That clearly somesup what I would call a closet-Islamaphobic thinking. Even though you might hear fringe groups espousing "muslims will conquer the world" it does not mean the entire muslim population of 1B+ are actively working in some sort of conspiracy to take over. Thats just the same as Zaid Hamid saying that there is worldwise Hindu-Zionist conspiracy against Islam. Wakeup and clear your head.
Let me remind you that even though muslim countries might be averse to call themselves "secular" they do provide freedom of religion which is the most important thing for a secular society in my opinion. Indonesia, Maylasia, Jordan, Syria are all examples. Algeria provides subsidies and non-interference to orthodox Jewish schools (jewish madrassas?). Iran provides similar facilities for its minority jewish communit inspite of being vehemently anti-Israel. Bahrain, UAE have churches and temples and allow freedom of religion.
The problem is that many people (including muslims) themselves don't know what secular means. If secular means no religion for example the Chinese model where you have to profess to be an atheist to be party member, or less extreme case of Turkey which allows freedom of religion but where muslim girls are not allowed to wear head scarfs in public institutions. Anotehr example is the French model, where sikhs students arnt allowed to wear turbans to school. Then this model is unacceptable, not only for muslims but any religious minded person would be against it.
On the other hand if have the Indian, UK or American model of secularism where although the state itself is religion blind in terms of justice, law and order and day-to-day dealings but everyone is free to profess and follow their religion openly. An example is Maylasia where although Islamic courts are applicable to muslims, non-muslims liek Hindus and Chirtians have their own law courts for family matters simialr to India. The governmetn even provides subsidies for temple repairs and consturction to Hindus there.
Hence in these type of countries you see sikhs wearing their turbans, muslims wearing headscarfs or skull caps, jews wearing their skullcaps and sporting long beards.
All this is NOT regulated by the state and if someone abuses anyone because of their "looks" they are prosecuted by law. Ofcourse you might have some exceptions here and there where insanity prevails, but consideration is given to religious sentiments where they make sense.
This is infact where the Islamic form of government would fall into, particularlly if you look at the pacts and treaties that were signed by the Prophet Muhammed (SAW) with non-muslims as well and with later muslim rulers. And many muslim countries follow the same principles without calling themselves "secular". Ofcourse they are not perfect, and lots of improvement is needed, but the situation is not as bad as you make it out to be. Unless ofcourse you have been reading Organiser or Saamna.
The problem is that in some muslim countries including Pakistan, the word secular is associated with the Chinese or Turkish style instead of the Indian/Maylasian/American style which is closer to Islamic principles. Hence the confusion. That is why you have some Pakistanis vehemently insisting that they are Islamic country not secular, when infact a country that would want to run on Islamic principles would essentially have to be secular. Not in the chinese/french/turkish sense, but in the American/Maylasian/Indian sense of the term.
Last edited:
