The State And Religon

[iROBOT]

Ahmed Rashid makes this point quite well in his book "Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia" where he explores the philosophies that inform HuT, the Islamic Renaissance Party and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, and measures them against the infrastructural requirements of even the most primitive form of homogeneous Islamic entity.

Lets just say he found their ideas wanting, and the mullahs apparently convinced that their G-d would sort out the hassle for them.

I've read bits of that book what I recall most is the fight between the conservative and progressive elements if Islam and the rise of fundamentalism and the sublimation of the progressive

Also explore Irshad Manji's, author of "The Trouble with Islam". She seems to be gaining some support and is reinvesting the progressive argument in the Islamic cause.

Haven’t read it yet so will not pass comment, but her ideas are radical (for Islam anyway)

 

[TAE]

This does not mean however it has any business in forming laws, which I don’t believe it has.

But if you were to ban every candidate who professes to have any religious belief, could that still be called a free and fair election?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I've read bits of that book what I recall most is the fight between the conservative and progressive elements if Islam and the rise of fundamentalism and the sublimation of the progressive

Also explore Irshad Manji's, author of "The Trouble with Islam". She seems to be gaining some support and is reinvesting the progressive argument in the Islamic cause.

Haven’t read it yet so will not pass comment, but her ideas are radical (for Islam anyway)

I've got that on my "to read" list.

Just as long as you don't recommend anything by Bernard Lewis.

 

[error]

Ok it seems that some people are portraying me as anti Muslim, I’m not. I’m anti any religion that thinks it can run a society and form its laws. I’m anti any one or any creed that thinks they have the exclusivity to truth.

As secularist I believe that religion (whatever it may be) should be ripped out of the infrastructure of all states right a cross the world, it has no business there any longer. I believe that having religious schools is divisive in society because it separates people. The state should not be culpable to the brain washing of children by their parents. If they want their children to learn any religion then it should be souly up to them, and (more importantly) funded by them after school hours.

Religion should be taught as historical, anthropological phenomena no more, no less.

The state should ban all parties that show allegiance to any religion, because society should be run by REASON AND THE RULE OF LAW not supernatural sky Gods (or whatever)

If a monarchy has to exist then their oaths of allegiance should be to THE PEOPLE not this factious entity.

In short, let’s fucking get with the 21st century.

What are your thoughts?

(Peace).

I’m not on the net until Monday…not trolling just to poor to afford the web at home and I just needed to clarify my position.

Shit if a mod is reading this could you please move to World/current affairs?

I totally agree with seperating religion from the state, however your approach is like adding fuel to fire, and it will create more reactionary forces. I think a prudent policy is the way to go. I mean how would you go and convince the fundies of seperating religion from the state? It is a really hard, policy question.

 

[error]

This morning I was reading a paper on the history of state-religion relations in the Muslim world, and it argued that contrary to the usual, official view that the state and religion should be merged in Islam, since the early days of the faith there has been persistent differentiations between the two.

Which implies that the Jihadi's goal of 'restoring the caliphate' is seeking to restore something that never really existed, and which could not exist, simply because the complexities of both modern societies and the premodern societies such as those of the empires of the middle east (outside Arabia) demand a differentiation of functions between those who preach religion and those who administer the state. Even if both groups may need each other's support in order to maintain their social positions.

hi ,
can I get the paper if you have it online,that will be awesome!

 

[error]

I wonder if it's possible for a state which has a deeply religious majority (of one religion) to have a totally secular state? I think that's how America was designed in it's constitution, but of course has time has gone on that's been eroded and eroded, and even though I believe technically they're more secular than Britain, in reality that concept seems laughable (or cryable more's the point )

the US more secular than Britain, u kidding me?

 

[ViolentPanda]

the US more secular than Britain, u kidding me?

Constitutionally they are, because f the separation of powers.

Whether they are in practice, given the influence of organised religion on policy, is questionable.

 

[Idris2002]

Which is why, as long as you have some sort of pluralist, representative democracy, in a society where at least some of the population are religious believers, you'll never have a wholly secular state.

The best you can aim for is to achieve a state where it will not be possible to use the state for the purposes of e.g. persecuting religious, anti-religious, sexual or other minorities who might incur the disfavour of this or that particular religious grouping.

 

[likesfish]

The USA was set up with a seperation of state and church the idea was to keep the church from gaining power as in the Bishops in the house of lords for example.
Lots of americans actually go to church unlike us godless brits
Most religions start out fairly harmless but then get all excited about what you do with your genitals aand what happens if you diss them .
having worked for a high church based charity while
having major problems with there management style the actual god bothering was'nt really a problem. If you wanted to go to the service fine if you did'nt that was fine to. Just had a problem with the happy clappy types who did'nt get the charity was about providing a service not converting people. Also so called professional types who thought thwey were alll about converting people

 

[Jessiedog]

Very informative thread.

T'is good to learn.

Let's hear more diverse opinions, eh?

Then we can learn more.





Woof

 

[Aldebaran]

It is wrong to assume that religion and state are looked at as "seperate" in Islam. Historically there is no such separation possible. As soon as the Prophet migrated to Medina and established the first Isamic community (Ar. umma) he was both religious and political leader.
The modern concepts of "nationality" , "nationalism" and "nation state" are fundamentally Islam-alien Western ideas.

Shortly said:
The concept of the Caliphate and the call for the restauration thereof represents the (almost inevitably idealized) restauration of the time of the Prophet, where religious and political leadership merged into one person with the goal the purety of the religion and the good of the umma.
There is a remarkable difference in how this concept (and many others) gets explained in Sunni and Sunni Islam yet the core of the issue is the same.

salaam.

 

[FruitandNut]

I feel that it is legitimate for all groups, including religious ones, to lobby and engage in debate with our elected reps.; but not to be directly involved or interfering. The problem with Islam is that it is still directly involved in politics in much of the Muslim world, and they it does not sit happily with the concept of democracy.

In the Christian diaspora we have engaged long and hard to distance religion from direct power in our politics, and while this has in large part been achieved there is still some way to go. It all comes down to that fine line between the politics of 'my views' and that of the 'other guy'. By the time Muslims in the UK outnumber our other religio-ethnic groups I hope that 'progressive'/'reworked' Islam will have kicked in strongly and be more supportive of democracy. Alternatively it is possible/probable that their birthrates will over the next generation or two fall closer to the mainstream norm. While there should be some allowance and exception made for minority groups, they should not be allowed to dictate to the majority. Where Sharir Law within the Muslim community would clash with the current Law of the Land it should always be seen as illegitimate and marginalised, as should anything that directly clashes with mainstream Law.