Very long post, as usual.
What I am saying is coming from the Quran itself. According to which, religion is a
connection between an individual and God. (I will explain this below) State can only ensure that extremist scholars do not get the chance to intrude religious texts with their version of religion. This is state's responsibility. Only the parents or guardians of a person has the responsibility to educate children religiously. That is NOT state's responsibility.
Religion is indeed a connection between God and an individual but the Quran also makes certain injunctions incumbent upon Muslims when they constitute a community that has a political voice of its own ! The economic, penal, standards of propriety etc, aspects of the Shariah aren't individualistic but communal in nature and thats the gist of my argument !
Moving onto your argument towards 'education'; one might argue that when a religion has a socio-economic-political-societal and legal dimension to it and one that is pretty profound and not cursory, it ceases to be a religion
only and becomes much more ! One might understand the individualistic argument in case of praying 5 times a day and so and so forth but how is Islamic Polity any different from Capitalism or Socialism when Islamic Finance is as revolutionary as either of those. How is Shariah Law when it deals everything from societal interactions to Law of Torts (the Islamic version) be any different from the English Civil or Criminal Law system ? I believe that to view Islam as being confined to one's private affairs is not only myopic but it is also criminally ignoring the collective or communal aspects of it.
You wrote : State can only ensure that extremist scholars do not get the chance to intrude religious texts with their version of religion. - One might ask isn't the State also asserting her right to a 'version of Islam' by engaging in this decisions of deciding 'Which Islam is valid' ? As soon as such an intrusion happens, for whatever reasons, it signifies a departure from the Secular Ideals of the State for it found itself engaging in a discussion that it isn't supposed to ! And the reason these things keep popping up every now and then makes me wonder whether the natural order of things is not to assume that a person somehow leaves his religious beliefs with all its strengths and biases outside the door as soon as he enters the Parliament and assumes a complete disassociation of religion and legislation, but to recognize that the Parliament isn't anything without the Parliamentarias sitting within its walls and that it is erroneous to assume that they, the Parliamentarians, wouldn't embellish Govt. policies by their own religion inspired version of events, truths and opinions. Case in point : Stem Cell research was vetoed by Bush and opposed by many in the Congress simply by virtue of their religious believes conflicting with it (the Church has a different stance of this and ironically all who voted against it, including Bush, prescribe to one Church or the other). Similarly in the same country, US policy on Israel is deeply embellished by the Evangelical votes and the pandering of Congressmen to that particular community (a vast community) because they, the Evangelicals, believe that Jesus will come back to Earth in what constitutes as modern day Israel and that a return of Jews to that land is a prerequisite for it ! Additionally, the ban on headscarves, on personal laws derived from Islamic Jurisprudence etc., in countries like France and Turkey, are very much indicative of hypocrisy in the form of democracy whereby the People are denied the right to practise their religion and one of the aspect of that religion is how they are to judge their personal affairs in this life ! All of the above examples are Secularism in its very hypocritical form and why because it is going against the tide, the natural order of things which is that People are religious and that religion embellishes everything they do from their culture, to their understanding of right and wrong to how they would like to be judged in this world ! Hence why Holyoakes understanding of Secularism involved a replacement of traditional or religious values with secular ones, the replacement of Providence from God to Providence from Science....because Secularism can only function seamlessly in one's public life if one is Secular in one's private life. How can a religious person who parallels what Islam thinks about alcohol and gambling as one of the most destructive vices known to man...can vote for the legislation which allows for the production and the consumption of alcohol in my country ? The only way he would is to leave religion at the door step when he enters the Parliament and that can only be achieved if religion holds little or no hold over him in his person !
Isn't that an "individual" responsibility? Suppose you force everybody to give a certain % each year for charity. God says in the Quran "Charity must be intended to please God only no mattter what the sum is!". Now People will start to give charity to please you so that they don't end up in jail or are punished... How is that? That is why I said secularism will prevent all and any kind of hypocrisy. Those who will follow islam they will do so from their heart to please God. Those who don't will openly say we don't follow islam. This is the virtue of a secular state. There will be no hypocrisy or double-facedness.
Just like this, everything that you do must be intended to please God. So, if you make "islamic" laws mandatory, people will observe these laws to please you rather than God. Hypocrisy will ensue. Will you be following the Quran? No. As soon as your government falls, people will go back to their old ways of drinking alcohol and not giving charity.
Zakat being only a religious obligation can be thought of as such only if a person differentiates between what is spiritual and what is wordily or secular in other words ! However, Islam, as I understood it, doesn't make this distinction it sees perfect unity between the spiritual plane and the wordily life ! Hence the reason why Zakat was the only or the major source of revenue at the time of the Rashiudin Caliphs and for those who came afterwords !
One might argue that People only avoid engaging in criminal activity because they know they'd be punished...why not take punishment out of the occasion and let them avoid crime simply because its wrong to indulge in it ? Surely we're being equally hypocritical ? However the difference, again, lies in the fact that Islam doesn't see a disassociation between what is spiritual and what is wordily and that Islamic Laws or Shariah is there to ensure that Man does what is good for him in this world and the next ! Perfect Unity !
And yeah...they'd only revert back to drinking alcohol and not giving charity, if they are not included in the legislative process ! Hence why democracy is so integral to Islam...let the People decide what Shariah is or isn't ? Whether some aspects of it need revision or not ? Whether some aspects were for a particular time and context and hence are made redundant now ? Hence why I quoted Iqbal that Ijtihad should be done by the Parliament so that People own up to the Laws !
Furthermore, a recent poll, concluded that the overwhelmingly number of Pakistanis, want Shariah Laws to be made applicable in their country (I dunno the percentage figure was as high as 86 or 87%). One might argue that imposing Secularism in a country where the majority wants something else would be as hypocritical and undemocratic as what the Taliban do !
That is true. But don't you think a secular state would automatically allow for a better governance? Now, you have mullahs in parliament who looks very "islamic" but actually are stealing as much as they can. Is that good? Wouldn't it be better if everybody adheres to their true personality?
As for Turkey, yes, alcohol is allowed. Those who wants to drink, does so. Everybody knows that Quran does not permit alcohol. There is no double facedness. Nobody wears religious turbans and dresses like extremists and then drinks alcohol. This is exactly what secularism prevents.
And please don't bring up the examples of medieval islamic empires. Their situation and our situation is vastly government. Abbasids did not have extremist wahhabi scholars who told all women to stay in homes forever etc. Quran is intended for all ages and all communities, not only medieval islam.
No I don't think that a Secular state would automatically allow for better Governance ! And no our Parliament isn't full of Mullahs only.....the vast majority of us are religious but not Talibunnies ! And one might argue that the true personality of democracy involves 'will of the People' and if the People desire Mullahs as their elected leaders than it would be undemocratic to suggest otherwise. Coming back to why a Secular State doesn't automatically allow for better Governance - because Governance has very little to do with ideology but more with accountability, integrity and justice, and these things are universal and not the boon of any political theory ! Umar bin Khattab got it right when he said that 'Societies can run on Kufar but never on injustice !'.
Coming on to Turkey : One might argue that Secularism didn't prevent hypocrisy but instigated a betrayal of Muslim Collective Consciousness ! A society that valued Islam has gone onto one whose youth is openly promiscuous and has forgotten the very essence of Islam ! Furthermore, isn't it equally hypocritical when one talks about the State providing education in Mathematics and Sciences and not Religion, even when one considers Islam to be even more factual, hallowed and perhaps even something that everyone of these other sciences manifest from ? Aren't we lowering Islam to a level of extreme doubt when we have more conviction in our Child's need to be taught wordily subjects but not the one that defines the very purpose of life ? And yes...thats again where the Parliament comes in, let them decide as representatives of the People what the society wants its younger generation to believe in; it could be anything as maximal as understanding of Quran Arabic and Literature or as minimalist as simply teaching morals, ethics, standards of propriety and the concept of unanimously accepted rights and wrongs ! In short...why look at religious education as something that is somehow of a lesser significance or by its nature less certain in its authenticity of its source, then say the Newtonian Physics ? I find that hypocritical ! And I'm not talking about the rights of parents to bring up children as per their beliefs...that exists but by giving importance to Islam as something that shapes societal collective consciousness and hence facilitate the youth of today to have a much better understanding of what it is ? The extent of that facilitation is up to the Parliament where the elected representatives of millions of parents decide that on their behalf!
Coming to the Medieval Islamic Empires : Indeed their situation and our situation is vastly different because unless we, collectively, as a society reinterpret Islam in our age and time, we would be forever bouncing back and forth between a superficial adherence and understanding of Islam and whatever those who have their act together (namely the west) comes up as the next big thing with ! We would loose our identity unless we categorically assess everything that makes us who we are and Islam plays a massive role in deciding that. The best mode for that decision is the Parliament and the system called Democracy because all stakeholders are involved and consensus equals ownership !
P.S I've said what I had to say and much of it draws heavily from what I wrote previously; but I do feel like I'm going in circles and my point isn't getting across...perhaps when I brush up on my argumentative skills more.....I'd make a more convincing case so for now I'm done and so : To you is your way and to me mine !
