Secularism is Incompatible with Islam
Posted by Moiz Khan in ReligionMay 20th, 2009 | 12 responsesWith the recent surge in Islamic-terrorist activities in Pakistan (my place of birth), I have been discussing the difficulties of secularism in the Muslim world quite frequently. I recently attended the Center for Inquiry’s World Congress, during this conference, there was a very interesting panel discussion on Secularism and Islam. The discussion itself was a total failure on the basis of my expectations, as only the first speaker, Ibn Warraq was even remotely interesting. Two of the other speakers, Pervez Hoodbhoy, a professor of Physics, Quaid-e-Azam University (Pakistan) and Tarek Fatah a secular Muslim and Canadian political activist seemed to be advocating for Western encouragement of “Liberal/Secular Muslims.” Such a label begs the question, is it possible for a “Secular Muslim” to even exist? As you can tell from the title of this article, my response is, absolutely not.
The quick and easy solution to this question is to search Islam (mainly the Qur’an) for a justification for secularism, or the opposite, theocracy. That quest is a rather short one as Islam not only advocates for an Islamic state but even has provisions on how to tax the non-believing elements (Jews and Christians, not Atheists) of society. Islam is very clear on this matter, it states in no uncertain terms, that the day will come when the entire world will face Mecca and pray. Mecca will be the center of the world, much like it is the center of Islam. There is absolutely no justification within the Qur’an or any other Islamic tradition for anything but theocracy. In fact, the very notion of the word secularism is unheard of in the language of Arabic. The direct translation of secularism translates into a word that is inherently thought of as “against-Islam” rather than the common connotations of the English word. So the question is no longer if one can promote secularism on a Islamic platform, but rather, how does one do it without seeming directly antagonistic to Islam?
That question has puzzled secularists throughout the Muslim world for at least a hundred years if not more. Pakistan, a nation established primarily to ensure protection for a large minority was not intended to be an Islamic state. Rather, the goal was for a nation for Muslims. There is a very big difference between those two, as the former is a theocracy and the latter can potentially become a secular nation. As we see today, Pakistan is losing the battle to religious extremists and at this point unless something totally unexpected happens (which is possible given the instability) it is likely that Pakistan will become more of an Islamic state rather than a secular state. The issue for the Pakistani government (which is of course extremely corrupt) is how to combat religious extremists without bringing religion into the debate. If they bring religion into national discourse, it is impossible for them to win, even if they have a better argument. So how does one go about battling extremists who are fueled by religion without cutting off their fuel supply? The only good tactic that actually works is to expose the religious extremists as unsophisticated individuals who would be the much worse of two evils when compared to the secular and already established government. As we see in Gaza Strip, Hamas and other such terrorist groups are not very popular amongst the people, but they are the only choice that the people have. Unfortunately in the case of Pakistan, the government is so corrupt and has been that way for so many years that it is questionable if they are better than those religious extremists.
The Muslim leaders of the future really do have an unsustainable conflict and contradiction within their society. If they really want to accept modernity, it begins by removing Islam from the public domain and placing it within the private domain. How to go about that task (if its even possible at this point) begins with education and the proper treatment of women (equal rights). But of course, that is only the starting point and as of right now, not a single Muslim country is even close.
Related posts:
- Islam and Women, Revised For the majority of my life I was a Muslim,...
- Islamic Feminism, The Ultimate Contradiction A few weeks ago, I was discussing the Hindu practice...
- My “spiritual” Journey, Part 1 (Marxism) As a young child raised within a Muslim household and...
- Muslim TV Network Owner Beheads Wife NEW YORK A prominent Buffalo area businessman who founded the...
- Diary of an ex-Muslimah As an ex-Muslim myself, I love to read articles from...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
12 Responses to “Secularism is Incompatible with Islam”
Leave a Reply
About Me
[...] Secularism is Incompatible with Islam [...]
We are a product of a process. Our ancestors were Buddhists or Hindus, and our genes journeyed through the Muslim era, and are now here, at a cross roads. To erase all that history, and take nothing from it I think is a mistake. If being a Muslim is re-framed as an ethnicity as reform Jews have done with Judaism which is similarly unreformable in its religious form, then there is such a thing as a secular Muslim. Namely a person who has a history with the Muslims, but no longer believes the Islamic dogma — there is room for spiritualism, etc.
Without this, your secularism has no history, has no purpose. I will reiterate that science is a tool, and politics is based on group and identity. Full-out liberalism does not exist, have never existed, and will never exist. The resource depletion means that current economic gains are temporary, and soon there will be resource conflicts in which you will be identified with some group. We journeyed through Islam to get here, therefore our secularism can be different from the European or American conception. The modern culture is much of abandonment from any norms, and simply goes about making fun of and attacking any norms as being arbitrary — is this what you want?
I think you’ve touched upon an interesting notion of the essentially Atheist Muslim. That idea was first introduced to me by individuals during the whole Bosnian war in the 90s. If an individuals wish to divorce themselves with the dogmatic traditions which have become nearly synonymous with modern Islam… then more power to them.
In fact, it is undeniable that certain cultures under Islamic rule produced some amazing material (the calligraphy of Arabic comes to mind). But my hope is not to eradicate Islam…I don’t believe religion can be eradicated…I find it an essential part of human experience. Rather, my hope is to have Islam placed in the private sphere instead of the public.
This is one of the reasons why Religion and Government should never mix. Mixing the two is very dangerous, as it resulted in wars and deaths into the thousands and millions – a la Crusades, Palestine-Israel, etc.
Although I am not a Muslim, I am not antagonistic to religion. BUT I firmly believe that religion should exist only between God and the individual. Once it bleeds into politics and government, THEN we have a very dangerous situation. That should never be allowed to happen, but unfortunately it happens all the time.
There was a very good reason for the separation of Church and State. Have we forgotten?
I personally think that it’s a lie that only religion is guilty of all these problems… I think that the past 50 years have shown that secular governments are very capable of exhibiting the same problems attributed to religious problems. Look at what is becoming of Britain and the United States in relation to Israel. I think that political problems are complex and it’s not simple as separation and church and state. In the end a state must be based on some ideals, those have to come from some source… Whether it’s reason or religion make little difference, what matters is that they are based on some solid foundational idea that is wise and profound. Islam is at fault as it has lost its wisdom, in that it gives no real insight into the current condition of those who it serves and instead like a bad dictator passes exhortations which have little basis in reality. The truth is that Islam is disconnected from its followers and the world by over a thousand years. That’s the underlying problem to everything we are seeing today.
[...] Moiz Khan wrote something about secularism and Islam. I feel that he’s falling into the same trap that quite a few [...]
<>
Secular governments exhibit different problems than religious ones. They may overlap in issues but you’ll hardly find secular governments to divide the masses by creed or wage relentless holy war or assert imaginary borders based on scripture. Britain and the US in regards to Israel is a result of the military industrial complex which is not secular/religious but an issue of both democracy and the failures of capitalism. You’re not really proving anything with this statement.
<>
There is a significant difference between reason and religion. Religious values are discriminatory based on geographic location,race and obviously: religious belief. They are bias towards followers and therefore abhorrent to democratic rule. “Wise and profound” is very subjective and quite silly. I see a lot of rhetoric here in an attempt to shield Islam and other religions from criticism.
<>
You’ve just exhibited exactly why religious values should not dictate policy. Ever. This is why reason is substantially more effective than religion in governance. Let alone the issue of freedom and democracy.
There were supposed to be quotes of yours above where the brackets are. I’ll repost them here:
1)I personally think that it’s a lie that only religion is guilty of all these problems… I think that the past 50 years have shown that secular governments are very capable of exhibiting the same problems attributed to religious problems. Look at what is becoming of Britain and the United States in relation to Israel.
2)I think that political problems are complex and it’s not simple as separation and church and state. In the end a state must be based on some ideals, those have to come from some source… Whether it’s reason or religion make little difference, what matters is that they are based on some solid foundational idea that is wise and profound.
3)Islam is at fault as it has lost its wisdom, in that it gives no real insight into the current condition of those who it serves and instead like a bad dictator passes exhortations which have little basis in reality. The truth is that Islam is disconnected from its followers and the world by over a thousand years. That’s the underlying problem to everything we are seeing today.
My goal was not to shield religion from anything. In fact it should be open to criticism, but so should capitalism and what we call “democracy”, which really is anything but in its current application. I am not advocating for religion here, I am simply providing rhetorical defense in order to attempt to show the short comings of the system and interestingly enough you are dogmatically denying my defense, as you perceive that I am attempting to protect any religion.
In response to your points:
“Secular governments exhibit different problems than religious ones. They may overlap in issues but you’ll hardly find secular governments to divide the masses by creed or wage relentless holy war or assert imaginary borders based on scripture.”
Have you heard of manifest destiny? They will divide the masses into neat little nation states, which will then pursue their imperial policies against weaker ones. The people in those states will then pay for those policies.
“Britain and the US in regards to Israel is a result of the military industrial complex which is not secular/religious but an issue of both democracy and the failures of capitalism. You’re not really proving anything with this statement.”
That’s an oversimplification. The military industrial complex is a part of it… But it’s a lot more dogmatic than that, as the US backs Israel even when it is not in its best interest. The recent debate between by Walt and LRB John Mearsheimer are evidence of this.
“There is a significant difference between reason and religion. Religious values are discriminatory based on geographic location,race and obviously: religious belief. They are bias towards followers and therefore abhorrent to democratic rule. “Wise and profound” is very subjective and quite silly. I see a lot of rhetoric here in an attempt to shield Islam and other religions from criticism.”
There is no such thing as your dogmatic view that there are reasonable “values”. As they are values and are by definition arbitrary, much less anything else. Reason is a tool and so is rhetoric. It is very telling that you find wisdom to be silly, as any self-interested capitalist that has been throughly conditioned by the system would… But without something called wisdom, we’re subject to zero sum games which are endemic to capitalism…
That being said, these days I am starting to get the feeling that civilization is not conscious. That it is run by vacuous systems, and all these discussions amount to nothing whatsoever, but using a certain capacity in our brain to try to explain the phenomenon that is civilization. Will try to think more on this later.
Ultimately it seems to me that all “reason” means is that a justification that is acceptable to the people is provided for some action, as all premises are arbitrary and open to debate and not determinable with any sort of certainty.
Ultimately, capitalism itself is a religion… It controls every aspect of your life: what you wear, eat, quality of air you breather, who you have sex with and on what terms, how you spend the majority of your time…
Watching television can be seen as worshiping the consumerist god, as it tells you want you want and how to behave. Just like the Muslim salat, you do it a number of times a day, as repetition is good to keep you interested in the cult. The education systems essentially teach you not wisdom or how to be a free, independent adult, but how to serve your capitalist master.
The same system creates the solution to problems that it causes. Over weight, sexually confused, narcissist idiots who want nothing but to consume, and never to serve. This system is optimized by nothing but reason, feeding back into itself, getting smarter at serving the people their every wish and whim… Until their gluttony destroys them.
That seems like a fitting biblically ending to me, what about you?
What’s further fucked up about Muslims is that they seem to have lost their basic ability to reason. It’s partially the fault of Islam, because its method for morality is exhortation rather than intuition. Therefore, the idiot Muslims buy into the exhortative premises and use those to reason about the way to conduct their lives… Which is an idiotic way to understand the world, as the premises simply don’t hold under any sort of scrutiny, but try to argue that with a Muslim and you believe that the reason that they don’t eat pig is because they are scared of eating their brothers.
By the way, just to clarify, capitalism, communism, or socialism are the religions (as in way of life) of the secular political economy. As decisions are readily made only keeping economic lives of citizens in mind, their entire social theory is based on the economic lives of people.
This in many ways is convenient because it takes away value judgments, i.e. people either have or don’t have (money). One big problem with religions that the political economy avoids is that religions readily make use of value judgments, and sometimes even commoditize those (as is the case of honor), however it is always difficult to reach agreement on these matters.
That is why the political economy itself is responsible for the idea of equality… Equality in economic terms is very easy to define, also I guess in legal terms as well but law is just a way of administering aspects of the political economy where the people don’t resolve the problems themselves.
I feel the idea of freedom gets lost in the political economy, because having money is basically freedom… all other aspects are either ignored or relegated to people’s private lives where they functionally don’t matter.