What is Secularism?

razijaffery:

``...it is the idea of state that has become our reality today that forces all of us to come up with same laws for every one..``

This is not only a present day reality, it has always been like that. In a multireligious society, the state should implement laws, for the purpose of the day to day governance, which are secular, i.e., which do not belong to any particular religion and do not discriminate on religious grounds. We, the Muslims, find it difficult to accept it because in our conception, religion is part of the state or the other way round, i.e., the state is (or ought to be) part of religion. We then can grant concessions to the followers of other religions and claim to be just and fair.

Will you like a Christian government to rule in the U.S. which can (and will) delimit your, and of the other non-Christian citizens), freedom? My rights to me are given by the constitution of a secular government in the U.S. I am not beholden to anybody for these rights.

A religious government is frequently unfair even to its own people. Sharia (Hudood laws), for instance, is unfair to the Muslim women.

I do not need to belabor this point too much because it is so obvious. I am suggesting that a secular government is fairer than a religious government because it does not discriminate on religious grounds. A religous government, on the other hand, does, otherwise it need not be religious. As far as practicing a religion is concerned, secular government doesn`t prevent you from it.

I had also mentioned that a democracy coupled with constitutional liberty and secularism can work to the `common good.` We in Pakistan are neither secular nor theocratic. We need to have a secular democracy in Pakistan to end the political game of musical chairs currently going on there. How can it be done? I don`t have any idea. First important thing is for the common people, you and I, to realize that a secular democracy is a benevolent form of government.

A secular democracy is not divine, we can make changes and modifications to improve it, all the time., in a constitutional way. A religious government is rigid and inflexible.

Based on my personal experience, I can say that whenever you try to solve a problem on religious grounds, the solution becomes impossible. Think of:

1. Is music allowed in Islam? It`s still controversial, yet it has become a fact of our life. I hope you listen to the music and do not feel bad about it.
2. Is photography (and TV) allowed by Islam? For theoretical discussion, it is not allowed, yet we cannot live without it. The same goes for painting and fine arts.
3. There is no `religious ban` on poetry but it is disparaged. There is a whole sura on poets.

I can go on and on. If you want to live peacefully, better stay away from these issues. Let them be personal affairs and not communal.

I have no problem with what you believe and don`t believe because it is your personal business. I don`t pass fatwas of kufr on my brother Muslims because ``I know what I am``, ``munn a`anam keh munn da`anam.`` Generally religion makes people arrogant. (I`m not suggesting that you`re arrogant. You seem to be a liberal person willing to discuss issues with open mind)

I have enjoyed interacting with you, Regards,

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 129 Gill, I have tried to systematically respond to some of the questions and criticisms you have rasied here: See parathesis.

``...it is the idea of state that has become our reality today that forces all of us to come up with same laws for every one..`` This is not only a present day reality, it has always been like that.

(I don’t think this is historically accurate. The idea of nation-state/state is quite modern.)

In a multireligious society, the state should implement laws, for the purpose of the day to day governance, which are secular, i.e., which do not belong to any particular religion and do not discriminate on religious grounds. We, the Muslims, find it difficult to accept it because in our conception, religion is part of the state or the other way round, i.e., the state is (or ought to be) part of religion. We then can grant concessions to the followers of other religions and claim to be just and fair.

(In the light of history this argument does not hold. State is not the only way to govern and was not for the most part in global (and not just western) history, as I mentioned earlier. I can cite the inception of statehood in western history if you like. I really think this question needs to be explored in history and hardly anyone would contend on it with me)

Will you like a Christian government to rule in the U.S. which can (and will) delimit your, and of the other non-Christian citizens), freedom? My rights to me are given by the constitution of a secular government in the U.S. I am not beholden to anybody for these rights.

(As I have said earlier, the idea of nation-state has made it imperative to make one generalized law for ``all citizens of the state``. A little bit scrutiny of Andalusia (Muslim Spain) would reflect how one can have different laws governing different religious communities according to their own religion. Again, Spain is just one among many examples that can be cited. Our very own Mughal history provides numerous other examples. The important point to notice is that these examples are not that of a state as you might think)

A religious government is frequently unfair even to its own people. Sharia (Hudood laws), for instance, is unfair to the Muslim women.

(This argument applies equally to non-religious governments. The slavery issue in US history for which unfairness would be a reductive term is not result of religious discrimation but happened in a secular state. Same can be said about Auschwitz.)

I do not need to belabor this point too much because it is so obvious. I am suggesting that a secular government is fairer than a religious government because it does not discriminate on religious grounds. A religous government, on the other hand, does, otherwise it need not be religious. As far as practicing a religion is concerned, secular government doesn`t prevent you from it.

(In the light of arguments made above these claims do not hold.)

I had also mentioned that a democracy coupled with constitutional liberty and secularism can work to the `common good.` We in Pakistan are neither secular nor theocratic. We need to have a secular democracy in Pakistan to end the political game of musical chairs currently going on there. How can it be done? I don`t have any idea. First important thing is for the common people, you and I, to realize that a secular democracy is a benevolent form of government.

(I don’t think this argument holds either given what I have already mentioned above.)

A secular democracy is not divine, we can make changes and modifications to improve it, all the time., in a constitutional way. A religious government is rigid and inflexible.

(Again these claims are complete misconstrual of historical facts and is a big overstatement.)

Based on my personal experience, I can say that whenever you try to solve a problem on religious grounds, the solution becomes impossible. Think of:

1. Is music allowed in Islam? It`s still controversial, yet it has become a fact of our life. I hope you listen to the music and do not feel bad about it.
2. Is photography (and TV) allowed by Islam? For theoretical discussion, it is not allowed, yet we cannot live without it. The same goes for painting and fine arts.
3. There is no `religious ban` on poetry but it is disparaged. There is a whole sura on poets.

(This way of phrasing these questions to elicit certain conclusions is ‘simplistic’ to say the least. These issues have been widely discussed in various intellectual disciplines in Islamic thought and there are varieties of perspectives one finds there. For example, philosophers, mystics, jurists, theologians, traditionalists and so on. I can cite references if you prefer.)

I can go on and on. If you want to live peacefully, better stay away from these issues. Let them be personal affairs and not communal.

I have no problem with what you believe and don`t believe because it is your personal business. I don`t pass fatwas of kufr on my brother Muslims because ``I know what I am``, ``munn a`anam keh munn da`anam.`` Generally religion makes people arrogant. (I`m not suggesting that you`re arrogant. You seem to be a liberal person willing to discuss issues with open mind)

(In light of all this, these conclusions are ill-founded. I think we need to be intellectually very diligent in our scrutiny of such important issues especially when we made our opinions public on forums like chowk.com. Throwing in generalized statements, exaggerated facts and conclusions based upon our individual penchants will not be very helpful.)

(I hope you will be able to see my good intent here.

Finally you said that “Generally religion makes people arrogant.”

Arrogance has little to do with religion. It is basic human psyche of raising oneself above everything, even God. In my academic career I have found most arrogance in Business schools and in scientists themselves. If it’s a question of our personal experiences alone then I am afraid mine are radically different from yours. Arrogance is an issue of human ego which religion precisely intends to overcome. What probably you want to say is that some belief-systems make one arrogant and this is true for scientific belief-systems as well.

I will close with one example: Richard Dawkins, the famous protagonist of Darwinism once said: “IT IS ABSOLUTELY SAFE TO SAY THAT IF YOU MEET SOMEONE WHO CLAIMS NOT TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, THAT PERSON IS IGNORANT, STUPID OR INSANE (OR WICKED BUT I WILL RATHER NOT CONSIDER THAT). - This is a scientist`s way of labelling someone kafir - a term you avoid to use. For a scientist it is the reason which holds the ultimate value as in contradistinction with faith in the case of a religion. Therefore a heresy is labelled accordingly - not being unfaithful but being stupid and insane. So humble indeed!

Salams