What is your idea about the possibility of secularism in Iran?

[haviZsultan]

Also Iqbal is being linked to anti-secularism, why don't we find out what he said about Turkey and it's secularism:

Iqbal said this about secular thought:

The ultimate reality, according to the Qur’ān, is spiritual and its life consists in its temporal activities. The spirit finds its opportunities in the natural, material and the secular. All that is secualr is therefore sacred in the roots of its being. The greatest service that modern thought has rendered to Islam and as a matter of fact to all religions, consists in its criticism of what we call material or natural, a criticism which discloses that the merely material has no substance until we discover it rooted in the spirit. There is no such thing as profane world. All this immensity of matter constitutes a scope for the self-realization of the spirit. All is holy ground. (Reconstruction, Lectures, p.155)

On modern thought and secularism:

The ultimate reality, according to the Qur’ān, is spiritual and its life consists in its temporal activities. The spirit finds its opportunities in the natural, material and the secular. All that is secualr is therefore sacred in the roots of its being. The greatest service that modern thought has rendered to Islam and as a matter of fact to all religions, consists in its criticism of what we call material or natural, a criticism which discloses that the merely material has no substance until we discover it rooted in the spirit. There is no such thing as profane world. All this immensity of matter constitutes a scope for the self-realization of the spirit. All is holy ground. (Reconstruction, Lectures, p.155)

In support of Ataturk and his secularism:

He also recommends that no one should be permitted to preach in the mosque without holding a licence from the state. When a reform to that effect was implemented in modern Turkey by Kemal Ataturk, Iqbal hailed it in the following words:

As to licentiate the Ulema, I will certainly introduce it in Muslim India if I had the power to do so. The stupidity of the average Muslim is largely due to the inventions of the myth making Mullah. In excluding him from the religious life of the people, Ataturk has done what would have delighted the heart of an Ibn Taimiyah or Shah Waliullah. There is a tradition of the Holy Prophet reported in the Mishkāt to the effect that only the Amir of a Muslim state and the persons appointed by him are entitled to preach to the people. I do not know whether the Ataturk ever knew this tradition, yet it is striking how the light of his Islamic conscience has illuminated the zone of his actions in this important matter. (Statements and Speeches, Ed. A.R. Tariq, pp 131-132).

Iqbal was a vociferous supporter of Ataturk:

Iqbal supported Ataturk’s abolition of the caliphate, suggesting that the Turks had made effective use of the Islamic tradition of Ijtehad. The Ottoman caliphate, Iqbal said, had long become a symbol of Muslim statehood in name only, as not even the next-door Iranians accepted the sovereignty of the Ottomans.

Iqbal wrote dismissively of the clerics:

“The religious doctors of Islam in Egypt and India, as far as I know, have not yet expressed themselves on this point. Personally, I find the Turkish view is perfectly sound.”

I believe secularism is the next stage of evolution and we are hampering our own future by not accepting it as our future. Also we have made a huge mistake by linking freedom and secularism to anti-Islam. The mullahs can be thanked for that. Iran and Pakistan basically face exactly the same issue. The only thing that is relatively better about Iran though is that Iranians are challenging the system. Another thing is facing off against the US with almost no support and sanctions that could ruin their economy. If anyone can do that they deserve some respect.

 

[Ir.Tab.]

I, see Arab spring the revolt in Pakistan etc as a post colonial evolution process which will take time to mature and settle. [/IMG]

You are right. the overall awareness of nation plays the most important rule in achieving a successful secular state. Even in this thread you can find lots of secularism supporters who insult religious people and annoying them and ... This is while the main aim of secularism is the freedom for any type of ideology (but just not the one which rejects the freedom of other ideologies)

 

[angeldust]

Nice thread.

We pray for E'ran.

 

[Ir.Tab.]

Most of people conclude in this term: "While secularism will help Iran, only a soft change from current situation is beneficial."

In my opinion, there are some incidents in the world which could affect this:

1- Ahmadinejad, the unpredictable!
2- The limited foreign policy
3- The growth of economical problems in Iran
4- Al-Asad and his fate
5- Internal political conflicts
6- The Iranian nuclear program and possible alternatives
7- your suggestions

From this moment with a priority on "soft change" all incoming posts are welcomed.

It seems, this time there is the opportunity that all off-topic posts will be treated.

 

[Shahin Vatani]

1. Ahmadinejad will be going soon. The unpredictable part is on who will succeed him.

2. Foreign policy is some what in the hands of the president. So if we get a president who wants to expand relations with hostile countries, then to an extent he can.

3. This is tied to sanctions, which is again tied to next president and his handling of foreign policy. Also Iran is close to being an Autarky, so thankfully is not as affected by sanctions as some other countries will be.
Autarky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4. If he stays, then the Shia crescent from Iran to Lebanon will continue. Needless to say this will be greatly beneficial to Iran. If he goes then that will be a significant regional loss for Iran. We won't have a way to access Hezbollah in Lebanon, as well as our general regional influence which will suffer. We may have ways to counter this loss however. Currently we are on our way to making allies in Sudan, also there is cause for optimism with the new Egyptian government.

5. These conflicts are as old as time. They will be around forever. However in Iran it is hard to tell which group has the upper hand, as internal dealings of the government are quite secretive.

6. For me this is non-negotiable. From all polls and opinions, even western media, also say that the majority of Iranians agree with nuclear program.

7. My suggestion is to work within the system. Take things slowly. Remember the saying that "Rome was not built in a day".

 

[KS]

No the reason is that secularism has been projected as anti-religion.

In case of Islam it is.

Secularism is separation of religion and administration. But Islam I believe has a complete set of codes on how administration must be done. In essence secularism is practically anti-Islam.

 

[Esfand]

In case of Islam it is.

Secularism is separation of religion and administration. But Islam I believe has a complete set of codes on how administration must be done. In essence secularism is practically anti-Islam.

To me Turkey seems to be a counter-example of this statement.

 

[KS]

To me Turkey seems to be a counter-example of this statement.

Turkey was not based on Islam but on Turkish nationalism.

And right now they are going back from Kemalist forced secularism to AKP backed Islamism.

 

[Ir.Tab.]

In case of Islam it is.

Secularism is separation of religion and administration. But Islam I believe has a complete set of codes on how administration must be done. In essence secularism is practically anti-Islam.

Why do you think Islam does not tolerate other types of ideologies. In my opinion you have mixed Muslim with extremist. The experience of Islam in governing is not the worst. Christian have had much worse experiences during The Middle Ages.

If secularism was possible in Europe, then it is possible here.

 

[KS]

Why do you think Islam does not tolerate other types of ideologies. In my opinion you have mixed Muslim with extremist. The experience of Islam in governing is not the worst. Christian have had much worse experiences during The Middle Ages.

If secularism was possible in Europe, then it is possible here.

You misunderstood my post. I did not say anything about the relation of Islam with other religions. But just the separation of state from religion (secularism) is not possible in Islam as Islam itself prescribes how the state must be administered !

 

[Ir.Tab.]

You misunderstood my post. I did not say anything about the relation of Islam with other religions. But just the separation of state from religion (secularism) is not possible in Islam as Islam itself prescribes how the state must be administered !

I do not mean relation, too

In The Middle Ages that was church, prescribing how the state must be administered!

so, If secularism was possible in Europe, then it is possible here.

 

[KS]

I do not mean relation, too

In The Middle Ages that was church, prescribing how the state must be administered!

so, If secularism was possible in Europe, then it is possible here.

But I dont believe there is a complete set of codified ruled in Christianity as to how to run the state. The Church just assumed that power. However in case of Islam there are clear guidelines as to how to run the state.

Believe me as a non-Muslim, I too want Muslims to become secular such that their religion is a private affair between them and their God..but practically I dont see that happening.

 

[Ir.Tab.]

just assumed that power.

maybe the same, good one!

 

[Ir.Tab.]

Mutual friends: secularism and Islam

On the first page of his book, Islam and the Secular State, Abdullahi an-Na'im writes: "In order to be a Muslim by conviction and free choice, which is the only way one can be a Muslim, I need a secular state."

He explains that he is not advocating a secular society but a state which is neutral with regard to religion – a state whose institutions "neither favour nor disfavour any religious doctrine or principle", a state that has no enforcing role in religious matters.

The object of state neutrality, an-Na'im says, is to facilitate "the possibility of religious piety out of honest conviction" and allow individuals in their communities the freedom "to accept, object to, or modify any view of religious doctrine or principle". States that take sides in such matters become an obstacle to religious freedom.

To some readers, this may be little more than a statement of the obvious. But to many Muslims, especially in countries where the state poses as a "defender of Islam" and an enforcer of "Islamic values", it is not only an unfamiliar argument but one that sounds dangerously mad, even heretical.

Last week, in an article for Cif, I discussed the shutting-down of debate about Islamic secularism in most of the Arab countries and posed the question: how can it be re-opened? I'd now like to suggest an answer.

The idea of states enforcing correct "Islamic" behaviour is based on a presumption that such behaviour can be clearly and indisputably defined. But we have only to look at an issue such as female circumcision, where scholarly opinions range from saying it is obligatory to forbidden, to see that this is anything but the case.

In practice, the "Islam" they are seeking to enforce is nothing more than the prevailing local orthodoxy – modified, where necessary, to suit the political needs of the regime. Conveniently, this allows them to invoke religion to justify all manner of abuses that cannot be defended by rational argument.

In 2000 Saudi Arabia, which is probably the world leader in institutionalised discrimination, signed up to the international Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) but added a reservation saying it did not consider itself bound by any part of the convention that conflicts with "the norms of Islamic law". In effect, it was claiming the right to choose which bits of the treaty, if any, it would implement. As Denmark noted in an objection at the time, the Saudis' references to the provisions of Islamic law were "of unlimited scope and undefined character".

Abuses of power are often dressed in a religious gloss which helps to win acceptance from Muslims but doesn't stand up to much serious scrutiny. Saudi Arabia, besides its achievements in the field of discrimination, also has the most comprehensive system of internet censorship in the Middle East and it cites verses from the Qur'an in support of this practice. The passage it quotes is about resisting sexual temptation and the verses (12: 33-34) imply that God will protect those who seek His help. If this has any relevance to internet use its point, surely, is that the temptations of the internet are a matter for users to sort out between themselves and God. So there is no reason for the state to become involved – unless the Saudi authorities are saying they don't trust God to do His job properly.

The central illusion here is that states can determine the one "true" voice of Islam, regardless of the diversity of Islamic thought through the ages, and also have the right to impose it on the public.

The question "How do they know their version is correct?" is what starts to undermine this edifice. Of course, they don't really know but they have power on their side, and might is right. The need here is not to categorically refute their religious arguments but to neutralise them by pointing out that other interpretations are possible. In that way a space is created where people can confront the underlying moral issues themselves and feel free enough to make their own choices.

To begin the process of separating states from religion, secularists have to be prepared to engage with religious arguments – something they are often reluctant to do. Human rights activists, for example (even those in Muslim countries) often fail to address the religious dimension, with the result that their arguments cut little ice among the public. Kecia Ali writes:

For the vast majority of Muslims worldwide – not only extremists or conservatives, but also those who consider themselves moderate or progressive – determining whether a particular belief or practice is acceptable largely hinges on deciding whether or not it is legitimately "Islamic".

Increasingly, feminists and others in Muslim countries are finding that if they want to make headway they have to present their case in terms that people can perceive as compatible with Islam. That means studying the scripture and exploring its various interpretations. Once the possibility of multiple "Islamic" interpretations is acknowledged, rational debate can begin.

Official discrimination against the Baha'is in Egypt is one example of a problem that cannot be tackled though secular arguments alone, because of the claims that it is sanctioned by Islam.

"One scholar after another, one government official after another, would insist that under Islam only three religions are allowed – Islam, Christianity and Judaism," Hossam Bahgat of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights recalled when I spoke to him about this in Cairo last summer. He continued:

When we started doing research we realised there is no basis in the Qur'an or the Sunna to support their claim that Muslims may only coexist with "people of the book" – and we started saying so.

I was once in a televised debate with the former president of al-Azhar university who was one of the chief jurists of the Islamic Religious Council and we were talking about the Baha'i faith. He started stating the usual position that Islam only allows adherents to the three Abrahamic religions. So I challenged him on this and said: "What's your evidence?"

I think he was stunned … I cited all the evidence about how the Prophet Muhammad in Madina never discriminated between people of the Book and others who adhered to other faiths – like the Zoroastrians, for example. He couldn't argue with my evidence because my evidence came not from fringe opinions but from major books that are selectively avoided by scholars because they don't give them the cover they want for their bigotry.

So immediately he shifted. He said: "Yes, but they [the Baha'is] have their headquarters in Haifa in Israel and they work against the fabric of our society, their presence is against national unity," etc.

Once the religious cover has been blown or neutralised, the way is open for a reasoned debate based on facts and logic rather than what someone in authority claims to have been told by God.


the guardian, Tuesday 14 April 2009

 

[Iran land of Aryans]

secularism is a word used by people when they want their country to become secular like west. We do not want westernised Iran.
there are problems in Iran such a having something like a supreme leader in this day and age is just not right.
I mean this is not 500 Bc, back them Persia had kings like Cyrus but now 2500 years later? come on, we re suppose to move on.

Also in Iran people are kind of forced to be muslim, for example Muslims cannot change their religion, non-Muslims are discriminated against and so on. Islam is forced on Iranians by the regime, I am not saying there are no muslims in Iran, of course there, but there are alot of non-Mulims like myself and ALL of my friends here at uni. My mother is however religious and my father (May he R.I.P) was a non believer.

I have been following this forum for a while now, and I have to say Irtab jan you're someone who is trying to force his own love for turkic culture on the rest of azeri people and paint them with the same brush. so You yourself are not exactly a secular person are you? People in Iran are proud of their ancient Iranic culture, if you like a non-Persian culture then why do you want to force it on people of Iran? Baradar, I am half azeri myself and half shirazi but not for a second do I doubt my Iranic culture. I mean Turkic culture itself is a mixture of Persian,Indian and arab culture anyway.

So instead of creating a thread like this asking our ideas of a secular Iran, say why you want secular Iran. You want to split Iran into Persian, azeris,Turk, lurs and others? why are you trying to create division? baradare man, You do not represent azeris, our supreme leader and many other top officials are azeri or part azeri and they do not share you view. It seems you have been brainwashed by pan-Turkism and not long ago you threatened to back pan-turks when you and another member (Kollang) were arguing.

To all friend who are reading this thread, remember no one is forced to stay in Iran. If They have problems with Iran, and want to act like a Turk or a westerner, then they can pack up and get out of Iran because they do not deserve to be in Iran.
Iran is home of the great kuroshe kabir (Cyrus the great), he made our country great and in his memory we will not allow our culture to be changed.