Where should we draw the line between 'religious' and 'secular?'
Democracy vs Secularism in the Muslim World
Trying to run modern states while remaining shackled to medieval religious laws is a bad idea; theocracy is a dead end. Muslim countries, though they have had a later start than Western states, can surely come to acknowledge the virtue of allowing individual freedom in religious belief while preventing any one orthodoxy from prevailing in matters of government. Adopting secular government would be a giant step forward in improving human rights and the prospects for democracy in Muslim majority countries. Even devoutly religious people can accept that genuine faith flourishes when individuals are free to choose, without having religion imposed upon them by their government
Muslim-majority countries are in trouble. Most struggle with dire poverty; the exceptions are oil-rich states which are merely wealthy, not creative contributors to human culture. [3] They are either undemocratic in government or have the formal apparatus of democracy with serious imperfections in practice. Corruption runs rampant. Whenever they come into competition with Western powers, the results are dismal. Militarily, Muslim states are dependent, often negligible. In terms of scientific and technological productivity, tiny Israel is more significant than almost all Muslim nations. Many, even those sometimes considered relatively advanced like Turkey, are colonies in all but name
Ever since their first encounters with a newly industrialized West, Muslims have come out on the losing side. "What is to be done" is a two centuries old question for Muslims. [4] And it has long been clear to many in the ruling elites that Muslim countries had to accept some degree of Westernization or risk enslavement if not annihilation. Having suffered lopsided defeats on the battlefield, military officers were typically at the forefront of reform. Starting from the mid-nineteenth century, they pushed their countries to adopt Western knowledge and institutions. They often faced significant opposition from traditional religious elites. The perception of the military and bureaucratic elites -- probably an accurate one -- was that without a concerted, state-organized effort to join the modern world, the crisis they were facing would become a much more complete disaster.
Interesting you might want to read it:]
Democracy vs Secularism in the Muslim World
Democracy vs Secularism in the Muslim World
Trying to run modern states while remaining shackled to medieval religious laws is a bad idea; theocracy is a dead end. Muslim countries, though they have had a later start than Western states, can surely come to acknowledge the virtue of allowing individual freedom in religious belief while preventing any one orthodoxy from prevailing in matters of government. Adopting secular government would be a giant step forward in improving human rights and the prospects for democracy in Muslim majority countries. Even devoutly religious people can accept that genuine faith flourishes when individuals are free to choose, without having religion imposed upon them by their government
Muslim-majority countries are in trouble. Most struggle with dire poverty; the exceptions are oil-rich states which are merely wealthy, not creative contributors to human culture. [3] They are either undemocratic in government or have the formal apparatus of democracy with serious imperfections in practice. Corruption runs rampant. Whenever they come into competition with Western powers, the results are dismal. Militarily, Muslim states are dependent, often negligible. In terms of scientific and technological productivity, tiny Israel is more significant than almost all Muslim nations. Many, even those sometimes considered relatively advanced like Turkey, are colonies in all but name
Ever since their first encounters with a newly industrialized West, Muslims have come out on the losing side. "What is to be done" is a two centuries old question for Muslims. [4] And it has long been clear to many in the ruling elites that Muslim countries had to accept some degree of Westernization or risk enslavement if not annihilation. Having suffered lopsided defeats on the battlefield, military officers were typically at the forefront of reform. Starting from the mid-nineteenth century, they pushed their countries to adopt Western knowledge and institutions. They often faced significant opposition from traditional religious elites. The perception of the military and bureaucratic elites -- probably an accurate one -- was that without a concerted, state-organized effort to join the modern world, the crisis they were facing would become a much more complete disaster.
Interesting you might want to read it:]
Democracy vs Secularism in the Muslim World
Do they work well together ? I know Faux news claims America is a christian country which likes to follow half a dozen commandments at best 
look at the participation of Indians on this thread which indeed proves your above statement otherwise
