religion.

This can be done in two ways. The first is the way which is being done in France, that is to go on the presumtion by the state that there is no god. Hence religious sentiments are completely ignored by the state. The state makes laws ignoring religion.

The second way to do it is for the state to say that all religions are equal. In this case the government recognises that people have different faiths and goes out of the way to accomodate them through different civil codes, giving subsidies to mosques / temples etc.

The main thing in secularism is that irrespective of my faith, I should not be denied opportunities. I personally admire the French concept of the ``Republic``.

Secularism is very simple to define.

It is the situation whereby Indian Muslims can demand that they should be allowed to marry 4 wives or divorce them by saying `talaq` three times according to the Sharia while simultaneously not demanding the imposition of Sharia for criminal matter such as cutting off the hand for stealing.

Thus Indian Muslims very neatly balance their religious fervour with separating the Sharia from the State: common law for criminal matters and Sharia for fooling around.

This plays very well with the ``secularist`` crowd on Chowk.

Re: # 18

Well put sir.

Read post #6

Re: # 18
Harimau: What is your version of Secularism? It sounds like that you disagree with the Chowk`s version(I don`t know if there is any).

Please explain, maybe I will have something to learn.

BTW, I do agree with your comment about some hypocritical segment of Indian Muslims marrying/divorcing more than one wife under Shariat, but for legal disputes knocking on the English Provided Common Law courts of India.
Even Dharmender the Actor became a Muslim for namesake to marry HemaMalini.