The failings of democracy, secularism, free market capitalism

[Zyxius]

Since the subject of the failings of secularism, free-for-all capitalism, and "democracy" keep coming up in various threads where it wasn't relevant, I thought I'd make a home for it right here.

Please share your thoughts and ideas on this subject in a constructive manner while respecting the other person's point of view.

Z

 

[Zyxius]

If you consider yourself open-minded you should not just be willing questioning Islam…since it is merely fashionable to do so nowadays…but also you should also question the contemporary ideologies such as secularism and un-restrained capitalism. After all, if the belief system revealed by God is not sacrosanct, then certainly no contemporary system should be considered so.

If a man with a beard forces women to wear the headscarf to school, it is called Talibanism and is subject to air strikes from the US military. However, when you call yourself a secularist and force women NOT to wear a head scarf to school…..it is called being modern and this denial of personal freedoms to women is considered very much acceptable. They do not allow the individual to choose whether or not to wear a headscarf…the secular state has decided that no one should be permitted.

Many of us believe that secularism is synonymous with tolerance but history has proven that religion is does not have a monopoly on intolerance and that secularists have been responsible for more death and destruction than all religious groups combined in the 20th Century. Some famous "secularists" of the 20th century include Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Kissinger, Bush, etc. We know that Kamal Ataturk terrorized those who believed in Islam and did his best to eradicate the Muslim identity from Turkey….at least at the official level. His actions were no different from those of Mullah Omar of the Taliban except that they took place from the opposite end of the faith spectrum. Today, even the majority voting for a mildly Islamic party does not qualify in this democracy….since this democracy is secular and that means that votes only count if they are cast for secular parties. This system is held in place through the force of the Turkish military even though several Islamic parties have been voted into power and have tried to respond to their constituency’s demand for more even-handidness. However, the military has prevented all elected representatives from over-turning the repressive secular system and leading western magazines have written with headlines such as “Battle for the Soul of Turkey” to support the military’s decision to force secularism on the nation. This means that even though the public and several state institutions have voted that banning of the headscarf is unacceptable, the military and secular institutions have still managed to trample the rights of the people and continued the ban.

Secularism is supposed to be the absence of ANY ideology at the state level. It was never supposed to mean that those who do not believe in religion have the right to terrorize those who do and deny them their right to practice their religion individually and collectively. However, any logical evaluation of the end result of secularism would lead to the same conclusion; that it permits atheists and agnostics to terrorize believers under the guise of maintaining a level playing field for all belief systems. It is simply not possible for there to be an ideal secularism since it is not possible for human beings to be absent of any ideology whatsoever….we all believe in something or some paradigm.

Turkey was once the capital of Islam. From this it should be abundantly clear that secularism will show no tolerance to the religion that defines us and that we all believe in. They are two diametrically opposed belief systems which simply cannot be reconciled. It may seem alarmist to raise such warnings now, but that would seem so only to those who refuse to evaluate the facts and picture the logical conclusion. The issue of secularism is yet another tricking time bomb that threatens to create further instability in our part of the world in the near future. The intelligent thing to do would be to look at our own belief and way of life and seek to adapt them to the contemporary world. Islam has within it a complete system of laws, economics and governance. It is a complete way of life which was the basis for one of the great civilizations of human history and for us to miss the opportunity to build upon that would be an unforgivable failure on all our parts. Its time to shred that colonial complex that has plagued our people for generations and to have pride in our own history and way of life.


Turkish court upholds ban on headscarves in universities

ANKARA, June 5: Turkey’s top court ruled on Thursday that headscarves could not be allowed at universities because that would violate secularism.

The decision is a defeat for Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Islamic-oriented government, which tried to allow the scarves at universities as a matter of personal and religious freedom.

But the Constitutional Court verdict issued on Thursday said constitutional amendments that were passed by Parliament in February violated secular principles.

The headscarf issue is an explosive one for Turkey, where the government is locked in a power struggle with secular groups that have support from the military and other state institutions.

The verdict is likely to bode ill for the government. Turkey’s chief prosecutor is seeking to disband the ruling party because it is “the focal point of anti-secular activities” in a separate case at the Constitutional Court. He has cited attempts to allow headscarves at universities as a case in point.

Many see the headscarf as an emblem of political Islam, and consider any attempt to allow it in schools as an attack against modern Turkey’s secular laws.

There was no immediate comment from the government on the ruling. Deputy Prime Minister Cemil Cicek said the government would like to see the court’s reasoning before saying anything.

A brief statement from the court said the amendments were annulled because they were in violation of some articles of the Constitution, including one that states that “The Turkish Republic is a secular state.” and another that says that altering the secular nature of the state “cannot even be proposed.”

Onur Oymen, a senior lawmaker of the opposition Republican People Party, said the verdict spelled the end of such amendments.—AP

 

[Zyxius]

XY

What are these "values" you speak of? I think this a very important point and perhaps something we can build a consensus on.

You say :"the objective was that our governance must relfect us and our values and our identity"

What are these values and what is the content of this identity? and is this identity in stasis?

To make sure that others do not misinterpret what's being said here, this conversaion carries on from another thread entitled Bal Thackeray something something link here -

The Muslim identity in India was not something monolithic that could be said to be defined by one particular group. There were sufis, deobandis, salafis, shias, and many others. However, one thing was clear, that we were different from the Hindus in that we believed in One God. We pray to that God differently from the way worship and our mosques are built separately from their temples. We sacrifice animals during Eid because that is the Sunnah and Hindus actually used biolence to prevent Muslims from being able to practice this. They vandalized our schools where children were taught Quran and how to pray and other Islamic teachings.

Regarding the values that Muslims share:

All Muslims believe in the Quran and the Prophet Mohammad (SAW).

1. We are supposed to give Zakat to the poor
2. We are supposed to be modest in our speech, in our actions, and in our approach to everything
3. If we know that a Muslim is in trouble anywhere in the world, it is an obligation upon us to help that Muslim. If that person is a non Muslim, we must help them out of compassion as a human being and to show the example of a good Muslim.
4. We must do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
5. We must not lie, cheat or steal,
6. We must not commit adultery or fornicate
7. Our money must be honest and not something intricsically worthless
8. Money cannot be used to make money in a risk free manner. This is riba and is a crime against humanity and a declaration of War against God AllMighty.
9. Speculation is absolutely prohibited
10. No human being should ever be lacking in food, water, shelter, education, and protection from all forms of persecution
11. We must all die sooner or later and this world is temporary so do not be too greedy for this world and abandon the values and the word of God, because God has prepared an afterlife which is infinitely superior to this.
12. We must not ever accept subjugation by an oppressor or a foreigner.
13. Slander is to say something behind someone's back which is untrue. Backbiting is to say something behind someone's back which is true, but they would not want you to say it, and "backbiting is as bad as eating the flesh of your dead brother"


there are so many other values that make our society and are important to us even though we may not always practice these values, but they are what make us what we are. These are just some ideals to which we aspire and just a partial list of values which Muslims do share even if they don't often express it or haven't practiced it in their state.

 

[Flintlock]

Worthless article. I am not making a partisan argument here, as I usually do for Indian interests. This is the truth as I see it.

Please spend some time on reading the seminal texts on the Rights of Man, Separation of Church and State, and The Origin of Religion.
Also, study the history of the world from the 1400s to the 20th century.

It will take you some months. But do it.

 

[Zyxius]

Worthless article. I am not making a partisan argument here, as I usually do for Indian interests. This is the truth as I see it.

Please spend some time on reading the seminal texts on the Rights of Man, Separation of Church and State, and The Origin of Religion.
Also, study the history of the world from the 1400s to the 20th century.

It will take you some months. But do it.

Excuse me, but your post just sounds rude. You said nothing of substance or referring to the content, but just made a bunch of statements about going to go learn for a few months before I assume you would consider me worthy of discussing with you. How about this for a value: If you cannot say something respectfully and of substance, why say anything at all?

 

[Flintlock]

Excuse me, but your post just sounds rude. You said nothing of substance or referring to the content, but just made a bunch of statements about going to go learn for a few months before I assume you would consider me worthy of discussing with you. How about this for a value: If you cannot say something respectfully and of substance, why say anything at all?

You are asking too many questions in one thread. You want to debate democracy, secularism and capitalism all in the same thread.

Your article dabbles in everything from Soviet Russia to Islam to Lenin to Stalin to China and Turkey, India and Hinduism, and makes sweeping generalizations and assumptions that will make anybody cringe.

Moreover begins from the partisan POV of "defending Islam" which always snuffs out a lively debate.

Which is why internet forums are such a bad place for ideological discussion. Such topics require reams of pages to be analyzed in a satisfactory manner. They cannot be decided in a few sentences over the internet.

 

[Zyxius]

You are asking too many questions in one thread. You want to debate democracy, secularism and capitalism all in the same thread.

Your article dabbles in everything from Soviet Russia to Islam to Lenin to Stalin to China and Turkey, India and Hinduism, and makes sweeping generalizations and assumptions that will make anybody cringe.

Moreover begins from the partisan POV of "defending Islam" which always snuffs out a lively debate.

Which is why internet forums are such a bad place for ideological discussion. Such topics require reams of pages to be analyzed in a satisfactory manner. They cannot be decided in a few sentences over the internet.

I am not compelling you to discuss anything here at all. And if you feel that it is not worth your time, or that a net forum is not the right place, please go ahead and discuss other issues on other threads and live and let live this one alone. However, to just make negative comments without addressing the substance of anything doesn't serve any purpose, and I'm sure you have better things to do with your time.

 

[Flintlock]

I am not compelling you to discuss anything here at all. And if you feel that it is not worth your time, or that a net forum is not the right place, please go ahead and discuss other issues on other threads and live and let live this one alone. However, to just make negative comments without addressing the substance of anything doesn't serve any purpose, and I'm sure you have better things to do with your time.

Neither am I compelling you to do anything. I am simply typing in what I think of this thread. I did address the substance of your post, but I'm afraid that it hasn't got any.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Ok - this is getting ridiculous.

You guys need to either argue each others points with civility, or, if you have nothing to add, and think the other's points are "worthless", then not reply at all, and leave it to someone interested in discussing the issues.

There is a valid point made by this thread, that secularism, especially as practiced by some states, has its failings, as does unregulated capitalism, whose woes we are seeing currently, and ditto for democracy.

That said, IMO there is no perfect system in the world, and there is no system that can exist in a state of stasis.

So the question should not be so much about the failings of democracy, capitalism and secularism - they are present, no question about that - but what realistic alternatives exist that can do a better job of it, and how?

 

[Flintlock]

That said, IMO there is no perfect system in the world, and there is no system that can exist in a state of stasis.

Thank you. That is the best post I've seen on this forum all day.

As he says, all system has their faults. We humans are constantly looking for perfection, which we consistently fail to find.

Remember this: There is no Final Solution.

 

[Zyxius]

Ok - this is getting ridiculous.

You guys need to either argue each others points with civility, or, if you have nothing to add, and think the other's points are "worthless", then not reply at all, and leave it to someone interested in discussing the issues.

hmmm....I dont think I've been uncivil in the slightest on this thread....do you?

There is a valid point made by this thread, that secularism, especially as practiced by some states, has its failings, as does unregulated capitalism, whose woes we are seeing currently, and ditto for democracy.

The point is that secularism cannot actually exist in reality. A true secularism would take the position that there is no such thing as morality or an absolute truth, but the will of the people that determines what is correct. We know from history and most recenlty from the invasion of Iraq, that "the will of the people" is no guarantee of justice or morality. A true secularism would require the absence of ALL ideology from the state or else it would be discriminatory to ideologies that are deemed religions while giving preference to ideologies that are not considered a religion, i.e. atheism (debatable if its a religion) or those that are anti-religion. Furthermore, there is the very real fact that there is such a thing a secular fanaticism which demonstrates that secularism too becomes an invasive ideology. Human-beings just seem to have this tendency to be ideological creatures and to deny that is to deny reality. The question is which ideology do we follow?

I'll come to democracy and capitalism in a bit, but have alluded to it above.

That said, IMO there is no perfect system in the world, and there is no system that can exist in a state of stasis.

A system based on Islam is not static as you seem to be suggesting. Just like the US is based on Judao Christian Laws that form the basis of certain absolute truths, but the the rest is all up to the development of man, as long as what he does is not in violation of the absolute truths and principles of its founding that made the nation in the first place. Man will make mistakes, so obviously no system will be perfect...but those absolute truths must remain. This is far from being, as you say, "in a state of statis"

So the question should not be so much about the failings of democracy, capitalism and secularism - they are present, no question about that - but what realistic alternatives exist that can do a better job of it, and how?

If this was not a realistic alternative....Islam would not have replaced Communism as America's focus for a new Cold/Real War. Check every University in North America and see how many students enrol in the MSA. Check around the world and see that the number of Muslim converts is increasing every year....especially in the developed world. Islamic Banking is increasing at a rate of over 30% per year, which is many multiples higher than the conventional alternative. The number of people supporting the idea of a reinstatement of a Khilafa is growing day by day. Every Islamic organization in the world is growing...not shrinking. Does this not seem like proof of a realistic alternative that people are actually moving towards? We have the history, we have the foundations, we have the right constitution, we have the resources, the determination, and the best of all.....we are in fact growing day by day.

 

[Energon]

Just like the US is based on Judao Christian Laws that form the basis of certain absolute truths, but the the rest is all up to the development of man, as long as what he does is not in violation of the absolute truths and principles of its founding that made the nation in the first place. Man will make mistakes, so obviously no system will be perfect...but those absolute truths must remain. This is far from being, as you say, "in a state of statis"

I have no idea what you're talking about. Neither the US legal code nor the US constitution is based on Judeo-Christian Laws.

The point is that secularism cannot actually exist in reality. A true secularism would take the position that there is no such thing as morality or an absolute truth, but the will of the people that determines what is correct. We know from history and most recenlty from the invasion of Iraq, that "the will of the people" is no guarantee of justice or morality. A true secularism would require the absence of ALL ideology from the state or else it would be discriminatory to ideologies that are deemed religions while giving preference to ideologies that are not considered a religion, i.e. atheism (debatable if its a religion) or those that are anti-religion.

Based on this post it doesn't seem like you have a clear understanding of the principles of secularism, which BTW aren't synonymous with atheism or nihilism. Also, IMO you need to get a better understanding of the absolute vs relative morality arguments and stop erroneously mixing them up or collating them with other schools of thought without an appropriate premise when constructing arguments.

If this was not a realistic alternative....Islam would not have replaced Communism as America's focus for a new Cold/Real War. Check every University in North America and see how many students enrol in the MSA. Check around the world and see that the number of Muslim converts is increasing every year....especially in the developed world. Islamic Banking is increasing at a rate of over 30% per year, which is many multiples higher than the conventional alternative. The number of people supporting the idea of a reinstatement of a Khilafa is growing day by day. Every Islamic organization in the world is growing...not shrinking. Does this not seem like proof of a realistic alternative that people are actually moving towards? We have the history, we have the foundations, we have the right constitution, we have the resources, the determination, and the best of all.....we are in fact growing day by day.

This is nonsense. The conclusions you are attempting to draw here are ridiculous and strengthen the "Islamic case" in any shape or form. If anything, all socioeconomic indicators worldwide point towards the contrary.

The basis of this thread and the potential arguments on the subject are certainly very interesting (subjective) and worth having. Nonetheless I think you first need to shore up on your fundamentals, without which this entire venture would be a gigantic waste of time.

 

[Zyxius]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Neither the US legal code nor the US constitution is based on Judeo-Christian Laws.

I took some law classes in University where I learnt that this was the case. It would be nice if you took the time to find out before making such forceful statements.
Judeo-Christian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Based on this post it doesn't seem like you have a clear understanding of the principles of secularism, which BTW aren't synonymous with atheism or nihilism. Also, IMO you need to get a better understanding of the absolute vs relative morality arguments and stop erroneously mixing them up or collating them with other schools of thought without an appropriate premise when constructing arguments.

Its not relevant to this point whether nihilism or atheism are synonymous or not, so you can hold on to that. I never said that Secularism is the same as the two either. I said that true secularism is a contradiction in terms, while the practicable one is discriminatory. In effect, there can be no secularism in its true sense and I have given my reaons which you would do well to answer on their substance rather than waive your hand and say, "naaah!..ain't good enough"

This is nonsense. The conclusions you are attempting to draw here are ridiculous and strengthen the "Islamic case" in any shape or form. If anything, all socioeconomic indicators worldwide point towards the contrary.

What socio-economic indicators? Please be specific. The number of converts if increasing every year. The number of Muslim Students Associations and their members is growing every year. ISNA is growing every year. The size of the Islamic banking market and its growth rate are clear evidence that people are moving towards this at a much greater rate than conventional banking. I have made specific comments....what do you have to say that has any substance?

The basis of this thread and the potential arguments on the subject are certainly very interesting (subjective) and worth having. Nonetheless I think you first need to shore up on your fundamentals, without which this entire venture would be a gigantic waste of time.

I would argue that you would need to present some fundamentals first before you can make that statement.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

hmmm....I dont think I've been uncivil in the slightest on this thread....do you?

That was a comment directed at everyone - I had come to this thread from a couple of others where members, instead of addressing the arguments raised, were merely name calling, and rubbishing each others points without providing alternate analysis.

Now I have been guilty of doing the same - calling someones argument "rubbish", and I realize it is offensive to the person making the argument (my apologies to those I said that to), to be dismissed out of hand. Hence my comments.

There have also been too many instances of members choosing to focus on the intent of posters, which also degrades the discourse. I would encourage everyone to focus on the contents of a post, and consider the questions posed in good faith.

The point is that secularism cannot actually exist in reality. A true secularism would take the position that there is no such thing as morality or an absolute truth, but the will of the people that determines what is correct. We know from history and most recenlty from the invasion of Iraq, that "the will of the people" is no guarantee of justice or morality. A true secularism would require the absence of ALL ideology from the state or else it would be discriminatory to ideologies that are deemed religions while giving preference to ideologies that are not considered a religion, i.e. atheism (debatable if its a religion) or those that are anti-religion. Furthermore, there is the very real fact that there is such a thing a secular fanaticism which demonstrates that secularism too becomes an invasive ideology. Human-beings just seem to have this tendency to be ideological creatures and to deny that is to deny reality. The question is which ideology do we follow?

I agree with the point about secularism itself becoming a repressive ideology - I think the restrictions on expressing ones religious identity in countries such as France and Turkey are stark examples of that.

However, my interpretation of secularism was a system of government that was based on reason and empirical evidence, rather than any ideology per se. A system such as this would theoretically be dynamic, as continued reason and empirical evidence is used to tweak and change areas that need change, as societies and nations evolve.

A system based on Islam is not static as you seem to be suggesting. Just like the US is based on Judao Christian Laws that form the basis of certain absolute truths, but the the rest is all up to the development of man, as long as what he does is not in violation of the absolute truths and principles of its founding that made the nation in the first place. Man will make mistakes, so obviously no system will be perfect...but those absolute truths must remain. This is far from being, as you say, "in a state of statis"

I don't necessarily believe that an Islamic system would be static, though I think that an Islamic system based on Shariah will become static, or at least much slower in adopting change, if pursued in the current religious and social atmosphere we have in countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for example.

In fact, before we even get into whether an Islamic system would become static or not, it would be prudent to define the structure of such an Islamic system - its values, principles, source of jurisprudence, governing entities, their functions and how especially those entities are formed and staffed.

Answers to the above was what I was getting at when I asked about elucidating upon a realistic alternative.

Now, please don't think that I approve of the systems in place currently without change - I am open to change, and it seems to me that some of the arguments advocated by supporters of Islamic systems are worth considering and incorporating into democratic societies.

 

[Energon]

I took some law classes in University where I learnt that this was the case. It would be nice if you took the time to find out before making such forceful statements.
Judeo-Christian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't forget some of us have also been to university (in the US itself) and gone on to much more during the course of which this matter has been reviewed in more depth time and time again.
A quick exercise: review the Decalogue (both from Exodus and Deuteronomy) and see how many of these founding principles of the Judeo-Christian faith are actually represented in US legal code. Then take the few that are and compare them to general human sentiment throughout society to see if they are reflected elsewhere through human history in other societies not governed by the Judeo-Christian faith.
Review the constitutional preamble, the articles and the amendments to see how much they reflect the old and new testaments. Make sure to critically analyze the similarities to see how much of an attribution can actually be made to the Bible, as opposed to common human sentiment (that prevails through cultures not influenced by the source material in question).

Now if you meant to say that the social sentiment in the USA is based on Judeo-Christian values, then I might be inclined to agree with you (albeit even this phenomenon is fairly limited). That however has nothing to do with legal codes, the constitution or general methodology of governance. Also, given that the founding population of the USA was almost exclusively of this religious school of thought, it would be silly not to expect their values to be reflected in their progeny over time.

Looking into why the conservative right is so ticked off about this and how they're trying to retrofit their point to this argument is also a worthwhile exercise.

Its not relevant to this point whether nihilism or atheism are synonymous or not, so you can hold on to that. I never said that Secularism is the same as the two either. I said that true secularism is a contradiction in terms, while the practicable one is discriminatory. In effect, there can be no secularism in its true sense and I have given my reaons which you would do well to answer on their substance rather than waive your hand and say, "naaah!..ain't good enough

Look at the parts I have highlighted in my earlier post. You are mixing and matching philosophies that have nothing to do with one another clearly indicating that you are truly aware of neither. This post only reaffirms that assertion in addition to elucidating the fact that you are unable to formulate and present your thoughts appropriately to make valid and coherent arguments. I dont' know if its a matter of comprehension, the ability to process information or both. Also, your concept of secularism itself is incorrect rendering your observations and conclusions faulty.
At this point I'm not in a position to refute your 'argument' because it is flawed to begin with.

What socio-economic indicators? Please be specific. The number of converts if increasing every year. The number of Muslim Students Associations and their members is growing every year. ISNA is growing every year. The size of the Islamic banking market and its growth rate are clear evidence that people are moving towards this at a much greater rate than conventional banking. I have made specific comments....what do you have to say that has any substance?

None of this indicates that an Islamist system is a healthy "alternative"... which is the faulty conclusion you're drawing from these examples. Please look into the socioeconomic indicators of the entire world and see how many of the high performers actually abide by the Islamic codes when it comes to economics and governance. Then look into the high performers within the Islamic world to see how much revenue is generated through the non Islamic model as opposed to the Islamic one.

I would argue that you would need to present some fundamentals first before you can make that statement.

I would make my arguments based on my fundamental understanding of each philosophy brought up here. Unfortunately I can't do that as yet because nothing you have presented here can withstand debate. Also, I'm not really interested in listing all the basic information here because it would take up far too much time and space and render this thread even more useless.