What Does It Mean to be a Muslim in a Secular Country?

I see many of you confusing tradition with relegion. The two are completely different but now a days they are being intermixed with each other. Like for instance in Islam it says for women to cover themselves.

But in Afghanistan you see women wearing a Burkah. Now that is completely wrong because Islam never said to wrap your whole body. It only said cover yourself in a way which is not sexually appealing to the opposite gender. This is called the Hijab. But you see many people going to the extreme which is because of Tradition.

One more example is marriages in Islam. There is no such thing as an ``arranged marrirage in Islam`` to what I`ve read in the Quran it is forbidden. But traditions in Pakistan and other countries in some areas force two couples to marry. This is tradition not Islam.

ANd finally my last and most important point is that in you cannot force Islam on anyone. There can be no goverment or power that can make it a law for women to wear a hijab, or for parents to force a child to do something. Relegion now a days is being confused with traditional beliefs and due to that people are losing their rights.

Islam is about free thinking, questioning but many Muslims confused with Tradition, think it is a sin to question their own beliefs. They impose their Tradition on to others by force and end up thinking they are practising their relegion.

Islam can be practised anywhere, you don`t need to be in a Muslim country to practise it. I don`t really think there are any true muslim countries in this world these days. Its common sense that everyone should be given equal rights.

Islam should not be confused by what muslims do. Cause many so called muslims have already shown us what hate they have in their hearts for the rest of the world.

Mr. Gill,
An excellent essay about our times and how ordinary day-to-day people can be affected by events. Being a ``Muslim`` in a secular society SHOULD be no different than being Jewish, or Christian, or Hindu, or nothing. I do not want to belong to a social club or a religious one for that matter. I like to think for myself and decide my position based on the facts I perceive and the conclusions I reach - at that time and subject to revision through further research. I could not live in an Islamic Republic or any other type of theocracy. Lately however, through the actions of others, being a benign ``Muslim`` is difficult to sustain. Live and let live is what I hope the conclusion is for everyone. Religion should never be the determining factor for economic systems, nationhood, partition, or political philosophy.

freethinker & romair

in my view, state should not have even anything to do with marraige of two persons or any other animals. It is personal, and it should be left like that. When state decides on the issues of divorces and monetray settlements, it wreaks all havoc on other areas (like who should be able to marry). The probelm is not homosexuality or religous persecution....It is more a problem of strong governments, and lack of respect for people ability to evolve on their own. We can stretch this argument to areas, where we will see that powerful institutions and ppl`s view of them as `necessary evils` is the major hindering block in natural evolution.

When we say that Ahmedis should have equal rights in Pakistan, we r actually not answering the main questions: y do we have such structure, where even the ability to deny a community`s rights is with 1 or 2 institutions? Ahmedis might be hated by 90% ppl in Pakistan, that should be OK. But their ability to segregate ppl along some lines should be questioned in every one`s interest.

#110 This is about the custom of wearing hijaab and the religious weight behind this custom. It is specific to people of that religion,not to everyone.

``the parent is not really ``free`` with regards to their choice? He or she may in fact be more constrained. ``

Sure. But if you accept that, then the concept of free will is negated. Nothing is free will. Our desire to eat better, look better, drive a better car is all dictated by similar social pressures.

Two of Romair`s statements lead to interesting conclusions.

He believes there is no religion in China.

Then he argues that marriage is a religious concept

Since there is no religion in China, and marriage is a religious concept, is it true then that there are no marriages in China?

Some need to read cultural anthropology to understand about ``marriage`` and how it has little to do with religion and more to do with KINSHIP, POLITICS and INHERITENCE OF PROPERTY...................
and get themselves more informed about ``secularism`` out of the Pakistani context.................

#106 I never talked about the right of the minor. But did you get my point that even in the absence of the law, the parent is not really ``free`` with regards to their choice? He or she may in fact be more constrained.

Rahul Capri:

My point is that sure...the state can legislate. In which case the parents do not have a choice. But if the state does not have legislation in place, or allows religious expression in the form of yarmalukes and scarves, then a parent can make a child wear it.

The point being that the choice is not of the minor child.

Romair

Secularism is simply, “The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.” Marriage (gay, incestual, polygamic or otherwise) is a religious concept. It is not just a cultural concept. Each religion will interpret it differently. And there maybe cultures that do not even recognize marriage as something just between men and women. Yet marriage is heavily legislated by the State. Not only that, the State actually defines who can get married and who cannot. And now, may even define the actual definition of the word, “Marriage.”

You say marriage is a religious and not a cultural concept. Then you go on to say, ``And there may be cultures that do not recognize marriage as something just between men and women``. Are you not coteadicting yourself?
Or do you think secularism itself is a religious concept as stated by freethinker at 102, ``Give to Caesar (State) what is Caesar`s and to God (Religion) what is God`s``. Some people even claim that Islam is not a religion but a `Deen`, meaning `a way of life, a culture`. Whatever it is, I personally, however, wonder why the institution of marriage is equally popular both in religious and secular societies despite the fact that it almost always ends in bitterness, if not earlier then after the menopause when the wife usually becomes a `Churail` (witch).

freethinker #102
``Regarding how the situation changes in the future, we`ll cross that bridge when we come to it. This is another beauty of a secular system; it is not conceptually universal. You can tweak it according to the given circumstances. It is not inflexible and permanent like theocracy.``
Well said.This post certainly exhibits the sound understanding you have about Secularism.

Romair:

My last post indeed should have been addressed to you and not to khurram. I apologize for my mistake.

Mohammad Gill

khurram Sahib:

It appears we are going in circles. I don`t perceive any fundamental difference in our viewpoints, at least from what I have read from your last post. This board is too limited to go into the philosphy of secularism. I suggest to you that you write an article on it and publish it on chowk. Presently, I don`t have time to devote to the intricacies of the theoretical concept of secularism. If I found time and sufficient motivation, I might write on it myself.

The essence of of secularist philosophy is encapsulated in the following phrase:

Give to Caesar (State) what is Caesar`s and to God (Religion) what is God`s

Regarding how the situation changes in the future, we`ll cross that bridge when we come to it. This is another beauty of a secular system; it is not conceptually universal. You can tweak it according to the given circumstances. It is not inflexible and permanent like theocracy. I appreciate your interest in this issue and am glad that you didn`t label it un-Islamic and hence contemptible. All of us can benefit by sharing our thoughts and ideas on such issues. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Freethinker #90: You seemed to have tip-toed around the point I was making. I am not talking about the faults and virtues of secularism. I am only discussing it as a philosophy. And pointing out that none of the societies in the world are fully secular yet. And highlighting what will need to happen, for them to be secular.

Let us forget whether secularism is good or bad or whether we like it or not. Let us just look at it in a neutral fashion.

“Majority vote cannot bring religion back into state because constitutionally state is neutral in as much as religion is concerned. It is never an issue to be decided by the voters.”

First of all, Constitutions cannot define secularism. Secularism is a concept, above and beyond Constitutions. Constitutions keep changing depending on the beliefs of the electorate at any certain time. Hence, a Constitution cannot define what is secular and what is not. If the US Constitution defines gay marriage to be illegal, in the future, would that mean secularism also considers gay marriage to be illegal? Obviously not.

If a majority vote cannot change the Constitution (which actually it can, through an amendment), then why should it decide the concept of gay marriage? One cannot have it both ways…

Secularism is simply, “The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.” Marriage (gay, incestual, polygamic or otherwise) is a religious concept. It is not just a cultural concept. Each religion will interpret it differently. And there maybe cultures that do not even recognize marriage as something just between men and women. Yet marriage is heavily legislated by the State. Not only that, the State actually defines who can get married and who cannot. And now, may even define the actual definition of the word, “Marriage.”

By any standard of interpretation of secularism, marriage should be a completely personal affair. As long as everyone is a consenting party, anyone should be allowed to marry anyone, in any numbers. If a woman can live with five men and have sexual relations with each one, and not be breaking the law, why cannot she get married to all five? As long as they all consent. And why shouldn’t they get all get equal benefits from the State. Or none of the marriages should get any benefits. That is pure secularism.

In the current world, this is where we sit. This is why there is so much opposition to gay marriage. Not because of gays, themselves. But because it will open the floodgates to the concept of marriage, and sooner or later marriage will have to be taken out of the State authority, i.e. secularism will take place. The USA is going in the direction of bringing more religion into the State to stop it, even suggesting a Constitutional amendment defining marriage based on the Christian concept of marriage. While Europe seems to be slowly going in the other direction, as religion slowly moves out of that society.

I have always felt, if one supports secularism, as a philosophy, then one has to support it fully, including on marriage. If one is only going to support it partially, then one is just being conveniently secular, i.e. bringing in religion as and when one prefers it. This is what secularists, specifically in Pakistan, do. They want enough secularism to protect Ahmadis, but not enough secularism to protect gay marriages (or any other kind of marriage, for that matter). One would prefer to see a more consistent and principled approach from them.

Gill Sahib,

I am not disputing the wonderful benefits we enjoy here. Nor am I disputing the shortcomings of society in our native land. I am just trying to point out that the root cause is authoritarianism and not mixing of religion & politics, which is inevitable. Thanks.

Sobia posted this elsewhere with the comment that an army captain is suspected of being one of the rapists:

http://www.dawn.com/2005/01/14/top4.htm

Sui lady doctor medically examined


By Arman Sabir

KARACHI, Jan 13: The lady doctor who became a victim of assault in Sui, on Thursday night underwent medical examination at police surgeon`s office Where she was taken amid security.

The lady doctor was examined by a woman medico-legal officer, who after examination handed over her initial findings to the victim and the police, official sources said.

According to the Pakistan Petroleum Limited the lady doctor posted at the Sui Field Hospital, was severely beaten up by a few persons who broke into her room on Jan 2. She was later shifted to her Karachi residence.

The examination report suggested that the Dr Shazia Khalid was beaten up as marks of resistance were found on her body. However, the report was being kept secret and all of the officials were tight-lipped.

Official sources said that a sub-inspector came from Sui, Naseerabad district to her residence here and recorded her statement, which was made part of the FIR.

In her statement, she said that she was assaulted but she failed to identify the men who broke into her room, they added. The official sources claimed bed sheet with blood stains, broken hair and condoms were found from her room of the hostel, which were sent for medical examination.

COURT NOTICE: Meanwhile, a notice was served on Dr Shazia asking her to appear before a judicial tribunal on Jan 17, adds APP. The notice was issued by Justice Ahmed Khan Lashari of Balochistan High Court heading the tribunal. The notice was served through Sindh High Court