The secular myth

[M. Sarmad]

Are you saying Jinnah was stupid or a fool or confused when he used to talk about an Islamic Pakistan? He had clearly rejected all 'isms and his speech is there for all to read and listen to. He also rejected theocracy. So what was he talking about then? Answer is Deen!

But hey, you and others know better than Jinnah and Iqbal both! Right?

1) Jinnah wanted a state where every one would be "equal citizen of the state" irrespective of religion, caste, ethnicity etc.. where religion would be a "personal matter" and not the "business of the state" (In Jinnah's own words)... Jinnah strongly disapproved of the idea of having a theocratic or "Islamic" state .. (which we are today ,.. unfortunately..)

2) Jinnah (and Iqbal too) believed that this kind of separation of church from state (i.e secularism) was perfectly "Islamic" ... and that Islam in its true spirit was purely "democratic" ... Both these ideas were rejected by the orthodox Muslims .. While Democracy has been accepted by the majority of Muslisms today, "accepting secularism" may take another few decades ...

3) Jinnah and conservatives/Mullahs were/are diametrically opposed in their interpretation of Islam ... What Jinnah and Iqbal believed was the "true spirit" of Islam, that was considered "Kufr" and "Shirk" by the Mullahs ....

4) Today conservatives claim that Jinnah wanted an "Islamic Pakistan" and to prove their point they quote speeches/interviews of Jinnah where he has talked about Islam, but then they very conveniently replace Jinnah's interpretation/understanding of Islam with Mullahs' (which is opposite to Jinnah's interpretation) ... As a result, one gets an impression that either Jinnah was confused and had no clear vision OR he was a hypocrite who wanted a secular constitution but talked about Islam (supposedly anti secular) .... ... The truth is that Jinnah and Iqbal had a clear vision .... of a progressive and modern Pakistan based on "reinterpretation" of Islamic teachings .... Secular and Democratic .. not western but Islamic ... !!!

Dr. Javed Iqbal (Allama Iqbal`s son) explains this in the following words ...... it is self-evident that there is complete harmony in the views of Quaid-i-Azam and Allama Iqbal regarding the establishment of a modern Islamic democratic welfare state in Pakistan. The founders of Pakistan certainly had a very clear vision. They approved of a definite interpretation of Islam on which they founded Pakistan, and according to them, it was only through that interpretation that the Muslims could possibly realize their objectives in the newly created Muslim state.



============

"We have many non-Muslims – Hindus, Christians and Parsis – but they are ALL Pakistanis. They will enjoy the SAME rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.” - Muhammad Ali Jinnah ...




We want Jinnah's Pakistan where no citizen is discriminated against on the basis of religion, where Jinnah's Islamic ideals of universal equality and brotherhood of mankind are properly implemented ... Where religion is a matter of personal choice and not the business of the state ...


Are you sure Jinnah's Pakistan is acceptable to you ?? You don't have to remove Islam from the constitution to create Jinnah's Pakistan. The 1951 Libyan Constitution is a perfect example of what Jinnah wanted for Pakistan .....

The 1951 Libyan Constitution proclaims Islam as the state religion but formally sets out rights such as equality before the law as well as equal civil and political rights, equal opportunities, and an equal responsibility for public duties and obligations "without distinction of religion, belief, race, language, wealth, kinship or political or social opinions"

Islam and Secularism are indeed compatible ...

 

[Verve]

Islam and Secularism are indeed compatible ...

They are opposite and Jinnah rejected ALL 'isms! It has been covered in earlier posts and in many other threads.

They approved of a definite interpretation of Islam on which they founded Pakistan, and according to them, it was only through that interpretation that the Muslims could possibly realize their objectives in the newly created Muslim state.

and that 'definite interpretation of Islam' somehow is translated in to Secularism! Wow!


Now tell me, what is wrong with Deen as per your understanding? Conservatives want(ed) Theocracy (like Iran of today) because that gives them power, and I am against it too. But I am really interested in your understanding of Deen and why we can't have Islam as a system? You are a student of Quran, it seems, so where do Quranic laws discriminate against minorities?

 

[M. Sarmad]

They are opposite and Jinnah rejected ALL 'isms! It has been covered in earlier posts and in many other threads.

You are entitled to your own opinion but here we are discussing the vision/opinion of our Founding Fathers. You may believe that Islam and Secularism are opposite but Allama Muhammad Iqbal categorically stated (about secularism):

Islam as a religio-political system, no doubt, does permit such a view

and that 'definite interpretation of Islam' somehow is translated in to Secularism! Wow!

Yes, it does. Read the previous post carefully

where do Quranic laws discriminate against minorities?

They don't, but the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan does, unfortunately

 

[Verve]

Allama Muhammad Iqbal categorically stated (about secularism):

Islam as a religio-political system, no doubt, does permit such a view

Reference please where Iqbal is drawing this comparison between Islam and Secularism.

They don't, but the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan does, unfortunately

If they don't, then what is the issue with Islam as a system?

 

[M. Sarmad]

Reference please where Iqbal is drawing this comparison between Islam and Secularism.

The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam

by Dr. Muhammad Iqbal


The Principle of Movement in the Structure of Islam

.......

I now proceed to give you some idea of religio-political thought in Turkey which will indicate to you how the power of Ijtihād is manifested in recent thought and activity in that country. There were, a short time ago, two main lines of thought in Turkey represented by the Nationalist Party and the Party of Religious Reform. The point of supreme interest with the Nationalist Party is above all the State and not Religion. With these thinkers religion as such has no independent function. The state is the essential factor in national life which determines the character and function of all other factors. They, therefore, reject old ideas about the function of State and Religion, and accentuate the separation of Church and State. Now the structure of Islam as a religio-political system, no doubt, does permit such a view, though personally I think it is a mistake to suppose that the idea of state is more dominant and rules all other ideas embodied in the system of Islam.........

http://www.allamaiqbal.com/works/prose/english/reconstruction/

If they don't, then what is the issue with Islam as a system?

Absolutely no issue with Islam as a system

Political Islam however is a different thing

 

[Verve]

I now proceed to give you some idea of religio-political thought in Turkey which will indicate to you how the power of Ijtihād is manifested in recent thought and activity in that country. There were, a short time ago, two main lines of thought in Turkey represented by the Nationalist Party and the Party of Religious Reform. The point of supreme interest with the Nationalist Party is above all the State and not Religion. With these thinkers religion as such has no independent function. The state is the essential factor in national life which determines the character and function of all other factors. They, therefore, reject old ideas about the function of State and Religion, and accentuate the separation of Church and State. Now the structure of Islam as a religio-political system, no doubt, does permit such a view, though personally I think it is a mistake to suppose that the idea of state is more dominant and rules all other ideas embodied in the system of Islam.........

See also in red above ... and the 'does permit such a view' doesn't come without conditions - replacing Allah's sovereignty with that of man is one and this is where Secularism as a system is utterly incompatible with Islam.

and a paragraph below he says on the dualism (that is 'separation of state and religion'):

"The truth is that the Turkish Nationalists assimilated the idea of the separation of Church and State from the history of European political ideas. Primitive Christianity was founded, not as a political or civil unit, but as a monastic order in a profane world, having nothing to do with civil affairs, and obeying the Roman authority practically in all matters. The result of this was that when the State became Christian, State and Church confronted each other as distinct powers with interminable boundary disputes between them. Such a thing could never happen in Islam; for Islam was from the very beginning a civil society, having received from the Qur’an a set of simple legal principles which, like the twelve tables of the Romans, carried, as experience subsequently proved, great potentialities of expansion and development by interpretation. The Nationalist theory of state, therefore, is misleading inasmuch as it suggests a dualism which does not exist in Islam."

^this is the rejection of separation of state and religion!^

and further down:

"We heartily welcome the liberal movement in modern Islam, but it must also be admitted that the appearance of liberal ideas in Islam constitutes also the most critical moment in the history of Islam. Liberalism has a tendency to act as a force of disintegration, and the race-idea which appears to be working in modern Islam with greater force than ever may ultimately wipe off the broad human outlook which Muslim people have imbibed from their religion. Further, our religious and political reformers in their zeal for liberalism may overstep the proper limits of reform in the absence of check on their youthful fervour. We are today passing through a period similar to that of the Protestant revolution in Europe, and the lesson which the rise and outcome of Luther’s movement teaches should not be lost on us. A careful reading of history shows that the Reformation was essentially a political movement, and the net result of it in Europe was a gradual displacement of the universal ethics of Christianity by systems of national ethics. The result of this tendency we have seen with our own eyes in the Great European War which, far from bringing any workable synthesis of the two opposing systems of ethics, has made the European situation still more intolerable. It is the duty of the leaders of the world of Islam today to understand the real meaning of what has happened in Europe, and then to move forward with self-control and a clear insight into the ultimate aims of Islam as a social polity."

Iqbal is clear that you can't have secularism and liberalism at the expense of Islam, and both are rejected as they are defined and implemented in the West. He gives space to secular thought and liberal movement in Islam, but only within limits!

If one reads the definitions of Secularism and Liberalism, there is no compatibility with Islam. Western secularism (since it originated and is implemented in West) is clearly rejected above.

Now, the question we muslims should be asking is 'secular and liberal to WHAT EXTENT in WHICH AREAS'. That would be fruitful discussion instead of banging on about secularism and liberalism and trying to fit Islam in those ideologies.

 

[M. Sarmad]

See also in red above ... and the 'does permit such a view' doesn't come without conditions - replacing Allah's sovereignty with that of man is one and this is where Secularism as a system is utterly incompatible with Islam.

and a paragraph below he says on the dualism (that is 'separation of state and religion'):

"The truth is that the Turkish Nationalists assimilated the idea of the separation of Church and State from the history of European political ideas. Primitive Christianity was founded, not as a political or civil unit, but as a monastic order in a profane world, having nothing to do with civil affairs, and obeying the Roman authority practically in all matters. The result of this was that when the State became Christian, State and Church confronted each other as distinct powers with interminable boundary disputes between them. Such a thing could never happen in Islam; for Islam was from the very beginning a civil society, having received from the Qur’an a set of simple legal principles which, like the twelve tables of the Romans, carried, as experience subsequently proved, great potentialities of expansion and development by interpretation. The Nationalist theory of state, therefore, is misleading inasmuch as it suggests a dualism which does not exist in Islam."

^this is the rejection of separation of state and religion!^

and further down:

"We heartily welcome the liberal movement in modern Islam, but it must also be admitted that the appearance of liberal ideas in Islam constitutes also the most critical moment in the history of Islam. Liberalism has a tendency to act as a force of disintegration, and the race-idea which appears to be working in modern Islam with greater force than ever may ultimately wipe off the broad human outlook which Muslim people have imbibed from their religion. Further, our religious and political reformers in their zeal for liberalism may overstep the proper limits of reform in the absence of check on their youthful fervour. We are today passing through a period similar to that of the Protestant revolution in Europe, and the lesson which the rise and outcome of Luther’s movement teaches should not be lost on us. A careful reading of history shows that the Reformation was essentially a political movement, and the net result of it in Europe was a gradual displacement of the universal ethics of Christianity by systems of national ethics. The result of this tendency we have seen with our own eyes in the Great European War which, far from bringing any workable synthesis of the two opposing systems of ethics, has made the European situation still more intolerable. It is the duty of the leaders of the world of Islam today to understand the real meaning of what has happened in Europe, and then to move forward with self-control and a clear insight into the ultimate aims of Islam as a social polity."

Iqbal is clear that you can't have secularism and liberalism at the expense of Islam, and both are rejected as they are defined and implemented in the West. He gives space to secular thought and liberal movement in Islam, but only within limits!

If one reads the definitions of Secularism and Liberalism, there is no compatibility with Islam. Western secularism (since it originated and is implemented in West) is clearly rejected above.

Now, the question we muslims should be asking is 'secular and liberal to WHAT EXTENT in WHICH AREAS'. That would be fruitful discussion instead of banging on about secularism and liberalism and trying to fit Islam in those ideologies.

Allama Iqbal was no fan of Western Nationalism or Western Secularism. But that's besides the point. Here we are discussing the compatibility (or the lack thereof) of Secularism with Islam ... Iqbal believed that Islam and secularism, without any doubt, were compatible. He said about separation of state and religion that : "Islam as a religio-political system, no doubt, does permit such a view".... No conditions attached to "compatibility" ..... Criticizing 'Nationalism based solely on Secular assumptions' as a flawed but nonetheless permitted political doctrine/ideology in Islamic religio-political system (Iqbal's position) and an outright rejection of Secularism for it being "anti-Islamic" (Mullahs' position) are two entirely different (and opposite) things.




And as Iqbal was talking about religio-political thought in Ataturk's Secular Turkey,

The truth is that among the Muslim nations of today, Turkey alone has shaken off its dogmatic slumber, and attained to self-consciousness. She alone has claimed her right of intellectual freedom; she alone has passed from the ideal to the real– a transition which entails keen intellectual and moral struggle.... - Allama Iqbal






“He was the greatest Muslaman in the modern Islamic World and I am sure that the entire Musalman world will deeply mourn his passing away. It is impossible to express adequately in a press interview one’s appreciation of his remarkable and varied services, as the builder and the maker of Modern Turkey and an example to the rest of the world, especially to the Musalman States in the Far East. The remarkable way in which he rescued and built up his people against all odds, has no parallel in the history of the world. He must have derived the greatest sense of satisfaction that he fully accomplished his mission during his life-time and left his people and his country consolidated, united and a powerful nation. In him, not only the Musalmans but the whole world have lost one of the greatest men that ever lived“.


... In Kemal Ataturk, the Islamic world has lost a great hero. With the example of this great Musalman in front of them as an inspiration, will Muslims of India still remain in quagmire?

- Muhammad Ali Jinnah (upon Ataturk's death)

 

[Verve]

Your logic and therefore understanding of what Iqbal said is different than mine.

Iqbal believed that Islam and secularism, without any doubt, were compatible.

Iqbal rejected Western Secularism (what other is there anyways!!?) explicitly in the very next paragraph!!!

Quoted again below. Read first line and last specifically.

"The truth is that the Turkish Nationalists assimilated the idea of the separation of Church and State from the history of European political ideas. Primitive Christianity was founded, not as a political or civil unit, but as a monastic order in a profane world, having nothing to do with civil affairs, and obeying the Roman authority practically in all matters. The result of this was that when the State became Christian, State and Church confronted each other as distinct powers with interminable boundary disputes between them. Such a thing could never happen in Islam; for Islam was from the very beginning a civil society, having received from the Qur’an a set of simple legal principles which, like the twelve tables of the Romans, carried, as experience subsequently proved, great potentialities of expansion and development by interpretation. The Nationalist theory of state, therefore, is misleading inasmuch as it suggests a dualism which does not exist in Islam."

Separation of state and religion works in Islam as Islamic State should not impose personal religion on anyone - example being that Sunni majority Islamic State should not impose Sunni version on the Shia minority. And you've said that you have no issues with Quranic Laws and those Islamic State should impose.

Another example:
Public consumption & open sale of Alcohol banned and consumption banned for Muslims altogether. Non Muslims can buy and only consume out of public sight (they already can under present law). And Muslims caught drinking/drunk should be punished according to law (we've discussed that punishment in another thread already so no need to start here).

It's not difficult to understand what Iqbal is saying (& how an Islamic State should operate) but you are either intentionally making it difficult or just can't seem to get it. Which is it? Are you not open to review your own conclusions or that door is locked and key thrown in a raging river?

 

[M. Sarmad]

Your logic and therefore understanding of what Iqbal said is different than mine.



Iqbal rejected Western Secularism (what other is there anyways!!?) explicitly in the very next paragraph!!!

Quoted again below. Read first line and last specifically.




Separation of state and religion works in Islam as Islamic State should not impose personal religion on anyone - example being that Sunni majority Islamic State should not impose Sunni version on the Shia minority. And you've said that you have no issues with Quranic Laws and those Islamic State should impose.

Another example:
Public consumption & open sale of Alcohol banned and consumption banned for Muslims altogether. Non Muslims can buy and only consume out of public sight (they already can under present law). And Muslims caught drinking/drunk should be punished according to law (we've discussed that punishment in another thread already so no need to start here).

It's not difficult to understand what Iqbal is saying (& how an Islamic State should operate) but you are either intentionally making it difficult or just can't seem to get it. Which is it? Are you not open to review your own conclusions or that door is locked and key thrown in a raging river?

You are presenting your own understanding/interpretation of what Allama Iqbal has said as Iqbal's position. I, on the other hand, am quoting Iqbal's words. Iqbal said about separation of state and religion that:

"Islam as a religio-political system, no doubt, does permit such a view"

^^These are Iqbal's words, not my own.


Indeed it's not at all difficult to understand Iqbal's words. As for you quoting the example of a Sunni state not imposing Sunni version on Shia minority as how separation of state and religion works in an Islamic State, again, that is just your own opinion, not Iqbal's. Allama Iqbal was talking about separation of state and religion in Ataturk's Secular Turkey and we all know what kind of "separation" that was/is. Iqbal (even though not an admirer of western secularism) did concede that Ataturk's Secularism, without any doubt, was permissible in the Islamic religio-political system.


And as for the punishment of alcohol consumption/sale, the Holy Qur'an does not prescribe lashing as the punishment. But that's another debate.

 

[Verve]

"Islam as a religio-political system, no doubt, does permit such a view"

^^These are Iqbal's words, not my own.

"The Nationalist theory of state, therefore, is misleading inasmuch as it suggests a dualism which does not exist in Islam."

^^These are Iqbal's own words as well, just one paragraph down.


As for Atatürk, he had to save his nation from being chopped up by western powers so he had to do what was necessary. It was for survival of Turkey.

Pakistan faces no such existential threat. A few thousand secularists and liberals moaning don't really matter.

 

[M. Sarmad]

"The Nationalist theory of state, therefore, is misleading inasmuch as it suggests a dualism which does not exist in Islam."

^^These are Iqbal's own words as well, just one paragraph down.

Yes, these are Iqbal's words. Read the whole paragraph. Iqbal has simply pointed it out that in Islam, historically, (and unlike Christianity) State and Church have not existed as two distinct powers confronting each other. The Turkish Nationalist theory of state is misleading (only) to the extent that it suggests a dualism that has not existed in Islam. (words used by Iqbal: misleading, inasmuch, suggests)


But the question is, regardless of historical precedents and other factors, is this Modern Turkish Nationalist theory of state (i.e Ataturk's Secularism) compatible with the Islamic religio-political system ? ..... Iqbal has answered this question with a categoric YES. He said:, "Islam as a religio-political system, no doubt, does permit such a view" ... There is absolutely no contradiction here.... Hope that clears up your confusion.

As for Atatürk, he had to save his nation from being chopped up by western powers so he had to do what was necessary. It was for survival of Turkey.
Pakistan faces no such existential threat.

Again, that's just your personal opinion. I believe Terrorism, Fundamentalism and Political Islam do pose an existential threat to State of Pakistan ...

 

[Verve]

Secularism is an illegitimate child of religion - Prof A.R. Akhtar

Below is a must watch. First few minutes covers Secularism. And this is aligned with what Iqbal and Jinnah said.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Secularism is an illegitimate child of religion - Prof A.R. Akhtar

Below is a must watch. First few minutes covers Secularism. And this is aligned with what Iqbal and Jinnah said.

Who is this guy ?? He begins by saying that Secularism actually means Atheism !!

And you expect us to take him seriously ?

 

[Verve]

Who is this guy ?? He begins by saying that Secularism actually means Atheism !!

And you expect us to take him seriously ?

Are you claiming to know more than him?

 

[VCheng]

Who is this guy ?? He begins by saying that Secularism actually means Atheism !!

And you expect us to take him seriously ?

To equate secularism with atheism is the blatantly dishonest fallback the extremists use to justify state imposition of their own sets of beliefs on everyone else because they know they have lost the moral authority to attract followers except by state-mandated force.

Yet again people, if a State is not for or against any religion does NOT make it anti-religion or its proponents atheists.