Jump to content
Islamic Forum
anthony19832005

Can A Good Muslims Also Be Secularist?

Recommended Posts

Ah, well. I'll try not to cringe every time you say "Moslem". :sl:

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

please sister, do not not cringe upon my account. :sl:

 

:sl:

 

 

Peace also be upon thee, :X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been looking at all the posts on this thread. And If I may say one thing? It's nice to see 500 of progressive thought being thrown out the window for the sake of blind, primitive, and especially normative law. Wow! On a side note, has anyone ever heard of Huntington?

 

good stuff.

 

The moderators do an awesome job too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's nice to see 500 of progressive thought being thrown out the window for the sake of blind, primitive, and especially normative law.

I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome you to our global community.

 

Now, which law are you specifically referring to?

 

The moderators do an awesome job too.

On behalf of the mods, I'd like to thank you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The moderators do an awesome job too.
On behalf of the mods, I'd like to thank you...

 

 

he might have meant in closing down interesting discussions in their blind zeal...

 

 

not that *i* would ever cast such aspersions!!! :no:

 

 

 

:sl: :sl: :j:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace

Well to be fair, the Islamic state Does treat muslims and non-muslims differently. Secularism, on the other hand, treats all humans the same, and everybody is judged according to his/her own actions, regardless of religion. There are some parts to secularism which I like, and some parts which I do not. I just want to hear people's opinions on this.

 

Salaams

 

 

How about Morals wise ? care to add any thoughts .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
he might have meant in closing down interesting discussions in their blind zeal...

 

not that *i* would ever cast such aspersions!!! :no:

:sl: :sl: :j:

Just trying to give him the benefit of the doubt...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(anthony19832005 [at] Feb 28 2007, 02:50 AM) *

Peace

Well to be fair, the Islamic state Does treat muslims and non-muslims differently. Secularism, on the other hand, treats all humans the same, and everybody is judged according to his/her own actions, regardless of religion. There are some parts to secularism which I like, and some parts which I do not. I just want to hear people's opinions on this.

Salaams

 

How about Morals wise ? care to add any thoughts .

 

there is absolutely NO reason why a secular society cannot be a moral society, just as a theocracy is NOT automatically moral.

 

humm, this might get deleted and i get a warning, but i will add it and hope:

 

i beleive that as individuals our connection to God is through our morality, or to put it another way, part of who/what God is is that moral centre of us. Thus every individual has a direct connection to God, even if they call it something else, like 'love', or 'goodness', and although this sense can be perverted by wrong teachings and beleifs, it is always there and can be used to move the individual to a 'good behaviour'.

 

Thus even secular people have this moral centre, even if they do not define it as God but just simply 'Goodness', and thus through thought, feeling and discussion, can come to a moral conclusion/society. Equally, just because someone follws a religion, does not mean that their behaviour/beleifs are moral, because ALL religions have a human element in their creation, and humans err.

 

one advantage a secular society has, is that it prevents the possibility of a small group of people gaining religious power and enforcing their will upon the rest, or murdering them because they do not agree with their own version of 'Gods Will'.

 

to put it bluntly, morality and religion are not synonymous. Nor is secularism and immorality.

 

 

Peace and Love, :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theocracy does not equal morality.

 

If you want to be moral in a secular society there is nothing to stop you.

 

Do you consider all non-Islamic societies to be immoral?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deleted by thezman on 3/22/07 due to maKKKo, the malignant tumor, being an illegitimate poster and the forums outcast.

 

He will no longer be permitted to enjoy this forums privileges...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hindu can have their own laws in the in Indonesia and on the the Hindu Day of Silence they impose their way of life on Muslims, and no one makes a fuss bout that.

 

Obviously the Muslim people in Indonesia has more tolerance than you, Livius.

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_ibiome.typepad(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/ibiome/2007/03/bali_welcomes_s.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_ibiome.typepad(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/ibiome/2007/03/b...welcomes_s.html[/url]

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_viewsfromtheeast.blogspot(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2007/03/nyepi-that-day-bali-gets-shut-down.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_viewsfromtheeast.blogspot(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2007/...-shut-down.html[/url]

 

And here is another example of Muslim's tolerance and co-existence with Jains

 

Jains experience Muslims’ sympathy

Published by Adnan March 1st, 2006 in Politics. Tags: No Tags.

 

Gujarat High Court had removed the ban imposed on the Muslim butchers to open their shops since 1993 on petition filed by a voluntary group ‘Lok Adhikar Sangh’ challenging the municipal order. However, the butchers’ union has voluntarily requested all members to stay shut for the eight days of Paryushan. Details are:

 

AHMEDABAD, AUGUST 2: They have won the legal battle to keep meat shops open during the eight-day Jain holy period of Paryushan, but for the sake of communal harmony, butchers in the city have decided to down shutters during that period.

 

‘‘We welcome the high court verdict that it is illegal for the authorities to enforce closure of our shops during Paryushan. But like every year, this year too we will not conduct any business during the period,’’ said Mustaq Syed, who owns the Star Meat Shop and five slaughter-houses.

 

The Qureshi Jamaat, an organisation of traditional butchers and slaughterers, has appealed to meat shop owners to respect Jain sentiments and keep their shops closed.

 

‘‘It’s a request, and we hope everyone agrees to it,’’ says Rafiq Qureshi, who is associated with the Jamaat.

 

Muslim leaders say the 2002 violence has made them realise that much ill-will and misunderstanding is created when people of one religion do not respect the beliefs of others.

 

‘‘The gap is tremendous. We have to bridge it with trust, respect and love,’’ says Rizwan Ahmed, who heads an informal committee of meat shop owners.

 

‘‘This is why we have asked all meat dealers to stop business for the eight days when Jains fast and meditate for self-purification.’’

 

Some 200 meat shops in Ahmedabad will remain closed even if it means losses. Most butchers and meat shop owners are poor or belong to the middle class.

 

‘‘Our community does not have deep pockets. People spend their earnings the same day,’’ says Ahmed. ‘‘Eight days of keeping shops closed means financial problems. But we are now used to it.’’

 

On a demand from the Jains, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has since 1993 been ordering slaughter-houses and meat shops to remain closed during Paryushan, observed around the third week of September.

 

In 1997 it ordered the closure for 18 days and this had caused much hardship to butchers.

 

But the butchers had never challenged the order in court, partly because there’s a flourishing illegal trade in meat. Ban or not, non-vegetarians are by and large able to get their daily share.

 

Last month, however, voluntary group Lok Adhikar Sangh filed a petition challenging the municipal order in Gujarat High Court.

 

It said the order interfered with the people’s right to trade, livelihood and liberty. The court ruled that the order was unconstitutional.

 

This created a stir in the Jain community. Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader Praveen Togadia has been meeting Jain saints to discuss the implications of the order while the community has appealed to the meat shop owners to respect their sentiments.

 

‘‘It’s against our religion to see animals butchered during those days. We pray and meditate for purifying our thoughts and lifestyle. Non-violence is essential for it,’’ says Sadhvi Rajprabha of the Sthanakvasi Jain community.

 

Now that many butchers have voluntarily decided to keep their shops closed, the Jains are moving to ensure that the poor among them do not suffer.

 

‘‘We know they suffer losses and respect their decision to keep shops shut despite the court order,’’ says Trilok Muni of the Jain Sangh. ‘‘We are finding out a way to compensate those who will be put to hardship.’’

 

Says Rishab Jain of the Jain Mahasangh of Gujarat: ‘‘They should not think this is charity. We aren’t giving anything in charity. The Muslims are respecting our religious sentiments and we in turn want to help them, out of gratitude.’’

 

Adnan (Posted from Jainology(contact admin if its a beneficial link))

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_indianmuslims.in/jains-experience-muslims-sympathy/"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_indianmuslims.in/jains-experience-muslims-sympathy/[/url]

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Edited by Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviously the Muslim people in Indonesia has more tolerance than you, Livius.

 

More insults Yasnov? I guess the fact that I don't want people imposing their religious views on each other is intolerance in your opinion.

 

I like the fact that the butchers are not going to upset the Jains. It is sad, though, that the Muslims there are afraid of violence if they do open, or that the Jains would get upset at the Muslims for doing so. That is intolerance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More insults Yasnov? I guess the fact that I don't want people imposing their religious views on each other is intolerance in your opinion.

Intolerance is the lack of ability or willingness to tolerate something. It's okay for the secularists to impose their views all the time to religious people, but it would be unacceptable when it is the other way around, right?

 

I like the fact that the butchers are not going to upset the Jains. It is sad, though, that the Muslims there are afraid of violence if they do open, or that the Jains would get upset at the Muslims for doing so. That is intolerance.

You have been thinking in a negative way. But I understand if you fail to grasp such tolerance since you have never experienced this before. It is just beyond you. The butchers would not be breaking any laws if they still want to open their shops during Paryushan. I guess fighting tooth and nail would be more tolerant than accepting or respecting different practices?

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace Yasnov,

 

Intolerance is the lack of ability or willingness to tolerate something. It's okay for the secularists to impose their views all the time to religious people, but it would be unacceptable when it is the other way around, right?

 

You're so close to understanding, you've described intolerance and you clearly have an understanding of mutual fairness. What you've failed to do is to define secularism.

 

1. Secularism means that YOU cannot coerce ME to believe in something through Government. Secularism means that I cannot coerce YOU to believe in something through Government.

2. Your religious Government means that YOU can try to force ME to believe in what YOU believe. Your religious Government means that I cannot try to force YOU to believe in what I believe.

3. The Government you propose discriminates against ME because YOU receive preferential treatment.

4. The aim of Secularism is to stop YOU from having preference over ME.

5. By "imposing" secularism on YOU, the respective Government is making OUR views equal.

6. If YOU oppose secularism then YOU oppose US being equal.

7. On that basis I will paraphrase your original question which I quoted at the beginning of this post:

 

You said: "It's okay for the secularists to impose their views all the time to religious people, but it would be unacceptable when it is the other way around, right?"

Paraphrased: "It's okay for people wanting equal rights to impose their views on those who oppose equal rights, but it would be unacceptable when it is the other way around, right?"

 

You are damn right it's unnacceptable when it's the other way around. If you disagree with that and you call yourself a 'good' Muslim then I shudder to think what a 'bad' Muslim believes, or maybe by your understanding a 'bad' Muslim is somebody who wants to see people treated equally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace Yasnov,

You're so close to understanding, you've described intolerance and you clearly have an understanding of mutual fairness. What you've failed to do is to define secularism.

 

1. Secularism means that YOU cannot coerce ME to believe in something through Government. Secularism means that I cannot coerce YOU to believe in something through Government.

2. Your religious Government means that YOU can try to force ME to believe in what YOU believe. Your religious Government means that I cannot try to force YOU to believe in what I believe.

3. The Government you propose discriminates against ME because YOU receive preferential treatment.

4. The aim of Secularism is to stop YOU from having preference over ME.

5. By "imposing" secularism on YOU, the respective Government is making OUR views equal.

6. If YOU oppose secularism then YOU oppose US being equal.

7. On that basis I will paraphrase your original question which I quoted at the beginning of this post:

 

You said: "It's okay for the secularists to impose their views all the time to religious people, but it would be unacceptable when it is the other way around, right?"

Paraphrased: "It's okay for people wanting equal rights to impose their views on those who oppose equal rights, but it would be unacceptable when it is the other way around, right?"

 

You are damn right it's unnacceptable when it's the other way around. If you disagree with that and you call yourself a 'good' Muslim then I shudder to think what a 'bad' Muslim believes, or maybe by your understanding a 'bad' Muslim is somebody who wants to see people treated equally.

Peace Eoin,

 

Is secularism truly free of:

 

1. Government coercion, and in general?

 

2. Government discrimination, discrimination in general?

 

3. Government equality, and equality for all in general?

 

4. Isn't "imposing" secularism on others, exactly the same as others attempting to impose a theocracy (any religion)?

 

It's like attempting to impose Western-style democracy and value around the world, and claiming that it is superior to others. Yet we won't tolerate others imposing anything on us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Secularism means that each person can worship however they want to without the government telling them how to do it.

 

Unlike in Bali (the example that Yasnov gave) in which the government forces everyone to observe someone elses religious holiday.

 

Is secularism truly free of:

 

1. Government coercion, and in general?

Government coercion in religion? You are an American Thezman. Has the government attempted to coerce you into observing another religion?

 

2. Government discrimination, discrimination in general?

 

Unfortunately no, but things are getting better all the time. Two of the main candidate for the presidency right now are a black man and woman. What would the woman's chances be of leading a country under Sharia?

 

3. Government equality, and equality for all in general?

 

Religous equality? Are you aware of any laws in the United States that differentiate between religions?

 

Which do you think would be more tolerant of gays, the United States or a perfect Sharia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace zman,

 

It was for a time in South Africa deemed acceptable to give 'different' rights to people according to the colour of their skin. (You can see already where this is going but please persevere.) The wider world could see that these 'different' rights amounted to white people receiving the best services and black people being second class citizens who effectively had fewer rights. Most of the world opted to impose sanctions on South Africa to encourage laws conducive to racial equality and the consequent end of apartheid.

 

My question to you is this: Why was it acceptable to 'impose' racial equality on the white South Africans? You ask:

 

Isn't "imposing" secularism on others, exactly the same as others attempting to impose a theocracy (any religion)?
This is how your question appears when tailored to the analogy:

 

Isn't "imposing" racial equality on others, exactly the same as others attempting to impose apartheid?

 

I am in no doubt that given a good team of lawyers with few moral scruples, that it would be entirely possible to argue a double standard in the global communities reaction to apartheid. For instance what would be wrong with the white South Africans imposing sanctions on the rest of the world to pressure them into introducing an apartheid system? However I don't believe that you as a man of good conscience would ever try and formulate such a proposterous argument.

 

My personal take on the arguable 'double standard' is this: By imposing 'equality', whether that be secular equality or racial equality, one is not subjugating one group of people to be inferior to another. One is empowering the discriminated people in society to be equal in the eyes of the law with the favoured members of society. Conversely if one were to impose either Theocratic or racial apartheid, one is lowering the status of one group of people relative to another. Therein lies the difference to my way of thinking.

 

You also asked:

 

Is secularism truly free of:

 

1. Government coercion, and in general?

2. Government discrimination, discrimination in general?

3. Government equality, and equality for all in general?

 

You use the words equality and discrimination in your questions, I'm assuming you're referring to religious equality in the eyes of the law. Secularism is an ideal and in practise is not truly free of any defect, of which there are several. The UK for instance is a secular country, but still minority faiths such as Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism and Judaism are poorly represented in the number of state funded faith schools compared to Church of England or Roman Catholic faith schools. This is clearly an unfair situation, as parents from these faiths pay their taxes as regularly as Protestant and Catholic parents. However it is incomprehensible to me to suggest that because secular ideals are not fully realised, that a beneficial alternative would be to introduce a Theocratic State.

 

Eoin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Secularism means that each person can worship however they want to without the government telling them how to do it.

Sounds great in theory, but I will go on the practice. Sorry ...

 

Peace Yasnov,

1. Secularism means that YOU cannot coerce ME to believe in something through Government. Secularism means that I cannot coerce YOU to believe in something through Government.

Salam Eoin,

That's not true, the religious government that I propose never want to coerce people to believe in something through government.

 

You are damn right it's unnacceptable when it's the other way around. If you disagree with that and you call yourself a 'good' Muslim then I shudder to think what a 'bad' Muslim believes, or maybe by your understanding a 'bad' Muslim is somebody who wants to see people treated equally.

By secularist, I meant the non-religious people. The secular system in the West has gradually caused the Western society to move towards being secular (nonreligious). The secular government is smart, they don't have to impose their views on the religious people, they just want them to slowly leave their religious lifestyle without them knowing it. Very smart indeed ...

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Edited by Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not true, the religious government that I propose never want to coerce people to believe in something through government.

 

Are you speaking of Sharia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace Yasnov,

 

That's not true, the religious government that I propose never want to coerce people to believe in something through government.
I smell a field day.

 

By secularist, I meant the non-religious people. The secular system in the West has gradually caused the Western society to move towards being secular (nonreligious). The secular government is smart, they don't have to impose their views on the religious people, they just want them to slowly leave their religious lifestyle without them knowing it. Very smart indeed ...

 

I couldn't help but feel Alan Partridge puts it best...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you speaking of Sharia?

Yes, Madinah Charter to be specific.

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

secularism /= athiesm.

 

its like this, when a community has more than one religion, then it needs to have a political system that can incorporate both, in order to not discriminate. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that jews, christians and moslems can create a religious govt that is close enough to all of their beleifs, because of the historic roots. (Although humans being humans it is still likely that at some point one group will try to gain 'control'.) But when a political system has to incorporate hindus, jain, buddhists, animists, athiests, Taoists, jedi, GAIANs, Erisians - then it requires a level of religious tolerance that can really only be guaranteed by an avowedly and openly secular system.

 

all "secularism" means is:

1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.

2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred): secular music.

3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.

4. (of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows (opposed to regular).

5. occurring or celebrated once in an age or century: the secular games of Rome.

6. going on from age to age; continuing through long ages.

–noun

7. a layperson.

8. one of the secular clergy.

[Origin: 1250–1300; < ML séculāris, LL saeculāris worldly, temporal (opposed to eternal), L: of an age, equiv. to L saecul(um) long period of time + -āris -ar1; r. ME seculer < OF < L, as above]

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_dictionary.reference(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/browse/secular"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_dictionary.reference(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/browse/secular[/url]

 

there is no requirement for people living under a secular govt to give up their religion - what it DOES do is allow each generation to choose their own path. Thus although some western moslems will have to accept that their children may choose another path, children of western non-moslems will also choose the path of Islam (isnt anthony one such? It happens anyway.) It removes special privilleges from one particular religion.

 

By secularist, I meant the non-religious people. The secular system in the West has gradually caused the Western society to move towards being secular (nonreligious). The secular government is smart, they don't have to impose their views on the religious people, they just want them to slowly leave their religious lifestyle without them knowing it. Very smart indeed ...

 

i know what you are talking about here, and it is true, this is happening, althooguh in more general terms it is the result of the collapse of the state school system, especially in the US (and to a lesser extent the UK), leading the young people aquiring an 'education' from the media - and the media IS anti-religious. Partly because people who are lost and morally wandering are more likely to fall into the 'consumer religion' (the worship of Mammon), and are easier to manipulate.

 

Abrahamic religion always has this curious dissonance, that part of it is deeply conservative (anti-gay, anti-intellectual freedom, anti-female etc), yet it has also, despite the best efforts of millenia of corrupt religious leaders, maintained a minority element of humanism, faith, good decent values.

 

i mean this somewhat tongue in cheek, but oftimes it can seem as though the strongest 'Tests of Faith' are the supposed leaders of these religions themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, Madinah Charter to be specific.

 

Any government that treats one group of people better than another will be coercing people into a certain religion. The Madinah Charter often differentiates between believers and non-believers. They are not treated the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any government that treats one group of people better than another will be coercing people into a certain religion. The Madinah Charter often differentiates between believers and non-believers. They are not treated the same.

The idea of Madinah Charter is that although the principles of religious freedom, inter-communal equality and unity, local autonomy and just government underlying the charter conform to the teachings of the Quran, the forms they took were conditioned by the circumstances prevailing.

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the Madinah Charter people were treated different based on their religion or the actions of those that followed their religion, and the leader was designated as Muslim.

 

Does the Madinah Charter allow non-Muslims to ever be in charge?

 

From what I gather it does not. It assumes that Muslims will always be in charge of the Ummah.

 

Am I wrong in this interpretation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×