Are Secularism and Islam Incompatible?

Nasah #308

{{If Christianity can be compataible with Secularism -- if Hinduism can be compatible with Secularism -- if Judiasm can be compatible with Secularism --

so can ISLAM --

-- the TWINS WILL survive -- flourish indivudualy and live together happily everafter......}}

An evocative post as always – Islamic society as a grotesque case of craniopagus … but sweeps a great deal under the rug. I deny that Christianity is compatible with secularism – much less Islam. There will be no happily-ever-after ending - simply a descent into defeat and oblivion.

It makes sense to look at the fortunes of the Christian Church, since Islam is closest to Christianity of all the religions/families of religion you have mentioned (it may arguably be viewed as a Christian heresy, the most successful in history.)

Christ supposedly declared that his Kingdom was not of this world; neither he nor any of the fathers of the early church in the 1st century CE sought temporal power. Further “Render unto Caesar, etc. “ has the direct and obvious interpretation that submission to lawfully constituted temporal authority is right and proper.

Yet the Church in Europe did acquire a great deal of temporal power and influence, following the normal evolution of power dynamics in human societies. It lost that power in the last 7 centuries - consequent on the rise of nation states, the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the development of the scientific method and demonstration of its devastating effectiveness, and finally democracy.

The root cause of the loss of the Church’s power is a loss of mind-share. Holy scripture or the Church as an institution are no longer seen as the sole or even prime sources of wisdom, knowledge, scholarship, moral authority or guidance. The Church has to compete for influence and an audience with a myriad of other power centers. Its ability to shape or frame any debate, even on what might be considered its home turf, is severely constrained. Its doctrines are granted exceedingly limited credence among intellectuals in the West. It has powerful and resolute enemies in every corner.

When this loss of power occurred the church had a fallback position consistent with well-known passages of “Holy Scripture”. Yet the Princes of the Church look at things with a view to eternity; at each stage they foresaw what was going to happen to their power if the new-fangled ideas were to gain any currency. A perusal of the historical record will show that, like every other human institution, the Church yielded up its power only grudgingly. It staged a bitter fighting retreat over the course of 700 years, and even now would seek to reverse the tide given half a chance.

---

If one goes to the philosophical root, the loss of mind-share to the Church is the consequence of accepting a new set of metaphysical assumptions and epistemological criteria. Briefly, these do not require the hypothesis of a divinity maintaining, creating or even conceiving the universe; and deny the validity of ‘revelation’ as a source of knowledge or authority, while accepting empiricism, deduction, and induction as sources of knowledge. It is this new philosophical framework that is the foundation of a consistent and defensible secularism.

This framework is, at a deep and fundamental level, a mortal enemy of the ‘revealed’ ‘divine’ religions, because it omits their central metaphysical assumption as superfluous to an effective understanding of reality, and declares their key epistemological principle bogus. Declaring ‘revealed scripture’ as inadmissible evidence in any debate on civic or political matters leaves a system that is secular by default. Working out the rest is a matter of fleshing out the details.

---

What is true of Christianity is true, even more, of Islam, another ‘revealed’ ‘divine’ religion. Unlike Christianity, Islam does not seem to possess scriptural crutches or historical precedents for a dignified fallback where it cedes authority in temporal matters. Its inevitable defeat will be more humiliating than that suffered by Christianity. Secularism cannot coexist with Islam in its present state. What has happened to the Church is the complete emasculation of its political, intellectual and moral authority. When the same surgical reduction happens to Islam, it will be even more complete and enfeebling. Those who take Islam seriously understand this perfectly well, though their arguments against secularism are typically disingenuous in the extreme, as this thread demonstrates.

i give up ................

............ with ``moderates`` like tahmed and ``rationalists`` like ferozk and ``idiots`` like romair and ``flaming jihadis`` like urstruly, i don`t think there is any hope for the reformaiton of islam .................

.................. so, i go back to my original posiiton that we only have two choices : islam has to be allowed to run its horrible course before it is discredited like communism, or the civilzed wolrd has to confront it, defeat it and humilite it so that its followers (and mankind) can be ``saved``.............. i advocate the second course because i don`t want to wait for two hundred years ............ any other takers?

...good article ylh...

re. #312 TAhmed,

TAhmed, thank you for that post too. Yes, I think it is worth pointing out that the Qur`an repeatedly does call for mercy and peaceful settlement to conflict. And it is wonderful and wise in this respect.

The issue, of course, is not whether Islam is ultimately just or not. I think the best ethical systems in the world may be abused by wishing to do so. My own witness of Islam is that certainly has the power to ennoble and strengthen character.

The issue is whether there is anything in the religion that contravenes, or can easily be taken to contravene, what we nowadays regard as fundamental human rights, or loosely speaking, on the territory of politics.

Even if we were to accept your Islam, where the Qur`an is the sole authority, and that the Qur`an separates church and state, the battle would still have to be fought on winning over the rest of Islamia to this interpretation.

In the interim, I think speaking of compatibility of Islam and secualrism or democracy is rather irresponsible, for the political leverage it lends the so called Islamists.

re urstruly
`...i.e. the ruling fascists, whom you admire so much, put him in jail and banned him for life from politics for this poem.`

Actually it was the Constitutional Court of the Republic that handed down the judgement. In civilized countries, even those with strong militaries, there are usually courts made of judges (real ones unlike Moulvi Mushtaq Hussain) who pronounce on the guilt/innocence of the accused. Anybody who doesn`t agree with Islamist nonsense is not fascist.

It`ll be comforting (or not!) to you to know that I slightly disagree with YLH on the Turkish military. Having noted the historical brutishness of Islamist movements, I cannot but find some excuse for the Turkish generals` desire to nip the faintest glimmer of Islamism in the bud. As Algeria and others have shown, if you don`t harshly put down Islamist agitation at the very beginning, it may be too late as these rascals are adept at enforcing the veil, raping girls, and killing secularists.

PM#295 and one more thing (without wishing to prolong the discussion): even given that the Quran specifically denies temporal authority to implement its pronouncements to the prophet muhammed himself (per my other post to you), another fact that is conveniently overlooked by the islamists is that even the Quranic pronouncements on specific things like adultery are generally immediately followed by a call for mercy. This applies in case of adultery (to use your example), since here the Quran says that if the two repent, then they should be allowed to go in peace. But you wont hear any mullah saying this. There are lots of other areas where the feet of clay on which islamists stand can be indicated but, as i said, i dont want to make a career out of discussin religous matters on chowk.

The more you look into these things, the clearer it becomes that islamists are windbags and nothing more. They live a life of falsehood, and can do nothing constructive in this world.

Just curious...
(Maybe Manto or ferozk would like a shot at this)

What are the limits of the state`s toleration of religious freedom of its various religious communities? Would this include the tolerance of a particular religion`s `freedom` to co-opt the individual`s freedom of conscience, guaranteed in the same constituion, in choosing one`s own religion, or choosing not to subscribe to one?

I think it`s all very well to talk, in the abstract, about secular constitutions that tolerate all religious traditions. It`s when you attempt to put this principle to actual use that you might run into some inconvenient conflicts.

nasah #308

I couldn`t agree more.

If Islam did not have fascist political ideology deeply embedded in it, it could be ignored or supported like any other thing that calls itself a religion.

Till so long as Islam has political and moral fascism as its integral and inseparable parts, all its manifestations must be fought.

I urge all non Muslims to wake up.

People, political correctness should not lead us all non muslims to the gas chamber, or its alternative, slavery.

You must start action at your level. It must be a man to man fight, because there isn`t any other way.

TAhmed,
Thanks for your (no doubt redundant :) ) response. Please don`t feel obliged to reply to this one. I am jsut throwing some questions up in the air for anyone who may be interested...

TAhmed writes:
``in case of the point you raise, this is all i have to say: While there are no doubt passages in the Quran that would appear to be legal pronouncements, the Quran makes it clear that this is in fact not the case. this is done when the Quran explicitly instructs the prophet muhammed that his job is RESTRICTED to that of a messenger only, and implementation of the message is not his concern.``

The Qur`an may indeed make clear that the Prophet was the messenger but not the legislator or judiciary. But does it follow from that that there is to be no legislature/judicairy based on what are accepted as the eternal truths and divine injunctions?

To me this seems quite incredible, since it would suggest that God`s word is amenable to deliberation and change, or even rejection, by mere mortals who reject its legal nature.

re. nasah:
``If Christianity can be compataible with Secularism -- if Hinduism can be compatible with Secularism -- if Judiasm can be compatible with Secularism --
so can ISLAM --
there is nothing special about Islam -- that was not claimed by all the major religions of the world that they represent ``a way of life`` -- they all did -- and they all got over it -- except the deluded Muslims -- ``

Sure. There is nothing inherently different in their histories.

All you have to do is somehow get `em folks to reject the primacy-- the absolute authority of the Book(s)-- as did the majority of Christians and Jews at some point, and viola! Islam will be well on its way to joining the other Abrahamic faiths as informers on matters of morals, but not politics.

Simple, no?

If Christianity can be compataible with Secularism -- if Hinduism can be compatible with Secularism -- if Judiasm can be compatible with Secularism --

so can ISLAM --

there is nothing special about Islam -- that was not claimed by all the major religions of the world that they represent ``a way of life`` -- they all did -- and they all got over it -- except the deluded Muslims --

Islam is not a religion it`s a ``way of Life`` -- a favorite phrase of `educated` Muslims` --

Islam has been hyphed inflated beyond its ordinary run of the mill religion status -- by its schizophrenic protagonists -- and by its psychotic antagonist

Islam is just one of the run of the mill religions of the world -- no superior no inferior than any of the other after-lifers, paradise hawkers of that looney Religious Realm.

the only birth defect Islam is faced with is -- that it is conjoined at the head with the State since its birth and has lived with its deformity over the centuries when it was fashionable -- without much problem -- a medieval situation that is no more tenable -- has become poisonously redundant in modern times

Now with the demise of the Sword and the Horse -- the SHARIA business is the business of only losses no profits -- it is backward, regressive and plain STUPID --

it is an ANOMALY -- a deformity that makes Muslims -- a laughing stock of the high growth-hitech modern world.

what Islam needs is -- some drastic Conjoined Twin surgery -- to separate the State from the Religion --

the surgery is dangerous -- but contrary to the predictions of the Mullahs and their fellow travellers -- the TWINS WILL survive -- flourish indivudualy and live together happily everafter......like everybody else...

Turkey is secular but they made the mistake of making Secularism into another rigid Religion -- still Turkey is thousands times better than the Saudi Arabia or Kuwait...

We must have a Constitution that says -- Muslims are -- NOT SUPERIOR -- than the Hindus, Christians or Jews -- they may be unequal in the eyes of God -- they ALL are EQUAL in the Eyes of the State.....

and therein lies -- the permanent salvation of the Muslims -- from medievalism to modernity..

``By the way, I hope the heavy irony in my `George` post was not lost on you.``

No, it was not. And that gives me a great deal of hope.

I dread the day when victims of Islam will have to suffer in silence all over the world. In many places they already do while these motherfkers sing praises of Islam and mohammad from early morning to late night.

I am glad you can converse with them with greater tolerance than I can.