What is Secularism?

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.

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: # 18

Well put sir.

Read post #6

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.

Gill

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

nhk

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.

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

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

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.

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 !

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.

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...

Re: # 10
It seems you have have studied (or may be practiced as well) all the religeons of the world that you can make such a statement that Islam is the best religeon or it is the only religeon which can salvage human beings or even nations.Aapki daanishwari ko salaam!
Baba Nanak,Kabir,Farid,Bulle Shah...!!!!!Who were they.....????????perhaps kafirs of the highest(or lowest) order???????

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!

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: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.