What is Secularism?

Gill Sahib,

The problem is that the mullahs in Pakistan and other Islamic countries have successfully maligned secularism as being anti-religion or even anti-Islam. This deliberate distortion has now seeped into the national consciousness of the ordinary people in these countries. So much so that any move towards secularism is looked as an attack on Islam or Islamic values. Even highly educated and tolerant people are against secularism simply because they view it as something unislamic.

I think a more pragmatic approach would be to drop the term secularism and instead concentrate on 100% religious tolerance and no discrimination even if the system is called Islamic. In other words, change the nature of the Islamic system rather than changing the term.

Secularism - 1.Religious skepticism or indifference.
2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

The religious fanatics change the defination to create hate and fear for their ulterior motives. Secularism has nothing to do with atheism or agnostics. Secularism threatens the religious fanatics` corrupt agenda.

Atheists AND agnostics?

There can be no comparison, really. Atheists have gobe far beyond what was ingrained in them as children. Agnostics are pretenders, who continue to believe in supernatural.
You cannot believe in the supernatural and also believe that you do not `believe` in God.

You can be a boy or girl - not both.

Amit #1: ``I think a more pragmatic approach would be to drop the term secularism and instead concentrate on 100% religious tolerance and no discrimination even if the system is called Islamic. In other words, change the nature of the Islamic system rather than changing the term.``

This is a very good point. One of the best points I have seen anyone make on this site.

This is what will work in Pakistan, due to various cultural, historical and religious reasons. The problem is that there are two very distinct lobbies in Pakistan, which are bent upon ignoring the realities of the country. Both sit at the opposite - religious and secular - exxtremes. They tend to use foreign models (religious and secular) and try to apply them directly onto Pakistan.

Any solution to Pakistan`s issues will have to originate from the culture, history and sociology of the people who live there. In fact, even the Western world does not have a distinct interpretation of secularism. For example, Canada is more secular than the USA. And the gap is increasing day by day..........Yet both countries are functioning quite well...........

Similarly, there is no exact interpretation of Shariah either. Everyone indulges in it, at different levels. Much like they indulge in secularism, at different levels...........For example , a secular Pakistan will never be as secular, as say, Holland. And a religious Pakistan will never be as religious, as say, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia (or even Israel).

When it comes to human nature and philosophies that govern it, there will never be absolutist black and white solutions that work. Human nature is very grey. And it requires different shades of grey solutions............

The only criteria that should be used is to ensure that human rights of indivduals are not violated. And that is neither the monopoly of religion, nor secularism. Both on their day, have been champions of human rights. And both on their day have been champions of death and destruction..............

Gill sahab ... an excellent article.

The problem here is that Romair, his Mullah-overlords and their Indian buddies keep ascribing a definition to secularism that has nothing to do with the concept. Secularism is a separation of church and state pure and simple .... whether the nation living in the state is a Hindu nation... or a Muslim nation ... or a Christian nation... or a multireligious nation (which ironically both Pakistan and India are)...

Secularism is a must for practical governance... if you have a nation state ... whether it based on a religious identity, linguistic identity, or geographical identity... secularism is required no matter what.

It is quite possible for a nation to be united on some common religious beliefs, but it is secularism that will sustain that nation.

Case in point: Republic of Turkey

Turkey that emerged after the war of independence was 99.1% Muslim. Infact the people Ataturk had led were united by one common identity... they were Muslims of Anatolia. This was what formed the basis of exchange between Greece and Turkey... greek speaking Muslims became Turks... and Turkish speaking Christians became Greeks and Armenians. Ataturk made the state completely secular.

Case in point: The State of Israel

A nation founded on the zionist principle .... a Jewish homeland.... The state is completely secular.


Secularism DOES NOT equal to multiculturalism necessarily ... Ottoman Turkey was a completely Multireligious theocracy.... Homogenously Muslim Turkey is completely secular.
Multireligious Pakistan has a theocratic constitution... Israel, much less multicultural than Pakistan, is completely secular.

-YLH

The Debate on ``Secularism`` is on in India as well...


From Rediff today...

http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/mar/19arvind.htm

The Congress which, in the Rajya Sabha, voted out that clause in the 45th Constitution Amendment Bill, 1978, which defined `secular` as `equal respect for all religions.`
A M Ahmadi, a former chief justice of India who recorded that `the term Secular has advisedly not been defined presumably because it is a very elastic term not capable of a precise definition and perhaps best left undefined.` (S R Bommai v Union of India, AIR SCW 2946 page 2992).
Lalu Yadav who thinks it is `secular` to protect Bihar`s Muslims from communal riots but to let a Hindu magistrate be transferred because he objected to a nearby azaan blaring during working hours despite a court order to the contrary, and to let Hindus be kidnapped a dime a dozen.
The Leftists of all hues who want us to believe it is secularism that `in the 28th year of the egalitarian Marxist rule in West Bengal, dowry, lynching women as witches, marrying daughters to dogs and hiring sorcerers` service to tackle malaria, and refusal to eat food cooked by Muslims and lower caste Hindus are rampant and thriving in the state.` (Editorial in The Statesman,Calcutta, January 21, 2005).
Achyut Patwardhan and his ilk of pseudo-secularists who are apparently ignorant that, in his Constitution Law of India, 1998, page 4, footnote, the eminent authority, Basu, described the expression `secular` as vague, and stated that it would be a correct summary of the provisions of Articles 25 to 30 of the Indian Constitution to say that the expression `Republic` qualified by the expression `secular` means a republic in which there is equal respect for all religions.

All `secularists` of the above kind must be told that by far one of the most clear-cut concepts of pure secularism was propounded on August 11, 1947. It was not propounded by Jawaharlal Nehru, the father of today`s pseudo-secularism, or by Mahatma Gandhi, who, with his Khilafat Movement was the first to officially bring religion into our politics. Rather, and most ironically, the perspective was propounded by Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who fought for and got Pakistan for Muslims. At the first meeting of Pakistan`s Constituent Assembly that day in August 1947, following were some of the words he spoke:

`You may belong to any religious caste or creed -- that has nothing to do with the business of the State. We are starting the State with no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, between caste and creed… We should keep that in front of us as our ideal, and you will find that in the course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense -- as citizens of the nation…My guiding principle will be justice and impartiality.`(Jinnah, Speeches as Governor General cited on page 491 of The Proudest Day Pimlico 1998, by Anthony Read and David Fisher).

It`s another supreme irony that Jinnah`s vision of a perfectly secular Pakistan has turned into a fundamentalist jihadistan on the ground while the ancient, most tolerant of all nations, Hindustan, has today turned anti-Hindu under fundamentalists of a different kind. Patriotic Indians must brook no further delay in roaring, `Kya lagaya hai, yeh secular, secular?`

Gill Sahib...yarr, this issue has been done to death and you have not made any progress on this issue. It is at the point of repetition and not responding to critiques which you simply dismiss offhand as misunderstanding of the concept of secularism. That kind of reasoning is a one-trick poney...used too often it gets rather tired.

Now, consider this quote:

``A fortiori all motives derived from the (Christian) religion are worthless.``

This is an anti-Christian stance and is in no way neutral to that faith.

``(Secularism) doesn’t require the citizens to abandon their religion. ``

*Unless* there are communal aspects to the religion...further, it presumes that religious concerns are never secular. If indeed religion itself blurs the line between worldly/material and the metaphysical nice separation between state and religion becomes rather difficult.

``The issue of separating religion from the statecraft is particularly tangled and tenuous in the Muslim world. Unlike Christian world, the Mosque and State are not two independent entities; they are intertwined and converged into each other.``

This is a bit of a misrepresentation. A mosque was not solely an artery of government, however severed as the center of the Muslim community. There is obviously bureaucratic and administrative value to a mosque as a means of, say, disseminating information or of centralized administration at a municipal level.

As for the state, the concept of an Islamic state was nascent in the Early days of Islam. It is more accurate to speak of tribal alliances. By analogy we can extend this to the concept of nation state, however it really is stretching things a bit. Realistically, in highly centralized regimes, the mosque was always subservient to the whims of the government (it was not a two way system). This is akin to how mosques are used in secular governments, either in France, Algeria, or Turkey. One thing you refuse to admit is that Islamic societies, structurally, were quite secular and were not solely concerned with the dogmatic aspects of Islam.

``The concept that the government essentially is the providence of God and the earthly ruler is only His vicegerent (Khalifah) is divinely ordained.``

A Khallifah was the commander of the faithful. He was not a representative of God (like the pope), but subject to God`s laws like anyone else (in theory). A Khalifah, in theory, could be impeached. In practice, they were deposed and for the most part akin to European kings.

``At the same time, only ulema can practice ijtihad (reinterpretation) because others however much enlightened and educated, even in religion, they may be, are not trusted.``

This is absurd. The ulema are not a class of people with a birthright, rather it is much akin to a professional designation. No matter how bright you or I, we cannot change it on whim. In practice, the Ulema are used to define those things which are to be taken axiomatic. Beyond that, ``laypeople`` are free to pass and make any law they desire which doesn`t contravene the axiomatic principles.

You said Bernard Lewis wrote:

``This law could be amplified and interpreted by tradition and reasoning. It could not be changed, and no Muslim ruler could, in theory, either add or subtract a single rule.”

How does Mr. Lewis reconcile this with Hazrat Omar`s banning of temporary marriage, or his suspension of Islamic law (which is itself not proscribed by Islamic law)?

Lewis also said:

``He (6) also stated of the method of governance in Prophet Muhammad’s time, “The state was the church and the church was the state, and God was head of both, with the prophet as the representative on earth.”

Again, let us be more honest and simply say that there is no Church in Islam, and so the closest approximation as a unit of organization for the faithful is the state.

In Islam, the lines between secular and religion are blurred.

---

amit, kaurasach,

It`s all fine and dandy to quote dictionary definitions. However, in practice secularism is the supremacy of state over religion. The distinction of state and religion (personal or organized) is made by the very definition of secularism, not by the fancy of fanatics.

Critical to internalizing the validity of secularism is treating the concept of religion as solely a personal matter. It`s not. To say that it should is a matter of belief. To enforce it is a matter of tyranny from the perspective of those who would disagree with the notion of strictly ``personal`` religion. I don`t see middle ground here...perhaps I`m wrong.

Also, be aware of the flavor of secularism that has been enforced in the Muslim world. As with Islam, the question needs to be asked and addressed: who`s secularism? Kemal Attaturk, George Bushs` or someone else?

Y--A--W--N


You have proven that you are good at writing about science & related matters.
Please stick to that.

Let MantoLives uphold the banner of ``Secularism``. To me it is the white part in the flags of bothIndia and Pakistan.

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

MantoLives wants Dunda use by these Zanees*, Sharabees*, Haraamkhores*, Rishvatkhores*


* all of them got ``educated`` at such elite instituitions: Ghorra Gali, Lawrence Galli, Aitchison, KGS, St. Anthony`s, Cathedral, Don Bosco, Le Salle, Beaconhouse, F.C, Gordon, Kinnaird and convent--A quick check of the background of these modern & enlightened ones would reveal this and only this common thread. This is where the Generals, the Afeesurs (20 grades), and the Feudals--army is the biggest feudal & capitalist today; in case anyone did`nt know ]

correction: #8

MantoLives wants Dunda use by these Zanees*, Sharabees*, Haraamkhores*, Rishvatkhores*
to be extended fairly & equitably and MORE OFTEN to the overwhelming majority as well..

The notion that the Turkey is the only secular country in Islamic world, as presented in this article, is grossly incorrect. The fact is that Egypt, Syria, Libya, Saddam`s Iraq, Yemmen (before unification), Morroco, Tunisia and Algiers are all strictly secular. The fact is that only in Algiers one million Muslims have been killed by their Kaffir goverment in order to keep them from upholding the rule of Allah in their country. The fact is that no one should forget the public exceutions of Muslims by fascist kaffirs in Turkey, the murder, political assassinations and torture of Muslims by Baathist kaafirs in Syria, and Iraq and by Pan Arabist kaffirs in Egypt. It only proves that this system can only be forced upon Muslims through oppression, murder, and torture and even then it will never be accepted by Muslims. The fact of the matter is that the so called secularism is absolutely incompatible political system in Islamic world. Time and again this fact has proven itself. Every Muslim country that has won sovereignity from the colonial powers and that from the ruling class of their mental slaves in Muslim countries, be it Iran or Afghanistan, Muslims have chosen the rule of Allah over any system of Kaffirs. In Afghanistan the so called secularism is now being imposed by murder of hundered of of thousands of innocent human beings through wars and man made famine. Let us be honest here. Unlike Islam no other religion in world provides a political social outlook. It is simply not in them. Their gods have failed to do so. The only true religion and only salvation of mankind is Islam, whether this salvation is for the individual or for the mankind.

Gill Saheb,

Perhaps the confusion is not over the definition of secularism but over the definition of religion . Religion is not merely following of a creed or a dogma. Nor is it merely concerned with non-earthly matters. Religion is the foundational set of beliefs that people use to define their values and order their existence. Atheist, agnostics and humanists are all religious even though they may not belong to a traditional religion. They all have a concept of good which is derived from some set of foundational beliefs.
Now, secularism is the separation of religion from the affairs of the state. How can this be possible? If, as you say, the state has to ``do good``, how will it determine what good is? It must rely on some set of foundational beliefs that define good. How can it be neutral to all sets of foundational beliefs when it must choose one?

The resistance to secularism in muslim countries is based on the correct assumption that a Western style secular state would privilege the Rational Humanistic religion over Islam.

Gill Sahib,
I liked your earlier articles, but the spirit of humanism was maftood. I have been pleasantly surprised by this article as it is infused with a tender soul. You make great points in your article.
It is indeed good to do good.
It is good to know what is good.
It is even better to know the nature of good without religion.
It is imperative to know Evil, as it tends to come in the guise of good.
Imperative to develop Hikmat-e-Furqaan, the Wisdom to discern between Good and Evil.

One of the Dalai Lama`s teachings fits perfectly when taken in similitude of Pakistan`s present condition:

He says,
`` It is said that if you want to know what were doing in the past, look at your body now; If you want to know what will happen to you in the future, look at what your mind is doing now.``

To know Good, and to do good, and keep doing good is also echoed by Emmanuel Kant in his theory of the Ethics of Virtue.

Echoboom is talking about the Danda! Well he might feel much better and be more civil when he removes the Meter long one from his person. It is easy to spew insults at others than to realize its futility.

Om Shanti...............God is Peace!

Dear Mohammad Gill Saheb,
What you are saying makes so much sense, if only rulers could take your advise.

Present day Secularism, a by-product of the industrial revolution in Europe to accomodate Jewish pluralism under Protestant Christian umbrella, is the next best thing to Nation-State for minorities. You, I and all other DESIs living in the Western World are enjoying the fruits of it and are trying somehow to export to our root countries.

Between East and West in my opinion is a difference of economics mostly, preceded by either inferiority or superiority complex that kills all the reasoning and thought-process that are critically needed for progress. Since the present day and age is basically a window of the society conceived by Western World in which we all live and breath, including our parent countries. Only native ingenuinity left in the soul of our countries is, our old cultures, languages, and offcourse Religion. These alone are not sufficient to quench the new-age and newly found hunger of our masses, wheather mental or physical in this information age.

If you try a religious-nation concept, for e.g. failed state of Afganistan or Iran you become a fruit that is spoiling rest of the crop, one way or another in the Bagicha of the world.

If you try a purely theoretical nation concept such as Communism that also promises the equality for all, it becomes like Ford Model-T that becomes obsoletes after a thunderous, promising start due to lack of spare parts and competition from other manufacturers.

I don`t think we have a solution for our problems, unless there is a Divine Intervention or a total change in our reasoning and thought-process.
Europeans are very smart people, and they have already recognized that the only way left to move forward for masses is through their satisfactions, which can only be obtained by unifications of nations and peoples. That is why there is an EU and NATO, despite the fact 50 years ago they had a most destructionist War ever fought on our planet among themselves.

They have already made alliances and pacts with nations that are not similar to theirs. For e.g Turkey differs religiously, racially from rest of the EU, same goes for Japan, Russia and South Korea and even China is shifting it`s gears now.

All of the above requires perfect harmony and pluralism that Secularism can guarantee, even for those who oppose it.

As far as India and Pakistan are concerned, our ancient cultures saw value in this long time ago. That is why ``Hazrat Nizamuddin Aulia``, Farid, Kabir and Bulley are still revered by Hindus and Sikhs in India, and nobody talks about Aurengzeb or Abdali or the rest.....

It would be very wise for our people to realize this simple thing, sooner the better. I pray to Waheguru, Allah, Ram, Shinto, Budha and Abrahim for the same.

Maanas Ki Jaat Sab Eka Pehchaan Bo
And
Awal Allah Noor Upaya Qudrat ke sab Bande
Ek Noor te sab jag upjaya ko bhale ko mande

#10 by Urstruly on March 18, 2005 12:39pm PT


Unlike Islam no other religion in world provides a political social outlook.


By living in the US, you are accepting the supremacy of the US government....you willingly pay taxes that go to finance causes muslims may not be happy with....

guess that makes you a non-muslim too then...or as you would say..a kaffir...

Khurram and Vertex,

Instead of looking at the issue in abstract, let us look at it from a practical point of view. In your version of an ideal religious society, how would a non-believer fare? Will he have equal access to jobs, education and civil rights? While civil laws governing marriage, inheritance etc can be different, would criminal law be different? 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. It would not discriminate against anyone and is as good in terms of living conditions as a secular society. If the answer is no, it is a problem no matter what argument you present to justify it, since there is inequality.

Amongst all the muslim states, Turkey is the best country. It reaps the benefit of maintaining a secular form of govt. and keeping religious dogma taking over the affairs. Religion is subjective, emotional, and in rigid forms, blind an insane - often at odds with natural laws of the world.

Religion is a creation of man. Natural world is creation of God. God and its Natural laws win in the end. Thank God.