Secularism, the result of internal conflict between the Christian church and the state, where after a long struggle the secularists ultimately separated the Christian church/religion’s hold from the functions of the state. The very essence of secularism has its roots with how Christianity was preached and practiced, in the western world. Its basically a western concept which emerged as a reaction to the rule of the Christian church.
Now for Islam, as a religion it has totally different dynamics, its in no way or shape anyway close to the Christian religion how the church governed. Islam as a religion and as guide for governing principles never had any conflicts. My question is it safe to say that the modern concept of secular state is basically ok for a western mostly Christian state, but its totally alien to Islam? Secondly, is it right that the modern concept of secular state was introduced in majority Muslim areas during colonial era?
Now for Islam, as a religion it has totally different dynamics, its in no way or shape anyway close to the Christian religion how the church governed. Islam as a religion and as guide for governing principles never had any conflicts. My question is it safe to say that the modern concept of secular state is basically ok for a western mostly Christian state, but its totally alien to Islam? Secondly, is it right that the modern concept of secular state was introduced in majority Muslim areas during colonial era?
Secularism arose from the will of the people. The masses did not want to be governed by a belief foreign from their own. Same is true for Islam. Shias and Sunnis see it very differently, and Islamic rule relegates all other beliefs. Theocracies were ok in the dark ages, or while Arabs were crawling around in the dirt. There is no place for theocracy in the modern world.
Honestly, I think the concept of secularism is a fallacy. Western countries haven't separated church and state. They have replaced the Christian church with a humanistic churh.
That's a common cop out of the religious. Try to paint secularism with the same negative conotation of a theocracy. The difference being that religions is not shoved down your throat, nor is your religion supported by my taxes.
So then you are no longer a believer of the religion you believe in because you just cutoff the law abiding part of it. There is no pick and choose in religion. Or religion is not a set of software components you put together based on what you need from it.
MiniMe Bhaijaan, secularism is like democracy it has different meanings to people living in different parts of the world. Anyway, its debatable that secularism is a western phenomenon because many eastern cultures have experimented with it. For example, Buddhists preach a form of secularism where religion was not a tribal or Territorial identity, so was the attempt by Akbar.
I would even argue that by giving people a choice and governing the different religious communities among Muslims, AnHazoor (saw) set up a form of secular state.
Regardless of how secularism is understood, it is very obvious that it is the only way forward for a multicultural society. A state religion can only work for a country which is religious 100% monolithic otherwise some citizens of the state will definitely be treated differently. Considering the wave of globalization sustaining such a society will be very hard work.
What they practice is tolerance, equality, plularism and non-authoritarianism.
These are all positve characteristics of the humanistic church. But it has nothing to do with separation of state and church.
Any religion that has the above qualities can be a basis for a political system.
MiniMe bhaijaa, secularism is not the absence of religion.. it's just that you no longer have a right to burn me while i pray in my place of worship OR pray differently from what you think is the right way OR not pray at all
It's just that simple. It's essential for co-existence that none of our religions be supported by our monies or laws. If there were a secular government in Pakistan.. All Minorities would still be considered non-muslim by Sunnis/Shias or whoever, only that there won't be open season on them or u couldn't discriminate against them getting public employment. It would definitely be a better place than an "Islamic Country" where the majority sect is God.
Secularism is simply the separation of the a religious institution from the State, not separation of individual religious beliefs from the State or society.
Agreed somewhat however religion has a law abiding aspect to it. There are certain economic principles and other aspects on which the functioning on the state must be based. Secularism no longer follows that. So you are limited to principles in your religion but you cannot enforce a political system that would abide by it.
Yes, the functions of the State are certainly based on many principles beyond religion. But, right, religion is largely an act of faith. I do think that you can enfore a political system to abide by the principles of a religion, sure. But just as in any other basis for a poltical system, not everyone is going to follow it. So yes, in a way, it is impossible to compeltely mandate a religious society but not impossible to enforce it.
Of course, secular is not the same as non-religious. I think what you get in the Islamic world is many people who confuse those two.
I think Secularism is good as well, but not when used loosely.
For example, now in the West, some people's religious beliefs are not allowed to be enforced. This gets complicated when dealing with issues such as inheritcance and marriage. Moreover, people are free to do things that may affect other people, but are not controlled.
However, I think it could still work in Muslim states. If a Muslim wants to follow Islam, they can, if they don't want to they don't have to. If I commit adultery and want to be stoned to death - fine, if I don't then fine as well. I shouldn't have to follow law against my will.
The sentence denotes the high calibre of either deliberate or natural ignorance on your part…I have read many responses from you, they however represent a sickening amount of Islamophobia…
But I expect that from any inbred hick, BJP or RSS intellectual…
History is witness that Muslims were at the height of their power and achievements when Islam was enforced from the seat of the Khilafat…
But I believe you would not be aware of this fact as it is written in history…And since it is written, it would require an effort on your part to read and become aware of facts…
That alone would leave you in the dark about many aspects…Hence, the result is the bolded statement in your diatribe…
If I commit adultery and accept that my religion commands me to be stoned to death - fine, if I don't then fine as well. I shouldn't have to follow law against my will.
I am sorry it still did not make any sense to me. If everyone has the choice in such cases then it is not a Justice system. It’s a mockery of the system. Who will be willing to be stoned to death?
Islam is a package for individual and collective social [State driven] life. You either take it or you leave it. IF there is no socio-political system of Islam is established, you work for it. There is no compromise in the deen of Allah:swt:
The choice is whether or not to follow Islam. If someone doesn’t want to follow Islam properly, they shouldn’t have to.
The Islamic justice system applies to a Muslim. If someone doesn’t want to be a Muslim, they justice system doesn’t apply to them.
By giving someone the option of whether or not they are willing to be stoned to death shows whether or not they are a true Muslim.
If someone believes that being stoned to death is a brutal, unfair punishment then why should they subject themselves to it? If you don’t wholly believe in every rule of Islam being just and fair, then you aren’t following God’s laws. I guess that stoning someone to death would be a “favour” to the Muslim in a way, yet that means that we no longer have the choice to decide our lives for ourselves.
The Islamic justice system applies to a Muslim. If someone doesn't want to be a Muslim, they justice system doesn't apply to them.
By giving someone the option of whether or not they are willing to be stoned to death, shows whether or not they are a true Muslim.
WaSalaam
I understand that Islamic Judiciary System allows laws for non-muslims but what you are saying still does not make any sense.
Basically, you are encouraging a muslim to become murtid and accept the lesser punishment. But in your given example, the problem is that there is a punishment of a murtid as well in the Islamic laws. Death.
Basically, you are encouraging a muslim to become murtid and accept the lesser punishment.
I am not encouraging it, I am simply allowing it. There is a big difference.
I looked it up, and I stand corrected.** But **I will look into this more, and get back to you because to me it doesn't make sense that Muslims that leave Islam should be killed unconditionally.