View Full Version : Secularism and Pashtuns....the panacea for all the ills of Pashtuns.


Badlun
02-23-2011, 01:15 PM
Secularism is the separation of state and the church(religion).Secularism, like democracy, involves treating people as individuals, not as members of a group.
Democracy counts the votes of individuals. It doesn't let their unelected faith leaders speak for the whole group.
Democracy allows individuals to express their opinions in the privacy of the voting booth where they are protected from group pressure.
Democracy doesn’t have them ‘represented’ by powerful faith leaders whom they may not dare to challenge, for fear of being punished in this world or the next.
Secularism: A definition | National Secular Society (http://www.secularism.org.uk/whatissecularism.html)

I think that secularism is the cure-all for all the problems of Pashtuns as what we see today , one of the main reason for all the problems is the mixing of religion with the state and giving the political and other powers to religious people instead of professional persons.

Lets be precise, succinct and constructive in our approach and we must reach a unanimous decision after the discussion of few weeks or months and having about 20 pages of discussion here.Then we should conclude the topic that this forum is of the opinion that secularism is bad for Pashtuns or good.

Lets have a meaningful discussion on secularism in the context of Pashtuns with all possible evidences, proofs, logic and valid arguments. We can take our time if we have to search for proofs but may not fill the pages with personal remarks or writing with out real substance.

graveyardofempires
02-23-2011, 01:30 PM
http://mahafreed.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/FailDogfood.jpg

BarakzaiAbdali
02-23-2011, 05:17 PM
Secularism is the separation of state and the church(religion).Secularism, like democracy, involves treating people as individuals, not as members of a group.
Democracy counts the votes of individuals. It doesn't let their unelected faith leaders speak for the whole group.
Democracy allows individuals to express their opinions in the privacy of the voting booth where they are protected from group pressure.
Democracy doesn’t have them ‘represented’ by powerful faith leaders whom they may not dare to challenge, for fear of being punished in this world or the next.
Secularism: A definition | National Secular Society (http://www.secularism.org.uk/whatissecularism.html)

I think that secularism is the cure-all for all the problems of Pashtuns as what we see today , one of the main reason for all the problems is the mixing of religion with the state and giving the political and other powers to religious people instead of professional persons.

Lets be precise, succinct and constructive in our approach and we must reach a unanimous decision after the discussion of few weeks or months and having about 20 pages of discussion here.Then we should conclude the topic that this forum is of the opinion that secularism is bad for Pashtuns or good.

Lets have a meaningful discussion on secularism in the context of Pashtuns with all possible evidences, proofs, logic and valid arguments. We can take our time if we have to search for proofs but may not fill the pages with personal remarks or writing with out real substance.

Osho, you're missing the point. It very well may be that secularism furnishes an economic system that catalyzes development and technological prowess. The idea of decoupling religion from facets of life is not a new idea. Its something that has been around for millenia. Whether it was King Solomon of the Biblical text abandoning the way of his forefathers (we do not believe this in Islam) and marrying an idolator for certain gains or whether it was the Durrani Kings marrying 4 wives and then taking concubines (not permitted in Islam)... this decoupling has been around for a while now.

For instance, interest banking, alcohol, pornography, gambling, etc are viable economic industries and modalities without a doubt. A multi faith military may have certain advantagous elements to it. I am no expert in economics or military matters so I will defer to common sense and say that there is an industry that can be reaped from these aforementioned industries and matters. A society that permits the building of mosques, churches, synogogues, buddhist temples, satanist cathedrals, wiccan gardens is probably a pluralist society that encourages a variety of contributions from all the aforementioned parties.

Then there is democracy Osho. Its a system that can also be decoupled to secularism, coupled with it, etc etc. The secularist mentality found an accelerated adherence in the enlightment period that Baygham lala wishes to occur for our Pashtunistan. Democracy on the other hand was around in Athens and was not decoupled from the mores and religious ideologies of the people (i.e. you could not throw feces at at a statue of Zeuss and expect to simply get away with it). So the two, democracy, and secularism do not go hand in hand. The fact that a military junta was able to sustain secularism in Turkey is enough practical real world proof for that I think.

But the issue I have with your ideologies, and perhaps that Toramana was trying to warn you about in your posts is that these sorts of sweeping statements do no justice to your cause. The idea that secularism is the panacea to all the Pashtun world's ills is an opinion laced and absurd statement. It requires evidence that fits the bill. The Pashtun world is a complex world if tribal allegiances, a strong religious fiber (as misinformed it may be about the actual constitution of its religion), maliks and warlords, localized economy, land locked state, etc.

In my opinion, its about foolish as the idea that "All you need is Love" or "All you need is faith" or "shariah saves." I cannot, in good faith, make a sweeping comment that Islam shall elevate and save the Pashtuns from all their ills.

My contention with you has been the following: So you believe that stable secular democracies are the light, the way, and pride of the world; why impose it?

Let us say your view is 100% correct (that it would benefit the Pashtuns to a wonderful affect) and avoid the angst of reinventing the wheel. However, imposing an ideology of any sort, whether it is Islam or whether it is secular democracy is bound to reap bad results. Human nature is averse to imposition. The general trend is to preserve memes that represent our genetic heritage and repel those that appear to threaten survival of the race. So As Toramana pointed out regarding Barelvi, Syed Ahmad's attempts to impose shariah backfired and alienated the Pashtun Yusufzai Maliks. In a time of war they utilized him, but once some modicum of peace was obtained and once he began to threaten their traditions, ideologies etc, he was quickly eliminated. It is the same with the Taliban phenomena as it stood with KP Pashtuns. KP Pashtuns were generally living in stability compared to their colleagues in Afghanistan. When Fazlullah and others attempted to hoist something upon them they accepted it at first per their view of the failed court system, but quickly viewed it as an imposition. However, what Omar Hotak bought to the Afghan side of the border was order and stability. There are multiple references from Afghans in Qandahar I have provided on this site to that affect and you can search them out.

So the point you need to prove to me is that imposition of secular or democratic regimes on a people, by an outside, nonMuslim, nonPashtun power will be the panacea for all Pashtun ills.

I think, if you, Baygham Lala, and others quit seeing the IslamoFascist Monster hiding under every bed and in every corner, that you would see we are reasonable people and are requesting a reasonable answer to the bolded question above. The answer ought to fit the situation (i.e. Pashtunistan is not the ruins of the grand Ottomon Caliphate with a receptive urban elite... Pashtunistan is the place of legends... where still fight from places on high... a place that one US soldier once told his mother was like a place straight out of the Old Testament.)

I for one, cannot sit still when I hear what is nonsensical and goes against what all of us have witnessed first hand. Baygham Lala in his own exposes rants about how the overwhelming majority of this people are religious minded to the point of absurdity in his view. You yourself recognized this issue and brushed it aside with the view of: Oh well, we will have to beat it out of them!

I find that repulsive. I refuse to tell a man like Omar Hotak, who lost an eye against the Russians to simply sit by and let some urban, elite, effeminate individual that did nothing for their country when it suffered under the yolk of the Russians (Karzai, Ghani, Prince Ali Seraj, Muhammadzai family, etc) to just sit down, shut up, and be still.

Don't you see that the fault lies with us (or our fathers?). They ran away to the mud baths of Italy, to the comforts of the US, to the guest houses and bungalows of Islamabad, Quetta, and Peshawar while men named Khalis, Hekmetyaar, Mossoud, Omar, etc., men without tribal malikship, men without much land to their name, and men who were the barefoot and the poor made the religion the basis of the moral imperitive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_imperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_imperative)

They fought, bled, lost family members, were massacred, lost limbs etc. They led from the front.

Contrast the behavior of Mr. Karzai and his brother Qayyum, who were busy attending jirgas, drinking shnaay chai, and eating sugared almonds with that of Washington at Vally Forge. Contrast the behavior of the Muhammadzai ruler Zahir Shah in Italy's mudbath with that of Jefferson and Franklin gathering arms. Contrast the immense time Thomas Paine put personally into the Revolutionary propaganda machine against Ameen Arsala's adventures in Virginia. Contrast the sacrifices of Revere and Patrick Henry with Yama Karzai, sitting pretty in Quetta and now throwing the yolk of torture on his fellow Qandaharis. Contrast the fact that none of these men were seen as outsiders by the American insurgents and none of them were imposing something on their brethren.

Do you use rotten meat to make a meal? Do you use molded and parasite laden flour to make bread for that meal? How then do you expect failure laced men, with no accomplishment other than astounding laziness to lead their people to build a prosperous, secular democracy?

So you validate this fairy tale like or magical thinking with the rebuttal of "lets use America's resources" and "lets capitalize on their presence." How Sir? Even your brother in arms Toramana told you that superpowers are rarely benign.

So you come to me to the table to say:

Here is my recipe:
1 secular democracy that produces a G8 level country please.

I say:
What are the ingredients Osho?

You say:
Oh, I dunno... a superpower, some like minded folks, some brute force.

I say:
No Osho it takes:
1) 1/3 cup of Native incentive and acceptance to avoid blowback and tyranny
2) 1/3 cup of Capable leaders that are worthy to lead
3) 1/3 cup of investment/economy

do you have these?

You say: No, but its OK, because I will shut my eyes to reality and squeeze them tight and make a wish on a wishing star.

I say: Good luck, but I think you are going to get food poisoning tonight.

Badlun
02-24-2011, 01:17 PM
Thanks for such a detailed analysis of the issue. If we agree that secularism is a good idea but may not be imposed then I agree with this. Nothing should be imposed but the people may choose it with their own sweet will and this is democracy. We oppose Taliban for the very reason that they impose their doctrines and practices on others without the consent of the receiving party.
Dictators, monarchs, terrorists impose but democracy let others to choose. Even Islam does not recommend to force things on others thats why we have preaching and convincing others.

The basic purpose of education is to bring proper behavioral modification and we have formal, informal or non formal educational systems. We educate others so they accept the new ideas. I have elsewhere written an essay that the USA lacks public diplomacy. they dont educate others and dont have public awareness programs. They spend billions of dollars on bullets but dont spend hundreds on books. This is a pitfall and there is a dire need that this paucity may be addressed. Yes those who understand only the language of bullet may be dealt in the same way.

Secularism should never be imposed but people may be educated that what is secularism and what are its benefits and how Pashtun society can be secularized.The change should be from the inside not imposed artificially from outside. Minds and hearts should be won not to enforce new ideas at the point of the gun.What we are doing here is education not imposition.We learn and share and I am happy we have great participants here who always have original ideas.

graveyardofempires
02-24-2011, 01:23 PM
^
^
do you support mass genocide?

Badlun
02-24-2011, 01:52 PM
Lets do research that who are the secular and who are the non secular or religious states in the world. According to the following link majority of the states in the world are secular.
Secular state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state)

Following is the list of fully secular countries
Africa
Angola
Benin
Botswana
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Chad
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Republic of the Congo
Ethiopia
Gabon
The Gambia
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Liberia
Mali[28]
Namibia
Senegal
Somalia
South Africa
Americas
Brazil
Canada
Cuba
Honduras
Mexico
United States
Puerto Rico
[edit]Asia
Azerbaijan
People's Republic of China
East Timor
India
Japan
Kazakhstan
South Korea
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Malaysia
Nepal
Philippines
Singapore
Sri Lanka
Syria
Tajikistan
Thailand
Turkmenistan
Vietnam
Europe
Austria
Albania
Belgium
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Estonia
France
Germany
Hungary
Ireland
Latvia
Macedonia
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Sweden
Turkey
Oceania
Australia
Federated States of Micronesia
New Zealand

UK and Indonesia ate ambiguous as there appears symbolic religious statements in their constitutions but in reality religion is not a part of their politics or economics.There is a complete religious freedom in these countries.

All the G8 countries are secular.Only UK and Italy mentions religion symbolically.

Some countries only mention religion as their state religion but religion has no important role in these countries.Only 5 not very important countries recognize Roman Catholicism as their state or official religion:
Costa Rica
Liechtenstein
Malta
Monaco
Vatican City (Holy See)

If one visit these countries or read about them even here religion is used as a symbol and never has a deep influence on politics, society, culture or economy.

A number of countries, including Andorra, Argentina, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Italy,Indonesia, Haiti, Honduras, Paraguay, Peru,Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and Switzerland give a special recognition to Catholicism in their constitution despite not making it the state religion.

Gerogia , Greece and Finland consider Orthodox Church as official but again one can see how practically these countries are secular.Other countries may mention religion in their constitution but we dont see no where a religious country in the sense that religion controls the polity, society and other aspects of the life.

Religion as a state religion is common only among the Muslim countries. But here too we have Turkey which is complete secular.Algeria , Tunisia and Indonesia(except Aceh) are de-facto secular countries.There are only 4 Islamic republics(Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Mauritania)

We can see that almost all Muslim countries are not democracies and are developing economies. Except Turkey(secular) and Saudi arabia(Monarchy) there is no one who is even member of the G20 forget about of G8.

Some countries like Thailand and Sri Lanka have Budhist influence but Buddhism is not state religion.
State religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion)

Conclusion is that secular countries are the most developed ones and almost all the countries except few Muslim countries are secular countries in the world.

Pashtuns should learn from this international trend. Religion of islam must remain in the private lives of people but not in political, economic, cultural, social or other aspects of life if Pashtuns really want to become a great nations like the nations of G8.

graveyardofempires
02-24-2011, 01:56 PM
Lets do research that who are the secular and who are the non secular or religious states in the world. According to the following link majority of the states in the world are secular.
Secular state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state)

Following is the list of fully secular countries
Africa
Angola
Benin
Botswana
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Chad
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Republic of the Congo
Ethiopia
Gabon
The Gambia
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Liberia
Mali[28]
Namibia
Senegal
Somalia
South Africa
Americas
Brazil
Canada
Cuba
Honduras
Mexico
United States
Puerto Rico
[edit]Asia
Azerbaijan
People's Republic of China
East Timor
India
Japan
Kazakhstan
South Korea
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Malaysia
Nepal
Philippines
Singapore
Sri Lanka
Syria
Tajikistan
Thailand
Turkmenistan
Vietnam
Europe
Austria
Albania
Belgium
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Estonia
France
Germany
Hungary
Ireland
Latvia
Macedonia
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Sweden
Turkey
Oceania
Australia
Federated States of Micronesia
New Zealand

UK and Indonesia ate ambiguous as there appears symbolic religious statements in their constitutions but in reality religion is not a part of their politics or economics.There is a complete religious freedom in these countries.

All the G8 countries are secular.Only UK and Italy mentions religion symbolically.

Some countries only mention religion as their state religion but religion has no important role in these countries.Only 5 not very important countries recognize Roman Catholicism as their state or official religion:
Costa Rica
Liechtenstein
Malta
Monaco
Vatican City (Holy See)

If one visit these countries or read about them even here religion is used as a symbol and never has a deep influence on politics, society, culture or economy.

A number of countries, including Andorra, Argentina, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Italy,Indonesia, Haiti, Honduras, Paraguay, Peru,Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and Switzerland give a special recognition to Catholicism in their constitution despite not making it the state religion.

Gerogia , Greece and Finland consider Orthodox Church as official but again one can see how practically these countries are secular.Other countries may mention religion in their constitution but we dont see no where a religious country in the sense that religion controls the polity, society and other aspects of the life.

Religion as a state religion is common only among the Muslim countries. But here too we have Turkey which is complete secular.Algeria , Tunisia and Indonesia(except Aceh) are de-facto secular countries.There are only 4 Islamic republics(Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Mauritania)

We can see that almost all Muslim countries are not democracies and are developing economies. Except Turkey(secular) and Saudi arabia(Monarchy) there is no one who is even member of the G20 forget about of G8.

Some countries like Thailand and Sri Lanka have Budhist influence but Buddhism is not state religion.
State religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion)

Conclusion is that secular countries are the most developed ones and almost all the countries except few Muslim countries are secular countries in the world.

Pashtuns should learn from this international trend. Religion of islam must remain in the private lives of people but not in political, economic, cultural, social or other aspects of life if Pashtuns really want to become a great nations like the nations of G8.

you are too ignorant for words

you support the neocons and their invasion of a country such as Afghanistan and now you are whoring abotu how great seculerism is.

you are worst than seculrist you seem to be a fascist who thinks its ok to kill maim plunder rape as long as neocon agenda is moving forward.

you didnt answer my question.

i can understand since you have no morals and want to act like a wild beast its all fair game to you.

Badlun
02-24-2011, 02:08 PM
khoga wrora bakhana ghwarham. dalta ba pa secularism ghageegu aw hagha hum da serhaney sara che yaw bal na tsah zda krhu, Qarega ma. zrha ghat sata.da bal khabara lag awra . dagha da neocons khabarey ba pa dagha inwan ke sara kawoo.
I wish here we dedicate only to serious intellectual discussion with possible proofs, valid arguments and not personal remarks or emotional statements. I really undertake these discussions to learn and share without any preconceived agenda or biases. I am learning and changing my ideas where I see some thing really impressive , useful which may be contrary to my approach and ideology.

BarakzaiAbdali
02-24-2011, 06:37 PM
Thanks for such a detailed analysis of the issue. If we agree that secularism is a good idea but may not be imposed then I agree with this. Nothing should be imposed but the people may choose it with their own sweet will and this is democracy. We oppose Taliban for the very reason that they impose their doctrines and practices on others without the consent of the receiving party.
Dictators, monarchs, terrorists impose but democracy let others to choose. Even Islam does not recommend to force things on others thats why we have preaching and convincing others.

The basic purpose of education is to bring proper behavioral modification and we have formal, informal or non formal educational systems. We educate others so they accept the new ideas. I have elsewhere written an essay that the USA lacks public diplomacy. they dont educate others and dont have public awareness programs. They spend billions of dollars on bullets but dont spend hundreds on books. This is a pitfall and there is a dire need that this paucity may be addressed. Yes those who understand only the language of bullet may be dealt in the same way.

Secularism should never be imposed but people may be educated that what is secularism and what are its benefits and how Pashtun society can be secularized.The change should be from the inside not imposed artificially from outside. Minds and hearts should be won not to enforce new ideas at the point of the gun.What we are doing here is education not imposition.We learn and share and I am happy we have great participants here who always have original ideas.

I am not advocating or endorsing anything, secularism or islamism when it comes to economic viability because I do not have data at hand or the expertise. I do not have the qualifications to make sweeping generalizations about which is better. My qualm rests with assertions either way to validate military or interventional actions to suit our whims. For example, if you have two people and you give one nutrients and make him body build versus another person you keep in a dark room and deprive of the right to move... so his muscles atrophy and then you give both a hard labor task to do, of course the former individual will have an advantage. For that reason, I cannot say that an noninterest based system is doomed to relegate a country to third world status if the playing field is not equal. I cannot say that banning alcohol will negate a billion dollar influx into the economy that cannot be replaced by another viable industry.

As a physician I also cannot advocate a sextravaganza when the linkages between promiscuity and diseases like cervical cancer, HIV, etc are clear as day. So I have to assume that these moral controls that are either present because of religion or because of whatever brand of humanistic values one derives are there as a response to these environmental and pathogenic realities.

My problem with comparing a super power like the US, where the moral standard underlying secular humanism has changed with time, and where the gold standard was replaced vs with a third world country that attempts to implement islamic economics is that the confounders that are there are tremendous.

Like I said, the issue that is pressing is that Afghanistan is at war. And the validations being presented for the war originally derived from moral stances. The attempt at deriving some absurd moral basis to fuel a nation building exercise that also enforces something that both you and Baygham have admitted is not being accepted by the populace is what makes no sense to me and the evidence appears to speak against.

Badlun
02-25-2011, 01:22 PM
Lets have some data on economy that who is the largest Economy and then onwards and see where are secular countries and where are countries who are more religious.Basically except Afghanistan of Taliban, Pakistan to some extent, Sudan, Somalia, Saudi and Iran can be counted the only really existing Religious countries otherwise the whole world is now either secular or tendencies towards secularism.

In the following list we dont see a single religious country or Muslim country


Countries by GDP (PPP)

List by the International Monetary Fund (2010)
Rank Country GDP (PPP) $Million
— World 74,004,249
— European Union 15,150,667
1 United States 14,624,184
2 People's Republic of China 10,084,369
3 Japan 4,308,627
4 India 4,001,103
5 Germany 2,932,036
6 Russia 2,218,764
7 Brazil 2,181,677
8 United Kingdom 2,181,069
9 France 2,146,283
10 Italy 1,771,140
Ranking of the Muslim countries even is not impressive if we go down the list.

Afghanistan is at No 105,Somalia at No 152, Sudan at No 68 and so on.the position of Pakistan at No 26 surprised me but Pakistan being a British colony in the past has a different political and economic system which is just in the name Islamic republic. Taliban are present and active only in Pashtun areas.But in the list according to GDP(nominal) even Pakistan is at No47.Saudi and Iran have good positions mainly because of the God bestowed natural resources.

Badlun
02-25-2011, 01:39 PM
Another way that we can compare Secular countries with religious countries is the Human Development Index (HDI) which is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standards of living for countries worldwide.

It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare. It is used to distinguish whether the country is a developed, a developing or an under-developed country, and also to measure the impact of economic policies on quality of life.

Very high human development (developed countries)
Rank Country HDI
New 2010 estimates for 2010

1 Norway 0.938 0.001
2 Australia 0.937 0.002
3 (17) New Zealand 0.907 0.003
4 (9) United States 0.902 0.003
5 Ireland 0.895 0.001
6 (13) Liechtenstein 0.891 0.002
7 (1) Netherlands 0.890 0.002
8 (4) Canada 0.888 0.002
9 (2) Sweden 0.885 0.001
10 (12) Germany 0.885 0.002
11 (1) Japan 0.884 0.003
12 (14) South Korea 0.877 0.005
13 (4) Switzerland 0.874 0.002
14 (6) France 0.872 0.003
15 (12) Israel 0.872 0.001
16 (4) Finland 0.871 0.002
17 (14) Iceland 0.869
18 (1) Belgium 0.867 0.002
19 (3) Denmark 0.866 0.002
20 (5) Spain 0.863 0.002
21 (3) Hong Kong, China 0.862 0.005
22 (3) Greece 0.855 0.002
23 (5) Italy 0.854 0.003
24 (13) Luxembourg 0.852 0.002
25 (11) Austria 0.851 0.002
26 (5) United Kingdom 0.849 0.002
27 (5) Singapore 0.846 0.005
28 (8) Czech Republic 0.841
29 Slovenia 0.828 0.002
30 (2) Andorra 0.824 0.002
31 (11) Slovakia 0.818 0.003
32 (3) United Arab Emirates 0.815 0.003
33 (5) Malta 0.815 0.002
34 (6) Estonia 0.812 0.003
35 (3) Cyprus 0.810 0.001
36 (7) Hungary 0.805 0.002
37 (7) Brunei 0.805 0.001
38 (5) Qatar 0.803 0.005
39 Bahrain 0.801 0.003
40 (6) Portugal 0.795 0.004
41 Poland 0.795 0.004
42 (5) Barbados 0.788 0.001

We have only 3 Muslim countries here namely Brunei, Qatar and Bahrain at the tail of the list. In the first 36 countries we dont have a single Muslim country. These 3 are comparatively very modern countries and religion is losing its importance in political and economic aspects of the lives of people.

Afghanistan is at No 155.Pakistan is at 125, saudi at 55,Iran at 70 and son.
List of countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index)

unknownprince
02-25-2011, 01:41 PM
size of economy means nothing. Don't you know that? You can have a large failing economy like we currently have in the US. However, when you are over $14 trillion in debt to China, who is better?

unknownprince
02-25-2011, 01:42 PM
Also, Israel is not really a secular country. Pretty hardcore Zionist-Jewish if you ask me.

Badlun
02-25-2011, 01:48 PM
If size of economy means nothing then let us see the HDI.Where is Muslim world and Afghanistan there!Also both USA and China are secular countries.

Still we cant compare the life standard and economy of Somalia and USA, Somalia being a very religious Muslim fundamentalist country and USA being the indebted country.And taking loans for investment is a better economic policy. If USA fails but till 1917 it will be still No 1 economy of the world. And then may be No2.
Top 10 largest economies in 2020 - Analyst Insight from Euromonitor International (http://blog.euromonitor.com/2010/07/special-report-top-10-largest-economies-in-2020.html)

Badlun
02-25-2011, 01:56 PM
Israel is now becoming an argument . I am happy as I am really impressed how this tiny state got developed inspite of so much opposition and wars. israel is really a model for the Arab world the only true democracy in the Middle East.

However the position of Israel if we see in the GDP based data is not very impressive. But Israel will improve.Also Israel is not a religious state. See the following

Israel is defined in several of its laws as a "Jewish and democratic state" (medina yehudit ve-demokratit). However, the term "Jewish" is a polyseme that can relate equally to the Jewish people or religion (see: Who is a Jew?). The debate about the meaning of the term Jewish and its legal and social applications is one of the most profound issues with which Israeli society deals.
At present, there is no specific law or official statement establishing the Jewish religion as the state's religion. However, the State of Israel supports religious institutions.
State religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion)

unknownprince
02-25-2011, 02:01 PM
Israel is now becoming an argument . I am happy as I am really impressed how this tiny state got developed inspite of so much opposition and wars. israel is really a model for the Arab world the only true democracy in the Middle East.

However the position of Israel if we see in the GDP based data is not very impressive. But Israel will improve.Also Israel is not a religious state. See the following

Israel is defined in several of its laws as a "Jewish and democratic state" (medina yehudit ve-demokratit). However, the term "Jewish" is a polyseme that can relate equally to the Jewish people or religion (see: Who is a Jew?). The debate about the meaning of the term Jewish and its legal and social applications is one of the most profound issues with which Israeli society deals.
At present, there is no specific law or official statement establishing the Jewish religion as the state's religion. However, the State of Israel supports religious institutions.
State religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion)

Wikipedia is not a good source of information. Is that where you do research?

lets see how Israel got developed. Let me think osho, this is really tough. Oh wait, umm, they killed a bunch of Palestinians, and depend on unlimited financial aid from the US. Their "own" economy is non-existent. As US becomes insignificant, so does Israel and the other despotic regimes the US supports. If you really think about it in simple terms, they made an unwise decision linking themselves to the US.

unknownprince
02-25-2011, 02:07 PM
If size of economy means nothing then let us see the HDI.Where is Muslim world and Afghanistan there!Also both USA and China are secular countries.

Still we cant compare the life standard and economy of Somalia and USA, Somalia being a very religious Muslim fundamentalist country and USA being the indebted country.And taking loans for investment is a better economic policy. If USA fails but till 1917 it will be still No 1 economy of the world. And then may be No2.
Top 10 largest economies in 2020 - Analyst Insight from Euromonitor International (http://blog.euromonitor.com/2010/07/special-report-top-10-largest-economies-in-2020.html)

What does economy mean, really?All it means in simple terms is the exchange of goods between several parties (individuals). Basically, then in the US, there are many people that exchange goods for money. Having the largest economy does not mean having the best economy.

It is about better economies which have higher growth rates (Turkey, China), not large economies which have poor growth rates (negative slopes). The US economy has continuously been slipping since 2000. The small spurts of growth are only reversed, as are most other EU/NATO states.

Badlun
02-27-2011, 04:26 AM
Economy is the system of production and distribution and consumption and the the efficient use of resources.

An economy consists of the economic system of a country or other area, the labor, capital and land resources, and the economic agents that socially participate in the production, exchange, distribution, and consumption of goods and services of that area.

A given economy is the end result of a process that involves its technological evolution, history and social organization, as well as its geography, natural resource endowment, and ecology, as main factors. These factors give context, content, and set the conditions and parameters in which an economy functions.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy)

Its not only the exchange of goods between individuals. It shows your economic system, technological evolution, factors of production and many other aspects of the economic life of a nation, country or may be a group or individual.

This is clear from the above lists of countries that secualr countries have better economies than religious countries.Yes if we keep religion limited to individual life and does not make it part of economics, politics, society, culture etc then religion does not have any negative effect. All the countries with better economies have religion but in private lives of people.

I am not against the existence of religion but making it part of politics , economics, culture etc. Once we do sp, religion becomes a negative factor.

Badlun
02-27-2011, 04:32 AM
Along with size of economy we also have other measures to compare the life standard, quality of life and development of nations. One was mentioned above HDI where secualr countries do better.

One is the following List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita where too secular countries are far better than religious countries. In the first 20 we have only Qatar and UAE whom we know how religious they are!Afghanistan is at 163,Pakistan 143.

Rank Country US$
1 Luxembourg 104,390
2 Norway 84,543
3 Qatar[4] 74,422
4 Switzerland 67,074
5 Denmark 55,113
6 Australia 54,869
7 Sweden 47,667
8 United Arab Emirates 47,406
9 United States 47,132
10 Netherlands 46,418
11 Canada 45,888
12 Ireland 45,642
13 Austria 43,723
14 Finland 43,134
15 Singapore 42,653
16 Belgium 42,596
17 Japan 42,325
18 France 40,591
19 Germany 40,512
20 Iceland 39,563
21 United Kingdom 36,298
22 Italy 33,828
23 Kuwait[4] 32,530
— European Union 32,283
— Hong Kong 31,799
24 New Zealand 31,588
25 Spain 29,875
26 Brunei 28,340
27 Cyprus 27,722
28 Greece 27,264
29 Israel 27,085
30 Slovenia 23,008
31 Portugal 21,030
32 Bahamas, The 20,878
33 Korea, South 20,165
34 Bahrain[4] 19,641
35 Czech Republic 18,721
36 Malta 18,586
37 Taiwan (Republic of China) 18,303
38 Oman 18,040
39 Saudi Arabia 16,641
40 Trinidad and Tobago[5] 16,167
41 Slovakia 15,906
42 Estonia 14,416
43 Barbados 14,307
44 Croatia 13,527
45 Hungary 13,210
46 Antigua and Barbuda 12,785
47 Uruguay 12,129
48 Libya 12,062
49 Chile 11,587
50 Poland 11,521
51 Equatorial Guinea[6] 11,081
52 Lithuania 10,765
53 Seychelles 10,714
54 Russia 10,521
55 Brazil 10,471
56 Latvia 10,377
57 Turkey 10,206
58 Saint Kitts and Nevis 10,205
59 Lebanon 10,019
60 Venezuela 9,773
61 Mexico 9,243
— World[7] 8,985
62 Argentina 8,663
63 Gabon 8,395
64 Kazakhstan 8,326
65 Malaysia 7,775
66 Panama 7,712
67 Romania 7,390
68 Costa Rica 7,350
69 Mauritius 7,303
70 South Africa 7,101
71 Botswana 6,796
72 Grenada 6,264
73 Suriname 6,245
74 Colombia 6,220
75 Montenegro[8] 6,204
76 Bulgaria 5,955
77 Saint Lucia 5,778
78 Azerbaijan 5,764
79 Belarus 5,607
80 Namibia 5,454
81 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 5,434
82 Serbia 5,262
83 Peru 5,196
84 Dominican Republic 5,152
85 Dominica 5,148
86 Jamaica 5,055
87 Angola 4,812
88 Macedonia, Republic of 4,634
89 Thailand 4,620
90 Iran 4,484
91 Maldives 4,478
92 Algeria 4,477
93 Jordan 4,435
94 Ecuador 4,295
95 China, People's Republic of 4,283
96 Belize 4,262
97 Tunisia 4,160
98 Bosnia and Herzegovina 4,157
99 El Salvador 3,717
100 Turkmenistan 3,663
101 Albania 3,661
102 Fiji 3,544
103 Kosovo[9] 3,164
104 Congo, Republic of the 3,075
105 Swaziland 3,072
106 Samoa 3,023
107 Cape Verde 3,007
108 Ukraine 3,002
109 Indonesia 2,963
110 Vanuatu 2,917
111 Tonga 2,907
112 Syria 2,892
113 Morocco 2,868
114 Guyana 2,844
115 Guatemala 2,839
116 Egypt 2,771
117 Paraguay 2,681
118 Armenia 2,676
119 Iraq 2,625
120 Georgia 2,559
121 Sri Lanka 2,364
122 Mongolia 2,111
123 Bhutan 2,042
124 Honduras 2,014
125 Philippines 2,011
126 Bolivia 1,839
127 Sudan 1,642
128 Kiribati 1,522
129 Moldova 1,503
130 Djibouti 1,382
131 Papua New Guinea 1,358
132 Uzbekistan 1,335
133 Nigeria 1,324
134 Zambia 1,286
135 Solomon Islands 1,269
136 Yemen 1,230
137 India 1,176
138 Vietnam 1,155
139 São Tomé and Príncipe 1,132
140 Mauritania 1,096
141 Nicaragua 1,096
142 Cameroon 1,071
143 Pakistan 1,049
144 Côte d'Ivoire 1,016
145 Laos 984
146 Senegal 964
147 Kenya 888
148 Comoros 819
149 Kyrgyzstan 816
150 Cambodia 795
151 Ghana 762
152 Chad 742
153 Tajikistan 732
154 Lesotho 708
155 Benin 673
156 Haiti 659
157 Mali 649
158 Bangladesh 640
159 Gambia, The 605
160 Burkina Faso 590
161 Burma 582
162 Rwanda 569
163 Afghanistan 560
164 Tanzania 542
165 Nepal 536
166 Timor-Leste 535
167 Uganda 503
168 Guinea-Bissau 497
169 Zimbabwe 475
170 Mozambique 473
171 Central African Republic 468
172 Togo 441
173 Eritrea 423
174 Guinea 420
175 Madagascar 391
176 Niger 383
177 Ethiopia 364
178 Malawi 354
179 Sierra Leone 325
180 Liberia 226
181 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 188
182 Burundi 177

List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita)

randolph85
02-27-2011, 04:42 AM
all u have done is provided numbers, and have done nothing to explain why secularism is behind this gap of societies or why secularism promotes high standards of living and economies.

if u are looking at all this from a numbers standpoint, i could just as easily argue that dictatorships are superior to democracies as seen in chinas rapid economic rise, and their becoming the number 1 economy in the world in 2020.

faye
02-27-2011, 04:48 AM
osho, israel recieves at least 3 billion dollars per year from america. it also recieves compensation from germany, not sure how much. so, it hasn't progressed just by it's own capacity. it has just started banning the renting of homes to muslims by jews and introduced colour divisions, between jews, into some schools. it is digressing.

randolph85
02-27-2011, 04:53 AM
lets not forget that the founding of israel was supported by filthy rich euro jews. its not like they started from scratch.

Badlun
03-01-2011, 01:26 PM
Some data how religion is more common in poor countries

Religiosity Highest in World's Poorest Nations
Each of the most religious countries is relatively poor, with a per-capita GDP below $5,000. This reflects the strong relationship between a country's socioeconomic status and the religiosity of its residents. In the world's poorest countries -- those with average per-capita incomes of $2,000 or lower -- the median proportion who say religion is important in their daily lives is 95%. In contrast, the median for the richest countries -- those with average per-capita incomes higher than $25,000 -- is 47%.

Religiosity Highest in World's Poorest Nations (http://www.gallup.com/poll/142727/religiosity-highest-world-poorest-nations.aspx)

Religion & Wealth: Less Religious Countries are More Wealthy

Christian leaders frequently assert that their message is not one of this world and that Christians cannot serve both their god and "Mammon." In poorer nations, religion remains central to the lives of individuals, while secular perspectives are more common in richer nations.
Religion & Wealth: Less Religious Countries are More Wealthy (http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/04/03/religion-wealth-less-religious-countries-are-more-wealthy.htm)

Secularization Hypothesis
Going back to the first type of model, in which religion is seen as being dependent on social and economic factors, there are two important sociological theories about how religion responds to these factors. One approach is called the "Secularization Hypothesis." It's a part of what is often called "Modernization Theory," which looks at how the economies of developing countries develop institutional capabilities to alleviate poverty and rationalize markets.
The Modernization theory posits that as an economy develops and gets richer, certain societal institutions and features change in a regular way. The Secularization hypothesis applies this theory to religiosity: As economies develop and get richer, people supposedly become less religious. "Less religious" is measured either by participation in organized religion (e.g., church attendance) or by certain indicators of religious belief.

Religious Faith and Economic Growth: What Matters Most-Belief or Belonging? | The Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/religious-faith-and-economic-growth-what-matters-most-belief-or-belonging)

Badlun
03-01-2011, 01:43 PM
Israel, china and USA are three interesting countries for further research and study.

Israel no doubt receives aid from USA, Germany and other countries but they dont take it as charity but as investment and build their economy with this aid or cooperation. Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan etc also receive aid but this goes to corrupt leaders and people take it as charity not as capital for further investment and development.

Also it is interesting that why these countries help Israel this much. Because they see in Israel the potential to be a great country and a model for the Arabs and Muslims.

China is politically a communist country but economically it is a capitalist country. Also it is a secular country and although it is not a complete democracy, the mere absence of religion or extreme religion is a clear factor in its being a great economy. Other wise the people would take care of the here after, the graves and not of this real life.

USA also considered a religious country and an exception when we study the relationship between religion and economy but USA is officially a secular country and religion is limited only to the private lives of people and not part of economy, politics etc.

The case of Muslim world is different where religion has strong on influence of politics, economics, culture etc and thats why majority of Muslim countries are poor nations.

unknownprince
03-01-2011, 02:17 PM
Israel, germany, jordan, former Egypt, and Japan are all slave states.

These nations are going to soon be left by themselves since US is struggling to keep its economy afloat.

You think the US is going to keep giving them aid LOL?

graveyardofempires
03-01-2011, 03:20 PM
passing through .

Alchemist
03-01-2011, 03:55 PM
Some data how religion is more common in poor countries

Religiosity Highest in World's Poorest Nations
Each of the most religious countries is relatively poor, with a per-capita GDP below $5,000. This reflects the strong relationship between a country's socioeconomic status and the religiosity of its residents. In the world's poorest countries -- those with average per-capita incomes of $2,000 or lower -- the median proportion who say religion is important in their daily lives is 95%. In contrast, the median for the richest countries -- those with average per-capita incomes higher than $25,000 -- is 47%.

Religiosity Highest in World's Poorest Nations (http://www.gallup.com/poll/142727/religiosity-highest-world-poorest-nations.aspx)

Religion & Wealth: Less Religious Countries are More Wealthy

Christian leaders frequently assert that their message is not one of this world and that Christians cannot serve both their god and "Mammon." In poorer nations, religion remains central to the lives of individuals, while secular perspectives are more common in richer nations.
Religion & Wealth: Less Religious Countries are More Wealthy (http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/04/03/religion-wealth-less-religious-countries-are-more-wealthy.htm)

Secularization Hypothesis
Going back to the first type of model, in which religion is seen as being dependent on social and economic factors, there are two important sociological theories about how religion responds to these factors. One approach is called the "Secularization Hypothesis." It's a part of what is often called "Modernization Theory," which looks at how the economies of developing countries develop institutional capabilities to alleviate poverty and rationalize markets.
The Modernization theory posits that as an economy develops and gets richer, certain societal institutions and features change in a regular way. The Secularization hypothesis applies this theory to religiosity: As economies develop and get richer, people supposedly become less religious. "Less religious" is measured either by participation in organized religion (e.g., church attendance) or by certain indicators of religious belief.

Religious Faith and Economic Growth: What Matters Most-Belief or Belonging? | The Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/religious-faith-and-economic-growth-what-matters-most-belief-or-belonging)

Fallacy Name:
Correlation vs. Causation
Alternative Names:
Non Causa Pro Causa
Category:
Faulty Causation

Explanation:
Determining the nature of causation is very difficult. Sometimes a cause and effect are closely related - spatially, temporally or both - but sometimes they are not. However, humans seem to be inclined to assume that events which are closely connected either spatially or temporally are also connected causally.
This problem is commonly known as the difference between correlation and causation. Just because two events correlate (are close in time or space) does not mean that one has caused the other. The Latin term for such an error is called "non causa pro causa," which means "non-cause for the cause." It is important to try and break ourselves of this habit and become more critical of our natural inclinations in such cases.
There are a number of different ways in which correlation and causation can become confused. One is called the "Neglect of Common Cause." Also sometimes called "Joint Effect," this occurs when someone assumes that one event caused another when, in fact, they are both really effects of some third event. This third event is the "common cause" of the other two. For example:
1. Every time I eat chocolate, it gives me acne.
The speaker above observes a strong correlation between eating chocolate and suffering from acne, drawing the conclusion that the former causes the latter. What is ignored, however, is the possibility that both are caused by something else - perhaps this person suffers from anxiety and stress. The stress causes him to eat chocolate, but at the same time causes acne to break out. This will lead to the two occurring very close in time, even though one isn't actually causing the other.
Many times a fallacy like the one in the statement above occurs in assertions based upon statistical evidence, for example:
2. Recent studies have proven that watching too much violence on television leads to people being violent in real life.
Although it may indeed be true that viewing acts of violence can make a person more susceptible to committing violence, the above statement ignores crucial factors which might have a causal influence on both. For example, both increasing violence on television and increasing violence in society might be caused by changing economic circumstances or something else entirely. Thus, the above cannot be regarded as a sound position until other such possible common causes have been ruled out first (which, incidentally, may have indeed been done as part of the study, but this would have to be made explicit for the statement to be valid).
Here is another, more amusing instance where such an error can be made:
3. Researchers at the Aabo Akademi found that Finns who speak the language of their Nordic neighbors were up to 25 percent less likely to fall ill than those who do not.
Should we conclude from this that learning how to speak Swedish will help improve our health? Or perhaps that it is only Finns who can receive health benefits from speaking Norwegian? Nonsense - there is nothing about the Swedish language which can make a person healthier. What we need to look for are common causes of both being multilingual and of having better health - at least in Finland.
The neglect of Common Cause can be found in many political debates as well:
4. Most drug use occurs among the poor - this is because poverty causes people to engage in risky behavior, like abusing narcotics.
Now, perhaps the above position is true or at least has a grain of truth in it, but it fails to address the possibility that a third factor is responsible for both of those listed. One might be able to effectively argue that racial discrimination makes a person feel hopeless - this, in turn, may not only increase the chances of that person being poor, but might also incline them to seek escape in drugs.
This fallacy has also found a home in quite a few religious debates:
5. Morality in this nation has worsened at the same time that adherence to traditional Christian beliefs has declined. Obviously, the latter has caused the former, so encouraging Christianity will ensure a return to traditional moral standards.
In the above example, it is assumed that the correlation between dropping standards of morality and weakening adherence to traditional Christianity means that the latter is the cause of the former. This position ignores, however, the possibility of some third event being the cause for both. Thus, for example, it may be that growing diversity in society has weakened the bonds of all traditional institutions - including both religion and moral standards. Simplistic explanations like the above make it easy to propose simplistic solutions, but they cannot be accepted until alternatives like possible common causes have been addressed.
Science, Correlation, and Causation
At this point, one might wonder what the difference is between the fallacy of correlation vs. causation and the normal process of science. After all, isn't much of science a matter of correlating various observations and constructing theories about why they occur? There is some justice in asking this question - but nevertheless, there are important differences. Let's consider this example:
6. When the sun is visible, we have daylight. When the sun is gone, we don't have daylight. Therefore, the sun is responsible for daylight.
Isn't this an example of confusing correlation and causation? Why can't we say:
7. Daylight is caused by the luminescent radiance of Apollo. It just seems like daylight is caused by the sun because Apollo habitually travels alongside it. But Apollo is the real cause of light.
Well, we certainly could say that - but what's the difference between examples #6 and #7? What can make #6 justified rather than a fallacy? There are a couple of key characteristics - the first and perhaps the most important of which is that of testable predictions.
A theory is scientific if we can use it to make testable predictions about other observations we might be able to make. Are there testable predictions we can derive from example #6? Yes: when a place my hand between my eyes and the sun, the light is blocked; when clouds move between the sun and an object, it is shrouded in darkness; and when the moon moves between our planet and the sun, there is a cone of darkness on the planet.
All of these and more predictions can be made, resulting in observations that are consistent with the idea that the sun is responsible for daylight. Are there any predictions that we can derive from example #7? No - and if we tried, we wouldn't be able to reliably test them.
This points us to a second important issue that helps us separate a valid from an invalid causal connection: do we have any viable alternatives? If #7 were genuinely and successfully tested, then we would have much less justification for confidently asserting #6. The fact of the matter is, though, that there aren't any viable alternatives to #6.
So how can we be absolutely certain that an correlation between two events indicates a causal relationship? We can't, actually - the knowledge provided by the scientific method is never absolutely certain. Science forces us to remain open to the possibility that new evidence will cause a change in what we know and believe. Science doesn't allow us to become complacent, assuming that we already know everything.
Science is, however, quite reliable. With enough information, we can justify concluding that a strong correlation between two events points to a causal relationship. When all reliable evidence points to one conclusion while no reliable evidence points to anything else, then we don't commit the fallacy of confusing correlation with causation by concluding that we have likely identified the cause of the phenomenon in question.

faye
03-02-2011, 08:32 AM
osho,most of the poor countries on the planet were once colonised. they colonisers became wealthy from this rape, pillage and theft of land. now they are recolonising the poor countries as they start to become wealthy. mc donalds, monsanto,loans, sales of arms etc. these countries are not interested in israel for the reason you stated, it is because the jews have respective governments by the b****. they control the media, they have aggressive and brutish lobby groups and many of them are in government, especially in america. israel is also a focal point for those that are anxious for armageddon. the jewish fanatics are just hanging to knock down al aqsa mosque. christian extremists are also now overtly supporting israel. so israel is not just this progressive wee country, quietly and democratically slogging away in the midst of the middle east, it is a major flashpoint that doesn't recieve publicity for being so.
can you imagine what will happen there if these jews demolish al aqsa mosque?
do you not think that all the wealthy jews from around the world, are investing in israel?
even in australia, our new prime minister and partner were given an all expenses paid trip to israel, by the jewish lobby here, and other politicians also. one was taken by private plane. these people never say a word against israel and it's treatment of the palestinians.
they are very clever and have most bases covered, i'll grant them that.

Badlun
03-02-2011, 01:27 PM
Correlation vs causation..where we have discussed the topic, secularism, economy, poverty, development, GDP, HDI,,,all the examples given are not relevant to the topic. Its a good piece of writing but it says nothing about the topic. Also no source has been given. No context, seems just copy paste stuff!

Badlun
03-02-2011, 01:50 PM
All the poor countries were not colonized. The glaring example is Afghanistan.

In the colonized countries we also have Brazil, the world 6th largest economy , Argentina, Mexico, Australia, India , South Africa, Indonesia are members of G20.

Muslims from Mecca and Madina also not only colonized but completely conquered 58 countries that we have today in the Muslim world.

These western colonizing countries did not become wealthy because of the colonization because they were already great empires before they started colonizing other countries.Compare Spain, Great Britannia,Portugal before and after colonization. Colonization rather made them small countries not wealthy countries. They are wealthy today because of secularism, industrialization, democracy, rule of law and better governance.

Arabs or Muslims on the other hand were dwellers of small cities but became monarchs after conquering all these countries.

If we have mc donalds, monsanto,loans, sales of arms etc.then it is business for both buyers and sellers. They dont compel you to buy these items.Why we dont have our own better products!

If Jews have money or control the media, they have lobby groups and many of them are in government, especially in America then it speaks volumes of the talent of Jews. Why we dont become like them.

Jews should not demolish Alaqsa mosque but if they do so, Muslims also did the same. Both will do bad!

I think very good of all the wealthy jews from around the world, who are investing in Israel. Others should follow them. Seventy million Pashtuns should invest in Afghanistan.

Centuries passed after the colonization era. Let stop accusing others for our problems. Now we have time to build our selves as great nations. The formula is secularism, democracy, human rights,rule of law, modern education, science and technology. Let the developed world should be our model.

faye
03-02-2011, 07:21 PM
you may find that a lot of these loans are on the basis that the money is to buy arms.
sorry, i just never thought of these european colonosirs as being 'great' other than great ship builders and marauders.
if your desire is to follow in the footsteps of the jews, who have made alot of their wealth in assisting in the creation of wars, then you are hardly following islam, as it means peace.

Badlun
03-03-2011, 12:46 PM
The topic is secularism as a solution to the problems of Pashtuns not Israel or Jews. However Jews are the most suffered people by wars. Millions of Jews have been killed in various wars including world wars. How can they be assisting wars.

A nation state must be strong enough to defend itself and for defence you need arms bought by loans or not does not matter.

Islam as a religion yes means peace and i agree with it. But war is subject of politics not religion.A state with Muslim population has the right to have defence system but managed by politicians not by Taliban or Mullas.Their job is mosque or religion and this is what secularism teaches us and this what what Pashtunwali separates between Hujra and Jumat, the institutionalized secularism among true Pashtuns.

faye
03-03-2011, 12:57 PM
you put forward israel as an axample of a positive example of a democratically progressive state. i questioned your example. if you prefer that people don't question you then where is the conversation or debate?
if you don't now what wars are about and how they are started and who is involved in starting them, then i suggest you do a lot more research.

Badlun
03-03-2011, 01:37 PM
For discussion on Israel please see

http://www.pashtunforums.com/creative-writing-research-37/isarel-model-state-pashtuns-arabs-muslims-14589/

I will be grateful if I am enlightened on the subject of wars as related to secularism.

graveyardofempires
03-03-2011, 01:41 PM
da komey khaberey rawaney dey
My name is Khan ,nice ot meet you.

faye
03-03-2011, 03:30 PM
try the book ' wall st and the rise of hitler' for starters. some of it is online.

Badlun
04-18-2013, 01:39 PM
It seems secularism is triumphing and now Jamate Islami a strong Islamist party in Pakistan is embracing secularism and shunning its Islamist agenda

Test of JI chief | DAWN.COM (http://dawn.com/2013/04/18/test-of-ji-chief/)

Of late, there has been a toning down of the party's main plank, the Islamic ‘system’.
The emphasis has been on political issues of the day — from Aafia Siddiqi and drone attacks to America’s hand in the assassination attempt on Qazi Hussain Ahmed.Worldwide, Islamist parties are attempting to recast their philosophies in the light of today’s realities.

The radical changes made by the Indian JI can perhaps be ignored, because its acceptance of secularism can be understood in a country where Muslims are in a minority.

But greater changes are in the offing in the Middle East and Maghreb, where forces unleashed by the Arab Spring are trying to find newer grounds for relevance in today’s world.

In Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party repudiated his mentor Necmettin Erbakan’s philosophy and publicly embraced secularism. Once in power it has made stunning changes in state policies from within. One can see the same process in embryonic form in Tunisia and Egypt. There is no evidence that the Pakistan JI has bothered to listen to these stentorian voices.

Al Hanif
04-18-2013, 01:49 PM
Jamate Islami a strong Islamist party in Pakistan is embracing secularism and shunning its Islamist agenda

As if their party was 'islamic' in the first place.

A 'party' can't be 'islamic'. By definition it's 'part' of the 'system'.

Friend
04-18-2013, 07:10 PM
It seems secularism is triumphing and now Jamate Islami a strong Islamist party in Pakistan is embracing secularism and shunning its Islamist agenda

Test of JI chief | DAWN.COM (http://dawn.com/2013/04/18/test-of-ji-chief/)

Of late, there has been a toning down of the party's main plank, the Islamic ‘system’.
The emphasis has been on political issues of the day — from Aafia Siddiqi and drone attacks to America’s hand in the assassination attempt on Qazi Hussain Ahmed.Worldwide, Islamist parties are attempting to recast their philosophies in the light of today’s realities.

The radical changes made by the Indian JI can perhaps be ignored, because its acceptance of secularism can be understood in a country where Muslims are in a minority.

But greater changes are in the offing in the Middle East and Maghreb, where forces unleashed by the Arab Spring are trying to find newer grounds for relevance in today’s world
In Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party repudiated his mentor Necmettin Erbakan’s philosophy and publicly embraced secularism. Once in power it has made stunning changes in state policies from within. One can see the same process in embryonic form in Tunisia and Egypt. There is no evidence that the Pakistan JI has bothered to listen to these stentorian voices.so badlun, when are you going to join JI because they are going to do what you want.

Badlun
08-24-2013, 03:22 AM
Good reading on secularism


ISLAM AND SECULARISM
Asghar Ali Engineer
(Secular Perspective October-1-15, 2000)
Is Islam compatible with secularism? This question is quite important in the present context, particularly in 21st century. Both non-Muslims and orthodox Muslims feel that Islam is not compatible with secularism.

Fundamentalist Muslims totally reject secularism as anti-Islamic and haram. Maulana Maududi, founder of Jamat-e-Islami-e-Hind had said, while leaving for Pakistan in 1948, that those who participated in secular politics were raising flag of revolt against Allah and His Messenger. The Saudi `Ulama, too, denounce secularism as strictly prohibited in Islamic tradition.

The fundamentalist Hindus, on the other hand, say that Muslims support secularism while in minority in any country and oppose it while in majority. But this is not wholly true. Some Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and others do reject secularism but all Muslim majority countries do not. For example, Indonesia does not reject secularism though its 85% population comprises of Muslims. However, by and large, it is true that many Muslim majority countries opt for Islamic state or at least make Islam as state religion.

It is important to note that there is some difference between an Islamic state and Islam being a state religion. In Islamic state all laws must strictly conform to Islamic Shari`ah but if a country declares 'Islam as its religion', it means that Islam is preferred to all other religions and it enjoys itself more privilege than other religions in the country. In 1948 Islam was declared as state religion in Pakistan, but Pakistan did not become an Islamic state until Zia-ul-Haq declared it to be an Islamic state in late seventies. He then began to enforce Shari`ah laws in Pakistan.

Islam is declared to be incompatible with secularism because in a secular state there is no place for divine laws, and secular laws are unacceptable to Islam. Also it is believed that in Islam religion and politics cannot be separated. On these grounds secularism is totally rejected by orthodox Muslims. They also think that secularism is atheistic, and atheism has no place whatsoever in Islam. Islam strongly emphasises faith in Allah. These are some of the grounds which make orthodox Muslims uneasy with the very word secularism. Islam emphasises life hereafter and secularism means only those matters which pertain to this world. There is no place for the world hereafter as far as secular philosophy is concerned.

We would examine here whether these assertions are true and whether Islam is really incompatible with secularism. Firstly, we should make a distinction between what is theological and what is historical. The concept that religion and politics cannot be separated is more historical than theological. In fact the Holy Qur'an, as we have pointed out elsewhere too, does not give any concept of the State; it only gives the concept of the society. The Qur'an is concerned with morality rather than polity. An upright conduct, justice, truth, benevolence, compassion and human dignity are very basic to the Holy Scripture. It repeatedly asserts these values. Thus it clearly means that these values are very fundamental to an Islamic society rather than to a State.

The view that religion cannot be separated from politics in Islam is due this primary concern with these Islamic values. It was thought by early Islamic `Ulama and jurists that if religion was separated from politics, the rulers would totally neglect these fundamental Islamic values and would behave in a manner which would only satisfy their greed for power. In fact in those days there was no concept of secularism as a philosophy of humanism. The `Ulama were afraid that if religion and politics were separated there would be absolutely no check on the conduct of the rulers. In fact, one does not find clear articulation to this effect (that religion cannot be separated from politics in Islam) in any early Islamic source. This formulation itself is of nineteenth century origin when colonial powers began to impose secular laws in Islamic countries i.e. the laws which were not basically derived from Shari`ah.

In the early Islamic period there were no other laws than the Shari`ah laws. And since there was no such concept of the State in Qur'an, the Islamic State itself is a historical construct. The structure of Islamic State evolved over a period of time. The Qur'an and Hadith were the primary sources for the new State. It is important to note that before Islam there was no State in Mecca or Medina. There was only a senate of tribal chiefs who took collective decisions and it was tribal chiefs who enforced those decisions in their respective tribal jurisdiction. There were obviously no written laws but only tribal customs and traditions. Any decision had to be taken within the framework of these customs. There was no other source of law.

However after Islam appeared on the social horizon of Mecca, the scenario began to change. In Medina the Prophet (PBUH) laid the framework of governance through what is known as Mithaq-e-Madina (Covenant of Medina). This Covenant also basically respects tribal customs to which adherents of Judaism, Islam and pre-Islamic idol worshippers belonged. Each tribe, along with the religious tradition it belonged to, was treated as an autonomous unit in the Covenant, which has been described in full details by Ibn Ishaque, the first biographer of the Holy Prophet. Thus the Covenant of Medina respected both the tribal as well as religious autonomy of the inhabitants of the town. It can also be said to be the first constitution of the state in making. The Covenant laid down certain principles which are valid even today in a secular state. When the covenant was drawn up by the Prophet of Islam, Shari`ah as a body of law had not evolved. In this important Medinan document what is most important is that the Prophet (PBUH) did not compel the different tribes of Jews and idol worshippers to follow the Islamic law.

A state structure began to evolve only after the death of the Holy Prophet when vast areas of other territories were conquered and new problems began to arise. During the Prophet's time the governance was limited to almost a city. He did not live long after the conquest of Mecca. But after his death the jurisdiction of the state expanded much beyond the frontiers of Arabia. During the Prophet's time people were more concerned with day today problems of marriage, divorce, inheritance etc. on one hand, and those of problems like theft, robbery, murder and some similar problems for which the Qur'an and the Prophet were inerrant source of guidance. The people asked the Prophet for guidance and followed his pronouncements or the Qur'anic injunctions voluntarily. There was no state machinery to enforce it. There was neither any police force nor any regular military.

There was no separate judiciary either. As far as the Prophet was concerned he was legislator, an enforcer of laws (executive) and also a judge (representing judiciary). He combined all three functions.
Thus it will be seen that there was no regular state structure during the Prophet's own time as he was a unique personality who could combine all these functions for judicious governance, in addition to being a source of law. However, the death of the Prophet (PBUH) created a vacuum and no other person could fill it. Also, as pointed out above, the conquest of other territories created more complex problems. Now there was need for enforcement of laws as people in far off places with no commitment to

Islam would not follow the laws voluntarily as they did in Medina in the Prophet's time. Thus a police force was needed to enforce the laws. Also, during the Prophet's time people volunteered for fighting against enemies of Islam and there was no need for a paid regular army. Now after his death need was felt for paid regular army. The border areas had to be guarded constantly. There were no such borders before.

The corpus of Shari`ah was being evolved and for new situations guidance could no more be had from the Prophet. One either had to look for verses in the Qur'an or in Hadith which Prophet's companions remembered or one had to resort to analogy keeping analogous situations in mind. That was how the corpus of the Shari`ah law evolved slowly. The primitive Islamic state was democratic in spirit and the Caliphs often consulted their colleagues and companions of the Prophet while making any decision so as to conform to the Qur'anic values. Thus Qur'an and Hadith then were the main sources of law.

But in secular matters like building up institutions like army or police or bureaucracy, they did not hesitate to borrow concepts from other sources like Roman or Persian. Thus Hazrat Umar borrowed the concept of Diwan (i.e. maintaining records of salaries to a paid army and bureaucracy). Similarly the Caliphs were called upon to legislate on matters like land ownership, suspension of certain punishments during times of emergency like famine etc.

The conquests, internal strife among the Muslims, struggle for power among different tribes, groups and personalities and many other factors created strong pressures so much so that the institution of Caliphate itself did not survive. It was ultimately replaced by monarchy and dynastic rule. This was totally against the spirit of the Qur'an. These changes became inevitable under the fast developing situation. The Islamic jurists had to come to terms with these new developments and to legitimise them somehow. Once the institution of Caliphate was replaced by dynastic rule, it could never be restored throughout Islamic history. The monarchy and dynastic rule persisted until the Western colonial rule took over.

It was under colonial rule that Muslims began to discover the virtues of democracy and saw in the Caliphate a 'golden period of Islamic democracy.' It is true that during the dynastic rule Shari`ah law could not be ignored and the rulers had to keep the `Ulama in good humour. However, they often found ways to go around and violate the spirit of the Shari`ah law. But they never ceased to pay obeisance to it. But the situation changed drastically with the onset of colonial rule during the nineteenth century in the Islamic world. Many laws were enforced by the colonial rulers which were secular in origin. The Western countries themselves were once governed by the Church and it was the Church law which was supreme.

But the reformation changed all that and the struggle against the Church gave rise to the concept of secularism. Thus there was intense fight between the Church and the ruling princes who desired independence from the hegemony of the Church. The emerging bourgeois class too wanted to be free of the sacred rule and saw immense benefits in secularisation of politics and society. Thus it took more than three centuries in the West for secularisation of society and marginalisation of religion and religious institution. When the colonial rule was established in Asian and African countries many of which happened to be Islamic countries, the process of secularisation had traversed a great distance in the metropolitan countries.

Thus the colonial countries posed a great challenge to Islam in the colonised countries through their technological supremacy. The religious leaders and intellectuals in these countries found refuge in the 'glory of the past' and some were overwhelmed by the supremacy of the West and began to advocate secular modernisation. Many reform movements thus were born in Islamic countries. Jamaluddin Afghani and Muhammad Abduh of Egypt were among them. Some others, however, totally rejected secularism of the West and launched intense efforts to revive the past. Revivalist and reformist movements jostled with each other for social and political space. Among those who faced the Western challenge there were those who rejected religion altogether and adopted secular humanism of the West. However, they remained in small minority.

Islamic societies, however, found it more challenging to adopt change and adjust to it smoothly. Many sociologists ascribe this resistance to change inherent to the teachings of Islam. This, however, is not true. No religion including Islam is prone or opposed to change. The causes of resistance to change lie in the society, not in religion. In fact most of the Muslim societies were led by feudal lords and failed to produce modern bourgeois class. In these societies there was no well-entrenched mercantile or industrial class. It is as much truer of Indian Muslims as of other Muslim countries.

The Hindus, on the other hand, had centuries old merchant class, which smoothly adjusted itself to modern industrial capitalism. Thus those who took to modern industrial capitalism felt need for secularisation and social change. The pressures for change were result of the changing ground reality for them.

The Muslims, on the other hand, felt no such need for change, as there was no well-entrenched mercantile class to feel the need for effecting smooth change over to modernity. Also, in most of the Muslim countries, including India, Islam was embraced by weaker and poorer sections of society, for it appealed to those sections due to its emphasis on equality and justice. Those sections had no felt need for modernisation and they remained under the tight grip of traditional `Ulama who were anyway opposed to the process of secularisation.

Also, unlike other religions, Muslims had well-developed Shari`ah law which was unanimously accepted as divine in origin. Most of the religious leaders thus rejected the very concept of secular law as unacceptable. The `Ulama, as pointed out above, had strong grip over the hearts and minds of the poor and illiterate masses and used the social base to oppose any change. The feudal lords, too, had not much use for secularism and readily struck an alliance with the `Ulama giving them full support. Thus the `Ulama strongly resisted any change in the Shari`ah laws. Not only that, they would not even admit of any reform. Those like Muhammad Abduh and others who advocated ijtihad (creative interpretation of Shari`ah laws in view of modernisation and change) were marginalised. Those important socio-economic factors cannot be ignored while discussing Islam and secularism.

Before we proceed further I would like to throw some light on some inherent limitations of secularism also. In nineteenth century rationalism became a dogma. The rationalists and secularists almost began to worship reason and dismissed religion with contempt. In fact the rationalists have been as contemptuous of religion as the faithfuls have been of secularism. Both have refused to admit limitations of their respective positions. One can say that as there are religious fundamentalists there are rational or secular fundamentalists also. These secular fundamentalists have no respect for believers whom they consider as nothing less than 'superstitious'. Even certain cultural practices are considered as such. Some of them even refuse to admit the emotional richness of life.

There has to be a balance between reason and faith. Faith is as important to human existence as reason is. Reason, in fact, is a tool humans use to achieve their goal. Reason can never become absolute though its usefulness as a tool cannot be minimised. Faith, on the other hand, is not tool but belief in higher values. These values are fundamental to a meaningful life on this earth. Reason at best ensures 'successful' life but not meaningful one. It is faith in values like compassion, justice, equality, non-violence etc. which make human life meaningful. Thus a creative synthesis between reason and faith is absolutely necessary for successful and meaningful life on this earth. Sacral and secular should not be treated as two poles or antagonistic contradiction. They are rather complimentary to each other.

The faithfuls should also bear in mind that faith should not mean blind imitation of the past traditions. Faith has to be in values, not in past traditions. As absolute secularism could lead to a life devoid of meaning and responsibility towards fellow human beings absolute faith also could lead to blind surrender to an authority which leads to highly exploitative practices. One has to guard against such possibility by employing ones rational faculty. In other words while reason would not become arrogant, faith should not become blind.

If understood in this sense one will not find any contradiction between reason and faith and between religion and secularism. Islam is also compatible with secularism, seen from this perspective. If secularism is interpreted as an atheistic philosophy, no believer in religion would accept it, let alone a believer in Islam. Islam, as pointed out above, lays strong emphasis on belief in God and unity of God. Muslims believe in divine revelation of Qur'an and in Muhammad being Messenger of Allah. One need not challenge these beliefs in the name of secularism. Secularism should be taken in political rather than philosophical sense. Secularism in political sense creates social and political space for all religious communities.

The nineteenth century rationalism and modernism is itself under challenge today. Our period is characterised as post-modernist period in which religious pluralism rather than rejection of religion is accepted. Post-modernism recognises limitations of reason and accepts validity of religious ethos. We are now in a world which is far removed from struggle between the Church and lay people. Church has also accepted the inevitability of secularisation of society. It no longer enjoys the hegemonic position it enjoyed before reformation. It has also apologised for persecution of scientists for discovering new scientific truths. It has also accepted the concepts of democracy and human rights. There is, thus, no serious contradiction between Church and secularism.

Islam, it must be noted, has no concept of organised church. No single religious authority is considered absolute. There has been, on the other hand, the concept of consensus (ijma`) among the `Ulama (the learned men of Islam) which is quite democratic. In fact consensus has been considered as one of the sources of Islamic law in the Sunni Islam. Also, there is concept of ijtihad which infuses the spirit of dynamism and movement, though, of late, the 'Ulama have refrained from using it for change. However, pressures are building up in Islamic societies for using the concept of ijtihad. All Islamic societies are in throes of change and modernisation. Islamic laws are no more a stagnant pool of old traditions. Changes are being effected.

As there is no organised church in Islam the 'Ulama are divided on the issues of modernisation and change. In Iran too intense struggle is on between the conservatives and the reformists. In Saudi Arabia too the process of change is for anyone to see though the monarchy is quite cautious and wants to carry the orthodox `Ulama along. But social pressures are building up in the Saudi society in favour of change and modernisation. Even in Afghanistan the Taliban rule is more coercive than consensual. The Taliban enjoy political and not social hegemony.

Islam admits of freedom of conscience and democratic rights and there are no two opinions about it. Islam also officially accepts religious pluralism in as much as it is Qur'anic doctrine to hold other prophets in equal esteem. The Holy Prophet provided equal social and religious space to all religions present in Medina, as pointed out above, through the Covenant of Medina. The leaders of Jami`at al-`Ulama in India rejected the concept of two nations and supported the composite nationalism on the basis of this Covenant. Religious pluralism and composite nationalism, which is the very spirit of secularism today in India, is not incompatible to Islam at all. All Islamic leaders of India have accepted Indian secularism. Even the Jama`at-e-Islami-e-Hind has not only accepted Indian democracy and secularism but has set up a democratic and secular front.

The other characteristic of secular democracy is a respect for human dignity and human rights. The Qur'an expressly upholds both. It is true some rulers in the Islamic world reject the concept of human rights as Western in origin and not fit for their society. But it is to preserve their own absolute and unchallenged rule rather than upholding Islamic doctrinal position. It is cultural and political rather than religious problem. There are different political systems in different Islamic countries from monarchy to military dictatorship to limited democracy to democracy. But it will be naïve to blame Islam for this. One has to look into the political history of the country rather than search for its causes in to Islamic doctrines. Islamic doctrines do not nurture any concept of absolutism as perhaps no other religion does. In fact the Qur'an's emphasis is on consultation (shura), and even the Prophet used to consult his companions in secular matters.

It will thus be seen that Islam is not incompatible to secularism if it does not mean rejection of religious faith. Throughout the world today there is increasing emphasis on harmonious coexistence of different religious faiths and Islam had inculcated this spirit from the very beginning of revelation of the Qur'an. The doctrine that religion and politics cannot be separated in Islam is a later historical construct rather than the Qur'anic doctrine. It is human construct rather than a divine revelation. One of the important aspects of modern secularism is of course separation of religion from the state. While the state should not interfere in religious autonomy, religious authorities should not poke their nose in affairs of the state. The Indian `Ulama had accepted this position with good conscience throughout freedom struggle and it was on this basis that they became allies of the Indian National Congress.

In Muslim majority countries there is problem of autonomy of state. Again, one should not look for causes into religious teachings but in the socio-political history of those countries. These countries have hardly emerged from their feudal past. There is no history in these countries of democratic struggles of the people. Also, most of these countries have very small religious minorities and these minorities too have historically accepted religious hegemony of Islam. It will take quite sometime for this position to change as feudal past has strong presence in these countries. But there is strong pressures building up and human rights movements are emerging in all these countries.

Globalisation may not be desirable for many other reasons but it is creating conditions for close interaction among various cultures and political systems. Information revolution also is a tide which cannot be stopped and this revolution is creating deep impact on every aspect of life. Muslim countries cannot remain aloof from this and has to open themselves to new ideas and forces.
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~rtavakol/engineer/secular.htm

Badlun
08-24-2013, 03:37 AM
How to defeat and marginalize the opponents of secularism? By an Islamic argument!

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/apr/14/religion-islam-secularism

Shamlawar Khurasani
08-24-2013, 07:47 AM
How to defeat and marginalize the opponents of secularism? By an Islamic argument!

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/apr/14/religion-islam-secularism

Thats like the most desperate and superficial argument in favor of secularism through Islam I have seen so far. But considering the fact that desperate people resort to desperate measures, it is no surprise to see you lot coming up with an argument as pathetic as this one.

Badlun
08-24-2013, 01:14 PM
Thats like the most desperate and superficial argument in favor of secularism through Islam I have seen so far. But considering the fact that desperate people resort to desperate measures, it is no surprise to see you lot coming up with an argument as pathetic as this one.
Will you please give some further details to elighten us that how pathetic this argument is?

And what do you think about this one which has been pasted above.

http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~rtavak...er/secular.htm (http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/%7Ertavakol/engineer/secular.htm)

BarakzaiAbdali
08-24-2013, 02:24 PM
How to defeat and marginalize the opponents of secularism? By an Islamic argument!

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/apr/14/religion-islam-secularism (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/apr/14/religion-islam-secularism)

Thanks Badlun, I actually appreciate this article.

It makes a crucial point - one which distinguishes the soft intellectual secularists like Mr. Whitaker who want to engage their compatriots in stimulating discussion and who don't want to reap death and destruction

versus

The militant terroristic fascist secularists like Tamarod, Awami Nationalists like Asfandyaar, Al Sisi etc. who are the biggest hypocrites the world has ever seen (e.g. Morsi wins democratically as does his party 3 times and they generate claims he deserved to be removed and 1000 people killed because he was "subverting" democracy even though there are excellent articles that detail his main conflict was with Mubarakite judges trying to illegalize parliament after his party won).


The former is a species that favors fact based engagement - which we should all support. The crux of this will be though that if their arguments are dissected and they turn out to be incorrect they should also be ready to accept intellectual losses. For instance one big secularist referral is to the constitution of medina. Yet when you read the text itself their claim disintegrates.

The latter species is a dangerous parasite. It is infested with people who mirror their behavior on Najibullah Ahmadzai and his compatriots, etc etc.

Mr. Whitaker is probably a gentle Caucasian man who is embedded in his own society and has decided to report on and engage the Arab world.

The Pashtun secularist nationalist though is often a vicious, violent, rabid animal who has wet dreams about what happened in Egypt to happen in Afghanistan to devout Muslims as well.

For instance, the difference between yourself and Mr. Whitaker is that you have called for the death of people you view as Pashtun terrorists de facto with a desire to subvert indigenous mores.

That is the key difference between you and Mr. Whitaker.

Mr. Whitaker wants to read the Quran, the Sirah, and the Hadith and formulate a debate with intellectual adversaries (not random sycophants). For instance, if Mr. Whitaker wants to discuss segregation of the sexes and hospital treatment he would likely favor an indigenous solution that encompasses an Islamic viewpoint that is moderated by fact. So if a misogynist decides to limit female patient access and female doctors from practicing - but the evidence points towards equal but separate facilities (sort of like mens and womens bathrooms in the West) - Mr. Whitaker would accept the latter situation even though it is not in line with Caucasian western thought of one single homogenous hospital with both sexes practicing.

You on the other hand, unlike Mr. Whitaker, have adopted fascist militant secular ideologies that seek to IMPOSE white western mores onto indigenous people. If an Islamic discussion were to ensure you instead decide to efface and expunge or even intellectually abrogate the Islamic angle as opposed to working within it framework.

That is, Pashtun secular militants have an inferiority complex that manifests as Caucasian imitation where the more confident "original McCoys" like Mr. Whitaker are willing to speak softly and work with people without trying to put on black gloves and open up Najib style torture chambers.

Ideally, we should encourage Mr. Whitaker and others like him but

1) Identify
2) Isolate
3) Marginalize
4) Criminalize
5) Penalize

The militant fascist variety of secularists who are treasonous traitors to their people and encourage warfare between indigenous Eastern peoples and Western people based on false paradigms and vocal minority voices.

I congratulate you on the beginning of turning away from the dark and fascist writings of Najib and Zeary and their like that have turned the Eastern world upside down and finding a more moderated approach like that of Mr. Whitakers.

Let us hope that you can follow on Mr. Whitakers footsteps and engage Muslims in debate by internal dialogue based on scripture and good will.

In this way the patron saints of militant secularism like Cheryl Barnard will have less of an impact as well.

BarakzaiAbdali
08-24-2013, 02:28 PM
Thats like the most desperate and superficial argument in favor of secularism through Islam I have seen so far. But considering the fact that desperate people resort to desperate measures, it is no surprise to see you lot coming up with an argument as pathetic as this one.

The key is to examine the behavior of Mr. Whitaker versus our own deviant secular fascist militants. Mr. Whitaker in some ways is abiding by the exhortation in the Quran to debate with beautiful patterns of behavior.

Tamarodi style secular militants on the other hand contrive nonsensical conspiracy theories (e.g. MB is funded by Obama and Patterson in their pea brain worlds even though Sisi gets billions in arms directly lol).

They then engage in torture, violence, and direct insulting of the Prophet and the Quran.

For instance, Badlun advocated delaying marriage age and accepting the trend toward premarital sex with the follow up argument that women need to feel orgasms (btw this is a right the Prophet gave to married women centuries ago) as the basis for this reasoning.

Whitaker would blush and distance himself from Badlun and probably even become upset with him on his own.

We should hope Badlun follows Mr. Whitaker's advice instead of this torture chamber, black gloves, labeling devout Muslims as terrorist approach he has taken to now.

Maybe Badlun Saheb is turning a positive corner.

Badlun
08-24-2013, 03:11 PM
Dr Saib
Thanks for your valuable comments. I want to see Pashtuns in a dignified place in the world so that they have respect, prosperity, development and honor in the comity of nations. This is my life dream.

After analyzing every thing I came to the conclusion that this is mixing religion with every affair of life that Pashtuns or Muslims at large lag behind in almost every field of life and infested with evils like terrorism, sectariaism, obscurantism and violent extremism. The only panacea I found for all this is secularism where sacral affairs of religion should have its own place and secular worldly affairs its won place.

I wish Muslims imitate the Wwest in their separation of Church from the state and science but at the same time remain attached to moral and spiritual values of Islam.

My research and search continue towards this goal. Your comments are always taken seriously and I am learning a lot.

I wonder why you are obsessed this much with Najib as he as a head of state never committed heinous crimes and he was also not at all a scholar on secularism or promoter of secularism ideologically. Being head of a secret service department always there are tortures . Even these except few media interview are never documented with cogent proofs.

I will be grateful if you comment on each section of this article
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~rtavak...er/secular.htm (http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/%7Ertavakol/engineer/secular.htm)

BarakzaiAbdali
08-24-2013, 06:33 PM
Dr Saib
Thanks for your valuable comments. I want to see Pashtuns in a dignified place in the world so that they have respect, prosperity, development and honor in the comity of nations. This is my life dream.

We all want that, but they need to get there in their own way. The Chinese had their way, the Arabs had their way, the Turks had their way, the Americans had their way, we also are a unique people and you have to recognize this when wanting advances. We have to think even beyond ideologies and ask ourselves as scientists - why are we behind? I would posit that its not simply religion. Its geography as well. Pashtuns unfortunately or fortunately sit on a prime market land and real estate.

Think about it Badlun, secular nationalists are obsessed with simply the Amanullah and Russian conflict periods and what they believe is the role of religion and warfare in limiting progress - this is short sighted.

They somehow loop back to the Arab invasions and ignore everything because they have an agenda.

Here are the people who have, without any right whatsoever invaded our lands in the last 800 years

Ghinghaz

Sequentially or back to back in the last 300 years
Mughals (finally we responded in Abdali Baba's time)
Iranians multiple times (we responded in Mir Wais time but they still came back)
British multiple times
Sikhs multiple times
Russians
and now Americans

The last two may be controversial but they are still full blown invasions.

There has been very few temporal pockets of peace in just the last 300 years.

I dont think religion has much to do with it at all. I think highly of my people and think that if you have two homes:

Home 1: Stable, economically well off, even if its evangelical christian or orthodox jew or salafi or whatever

vs

Home 2: Abuse going on, family members constantly bickering and fighting because they have never known peace, they are just trying to survive etc

Of course Home 1 is going to succeed. The key to Pashtun ascendency is for them to be left alone and to take the time to find their own way.



After analyzing every thing I came to the conclusion that this is mixing religion with every affair of life that Pashtuns or Muslims at large lag behind in almost every field of life and infested with evils like terrorism, sectariaism, obscurantism and violent extremism. The only panacea I found for all this is secularism where sacral affairs of religion should have its own place and secular worldly affairs its won place.

This is where the author article disagrees with you though and thats why I think you actually need to read his article again. He is noting that there is a way to discuss these sensitive issues in a respectful way with Muslims. he cites the example of feminists who are now taking ownership of Islamic history and using Islam as the vehicle to talk with society about their own rights.

He is not advocating that Al Sisi or some fool with a gun get help from caucasians to blast all devout Muslims, station spies in their mosques, forcefully remove their imams and impose a way of life on a people.

That is the secular militant streak in you that you need to think about versus people like the author.

I wish Muslims imitate the Wwest in their separation of Church from the state and science but at the same time remain attached to moral and spiritual values of Islam.

I think many Muslims already do this. I do appreciate the moral and spiritual emphasis and think thats a step forward. What this means though is that in our societies things like how we dress and how we interact and what laws we have to punish crimes can come from Islamic doctrine and jurisprudence. Just as Americans for instance ban the showing of the breasts and that is their right and their penal code to punish people for indecent exposure if a woman walks down the road in Boston naked - whereas in African jungles showing the breasts is not a big deal - Muslims are entitled to disagree with Badlun's desire for them to imitate white people and Christians. Just as Americans and indigenous tribal africans disagree on whether a penalty should exist for indecent exposure - you dont have the right or the scientific mindset to tell Muslims what they should consider decent and indecent and how their law books should address this.

My research and search continue towards this goal. Your comments are always taken seriously and I am learning a lot.

I wonder why you are obsessed this much with Najib as he as a head of state never committed heinous crimes and he was also not at all a scholar on secularism or promoter of secularism ideologically.

He was a communist and marxist devote which is a brand of fargone militant secularism. As we noted previously we provided Amnesty International evidences of KhAD crimes that continued on his watch when he gained the presidency. He exemplifies the psychopathic demeaner of Pashtun secularist militants and fascist who are selective when they talk about sanctity of life. The lives of the majority Pashtuns to them are expendable for their goal even if they disagree with this goal.

Being head of a secret service department always there are tortures . Even these except few media interview are never documented with cogent proofs.

So? If Mullah Omar gets held liable for Mazar than Najib has to be held at the same standard. Also, the various authors and interviewers who documented abuses were independent and validated these interviews with Afghans themselves who were tortured. As I noted, Karzai and his father were themselves abused by Najib's thugs and this is well documented.

I will be grateful if you comment on each section of this article
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~rtavak...er/secular.htm (http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/%7Ertavakol/engineer/secular.htm)

I will look at the article.

BarakzaiAbdali
08-24-2013, 09:07 PM
Dr Saib
Thanks for your valuable comments. I want to see Pashtuns in a dignified place in the world so that they have respect, prosperity, development and honor in the comity of nations. This is my life dream.

After analyzing every thing I came to the conclusion that this is mixing religion with every affair of life that Pashtuns or Muslims at large lag behind in almost every field of life and infested with evils like terrorism, sectariaism, obscurantism and violent extremism. The only panacea I found for all this is secularism where sacral affairs of religion should have its own place and secular worldly affairs its won place.

I wish Muslims imitate the Wwest in their separation of Church from the state and science but at the same time remain attached to moral and spiritual values of Islam.

My research and search continue towards this goal. Your comments are always taken seriously and I am learning a lot.

I wonder why you are obsessed this much with Najib as he as a head of state never committed heinous crimes and he was also not at all a scholar on secularism or promoter of secularism ideologically. Being head of a secret service department always there are tortures . Even these except few media interview are never documented with cogent proofs.

I will be grateful if you comment on each section of this article
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~rtavak...er/secular.htm (http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/%7Ertavakol/engineer/secular.htm)

Badlun your reference link is broken... the rutgers one I mean.

Badlun
08-25-2013, 04:04 PM
Badlun your reference link is broken... the rutgers one I mean.
ISLAM AND SECULARISM Asghar Ali Engineer
(Secular Perspective October-1-15, 2000)
Is Islam compatible with secularism? This question is quite important in the present context, particularly in 21st century. Both non-Muslims and orthodox Muslims feel that Islam is not compatible with secularism.

Fundamentalist Muslims totally reject secularism as anti-Islamic and haram. Maulana Maududi, founder of Jamat-e-Islami-e-Hind had said, while leaving for Pakistan in 1948, that those who participated in secular politics were raising flag of revolt against Allah and His Messenger. The Saudi `Ulama, too, denounce secularism as strictly prohibited in Islamic tradition.

The fundamentalist Hindus, on the other hand, say that Muslims support secularism while in minority in any country and oppose it while in majority. But this is not wholly true. Some Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and others do reject secularism but all Muslim majority countries do not. For example, Indonesia does not reject secularism though its 85% population comprises of Muslims. However, by and large, it is true that many Muslim majority countries opt for Islamic state or at least make Islam as state religion.

It is important to note that there is some difference between an Islamic state and Islam being a state religion. In Islamic state all laws must strictly conform to Islamic Shari`ah but if a country declares 'Islam as its religion', it means that Islam is preferred to all other religions and it enjoys itself more privilege than other religions in the country. In 1948 Islam was declared as state religion in Pakistan, but Pakistan did not become an Islamic state until Zia-ul-Haq declared it to be an Islamic state in late seventies. He then began to enforce Shari`ah laws in Pakistan.

Islam is declared to be incompatible with secularism because in a secular state there is no place for divine laws, and secular laws are unacceptable to Islam. Also it is believed that in Islam religion and politics cannot be separated. On these grounds secularism is totally rejected by orthodox Muslims. They also think that secularism is atheistic, and atheism has no place whatsoever in Islam. Islam strongly emphasises faith in Allah. These are some of the grounds which make orthodox Muslims uneasy with the very word secularism. Islam emphasises life hereafter and secularism means only those matters which pertain to this world. There is no place for the world hereafter as far as secular philosophy is concerned.

We would examine here whether these assertions are true and whether Islam is really incompatible with secularism. Firstly, we should make a distinction between what is theological and what is historical. The concept that religion and politics cannot be separated is more historical than theological. In fact the Holy Qur'an, as we have pointed out elsewhere too, does not give any concept of the State; it only gives the concept of the society. The Qur'an is concerned with morality rather than polity. An upright conduct, justice, truth, benevolence, compassion and human dignity are very basic to the Holy Scripture. It repeatedly asserts these values. Thus it clearly means that these values are very fundamental to an Islamic society rather than to a State.

The view that religion cannot be separated from politics in Islam is due this primary concern with these Islamic values. It was thought by early Islamic `Ulama and jurists that if religion was separated from politics, the rulers would totally neglect these fundamental Islamic values and would behave in a manner which would only satisfy their greed for power. In fact in those days there was no concept of secularism as a philosophy of humanism. The `Ulama were afraid that if religion and politics were separated there would be absolutely no check on the conduct of the rulers. In fact, one does not find clear articulation to this effect (that religion cannot be separated from politics in Islam) in any early Islamic source. This formulation itself is of nineteenth century origin when colonial powers began to impose secular laws in Islamic countries i.e. the laws which were not basically derived from Shari`ah.

In the early Islamic period there were no other laws than the Shari`ah laws. And since there was no such concept of the State in Qur'an, the Islamic State itself is a historical construct. The structure of Islamic State evolved over a period of time. The Qur'an and Hadith were the primary sources for the new State. It is important to note that before Islam there was no State in Mecca or Medina. There was only a senate of tribal chiefs who took collective decisions and it was tribal chiefs who enforced those decisions in their respective tribal jurisdiction. There were obviously no written laws but only tribal customs and traditions. Any decision had to be taken within the framework of these customs. There was no other source of law.

However after Islam appeared on the social horizon of Mecca, the scenario began to change. In Medina the Prophet (PBUH) laid the framework of governance through what is known as Mithaq-e-Madina (Covenant of Medina). This Covenant also basically respects tribal customs to which adherents of Judaism, Islam and pre-Islamic idol worshippers belonged. Each tribe, along with the religious tradition it belonged to, was treated as an autonomous unit in the Covenant, which has been described in full details by Ibn Ishaque, the first biographer of the Holy Prophet. Thus the Covenant of Medina respected both the tribal as well as religious autonomy of the inhabitants of the town. It can also be said to be the first constitution of the state in making. The Covenant laid down certain principles which are valid even today in a secular state. When the covenant was drawn up by the Prophet of Islam, Shari`ah as a body of law had not evolved. In this important Medinan document what is most important is that the Prophet (PBUH) did not compel the different tribes of Jews and idol worshippers to follow the Islamic law.

A state structure began to evolve only after the death of the Holy Prophet when vast areas of other territories were conquered and new problems began to arise. During the Prophet's time the governance was limited to almost a city. He did not live long after the conquest of Mecca. But after his death the jurisdiction of the state expanded much beyond the frontiers of Arabia. During the Prophet's time people were more concerned with day today problems of marriage, divorce, inheritance etc. on one hand, and those of problems like theft, robbery, murder and some similar problems for which the Qur'an and the Prophet were inerrant source of guidance. The people asked the Prophet for guidance and followed his pronouncements or the Qur'anic injunctions voluntarily. There was no state machinery to enforce it. There was neither any police force nor any regular military.

There was no separate judiciary either. As far as the Prophet was concerned he was legislator, an enforcer of laws (executive) and also a judge (representing judiciary). He combined all three functions.
Thus it will be seen that there was no regular state structure during the Prophet's own time as he was a unique personality who could combine all these functions for judicious governance, in addition to being a source of law. However, the death of the Prophet (PBUH) created a vacuum and no other person could fill it. Also, as pointed out above, the conquest of other territories created more complex problems. Now there was need for enforcement of laws as people in far off places with no commitment to

Islam would not follow the laws voluntarily as they did in Medina in the Prophet's time. Thus a police force was needed to enforce the laws. Also, during the Prophet's time people volunteered for fighting against enemies of Islam and there was no need for a paid regular army. Now after his death need was felt for paid regular army. The border areas had to be guarded constantly. There were no such borders before.

The corpus of Shari`ah was being evolved and for new situations guidance could no more be had from the Prophet. One either had to look for verses in the Qur'an or in Hadith which Prophet's companions remembered or one had to resort to analogy keeping analogous situations in mind. That was how the corpus of the Shari`ah law evolved slowly. The primitive Islamic state was democratic in spirit and the Caliphs often consulted their colleagues and companions of the Prophet while making any decision so as to conform to the Qur'anic values. Thus Qur'an and Hadith then were the main sources of law.

But in secular matters like building up institutions like army or police or bureaucracy, they did not hesitate to borrow concepts from other sources like Roman or Persian. Thus Hazrat Umar borrowed the concept of Diwan (i.e. maintaining records of salaries to a paid army and bureaucracy). Similarly the Caliphs were called upon to legislate on matters like land ownership, suspension of certain punishments during times of emergency like famine etc.

The conquests, internal strife among the Muslims, struggle for power among different tribes, groups and personalities and many other factors created strong pressures so much so that the institution of Caliphate itself did not survive. It was ultimately replaced by monarchy and dynastic rule. This was totally against the spirit of the Qur'an. These changes became inevitable under the fast developing situation. The Islamic jurists had to come to terms with these new developments and to legitimise them somehow. Once the institution of Caliphate was replaced by dynastic rule, it could never be restored throughout Islamic history. The monarchy and dynastic rule persisted until the Western colonial rule took over.

It was under colonial rule that Muslims began to discover the virtues of democracy and saw in the Caliphate a 'golden period of Islamic democracy.' It is true that during the dynastic rule Shari`ah law could not be ignored and the rulers had to keep the `Ulama in good humour. However, they often found ways to go around and violate the spirit of the Shari`ah law. But they never ceased to pay obeisance to it. But the situation changed drastically with the onset of colonial rule during the nineteenth century in the Islamic world. Many laws were enforced by the colonial rulers which were secular in origin. The Western countries themselves were once governed by the Church and it was the Church law which was supreme.

But the reformation changed all that and the struggle against the Church gave rise to the concept of secularism. Thus there was intense fight between the Church and the ruling princes who desired independence from the hegemony of the Church. The emerging bourgeois class too wanted to be free of the sacred rule and saw immense benefits in secularisation of politics and society. Thus it took more than three centuries in the West for secularisation of society and marginalisation of religion and religious institution. When the colonial rule was established in Asian and African countries many of which happened to be Islamic countries, the process of secularisation had traversed a great distance in the metropolitan countries.

Thus the colonial countries posed a great challenge to Islam in the colonised countries through their technological supremacy. The religious leaders and intellectuals in these countries found refuge in the 'glory of the past' and some were overwhelmed by the supremacy of the West and began to advocate secular modernisation. Many reform movements thus were born in Islamic countries. Jamaluddin Afghani and Muhammad Abduh of Egypt were among them. Some others, however, totally rejected secularism of the West and launched intense efforts to revive the past. Revivalist and reformist movements jostled with each other for social and political space. Among those who faced the Western challenge there were those who rejected religion altogether and adopted secular humanism of the West. However, they remained in small minority.

Islamic societies, however, found it more challenging to adopt change and adjust to it smoothly. Many sociologists ascribe this resistance to change inherent to the teachings of Islam. This, however, is not true. No religion including Islam is prone or opposed to change. The causes of resistance to change lie in the society, not in religion. In fact most of the Muslim societies were led by feudal lords and failed to produce modern bourgeois class. In these societies there was no well-entrenched mercantile or industrial class. It is as much truer of Indian Muslims as of other Muslim countries.

The Hindus, on the other hand, had centuries old merchant class, which smoothly adjusted itself to modern industrial capitalism. Thus those who took to modern industrial capitalism felt need for secularisation and social change. The pressures for change were result of the changing ground reality for them.

The Muslims, on the other hand, felt no such need for change, as there was no well-entrenched mercantile class to feel the need for effecting smooth change over to modernity. Also, in most of the Muslim countries, including India, Islam was embraced by weaker and poorer sections of society, for it appealed to those sections due to its emphasis on equality and justice. Those sections had no felt need for modernisation and they remained under the tight grip of traditional `Ulama who were anyway opposed to the process of secularisation.

Also, unlike other religions, Muslims had well-developed Shari`ah law which was unanimously accepted as divine in origin. Most of the religious leaders thus rejected the very concept of secular law as unacceptable. The `Ulama, as pointed out above, had strong grip over the hearts and minds of the poor and illiterate masses and used the social base to oppose any change. The feudal lords, too, had not much use for secularism and readily struck an alliance with the `Ulama giving them full support. Thus the `Ulama strongly resisted any change in the Shari`ah laws. Not only that, they would not even admit of any reform. Those like Muhammad Abduh and others who advocated ijtihad (creative interpretation of Shari`ah laws in view of modernisation and change) were marginalised. Those important socio-economic factors cannot be ignored while discussing Islam and secularism.

Before we proceed further I would like to throw some light on some inherent limitations of secularism also. In nineteenth century rationalism became a dogma. The rationalists and secularists almost began to worship reason and dismissed religion with contempt. In fact the rationalists have been as contemptuous of religion as the faithfuls have been of secularism. Both have refused to admit limitations of their respective positions. One can say that as there are religious fundamentalists there are rational or secular fundamentalists also. These secular fundamentalists have no respect for believers whom they consider as nothing less than 'superstitious'. Even certain cultural practices are considered as such. Some of them even refuse to admit the emotional richness of life.

There has to be a balance between reason and faith. Faith is as important to human existence as reason is. Reason, in fact, is a tool humans use to achieve their goal. Reason can never become absolute though its usefulness as a tool cannot be minimised. Faith, on the other hand, is not tool but belief in higher values. These values are fundamental to a meaningful life on this earth. Reason at best ensures 'successful' life but not meaningful one. It is faith in values like compassion, justice, equality, non-violence etc. which make human life meaningful. Thus a creative synthesis between reason and faith is absolutely necessary for successful and meaningful life on this earth. Sacral and secular should not be treated as two poles or antagonistic contradiction. They are rather complimentary to each other.

The faithfuls should also bear in mind that faith should not mean blind imitation of the past traditions. Faith has to be in values, not in past traditions. As absolute secularism could lead to a life devoid of meaning and responsibility towards fellow human beings absolute faith also could lead to blind surrender to an authority which leads to highly exploitative practices. One has to guard against such possibility by employing ones rational faculty. In other words while reason would not become arrogant, faith should not become blind.

If understood in this sense one will not find any contradiction between reason and faith and between religion and secularism. Islam is also compatible with secularism, seen from this perspective. If secularism is interpreted as an atheistic philosophy, no believer in religion would accept it, let alone a believer in Islam. Islam, as pointed out above, lays strong emphasis on belief in God and unity of God. Muslims believe in divine revelation of Qur'an and in Muhammad being Messenger of Allah. One need not challenge these beliefs in the name of secularism. Secularism should be taken in political rather than philosophical sense. Secularism in political sense creates social and political space for all religious communities.

The nineteenth century rationalism and modernism is itself under challenge today. Our period is characterised as post-modernist period in which religious pluralism rather than rejection of religion is accepted. Post-modernism recognises limitations of reason and accepts validity of religious ethos. We are now in a world which is far removed from struggle between the Church and lay people. Church has also accepted the inevitability of secularisation of society. It no longer enjoys the hegemonic position it enjoyed before reformation. It has also apologised for persecution of scientists for discovering new scientific truths. It has also accepted the concepts of democracy and human rights. There is, thus, no serious contradiction between Church and secularism.

Islam, it must be noted, has no concept of organised church. No single religious authority is considered absolute. There has been, on the other hand, the concept of consensus (ijma`) among the `Ulama (the learned men of Islam) which is quite democratic. In fact consensus has been considered as one of the sources of Islamic law in the Sunni Islam. Also, there is concept of ijtihad which infuses the spirit of dynamism and movement, though, of late, the 'Ulama have refrained from using it for change. However, pressures are building up in Islamic societies for using the concept of ijtihad. All Islamic societies are in throes of change and modernisation. Islamic laws are no more a stagnant pool of old traditions. Changes are being effected.

As there is no organised church in Islam the 'Ulama are divided on the issues of modernisation and change. In Iran too intense struggle is on between the conservatives and the reformists. In Saudi Arabia too the process of change is for anyone to see though the monarchy is quite cautious and wants to carry the orthodox `Ulama along. But social pressures are building up in the Saudi society in favour of change and modernisation. Even in Afghanistan the Taliban rule is more coercive than consensual. The Taliban enjoy political and not social hegemony.

Islam admits of freedom of conscience and democratic rights and there are no two opinions about it. Islam also officially accepts religious pluralism in as much as it is Qur'anic doctrine to hold other prophets in equal esteem. The Holy Prophet provided equal social and religious space to all religions present in Medina, as pointed out above, through the Covenant of Medina. The leaders of Jami`at al-`Ulama in India rejected the concept of two nations and supported the composite nationalism on the basis of this Covenant. Religious pluralism and composite nationalism, which is the very spirit of secularism today in India, is not incompatible to Islam at all. All Islamic leaders of India have accepted Indian secularism. Even the Jama`at-e-Islami-e-Hind has not only accepted Indian democracy and secularism but has set up a democratic and secular front.

The other characteristic of secular democracy is a respect for human dignity and human rights. The Qur'an expressly upholds both. It is true some rulers in the Islamic world reject the concept of human rights as Western in origin and not fit for their society. But it is to preserve their own absolute and unchallenged rule rather than upholding Islamic doctrinal position. It is cultural and political rather than religious problem. There are different political systems in different Islamic countries from monarchy to military dictatorship to limited democracy to democracy. But it will be naïve to blame Islam for this. One has to look into the political history of the country rather than search for its causes in to Islamic doctrines. Islamic doctrines do not nurture any concept of absolutism as perhaps no other religion does. In fact the Qur'an's emphasis is on consultation (shura), and even the Prophet used to consult his companions in secular matters.

It will thus be seen that Islam is not incompatible to secularism if it does not mean rejection of religious faith. Throughout the world today there is increasing emphasis on harmonious coexistence of different religious faiths and Islam had inculcated this spirit from the very beginning of revelation of the Qur'an. The doctrine that religion and politics cannot be separated in Islam is a later historical construct rather than the Qur'anic doctrine. It is human construct rather than a divine revelation. One of the important aspects of modern secularism is of course separation of religion from the state. While the state should not interfere in religious autonomy, religious authorities should not poke their nose in affairs of the state. The Indian `Ulama had accepted this position with good conscience throughout freedom struggle and it was on this basis that they became allies of the Indian National Congress.

In Muslim majority countries there is problem of autonomy of state. Again, one should not look for causes into religious teachings but in the socio-political history of those countries. These countries have hardly emerged from their feudal past. There is no history in these countries of democratic struggles of the people. Also, most of these countries have very small religious minorities and these minorities too have historically accepted religious hegemony of Islam. It will take quite sometime for this position to change as feudal past has strong presence in these countries. But there is strong pressures building up and human rights movements are emerging in all these countries.

Globalisation may not be desirable for many other reasons but it is creating conditions for close interaction among various cultures and political systems. Information revolution also is a tide which cannot be stopped and this revolution is creating deep impact on every aspect of life. Muslim countries cannot remain aloof from this and has to open themselves to new ideas and forces.
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~rtavak...er/secular.htm (http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/%7Ertavakol/engineer/secular.htm)

BarakzaiAbdali
08-25-2013, 05:41 PM
ISLAM AND SECULARISM Asghar Ali Engineer

(Secular Perspective October-1-15, 2000)
Is Islam compatible with secularism? This question is quite important in the present context, particularly in 21st century. Both non-Muslims and orthodox Muslims feel that Islam is not compatible with secularism.

Not necessarily - it depends on what one means by secularism. Some of these terms as defined by Americans and others and as defined by a large portion of the Muslim body politic blurs the lines. For example, there are instances where certain practices labeled secular are approaches that the Prophet would have taken (e.g. having a good time with his companions who asked him to preach and he said he did not want to make the religion overbearing)...

but there are instances where the Quran gives a direct command and militant secularists as opposed to Americans and others seek to subvert that command on purpose - in those instances it may be hard to reconcile militant secularism with Islam

Fundamentalist Muslims totally reject secularism as anti-Islamic and haram. Maulana Maududi, founder of Jamat-e-Islami-e-Hind had said, while leaving for Pakistan in 1948, that those who participated in secular politics were raising flag of revolt against Allah and His Messenger. The Saudi `Ulama, too, denounce secularism as strictly prohibited in Islamic tradition.

I need to read what they wrote since as far as I knew Maududi allowed various factions to participate in democracy in Pakistan - nor do I think we should just accept such reports without reading the language of what is condemned. For instance, if Islam has banned the production and sale of Alcohol etc and militant secularists want to get drunk and sell it - just as Americans ban, burn, and illegalize marijuana - Muslims too have the right and even have a divine injunction to act accordingly.

The fundamentalist Hindus, on the other hand, say that Muslims support secularism while in minority in any country and oppose it while in majority.

Not true. I am in the minority but don't advocate it. He needs to reference this commentary.

But this is not wholly true. Some Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and others do reject secularism but all Muslim majority countries do not.

I think one of the few points militant secularists and religionists agree is that Saudi is a hypocritical government. No need to even debate this.

For example, Indonesia does not reject secularism though its 85% population comprises of Muslims. However, by and large, it is true that many Muslim majority countries opt for Islamic state or at least make Islam as state religion.

It is important to note that there is some difference between an Islamic state and Islam being a state religion. In Islamic state all laws must strictly conform to Islamic Shari`ah but if a country declares 'Islam as its religion', it means that Islam is preferred to all other religions and it enjoys itself more privilege than other religions in the country. In 1948 Islam was declared as state religion in Pakistan, but Pakistan did not become an Islamic state until Zia-ul-Haq declared it to be an Islamic state in late seventies. He then began to enforce Shari`ah laws in Pakistan.

That's a fair commentary - it is the issue with places like Pakistan. They live in this nonsensical borderzone of trying to satisfy everyone to sustain feudalism because actual Islam would erect a meritocracy.

Islam is declared to be incompatible with secularism because in a secular state there is no place for divine laws, and secular laws are unacceptable to Islam. Also it is believed that in Islam religion and politics cannot be separated. On these grounds secularism is totally rejected by orthodox Muslims. They also think that secularism is atheistic, and atheism has no place whatsoever in Islam. Islam strongly emphasises faith in Allah. These are some of the grounds which make orthodox Muslims uneasy with the very word secularism. Islam emphasises life hereafter and secularism means only those matters which pertain to this world. There is no place for the world hereafter as far as secular philosophy is concerned.

This is a false dichotomy Muslims are being squeezed into by militant secularists and stated sponsored religious nutcases. I think the real demarcation is provided by the Prophet himself who made it clear that wisdom and religion go hand in hand in the hadith in which a dying person freshened a wound doing wudhu because he was chasing literalism and the Prophet chided the companions for not using their common sense.

We would examine here whether these assertions are true and whether Islam is really incompatible with secularism. Firstly, we should make a distinction between what is theological and what is historical. The concept that religion and politics cannot be separated is more historical than theological. In fact the Holy Qur'an, as we have pointed out elsewhere too, does not give any concept of the State; it only gives the concept of the society.

Incorrect, it vested power in the Prophet as head of state and itself served as a constitution for his rule and a set of commandments on which he acted.

The Qur'an is concerned with morality rather than polity.

Nonsubstantiated statement. There are direct commands in business and law making this a nonsensical argument.

An upright conduct, justice, truth, benevolence, compassion and human dignity are very basic to the Holy Scripture. It repeatedly asserts these values. Thus it clearly means that these values are very fundamental to an Islamic society rather than to a State.

A state that runs up against the very laws that establishes such a society is what militant secularists want to establish though - basically making this a moot point.

The view that religion cannot be separated from politics in Islam is due this primary concern with these Islamic values. It was thought by early Islamic `Ulama and jurists that if religion was separated from politics, the rulers would totally neglect these fundamental Islamic values and would behave in a manner which would only satisfy their greed for power. In fact in those days there was no concept of secularism as a philosophy of humanism. The `Ulama were afraid that if religion and politics were separated there would be absolutely no check on the conduct of the rulers. In fact, one does not find clear articulation to this effect (that religion cannot be separated from politics in Islam) in any early Islamic source. This formulation itself is of nineteenth century origin when colonial powers began to impose secular laws in Islamic countries i.e. the laws which were not basically derived from Shari`ah.

This is a part of the essential problem. He is honest enough to admit these laws were enforced by colonial powers. He at least differentiates what might be viewed as native and not addressed by the religion and what was external. That is the crux - Pashtun militant secularists seek to do further damage and enforce such ideologies at the gun point of other super powers.

In the early Islamic period there were no other laws than the Shari`ah laws. And since there was no such concept of the State in Qur'an, the Islamic State itself is a historical construct.

Good admission and honest truth.

The structure of Islamic State evolved over a period of time.

As expected. The prophet himself conceded that there would be a time where he would leave this world and that what he left behind would serve as the rubric for future Muslims. Evolution of thought is not a bad thing, but subversion of thought as militant secularists want to do - so that they can fornicate, indebt others in perpetual interest, and drink themselves with alcohol into liver cirrhosis are not evolution but subversion.

The Qur'an and Hadith were the primary sources for the new State. It is important to note that before Islam there was no State in Mecca or Medina. There was only a senate of tribal chiefs who took collective decisions and it was tribal chiefs who enforced those decisions in their respective tribal jurisdiction. There were obviously no written laws but only tribal customs and traditions. Any decision had to be taken within the framework of these customs. There was no other source of law.

However after Islam appeared on the social horizon of Mecca, the scenario began to change. In Medina the Prophet (PBUH) laid the framework of governance through what is known as Mithaq-e-Madina (Covenant of Medina). This Covenant also basically respects tribal customs to which adherents of Judaism, Islam and pre-Islamic idol worshippers belonged. Each tribe, along with the religious tradition it belonged to, was treated as an autonomous unit in the Covenant, which has been described in full details by Ibn Ishaque, the first biographer of the Holy Prophet. Thus the Covenant of Medina respected both the tribal as well as religious autonomy of the inhabitants of the town. It can also be said to be the first constitution of the state in making. The Covenant laid down certain principles which are valid even today in a secular state. When the covenant was drawn up by the Prophet of Islam, Shari`ah as a body of law had not evolved. In this important Medinan document what is most important is that the Prophet (PBUH) did not compel the different tribes of Jews and idol worshippers to follow the Islamic law.

Classic militant secularist subversive propaganda. When we actually see the text of the constitution we see what it says:

http://www.constitution.org/cons/medina/macharter.htm (http://www.constitution.org/cons/medina/macharter.htm)

13th amendment: No believer will help an unbeliever against a believer.

and of course article 52:
Article 52 Authority of Allah and the prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon them) shall be final and absolute authority in all disputes instigating any quarrel. And verily if any dispute arises among the parties to this document from which any quarrel may be feared, it shall be referred to God and to Muhammad (Peace be upon them), the Messenger of God , for the final and absolute decision. Verily, God is the Guarantee for the faithful observance of the contents of this constitution (which shall be enforced by the state).


http://www.constitutionofmadina.com/blog/2012/02/22/constitution-of-medina-in-63-articles/ (http://www.constitutionofmadina.com/blog/2012/02/22/constitution-of-medina-in-63-articles/)

Basically this guy thought he could make things up and that we would not read on our own. For shame.

A state structure began to evolve only after the death of the Holy Prophet when vast areas of other territories were conquered and new problems began to arise. During the Prophet's time the governance was limited to almost a city. He did not live long after the conquest of Mecca. But after his death the jurisdiction of the state expanded much beyond the frontiers of Arabia.

Irrelevent - he had already written his letters to the leaders of the world and had broadened the viewpoint of his community to understand that they were to one day lead the world into a new era.

During the Prophet's time people were more concerned with day today problems of marriage, divorce, inheritance etc. on one hand, and those of problems like theft, robbery, murder and some similar problems for which the Qur'an and the Prophet were inerrant source of guidance. The people asked the Prophet for guidance and followed his pronouncements or the Qur'anic injunctions voluntarily. There was no state machinery to enforce it. There was neither any police force nor any regular military.

There was no separate judiciary either. As far as the Prophet was concerned he was legislator, an enforcer of laws (executive) and also a judge (representing judiciary). He combined all three functions.
Thus it will be seen that there was no regular state structure during the Prophet's own time as he was a unique personality who could combine all these functions for judicious governance, in addition to being a source of law.

Incorrect since he gave duties to various companions and highlighted their skillsets. For instance, ibn abbas was as the constitutional scholar of his age in being able to understand the interpretation of the Quran (the constitution if Islam, Ali was a great judge and fair, the 4 great Qaris (muadh bin Jabal, Abdullah ibn Masud, Ubay ibn Kaab, Abu Musa) were highlighted by the Prophet, Zaid ibn Thabit was a record keeper for the state. The Prophet was grooming these people for the very roles that they would take on in due time.

However, the death of the Prophet (PBUH) created a vacuum and no other person could fill it. Also, as pointed out above, the conquest of other territories created more complex problems. Now there was need for enforcement of laws as people in far off places with no commitment to

Islam would not follow the laws voluntarily as they did in Medina in the Prophet's time. Thus a police force was needed to enforce the laws. Also, during the Prophet's time people volunteered for fighting against enemies of Islam and there was no need for a paid regular army. Now after his death need was felt for paid regular army. The border areas had to be guarded constantly. There were no such borders before.

The corpus of Shari`ah was being evolved and for new situations guidance could no more be had from the Prophet. One either had to look for verses in the Qur'an or in Hadith which Prophet's companions remembered or one had to resort to analogy keeping analogous situations in mind. That was how the corpus of the Shari`ah law evolved slowly. The primitive Islamic state was democratic in spirit and the Caliphs often consulted their colleagues and companions of the Prophet while making any decision so as to conform to the Qur'anic values. Thus Qur'an and Hadith then were the main sources of law.

Good admission. He at least is being honest unlike militant secularist terrorists and propagandists.

But in secular matters like building up institutions like army or police or bureaucracy, they did not hesitate to borrow concepts from other sources like Roman or Persian. Thus Hazrat Umar borrowed the concept of Diwan (i.e. maintaining records of salaries to a paid army and bureaucracy). Similarly the Caliphs were called upon to legislate on matters like land ownership, suspension of certain punishments during times of emergency like famine etc.

Excellent example, but the key here is that Umar based all his decisions on the Prophet's own example and he did not SUBVERT or CONTROVERT the societal laws and other prescriptions that Islam laid down.

I will reiterate, Umar did not form a diwan to allow the sahabah to perpetually indebt others in interest, drink alcohol all the time, and fornicate like animals like the secularist nationalist militants want to do.

Or for instance, Abdullah ibn Masud is narrated to have heard a drunk mangling the Quran and then executed Islamic law on him in the time of the caliphate- proving the key Quranic prescriptions were never to be let go.

The conquests, internal strife among the Muslims, struggle for power among different tribes, groups and personalities and many other factors created strong pressures so much so that the institution of Caliphate itself did not survive. It was ultimately replaced by monarchy and dynastic rule. This was totally against the spirit of the Qur'an.

Agree

These changes became inevitable under the fast developing situation. The Islamic jurists had to come to terms with these new developments and to legitimise them somehow. Once the institution of Caliphate was replaced by dynastic rule, it could never be restored throughout Islamic history. The monarchy and dynastic rule persisted until the Western colonial rule took over.

Agree with period of potential light like ibn Abdul Aziz etc.

It was under colonial rule that Muslims began to discover the virtues of democracy and saw in the Caliphate a 'golden period of Islamic democracy.'

This is incorrect since most colonized placed did not have their own parliament and could not elect into the parliament. This for instance was the very reason why Americans fought a civil war. This did not lead Americans to create a monarchy and a parliament - their derivation was all their own with some influence form Britainia.

The concept of meritocracy, something that many democracies are now lamentingly devoid of is not inimical to Islam and never has been. Rather, one might say that Muslims recognized merit based leaders amongst other peoples that ended up benefiting them to be similar to the majlis approach of the early merit based leaders (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali).

It is true that during the dynastic rule Shari`ah law could not be ignored and the rulers had to keep the `Ulama in good humour. However, they often found ways to go around and violate the spirit of the Shari`ah law.

There is some mixing up here of indigenous ideologies and Islam versus colonial mores. The fact of the matter is that ethically, if a people want their mix of what they see as native and Islam based values versus imposed secular militant ideas echoing Caucasian western mores - then the ethical quandary is not so much whether Islam was subverted by monarchs but rather whether indigenous people have the right to autonomy versus imposed colonial mores.

But they never ceased to pay obeisance to it. But the situation changed drastically with the onset of colonial rule during the nineteenth century in the Islamic world. Many laws were enforced by the colonial rulers which were secular in origin. The Western countries themselves were once governed by the Church and it was the Church law which was supreme.

But the reformation changed all that and the struggle against the Church gave rise to the concept of secularism. Thus there was intense fight between the Church and the ruling princes who desired independence from the hegemony of the Church. The emerging bourgeois class too wanted to be free of the sacred rule and saw immense benefits in secularisation of politics and society. Thus it took more than three centuries in the West for secularisation of society and marginalisation of religion and religious institution. When the colonial rule was established in Asian and African countries many of which happened to be Islamic countries, the process of secularisation had traversed a great distance in the metropolitan countries.

He is honest in that he demonstrates why militant secularism is a terroristic inhumane approach. They want to force feed a three hundred year gradual process to defeated indigenous people in the matter of 25 years. To do this they kill their enemies.

Thus the colonial countries posed a great challenge to Islam in the colonised countries through their technological supremacy. The religious leaders and intellectuals in these countries found refuge in the 'glory of the past' and some were overwhelmed by the supremacy of the West and began to advocate secular modernisation. Many reform movements thus were born in Islamic countries. Jamaluddin Afghani and Muhammad Abduh of Egypt were among them. Some others, however, totally rejected secularism of the West and launched intense efforts to revive the past. Revivalist and reformist movements jostled with each other for social and political space. Among those who faced the Western challenge there were those who rejected religion altogether and adopted secular humanism of the West. However, they remained in small minority.

Over complicating view of the world dynamic. Most surveys make it more simple, such as the pew data and the Maryland data - Muslims appreciate education and advancements but also find Islam to be the nurturing bedrock of their society. Plain and simple. An espresso machine in a Muslim household is not going to cause too much consternation in 99.5% of cases. He created a false dichotomy.

Islamic societies, however, found it more challenging to adopt change and adjust to it smoothly.

Because militant secularists enjoined it at the barrel end of a gun.

Many sociologists ascribe this resistance to change inherent to the teachings of Islam. This, however, is not true. No religion including Islam is prone or opposed to change. The causes of resistance to change lie in the society, not in religion. In fact most of the Muslim societies were led by feudal lords and failed to produce modern bourgeois class. In these societies there was no well-entrenched mercantile or industrial class. It is as much truer of Indian Muslims as of other Muslim countries.

The Hindus, on the other hand, had centuries old merchant class, which smoothly adjusted itself to modern industrial capitalism. Thus those who took to modern industrial capitalism felt need for secularisation and social change. The pressures for change were result of the changing ground reality for them.

There are clear evidences in British strategy documents of the era and overt acts (e.g backing the Sikhs, Parsis, certain mercantile Hindus, ripping the gates of Somnath off Ghaznavi's tomb during the Brit invasion of Afghanistan) that show this is a historically inaccurate statement. Rather, just as the Americans empowered the Shiites and Maliki in Iraq, so too did the Brits nudge these folks along the way and subvert Muslims who were a greater threat to their intrigues.

The Muslims, on the other hand, felt no such need for change, as there was no well-entrenched mercantile class to feel the need for effecting smooth change over to modernity. Also, in most of the Muslim countries, including India, Islam was embraced by weaker and poorer sections of society, for it appealed to those sections due to its emphasis on equality and justice. Those sections had no felt need for modernisation and they remained under the tight grip of traditional `Ulama who were anyway opposed to the process of secularisation.

Also, unlike other religions, Muslims had well-developed Shari`ah law which was unanimously accepted as divine in origin. Most of the religious leaders thus rejected the very concept of secular law as unacceptable. The `Ulama, as pointed out above, had strong grip over the hearts and minds of the poor and illiterate masses and used the social base to oppose any change. The feudal lords, too, had not much use for secularism and readily struck an alliance with the `Ulama giving them full support.

In certain cases they did this just as in modern cases they find their lot with PPP and other secularist manifestations.

Besides, this phenomena occurred from Anatolia under Ataturk all the way to Afghanistan and beyond - meaning that the people themselves (the rural mass) found an imposed and alien concept contrary to their tastes and social ideologies.

Thus the `Ulama strongly resisted any change in the Shari`ah laws. Not only that, they would not even admit of any reform. Those like Muhammad Abduh and others who advocated ijtihad (creative interpretation of Shari`ah laws in view of modernisation and change) were marginalised. Those important socio-economic factors cannot be ignored while discussing Islam and secularism.

Rather, Islam in the true essence - i.e a meritocracy - was subverted by the feudals. This is the true nature of what happened. Its very similar to how republicans may capitalize on religion and subvert the true teachings of Christianity. That is not Christianity's fault though nor should we judge Christian law and Torah law by Lindsay Graham and other subversive figures.

Before we proceed further I would like to throw some light on some inherent limitations of secularism also. In nineteenth century rationalism became a dogma. The rationalists and secularists almost began to worship reason and dismissed religion with contempt.

This is how militant secularists act. I am pleased to see his honesty on this.

In fact the rationalists have been as contemptuous of religion as the faithfuls have been of secularism. Both have refused to admit limitations of their respective positions.

Read this part again and again and memorize it Badlun Saheb.

One can say that as there are religious fundamentalists there are rational or secular fundamentalists also. These secular fundamentalists have no respect for believers whom they consider as nothing less than 'superstitious'. Even certain cultural practices are considered as such. Some of them even refuse to admit the emotional richness of life.

memorize and act on this too Badlun Saheb, he is talking about militant fundamentalist secularists like Najibullah and his acolytes like you who need guidance.


There has to be a balance between reason and faith. Faith is as important to human existence as reason is. Reason, in fact, is a tool humans use to achieve their goal. Reason can never become absolute though its usefulness as a tool cannot be minimised. Faith, on the other hand, is not tool but belief in higher values. These values are fundamental to a meaningful life on this earth. Reason at best ensures 'successful' life but not meaningful one. It is faith in values like compassion, justice, equality, non-violence etc. which make human life meaningful. Thus a creative synthesis between reason and faith is absolutely necessary for successful and meaningful life on this earth. Sacral and secular should not be treated as two poles or antagonistic contradiction. They are rather complimentary to each other.

The faithfuls should also bear in mind that faith should not mean blind imitation of the past traditions. Faith has to be in values, not in past traditions. As absolute secularism could lead to a life devoid of meaning and responsibility towards fellow human beings absolute faith also could lead to blind surrender to an authority which leads to highly exploitative practices. One has to guard against such possibility by employing ones rational faculty. In other words while reason would not become arrogant, faith should not become blind.

Fair comment

If understood in this sense one will not find any contradiction between reason and faith and between religion and secularism. Islam is also compatible with secularism, seen from this perspective. If secularism is interpreted as an atheistic philosophy, no believer in religion would accept it, let alone a believer in Islam.

Good. That is the why Muhammad Zeary Saleh and Najibullah failed in Afghanistan - they openly admitted Atheism. This the same as Soldat Amir and the other fools who think they know what is best and plan on enforcing it with violence against indigenous peoples.

Islam, as pointed out above, lays strong emphasis on belief in God and unity of God. Muslims believe in divine revelation of Qur'an and in Muhammad being Messenger of Allah. One need not challenge these beliefs in the name of secularism. Secularism should be taken in political rather than philosophical sense. Secularism in political sense creates social and political space for all religious communities.

The nineteenth century rationalism and modernism is itself under challenge today. Our period is characterised as post-modernist period in which religious pluralism rather than rejection of religion is accepted. Post-modernism recognises limitations of reason and accepts validity of religious ethos. We are now in a world which is far removed from struggle between the Church and lay people. Church has also accepted the inevitability of secularisation of society. It no longer enjoys the hegemonic position it enjoyed before reformation. It has also apologised for persecution of scientists for discovering new scientific truths. It has also accepted the concepts of democracy and human rights. There is, thus, no serious contradiction between Church and secularism.

Islam, it must be noted, has no concept of organised church. No single religious authority is considered absolute. There has been, on the other hand, the concept of consensus (ijma`) among the `Ulama (the learned men of Islam) which is quite democratic. In fact consensus has been considered as one of the sources of Islamic law in the Sunni Islam. Also, there is concept of ijtihad which infuses the spirit of dynamism and movement, though, of late, the 'Ulama have refrained from using it for change. However, pressures are building up in Islamic societies for using the concept of ijtihad. All Islamic societies are in throes of change and modernisation. Islamic laws are no more a stagnant pool of old traditions. Changes are being effected.

I do not disagree that Islam has the very tools that permit it to be appropriately dynamic. Once again though, this is dynamic as this author has defined it - not how secular Pashtun militants want to define it which is: they should be allowed to fornicate, drink alcohol, and commit treason with impugnity.

As there is no organised church in Islam the 'Ulama are divided on the issues of modernisation and change. In Iran too intense struggle is on between the conservatives and the reformists. In Saudi Arabia too the process of change is for anyone to see though the monarchy is quite cautious and wants to carry the orthodox `Ulama along. But social pressures are building up in the Saudi society in favour of change and modernisation. Even in Afghanistan the Taliban rule is more coercive than consensual. The Taliban enjoy political and not social hegemony.

His latter sentence is not historical based, but the general gist of what he is saying is probably true to an extent. Basically the Saudi Monarchy does want the blessings of the Ulema to do their idiothope and drinking and gambling, as well as bargaining away natural resources of the nation - but they know that they have to do this cautiously or risk reprisals.

Islam admits of freedom of conscience and democratic rights and there are no two opinions about it. Islam also officially accepts religious pluralism in as much as it is Qur'anic doctrine to hold other prophets in equal esteem. The Holy Prophet provided equal social and religious space to all religions present in Medina, as pointed out above, through the Covenant of Medina.

Once again, he has been selective and not quoted the key parts of the constitution that showed it to be more a document of common interests than a secular utopia.

The leaders of Jami`at al-`Ulama in India rejected the concept of two nations and supported the composite nationalism on the basis of this Covenant. Religious pluralism and composite nationalism, which is the very spirit of secularism today in India, is not incompatible to Islam at all. All Islamic leaders of India have accepted Indian secularism. Even the Jama`at-e-Islami-e-Hind has not only accepted Indian democracy and secularism but has set up a democratic and secular front.

No one said that Muslims should harass India over this. In fact many have said that the way India was opened to Islam through monarchial conquest and invasion was probably not conducive to Islam's taking good root there. To be honest about it, the same blowback the West receives currently, the Muslims cannot complain about that phenomena happening in India now that the Natives have the upper hand again. It was bound to happen - one cannot invade a place even if they are saint and expect indigenous groups to be happy about it.

The other characteristic of secular democracy is a respect for human dignity and human rights. The Qur'an expressly upholds both. It is true some rulers in the Islamic world reject the concept of human rights as Western in origin and not fit for their society. But it is to preserve their own absolute and unchallenged rule rather than upholding Islamic doctrinal position. It is cultural and political rather than religious problem. There are different political systems in different Islamic countries from monarchy to military dictatorship to limited democracy to democracy. But it will be naïve to blame Islam for this. One has to look into the political history of the country rather than search for its causes in to Islamic doctrines. Islamic doctrines do not nurture any concept of absolutism as perhaps no other religion does. In fact the Qur'an's emphasis is on consultation (shura), and even the Prophet used to consult his companions in secular matters.

It will thus be seen that Islam is not incompatible to secularism if it does not mean rejection of religious faith.

This is the issue, the militant secularist wants to implement a "mean rejection of the faith".

Throughout the world today there is increasing emphasis on harmonious coexistence of different religious faiths and Islam had inculcated this spirit from the very beginning of revelation of the Qur'an. The doctrine that religion and politics cannot be separated in Islam is a later historical construct rather than the Qur'anic doctrine.

it is as he notes, dependent on the politics themselves and how contrary they run to the dictums in the Quran and hadith themselves.

It is human construct rather than a divine revelation. One of the important aspects of modern secularism is of course separation of religion from the state. While the state should not interfere in religious autonomy, religious authorities should not poke their nose in affairs of the state. The Indian `Ulama had accepted this position with good conscience throughout freedom struggle and it was on this basis that they became allies of the Indian National Congress.

India's example means little to me for the very reasons listed above.

In Muslim majority countries there is problem of autonomy of state.

An example is Hafiz Assad's idiotic Syrian regime. How can one expect common sense development when the majority will is subverted. The same goes for Egypt and that piece of rectal filth, Al Sissi.

Again, one should not look for causes into religious teachings but in the socio-political history of those countries. These countries have hardly emerged from their feudal past. There is no history in these countries of democratic struggles of the people. Also, most of these countries have very small religious minorities and these minorities too have historically accepted religious hegemony of Islam. It will take quite sometime for this position to change as feudal past has strong presence in these countries. But there is strong pressures building up and human rights movements are emerging in all these countries.

Globalisation may not be desirable for many other reasons but it is creating conditions for close interaction among various cultures and political systems. Information revolution also is a tide which cannot be stopped and this revolution is creating deep impact on every aspect of life. Muslim countries cannot remain aloof from this and has to open themselves to new ideas and forces.
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~rtavak...er/secular.htm (http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/%7Ertavakol/engineer/secular.htm)
x

On the whole, not a bad article Badlun Saheb, some disagreements, but his tone is respectful. I think these sorts of articles are helping your rehabilitation over time towards moderate secularism as opposed to militant secularism.

Badlun
08-25-2013, 07:05 PM
x

On the whole, not a bad article Badlun Saheb, some disagreements, but his tone is respectful. I think these sorts of articles are helping your rehabilitation over time towards moderate secularism as opposed to militant secularism.
Thanks a lot for your valuable comments. I have read each and every word.

I will say once again that I am against any violence, against any extremism, against militancy in any form. I am not communist. I am not atheist. I am not militant secularist.

I am secular with democracy not with communism or authoritarianism or martial law or totalitarianism or fascism, or dictatorship or monarchy but secularism with moderation, democracy, human rights, development, liberalism, tolerance, spiritualism, morality, faith, religion, humanism, social justice. equality, egalitarianism, progress, prosperity, modern education, science and technology.

I am not for taliban and at the same time I hate secular Mubarak, Asad and others of this type. I am prejudiced in liking Najib because he was Pashtun . I denounce his acts as head of Khad but his role in the post communist Afghanistan is laudable. If you read his years before his death, he was a totally changed man.

BarakzaiAbdali
08-25-2013, 07:56 PM
Thanks a lot for your valuable comments. I have read each and every word.

I will say once again that I am against any violence, against any extremism, against militancy in any form. I am not communist. I am not atheist. I am not militant secularist.

I am secular with democracy not with communism or authoritarianism or martial law or totalitarianism or fascism, or dictatorship or monarchy but secularism with moderation, democracy, human rights, development, liberalism, tolerance, spiritualism, morality, faith, religion, humanism, social justice. equality, egalitarianism, progress, prosperity, modern education, science and technology.

I am not for taliban and at the same time I hate secular Mubarak, Asad and others of this type. I am prejudiced in liking Najib because he was Pashtun . I denounce his acts as head of Khad but his role in the post communist Afghanistan is laudable. If you read his years before his death, he was a totally changed man.

What are your thoughts on militant secularist and murderer Al Sisi?

Badlun
08-26-2013, 01:26 AM
What are your thoughts on militant secularist and murderer Al Sisi?

I do not know about the personality of Al Sisi but what I have read about him is that he is a nationalist, religious and I have never found him to be ideologically secular or atheist. What he is doing now is not because of his secular ideas but as his duty to restore peace , law and order in the country. He was minister with MB and may be he was one of them .

Since el-Sisi was appointed as Minister of Defense on 12 August 2012, there have been concerns in Egypt regarding rumors that General el-Sisi is the hand of the Muslim Brotherhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood) in the army,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Fatah_Khalil_Al-Sisi

He always talk of people not of secularism, or a stooge of USA or any thing against religion.


"But this is a military coup and America (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4401022,00.html) will be all over you," Morsi said, to which al-Sisi replied, "We care about the people, not about America."

H e also found MB to have loyalties beyond Egypt as MB has branches in other countries and Turkey sent them 20,000 pieces of arms.

Al-Sisi added, "I'll be honest with you – we have enough proof against you and many other government officials to convict you of compromising national defense."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4401502,00.html

The clash between him and MB is not on the basis of secularism or Islamism but MB failures, dictatorial style of government.

In his first comments to the public since the dispersals, General Sisi said on Sunday that the army's intervention was an obligation, not a choice, because the people's demands had gone unheeded by Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood-backed government. "I swear to God, we were told by an official that they came to rule for 500 years. But how could they?" he said.

When Sisi was named the new general commander of the army and chairman of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, some speculated a possible alliance may have formed between the military and the new Islamist leaders, to which the army had previously been hostile.

Known to be religious, Sisi was accused of being too close to the Muslim Brotherhood. But like many Egyptian army officers, Sisi was also a fervent admirer of Egypt's nationalist President Gamal Abdel Nasser.

Sisi has come under criticism for defending “virginity tests” applied to female protesters during the revolution, which he said were conducted to “protect girls from rape as well as the army from possible allegations”. However, he later pledged to ban virginity tests.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/07/201373112752442652.html

Morsi's political ineptitude and increasingly authoritarian ruling style are largely to blame for this outcome. For example, in November 2012 Morsi effectively declared his decrees immune from judicial review (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/26/mohamed-morsi-decree-sovereign-matters) after the judiciary thwarted his attempts at much needed political reform. While the judiciary was filled with appointees from the previous regime, this act was greeted with outrage in a country with a tradition of relative judicial independence.


Rather than using the bully pulpit to make his case, Morsi did little to win over the public, which feared this was a signal that the MB would circumvent the rule of law to achieve its goals. Had Mr. Morsi a sliver of political charisma, or surrounded himself with competent political advisors, he might have been able to confront the judiciary with more success. Instead he continued with astonishing blunders such as appointing to the governorship of Luxor a member of al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/06/2013622123139110265.html), the militant group responsible for massacring dozens of foreign tourists there in 1997.


There were two areas where Morsi and the MB seemed uniquely qualified to succeed but have failed: provision of social services and security sector reform.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/07/201373112752442652.html

Badlun
08-27-2013, 03:05 PM
Mixing politics and religion

One awaits the time when Narendra Modi will also join the march to reinforce the link between politics and religion — a dangerous mixture, which always results in destruction.
http://tribune.com.pk/story/595961/mixing-politics-and-religion/