Can an Islamic State be Secular?

[LegionnairE]

Question: Can an Islamic State be Secular?
Answer: Certainly it can be, just like a pregnant women who could still be virgin.

Very nice comment
Secularism rocks... believe what you believe but respect to other religions and beliefs...

 

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

The point of this article is to show that an Islamic nation can indeed be secular as Islam allows all that can also be found in a true Secular country.

I cannot follow your posts, the way you write is difficult to understand. I also did not write Insane, I wrote Inane.

Dude, what are you talking about? Islam gave us ( and women)rights when rest of the world was in darkness.
It gave uis civil and criminal laws almost before any of the civilized nations and encouraged to put down contracts & financial transaction in writing with witnesses.
A Muslim nation just has to be truly Muslim and everything will fall into place. Forget the word "secular".
The right you talk of are Islam, not secularism.

PS I dont believe there has ever been a truly Islamic state though.

There is no such thing a secular Islam. Stop reading too many articles .

 

[WAQAS119]

What should be the direction of Pakistani society, according to Muhammad Hanif (must watch):

Muhammad Hanif on Aaj Kamran Khan kay Saath

 

[Zillay_Khan]

The point of this article is to show that an Islamic nation can indeed be secular as Islam allows all that can also be found in a true Secular country.

I cannot follow your posts, the way you write is difficult to understand. I also did not write Insane, I wrote Inane.

I cant be bothered to explain lest i get artificial warnings in my inbox for daring to refute a moderator

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Lets have the first part established first where ppl love country and pay taxes and don't steal electricity we can then worry about secularism

But from my knowledge we are secular

The current question is similar to , can I be a good husband with out having any wife or getting married ?

By default Islam is ideal secular society no one is asked to change their faith just pay taxes to gov and that is it , what else can be more secular then that ? every one pays taxes to the state equally

 

[T-Faz]

Dude, what are you talking about? Islam gave us ( and women)rights when rest of the world was in darkness.
It gave uis civil and criminal laws almost before any of the civilized nations and encouraged to put down contracts & financial transaction in writing with witnesses.
A Muslim nation just has to be truly Muslim and everything will fall into place. Forget the word "secular".
The right you talk of are Islam, not secularism.

PS I dont believe there has ever been a truly Islamic state though.

There is no such thing a secular Islam. Stop reading too many articles .

When did I state that Islam did not do all of what you are stating. Some of you people seem to be very inept at knowing that something positive is being discussed. I guess discussing religions does that too people who only know of it from a certain point of view.

What it did was in the past, now what it can do is the real question. Secularism is the norm for the world now and that is what everything will be compared too. This article is presenting our religion in a positive light but you seem to be acting as if Islam has been insulted in some way. Keep living in the past and do not come out of the cave, the world has changed and Islam is thought of badly.

Also who the hell are you to tell me to stop reading articles.

 

[owcc]

If a country is secular then it wont be an Islamic state or for that matter any religious state.A secular country cannot attatch a religious title with its name

 

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

If a country is secular then it wont be an Islamic state or for that matter any religious state.A secular country cannot attatch a religious title with its name

Pls tell this to the dude above ur post.

 

[T-Faz]

If a country is secular then it wont be an Islamic state or for that matter any religious state.A secular country cannot attatch a religious title with its name

Well a religious state can have all the characteristics of a secular state and be called something else all together. This article is merely using the word 'secular' to make a point about all that Islam allows which in effect is akin to a secular country but with state religion.

 

[owcc]

Well a religious state can have all the characteristics of a secular state and be called something else all together. This article is merely using the word 'secular' to make a point about all that Islam allows which in effect is akin to a secular country but with a state religion.

That can be possible only if the people of that nation possess such great hearts and have a firm intellectual capacity.Unfortunantely in todays world most people lack these.Its too much of asking for most humans

 

[Old School]

Without getting into a theological debate what Islam is all about , the association of a religion with a state is incompatible. It never works. State must allow people to decide how they want to reside in paradise or hell but people must follow the state law to reside in the republic. State will not interfere in the practice of religion as long these practices do not violate widely recognized human rights. At the same time religion will not be allowed to dictate the policy of a state. There is a war going on now between the freedom loving people and the people who wants to restrict the freedom under the pretext of heaven's law. Let us wait for the final outcome of this war between the abstract and reality.

 

[T-Faz]

That can be possible only if the people of that nation possess such great hearts and have a firm intellectual capacity.Unfortunantely in todays world most people lack these.Its too much of asking for most humans

If it can happen then, it could happen now. As for an example that exists of such a thing in todays world, I shall use USA as an example. USA is a religious country, a majority of them have firm belief in Christianity. They have religion on their currency and it is utilized in their government too (oath, Bush spoke to God, Bible Belt, etc). They are also the most secular and freedom loving nation on this planet, certain areas might differ but overall USA is an example to follow for all other nations.

Never underestimated what can be achieved and what could happen all of a sudden. Its just a passage of time where the wrongs define what will happen in the future.

 

[owcc]

If it can happen then, it could happen now. As for an example that exists of such a thing in todays world, I shall use USA as an example. USA is a religious country, a majority of them have firm belief in Christianity. They have religion on their currency and it is utilized in their government too (oath, Bush spoke to God, Bible Belt). They are also the most secular and freedom loving nation on this planet, certain areas might differ but overall USA is an example to follow for all other nations.

Never underestimated what can be achieved and what could happen all of a sudden. Its just a passage of time where the wrongs define what will happen in the future.

USA is indeed a standing example in the world for religious freedom.But yu are well aware even they have their "human" limits.Take the attitude towards certain religious groups or "religion" in recent times in US.Even though still they[US] do indeed provide a standing platform to inspire others.Good post!!!

 

[DaRk WaVe]

Ideology of Pakistan has been hijacked by some Mullahs who were against the very creation of Pakistan, Pakistan was never intended to be a theocratic Islamic State & that is pretty much clear from the speeches delivered by the founding father of this nation who wanted this country to be a secular country which was made for the oppressed minorities of sub continent not for Muslims only, there is a reason why Quaid never agreed with the people who were hell bent to eliminate Ahmadis from circle of Islam, why there was a Ahmadi & a Hindu minister in his cabinet & why he said this three days prior to creation of Republic of Pakistan...

"Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State" Muhammad Ali Jinnah (August 11, 1947)​

but unfortunately the whole state of Pakistan has been amalgamated into a failed system where the religion & state are integrated into one & we are having all types of stupid laws which are denying the very basic tenets that were defined even by Islam, i think we need to shift back to the vision of founding fathers of this country not to mentality of Madudi & Zia

There is no more a sacred covenant than this speech by the founding father, statesman, law-giver and philosopher in chief , Mr. Jinnah, for this country and it spoke clearly, undeniably, incontrovertibly, clearly not vaguely that religion would be separate from the state and that religion would be the personal faith of an individual. I’d like to add that there are 30 odd other speeches of Jinnah which also speak of an inclusive democratic polity unfettered by priests with a divine mission but 11th August is the most important speech because it is spoken to the constituent assembly which was about to start framing the constitution of Pakistan. This is a solemn promise and should have the status of a sanctified compact between the state of Pakistan and all its people.

Secularists And Jinnah’s 11th August Covenant​

By Ishtiaq Ahmed

No ideological tendency in Pakistan identifies itself with the August 11 speech of Jinnah with greater enthusiasm than the secularists. Among them are included the marginalised leftists, oppressed minorities, retired senior bureaucrats and radical intellectuals. Both Marxist and liberal versions of secularism inform their thinking. The secularists are divided on many things, but agree that the secular nature of the Quaid’s message is unequivocal and incontrovertible. Their lament is that his unworthy successors broke a sacred covenant of equal rights bequeathed by the Founder of Pakistan.

It is interesting to note that the Communist Party of India supported the demand for a separate Pakistan and passed a resolution in 1944, associated with a leading theorist of the Party, Dr Adhikari, in which the demand for Pakistan was described as a popular movement of the Muslim masses for national self-determination. Consequently Communists of Muslim background were advised to join the Muslim League. The Muslim League which had hitherto been emphasising the religious differences between Hindus and Muslims to justify the two-nation theory added from 1945 onwards radical slogans and arguments which portrayed the struggle for Pakistan as a class struggle of impoverished Muslims against Hindu and Sikh moneylenders and capitalists.

Some leading landlords who sympathised with Communist ideas such as Mian Iftikharuddin and Mumtaz Daultana became top leaders of the Muslim League in the Punjab. Daultana later changed course in 1953 when as chief minister of Punjab he promoted the anti-Ahmadiyya movement to bring down the weak central government under Khwaja Nazimuddin in the hope of himself becoming the prime minister. In any case, it is generally acknowledged that communist rhetoric played a noteworthy role in popularising the idea of Pakistan..

Most Muslims of undivided northern India were either peasants or artisans. There was also a powerful Muslim landlord class everywhere and a small stratum of professionals or gentry, but industry, commerce and banking were almost entirely in the hands of Hindus, Sikhs and the tiny community of Parsees. The reason why Muslims have been slow or resistant to capitalism has still not been properly investigated and theorised, but in the context of colonial India class and religious cleavages coincided rather well to portray the creation of a separate Muslim state as a panacea to all the ills afflicting the Muslim community.

However, once Pakistan was established, hostility towards communism became a centrepiece of state policy. Conservative ulema particularly attacked communism as a Godless creed. Thus, for example, in 1948 when dockyard workers in Karachi went on strike Shaikh ul Islam Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani gave a fatwa that in Islam there was no right to strike and those who incited Muslims to go on strike were wrongdoers. However, the real blow was dealt with the Rawalpindi Conspiracy Case of 1951 in which a number of officers of the Armed Forces and leaders of the Communist Party of Pakistan were accused of plotting to overthrow the government. They were tried in a special court and some of them sentenced to prison terms. In 1954, the Communist Party was banned. That virtually crippled the Marxist left.

Radical nationalists of Sindh, Balochistan and the NWFP often invoked the August 11 speech. Their complaint was that the centre betrayed the original idea of a secular, federal Pakistan.. Mian Iftikharuddin’s Lahore-based English-language newspaper, The Pakistan Times, became a powerful voice of secular and rationalist ideas in Pakistan until the 1958 military coup of General Ayub Khan muzzled it and ultimately confiscated it. Among senior bureaucrats, Masud Khaddarposh was an eminent supporter of Islamic socialism and of a secular state. He wrote the famous dissenting note against the Sindh Hari Commission’s report, taking up cudgels on behalf of the Sindhi tenant cultivator as against the overall pro-landlord tone of the report.

But the most powerful secularist challenge in intellectual terms came during the period of General Zia ul Haq (1977-88). It was launched by no other person than the former chief justice of Pakistan, Muhammad Munir. In his book, From Jinnah to Zia, (1978), Munir referred to the August 11 speech and asserted that reasons for the creation of Pakistan were social and economic. Jinnah wanted to create a secular state. Munir described the ascendance of the theocratic vision of the state as a ‘quirk of history’, alleging that the ulema who had opposed the creation of Pakistan had subsequently become its ideological custodians and thus subverted the original vision on which Jinnah wanted to base Pakistan.

The author argued in support of secularism by quoting a famous saying or hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), “When I enjoin something respecting religion receive it but when I counsel anything about the affairs of the world, I am nothing more than a man” (Mishkat Book 1, Chapter VI, 145-6). Munir remarked that this saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him) clearly showed that he did not have authority over matters relating to worldly affairs and that in fact his statement introduced secularism in Islam.

In general, Munir adopted the technique of contrast to argue that a modern democracy and an Islamic state based on the dogmatic stance of the ulema cannot be reconciled into a coherent ideological formula. He also took issue with modernist Muslims who assert that an Islamic democracy can be a proper democracy. For him if democracy was to be practised it was imperative that religion and state be kept separate. He argued that a democracy functions when the following conditions are fulfilled: universal adult franchise, periodic elections, two or more political parties, an educated electorate and a transparent government. Besides these political prerequisites, society is based on values such as equality, freedom, tolerance, social justice and equality before the law. Munir referred to the writings of the erstwhile fundamentalist thinker of the Indian subcontinent and of Pakistan, Abul A’la Maududi, and of Ayatullah Khomeini of Iran, both of whom affirmed that an Islamic state cannot be a democracy based on popular will.

The resurrection of the August 11, 1947 speech in recent times, therefore, opens the scope for the secularists once again to assume the intellectual initiative in Pakistan. This can be done only by intellectuals committed to a democratic, egalitarian and free Pakistan..

First Published In The Daily Times.

Secularists And Jinnah’s 11th August Covenant Pak Tea House

 

[T-Faz]

USA is indeed a standing example in the world for religious freedom.But yu are well aware even they have their "human" limits.Take the attitude towards certain religious groups or "religion" in recent times in US.Even though still they[US] do indeed provide a standing platform to inspire others.Good post!!!

Well, what do you expect of them, the Muslims killed 3000 of them in one despicable act. Its human nature but they still remain true to their true views that should be universal.