The secular myth
- Thread starter surya kiran
- Start date
VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,460
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
Secularism does NOT reject the sovereignty of God, but leaves it to the followers of each religion to determine it for themselves by not playing favorites by enforcing one religion over another so that all of its citizens are treated equally.
Verve
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 15, 2014
- Messages
- 11,116
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
Is that a revised/new definition?
Secularism rejects laws given by God. Same sex marriage is one such example - a blatant defiance. Another example is that Incest wasn't illegal in Secular Germany not long ago. And then Interest (riba) etc etc. Long list.
M. Sarmad
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2013
- Messages
- 7,022
- Reaction score
- 62
- Country
- Location
Secularism is not State Atheism.
Secularism is neutrality towards all religion – including atheism. 'Secular' and 'Atheist' are mutually exclusive terms. There is nothing such as "Atheist Privilege" in a secular country. Secularism, in fact, is antithetical to the core to State Atheism
Available estimates show that there are around 4300 religions in the world. Everyone (including myself) believes that their religion is the one true religion. There are 330 million goddesses and gods in Hinduism alone. Too many claimants to sovereignty. No ?
Secularism is the best guarantee of freedom of religion. It is inline with the Quranic principles of "Lakum deenukum waliya deen" (For you is your religion, and for me is my religion) and "La Ikraha Fid-deen" (THERE SHALL BE no coercion in matters of faith) ...
Verve
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 15, 2014
- Messages
- 11,116
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
In Secularism, majority decides what is right and wrong. In 1960's, homosexuality was declared a psychological problem in USA and now it's not a problem at all. In UK same sex marriages were not allowed, now they are. In Germany Incest and cannibalism was legal until recently, now it's not.
Right and wrong (decided by men) shifts in Secularism whereas the laws given by Allah are fixed. Hence Secularism does away with sovereignty of Allah.
Secularism is not compatible with Islam. Men do not have authority to replace or reject Allah's laws in Islam.
Right and wrong (decided by men) shifts in Secularism whereas the laws given by Allah are fixed. Hence Secularism does away with sovereignty of Allah.
Secularism is not compatible with Islam. Men do not have authority to replace or reject Allah's laws in Islam.
VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,460
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
So if men do not have the authority to replace or reject Allah's Laws in Islam, does that mean that everyone MUST become a Muslim? Then why has He allowed men free will to choose their religion, the world today, as throughout human history, being a very diverse place? If being Muslim is a choice, then it also means that man is free to choose his religion. If man is not free to choose, then must Islam be imposed by abhorrent force?
Verve
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 15, 2014
- Messages
- 11,116
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
Some people are intentionally twisting things. Islam doesn't discriminate against non muslims in practicing their religion.
However as a Muslim majority land, there are certain norms and laws that minorities must abide by as well. And theres nothing unusual in that.
However as a Muslim majority land, there are certain norms and laws that minorities must abide by as well. And theres nothing unusual in that.
M. Sarmad
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2013
- Messages
- 7,022
- Reaction score
- 62
- Country
- Location
Now You are confusing Secularism with Republicanism/Democracy. Nevertheless, Republicanism too (just like Secularism) is compatible with Islam.
The republican form of government is not only thoroughly consistent with the spirit of Islam, but has also become a necessity in view of the new forces that were set free in the world of Islam.- Allama Muhammad Iqbal
And as mentioned earlier, Islam is a voluntary (individual and/or collective) submission and obedience to Allah almighty, it's not something that has to be "enforced" by the state.
" And had your Lord willed, all the people on Earth in their entirety would have believed. Would you force the people to make them believe?" [The Noble Qur'an 10:99]
Now compare it with Objectives Resolution/Pakistan Constitution which states " Sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone" ... Aren't we "forcing" the Pakistani Non Muslims to believe in Allah almighty (and his sovereignty) ?
Last edited:
VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,460
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
The Objectives Resolution remains the basic - and ultimately fatal - flaw in Pakistan's very foundations.
niaz
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 5,164
- Reaction score
- 211
- Country
- Location
Don't know why there is so much discussion on "Secularism". Pakistan is in no danger from secularism. In fact here problem is that we are not enough of "Hardliner". PTI gov't had donated RS 300- million to Maulana Sami ul Haq. This is what what he has to say on the Fatwa against Suicide Bombing.
A fatwa against fatwas
It is a fatwa against fatwas. Responding to a fatwa issued by 31 prominent religious scholars, Maulana Samiul Haq has repeated the arguments that form the core of the terrorist narrative in Pakistan and around the world. The fatwa and its rebuttal manifest the battle of ideas raging within the Muslim world. It also shows how the emasculated ruling elite end up supporting the wrong side of the divide.
The International Islamic University in Islamabad organised a national seminar last week that concluded with the issuance of a fatwa by scholars affiliated with various Muslim denominations. Condemning extremism and terrorism, the fatwa declares the supporters of suicide bombing as traitors, defines jihad to be the purview of the state and disallows the use of force to compel obedience to Islamic laws. It is our strange times that make this fatwa stand out. Otherwise, it can be seen as a mere reiteration of the orthodox Islamic injunction that lay emphasis on obedience to the state to guard against social and political anarchy.
Maulana Samiul Haq lashed back at the fatwa saying that the meeting of the US and Saudi leaders in Riyadh and the subsequent Ulema conference in Pakistan was an attempt to block jihad. He pointed out that the religious scholars who met in Islamabad had claimed that jihad could not be declared without permission of rulers. He argued that the rulers of the Muslim world were puppets of the West and could not declare jihad against their masters.
An international research institute has identified six narratives used by Al-Qaeda to justify their violence. The Maulana’s statement carries within it at least half of these: “1) There is a war going on against Islam, and the West is a major enemy; 2) Muslim rulers are agents of the West; and 3) Muslims have a duty to wage violent jihad in order to achieve justice.
Maulana Samiul Haq is a leading religious scholar of the Deoband denomination. He is head of Darul Uloom Haqqania, one of the largest and most influential religious madressahs in the country. He is also head of a religio-political party (JUI-S) that has seen good days. However, his fame mainly relies on his links with the Taliban – both the Afghan and the Pakistani variants. He calls the Taliban his children and expresses pride on their link with his madressah.
What I am trying to analyse here is the dynamic interaction between the three roles Maulana Sami has tried to negotiate – the scholarly, the political and the militant. Maulana Abdul Haq, father of Maulana Sami, taught at Deoband for five years (1943-1947) before moving to his native town, Akora Khttak in KP to set up his own madressah. With the rise in the power and prestige of the madressah, the Maulana got involved in politics from the platform of the JUI and was twice elected to the National Assembly. Maulana Sami inherited both roles from his father. He broke away from the JUI led by Maulana Fazlur Rehman to join Ziaul Haq and became a part of his unelected Majlis-e-Shoora.
By the 1997 elections, his party and political ambitions had almost been reduced to ashes. Thanks to 9/11 and support from Parvez Musharraf, his political fortunes were revived. He founded the Defence of Afghanistan Council in reaction to the US military attack on Afghanistan, which later transformed into Difa-e-Paksitan Council (Defence of Pakistan Council). This alliance also gave birth to the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal that won 63 seats in the National Assembly in the 2002 elections and formed governments in KP and Balochistan.
Though the MMA has been disintegrated and the Maulana has lost his eminence in electoral politics yet again, he is still the head of the Difa-e-Pakistan Council (Defence of Pakistan Council), an umbrella coalition of more than 30 political and religious parties including a number of banned sectarian and militant organisations.
The website of Darul Uloom Haqqania states five objectives of the institution. While its first objective is to produce religious scholars, its second stated goal is to produce “men of action who can wage jihad against infidels for greatness of the word of God”. The fifth is to produce “such political activists/politicians who could confront oppressive rulers and save the nation from slavery of Jews and Christians.”
It appears like a burdensome mandate for a religious seminary. Luckily, the institution enjoys complete backing of “the oppressive rulers” who are “stooges of West”. Our interior minister is known for his defence of the Defence of Pakistan Council and his friend from Aitchison, Imran Khan, has granted Rs300 million to the Haqqania seminary through his government in KP (according to the World Bank only 44 percent schools in KP have basic facilities).
According to Imran Khan, the grant is meant for mainstreaming. So what is being mainstreamed here? A well known columnist was sued by Imran Khan when he wrote that Imran Khan has mainstreamed extremism in the country. The column is titled ‘The man who sold Pakistan’. I think it is unfair to single out Imran Khan here. It is the whole clean-shaven (and moustached) power elite that has sold us to people like Samiul Haq for narrow political objectives and warped ideas of security.
The narrative propagated by people like Samiul Haq has proved disastrous and extremist groups have used it to justify violence and mayhem. We are just coming out of a bloodbath and cannot afford state patronage of such groups and their ideas.
While Samiul Haq considers the ruling elite to be stooges of the West, terrorists consider most religious scholars stooges of the ruling elite and therefore stooges of the West. While Samiul Haq has remained safe, a number of Deobandi scholars have been killed by their Taliban students.
I have no way of judging which set of ulema are more pious and giving us the true interpretation of the sacred text. However, I know that I am citizen of a state called Pakistan and it is my right to demand safety, security and wellbeing from my state, its institutions and those at the helm of affairs.
After counting seventy thousand bodies, the state of Pakistan is still pondering about the counter-narrative. The chief of Nacta has given us the good tiding that the counterterrorism narrative will soon be ready. Thanks, but no thanks. The chief of Nacta should share the newly-minted narrative with his boss and he may share it with his childhood buddy. They need it more than the people of Pakistan.
We can do with two simple narratives used by all modern nation-states. The first is based on Weber’s idea that the state has monopoly over violence and no one can use force or pick up a gun without an explicit legal authority from the state.
The second is based on the social contract theory that binds state and citizens into an unwritten (and written in the form of the constitution) agreement. The social contract demands citizens to obey all lawful commands of the state while the state is required to work for their security and wellbeing.
PS: According to a recent report, out of 64 organisations banned by the government, 41 have a presence on Facebook. They happily operate 700 pages and groups, apart from individual user profiles. I wonder why 23 of these organisations have no presence on social media. Why can’t the cyber wing of FIA help them set up their social media accounts? They are after all no godless seculars or critical traitors.
The writer is an anthropologist and development professional.
Email: zaighamkhan@yahoo.com
Twitter: @zaighamkhan
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/208651-A-fatwa-against-fatwas
Pray tell me, when PTI gov't led by Oxford educated Imran Khan supports such Mullahs, should we really worry about secularists?
A fatwa against fatwas
It is a fatwa against fatwas. Responding to a fatwa issued by 31 prominent religious scholars, Maulana Samiul Haq has repeated the arguments that form the core of the terrorist narrative in Pakistan and around the world. The fatwa and its rebuttal manifest the battle of ideas raging within the Muslim world. It also shows how the emasculated ruling elite end up supporting the wrong side of the divide.
The International Islamic University in Islamabad organised a national seminar last week that concluded with the issuance of a fatwa by scholars affiliated with various Muslim denominations. Condemning extremism and terrorism, the fatwa declares the supporters of suicide bombing as traitors, defines jihad to be the purview of the state and disallows the use of force to compel obedience to Islamic laws. It is our strange times that make this fatwa stand out. Otherwise, it can be seen as a mere reiteration of the orthodox Islamic injunction that lay emphasis on obedience to the state to guard against social and political anarchy.
Maulana Samiul Haq lashed back at the fatwa saying that the meeting of the US and Saudi leaders in Riyadh and the subsequent Ulema conference in Pakistan was an attempt to block jihad. He pointed out that the religious scholars who met in Islamabad had claimed that jihad could not be declared without permission of rulers. He argued that the rulers of the Muslim world were puppets of the West and could not declare jihad against their masters.
An international research institute has identified six narratives used by Al-Qaeda to justify their violence. The Maulana’s statement carries within it at least half of these: “1) There is a war going on against Islam, and the West is a major enemy; 2) Muslim rulers are agents of the West; and 3) Muslims have a duty to wage violent jihad in order to achieve justice.
Maulana Samiul Haq is a leading religious scholar of the Deoband denomination. He is head of Darul Uloom Haqqania, one of the largest and most influential religious madressahs in the country. He is also head of a religio-political party (JUI-S) that has seen good days. However, his fame mainly relies on his links with the Taliban – both the Afghan and the Pakistani variants. He calls the Taliban his children and expresses pride on their link with his madressah.
What I am trying to analyse here is the dynamic interaction between the three roles Maulana Sami has tried to negotiate – the scholarly, the political and the militant. Maulana Abdul Haq, father of Maulana Sami, taught at Deoband for five years (1943-1947) before moving to his native town, Akora Khttak in KP to set up his own madressah. With the rise in the power and prestige of the madressah, the Maulana got involved in politics from the platform of the JUI and was twice elected to the National Assembly. Maulana Sami inherited both roles from his father. He broke away from the JUI led by Maulana Fazlur Rehman to join Ziaul Haq and became a part of his unelected Majlis-e-Shoora.
By the 1997 elections, his party and political ambitions had almost been reduced to ashes. Thanks to 9/11 and support from Parvez Musharraf, his political fortunes were revived. He founded the Defence of Afghanistan Council in reaction to the US military attack on Afghanistan, which later transformed into Difa-e-Paksitan Council (Defence of Pakistan Council). This alliance also gave birth to the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal that won 63 seats in the National Assembly in the 2002 elections and formed governments in KP and Balochistan.
Though the MMA has been disintegrated and the Maulana has lost his eminence in electoral politics yet again, he is still the head of the Difa-e-Pakistan Council (Defence of Pakistan Council), an umbrella coalition of more than 30 political and religious parties including a number of banned sectarian and militant organisations.
The website of Darul Uloom Haqqania states five objectives of the institution. While its first objective is to produce religious scholars, its second stated goal is to produce “men of action who can wage jihad against infidels for greatness of the word of God”. The fifth is to produce “such political activists/politicians who could confront oppressive rulers and save the nation from slavery of Jews and Christians.”
It appears like a burdensome mandate for a religious seminary. Luckily, the institution enjoys complete backing of “the oppressive rulers” who are “stooges of West”. Our interior minister is known for his defence of the Defence of Pakistan Council and his friend from Aitchison, Imran Khan, has granted Rs300 million to the Haqqania seminary through his government in KP (according to the World Bank only 44 percent schools in KP have basic facilities).
According to Imran Khan, the grant is meant for mainstreaming. So what is being mainstreamed here? A well known columnist was sued by Imran Khan when he wrote that Imran Khan has mainstreamed extremism in the country. The column is titled ‘The man who sold Pakistan’. I think it is unfair to single out Imran Khan here. It is the whole clean-shaven (and moustached) power elite that has sold us to people like Samiul Haq for narrow political objectives and warped ideas of security.
The narrative propagated by people like Samiul Haq has proved disastrous and extremist groups have used it to justify violence and mayhem. We are just coming out of a bloodbath and cannot afford state patronage of such groups and their ideas.
While Samiul Haq considers the ruling elite to be stooges of the West, terrorists consider most religious scholars stooges of the ruling elite and therefore stooges of the West. While Samiul Haq has remained safe, a number of Deobandi scholars have been killed by their Taliban students.
I have no way of judging which set of ulema are more pious and giving us the true interpretation of the sacred text. However, I know that I am citizen of a state called Pakistan and it is my right to demand safety, security and wellbeing from my state, its institutions and those at the helm of affairs.
After counting seventy thousand bodies, the state of Pakistan is still pondering about the counter-narrative. The chief of Nacta has given us the good tiding that the counterterrorism narrative will soon be ready. Thanks, but no thanks. The chief of Nacta should share the newly-minted narrative with his boss and he may share it with his childhood buddy. They need it more than the people of Pakistan.
We can do with two simple narratives used by all modern nation-states. The first is based on Weber’s idea that the state has monopoly over violence and no one can use force or pick up a gun without an explicit legal authority from the state.
The second is based on the social contract theory that binds state and citizens into an unwritten (and written in the form of the constitution) agreement. The social contract demands citizens to obey all lawful commands of the state while the state is required to work for their security and wellbeing.
PS: According to a recent report, out of 64 organisations banned by the government, 41 have a presence on Facebook. They happily operate 700 pages and groups, apart from individual user profiles. I wonder why 23 of these organisations have no presence on social media. Why can’t the cyber wing of FIA help them set up their social media accounts? They are after all no godless seculars or critical traitors.
The writer is an anthropologist and development professional.
Email: zaighamkhan@yahoo.com
Twitter: @zaighamkhan
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/208651-A-fatwa-against-fatwas
Pray tell me, when PTI gov't led by Oxford educated Imran Khan supports such Mullahs, should we really worry about secularists?
Verve
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 15, 2014
- Messages
- 11,116
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
Any system where a single man (dictator or king) or group of men (as in secular democracies) replace &/or reject Allah's ordained laws is not compatible with Islam. There is no two ways about it, and Western Secularism (there is no other) is one such system that clearly rejects Quran for guidance on laws.
Legalising Cannibalism is compatible with Islam?
Legalising Homosexuality is compatible with Islam?
Legalising Same sex marriages is compatible with Islam?
Legalising Incest is compatible with Islam?
If you legalise any of the above (& many more such), you can no longer call that system Islam let alone claim it to be 'compatible with Islam'!!
I guess some simply can't get their heads around all this even when it is explained in simple language.
VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,460
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
It would be funny, were it not so tragic to see, that those who insist that Islam must be politically enforced as a complete way of life by force of State cannot even provide a working example, since not even the most ardent supporters can agree on a unified code to be enforced. That alone proves their farcical stance about such a noble religion.
Verve
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 15, 2014
- Messages
- 11,116
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
No, we are not forcing to believe.
In Secularism a man or group of men create laws and minorities have to abide without a choice (leaving is a choice however). Same way in Islamic State, minorities have to abide by Allah's laws.
Lets take one example. Name me one Western Secularist state that allows a Muslim man to have more than one wife (with full whole hearted consent of all current wives)?
Oh yeah, certain rules in Secular states apply to all irrespective of whether the religion of those allows it or not.
In UK, Nikkah is not recognised marriage. Why is that then? Why does the state enforce Registration? Pakistan recognises Hindu marriage now, and a Secular state like UK doesn't recognise Nikkah! Sheer Hypocrisy!
If Secularism was really about equality and justice, then why not let Muslims do what they are allowed to? Ban on muslim clothing in Switzerland? What's that about then. Equality and Justice is just BS mantra in Secularism.
And those questioning about absence of Islamic system, name one true Secularist state where everyone can live their lives according to their faiths?
Why the double standards then eh!?
Similar threads
- Article
