Are Secularism and Islam Incompatible?

Ahhhh, yes. And that`s my final answer. Separation of `church and state` is something that no Muslim country has done except Turkey. Islam does not encourage its followers to think independently. It says `here`s the book, now submit yourself.` Submission is Islam`s literal meaning. The religious fanatics have done a tremendous job maligning this once great religion and using it for their own interests. Ask a religious fanatic a question about Islam and he will banish you to hell. But he goes home, puts on porn and will be forgiven because he is not only human, but also a religious nut. I suggest you all, don`t listen to these religious nuts, as they are the most important reason why Islam and we are here in the gutter. Say you’re a Muslim and they look at you and your passport twice. Hey Hey go to jihad, a religious man says. What about your own son is he going too? An intellectual like myself asks. Well no. Why not? He is in England studying. Replies the religious man. What hypocrites.

YLH

A fun read -

Secularization, this set of processes deserves greater by writers such as yourself, so many seem unclear as what these processes are, indeed what secularization itself refers to. I look forward to your exploration of this worthy idea.

re: Ballukhan # 479

When we Hindus entered our dark ages, when we hit the bottom of our intellectual and moral abyss, we began to discriminate against our most productive and most important people - the hard working common folk. Our `moral` and `intellectual` leaders advanced the argument that these common folk were naturally different from the Brahmins. Similar naturalistic arguments were made about the relationship between men and women.

It`s amazing that the mistakes we Hindus made 2,500 years ago are still being repeated by others.

When I talked about Naturalism and Essentialism it is clear that I am attacking the idea of inequality in the SOCIAL and POLITICAL sphere which draws from the in-equalities between man and woman in BIOLOGICAL spheres. I took a long time to understand this distinction because my thinking was also entrenched by the type of Naturalism and essentialism that it typical of the Islamists(including Hinduists) like momek.
Shouting on the top of your voice that Islam is about ``equality`` while trying to push the old tribal patriarchal practices on the women folk in the name of ``Matter-of-fact``, ``NATURE``, ``fact-of -life`` or ``essential differences`` is nothing but distortion of Islam and hypocricy.
i was amazed to see one chowkist arguing for the inequality in the evidentiary value of a woman`s evidence in the court of law because of the biological inequalites- especially the ``fact`` that woman folk suffer from PMT (which is also not true universally).

re: PM # 476

Momekh indulges in the practice that is extremely common in all conservative religious circles: using language that can be easily interpreted in multiple ways, including in some very regressive ways. The practical implications of this language should be clear.

Let`s take his argument:

``How can we justify -- strictly logically speaking -- our picketing for the equality of Men and Women? Do YOU think that Men and Women are equal? In terms of strenght, in terms of emotions, in terms of driving-skills? Think about it, at some places Women excel, at some Men, they are not equal and Islam recognizes this all-but-natural fact of life. By all means, they are treated equally when it comes to Justice -- EVERYONE is treated equally when it comes to Justice, Muslims and NonMuslims alike. And please, I am not here to start a debate on Woman rights -- some other time, can be this place!``

At least for me, it`s possible to read that according to Momekh and his Islam, women do not have the the emotional strength and driving skills that men naturally possess. Of course, it is possible for one to assert that he actually was ascribing greater emotional strength and better driving skills to women. But you can see how the language of double meanings is put to use for advancing religious causes.

Then, what does it mean to be ``treated equally when it comes to Justice?`` Can women get equal justice from the department of motor vehicles if the department assumes that women are emtionally weaker than men and are less reliable drivers of motor vehicles than men are?

Beware all-
The intoxicating discourses of liberation and heavens keeps shrouded the working of SATANIC minds !!

OrdianryHndu:
What ``sense of superiroirty over the feminine [of the] species`` do you detect in momekh`s type of Islam?

Ballukhan`s #474 is a distortion of what momekh has striven to say. Momekh makes clear that in the areas of jsutice and service, complete equality is to be served. OTOH, on proposing a meritocracy in ruling/admininstering, he is no different from Singapore and many a sage`s pronouncements.

re: ballukhan # 473, 474

Ballukhan ji, I was about to get converted to Momekh`s type of Islam. But you destroyed all my sense of superiority over the feminine species :(

The origins of fascism- some people are more equal than others
``Seriously, how can you justify a PhD and an illetrate to have the same weightage in an election. Is THAT fair? Logic dictates that it is not.``

Naturalism at its best-

``Do YOU think that Men and Women are equal? In terms of strenght, in terms of emotions, in terms of driving-skills? Think about it, at some places Women excel, at some Men, they are not equal and Islam recognizes this all-but-natural fact of life.``

-do you think two men are equal??? Can you compare Bach with Osama in terms of strength, in terms of emotions, in terms of driving skills? think about it, at some places Bach excels, at some Osama, they are not equal and

---

recognizes this all-but-natural FACT OF LIFE.

Secularism at work. When the Talib`s want to do the reverse, everyone crys foul. When these bastards want to do the same, it`s fair game. Hypocrites.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3261147.stm

A German state has begun moves to ban Muslims from wearing headscarves in schools.
The bill was proposed by the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg following a supreme court ruling in September that allowed a Muslim teacher to wear a headscarf.

The legislation is expected to gain approval from the state parliament early next year....

The ban will not apply in religious education classes, and Christian and Jewish symbols will not be banned.

Three states - Berlin, Hesse and Saarland - want headscarves banned in all public services.

Dear Momekh,

Time will tell ... and prove the `preconceived` notion that Democracy + Secularism is the only way to go... is the right notion.

#469 by ballukhan on November 11, 2003 3:28am PT
am I reading too much of the Islamist stuff, or is it because of continous fasting??


Please ignore my earlier post at 469.

It must be because of reading too much of Fosa.

Correction please:
#468 by ballukhan on November 10, 2003 6:25am PT

``those proficient in the non-secular discourses.....`` should be read as ``those proficient in the secular discourses.....``

The para reads as under:
``.....With non-secular discourses becoming prominent, those proficient in the secular discourses would become irrelevant and would lose their credibility as the sole custodians of most exalted public good (``the heavens``). ``

Secularism as a solution to post 9/11 dilemma

The term ``secularism`` appears to have been first used in English toward the middle of the nineteenth century, with a primary ideological meaning. As first used, it denoted the doctrine that morality should be based on rational considerations regarding human well-being in this world, to the exclusion of considerations relating to God or the afterlife. Later it was used more generally for the belief that public institutions, especially general education, should be secular not religious. In the twentieth century it has aquired a somewhat wider range of meaning, derived from the older and wider connotations of the term ``secular.`` In particular it is frequently used, along with ``separation,`` as an approximate equivalent of the French term laicisme, also used in other languages, but not as yet in English.``

So, secularism in the context of ``modern`` societies is about separating its Public Institutions from being governed by any religious books, religious heads or persons. Secularism is about removing the Ummah/Jammat/Dharma Sansad/Church from determining the state`s policies regarding how the people are going to be governed- something which PAkistan can never even think of attempting because they stupidly put religion as the ``foundation`` of their State.
Secularism creates the ``political space`` for discussion of non-religious(secular) issues like poverty, hunger, famines, rain water harvestation, import tariffs, agricultural subsidies, corruption- which none of the Islamist would like us to discuss without referring it to them.
Secularism completely dis-empowers these mulaahs , and takes away the grounds for their intervention in such ``non-secular`` issues.
With non-secular discourses becoming prominent, those proficient in the non-secular discourses would become irrelevant and would lose their credibility as the sole custodians of most exalted public good (``the heavens``).

re. #463 momekh:

Hey, some interesting thoughts there. You seem to suggest that Islam encompasses (or should encompass) all areas of life BUT --importantly -- that this does not necessarily mean a retreat to antiquiated, or static laws.

You imply seem to be making the argument that while equality in justice and service is to desireable, such equality has no meaning in other areas, where we are essentially comparing apples with oranges.

I tend to agree with you.

Now, you brought up the issue of failure to properly define the terms used in this debate. That may have been true up to a point, but I think toward the latter fifth of the discussion here, thanks in no small part to AlephNull, the definitions were in fact clarified, which enabled us to argue more coehrently, if still not reach any happy agreement.

You write: ``But if that means that a Secular State can not have religious affiliations, then Islam is at complete loggerheads with it. For a complete code of life also instrusts its followers to spread the `right way`. Please note again, there is no compulsation in Islam. In the times of the Khulfa-e-Rashideen, convoys of Jews and other religions weould come visit Mekka and stay at the Mosque

I think you have greatly missed the mark on secualrism. It was made clear very earlier on in this debate that secularism by no means prohibited the practice of religion, or even of public show of it. Only the state`s involvement in it is a no-no. In other words, in a secualr state, not only are you free to go to your churches, manfies etc, but you are of course free to go out in the street and ``spread the right way`` -- much as the Seventh Day Adventists and Jehoava`s Witnesses do in the U.S. And, of course, there is ``no compulsion`` on anyone to convert.

As per the parameters set by your goodself in your post, this sounds pretty much like an ``Islamic`` system. But if you agree, the practical problem is in convincing the many Muslims who don`t.