Secularism and openness is the way to go for the Muslim World

[randolph85]

I think you need to read European history again, it was not easy, it was necessary, due to the sectarian violence between Protestants and Katholics, secularism was needed, secualrism for jews meant more religious freedom.

The sectarian violence in muslim world and abuse of religion for personal gains will also be the treagor to secularise.

of course it was easy for the euros, christians are not inclined to care about religion in public life as they think once they believe in christ they can do what they want. the protestants and catholic conflict was confined to a few places and was not a big issue in the whole of europe. as for the jews...who cares? they were so small in number that they didn't even figure into the equation.

christians are inclined towards atheism/secularism because they believe that they are already saved regardless of worldly conduct, despite their books saying otherwise.

[khushal]

Toramana, the trouble is that what you likely mean by "secularism", which is in reality the totality of an ensemble of social, economic and political institutions and behavioral patterns that would more aptly be called western civilization, is not the effect but rather the cause of that political state of affairs known as separation of state and church. The secular western states of today are the culminations of several centuries worth of historical development, going back all the way to that pivotal era known as the enlightenment (a wonderful partial account of this age which I recommend is volumes 5 and onward of Will Durant's "The Story of Civilization").

I am also of the opinion that the dogmatic religions furnish nothing desirable (especially of economic/political value) except perhaps as a force for social cohesion but unfortunately, there is no magic talisman that will change the states from the Islamic world into anything resembling England any time soon. But there does seem to exist a magic talisman for further radicalizing a population, that talisman is war, the magic is magnified especially in the case of a foreign occupation.

The Irony is that the seculars are the ones who call for occupation which is actually having the opposite effect of what they want. If one wants to secularize the Middle East, then one should work to promote non intervention. The only secular minded person that understands this is Malala Joya. The rest are clueless.

OBL seemed to understand this as well, he knew that occupation and war would radicalize the population which is what he wanted and what he got.

[Badlun]

The Irony is that the seculars are the ones who call for occupation which is actually having the opposite effect of what they want. If one wants to secularize the Middle East, then one should work to promote non intervention. The only secular minded person that understands this is Malala Joya. The rest are clueless.

OBL seemed to understand this as well, he knew that occupation and war would radicalize the population which is what he wanted and what he got.

Good and balanced approach but does intervention and occupation is the same thing?

Did USA really occupy Iraq and Afghanistan?

Were not the Arabs of Mecca and Madina not occupiers when they started their invasions and occupied the whole known world at that time and changed their language, religion and culture.

If you say that they had a mission , Islam, then democracy and secularism can also be a mission for others to invade, intervene or occupy.

[randolph85]

Good and balanced approach but does intervention and occupation is the same thing?

Did USA really occupy Iraq and Afghanistan?

Were not the Arabs of Mecca and Madina not occupiers when they started their invasions and occupied the whole known world at that time and changed their language, religion and culture.

If you say that they had a mission , Islam, then democracy and secularism can also be a mission for others to invade, intervene or occupy.

is arabic the national language of the muslim world?

have you known pashtuns to be ready to change their religion because of force?

and are there not distinct culture in the muslim world?

we have seen the muslim response towards secularism in the last 10 years, the arab muslims never had to deal with such people that opposed islam like the west have who oppose godlessness.

if it were by force then Allah u Akbar because the truth was spread, while secularism is the antithesis of Islam and can only be promoted by acting like the shaitan and reaching out to the lowest of people.

[khushal]

Good and balanced approach but does intervention and occupation is the same thing?

Did USA really occupy Iraq and Afghanistan?

Were not the Arabs of Mecca and Madina not occupiers when they started their invasions and occupied the whole known world at that time and changed their language, religion and culture.

If you say that they had a mission , Islam, then democracy and secularism can also be a mission for others to invade, intervene or occupy.

Everything you say lacks logic and knowledge of history. You only distort and shape history to promote your own views. I am only trying to help you see this with a rational approach.

The only thing that has happened post 911 is that the middle east that Osama envisioned is closer to what we see today than what you, Toramana or Khostia envisioned.

[Herat]

Incidentally, I have been reading a gem of social science work on this issue that I would like to share especially for the benefit of the more secular minded users here (Toramana, Badlun, Khostai etc): "Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide" by Norris and Inglehart.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sacred-Secul...ed+and+secular

This is the recommended literature by one of my contemporary scientific heroes, David Sloan Wilson, whose work on religion "Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society" is the most enlightening I have ever read in my entire life. Unfortunately, I cannot recommend this diamond to readers who are not familiar with a bit of evolutionary biology (it is a technical work).
Here is the last of the 6-part amusing article "(New) Atheism as a Stealth Religion" where he introduces this and which actually touches on some of the themes he has developed at length in his work on religion in general.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...i_b_76901.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...1_b_79825.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...2_b_81389.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...3_b_83605.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...4_b_88795.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...5_b_90619.html

Atheism as a Stealth Religion VI: Let's Break Out The Good Stuff!

Wine connoisseurs on a budget often have a bottle of "the good stuff" that they reserve for special occasions. I feel like celebrating the conclusion of my Stealth series by breaking out the equivalent of a fine bottle of wine: a book that actually does use science to shed light on the nature of religion. The book that I have decided to open for you is Sacred and Secular, written by Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart in 2004, a very good year. The authors are political scientists who don't use the E-word, but their results are highly interpretable from an evolutionary perspective. Their goal is to evaluate the hypothesis that religion can be replaced by secular society. All of the major social theorists of the 19th century, such as Comte, Spencer, Durkheim, Weber, Marx, and Freud, believed that this would be the case. Yet, here we are in the 21st century and religion seems to be stronger than ever. Does this mean that religion will always be with us? Norris and Inglehart think not. They propose that religion can indeed yield to secularization, but only under certain environmental conditions. That is why they are thinking like evolutionists, even if they don't use the E-word.
They identify existential security as the key environmental factor that determines whether society will become religious or secular. If your life is likely to be disrupted by famine, war, disease, and major dislocations of all sorts, then you live in an environment that is low in existential security. Religion thrives in this kind of environment because it provides actual security (basic social services, including protection against other human groups) and also a psychological sense of security. If you confidently expect to go to college, start a family in your late 20s, have a job with health care, and live to a ripe old age, then you live in an environment that is high in existential security. Secularization thrives in this environment because religion isn't required to provide basic services and the psychological comforts aren't worth the costs imposed by religious membership. Religion stays with us because so much of the world remains wracked by existential insecurity. If we take a closer look, we should be able to see religion and secularization expanding and contracting, like biological species shifting their ranges in response to environmental change.
How might one test such a hypothesis? Whenever I dive into a new subject area, I am often astonished at the sheer volume of research and the effort that was required to gather and analyze the data. Norris and Inglehart base their analysis on The World Values Survey (WVS), a global investigation of political and societal change that includes dozens of nations in four separate waves, beginning in 1981 and most recently in 1999-2001. This massive database allows three different kinds of comparison: 1) between nations at any particular point in time; 2) between time intervals for any particular nation; and 3) between age cohorts for any particular nation. The WVS includes questions that measure religious participation (e.g., "How often to you attend religious services?"), religious values (e.g., "How important Is God in your life?"), and religious beliefs (e.g., "Do you believe in life after death?" It and other international databases also contain voluminous information on the factors that comprise existential security for each nation.


Here are a few of the many results reported in Sacred and Secular:


• Variation in religiosity across nations is strongly correlated with indicators of existential security, regardless of the region of the world or specific religious tradition. Here is how Norris and Inglehart put it (p 63):

The extent to which sacred or secular orientations are present in a society can be predicted by any of these basic indicators of human development with a remarkable degree of accuracy, even if we know nothing further about the country. To explain or predict the strength and popularity of religion in any country we do not need to understand specific factors such as the activities and role of Pentecostal evangelism in Guatemala and Presbyterian missionaries in South Korea, the specific belief-systems in Buddhism, the impact of madrassa teaching Wahhabism in Pakistan, the fund-raising capacity and organizational strength of the Christian Right in the U.S. South, the philanthropic efforts of Catholic missionaries in West Africa, the crackdown of freedom on worship in China, or divisions over the endorsement of women and homosexual clergy within the Anglican church. What we do need to know, however, are the basic characteristics of a vulnerable society that generate the demand for religion, including factors far removed from the spiritual, exemplified by levels of medical immunization, cases of AIDS/HIV, and access to an improved water source.

• Within nations, religiosity is stronger in the more vulnerable segments of the population, such as women, poorer households, the less educated, and the unskilled working class.
• Longitudinal data is available for 22 industrial and post-industrial nations. Religiosity has declined in every one over the last few decades, with the exception of the USA, Ireland, and Italy.
• Religious values are learned primarily early in life, so that the religiosity of a given age cohort should be determined by the existential security during the period when the cohort was young. There is a strong cohort effect in post-industrial nations with the older cohort (born between the two world wars) more religious than the younger cohorts. There is no cohort effect in the poorest nations and if anything the youngest cohorts are more religious.
• The USA is the most religious of all the post-industrial nations, which makes it seem anomalous. However, the USA also has the highest income inequality of all the post-industrial nations. When these two variables are plotted against each other on a graph, they fall into a neat line (a strong correlation) with the USA at the top. Thus, the USA is not anomalous when it comes to the relationship between religiosity and existential security. Increase existential security and religiosity will probably decrease, in the USA no less than Nigeria. Here is how Norris and Inglehart put it (p 108):

Many American families, even in the professional middle classes, face risks of unemployment , the dangers of sudden ill health without adequate private medical insurance, vulnerability to becoming a victim of crime, and the problems of paying for long-term care of the elderly. Americans face greater anxieties than citizens in other advanced industrialized countries about whether they will be covered by health insurance, whether they will be fired arbitrarily, or whether they will be forced to choose between losing their job and devoting themselves to their newborn child.

• Religiosity and secularization are shifting their geographical distributions, exactly like biological species shifting their ranges in response to environmental change. Secularization is spreading in the postindustrial nations (as noted above), but religiosity is spreading worldwide, in part because the least secure (and most religious) nations also have a much higher rate of population growth than the most secure nations.


For me, reading Sacred and Secular in comparison to books such as The God Delusion or God is Not Great is like a fine Merlot compared to kerosene. True, the Merlot must be sipped slowly to be savored. Sacred and Secular describes the scientific process in detail, but this has the same fascination as watching the construction of a skyscraper, something that can become mesmerizing even if we are not the architect. And when it is finished, look at what has been built!
In contrast, take a slug of the new atheism and the primitive centers of your brain are immediately jolted into senseless action. That's exciting in a way, like gathering around a barroom brawl, but it leads only to injury and calling it science and reason is, well, sacrilege.
The new atheists defend their lack of scholarship by saying that their purpose is to raise consciousness and goad people into action. I would therefore like to end my Stealth series by issuing a call to action of my own. Science and reason are every bit as important for solving the problems of modern existence as the new atheists say, but they are not making their way into popular intellectual discourse or public policy. We justly disapprove of politicians when they manipulate the primitive centers of our brains, jolting us into senseless action that harms everyone over the long run. Yet, popular intellectual discourse is not much better, as we have seen in the case of the new atheists.
What books such as Sacred and Secular tell us is that the central problem of modern existence is how to increase existential security. That is something that everyone wants and the raison d'etre of religion, but achieving it in modern life on a worldwide scale is very much like building a skyscraper -- a collective and consensus effort, careful and methodical, based on scientific knowledge. Somehow, intellectuals and policy makers of all stripes need to focus on this fact. Everyone needs to swear off kerosene and learn to savor good wine. Fortunately, there is an entire wine cellar of books like Sacred and Secular, waiting to be opened. When it comes to the wine of science, we can all live like kings.

[Toramana]

Thanks Herat. It will be a nice reading.

Although still a strong secularist, I have had a change of heart. I no longer trust the secularization and democratization missions being pursued by the West in the rest of the world. I consider them to be mostly self-serving and aimed at perpetuating Western hegemony and control over the rest of humanity. The proof is that, best democracies can be un-acceptable to the West and destabilized by it until in the interest of the West. Mussadiq Iran is an example.

Likewise, worst dictatorship and orthodoxy can be acceptable to the West if in the interest of the West. Examples have been many in the past. The current example is the regime of Al-Saudi/Saudi Arabia that the West has no qualm to have dealing with despite its extremely retrogressive ways because it is virtually a West-propped satellite state.

In my opinion, every nation of the world should learn self-reliance should be flexible to get along with others, particularly if Muslims want to have stable peaceful societies they should adopt secularism and democratic system of course adjusted to local environment.

[Toramana]

I also strongly suggest to Muslims to instead of being confrontational with followers of other religions and systems, Muslims should find a common ground with them to strengthen the liberty, freedom, equality, etc. of all human beings ---the rights that are threatened both by the Western elite as well as Islamist and other extremists.

A brotherly collaboration and cooperation with people of color (from Africa, Asia, South America) as well as White people (majority of whom also believe in equality and dignity of all humans) will not only enable Muslims to get over their problems but also benefit the rest of humanity.

[Badlun]

Thanks Herat. It will be a nice reading.

Although still a strong secularist, I have had a change of heart. I no longer trust the secularization and democratization missions being pursued by the West in the rest of the world. I consider them to be mostly self-serving and aimed at perpetuating Western hegemony and control over the rest of humanity. The proof is that, best democracies can be un-acceptable to the West and destabilized by it until in the interest of the West. Mussadiq Iran is an example.

Likewise, worst dictatorship and orthodoxy can be acceptable to the West if in the interest of the West. Examples have been many in the past. The current example is the regime of Al-Saudi/Saudi Arabia that the West has no qualm to have dealing with despite its extremely retrogressive ways because it is virtually a West-propped satellite state.

In my opinion, every nation of the world should learn self-reliance should be flexible to get along with others, particularly if Muslims want to have stable peaceful societies they should adopt secularism and democratic system of course adjusted to local environment.

I agree but we should take secularism as a way of life, as an ideology not secularism of the West or the East. Islam is a religion but people do not like it when it becomes the Islam of Arabs or it takes the form of Islamism.

West never says that they sponsor or promote secularism in non secular societies. They work for their strategic and national interests. If a secular organization or an NGO gets funds from the West, then it is for the development and indirect promotion of secularism and nothing bad in that. West can be our partner but not master or occupier. UN is a better option than US but UN is idealism and US is realism.

[Toramana]

I agree but we should take secularism as a way of life, as an ideology not secularism of the West or the East. Islam is a religion but people do not like it when it becomes the Islam of Arabs or it takes the form of Islamism.

West never says that they sponsor or promote secularism in non secular societies. They work for their strategic and national interests. If a secular organization or an NGO gets funds from the West, then it is for the development and indirect promotion of secularism and nothing bad in that. West can be our partner but not master or occupier. UN is a better option than US but UN is idealism and US is realism.

Yes, being a dalal, you come up with your own explanations of convenience. Are some dollars also being stuffed down your mouth by the way for being such an apologists for your masters?

NGOs work to contribute to the implementation of political agenda about the target countries. They are used to create pockets of dissent and political-social instability in the target societies which then -together with the NGO owners and managers- serve as tools to influence, pressure, and blackmail the indigenous governments into accepting what is needed geopolitical terms. Beside, they provide initial point of contact and ground work to their sponsors.

All such NGOs work in the garb of Human Rights, women rights, etc. but are actually spying networks and fifth columnist for the foreign entities that sponsor them. And yes, spreading secularism or democracy is not the actual agenda.

[khushal]

It is in the West's and US's interest and the wider worlds interest to have stability in the middle east. The problem is that the wars in afghansitan and Iraq were led by corporations and individuals whose sole aim was to profit from it. The goal was not to win or stabilize the region by these individuals and corporations. The goal was to prolong the war as much as possible so to make as much profit as possible. These individuals were mostly Americans/Europeans/Afghans/Pakistani.

The victims were mostly American tax payers who paid for it in monetary terms and Poor Pashtuns whose blood was spilt.

[randolph85]

In my opinion, every nation of the world should learn self-reliance should be flexible to get along with others, particularly if Muslims want to have stable peaceful societies they should adopt secularism and democratic system of course adjusted to local environment.

No nation is self reliant, stronger nations only have the upper hand in international relations. Look at the BRICS nations for example, they are touted as an alternative to the greedy capitalist west while their economies are intertwined with America and Europe. China is no less capitalistic than America, all while their workers are treated 10x's worse than the poorest American worker. All these nations economies are involved with the IMF and World Bank. There is no self reliance only interdependency where the pendulum is slightly one way or the other, at least for the relationship between strong countries because the little nations are gonna get fked.

Once Muslims as a people adopt secularism they are no longer Muslims because they have turned away from God and taken a man made system to be the disposer of affairs rather than God. This was the imperial design imposed on Muslims in the last century and carefully planned and executed by the west.

Look at the history of all the Muslim countries, when were they the strongest and peaceful? When they were secular as dictated to them by the banks in Europe or America or when they were religious states?

[Toramana]

No nation is self reliant, stronger nations only have the upper hand in international relations. Look at the BRICS nations for example, they are touted as an alternative to the greedy capitalist west while their economies are intertwined with America and Europe. China is no less capitalistic than America, all while their workers are treated 10x's worse than the poorest American worker. All these nations economies are involved with the IMF and World Bank. There is no self reliance only interdependency where the pendulum is slightly one way or the other, at least for the relationship between strong countries because the little nations are gonna get fked.

Once Muslims as a people adopt secularism they are no longer Muslims because they have turned away from God and taken a man made system to be the disposer of affairs rather than God. This was the imperial design imposed on Muslims in the last century and carefully planned and executed by the west.

Look at the history of all the Muslim countries, when were they the strongest and peaceful? When they were secular as dictated to them by the banks in Europe or America or when they were religious states?

That is the most stupid argument one can only hear from brain-dead Islamists including yourself. Secularism just means avoiding the use of religion in matters of states and governance. It doesn't mean not having an aqida or belief or lack of spirituality.

And gone are the medieval times. Today strong societies are those which are stable, cohesive, tolerant, pluralistic, and accommodating. You cannot expect rabid Islamist dogs to live with others in peace and to tolerate sectarian and ideological diversity. Islamism is a relic of the past and has been a huge drag on Muslims to progress. The earlier it is buried in the debris of history, the better the prospects for Muslim societies.

If Islamism were so good you would have immigrated to Mecca and Madina to live under the pure original Islam than to the West. Stop being a hypocrite to enjoy the fruits of a secular society that tolerates an Islamist like yourself at the same time live the dreams of Islamist utopia.

And by self-reliance I mean not living on economic aid from the West or any other country but being able to produce yourself as well. Rest, mutual dependence doesn't mean being beggars and parasites as most of the Muslims and Muslim countries are. Of course China is dependent on US but US is also dependent on China. It is a two-way affair instead of one way dependence.

But I know you are an ISIL sympathizer and want to find a reason to justify the acts of those bruts.

[randolph85]

That is the most stupid argument one can only hear from brain-dead Islamists including yourself. Secularism just means avoiding the use of religion in matters of states and governance. It doesn't mean not having an aqida or belief or lack of spirituality.

And gone are the medieval times. Today strong societies are those which are stable, cohesive, tolerant, pluralistic, and accommodating. You cannot expect rabid Islamist dogs to live with others in peace and to tolerate sectarian and ideological diversity. Islamism is a relic of the past and has been a huge drag on Muslims to progress. The earlier it is buried in the debris of history, the better the prospects for Muslim societies.

If Islamism were so good you would have immigrated to Mecca and Madina to live under the pure original Islam than to the West. Stop being a hypocrite to enjoy the fruits of a secular society that tolerates an Islamist like yourself at the same time live the dreams of Islamist utopia.

And by self-reliance I mean not living on economic aid from the West or any other country but being able to produce yourself as well. Rest, mutual dependence doesn't mean being beggars and parasites as most of the Muslims and Muslim countries are. Of course China is dependent on US but US is also dependent on China. It is a two-way affair instead of one way dependence.

But I know you are an ISIL sympathizer and want to find a reason to justify the acts of those bruts.

So now Saudi Arabia is a pure Islamic Shariah state? lol

I don't like ISIS/ISIL and it would be obvious if you have read any of my posts. Your own argument of what makes a strong state is defeated by the existent of the rich gulf states none of which are tolerant or accomidating, except for naked euro tourists such as yourself who get drunk on their beaches.

Being a Muslim means that God is the be all end all, not that man can live under its own legislation and sidestep shariah while being a friday night Muslim.

Aren't you a little too old to go from being a radical Badlun to a radical leftist now?

[کیش]

I have been asking what the hell is "Islamism" and a "Islamist" my studies reveal that they are both made up words by the British.

If you use those words you only expose yourself as uneducated.