Red - State with no state religion.
Yellow - State with state religion.
Grey - Moderate religious state.
There are some mistakes in this map. Tunisia, Algeria, Libya as well as Iraq under Saddam till 2003 and Iran under the Shah till 1979 were all secular dictatorships. While Indonesia has six official state religions including Islam, Christianity and Hinduism among others so it should be better placed in the red category. Sri Lanka is a declared Buddhist state while UK also has a official state religion that the head of state has to swear to uphold and the Church of England gets funded by the UK govt. for all its activities.
Now Secularism is understood in two different parts. IMO Indian/US/UK style secularism is the real secularism and in accordance with Islam as well. In this form, there is no restrictions on religious practice or freedom and is not anti-religion. The Ottoman empire despite having a Caliph as head of state had stated theologically that the status of muslims and non-muslims are equal before law as early as back in late 1700s and created the case of a secular nationhood. (The Tanzimat:
Secular reforms in the Ottoman Empire)
Even in India, muslim clerics who had on the most opposed the creation of Pakistan on religious grounds provided the theological basis of composite nationalism which is basically another expression of secularism where Hindus and Muslims can co-exist in a single nation while retaining their religious identity.
Maulana Hussain Ahmed Madani of Jamiat-Ulema-i-Hind published a pamphlet in 1938 exponding this point that is available today as well.
Composite Nationalism and Islam (Muttahida Qaumiyat Aur Islam)
The other branch or idea of secularism is the French or Chinese version more appropiately called laic. This form of secularism is anti-religion. For example, in Libya and Tunisia (even Turkey until very recently) a women who wanted to wear a head scarf would not be allowed to enter educational institutions or govt. jobs. And this is in a Muslim majority country. A similar example would be a govt. decree in India that would ban hindu women who put a bindi from educational institutions or govt. jobs. It would be unthinkable. And if they did, there would be a severe backlash radicalising even moderate or non-practicing Hindus.
So in this context it makes sense that when the Shah of Iran under his secular dictatorship opressed religiously devout people and even had laws that allowed police to tear of the Chador or Burqa from women and arrest and even execute in some cases for repeat offenses of wearing it in public, a backlash was just brewing around the corner.
In China as well as USSR we have seen 10s of millions of people killed under the garb of Cultural revolution just for practicing their beliefs. This sort of secularism or laic which is anti-religion secularism is counter productive and a problematic ideology.
Now because the Arab world being close to mainly the French or USSR has experienced the mainly laic (anti-religious dictatorships) rather than secularism (The Indian/US version or even the Ottoman version in the 19th century); there is a inherent allergy in the Arab world to the arabic translation to secularism which is literally la-diniyah (or no-religion) conforming with the philosophy of laic.
What some Bangladeshis are confusing is in South Asia, laic or la-diniyah is impossible. While Secularism is quite possible and much more preferable than having theological states like Taliban ruled Afghanistan. The Awami League govt. in Bangladesh is implementing Secularism and no laic. There are no rules that prevent say women from wearing headscarves to a university or barring them from govt. jobs on account for that.
In conclusion, secularism is good but laic is bad. And even then its no guarantee of sucess. As we have seen, laic dictatorships like USSR, China, and central Asian republics have been responsible for the deaths and killings of millions of people and barring USSR still opress their people in terms of their religious rights.
But those who implement secularism with the emphaisis of equal rights to practice and preach your faith inherently do well and is also in accordance with Islamic teachings and Sharia law. Islamic scholars in early Ottoman Turkey, Al Azhar in Egypt and Muslim clerics in India during the Independence movement have all theologically explained this compatibility.
---------- Post added at 03:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:27 AM ----------
@hinduguy
The problem is that you are getting information about Islam from a hate site like faith freedom. You don't expect say a Nazi website to talk objectively about Jews now would you? So what you should be doing is completely erasing what you have read from such hate sites and look at alternative and legitimate websites or a good book for authentic information.
--------------------
