Article: Secularism is more than "religious harmony"

A. "Less than PERFECT" issue
B. For FUNCTIONAL religious harmony, Secularism may not be necessary
C. Secularism is more than "religious harmony"

Before anything else, I would like correct an omission in my previous message "Poor Islam, Nazrul Islam!". Among all those who have contributed to this current thread, some additional names that must be included are Mr. Udayan Chattopadhyay and Dr. Shafi Khaled, whose contribution and participation definitely have enriched the current discussion as well as the forum. Sorry, about these as well as any other inadvertent omissions.

In his well-written, substantive, highly acclaimed message (June 2, 2000; http://www.egroups.com/message/Shetubondhon/703?&start=243 ), Mr. Masudur Rahman wrote: "Secularism (By State) is a NECESSARY, not a sufficient condition/guarantee for perfect religious harmony. (As 11 shows above). The sufficient conditions are: absence of communal hatred, religious prejudice and intolerance at personal level."

I would prefer to assume that Mr. Rahman's use of the word "perfect" a simple exaggeration. However, I don't want to take it for granted because generally Mr. Rahman emphasizes on scientific/rational/logical/objective. Even if it is a simple exaggeration, it might be worth noting that even scientifically-inclined people are not immune to such exaggeration.

The reason I want to briefly touch this aspect has less to do with his choice of word than with me. With the very best of my intentions, I have some difficulty with this idea of perfect harmony that Mr. Rahman has alluded to in his write-up, and made secularism as its NECESSARY condition (i.e., "a state of affairs - secularism - that must prevail if another - perfect religious harmony - is to occur"). Whether secularism is a necessary condition or not, Mr. Rahman is correct that it is definitely not a sufficient condition. Actually, the difficulty I have is quite basic. What I wrote in my message on this issue ( http://www.egroups.com/message/Shetubondhon/695?&start=673 ) does not assume or aim at perfect harmony. My thoughts are not predicated on any thought about perfect harmony.

It is not because I have no interest in perfect harmony or I do not desire it. The real problem, with the idea of perfect harmony is that, others can speak for themselves, but as far as I am concerned, I myself is not just not perfect, but rather terribly imperfect. Thus, I am always trying to improve myself, including through this distinctive forum, but I am neither perfect nor a perfectionist. I humbly accept my imperfection, as the Creator I believe in neither created me as perfect nor demands perfection from me.

There are a great many Muslims who may or may not differ with me about this issue of imperfection, but their overemphasis and obsession with the details of their ritual and other aspects of religion, with especial focus on others' (including adherents of other religions/ideologies) imperfections than their own, indicate an imbalance and serious gap in their thought and attitude. Such kind of demands/desires for perfection, regardless of who demands or desires it, often has bred arrogance in us to the extent that we have become dogmatic (even, if the dogma is about being "scientific") and rigid in many of our otherwise untenable positions. I believe that the cognizance of this imperfection can make us humble and modest, and induce us to self-scrutinize. This can also help us - it has helped me at least - to be more tolerant and respectful of others as human beings and their rights as well as privileges.

Thus, if our expectation is perfect religious harmony, for which secularism is being promoted/advocated as a NECESSARY condition, I am afraid that I won't qualify for such lofty goals or circles. The ideas that I partially articulated in the above-mentioned write-ups, and in other meager writings I have done so far assume imperfection of mine and others, and aims at a functional (workable/acceptable) religious harmony, which is a kind of second-best solutions in economic terms.

3. A Muslim may not agree with Hinduism - may actually detest a part of it, such as the caste system - but such attitude can't be a ground for any harm done to any Hindu's life, property or honor. I can have all the discussion/dialog/exchange to make my viewpoints known, and others, for example Hindus, should be able to articulate their views without being a target of a "baash" (bamboo). Let me play my flute/tune as a Muslim and let others play their own flute/tune, and we can try, if we like, to try to win over at the intellectual level. But that is with "baashi", not "baash". [see my previous write up: "Play the right tune and win!" at http://www.egroups.com/message/Shetubondhon/116? ]

Now, for others to expect this imperfect but functional harmony from me, or for me to expect the same from others, secularism is NOT a NECESSARY condition. Muslims, if they believe in Islam, a culture of religious harmony, mutual understanding and cooperation not only can be built, but it is a must for their faith. This is also critical to understand Nazrul and Islam (or, Nazrul Islam) because without no reservation, he could proclaim ""Wake up Islam! Wake up Muslims! ... You are true, Islam is true, any humiliation of you, ME or Islam is the humiliation of the truth." [Islam jago! Muslim jago! ... Tumi shottyo, Islam shottyo, tomar-AMAR ba Islamer opoman je SHOTTYER opoman; Shottyobani in Nazrul Rochonaboli, Vol. 4, pp. 36-37], yet he could also most passionately call for a "chivalrous - sportsmanlike relationship" between Hindus and Muslims [Muslim Shongshkritir Chorcha in Nazrul Rochonaboli, Vol. 4, p. 106] and let his boisterous voice of conscience for religious harmony be known to the world. While Muslims can and should rise to that challenge of "chivalrous - sportsmanlike relationship" and others should expect it from them, Muslims might not be able to settle for secularism, especially the kind that is currently being promoted. In this regard, people, once again, should not be speaking merely from their impressions.

The kind of secularism Muslims might not be able to settle for is the definition that is now being standardized and observed even in a good part of the secular world: from Turkey to France. Let's be clear about such definition. If secularism is what Maulana Azad advocated, according to Mr. Khorshed Alam, things would be quite different. I request Mr. Khorshed Alam to to take a closer look at the contemporary trends in secularism and share his further thoughts in light of some of the information presented here. What is secularism? It's neither synonymous to "religious harmony" nor one of its goal is to bring about or facilitate "religious harmony".

a. "secular opinion or belief, esp. a system following a political or social philosophy that REJECTS religious faith; the belief that religion should be removed and separate from all state or civil affairs or functions, esp. in public education" [Wordsmyth online Educational Dictionary; http://www.wordsmyth.net/]

c. The Legislative Indexing Vocabulary (LIV), a thesaurus especially developed for use with legislative and public policy subject matter in the USA, a constitutionally mandated secular state defines secularism as: Agnosticism, Atheism, Secular humanism. [ http://www.loc.gov/lexico/liv/s/Secularism.html ]

I am not citing these as the last words on defining secularism and we can define a word in our preferred way, but in light of the preceding definitions, the way Mr. Rahman has defined secularism and #1-#4 of his concepts/corollaries do not square with the standardized definition as I have cited here. I want to raise several other pertinent points.

Even though Mr. Rahman and (not so explicitly) some others have argued that secularism is not incompatible with religions (or secularism is not necessarily "atheism or anti-religion", as Mr. Khorshed Alam put it), please correct me if I wrong, none of the advocates of secularism on this forum is adherent or follower of or committed/devoted to any specific religion. Why is that important? Religious harmony is particularly relevant for people who believe in some religion. If religious harmony means that people have to be secular (characterized by "indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations), then it is also like, quite similar to Mr. Khorshed's analogy, beheading to get rid of the headache. Those who believe in this kind of solution, definitely can take such message/solution to the people who follow any particular religion - unlike those who do not follow or uphold any particular religion - and see what kind of response is elicited. Religious harmony is an issue that, at least partially, needs to be understood and addressed within religious framework.

While Muslims have lot to address as far as their internal religious matters are concerned, Muslims in general are particularly very skeptical about the contemporary advocacy of secularism. I have not come across a lot of people (honestly, none; but I admit my limitation of observation) that is dedicated to a particular faith and advocates secularism. I respectfully disagree with Mr. Khorshed's characterization of Indonesian President Wahid's orientation, who is trying to walk on water while trying to define himself in a way similar to Mujibism (Mujibbad). See an article from AsiaWeek "Call 'Em Wahidism" in [http://www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/magazine/99/1105/nat.indonesia.2.html ], where he comments "The Islamic movement should detach itself from involvement in politics. Islam is a moral force, a way to promote morality." If he said as a politician, one can understand that. If his understanding that Islam is merely a moral force and he said this as a Muslim, even Maulana Azad would have gotten a good laugh out of it. As we all know, Maulana Azad, the other example, cited by Mr. Khorshed Alam not only had fully active political life, but it was motivated, inspired, and guided by Islam. Indeed, he also had a book "Masjide Rajniti" [Politics in Mosques] where he challenges the religious orthodoxy against limiting religion to mere rituals or confining it to mosques.

Indeed, a good number of modern, contemporary secularists are at loggerhead with religion in general, and Islam in particular. The context of Bangladesh is no different. One might remember one of the arch-secularists (now late) in Bangladesh, seeing a female student in her DU class pull her bandana (orna) over her head when she heard Azan, embarassed the student in front of the whole class by saying: "Allah ki tomar shoshur naki?" [Is Allah your father-in-law?] The ultra/fanatical/extremist secularists have made a bad case for themselves as have many ultra/fanatical/extremist religionists/Muslims. There is a difference though. While ultra/fanatical/extremist Muslims might be small fringe groups, and I do recognize different shades of secularists, the kind of secularists I am referring to are mainstream.

"As the leading British pressure group for unbelievers and freethinkers, the National Secular Society FIGHTS religious privilege and the survival of superstition. It vigorously campaigns for secularism, freethought, civil liberties and rational ethics." http://people.delphi.com/gkemerling/dy/r.htm#ratm [One can read the details about these gentlemen's - remember the British are gentlemen - list of agenda, and glean for anything that might contribute toward or facilitate "religious harmony".

It might be worthwhile for the readers to read "Where Are the Secularists?" by Paul Kurtz, a leading contemporary American secularist, at no other place than the very official website of the Council of Secular Humanism and determine for yourself, if there is anything even remote to pursue or facilitate "religious harmony" in this article or at the site. Quite interestingly, as I took the cursor on this title as listed on search list produced by go.com under the keyword "secularist", the following pop-up description showed up: "A call to ARM in defense of reason, science, skepticism, freethought secular society." Quite interesting, isn't it, especially for Council of Secular HUMANISM! I understand what "arm" means here, but the choice of words is interesting. Should we expect from such leading secularists to contribute or facilitate "religious harmony"? You can read the article of Paul Kurtz at: http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/kurtz_18_1.html .

"keep state and church separate and educate the public about the views of nontheists." Whose goals are these do you think? Any group that believes in the freedom OF religion? Guess what? Visit the website of FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION [http://www.ffrf.org/ ] If you do visit, you might also like to read "Why Women Need Freedom From Religion?".

"Energetic attempts were also made to undermine the strength and influence of organized religion. Indeed, a, large portion of the Secularist energies of the period went into this work: ... anti-church ... anti-religious agitation." You might also notice some of the titles of their lectures to promote secularism "Religion the Enemy of Man". Who might this be from? Well, not by some anti-secularists trying to put words in the mouths of secularists. You need to read A History Of The British Secular Movement at a site that pride in identifying themselves as "infidels" (http://www.INFIDELS.org/library/historical/john_mcgee/british_secular_movement.html#4.6 , see the segment "Fighting the Religious Interests") Remember, these are not red-eyed, stoic-faced, turban-wearing, sword-swinging (or these day, stinger-swinging), God-swearing Mullahs. These are leading British gentlemen in their different phases of crusade against religion. To expect that they have any appetite for "religious harmony", well, let the readers read these themselves and draw their own conclusion.

I was trying to make the point that generally the advocates of secularism do not have any interest in any religion, but they usually do have an interest in seeing removal of religion from public life. One might argue that, well, the reason one does not see lot of people who are secular AND uphold a particular religion is because religious people can't be harmonious, and that's why we need secularism and that's why we must delink religion and morality/education/government (as the standardized definitions suggest). I do understand that argument and I hope everyone else does too.

It is also important that we must speak with some consistency. If I, and I am using myself only as an example, talk about harmony among adherents of different religions here, but on another forum or before another audience/readership, I have a personality change in regard to my tolerance and restraint toward other religions, then people might have different notion about my identity (porichoy). I hope it does not happen to me, and hopefully in cases of others as well.

As far as Muslims' general skepticism about secularism is concerned, it is significantly shaped by their experience. While Mr. Rahman did emphatically mention that "Secularism DOES NOT IMPLY opposing/banning religion (practice or belief) itself. (Corollary of 3); No religion is endangered or hindered by secularism. (Corollary of 2)", both of these statements stand in contrast with the contemporary secularist ideology and agenda of which I have given above some hints. As I recall he also failed to take note of and condemn the action of French government to let those female Muslim students from attending public schools who cover their head, or the action of the Turkish government barring an elected famale parliament member because she refused to take her headscarf of. Indeed, if I recall correctly, Mr Rahman tried to rationalize the action of ultra-secularist Turkish government invoking right/privilege dichotomy, which I must admit that I failed to understand. [see Mr. Rahman's Re: Anti-secular? Anti-Christian? Anti-Semitic? ; by the way, my failure to understand does not necessarily mean that the rationalization was invalid; it's just that I failed to understand.]

Thus, Muslims have genuine apprehension about what kind of secularism we are talking about. Mr. Rahman has made some very good points too, including building a relationship based on facts and knowledge and educating about mutual tolerance. I wholeheartedly agree with these suggestions. There should be seminars/workshops/other programs to bring people together to build better relationship. Indeed, having basic knowledge about other religions and educating mutual tolerance and respect ought to be fully integrated in educational curriculum in countries such as Bangladesh. For Muslims, it was part of Muslim culture and heritage. While today's Islamic educational institutions would feel nauseated at the very thought of learning Sanskrit (popularly known, as the language of the Hindus), Muslim scholars such as Al-Biruni traveled far to India, mastered Sanskrit and became bridge-builder between Islamic and Indian civilization. Some time after 1017 he went to India and made a comprehensive study of its culture. The same bridge-building culture can be revived again with mutual trust and confidence.

Anyway, as Mr. Rahman pointed out that secularism is NOT a sufficient condition for "perfect religious harmony", or let's say "religious harmony", he also agrees that "absence of communal hatred, religious prejudice and intolerance at personal level" are SUFFICIENT conditions. Yes, he seems to be right in this regard. The focus should be on "absence of communal hatred, religious prejudice and intolerance at personal level" as sufficient condition (a state of affairs whose existence assures the existence of another state of affairs) because those conditions would help assure religious harmony.

Therefore, why Muslims might not be able to settle for secularism so easily? There are several reasons. I will mention only one here: secularism is much more than assumed "religious harmony" and those settling for secularism, as being suggested, might be getting more than they bargain for.

I must admit that my reading of Maulana Azad remains scanty, although I have read several of his well-known books. Unless Mr. Alam is using "secularism" in the above statement as synonymous with "religious harmony", I would very much like to be enlightened about Maulana Azad's thought about "secularism."

Secular Fundamentalism Secularism Secular Fundamentalism Secularism Secular Fundamentalism
Secular Fundamentalism Secularism Secular Fundamentalism Secularism Secular Fundamentalism
Secular Fundamentalism Secularism Secular Fundamentalism Secularism Secular Fundamentalism
Secular Fundamentalism Secularism Secular Fundamentalism Secularism Secular Fundamentalism
Secular Fundamentalism Secularism Secular Fundamentalism Secularism Secular Fundamentalism
Secular Fundamentalism Secularism Secular Fundamentalism Secularism Secular Fundamentalism
Secular Fundamentalism Secularism Secular Fundamentalism Secularism Secular Fundamentalism
Secular Fundamentalism Secularism Secular Fundamentalism Secularism Secular Fundamentalism
Secular Fundamentalism Secularism Secular Fundamentalism Secularism Secular Fundamentalism
Secular Fundamentalism Secularism Secular Fundamentalism Secularism Secular Fundamentalism
Secular Fundamentalism Secularism Secular Fundamentalism Secularism Secular Fundamentalism
Secular Fundamentalism Secularism Secular Fundamentalism Secularism Secular Fundamentalism