http://dawn.com/2012/04/09/en-route-to-secularism/
En route to secularism?
Syed Muhammad Haider | DAWN.COM | 9 hours ago
‘What Pakistan did Jinnah want?’ is a question still being debated some 65
years on since the partition. Did he intend to establish a secular Pakistan (a
state impervious to religion), or a country to be run according to the Sharia
(Islamic religious law, based on Quran)? The disparity between these two
conflicting school of thoughts is only mounting by the day – as evident on
social media, at least – with each group getting fervent in advocating their
perceived ‘ideal state’.
While the debate is healthy and should be encouraged, it goes awry when
proponents of Islamic-rule perceive secularism as something atheistic; amiss
still, when the secularists start picking on the religion per se – both are
skewed approaches to the debate, and manifest ill-informed opinions on the
subject.
I think the main cause of religious class comparing secularism with atheism is
that it’s the atheists who are the staunchest supporters of secularism. In a
recently published article in the guardian, for example, Julian Baggini, editor
of The Philosophers’ Magazine, has presented a ‘manifesto for heathens’
declaring: “we are secularists” – no surprise, however. Point is, religious
people get skeptical (and cautious) of secularism because of such associations.
Contrarily, secularists use essentialist clichés as their argument which cast
Islam as an obstacle to democracy and religious tolerance; sometimes, even as a
regressive, torpid religion which has no relevance in the contemporary world.
Secularism refers to a principle whose political expression is separation of
religion and government. The object is to afford all the religious minorities,
individuals, and smaller groups an equal opportunity and rights to observe
their religion freely, placing none on the pedestal. The principle profits
minority religions as much as atheists; so, if people support secularism, (the
ideological principle behind secularisation) they can still be religious,
privately.
Ireland is frequently cited as a country where a religious state was replaced
with a secular one, as a result of which it made unprecedented progress, and
the prolonged persecution at the hands of the Church was ended.
Merits and demerits aside, is this secular model applicable in our social
settings?
Before we start drawing parallels between these two, we’ll have to keep in mind
the innate difference in the nature of Christianity and Islam. “Islam is more
communal in its expression than Christianity,” notes Richard T. Schaefer,
professor of sociology at DePaul University, Chicago, “particularly the more
individualistic Protestant denominations. Consequently, in countries that are
predominantly Muslims, the separation of religion and the state is not
considered necessary or even desirable. In fact, Muslim governments often
reinforce Islamic practices through their law.”
Does this explain the commonly lamented ‘Pakistani’ fixation on religion’?
Turkey is another frequently quoted example of successful secularisation. But
we have to keep in mind that they have ‘earned’ it through a continuous
process. There are certain prerequisites for secularism to take roots in any
society; amongst which, I’d like to discuss some:
Ideal condition is that people of a country are atheists;
If not atheists, they should believe that religion is a private matter
between man and God which has nothing to do with the public life and
(especially) affairs of the state;
Their history does not bode well of theocracy, i.e., they have suffered
persecution at the hands of religious rulers; or
Masses detest religion because it, according to them, breeds violence,
bigotry and fundamentalism.
Most of the above stated conditions necessary for secularisation to do not
exist in Pakistan: The majority population is not atheist, and adheres to a
religion, i.e., Islam; a bulk of people believe that Sharia should be enforced
through state-laws (Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan explicitly
stipulates such intentions); and history, well, we’ve all heard of the ‘Islamic
Golden Age’ (c. 750 CE – c. 1258 CE) in which Muslims were the global leaders
in education, culture, science, arts and myriad other domains.
As other conditions are set aside, we’re left with only one provision: people
detesting the religion itself considering it dangerous to live with, and –
thanks to our hate-mongering cult of extremist Mullahs for whom anyone but them
is an infidel – this is already a work-in-progress. With increasing
radicalisation in the religion, we will not need a Richard Dawkins to stand up
in some ‘Reasons Rally’ and call on the people to ‘show contempt for faith’
(which might eventually help in secularisation), because befuddling fatwas from
the pseudo religious scholars will have the same results, eventually.
Secularism does not come naturally to us; but if the bigotry and violence in
the name of religion, the bullying of minorities under the cover of blasphemy
laws, and the relentless killing of innocent citizens under the pretext of
Jihad continue unabated, people will be so fed-up of this tarnished face of
religion, that they will voluntarily surrender to the demand for enforcement of
Sharia – en masse.
The writer is an Economics graduate; set to start working as a trainee-student
in an Audit firm.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Post message: [email protected]
Subscribe : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : [email protected]
List owner : [email protected]
Homepage : http://proletar.8m.com/Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
