Secularism or Sharia, which is the solution?

[ammark]

Originally Posted by Moshin

Shows a lot of understanding there, then please correct me then.

Is there anyone offering lessons in Sarcasm 101?? Or better yet: Humility and Introspection? With a co-requisite course on dampening activists' zeal? Its about time we got those.

[DJ Sahastra]

IMO, subcontinet should be ruled by Dayal Baba, Pagla Baba and Kana Baba. Each of them drop true gems when it comes to wisdom.

[al Furqaan]

well a simple question is: who is to define sharia law?

judging from the fact that many have tried to implement it - all without success, i might add - means that should we, or any other society try, we'd end up doing it the wrong way.

if a system allows a rape victim to be punished more severely than the rapists for merely being with non mahram men, then to hell with that system. its not islam.

**********************

i do not believe in enforced morality. however, there are certain things our society should not tolerate, and which end up being mandated by the quran. one such example is the rampant abuse of alcohol, the most senseless of drugs, as well as being highly debilitating. i can understand smoking marijuana, taking ecstacy, tripping on acid, etc.

[Moshin]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
if a system allows a rape victim to be punished more severely than the rapists for merely being with non mahram men, then to hell with that system. its not islam

well actually the reason why she has been sentenced to 90 lashes is, because she has met up with the man in a car, which in Saudi mixing is illegal, well I think its just wrong and i agree we shouldn't have sharia law, too strict.

[Moshin]

Originally Posted by Kana-Baba
I do not want to make any comment about Turkey, whatever they are doing I assume doing at their own will and doesn’t necessarily be the absolute expression of secularism. You are trying to show examples from different places, this and that - where may or may not be the ideal secularism exists.

I have used the muslim country Turkey (only one muslim secular state in the world) as an example by showing what secularism will lead to if countries like Bangladesh end up with secular laws, yes it does not potray the true meaning of secularism in a state, but the influence of the laws will lead to the lack of form of expression in religious society, for example again the President of Turkey was criticised because his wife wears a scarf, you see secularism has had a great affect on the country where people then judge your beliefs, and this will generally affect mainly in Muslim countries, because of thier traditions, cultures and firm belief in religion.

[HereWeGo]

Secularism is the absense of religion in terms of taking political advantage, it tells nowhere that secularism means that the people in the country cannot practise religion. In Bangladesh we welcome people from all religious and ethnic background, While Sharia laws are not illogical but having sharia law shows disrespect to the Bangladeshis who might not be muslims. In other words it gives a wrong signal.

Plus there is a tendency to misinterpret islam. Something that was done very recently in Saudi Arabia when a raped woman was punished. This not only undermines the country but also the great religion.

Hence NO to Sharia
YES to Secularism

[Moshin]

Originally Posted by HereWeGo
Secularism is the absense of religion in terms of taking political advantage, it tells nowhere that secularism means that the people in the country cannot practise religion. In Bangladesh we welcome people from all religious and ethnic background, While Sharia laws are not illogical but having sharia law shows disrespect to the Bangladeshis who might not be muslims. In other words it gives a wrong signal.

Plus there is a tendency to misinterpret islam. Something that was done very recently in Saudi Arabia when a raped woman was punished. This not only undermines the country but also the great religion.

Hence NO to Sharia
YES to Secularism

But do you think secularism is really the real solution, if you look at the world, mainly the christian countries have these secular laws, but this has led to people forgetting thier Chrisitian faith and many are now athiests, if we have secular laws in Bangladesh, there is a strong possibility of people losing thier faith because of the changes that will be aroused in the society, I think this is because our rich culture and traditions will interfier with our religious beliefs, yes people will have the right of practicing or not practicing thier religion, but the majority of the people will rather 'not practice' thier faith, leading to confusion of religion and identity as I have shown the example of secular-Turkey today.
By the way I am not in favour of Sharia law in Bangladesh nor am I calling for Secularism in the country, but I think it is good to have balance in life, I mean what is the true meaning of this life today?

[Moshin]

deleted.

[HereWeGo]

Originally Posted by Moshin
But do you think secularism is really the real solution, if you look at the world, mainly the christian countries have these secular laws, but this has led to people forgetting thier Chrisitian faith and many are now athiests, if we have secular laws in Bangladesh, there is a strong possibility of people losing thier faith because of the changes that will be aroused in the society, I think this is because our rich culture and traditions will interfier with our religious beliefs, yes people will have the right of practicing or not practicing thier religion, but the majority of the people will rather 'not practice' thier faith, leading to confusion of religion and identity as I have shown the example of secular-Turkey today.
By the way I am not in favour of Sharia law in Bangladesh nor am I calling for Secularism in the country, but I think it is good to have balance in life, I mean what is the true meaning of this life today?

Either u have sharia law or you don have sharia law...how can there be a balance! wat exactly do u mean by balance.

A secular government shall never ask you to abolish your religion. Religion is completely about the person himself. No one can force it to you and no one can take it away from you.

Now assuming that u are living outside Bangladesh and in a western country. How would you feel if the only religious holiday they give you is Christmas holiday and they do not even regnize your Eid since they are extremely conservative. So u don get paid if u skip your work during Eid. Sharia law is not a solution to anything. I am a muslim and I am saying it. It will only create cultural devide.

The identity of a bengali women is her saree not her veil. Imagine now forcing a hindu or christian minority in Bangladesh to wear Burka's. A strict Sharia law takes away some very basic rights.

No law can ever promote wrong doing. So u can definately implement some ideas from Sharia and put it in your laws but that law must in no way supress the other minorities and cannot be called sharia or cannot be fought on court based on the Quranic text. In other words Secularism still.

I am just saying that there is no room for a balance. Its either this or that.

[Moshin]

Originally Posted by HereWeGo
Either u have sharia law or you don have sharia law...how can there be a balance! wat exactly do u mean by balance.
I am just saying that there is no room for a balance. Its either this or that.

What is the current laws regulated in Bangladesh at the moment? It is not a secular country nor is it a Sharia law country, currently it has a few Secular laws in place this is the same as Pakistan even though it is a Islamic Republic, but if you enforce extreme Secular laws it will end up like the western world, this is why Muslim countries do not like the idea of both sides, because if you go the secular way, religion will be forgotton and strongly ignored, and if you go the Sharia way religion will strongly not be lost and not ignored, but it will not allow freedom of speech and expression especially for women as you have mentioned, that is why we are not in favour of both, because it's a hard decision to make rather having a balance in the country is better, some might assume secular laws bring balance and freedom of expression, yes freedom in 'not practicing' what it really means, it's in the middle at the moment for us.

[shaad]

Originally Posted by Moshin
Sohel NR, so basically what you are trying to say is people have the choice if they want to practice thier religion or not, because they are not be forced in any type of way to practice, but bringing secularism to a country will make people very vulnerable to conversion of a religion, because people will be thoughtless of thier religion and they will question whether they are following the right religion or not, it will bring evilness such as the influence of the western world

Mohsin, you seem to labour under the impression that everyone here automatically agrees with you that Islam is necessarily the best and only way available to mankind, that everyone should be converted to it, and that everyone should be deterred from considering any other alternatives.

Why? The world, Bangladesh, and even this forum, contains people who are Hindus, Christians, Jains, Buddhists, Jews, agnostics and atheists, who don't necessarily agree with you. Why should your opinion be given more weight than theirs?

Second, it's not only non-Muslims who might disagree with you. Even among Muslims (particularly since Islam doesn't generally subscribe to a clergy that acts as an intermediary between the laity and the deity), there are different interpretations of how Islam should be practiced (witness for instance, the different sects, the different schools, the question of what constitutes proper hijab, whether shrimps and lobsters are halal, etc.). In a secular culture, people, even practicing Muslims, are not necessarily forced to submit to one particular tyrannical interpretation.

Third, you seem to have very little faith (pardon the pun) in the faith of your fellow Muslims, worrying that they could be converted easily to some other religion in a secular country. Frankly, if people need to be sheltered from foreign ideas and notions because their faith in their religion is so weak, then I have to ask: what good is their faith anyway? Moreover, didn't you post in some other thread about converting someone to Islam? I presume this was done in a culture that wasn't a non-Muslim theocracy. If so, I would find your position quite hypocritical: individually converting someone in a culture that allows you to do so, but trying to pass laws that prevent such conversions in your own culture.

[Zunaid]

Shaad - you must take into account age - for the greenhorns, ratiocination abilities are delayed and consequent logical discussions are futile. Give it some time - let the gray cells firm up and the synapses grow some new protein pathways.

[Navarene]

Shariah law, therefore religion for that matter, must be seperated from the state mechanism. Period.

[ammark]

Originally Posted by Zunaid
Shaad - you must take into account age - for the greenhorns, ratiocination abilities are delayed and consequent logical discussions are futile. Give it some time - let the gray cells firm up and the synapses grow some new protein pathways.

I find vindication in your philosophy, for not having let off a rant.

[Pundit]

Is Shariah bashing a progressive trait? Or is it a commie trait ? Or is it a bhonita to take a higher moral ground ?

Wonder where Arnab is ? But no need, he's just let his clones loose. Good job.

[Moshin]

Im talking about Sharia law in general, should we accept it or not in Bangladesh or anywhere else in the Muslim world, and I have raised the question on Secular and Sharia because, both may bring a solution to the violent world we live in.

[Alien]

In my opinion, lot of what is considered Sharia laws are man made interpretations drawn from disputed Hadiths. Things like 1) No music, 2) Must wear hijab 3) Can't keep dogs etc. are all man made laws.

[Alien]

Originally Posted by HereWeGo
Either u have sharia law or you don have sharia law...how can there be a balance! wat exactly do u mean by balance.

A secular government shall never ask you to abolish your religion. Religion is completely about the person himself. No one can force it to you and no one can take it away from you.

Now assuming that u are living outside Bangladesh and in a western country. How would you feel if the only religious holiday they give you is Christmas holiday and they do not even regnize your Eid since they are extremely conservative. So u don get paid if u skip your work during Eid. Sharia law is not a solution to anything. I am a muslim and I am saying it. It will only create cultural devide.

The identity of a bengali women is her saree not her veil. Imagine now forcing a hindu or christian minority in Bangladesh to wear Burka's. A strict Sharia law takes away some very basic rights.

No law can ever promote wrong doing. So u can definately implement some ideas from Sharia and put it in your laws but that law must in no way supress the other minorities and cannot be called sharia or cannot be fought on court based on the Quranic text. In other words Secularism still.

I am just saying that there is no room for a balance. Its either this or that.

Allah says in Surah Al-Buqarah that "There is no compulsion in religion". All that stuff about non-muslims forced to obey Islamic laws are man made impositions that violates that line from Quran. We very well know where they come from - what we call extremists, people who twisted the noble words of the Quran to suit their opinions and retarded outlook on life and society.

By balanced I think Mohsin refers to the having a blend of secularism with Sharia laws while leaving the harsh bits behind. Basically apply what they have in common and chuck out the rest. Those "rests" are the rules like "All women have to wear" Burqa etc.

[Moshin]

Originally Posted by Alien
By balanced I think Mohsin refers to the having a blend of secularism with Sharia laws while leaving the harsh bits behind. Basically apply what they have in common and chuck out the rest. Those "rests" are the rules like "All women have to wear" Burqa etc.

I think a mixture of both is good, so we have a balanced life but not having strict laws applied in society like Saudi Arabia (i might get arrested for sayin that:http://mashable.com/2008/01/01/saudi...l-web-content/)
Here is the reason why I have raised the question,

Modernity
During the 19th century the history of Islamic law took a sharp turn due to new challenges the Muslim world faced: the West had risen to a global power and colonized a large part of the world, including Muslim territories. Societies changed from the agricultural to the industrial stage. New social and political ideas emerged and social models slowly shifted from hierarchical towards egalitarian. The Ottoman Empire and the rest of the Muslim world were in decline, and calls for reform became louder. In Muslim countries, codified state law started replacing the role of scholarly legal opinion. Western countries sometimes inspired, sometimes pressured, and sometimes forced Muslim states to change their laws. Secularist movements pushed for laws deviating from the opinions of the Islamic legal scholars. Islamic legal scholarship remained the sole authority for guidance in matters of rituals, worship, and spirituality, while they lost authority to the state in other areas. The Muslim community became divided into groups reacting differently to the change. This division persists until the present day (Brown 1996, Hallaq 2001, Ramadan 2005, Aslan 2006, Safi 2003).

• Secularists believe the law of the state should be based on secular principles, not on Islamic legal theory.
• Traditionalists believe that the law of the state should be based on the traditional legal schools. However, traditional legal views are considered unacceptable by most modern Muslims, especially in areas like women's rights or slavery.^[6]
• Reformers believe that new Islamic legal theories can produce modernized Islamic law ^[7] and lead to acceptable opinions in areas such as women's rights.^[8]
• Salafis strive to follow Muhammad and his companions, tabiin (followers of the Companions), tabiut tabiin (followers of the tabiin) and those who follow these 3 generations.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Modernity

[nobody]

Mohsin
there is no best solution. AFAIK there is one Hadith which says Rasullah (PBUH) said when I talked about something on religion obey it, but everything else you have better knowledge. I would also ask you to read about history of Islamic jurisprudence. There is no freedom of Speech in Sharia Law is misleading. Islam actually encourages debate. After Pericles time in Greece, Islam shows the world first sign of democracy (ok it is not the democracy in the sense we believe now). Shariah law also ensure the first case of welfare state. Thus it allowed chopping hand for stealing because if you can not buy state was responsible for that. Regarding woman liberty Islam ensured that. Even Hazrat Ayesha (RA) went to war.
But the problem is that the shariah law is practiced now a days is the doctrine of Salafi Mazhab - which is questionable by many fiqh scholars.
Turkey is completely different case - so is USA or UK. for example in UK though it is secular there are Blasphemi law (laws against speaking ill of Jesus (or Hazrat Isa (A))). As a seculer Muslim I would expect same should be for Rasullah (PBUH). But that is not the case. In India it is much advance at least in government level.
Ultimately it comes how you are implementing the law i.e. in the spirit of law or in writing of law,

[Moshin]

And talking about Olama Mashaekhs! They are also in high demand now a days. Looks like everybody is begging to court their favor. The last nail in the coffin of our secularism was sealed hard yesterday with the five point contract between Awami League and Khelafat Majlish. These five points denounce secularism, promises not to make any law against the teaching of Quran and Sunnah, will recognize Qaumi Madrassa, Any one believing in any prophet/leader after Muhamad will be declared not Muslims ( Ahmadiyas are doomed!), Blasphemy will be activated, Fatwa will be permitted.
This five point contract is practically an obituary of any remaining hope of reviving our secularism.

Link: http://rumiahmed.wordpress.com/2006/...uary/#more-191
It sound like to me Secularism has been abolished or somthing...'the last nail in the coffin of our secularism'..but im not sure if im getting the information correctly, because Im not a natrual website-article reader, can someone please explain everything above???

[shaad]

Originally Posted by Moshin
Link: http://rumiahmed.wordpress.com/2006/...uary/#more-191
It sound like to me Secularism has been abolished or somthing...'the last nail in the coffin of our secularism'..but im not sure if im getting the information correctly, because Im not a natrual website-article reader, can someone please explain everything above???

Mohsin, this requires a little bit of historical perspective and some knowledge of the changes in our Constitution. I will try to summarize (keep in mind though, that like all historical accounts, this is likely to be a little subjective).

Shortly after we gained our independence, the Constitution was framed in 1972 by primarily the early Awami League, who at the time were deeply influenced by both socialist and secular ideology. Note also the ravages suffered in 1971 by our countrymen at the hands of Pakistani soldiers (who had basically been told that they could kill our menfolk and rape our women, because we weren't good enough Muslims anyway), and you will understand why secularism as a barrier to excessive religious zealotry had a certain appeal. Secularism and Freedom of Religion were enshrined in Article 12 of our Constitution then.

Now, both the large-scale nationalization of Bangladeshi manufacturing and trading enterprises and international trading in commodities spurred by Mujib's and Awami League's flirtation with socialism and the high-level corruption in our government effectively hamstrung Bangladeshi entrepreneurship and brought about economic chaos. Coupled with widespread flooding and famine, and the deteriorating law and order situation, Bangladesh was in dire straits. The last straw was the proclamation by Mujib in February 1975 of Bangladesh as a one-party state, effectively abolishing the parliamentary system, requiring all civilian government personnel to join his party, thus turning a blind eye to the fundamental rights enumerated in our Constitution, and turning Bangladesh into his own personal dictatorship. In August 1975, Mujib was assassinated; there was some jockeying for power and coups and counter-coups, but by the end of 1976, Zia had become the head of state.

Mujib's vision of Bangladesh had been particular pro-Indian and Bengali-centric. Zia focused more on nationalism (Bangladesh-centric), actual development, and a more robust, active and diversified foreign policy. In a successful attempt to build closer ties with other Islamic nations, particularly wealthy Arab oil-producing ones, he altered the Constitution, deleting Article 12 (the "secular" article) and inserting a phrase stating that a fundamental state principle is "absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah."

As a consequence, Awami League has generally been viewed as being more secular, while Zia's party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, has been viewed as being less so. However, most political parties are interested in gaining and holding on to power rather than stay true to their founding principles; the blog article you point to is just such an example: Awami League turning its back on secularism and making alliances with more fundamentalist religious parties to gain a few more votes. It seems to have caused some distress and shock to the blog writer, hence his quip about "the last nail in the coffin of our secularism," but to most of us older and more cynical Bangladeshis, it was no surprise.

By the way, if you want to see the full text of our constitution, go here. For a fairly decent overview of the changes in the constitution see this article.

[samircreep]

omigosh. when people lose their faith we suddenly lose our reason and morality. eventually we become (drums rolling) ATHEISTS! i guess thats when the world ends.

[Moshin]

Originally Posted by shaad
As a consequence, Awami League has generally been viewed as being more secular, while Zia's party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, has been viewed as being less so. However, most political parties are interested in gaining and holding on to power rather than stay true to their founding principles; the blog article you point to is just such an example: Awami League turning its back on secularism and making alliances with more fundamentalist religious parties to gain a few more votes. It seems to have caused some distress and shock to the blog writer, hence his quip about "the last nail in the coffin of our secularism," but to most of us older and more cynical Bangladeshis, it was no surprise.

Thankyou shaad bai, I now understand completely about the article, overall it does show secularism will not be returning to the constitution if both parties are in favour of not having secularism under it, but it is in a way the other way round compared to how other countries will approach secularism. Most Muslim countries will be looking on to Modernasation as I have given in the other post, about Muslim's reaslising they are behind industralization in the world, and many countries in this modern world will be in favour of secularism, but this overall just shows there are high doubts Bangladesh will not go further to Secularism. In some cases good idea, and in other cases bad idea for others.

[HereWeGo]

Originally Posted by samircreep
omigosh. when people lose their faith we suddenly lose our reason and morality. eventually we become (drums rolling) ATHEISTS! i guess thats when the world ends.

U mean Atheist and Agnosts do not have any morals????
Religion has nothing to do with morality.
How is it moral when religious fanatics Gruesomely murder Daniel Pearl just cuz he is Jew.
How is it moral when muslims kill muslims in the name of Islam (our liberation war)

I don think that this world will ever run out of believers, but it might run out of true believers. The world shall end with too many believers of the Extreme version of the religions . We can already see the effect of that in countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan. Support Secularism and save humanity.
Joy bangla