Secularism vs Islam

[Sahar]

Secularism implies that the Divine Guidance, worship of God, and obedience to Him, should be confined to the personal life of each individual and except for the small sphere of a person's private life, all other affairs of this world should be settled purely from the worldly viewpoint, according to our own wishes and expediency. In such matters it is out of the question to think of what GOD may have commanded, what His Guidance consists of and what the Divine Books may lay down. This attitude owes its origin to the reaction that set in among the Western peoples as a result of their hatred of the man made theology of Christian missionaries, a theology which had become a curse for them and which forged their shackles. Gradually, however, this attitude developed into an independent theory of life and then became the foundation of modern civilisation.

One often hears the utterance, religion is a private affair between GOD and man. This brief sentence is in fact the creed of ‘modern civilisation'. It implies that if a man's conscience bears witness to the fact that there is a GOD Who should be worshiped, he is welcome to do so in his individual and personal life. But GOD should have nothing to do with this world and its collective affairs. The system of life built upon the foundation of this creed seeks to disassociate from the influence of GOD and Religion all the relations between man and man and between man and this world. Culture, education, economics, law, parliament, politics and administration of public affairs and international relations are all to be divested of this influence. Whatever is done in all these numerous aspects of life should be regulated by one's own whims and knowledge. It would be irrelevant, indeed wrong in principle, and even a sign of the utmost ignorance to say that GOD has prescribed certain principles and laid down some commandments for us for the regulation of such matters.

The theory that GOD and Religion are concerned only with the individual life of man is completely meaningless, having nothing to do with reason and argument. It is perfectly obvious that the relations of man and GOD cannot lie beyond either of two alternatives. Either GOD is The Creator of man and the world in which he lives as well as being its Master and Sovereign, or He is not. If He is neither The Creator nor The Master, nor again The Sovereign, then it is entirely unnecessary to have any relations with Him. It is utterly absurd to worship [that is, serve] a being entirely unconcerned and having nothing to do with us. But if He is in reality our Creator, Master, and Sovereign and so also of this universe, then it is equally meaningless that His jurisdiction should be limited to the private life of an individual and from the very point from which the contact of one person with another commences, His jurisdiction should cease and come to an end.

If this limitation has been imposed by GOD Himself, then there should be some authority for it. But if man has assumed this independence himself and discarded GOD from his collective life, then this constitutes an open rebellion against his Creator, Master, and Sovereign. And only a lunatic can claim to combine with this rebellious attitude, the claim that he accepts GOD, His Religion, Guidance and directions in his individual life. There can be nothing more absurd than that each person should claim individually to be the servant and slave of GOD, but when these separate individuals collectively form themselves into a society, they should cease to be servants of GOD Almighty; that each component in a society should constitute GOD's servants. But the composite whole of these parts should not be His servants. Surely it is a proposition which a madcap alone can conceive of.

There is no doubt that secularism contradicts Islam in every aspect. They are two different paths that never meet; choosing one means rejecting the other. Hence, whoever chooses Islam has to reject secularism.
1- First, secularism makes lawful what Allah has made unlawful.
The Rule of Allah (Shari`ah) is compulsory and has basic laws and regulations that cannot be changed. Some of these laws are concerned with the acts of worship, the relations between men and women, etc.
What is the position with regard to these laws?
Secularism makes adultery lawful if the male and the female are consenting adults. As for Riba (interest on money), it is the basis of all financial transactions in secular economies. On the contrary, Allah says (s.2 A. 278): "O you who believe, fear Allah and leave what comes from Riba if you are believers. If you do not do so, then wait for a war from Allah and His Messenger." As for alcohol, all secular systems allow the consumption of alcohol and make selling it a lawful business.

2- Second, secularism is clear unbelief (Kufr).
Secularism is based on separating religion from all the affairs of this life and hence, it rules by law and regulations other than Allah's laws. Hence, secularism rejects Allah's rules with no exception and prefers regulations other than Allah's and His Messenger's. In fact, many secularists claim that Allah's laws might have been suitable for the time they were revealed but are now outdated.
As a result, most of the laws governing the daily affairs of life in the countries ruled by secular systems contradict Islam. Allah says (S.5 A.50): "Do they seek a judgment of Ignorance? But, who, for a people whose faith is assured, can give better judgment than Allah?"

Extracted from:
Secularism And Islam
Islam vs. Secularism (Islaam.Com)

 

[Madhuri]

But secularism allows for freedom of religion. All religions have their own laws. If a nation is established in Islamic law for instance, that would impede in the freedom of other religious people. And doesn't Islam teach that freedom of religion should be respected?

 

[SpaceDuck]

You do not need a nation to outlaw alcohol for you to remain sober. Nor do you need a nation to outlaw adultery for you to remain faithful to the one you love.

Is there any Islamic commandment, rule or law that you are unable to adhere to in a secular society that I am unaware of?

(Also, I am aware this is not a debate forum, though I am not sure to what degree I am allowed to participate in the discussion, so if I am overstepping my boundaries, please let me know.)

 

[Alceste]

[Secularism] owes its origin to the reaction that set in among the Western peoples as a result of their hatred of the man made theology of Christian missionaries, a theology which had become a curse for them and which forged their shackles. Gradually, however, this attitude developed into an independent theory of life and then became the foundation of modern civilisation.

I would like to respectfully suggest that this portrayal of the origins of "secular" society isn't entirely accurate. The origin of secularism lies in the effort for multicultural societies to live in peace. It owes much to the Christian commandment to "love your neighbour" - a defining ethic underlying most of the laws of the West. You can't "love your neighbour" while forcing him to comply with religious laws that violate his conscience because he belongs to a different religion. It also owes much to the Christian concept of "free will": in order for a Christian's display of religious faith to be pleasing to god it must be freely chosen, not enforced by human institutions such as governments, courts and police forces.

Also, nobody of any political consequence in the West "hated" missionaries - they were an essential tool of colonization (not that I approve of colonization.)

Anyway, I know this is DIR, but since I am not challenging anything to do with Islam - only a historical factual claim - I thought it might be OK? If not, feel free to delete.

Can you tell me what Islam teaches with respect to free will? Does Allah prefer that human institutions enforce Islamic law on all people, including people of other religions, or does He prefer that people submit to His will voluntarily?

 

[TashaN]

I feel that many times, secular systems has took the "separation between church and state" to an extent in which they have attempted to deny many religious communities from properly practicing their religion in favor of ensuring that there is no sign of religion in public life what so ever. Like that, they are not ensuring that everybody is free to practice, but that the state is free *of religions* in public life and public affairs, which is really frustrating to many religious people who can't practice their religion without having their religion have a say in their daily life. In work, marriage laws, inheritance, etc. This has been clearly seen in France when they didn't give the Muslim women a chance to practice a main part of their religion "wearing hijab" while they are at schools for instance, or the Swiss government banning mosque towers from being built, or barring the Muslim mosques from calling for prayer, and the list goes on and on.

Therefore, i believe that secularism *force* people to look alike on every aspect when it comes to public life, slaves of the modern civilization, let's say. But when it comes to the private hidden life, people are allowed to do whatever they want, and wear whatever they want. I don't see any freedom here. Some might mistakenly think that i'm denying that any rights been given to minorities. I'm not saying that Muslim countries are any good, but all i'm saying is that secular law is not perfect, and it's not even the best thing we can afford. I believe humanity can have something better. Like what?

Well, let's leave that for another topic. Here it's all about secular law.

Now, i have a couple of questions for not4me. What do you think of the Malaysian experience?
They have a control over the Muslim people affairs there, but not the non-Muslims, i mean in term of applying sharia law, even partly. What is this system exactly?

You know, in Malaysia, the Muslims are not allowed to consume alcohol, gamble, fornicate, etc, while the non-Muslim can.

Is it an Islamic law or a secular law? If it's not an Islamic law or secular law then what it's you think? A mixed one?

 

[K.Venugopal]

While secularism in Europe may have been a consequence of Church vs. Government stand-offs and a reversion to Jesus’ dictum “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's”, secularism in India, which can boast of having the largest number of different religions being practised within her boundaries, is not about separation of government and religion but about government ensuring that equal favour is given to people of all religious persuasions and there is no discrimination on the basis of religion. It is not about government ensuring the monopoly of a single religion.

 

[Sahar]

I feel that many times, secular systems has took the "separation between church and state" to an extent in which they have attempted to deny many religious communities from properly practicing their religion in favor of ensuring that there is no sign of religion in public life what so ever. Like that, they are not ensuring that everybody is free to practice, but that the state is free *of religions* in public life and public affairs, which is really frustrating to many religious people who can't practice their religion without having their religion have a say in their daily life. In work, marriage laws, inheritance, etc. This has been clearly seen in France when they didn't give the Muslim women a chance to practice a main part of their religion "wearing hijab" while they are at schools for instance, or the Swiss government banning mosque towers from being built, or barring the Muslim mosques from calling for prayer, and the list goes on and on.

I believe secularism or the West is going to fail more and more in dealing with Muslims and we will see more and more intolerance to Muslims. As before, they didn't view Muslims as a group with different ideological, cultural and political values that may conflict with their own, when they realized this, measures are taken to counter the possible "threat" that Muslims could constitute on their culture and values and this can be manifested by restricting them from practicing Muslims' religion freely. By this, they send a message to Muslims; "either you adopt our values and lifestyle, or you will have a hard life". I believe they will send this message more and more in the future. When they realized that Muslims are different, they couldn't tolerate them.

Therefore, i believe that secularism *force* people to look alike on every aspect when it comes to public life

But when it comes to the private hidden life, people are allowed to do whatever they want, and wear whatever they want. I don't see any freedom here.

Exactly.

 

[Sahar]

Now, i have a couple of questions for not4me. What do you think of the Malaysian experience?
They have a control over the Muslim people affairs there, but not the non-Muslims, i mean in term of applying sharia law, even partly. What is this system exactly?

You know, in Malaysia, the Muslims are not allowed to consume alcohol, gamble, fornicate, etc, while the non-Muslim can.

Is it an Islamic law or a secular law? If it's not an Islamic law or secular law then what it's you think? A mixed one?

I don't know. Malaysia is weird and unique country. You can find the big mosques and Islamic centers and Islamic Shari'a applied (even partially) there and bars and nightclubs on the other hand (you can correct me if I am wrong ). I believe this can be the best for Malaysia and for its stability, Tashan. Malaysia is multi-religious and multi-ethnic and the percentage of non Muslims is large 40%. Applying the Islamic laws on them like that of adultery, gambling, etc like it's applied on Muslims will irritate them without any doubt and this can constitute a threat to the stability of the country. It's kind of compromise that is necessary to manage the many different religious groups.
But on the other hand, I believe the Islamic Fiqh indeed makes this distinction between Muslims and non Muslims. For example, the penalty to a non Muslim can be much lighter than it's to a Muslim. Non Muslims can own alcohol... But I don't think the scholars would view bars and nightclubs as something permissible under the Islamic government. Or adultery in public (i.e when four people can witness it) would be okay just because it was committed by non Muslims but it's very possible that the penalty would be different.
I don't know this distinction should be to what extent Islamically speaking. This needs a study.

 

[Sahar]

But secularism allows for freedom of religion. All religions have their own laws. If a nation is established in Islamic law for instance, that would impede in the freedom of other religious people. And doesn't Islam teach that freedom of religion should be respected?

Yes, freedom of belief and religion should be respected and protected by the Islamic state.

 

[Madhuri]

Yes, freedom of belief and religion should be respected and protected by the Islamic state.

It should but look at Saudi Arabia for instance. Non-Muslims are not permitted to practice their religion in public and this is according to their Sharia law.

 

[Madhuri]

I believe secularism or the West is going to fail more and more in dealing with Muslims and we will see more and more intolerance to Muslims. As before, they didn't view Muslims as a group with different ideological, cultural and political values that may conflict with their own, when they realized this, measures are taken to counter the possible "threat" that Muslims could constitute on their culture and values and this can be manifested by restricting them from practicing Muslims' religion freely. By this, they send a message to Muslims; "either you adopt our values and lifestyle, or you will have a hard life". I believe they will send this message more and more in the future. When they realized that Muslims are different, they couldn't tolerate them.

Restricting Muslims from practicing their religion would be against the law in many secular countries such as the USA, England, Australia etc.
The only thing that these nations expect Muslims, and anybody, to accept is the laws of that country. So for instance, you might be restricted from honour killing although I know that in England a number of Muslims have gotten away with honour killing by claiming it is their culture.

I have similar concerns as you do about tolerance in reference to a Muslim law controlling a nation. In a secular environment, people are legally free to believe what they want and express their culture and beliefs in public (as long as you aren't going against the laws of the country like killing, stealing, other obvious crimes). But it is well known that many Muslims do not like or are intolerant of people who are not 'of the Book'. When there is no distinction between religion and politics, it is easy for the majority population to marinalise people who are different and impede on their freedom. This is not just the case for a Muslim nation, but any country that has its laws based on its religion. Marginalising certain people and victimising seems to be quite natural to humans. You can see what happened in Christian countries too where Catholics killed Protestants and then Protestants killed Catholics.

This is why I believe that secularism is good. It becomes up to the individuals to influence the way they are viewed and respected by others.

 

[TashaN]

It should but look at Saudi Arabia for instance. Non-Muslims are not permitted to practice their religion in public and this is according to their Sharia law.

This is not according to the general Sharia Law but to a special rule for that area. Prophet Mohammed said that Arabia should be clear of any religion but Islam. Saudi Arabia makes most the space of Arabia. That's why you can see that many religions like Judaism and Christianity exist and is allowed to be practiced and have places of worship in the entire Muslim world.

 

[TashaN]

Restricting Muslims from practicing their religion would be against the law in many secular countries such as the USA, England, Australia etc.
The only thing that these nations expect Muslims, and anybody, to accept is the laws of that country. So for instance, you might be restricted from honour killing although I know that in England a number of Muslims have gotten away with honour killing by claiming it is their culture.

I have similar concerns as you do about tolerance in reference to a Muslim law controlling a nation. In a secular environment, people are legally free to believe what they want and express their culture and beliefs in public (as long as you aren't going against the laws of the country like killing, stealing, other obvious crimes). But it is well known that many Muslims do not like or are intolerant of people who are not 'of the Book'. When there is no distinction between religion and politics, it is easy for the majority population to marinalise people who are different and impede on their freedom. This is not just the case for a Muslim nation, but any country that has its laws based on its religion. Marginalising certain people and victimising seems to be quite natural to humans. You can see what happened in Christian countries too where Catholics killed Protestants and then Protestants killed Catholics.

This is why I believe that secularism is good. It becomes up to the individuals to influence the way they are viewed and respected by others.

What do you think of the first two paragraphs of post # 5?

 

[Madhuri]

What do you think of the first two paragraphs of post # 5?

I think that the examples you provided are exceptions and that those countries were wrong to do what they did. In a secular nation however, it is in the power of the people to change things so if the government feels pressure to allow back those things which were banned then it will be allowed. Being a Hindu is am not a stranger to social pressures. My religious community has always been looked at as strange and annoying by Christians and atheists etc. But because of religious freedom we as a group have managed to fight for our right to establish temples and have festivals in the streets despite what anybody else might think.

It comes down to power and how you manage it. In the end, the government makes decisions based on the pressures from these power relations.

 

[Sahar]

So for instance, you might be restricted from honour killing although I know that in England a number of Muslims have gotten away with honour killing by claiming it is their culture.

Sorry?! :areyoucra

 

[Sahar]

I have similar concerns as you do about tolerance in reference to a Muslim law controlling a nation. In a secular environment, people are legally free to believe what they want and express their culture and beliefs in public (as long as you aren't going against the laws of the country like killing, stealing, other obvious crimes).

The same; non Muslims should be free to practice their religions as long as they aren't going against the laws of the Islamic country.

 

[Autodidact]

What would you consider an Islamic country?

 

[xkatz]

Hence, whoever chooses Islam has to reject secularism.http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=116

I think the Muslims who live near me would say otherwise.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm not expert on DIR forums, so please inform me if I break the rules.

If the OP is correct, then it seems to me that Muslims should not immigrate to secular countries, and secular countries should not permit Muslims to immigrate there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

*** Staff Advisory ***
​

This thread is in the Islam Discuss Individual Religions forum. Please keep in mind the rules for the DIR Forums:

10. Discuss Individual Religions Forums
The DIR forums are for the express use for discussion by that specific group. They are not to be used for debate by anyone. People of other groups or faiths may post respectful questions to increase their understanding. Questions of a rhetorical or argumentative nature or that counter the beliefs of that DIR are not permitted. Only posts that comply with the tenets or spirit of that Dir are permitted. The DIR forums are strictly moderated and posts are subject to editing or removal.