From: ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Ahmed)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh
Subject: Re: Secular, Muslim Brotherhood and Changes
Date: 28 Jan 1993 21:33:40 -0500
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: curie.systemsy.cs.yale.edu


In article <C1L1Lw.J3n@ucunix.san.uc.edu>, ghayalm@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Manoj Ghayalod) writes:
> In article <1k7df5INNldi@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU> ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Ahmed) writes:

> >(1) SECULARISM = separation of religion and state
> >(2) RELIGIOUS FREEDOM = freedom to practice whatever religion one
> >                        desires
> >
> >I stated earlier that (1) implies (2) if it is properly implemented.
> >Even this is not strictly true.  In the case of the USSR, for example,
> >state and religion were separate, but there was no religious freedom
> >at all -- religion was pretty much banned.  The converse is also not
> 
> First of all USSR was never a secular state, it was a communist state.
> In a communist state, religion is not *allowed*, that means the state
> interferes in religion.  Now that Russia is trying to be secular, it
> is giving more religious freedom.  

Their claim was that they *were* secular.

> >true.  (2) certainly does not imply (1).  We can guarantee the freedom to
> >practice whatever religion one desires and yet have a state religion
> >and have holidays based on that.  This is how it works in Europe.
> 
> If a country has a state religion, then according to your defination
> how is it secular?  As I said before the US and India are better
> examples of a secular state.

The European countries such as UK claim to be secular, and yet they
have state religions.  Perhaps you should take up your argument with
them?

> >Surely, in such a scenario, we cannot speak of separation of religion
> >and state.  That is why (2) is true without (1) being true.  In the
> >case of Islam, it is the religion itself which guarantees religious
> >freedom, i.e. (2), but not (1).  Is this really that difficult to
> >comprehend?  Perhaps a glance at a dictionary may help to understand
> >what the two terms mean in "plain English?"
> 
> <1> does imply <2>.  If the state does not *interfere* in religious
> matters, then obviously there will be religious freedom.  Your USSR
> example is completly irrevlant to this topic.  India and the US are
> secular states, I have never seen Muslims complain that they are not
> allowed to practise their religion there.  In fact there was an article
> in the Time magazine that a new state of art Mosque was built in 
> New York recently.

Huh?  Did I say that there was no religious freedom here?  My whole
point is that there *is* religious freedom here even though there is no
secularism.

> >That is not what I said.  Separation of state and religion would mean
> >secularism, a concept which I maintain does not exist in a reasonable
> >implementation.  I question whether the BJP would guarantee religious
> >freedom.  If Hinduism were a state religion, I would have no problems
> >with it as long as it meant that religious freedom were guaranteed to
> >all others.
> 
> That I don't agree and I have given you some examples to back my point.
> According to you an Islamic state will gaurantee religious freedom in
> reasonable implementation.  Why should I believe you, none of the Islamic
> states give religious freedom?  With the available data it must seem that
> there does not exist religious freedom in a religious implemetation of
> an Islamic state.

Simple.  Look at what Islam prescribes.  That is how Islam is defined.
Such a state has existed at the time of the prophet (pbuh).

> >Christmas.  These are federal holidays because of religion.  Why do
> >most States ban the sale of alcohol on Sundays?  The Pledge of
> >Allegiance?  Why do you place your hand on the Bible in court?  What
> >did Bill Clinton swear upon at inauguration?  What happens on taking
> >any kind of oath?  There are hundreds of such laws if only you would
> >open up your eyes far enough to see them.
> 
> The largest holiday in North India is Deevali, that is not because
> people disrespect other religions, but it is because India is Hindu
> majority, it is a matter of convenience to the most people.  Now if
> you are a teacher in a class of ten children, and if time is limited,
> if 8 people ask for a day off, on say Tuesday and 2 others ask for
> a day off on Wednesday, what would you do?  If you have a lot of
> time you would give both days off, but if not you would give only
> Tuesday off, I wouldn't consider it discriminatory.  Now many stores
> are open here on Sundays, the owners are Christians, would you say
> that they are not strong in their beliefs?  If some religion says
> that alchol should be allowed on Sundays, then I would feel that
> these states are not giving religious freedom to its citizens.
> How does this example show that religious freedom is not gauranteed
> in an secular state?  In a court they want you to tell the truth.
> If they feel that you don't respect the Bible, they will give you
> the Koran to place your hand.  In India Hindus are given the Gita,
> Muslims the Koran, Christians the bible, etc.  Bill Clinton sweared
> on the Bible, what does that prove?  It proves that he has high
> reverence for the Bible, if a Muslim becomes the president of the
> US, I am sure he/she will swear on the Koran. If your mind is
> prejudiced, you will feel that everyone is out to get you.

But that is my point!!!  It is always the majority religion which
determines the rules.  Hence there is no separation of religion and
state, and thus no secularism.  Yet, freedom to practice religion of
one's choice is guaranteed.  The fact remains that alcohol cannot be
purchased on Sundays.  The fact remains that Christmas is a holiday.
The fact remains that coins say "In God We Trust."  This is not
secularism.  This does not mean anyone is discriminated against.  This
just means that there is no pure secularism.

> >> The countries which say they are Islamic states.  
> >
> >Which are these?
> 
> OK I will say it, Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia.  Please
> don't tell me that these are not true Islamic states,
> what makes you so sure there can be anything like a true
> Islamic state?

A true Islamic state has existed in the past.  In the case of each of
the above states, I can point to non-Islamic practices which violate
Islamic law.

> >> Please don't give us empty words, tell me how many new temples and
> >> churches have been built in Bangladesh?  
> >
> >Do you have statistics on this?  I know for a fact that new churches
> >built by "missionary" organizations have been popping up all over the
> >place.  Nevertheless, is there a need for new temples and churches when
> >the population numbers of the relevant groups are not growing?  Is
> >there any law in Bangladesh which states that new temples and churches
> >cannot be constructed?
> 
> Isn't that curious?  The population of Bangladesh is increasing in
> an alarming rate, but the population of the minority groups is 
> static.  What does Islam as the state religion of Bangladesh mean?

"Curious?"  Are you trying to imply that the minority religious are
somehow annihilated?  :)  Islam as the state religion of Bangladesh
simply means that it is the majority religion.

> >I have never lived in *any* secular country.  How long I lived in
> >Bangladesh is irrelevant.  Look at the western countries I have lived
> 
> It is relevant, you have never lived in an Islamic environment, and
> you still feel it is the best system, that shows you have lived too
> long away from home and have what is known as a minority syndrome.

Clearly, *you* have never lived in an Islamic environment.  I have lived
in both Bangladesh and in Pakistan for relatively short stretches of
time.  But that is irrelevant.  Islam is defined by the Qur'an and
that is where we need to look.

> There are many people like you roaming on the net.  Hindus who
> have never been to India, feel that India will be best served if
> it becomes a Hindu state, I know of atleast one Pakistani who
> has been bought up here who feels that Pakistan will be a great
> power if it implements Islam properly, I am sorry but you guys
> have lost touch with the subcontinent long time ago, I am sure
> one trip to Bangladesh will convince you that.

I have spent almost every summer (usually 2 to 3 months at a time) of
my life in Bangladesh, thank you.  I am not arguing with respect to a
particular region.  I am simply pointing out what Islam itself
guarantees.

> >in.  In Austria, the state religion is Roman Catholicism.  The whole
> >country revolves around that.  In the U.S. there are all the things I
> >mention above and more.  Open up your wallet and look at the coins and
> >dollar bills.  Can you see the "In God We Trust?"  Secularism?  Look
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I thought all religions trust in God. How does that not allow religious
> freedom? 

What about atheists?  How about religions which believe in more than
one God?  Which God do you think the "In God We Trust" refers to?

> >around you and you will see how almost every law and practice is
> >somehow tied to religion.

That still applies.

I never claimed that secularism is discriminatory!  All I said is that
there is no such thing as pure secularism.  What we need is religious
freedom and Islam guarantees it.

-- Shakil
Xref: sparky soc.culture.bangladesh:7649 soc.culture.pakistan:19743 soc.culture.indian:44898