Upon observation, the form of secularism in a specific country is the product of the circumstances in that country and not vice-versa. Hence, Secularism and its various forms is a product of circumstance and not generosity or the “amazing” ability to adapt. For example, the French Revolution was a reaction to the Church and the “Divine” Monarchs. The reaction is illustrated in the bloodiness of the revolt, term the reign of terror. Its history documents the oppressiveness of the Church, hence we see this complete divorce of religion from the public sphere as seen in the banning of Hijaab. The United States, founded by immigrants fleeing religious persecution embraced religious diversity (amongst themselves of course, we must not forget the massacres against the Native Americans) as a key foundation of their society. Hence religiosity was preserved and…

Br Hasan, shukran for all your replies. I would like to know if point one “The principle in democracy that people have the right to choose the rulers they want” is really compatible with Islaam.

I understood that it was the select group of ahlul hilli wal ‘aqd that made those decisions and not every adult in the country over the age of 18.

Also, Communism is ’secular’ (non religious) but not very democratic. In that sense, all these isms and ideologies are secular except the religious ideologies. So yes, democracy and secularisms are two different things… yet democracy can lead to a secular leadership, a gay one or a christian fanatic government.

So anything other than Islaam is rejected by us. “…wa man yabtaghi ghayral islaama deenan, falan yuqbala minhu…” (quraan) “If one seeks anything other than islaam, it will not be accepted from him”…

Finally, aspects of democracy that we may ‘comply’ with may be deemed ‘mubaah’ as opposed to ‘islaamiyy’/islamic’. Terming it ‘islaamic’ may suggest that this aspect of secularism or democracy (invented by a slave) is derived from islaam or is endorsed by islaam.

It may not be wise to state the obvious that ‘we are in a no-win situation and must comply’ (all agreed). It is also not a good idea to separate aspects of secularism from the ‘godless entity’ that it is and seek to classify those aspects as…

The ’soft’ secularism, based on the core secular concept of separating religion from state, will not allow state and society to involve itself in personal religious matters nor are people allowed to involve religion in the state and society.

As a minority, we can indeed adapt to this soft secularism. The state should not interfere in our building of masaajid and schooling of children or Muslim clothing etc. This is in our favour, and I think this is what br Hasan is saying.

However, if we mean that therefore soft secularism is also ‘Islamic’ (in that it is endorsed and approved by Islam) then this is obviously not true. I think br Hasan did not mean this when he said we shouldn’t ‘promote’ this form of secularism. Because ‘Islamically’, the state MUST interfere to ensure promotion of religion in society, the total opposite of soft/procedural secularism.

In essence, we are agreed that Muslims should and have indeed already adapted to the current soft secularism available in the UK (and perhaps we are ‘adapting’ too much? More should be said about that instead I think!), but if anyone assumes this is endorsed and approved by Islam as ‘Islamic’, then it this…

I beg to disagree, secularism is an ideology. Take this example of British historical links to secularism which states “secularism was the word adopted by George Jacob Holyoake in the early 1850s to describe a system of morals and social action shaped exclusively by this-worldly considerations, irrespective of religious beliefs.”

In the UK it does not mean ‘neutrality’ of the state – it means that religion has no part to play in public life – a concept (an idea) which is hardly neutral to Christians let alone Muslims.

The ideology of secularism is to shape exclusively systems of morality and social norms irrespective of religion – if this does not abolish religion then what does? When one creates systems that seek to shape the moral fabric of society excluding God – what do you think gets abolished?

@ Abdullah Hasan

That last comment of yours is unfair, your article did not seek to clarify processes and ideology – rather the Islamification of process derived from secularism. As I pointed out already, your examples were already available in Islam.

I still think that you have confused separate matters – I ask why would we seek to Islamise the lesser of the two evils – when all that is required for us is to use the ‘rukhsa’ and gain the benefit – and when the time changes we go back to our Islamic model – i.e. when the majority are Muslims.

JK, khair – I tried to highlight those differences in my post.

wslm

‘Secularism’ and ‘Democracy’ are not the same. Though somewhat linked, they are two distinct concepts. A state may be secular without being democratic (Tunisia).

A country can be ‘democratic’ but not secular, examples would include Pakistan and Malaysia. Islam is the official religion, and there is some preference/postitive discrimination in favour of Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot hold certain government posts, etc.

@Zafar

Secularism is not an ‘ideology’ as you state. It is a ‘principle’, but which is understood or applied in various ways. In UK it means ‘neutrality’ of the state, ie the state doesn’t give preference or discriminate against a faith. In France it means the ‘removal’ of religious symbols and practise from public life / governance.

It however does not seek to abolish religion, or promote ‘atheism’. That honour (!) is (or was) for China and its ‘Communism’. Communism can be correctly described as an ideology.