Ataturk's Legacy vs Caliphate and implications for Pakistan

[Targon]

Explain the part that not makes sense.

That link proves nothing , there is countless fake reports about him , jewish, atheist, christian, mason somehow they are not agreed on one of them also what if he was jewish ? a significiant part of today s problems of Turkey coming from that , fanatics discriminating pretty much everybody that who is not one of them , even the sects of same religion.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

Alright so lets get started with a discussion on secularism. In Medieval Europe, Christianity was a source of oppression. The Catholic Church deterred people from gaining knowledge, & discussing ideas opposed to Christianity, this led to the fall of European nations. On the other hand, Islamic states at that time were prospering, they certainly couldn't be described as a utopia due to internal conflicts & politics, nevertheless, they were willing to adopt changes & enhance their knowledge because Islam encouraged learning. I heard that within the caliphate, Muslims wrote books about the best way for couples to have intercourse within the frame of marriage back then? Whereas in Europe, a book of this sort at the time would have been instantly banned & burned. Things have changed haven't they? Muslims created buildings with beautiful architecture all for the sake of pleasing God. They might have been inspired by a hadith in which the Prophet says: "God is beautiful, & He loves beauty".

Anyway, so the concept of separation of Church & state was born to free European nations from the shackles of the Catholic Church. The encouragement of freedom of speech, thought, expression, & the flow of knowledge led to the Italian Renaissance. Polymaths like Leonardo Da Vinci studied books written by Muslims as well as by the ancient Greeks. Now however, the Islamic states began to restrict & discourage people from gaining western education. I find this Ironic because the Arab Muslims originally studied books written within the Greco-Roman civilizations. Thus, the caliphate went backwards, & Islam was used as a tool of oppression just as Christianity was in the past. Why would secularism help us in this case? A secular state provides freedom to all religions & treats all people regardless of them being the majority or minority equally. Since religion & state is separate, there can be no oppression on the basis of religion. I remember reading an article on this forum sometime back where Pakistanis were complaining that people shouldn't be allowed to eat in public during Ramadan. I found that pathetic because forbidding public consumption of food violates the rights of a people. If you are fasting, good for you, but don't tell someone else to change his or her lifestyle for your sake, there is no Islamic basis for that whatsoever. A secular state in this case ensures that religion will not be a source of oppression.

A secular state allows an independent foreign policy. I make this point because countries like Pakistan are too desperate for the love of other Muslims, & it's primarily for the sake of our so-called "Muslim brothers" that we haven't recognized countries like Israel. Lets just say that a secular state gives priority to its own interests whereas religious sentiments play a role in an Islamic state. Furthermore, Pakistanis assume that forming an Islamic state requires considering yourself Muslim first & ignoring your heritage. The truth is that Islam isn't meant to replace your identity, it merely complements it. God & His messenger never asked Muslims to forget or ignore their racial or historic heritage. The concept of being a Muslim first is misunderstood. Being a Muslim first means to give priority to God's commandments, it does not imply or require a replacement of identity. Those of you who have studied history are bound to be aware of the fact that even in the caliphate; Arabs, Persians, & Turks took pride in their race, culture, & language. A modern Islamic state foolishly discourages nationalism, even though that is essential for people's survival. Unfortunately, "multicultural" secular states are guilty of neglecting ethnic nationalism too. The republic of Turkey is exempted from this crime.

Secular states ensure the freedom of speech, thought, expression, & are willing to adapt themselves to the needs of the society. The Islamic state should theoretically do the same, but it fails miserably in practice. Freedom is essential for creativity & innovation, religious shackles restrain this liberty in practice in spite of the fact that these "shackles" lack any Islamic ground. In modern times, most of us appreciate the concept of "civil liberties". This basically means that an individual is free to do whatever he or she desires provided that this person does not cause harm to others or steal their rights. In a secular state, civil liberties are guaranteed; an individual can drink alcohol even if religion forbids it. Women can dress however they desire, as it is their right to do so. An Islamic state is more restrictive, it may allow non-Muslims more liberty, but Muslims are confined to the Islamic law. I remember reading an interesting incident, I am not too certain regarding the date of this incident. It could have occurred during the caliphates or it may have occurred at the time of the Prophet. Anyway, a man complained that his neighbor wasn't a good Muslim because as I recall, he didn't give extra charity or fast in days apart from Ramadan, & neither did he pray any extra prayers besides the compulsory ones. In his defence the man stated that he prayed the 5 compulsory prayers on time, he fasted during Ramadan, & he gave the required amount of Zakat every year, but he never did anything in excess. Please note that I am narrating this incident with my own wording, & I may have made a few mistakes, the dialogue I presented between the 2 parties is again my own wording & interpretation. This informs us that an Islamic state has the right to ensure that its Muslim citizens follow Islam, some people may consider that a violation of their civil liberties. I remember that a member on this forum described this if I remember correctly as "pushing people through the gates of heaven". It seems that a secular state sounds pretty great, so why are people opposed to it if guarantees religious freedom?

The problem is that while a secular state allows complete freedom of religion & Muslims are free to practice Islamic teachings in regards to clothing, behaviour, & acts of worship, this state does not allow the implementation of Islamic punishments for certain crimes. That violates God's sovereignty, how does it do that? For example, a murderer may be sent to jail instead of being given the death sentence, an adulterer or adulteress won't be punished, instead he or she might just have their rights of alimony revoked during a divorce. This is contrary to God's judgement, & conservative Muslims believe that not punishing an adulterer or adulteress is tantamount to encouraging adultery. Keep in mind that Muslims can't take the law in to their own hands either because that is forbidden in Islam as it spreads "fitna" or mischief, & disrupts peace & order in the society. So what can we do now?

I am of the opinion that if the creation of an Islamic state leads to oppression & injustice, where the life, honor, & property of men & women isn't protected then the requirement for another form of governance is clear. If Muslims can not learn to be progressive & tolerant in an Islamic state, then why not adopt a secular model, especially if it can lead to peace, prosperity, & civility? The point being made here is to focus on the greater good. Yes, it goes against the laws of God, but it may end up eradicating inequality & oppression. After all, doesn't God teach that oppression is worse than slaughter? This would be good for Muslims too, since Islam won't be defamed by intolerant idiots. I don't deny that Islam is against separating religion & state in Muslim societies, but if this separation leads to justice & progress prevailing in the land then we should accept it. Keep in mind that this is my view on the subject, it's definitely not some religious verdict. Anyway, I hope my post was beneficial to all of you.

 

[Dubious]

There have been lots of arguments regarding the formation of "secular" democratic & an "Islamic" democratic state. The truth is that if both parties aren't aware of the reasons behind the Islamic stance against secularism, all discussions regarding this topic will enter an infinite loop. So I think I should shed some light upon how things work in an Islamic & secular state.

I brought up the term "sovereignty" before, it basically refers to the supreme authority an individual or government may have over a geographical area. Thus, from the Islamic perspective; "sovereignty" belongs to God. The reason being that the entire universe functions with will & scientific designs of God, & since He is the creator, He alone has supreme authority over His creation. According to the Quran; God created Adam so that Adam may worship Him & consequently be tested as His vicegerent or representative on Earth. After Adam's demise, this authority was transferred to his descendants, & they were instructed to implement God's law over their respective nations. The message being given to us here is that revoking God's authority in a Muslim majority state is equivalent to the violation of His sovereignty. Fast forward to the era of the final Prophet. Muhammad (may peace be upon him) received revelations in the first Arab Islamic state of Madinah, some of these revelations consisted of punishments & rulings pertaining to a variety of situations ranging from inheritance to the punishment of murder. The Prophet was the teacher, the judge, the lawgiver, the commander, & the king simultaneously. Keep in mind that the Prophet also asked & held discussions with his companions over administrative & other worldly issues. Religious rulings however were always instructed by him based upon the commandments of God.

After the Prophet's demise, the borders of the Caliphate began to expand beyond Arabia. It's clear that new laws were required to rule over the vast territories of the empire. For example; previously the state of Madinah did not have a paid organized army, instead it relied upon volunteers to defend the land. Now however, the Muslims needed a paid & organized army to defend the caliphate's territory & the technique adopted to keep a record of the soldiers & their payments originated from the Byzantine empire. Furthermore all matters & laws relating to worldly affairs were decided upon by consultation using the Quran & sunnah as basis to avoid deviation from religion. Do you realize what this means? This means that in an Islamic democracy Muslims lack the authority to modify certain divine rulings. For example, the punishment for an adulterer is stoning to death, & this punishment may not be modified just because the Islamic society no longer agrees with this punishment, but as always there are exceptions. The laws pertaining to polygamy, the age restrictions of marriage, or even chopping the hand of a thief may be modified according to the needs of the society. For instance a needy & starving individual's hand may not be chopped off, whereas an individual making a legal living would get his or her hand chopped if he or she were to steal for greater illegal gains.

Let me provide you with an example of how new laws may possibly be derived from the sharia. Slander is a crime in which an individual makes malicious or defamatory remarks against the victim for the purpose of tarnishing the individual's good name. In modern times the crime of defamation can be committed through a variety of tools such as the Internet. Thus, the Islamic state can punish a person for the crime of defamation based upon on lets say a comment on a social network. In this scenario however, the state must take in to consideration the possibility of identity theft & legislate laws & procedures to prove that the slanderer is identified with the appropriate online identity. Another interesting contention is that the Islamic law is only applicable upon those that claim to be Muslims & upon those who accept to have their cases judged on the basis of sharia. Under certain circumstances punishments ascribed in the sharia may be applicable upon non-Muslims too. The proof of this comes from the various courts within the caliphate itself. Jews, Christians, & Zoroastrians had their own courts & judges to deal with all religious matters pertaining to them. Sometimes, acts forbidden for Muslims were legalized for minorities. For example; some Zoroastrians had incestuous marriages within the family, & while that is haram according to the sharia law, it was legal under the caliphate for Zoroastrians. This is proof that the Islamic state theoretically guarantees the protection of the rights of the minorities. This also implies that a modern Islamic state has the authority to allow the sale & production alcohol for non-Muslims provided that it is non-Muslims that produce & sell it.

Besides all this, an Islamic state is supposed to guarantee the freedom of religion & the protection of the holy sites of non-Muslims. An Islamic state must guarantee & protect the freedom of speech, thought, & expression at all costs for both Muslims & non-Muslims. Why then are people against the formation of an Islamic state? The reason is that the theoretical Islamic state isn't always pragmatic. The modern Islamic states closely resemble Medieval Europe & they symbolize oppression, suppression of intellectual activities, corruption, & decadence. Minorities are oppressed, their sacred sites aren't protected. The freedom of speech, expression, & thought is restricted via un-Islamic laws such as the blasphemy law, & progression is discouraged under the guise of preserving Islamic traditions. Civil liberties are limited in practice. If these issues were to be resolved, I am certain that more people would be willing to live in an Islamic state.

I am a bit tired of typing a response to this topic at the moment, & I will discuss some aspects of a secular state later in part 2 of my post. I hope you enjoyed reading my post & opinions, thanks.​

Should be repeated for reminder purposes!

 

[Redbull]

@Phoenix

I think it was a good analysis. You did compare secularism to the an Islamic state however I feel it was prejudiced by the Wahabi Islamic state where you currently reside. Although I'm not knowledgeable enough to be able to refute or answer much of what you said, I think we should also observe other forms of Islamic governments which don't follow a literal view of Islamic code like the Wahabis do.

 

[Erhabi]

In 1901 the Jewish banker Mizray Qrasow and two other Jewish influential leaders came to visit Sultan Abdul Hamid II, they offered to give him :

1) Paying ALL the debts of the Uthmani Khilafah.

2) Building the Navy of the Ottoman state.

3) 35 Million Golden Leeras without interest to support the prosperity of the Uthmani Khilafah.

In Exchange for

1) Allowing Jews to visit Palestine anytime they please, and to stay as long as they want "to visit the holy sites."

2) Allowing the Jews to build settlements where they live, and they wanted them to be located near Jerusalem.

Sultan Abdul Hamid II refused to even meet them, he sent his answer to them through Tahsin Pasha, and the answer was "Tell those impolite Jews that the debts of the Uthmani state are not a shame, France has debts and that doesn't effect it.
Jerusalem became a part of the Islamic land when Khalifah Omar Bin Alkhattab took the city and I am not going to carry the historical shame of selling the holy lands to the Jews and betraying the responsibility and trust of my people. May the Jews keep their money, the Uthamani's will not hide in castles built with the money of the enemies of Islam." He also told them to leave and never come back to meet him again.

The Jews did not give up on Abdul Hameed, later in the same year, 1901, the founder of the Zionist movement, Theodor Hertzl, visited Istanbul and tried to meet the Sultan. Sultan Abdul Hamid II refused to meet him and he told his Head Of The Ministers Council "Advise Dr. Hertzl not to take any further steps in his project. I can not give away a handful of the soil of this land for it is not my own, it is for all the Islamic ummah. The Islamic ummah that fought Jihad for the sake of this land and they have watered it with their blood. The Jews may keep their money and millions. If the Islamic Khilafah State is one day destroyed then they will be able to take Palestine without a price! But while I am alive, I would rather push a sword into my body than see the land of Palestine cut and given away from the Islamic State. This is something that will not be, I will not start cutting our bodies while we are alive."


I read it on Hizb ul Tahrir page

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

@Phoenix

I think it was a good analysis. You did compare secularism to the an Islamic state however I feel it was prejudiced by the Wahabi Islamic state where you currently reside. Although I'm not knowledgeable enough to be able to refute or answer much of what you said, I think we should also observe other forms of Islamic governments which don't follow a literal view of Islamic code like the Wahabis do.

I don't think I was prejudiced at all, in fact it took me a lot of time to type out those posts & ensure a balanced view for the sake of the debate. I stated my own opinions regarding the advantages & disadvantages of both the secular & Islamic states without any modification. As for the Islamic law, feel free to read about the caliphates or even the state of Madinah, the law's implementation was just as I described it in my earlier posts.

 

[Zulkarneyn]

I just read it all and found a couple of very big flaws in your assesments.
1: That you present an idea wherein you make islam and modernity/progressive thinking mutually exclusive is your biggest flaw. You wrote yourself that islamic empires lead the world in science and progress in all the fields. But once we shackled ourselves from these things we started going backwards. Result: It is not islam but those in power that prevents progress. Which i will elloborate in a minute.

2: You want to take Turkey as an example obviously. I can't be angered at you because obviously you don't have the same amount of knowledge about Turkey and its history as i do. But let me shortly present to you the hard facts about the failure of secularism in Turkey, since you seem to hold it up repeatedly. After Kemal forced secularism in Turkey we have had a history full of opression and an open war against islam. It was not like how you present it. Women with hijab were banned from attending Universities for decades, they were banned from working in many places. Men couldn't gain ranks in the military if their parents were practicing muslims.
You talked about secularism resulting in religious freedom and the right to exercise your religion? Well buddy, i'm sorry to spell it out to you like this. But the exact opposite took place in Turkey for decades.

3: The Turkish example that you want to present here is void of truth. You want to show Turkey as the "shining" example of a Muslim majority country? Why don't you tell people that people during the times of secularists were poorer than African countries? Or why during their times, millions of Muslim women were denied education and work just because a piece of scarf on their heads?

You want justice and progress? Then you answered your own question.

And if people want to see how it really was like and what the problem with today's Muslim world is i urge you to read this piece by me. http://www.defence.pk/forums/turkey...rn-thought-turkey-problem-yet-not-solved.html

 

[BATMAN]

I'd like to separate the people of all these Muslim countries from their corrupt rulers. The feudal elite in Pakistan have done just as much to undermine Islam as Attaturk, we're on the same moral levels here. Either we go for the complete change, or we don't...there's no middle ground.

You are creating a false image of Ataturk with this vs. thingy.

One of Ataturk's less know Islamic service was, his crack down on Illuminati mansions.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

@ Zulkarneyn

I will respond to your post in a while.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

I just read it all and found a couple of very big flaws in your assesments.
1: That you present an idea wherein you make islam and modernity/progressive thinking mutually exclusive is your biggest flaw. You wrote yourself that islamic empires lead the world in science and progress in all the fields. But once we shackled ourselves from these things we started going backwards. Result: It is not islam but those in power that prevents progress. Which i will elloborate in a minute.

When did I make Islam & progressive thinking mutually exclusive? Didn't you read post #279 & post #287? I never presented the idea that Islam deters progress. The problem is that some modern Islamic states hardly abide by the principals of Islam. The caliphates progressed because they focused on gaining knowledge & provided people with an environment to flourish. The earlier Islamic states guaranteed & protected the freedom of expression, thought, & speech. That resulted in creativity, innovation, & progress. Modern Islamic states do not do that too well, there are obviously exceptions to this.

Here is a quote from my post #279 below.

Besides all this, an Islamic state is supposed to guarantee the freedom of religion & the protection of the holy sites of non-Muslims. An Islamic state must guarantee & protect the freedom of speech, thought, & expression at all costs for both Muslims & non-Muslims.

Here is a quote from my post #287 below.

Anyway, so the concept of separation of Church & state was born to free European nations from the shackles of the Catholic Church. The encouragement of freedom of speech, thought, expression, & the flow of knowledge led to the Italian Renaissance. Polymaths like Leonardo Da Vinci studied books written by Muslims as well as by the ancient Greeks. Now however, the Islamic states began to restrict & discourage people from gaining western education. I find this Ironic because the Arab Muslims originally studied books written within the Greco-Roman civilizations. Thus, the caliphate went backwards, & Islam was used as a tool of oppression just as Christianity was in the past.

I agree that leaders are responsible for guiding their people, & I repeat that I never stated that Islam prevents progress. In case a nation fails to progress, the blame resides not only on the leaders, but on the people too. Remember that some earlier caliphs told their people to obey them as long as they obey God? If the leader is bad, it's the people's responsibility to ensure his removal.

2: You want to take Turkey as an example obviously. I can't be angered at you because obviously you don't have the same amount of knowledge about Turkey and its history as i do. But let me shortly present to you the hard facts about the failure of secularism in Turkey, since you seem to hold it up repeatedly. After Kemal forced secularism in Turkey we have had a history full of opression and an open war against islam. It was not like how you present it. Women with hijab were banned from attending Universities for decades, they were banned from working in many places. Men couldn't gain ranks in the military if their parents were practicing muslims.
You talked about secularism resulting in religious freedom and the right to exercise your religion? Well buddy, i'm sorry to spell it out to you like this. But the exact opposite took place in Turkey for decades.

I am not taking Turkey as an excellent example of a secular state either, I know that there are issues that your society is facing. When I was discussing a successful Islamic state, I was referring to an ideal Islamic state where the laws of God are properly implemented. Similarly, when I presented the benefits of a secular state, I was referring to an ideal secular state that protects the freedom of religion & the rights of religious & ethnic minorities.

The ban on Muslim women wearing hijab in universities is clearly not something a good secular state that abides by the principals of secularism would do. As for men not being able to gain ranks in the military if their parents were practicing Muslims, that is completely foolish. It's obvious that a secular state isn't supposed to be like that. I think the reason for that prohibition was to ensure that religious people do not take over the military & present a threat to the secular quality of the state. I will agree that it wasn't a sensible decision, just because a person happens to be religious does not mean that he or she is likely to rebel against his or her state. Read my posts again, I presented the advantages & disadvantages of both secular & Islamic states without blindly favoring either side.

3: The Turkish example that you want to present here is void of truth. You want to show Turkey as the "shining" example of a Muslim majority country? Why don't you tell people that people during the times of secularists were poorer than African countries? Or why during their times, millions of Muslim women were denied education and work just because a piece of scarf on their heads?

You want justice and progress? Then you answered your own question.

What Turkish example did I present? Did I say Turkey is a "shining" example of a Muslim majority? I stated in my earlier posts that a Muslim majority nation is supposed to abide by the Islamic law. However, if Muslims misinterpret Islam & use it as a source of oppression, then it's better to adopt a secular model provided that helps in the prevalence of justice.

You claim that I am presenting Turkey as a "shining" example of a good Muslim majority nation, but the fact is that I used the word "Turkey" only once in post #287. Here is a quote from that post below.

Those of you who have studied history are bound to be aware of the fact that even in the caliphate; Arabs, Persians, & Turks took pride in their race, culture, & language. A modern Islamic state foolishly discourages nationalism, even though that is essential for people's survival. Unfortunately, "multicultural" secular states are guilty of neglecting ethnic nationalism too. The republic of Turkey is exempted from this crime.

What I meant to say was that it is a good thing that there happens to be nationalism in Turkey, people that aren't nationalistic are likely to neglect their heritage.

What do you mean by "then you answered your own question"? Everyone wants "justice & progress", & I already know the steps my own country needs to take to establish justice & promote progress.

I don't know about secularists being poorer than African countries. However, the reason I never discussed Muslim women being prohibited from attending universities because of the hijab is because my post on the benefits of a secular state does not talk about secularism in Turkey. There are many other secular nations where the freedom of religion & the right to practice it is much better looked after than Turkey. Secularism isn't to be blamed for the hijab being prohibited, the blame for that rests on Turkey alone. Similarly, Islam isn't to be blamed when an eleven year old Christian girl gets accused of blasphemy in Pakistan, the blame for that rests on Pakistan alone.

And if people want to see how it really was like and what the problem with today's Muslim world is i urge you to read this piece by me. http://www.defence.pk/forums/turkey...rn-thought-turkey-problem-yet-not-solved.html

I will try & read the article you wrote later on if I have time.

 

[Zulkarneyn]

I haven't read all 20 pages of this thread i was solely referring to your post #287

The thing is you try to detect the "thing" which prevents progress. And you present that "thing" as Islam, yes you use fancy words and describe them in very long and elaborate sentences, but ultimately what your conclusion comes down to is that secular principles will lessen corruption and result in progress and development in the Muslim world. That is the essence in your posts, as your clarify here:

I am of the opinion that if the creation of an Islamic state leads to oppression & injustice, where the life, honor, & property of men & women isn't protected then the requirement for another form of governance is clear. If Muslims can not learn to be progressive & tolerant in an Islamic state, then why not adopt a secular model, especially if it can lead to peace, prosperity, & civility?

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...e-implications-pakistan-20.html#ixzz24YZ9SHGN

But the current problem we are facing in the Muslim countries is not lack of secularism, it is lack of good state governance and state building. You cannot forcefully implement secularism in a country whose population mostly consists of conservative muslims/christians, if you do that you shoot yourself in your own feet. While trying to solve a problem you create deeper problems and rifts in your society.

What i meant with African standards during the times of secularists in Turkey is obvious. When the so-called secularists were in power for many decades right until 2002 Turkey was in very deep mess. Our economy was very bad, a GDP per income of around $2-3 thousand. Today it is about $13.000 and steadily growing. Why don't you research that yourself? In other words, the current success of Turkey in societal and economic terms is not a product of secularism, it is the product of islamist AKP.

 

[Targon]

We discuissed something like that somewhere else right ?

Secularism, Islamism these are not related to economical growth or decline, let me explain it with an example, you're working with a Communist guy in for example a restaurant, he shattered a plate, is it because he's Communist ?

Problems of the backward islamic countries are not only economical but also social, sect conflicts, religious discrimination, religion based violence etc.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

I haven't read all 20 pages of this thread i was solely referring to your post #287

The thing is you try to detect the "thing" which prevents progress. And you present that "thing" as Islam, yes you use fancy words and describe them in very long and elaborate sentences, but ultimately what your conclusion comes down to is that secular principles will lessen corruption and result in progress and development in the Muslim world. That is the essence in your posts.

Hahaha, what are you talking about? I suggest you read the posts I referred you to earlier. I never claimed that Islam is the "thing" prevents progress. Don't make things up alright? I tried to present a balanced comparison between the Islamic & secular state. Throughout one of my previous posts I discussed how progressive & great the original Islamic civilizations were, in fact read this quote from my post #287 below.

On the other hand, Islamic states at that time were prospering, they certainly couldn't be described as a utopia due to internal conflicts & politics, nevertheless, they were willing to adopt changes & enhance their knowledge because Islam encouraged learning. I heard that within the caliphate, Muslims wrote books about the best way for couples to have intercourse within the frame of marriage back then? Whereas in Europe, a book of this sort at the time would have been instantly banned & burned. Things have changed haven't they? Muslims created buildings with beautiful architecture all for the sake of pleasing God. They might have been inspired by a hadith in which the Prophet says: "God is beautiful, & He loves beauty".

Am I not giving credit to the Islamic state above? Did I not discuss their accomplishments? You haven't figured out the essence in my post at all. An Islamic state will only progress as long as its populace adheres & abides by the true principals of Islam. The problem is that some modern Islamic states fail to do so. I also discussed the reasons why a Muslim majority state is supposed to implement the laws of God for the sake of honoring His sovereignty & abiding by His principles. However, if people fail to honor His laws & misuse religion then it is my opinion that secularism should be considered as a solution. The reasoning behind this which is again my own opinion is that God says that oppression is worse than slaughter. Thus, if the formation of a secular state helps end oppression, then why not consider its benefits?

I suggest you stop misinterpreting & misrepresenting my views for your sickening agenda of confusing the readers. I advise all readers to read my posts on their own. I have never blamed Islam as a factor in preventing progress & innovation, nor do I claim that secularism is the only solution. However, secularism is a good solution if Muslim majority states fail to abide by the "true" principals of Islam. Once again, I recommend that you read my earlier posts.

Here is what you quoted from one of my posts.

I am of the opinion that if the creation of an Islamic state leads to oppression & injustice, where the life, honor, & property of men & women isn't protected then the requirement for another form of governance is clear. If Muslims can not learn to be progressive & tolerant in an Islamic state, then why not adopt a secular model, especially if it can lead to peace, prosperity, & civility?

Going back to the portion of the paragraph that you quoted from my post, try & understand the reasoning behind my views. It is never a good idea to read stuff out of context, that is why I repeat that you should read my previous posts. I acknowledged it many times that an Islamic state is supposed to be progressive, tolerant, just, & a land where people reside peacefully. Focus on the word "opinion" in that quote. I haven't blamed Islam, I have simply explained how some modern Islamic states tend to be. Besides, I have provided reasons for people to at least consider the secular state, just as how I provided reasons for the importance of the existence of an Islamic state that abides by legitimate Islamic principals & does not end up persecuting non-Muslims. Isn't the entire point of an analysis to make a true comparison between the subjects involved which in this case happen to be the Islamic & secular state? Knowing that, isn't any good analysis on this subject supposed to present arguments for & against the secular & Islamic state? Go & read post #279, here are some quotes from that post of mine.

This is proof that the Islamic state theoretically guarantees the protection of the rights of the minorities.

Besides all this, an Islamic state is supposed to guarantee the freedom of religion & the protection of the holy sites of non-Muslims. An Islamic state must guarantee & protect the freedom of speech, thought, & expression at all costs for both Muslims & non-Muslims. Why then are people against the formation of an Islamic state? The reason is that the theoretical Islamic state isn't always pragmatic. The modern Islamic states closely resemble Medieval Europe & they symbolize oppression, suppression of intellectual activities, corruption, & decadence. Minorities are oppressed, their sacred sites aren't protected. The freedom of speech, expression, & thought is restricted via un-Islamic laws such as the blasphemy law, & progression is discouraged under the guise of preserving Islamic traditions. Civil liberties are limited in practice. If these issues were to be resolved, I am certain that more people would be willing to live in an Islamic state.

So it should be clear that I have no problems with an Islamic state & I never stated that it prevents progress. You need to learn to read & comprehend before making false &baseless accusations at others.

But the current problem we are facing in the Muslim countries is not lack of secularism, it is lack of good state governance and state building. You cannot forcefully implement secularism in a country whose population mostly consists of conservative muslims/christians, if you do that you shoot yourself in your own feet. While trying to solve a problem you create deeper problems and rifts in your society.

Lack of good governance is among some of the major issues that we face, this is true. Who is trying to force secularism on our countries? It is never a good idea to force people to accept any form of governance, they have the right to establish the form of government that they desire. The rest of us are simply presenting our views on secular & Islamic states so that people are able to make informed decisions regarding their choice of state.

What i meant with African standards during the times of secularists in Turkey is obvious. When the so-called secularists were in power for many decades right until 2002 Turkey was in very deep mess. Our economy was very bad, a GDP per income of around $2-3 thousand. Today it is about $13.000 and steadily growing. Why don't you research that yourself?

The economic conditions & standards of living in African countries vary a lot as far as I know. Countries like Morocco are doing alright, but then you have other countries which are horribly poor. I will research Turkey's economy on my own later. However, the economic conditions of a country does not depend too much on the ideology of the leaders, it depends on forming the right policies that encourage economic activity.

Secularism, Islamism these are not related to economical growth or decline, let me explain it with an example, you're working with a Communist guy in for example a restaurant, he shattered a plate, is it because he's Communist ?

Problems of the backward islamic countries are not only economical but also social, sect conflicts, religious discrimination, religion based violence etc.

I agree with you to an extent, Islam isn't to be blamed for the problems with some Islamic states. The blame rests solely on the people alone. Most of them do not know crap about Islamic values, that is exactly why an eleven year old girl gets accused of blasphemy in Pakistan in spite of the fact that she did nothing wrong. The best Islamic states were the state of Madinah ruled by the last Prophet (may peace be upon him) & the caliphate formed by the 4 rightly guided caliphs. Those states truly represented what Islam stood for, & that is exactly why they progressed.

 

[Zulkarneyn]

I am of the opinion that if the creation of an Islamic state leads to oppression & injustice, where the life, honor, & property of men & women isn't protected then the requirement for another form of governance is clear. If Muslims can not learn to be progressive & tolerant in an Islamic state, then why not adopt a secular model, especially if it can lead to peace, prosperity, & civility? The point being made here is to focus on the greater good. Yes, it goes against the laws of God, but it may end up eradicating inequality & oppression. After all, doesn't God teach that oppression is worse than slaughter? This would be good for Muslims too, since Islam won't be defamed by intolerant idiots. I don't deny that Islam is against separating religion & state in Muslim societies, but if this separation leads to justice & progress prevailing in the land then we should accept it. Keep in mind that this is my view on the subject, it's definitely not some religious verdict. Anyway, I hope my post was beneficial to all of you.

To be honest, you are contradicting yourself very much and you have a very condescending language. On the one hand you try and defend islamic principles, next, you say if Islamic state does not grand these rights it should be abolished and secularism should be introduced.

We made an analysis in university about why Muslim countries are under achievers when talking about human rights and economy. The result after a thorough analysis was very clear: Muslim countries were in fact better achievers than non-muslim countries in the area of granting human rights. Of course we came to this result after looking at different variables. Muslim countries that are not Arabic were actually better off than non-muslim countries in the same economic level. So as you can clearly observe the problem had absolutely nothing to do with religion or being governed by islamic principles. But the Muslim countries that scored very low were the ones who were Arabic. When you excluded Arabic countries from the group, Muslim countries were doing much better than non-Muslim countries that were in same economic size (in GDP per capita basis).

Hence, this clearly indicates that being governed by islamic principles did not play any significant part in human rights nor in economic terms. Therefore as i indicated previously, you are looking for the culprit in the wrong place. Islamic principles in the state affairs does under no circumstances prevent economic growth or human rights. This is very clear when analysing non-arab Muslim countries.
The next phase you could look at of course is why Arabic countries are extremely under achievers.

 

[Targon]

Islamic principles, are , well, Islamic principles, addressing to a certain people that follows it, can you bend the Islamic principles for the sake of a human rights demand ? no.

But I agree its more about people then the religion, somehow , probably because of having the dominating power in the past, conservative muslims(actually pretty much every kind of religion or ideology) has a oppressive nature, I know many conservative muslim friends or relatives, while many of them have discriminating&oppressive views, for the most simplies example, againts Alevis , but my own Grandpa who is almost could be called a perfect believer(by his life style), never discriminated or had oppressive views againts anybody, never interefered on someone's belief, even his own family members.