From: ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Ahmed)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh
Subject: Re: Secular, Muslim Brotherhood and Changes
Date: 26 Jan 1993 23:14:36 -0500
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: curie.systemsy.cs.yale.edu


In article <C1HtJt.1vL@news.udel.edu>, khaleq@brahms.udel.edu (M Khalequzzaman) writes:
> In article <1k494fINNktm@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU> ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Ahmed) writes:

> >Just because religious freedom is guaranteed by secularism does not
> >imply the converse.  Secularism is defined as separation of religion and
> >state.  Religious freedom simply means that anyone is free to practice
> >whatever religion they please.  This has nothing to do with separation
> >of religion and state.  

> How can a state allow its citizen to practice any religion they want if
> the state is not secular or not equally distanced from all religions?  

Easy.  That's the way it works in Europe and the U.S.  That was my
whole point.  Clearly, all the holidays, and many laws are based on a
particular religion.  Hence, these states are not equidistant from all
religions.  And yet, people are free to follow whatever religion they
wish.  That's the difference between secularism and religious freedom.

> the state endorse one religion over other then what will it really mean
> to give religious freedom?  Bizzare!  The religious freedom permitted in
> the Koran is what we understand by the word secularism.  

You understand wrong.  This is an issue of simple English.  Webster's
defines secularism as:

 1) worldy spirit, views, or the like; esp. a system of doctrines and
 practices that disregards or rejects any form of religious faith and
 worship
 2) the belief that religion and ecclesiastical affairs should not
 enter into the functions of the state, esp. into public education

This is clearly in violation of Islamic teachings, since Islam is a
*way of life* to Muslims.  It does, however, *guarantee* freedom of
faith to everyone.  This is *not* the same as what "secularism" means.

> If a state has
> many religions then which one is supposed to be the state religion?

Does it matter?  What matters is religious freedom.  Most European
countries have state religions and yet nobody accuses them of not
ensuring that religious freedom is granted.  Generally, the religion
of the majority is taken to be the state religion.  As long as this
does not violate religious freedom, this is not a problem.

> The
> one practiced by the majority?  What about minority?  In an Islamic state
> you can't expect that the govt. will allow the minority to practice
> their all religious rituals and to enjoy all of their religious 
> celebrations as much as the majority.  

Huh?  Didn't *you* refer to the Surah called "The Unbelievers?"  What
does it say?  Does it not say that anyone is free to believe what they
please?  An Islamic state that does not recognize that is not an
Islamic state for it violates the Qur'an.

> If the state doesn't allow
> all religious practices equally, you can't call it religious
> freedom.  

Having a state religion does not imply this.

> On the other hand if the govt. allows all religious practices
> equally under the law of religious freedom then it is not a
> religious state, but a secular state.

You are misusing the word "secular."  Please look at the definition of
the word above.  Secularism in the pure sense of the word guarantees
religious freedom.   The converse is *not* true.  

> >I would question whether Pakistan is an Islamic state.  As for whether
> >India would be better off as a Hindu state, I think activities by the
> >BJP and other supporters of "Hindu India" indicate that that is
> >unlikely to be the case.  One cannot speak of religious freedom when
> >places of worship of a particular religion are torn down...
> 
> So, what is your point?  Better to have a secular state in India right?
> Which one is an Islamic state?  Saudi Arabia?  Which state has religious
> freedom the way you understand it?

Any state which claims to be Islamic should, by definition,
guarantee religious freedom.

> >> I think the US is a better example of a secular state.
> >
> >You do?  Why is Sunday a holiday here?  Christmas?  New Year's?  What
> >are the laws generally based on?  What is the basis for evaluating
> >something as "ethical" or "unethical?"  
> 
>  Of course USA is a secular state.  Majority of the people are Christians,
> that is why you see more Sunday prayers.  They don't stop you going to
> the Mosque either.  The religious activities of the majority in a secular
> state will be more visible obviously.  The basis for ethics is principle-
> based moral -- not a religion.  Atheists do have their own ethichs too.
> What religion do they subcribe to?

And pray tell me, where do these "morals" come from?  If you look back
at history, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the sense
of morals reaches back to an underlying religion.  Of course
Christians are the majority here and it is reflected in society.  That
is why "secularism" is a hypothetical concept -- there *is* no
separation of religion and state since many state laws are influenced
by religion.

> So you think Bangladesh is your model of so called religious
> freedom?

Did I say that?

> If the freedom to practice all religions is not equal can you call
> it freedom?  

Where is this coming from?  I thought the whole point of my article
was *about* religious freedom!

> If the freedom is equal then why not call it a secular
> country?  

Because it *isn't*.  Religion and state are not separated because one
influences the other!  This has nothing to do with the *right* to
practice what one wishes.

> Of course, the fundamentalist muslims got their freedom
> to destroy temples and churches in Bangladesh under the sponsorship
> or endorsement of the State.  

Is that why police were so quick to clamp down on demonstrations?  Is
that why so many people were shot when they announced a desire to
march to India to "rebuild" the mosque?

> The state didn't take any preventive measure
> or didn't prosecute the criminals who broke the temples, because Islam
> is the state religion.  Do you think it would be possible in a truly
> secular country?

Excuse me, but it *happened* in a supposedly secular country, namely
India.  Is Northern Ireland secular?  What do you think is happening
there?  Gee, I thought Yugoslavia was supposed to be kind of secular
too -- wonder what happened there...?

-- Shakil Ahmed
=======================================================================
Dept. of Computer Science     INTERNET: ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu
P.O. Box 2158, Yale Station   BITNET  : ahmed-shakil@yalecs.bitnet
New Haven, CT 06520-2158      UUCP    : {ucbvax,harvard,...}!yale!ahmed
=======================================================================

Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh