Contradiction between Secularism and Islam

Secularism in the context of “Separation between the church and the state” is a critical issue the Islamic world is trying to deal with. Secularism as a concept and as a practice was developed in the west just as the modern state system. Islam as a religion has its own political dimension. The two Ideologies developed over two different time period in the history, in two very different human societies within two different geographical area of the world. So, the principals of both the ideologies have relevance in the accumulated human knowledge and the future of universal political discourse.
However, the importance of the political teachings of Islam is often misunderstood by the Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Often the intellectual criticism of the political dimension of Islam is in reality the argument in defense of secularism. It is like saying political dimension of Islam is unacceptable because it goes against the principal of secularism. On the other hand the argument for the political dimension Islam is ignored because it is perceived as a negative notion. Most of the time the media, government and academia have been walking in this line. As a result of this bias the common people did not had the opportunity to form a balanced understanding of the argument of both side. Therefore, the public perception is skewed towards secularism because of the lack of adequate knowledge of both Islam and Secularism as well as the influence of media bias.
In this paper we will try to explore the contradiction between Islam and Secularism in an in depth manner, and will try to form an educated opinion about the issue of “Contradiction between Islam and Secularism.”

Definition:
Secularism is defined in the Merriam-Webster’s Learner’s Dictionary as “the belief that religion should not play a role in government, education, or other public parts of society.” In thefreedictionary.com Secularism is defined as “a view that religion and religious considerations should be ignored or excluded from social and political matters.” Often abridged in the famous statement “separation between Church & State”, Secularism is the belief that religion and religious affairs should not enter into the function of the state.
“The adjective ‘secular’ was first used in English, to distinguish clergy (Christian) living and working in the wider medieval world from ‘religious’ clergy who lived in monastic seclusion.” (Keane, 2000, p-6)

Values and principles of Secularism:
In the book English Secularism George Jacob Holyoake coined the term ‘Secularism’ for the first time and elaborated the values and principles that secularism clings to. Holyoake (1896) explicate that “Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human,

Its essential principles are three:
1. The improvement of this life by material means.
2. That science is the available Providence of man.
3. That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good.” (p-35)

Holyoake (1896) explains “The first principle of material means as conditions of welfare in this world.—Theology works by ‘spiritual’ means, Secularism by ‘material’ means.” (p-38) Second Principal was explained as “The word illuminating secular life is self-help. The Secularist vexes not the ear of heaven by mendicant supplications. His is the only religion that gives heaven no trouble” (p-39)

“Just as a Christian seeks to serve God, a Secularist seeks to serve man. This it is to be a Secularist. The idea of this service is what Secularism puts into his mind. The Kingdom of God has come—when comes the kingdom of man?” (Holyoake, 1896, p-59)

According to Holyoake (1896) “The Secular is that, the issues of which can be tested by the experience of this life” (p-36) But Secularism is separate from atheism as “Nor is Secularism atheism. Cricket is not theological; at the same time, it is not Atheistic” (p-60) “Secularist regards them [theist and atheist theories] as belonging to the debatable ground of speculation. Secularism neither asks nor gives any opinion upon them.(p-37)

The phrase “separation between Church & State” was first on paper in Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802 .
“Separation between Church & State” the detailed text read as “religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God …. legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” (Jefferson, 1802, n.p.)

Although for Jefferson, “religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God” but for Holyoake (1896) “Secularism is … intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable.” (P-35)

The point to be noted here is that both Holyoake and Jefferson were pointing out the private aspect of religion in an individual’s life. ‘Separation of church and state’ and ‘religion remaining in the private sphere only’ has had an influence on those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable was so profound that “The Normative Ideal of secularism, the growing confidence in the separation of church and state and the confinement of religious belief to the private sphere, is a positive substitute for God.” And “God’s departure from the world even promotes open-minded tolerance.” (Keane, 2000, p-5)

If the confinement of religion in the private life alone causes a decline of religion then according to Holyoake and other secular propagator “the decline of religion should be reinforced by efforts to ensure that morality is concerned with the well being of human beings in the present life, to the exclusion of all considerations drawn from belief in God and the afterlife.” (Keane, 2000, p-7)

However for some secularists, secularism is a religion. For example, American Humanist Association is an organization associated with International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) a world umbrella organization. International Humanist and Ethical Union embraces humanist, atheist, rationalist, skeptic, Ethical Culture, free thought, secular and similar organizations worldwide. American Humanist Association believes Secularism is a religion. Secularists acknowledge this in their “Humanist Manifestos.”

“Religio’ is the Latin for ‘religion’. ‘Re-lig-io’ refers to something that binds together, as in ‘lig-ament’. A religio (our religion) is that which binds people and society together.
Religion is not that privatized, sanitized, internalized foolishness which we imagine today — that we are forbidden to bring up in the public arena. The public arena is all about religion. It is never a matter of whether we have a religion, but only which one.
Every society has a religio, i.e., a religion. Any society is defined by its common moral and legal boundaries. Any legal system is always based on prior moral commitments, i.e., on ‘religio’. Without those boundaries, it will have no identity, and thus cannot survive.
Hence, there can be no such thing as separation of religion and state (in the sense we are told today). Every state has its religion, like it or not. State has, by Supreme Court edict, a secular religion. The public schools are the state Church of Secular Humanism, which our children are, for the most part, coerced to attend. There is no separation of church and state, only of Biblical church and state. Secular religion rules supreme — and at gun point. Ironically, both our Supreme Court and the Humanist Manifesto recognizes secularism as a “religion”. [The American Humanist Association, n.d.]

Nietzsche:
Friedrich Nietzsche in his Frohliche Wissenschaft tell the story of a mad man who asked “I am looking for God! I am looking for God!” “Where has God gone? I will tell you, we have killed him” “God is dead. God stays dead. And we have killed him” “Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods, in order to seem worthy of it?” (Keane, 2000, p-7)
“Nietzsche’s story of the madman’s announcement of the death of God has often been interpreted as prophetic- as a pronouncement that summarized and spells out the destiny of two thousand years of western history and that serves as an accurate prognosis of the coming of a fully secular world stripped of religious illusions” (Keane, 2000, p-8) therefore ensuring not only a secular state but also a secular state of mind.
Jefferson:

Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists Association wrote “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” (Jefferson, 1802, n.p)

John Locke

John Locke, the famous philosopher and thought to be one of the foremost thinker in the ‘secular tradition’ while arguing for a separation of government and religion wrote:
“I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish exactly the Business of Civil Government from that of Religion, and to settle the just Bounds that lie between the one and the other. If this be not done, there can be no end put to the Controversies that will always be arising, between those that have, or at least pretend to have, on the one side, a Concernment for the Interest of Men’s Souls, and on the other side, a Care of the Commonwealth.” (Smita, 2000, p-40)

Locke advanced an argument couched in skepticism to suggest that it was a usurpation of God’s authority for government to meddle in faith, given the limits of human knowledge in understanding divine authority. He wrote,
The Care of Souls is not committed to the Civil Magistrate, any more than to other Men. It is not committed unto him by, I say, by God; because it appears not that God has ever given any such authority to one Man over another, as to compel any one to his Religion.

Locke argued that it was beyond human understanding or authority to understand divine dictates and that it was therefore essential to separate the two.” (Smita, 2000, pp-40,41)

“For no Man can, if he would, conform his Faith to the Dictates of another. All the Life and Power of true Religion consists in the inward and full persuasion of the mind; and Faith is not Faith without believing.” (Smita, 2000, p-41)

For Lock, men should not be compelled to “quit the Light of their own Reason, and oppose the Dictates of their own Consciences” by being forced to adhere to the “Religion of the Court” and nobody is bound by nature to a particular religion or inherits it as such, but joins it voluntarily. Consequently, the function of government is limited to a smaller role where “the business of Laws is not to provide for the Truth of Opinions, but for the Safety and Security of the Commonwealth, and of every particular man’s Goods and Person. And so it ought to be.”
(Smita, 2000, p-41)

The Christian context:

If “Separation between church and state” is not enough to illustrate the Christian context which molded the idea of secularism for a unconvinced reader then consider that “The adjective ‘secular’ was first used in English, to distinguish clergy (Christian) living and working in the wider medieval world from ‘religious’ clergy who lived in monastic seclusion.” (Keane, 2000, p-6)
But the Christian context of secularism and the Christian influence is much more than what appears from a cursory glance to the extent that “Secularism is not the end of Christianity, nor is it a sign of the godless nature of the West. Rather, we should think of secularism as the latest expression of the Christian religion.” [Smith, n.d. p-2]
Smith (n.d.), has argued that, “Secularism in the West is a new manifestation of Christianity, but one that is not immediately obvious” [p-3] Not immediately obvious because “Christianity has always been a religion with a fluid, evolving identity – it has a history of changing shape” [p-7] “as Christianity travelled, as it crossed national borders, that it changed. The social and cultural settings into which Christianity entered affected its beliefs and practices. [P-9] And Secularism is owes its birth to “the public transformation of Christianity from a religion of doctrinal orthodoxy to a religion of ethics.” [P-14]
However, the doubtful reader may question the validity of this line of argument, so we hastily provide more evidence such as Martin Luther who had rhetorically argued that “A man who would venture to govern an entire community, or the world, with the Gospel would be like a shepherd who would place in one fold wolves, lions, eagles and sheep together and say, “Help yourselves, and be good and peaceful among yourselves; the fold is open, there is plenty of food; have no fear of dogs or clubs!” The sheep, forsooth, would keep the peace and would allow themselves to be fed and governed in peace, but they would not live long.” [Brown, 2000, P- 52] and “Christ’s name can not be invoked in calls to destroy earthly kingdoms by the sword.” Or for example according to Samuel P. Huntington “Christianity displays the unique dualism between God and Caesar, church and state, spiritual and temporal authority.” (Keane, 2000, p-8)
Or, for example, the saying of Jesus in the Bible: “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Matthew 22:21) or the saying of Jesus “My kingdom is not of this world… my kingdom is from another place.” (John 18:36)
And going back to the “separation between church and state” we find that “The early Christian church was a politically insignificant body that shunned worldly political ambition.” [Brown, 2000, P-46] And therefore, “The medieval church-state arrangement and the modern idea of a secular state that is religiously neutral were both the results of working compromises. [Brown, 2000, P-47]

‘Separation of church and state’ in Islamic context:

Brown (2000) while giving a detail account of the Muslim political thought wrote “A confrontation between Muslim “church” and Muslim state is virtually impossible, since there is no such organizationally structured Muslim body of clergy” (p-33)
“There was no Muslim church putting together a Muslim state. Rather, the new (early) Muslim community—the umma—developed from a worldview that perceived religion and politics as
a seamless web, that thought of this world and the world to come as a continuum… In political terms the early Muslim community gave religious valuation to this-worldly matters. It accepted the religious imperative of implementing God’s plan in this world.” (Brown, 2000, p-47)
“In Islam, unlike Christianity, there is no tradition of a separation of church and state, of religious organization as contrasted with political organization.” (Brown, 2000, p-31)

Paradigm Shift:

Secularism as “separation of church and state” is irrelevant in the Islamic context as there exist no Muslim church. Just as Christianity has a church and Islam don’t, Islam has Shari’ah (sacred law) and Christianity doesn’t.

“Islam is to be contrasted with Christianity—in the importance placed on religious law (orthopraxy) and in the relatively decentralized, nonhierarchical arrangement of their religious specialists (ulama). There is thus no Muslim “church” and nothing quite like the pattern of church-state relations that had such a formative influence on politics and political thought in the West” (Brown, 2000, p-79)

“Islam places great emphasis on the law” and as a “religious system conceive of a comprehensive religio-legal system covering all aspects of the individual’s relations to others and of the individual’s relation to God. Everything is taken into account and set out in detail—times of prayer, foods that may be eaten and manner of ritual slaughter of animals, almsgiving, inheritance, and even such minor details as the use of a toothpick. This emphasis on the religious law in Islam is to be contrasted with the Christian concept of liberation from the curse of the law (Galatians 3:13) and of justification through faith alone.” [Brown, 2000, p-24]

“Islam and Judaism stress instead the virtue of consistent, constant fulfillment of God’s law. The Orthodox Jew embracing the “yoke of the law” as being in itself a liberating and fulfilling experience is matched by the Muslim regard for the Shari‘ah (the entire corpus of Muslim religious law). The Christian image of the law has an almost opposite sense.

The very concept of law in Islam differs from what is prevalent in the West and that sacred law in Christianity refers to the spiritual and moral principles enunciated by Christ, whereas the sacred law, Shari‘ah in Islam, involves not only principles but also their application to daily life in the form of legal codifications.” [Brown, 2000, p-25]

Shari`a is the body of Islamic law. The term means “way” or “path”; it is the legal framework within which the public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Muslim principles of jurisprudence.

So, “separation of church and state” as we have uncovered to be irrelevant in the context of Muslim lands and the Separation between law and scripture is in fact the more close to the reality representation of issue at hand. Therefore we will now shift our discussion towards this matter of Separation between law and scripture.

Islam and the Separation between law and scripture
‎
 “…….and those who did not judge by what ALLAH revealed, those are they that are the unbelievers” [Sura Maidah 5: Ayat 44]

 “Do they seek after a judgment of the times of ignorance? But who gives a better judgment than ALLAH for a people whose faith is assured?” [Sura Maidah 5: Ayat: 50]

 ”Have you not seen those who declare that they believe in what has been revealed to you
and what was revealed before you? How they would go for judgment to Taghut when they have been ordered to deny them? But Satan’s wish is to lead them astray far away ”. [Sura Nisa:04.- ayat 60]

 “But no, by your Lord, they can have no faith, until they make you judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission’’ [Sura Nisa 4: ayat 65]
 “judge between them in the light of what has been revealed by Allah, and don’t follow their whims, and beware of them lest they lead you away from the guidance sent down to you by Allah.” (Sura al-Maa’idah 5 , ayah 49 )

 They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides ALLAH, and (they also took as their Lord) the Messiah, son of Maryam, while they were commanded to worship none but ALLAH, none has the right to be worshipped but He. Praise and deified (/blessed/hallowed) be HE above what they associate (with Him). (Sura At-Taubah- 9:31)

Tafsir of the ayat: (tafsir ibn kathir): Imam Ahmad, At-Tirmidhi and Ibn Jarir At-Tabari recorded a Hadith via several chains of narration, from `Adi bin Hatim, may Allah be pleased with him, who became Christian during the time of Jahiliyyah. When the call of the Messenger of Allah reached his area, `Adi ran away to Ash-Sham, and his sister and several of his people were captured. The Messenger of Allah freed his sister and gave her gifts. So she went to her brother and encouraged him to become Muslim and to go to the Messenger of Allah . `Adi, who was one of the chiefs of his people (the tribe of Tai’) and whose father, Hatim At-Ta’i, was known for his generosity, went to Al-Madinah. When the people announced his arrival, `Adi went to the Messenger of Allah wearing a silver cross around his neck. The Messenger of Allah recited this Ayah;
They took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah………
`Adi commented, “I said, `They did not worship them.”’ The Prophet (pbuh) said, “”Yes they did. They (rabbis and monks) prohibited the allowed for them (Christians and Jews) and allowed the prohibited, and they obeyed them. This is how they worshipped them.”

 “And when it is said to them: Come to what Allah has revealed and to the Messenger, you will see the hypocrites turning away from you with (utter) disgust.” [Sura Nisa 04: Ayat 61]

Tafsir of the ayat: (tafsir ibn kathir): It was reported that the reason behind revealing this Ayah was that a man from the Ansar and a Jew had a dispute, and the Jew said, “Let us refer to Muhammad to judge between us.” However, the Muslim man said, “Let us refer to Ka`b bin Al-Ashraf (a Jew) to judge between us.” It was also reported that the Ayah was revealed about some hypocrites who pretended to be Muslims, yet they sought to refer to the judgment of Jahiliyyah. Other reasons were also reported behind the revelation of the Ayah. However, the Ayah has a general meaning, as it rebuke all those who refrain from referring to the Qur’an and Sunnah for judgment and prefer the judgment of whatever they chose of falsehood, which befits the description of Taghut here.

Muslim Critics of Secularism:
Muhammad ‘Abduh argued against the division of public and private dimensions of religion was a false separation “sought to achieve impossible task of isolating faith and moral foundations from reason, which created alienation, not only in society, but within the individual himself, by requiring a false separation that could not be sustained.” (Smita, 2000, p-43)

‘Abduh wrote “the danger of a division of society into two spheres without a real link—a sphere, always diminishing, in which the laws and moral principles of Islam ruled, and another, always growing, in which principles derived by human reason from considerations of worldly utility held sway. In other words, the danger came from an increasing secularization of a society, which by its essence could never be wholly secularized; the result was a chasm which revealed itself in every aspect of life.” (Smita, 2000, p-43)

Sayyid Qutb

Qutb characterized secularism as jahiliya and adopting secularism is “as being in a state of jahiliyya. Qutb’s use of the term is compelling as it is a renewal of the term from its classical Islamic use for modern critique. In classical Islam, the term jahiliyya was used to describe all those conditions and phenomena that were antithetical to the spirit of Islam. In early Islam, the pagan world, or the world of the idolaters, was the jahil world. It was a term widely used to denote humanity’s state of ignorance before the revelation of Islam.” (Smita, 2000, p-46)

Qutb wrote: “if we look at the sources and foundations of modern ways of living, it becomes clear that the whole world is steeped in Jahiliyyah…This Jahiliyyah is based on rebellion against God’s sovereignty on earth. It transfers to man one of the greatest attributes of God, namely sovereignty, and makes some men lords over others. It… takes the form of claiming the right to create values, to legislate rules of collective behavior, and to choose any way of life rests with men, without regard to what God has prescribed.” (Smita, 2000, p-47)

 Say, “O ALLAH, Owner of Sovereignty, You give sovereignty to whom You will and You take sovereignty away from whom You will. You honor whom You will and You humble whom You will. In Your hand is [all] good. Indeed, You are over all things competent. [Sura Al Imran, 3: Ayat 26]

Man had not only taken God’s place as the center of authority, but he had proceeded to legislate and govern with no acknowledgement of the moral foundations that God had decreed. (Smita, 2000, p-47)

Salman al-Oadah:
Contemporary Islamic scholar Oadah (n.d.) describes secularism as polytheism, the gravest and only unforgivable sin. He writes:
“The differences between Islam and secularism are substantial. The issue at hand is none other than the difference between monotheism and polytheism. The phrase “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and give unto Allah what is Allah’s” is exactly what the pagans in Mecca were saying when the Prophet (peace be upon him) was sent to them. Allah informs us in the Qur’ân that they used to say:

 “They assign unto Allah, of the crops and cattle which He created, a portion, and they
say: ‘This is for Allah – in their make-believe – ‘and this is for His partners with respect
to us’.” [Surah al-An`âm: 136]

 “Yet they attribute to some of His servants a share with Him.” [Sûrah al-Zukhruf: 15]

 “And they assign unto Allah that which they themselves dislike, and their tongues
pronounce the lie that the better portion will be theirs. Assuredly theirs will be the Fire,
and they will be hastened to it and abandoned.” [Sûrah al-Nahl: 62]

This Jâhiliyyah of today is exactly like the Jâhiliyyah of old. They say that the mosque is for Allah and everything else is for “Caesar”. The schools are for Caesar. The media is for other than Allah. They restrict Islam to the mosque and the prayer room. Everything else is to be governed without resort to Islamic Law. This is outright polytheism. How can we possibly reconcile between the position of secularism and Allah’s command:

 “Say: verily my prayer, my sacrifice, my life, and my death are for Allah, the Lord of All
the Worlds. He has no partner. This is how I have been commanded and I am the first of
those who submit.” [Sûrah al-An`âm: 162-163]

How can we reconcile secularism with the meaning of the declaration of faith “There is no God but Allah” which means that no aspect of worship or devotion must be offered to anything or anyone besides Allah? All worship directed elsewhere is polytheism, false and rejected. Therefore, secularism is polytheism. It states that the mosque is for Allah and everything else is for other than Allah, or as the Christian’s say: for Caesar.” (Oadah, n.d., pp. 4-5)

According to Oadah (n.d.) “Secularism has no place in the lands of Islam for two reasons: The first of these is that Islam is the religion that Allah sent down to replace the previous manifestations of the faith and to govern all aspects of life. The simplest Muslim can see how Islam explains all matters in detail. It is impossible for a Muslim to feel that the religion that regulates his marital affairs, his business, his eating habits, his manner of sleeping, and even how he goes to the bathroom could ever leave managing the political and economic affairs of society to other than Allah. For Allah says:

We have neglected nothing in the Book. [Sûrah al-An`âm: 38]

We have sent down to you the Book explaining all things [Sûrah al-Nahl: 89]

This issue is not open for debate. Islam, as the final religion, has supremacy over all faiths and over every aspect of life. There is no place for secularism in the lands of Islam or among the Muslims.

The second reason is that throughout the history of Islam, it never experienced the troubles that were faced by Europe on account of its corrupted faith. Among the most important of these was the horrific breach that took place between religion and science. Religion fought against science so fiercely that the church burned some scientists to death The Muslim world never in its long history encountered the persecution and restriction of its scientists. There were no inquisitions like there were in Europe.

Islam never experienced the abuses of a Church that took from the people great sums of money, restricted their intellectual lives, and burned their scientists and thinkers, all in the name of religion. Quite the contrary, Muslim history is one of amicability between science and the religion whose first revelation was “Read in the name of your Lord who created.” Science is one of the fruits of proper adherence to Islam. It is a result of obeying Allah’s command to learn, teach, read, and study.” (Oadah, n.d., p-6)

Yusuf Qaradawi:
One of the foremost Islamic scholars of the current world is Yusuf Qaradawi. According to Qaradawi ”Islam is a comprehensive system of worship (`ibadah) and legislation (Shari`ah), the acceptance of secularism means abandonment of Shari`ah, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions; It is indeed a false claim that Shariah is not proper to the requirements of the present age. The acceptance of a legislation formulated by humans means a preference of the humans’ limited knowledge and experiences to the divine guidance: “Say! Do you know better than Allah?” (2:140).
For this reason, the call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shari`ah is downright riddah. The silence of the masses in the Muslim world about this deviation has been a major transgression and a clear-cut instance of disobedience which have produces a sense of guilt, remorse, and inward resentment, all of which have generated discontent, insecurity, and hatred among committed Muslims because such deviation lacks legality.” (Qaradawi, n.d. para. 2-3)

Reference:

Brown, L.C. (2000). Religion and State: The Muslim Approach to Politics. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Black, A. (2001). The History of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet to the Present. Edinburgh, UK; Edinburgh University press.

Holyoake, G.J. (1896). English Secularism: A Confession of Belief, Chicago, IL: The open court publishing company.

Keane, J. (2000). Secularism? Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers

Library of Congress, (n.d.). Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

Oadah, F. S. (n.d.). Islam and Secularism. Retrieved February 11, 2011, from
http://www.edocfind.com/download/ebook/Islam%20and%20Secularism/aHR0cDovL2ZhaGFkbWFoZGkud2Vicy5jb20vT3RoZXIlMjBCb29rcy9Jc2xhbSUyMGFuZCUyMFNlY3VsYXJpc20ucGRm

Smita, R. A. (2009). Secularism and modernity: alienation and the renewal of values in political
Islam’, Journal of Islamic Law and Culture, 11: (1), 38 — 51.

Smith. G. (n.d.) A Short History of Secularism. Retrieved February 11, 2011, from
http://www.thedivineconspiracy. org/Z5227V.pdf

The American Humanist Association (n.d.). Religio. Retrieved from http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/11Phl/WrldV/religio.htm

‘Al-Hulul al Mustawradah wa Kayfa Jaat `alaa Ummatina’, pp 113-4

Quranic argument against ”avtarvad” and ”incarnation doctrine” (by AbdULLAH Abdul Ghanee)

[ This is the work of one of our brother in Islam ‘AbdULLAH Abdul Ghanee’, this work is posted here with his complete consent. The author gives his permission to anyone to use, publish reprint his works for da’wah purpose. There is no copyright issue regarding his work and it’s absolutely free]

I seek refuge to ALLAH from the cursed shaytan (the rejected one)

In the Name of ALLAH The Most Gracious The Most Merciful

This post is about the Quranic proof against the false doctrine of avatar, incarnation etc.

[the reason why i wrote this article is that major religion like hinduism, christianity believes in the false doctrine of incarnation or avtarvad. But Quran gives the most conclusive, irrefutable and final proof against this false doctrine. here in this article i have discussed the 4 most popular incarnation figure, Isa (a.s), rama, kisna, dajjal and discussed how Quran proof that incarnation is totally wrong]

Proof 1:

I seek refuge to ALLAH from the cursed shaytan (the rejected one)

“And there is none like unto (comparable to) Him. (112:4)

ALLAH does not resemble anything of His creation, nor does anything among His creation resemble Him.

Now, although it is the most certainly true that kisna rama, dajjal and prophet of Islam Jesus (a.s) all was man and anything else than that is most certainly false (if some one tell me dajjal is dog and rama or kisna was in fact cows I won’t believe that because they had body just like man as they were just man) but even if we agree just for the sake of argument with our opponent then, kisna rama, dajjal and prophet of Islam Jesus (a.s) had a body which appear like a human (in reality it was just a human body) but if our opponent want to know the Quranic point of view then ‘it can not even appear (illusion/ incarnation) like a human body’ because :

“And there is none like unto (comparable to) Him. (112:4) ALLAH does not resemble anything of His creation, nor does anything among His creation resemble Him. Now, since these men had hand, leg, belly etc like all of us (this is confirmed by the hindu mythology Christian paintings, murtis,, sculpture, paintings etc) this resemble us human (in fact in reality it was a human.)

Proof 2:

“And there is none like unto (comparable to) Him. (112:4)

Prophet of Islam Jesus (a.s) or kisna, rama, dajjal and prophet of Islam Jesus (a.s) none of them was not the only person who is (falsely supposed) to be incarnated, you have Jesus (as) who was also thought by Christians as god incarnated, then you have Dajjal, the anti-christ, the people of future will accept dajjal as god incarnated (naujubiLLAH) and it is clearly clearly mentioned in the hadiths of RasulULLAH (saws) that those who believe in dajjal are all disbelievers. Then you have rama, and other hindu example and many other from other cultures, so kisna, rama, dajjal is not a single (false) contender, and since hindus believe in multiple incarnation, and if one incarnation is somewhat comparable to the other their total belief is ‘totally false’ according to the Quran: “And there is none like unto (comparable to) Him. (112:4) And moreover since the hindus says that these (false) incarnations are different (false) incarnation than this will also be rejected by Quran: “Say: He is Allah, the One and Only” So, no false claim what so ever can be made in human language which is not rejected by the Quran. This is really an amazing aspect of the Noble Quran.

ALLAH does not resemble anything of His creation, nor does anything among His creation resemble Him.

Proof 3:

He begets not, nor is He begotten (112: 3)

Now, Christians believe that Jesus (a.s) was born in 4 B.C. and they celebrate the birthday of Jesus (a.s) as chrismas, and hindu traditional belief based on scriptural details gives the date of Krishna’s birth, known as Janmashtami. Even the date is also given, as either 18 or 21 July 3228 BCE. So kisna was born on janmashthami. And kisna was the eighth son born to the princess Devaki, and her husband Vasudeva. And rama was the sun of king dasharath and we know that On the night of the ninth day after Amavasya,, Rama was born in the city of Ayodhya, which is the capital of the ancient kingdom of Kosala.

But as for ALLAH “He begets not, nor is He begotten (112: 3)” And ALLAH never begets but this man name kisna had beget children and his children numbered one hundred and eighty thousand (180,000). See [Ambedkar, Riddle of Rama and Krishna, (Bangalore: 1988), p.25.]. We know, Kusha and Lava are the twin sons of rama and sita. Nabi Isa (a.s) will also marry when He will come to this world for the second time and inshaALLAH he will have children then.

But ““He begets not, nor is He begotten (112: 3)”

“No son did God beget, nor is there any god along with Him, …………Glory to God! (He is free) from the (sort of) things they attribute to Him! …………too high is He for the partners they attribute to Him! (The Noble Quran, 23:91-92)”

Proof 4:

“The Initiator of the heavens and the earth. How can He have a son, when He never had a mate (wife/consort)? He created all things, and He is fully aware of all things.” (6:100-101) This man krishna married Rukmini, the princess of Vidarbha, by abducting her from her wedding on her request. According to Bhagavata Purana, Krishna married with 16,108 wives, of which eight were chief – collectively called the Ashta Bharya —including Rukmini, Satyabhama, Jambavati, Kalindi, Mitravrinda, Nagnajiti, Bhadra and Lakshana and his children numbered one hundred and eighty thousand (180,000). Then rama was also a married man and rama’s wife is shita, and Jesus (as) will also marry after he came back in this world for the second time as a follower of RasuluLLAH (saws).

But the Quran mention: ““The Initiator of the heavens and the earth. How can He have a son, when He never had a mate (wife/consort)? He created all things, and He is fully aware of all things.” (6:100-101)

Proof 5:

“”And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!””

This man kisna was the eighth son born to the princess Devaki, and her husband Vasudeva his brother Balarama and sister Subhadra. The other man Rama is the eldest brother to Bharata, son of Kaikeyi, and the twin sons of Sumitra, Lakshmana and Shatrughna. And rama’s father is king Dasarath. Nabi Jesus (a.s) was the sin of Mary (as).

The jews and Christians became disbeliever by only ascribing a son to ALLAH and look at the mischief of the hindus!

“No son did God beget, nor is there any god along with Him …………Glory to God! (He is free) from the (sort of) things they attribute to Him! …………too high is He for the partners they attribute to Him! (The Noble Quran, 23:91-92)”

Proof 6:

ALLAH said in the Quran: “”Say: Shall I take a guardian besides Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the earth, and He feeds (others) and is not (Himself) fed. Say: I am commanded to be the first who submits himself, and you should not be of the polytheists.””

And off course kisna steal the butter to eat, drink milk from the gopis etc. Off course rama, dajjal and prophet of Islam Jesus (a.s) ate as recorded in hindu and Christian books. For example: Jesus (a.s) and his last supper is part of bible and hindu books says rama even ate meat.

“Ráma his wife’s attention drew, And Lakshman’s, to the charming view: ‘Look, brother, look how fair the flood Glows with the lotus, flower and bud.’ They drank the water fresh and clear, And with their shafts they slew a deer. A fire of boughs they made in haste, And in the flame the meat they placed. So Raghu’s sons with Sítá shared The hunter’s meal their hands prepared,” (ANTO LII.: THE CROSSING OF GANGÁ. BOOK 2, ADHYODHA KANDO)

ALLAH said in the Quran: “…………….They both used to eat food (as any other human being, while Allah does not eat). Look how We make the Ayat (proofs, evidence, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) clear to them; yet look how they are deluded away (from the truth). ””

Proof 7:

”Allah. There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep………” (2:255) Human beings sleep and kisna rama, dajjal and prophet of Islam Jesus (a.s) being a man off course slept when they was alive.

Proof 8:

Those who said ‘god incarnate as a man’ they are disbeliever according to the Quran. For example in Quran it is said Christians are disbeliever and in Hadith it is said that those who will believe Dajjal ‘is incarnated god’ they will be disbeliever and go to hell. So, doesn’t matter about which person it is said whether it is Jesus (as), Dajjal, rama, krisna the Quranic verdict is the same, saying ‘god incarnate as a man’ is disbelief and blasphemy.

ALLAH said in the Quran:

“”Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely, Allah– He is the Messiah, son of Marium [a man]. Say: Who then could control anything as against Allah when He wished to destroy the Messiah son of Marium and his mother and all those on the earth? And Allah’s is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them; He creates what He pleases; and Allah has power over all things.””

ALLAH also said in the Quran:

“”Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Marium [a man]; and the Messiah said: O Children of Israel! serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust.””

Proof 9:

“Verily Allah is absolutely free of need of anything in the worlds” (Qur’an 29:6).“

Now, krisna, rama, dajjal and prophet of Islam Jesus (a.s) needed a body as per the (false) hindu/christian belief of incarnation because without a body he could not had a appearance or manifestation as krisna rama, dajjal and prophet of Islam Jesus (a.s) and could have incarnated (he didn’t, but for the sake of argument we show this logic that even if hiindus think their belief is right even then kisna rama, dajjal and prophet of Islam Jesus (a.s) is in need of things of the world). These men kisna rama, dajjal was also in need of food, wife to have children, air, water, father, mother for taking birth, cloth for hiding their private parts, adulterous lovers of kisna, chariot, bow etc for fighting, monkey, helpers for help etc.

“Verily Allah is absolutely free of need of anything in the worlds” (Qur’an 29:6). “

Proof 10:

ALLAH said in the Quran:

“Say: He is Allah, the One and Only” So, we Muslims never ever say ‘many forms’ because “Say: He is Allah, the One and Only.”

and then the christians who say that they believed in One GOD in the form of trinity (father, son and holy spirit) in three forms and ALLAH mentioned in the Quran:

“Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one Allah, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve.”

“……..so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not: “Three (trinity)!” Cease! (it is) better for you. For Allah is (the only) One Ilah (God), glory be to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is All-Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs.

Proof 11:

“No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things. “(6.103) Now, this is beyond doubt that all the hindu and Christians will say that Jesus (as), kisna, rama etc was all seen by their fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, wives, sons, daughters, friends, companions, enemies etc etc. But: ALLAH mention in the Quran: “No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things. “(6.103) In other place in the Noble Quran, the story of Musa (a.s.) has been mentioned when Musa (a.s.) said:

“O my Lord! Show me (Yourself), that I may look upon you.” [7:143], and Allah answered him with, “’You cannot see Me, but look upon the mountain if it stands still in its place, then you shall see Me.’ So when his Lord appeared to the mountain, He made it collapse to dust, and Moses fell down unconscious.” [7:143] “When he recovered his senses he said: “Glory be to You! to You I turn in repentance, and I am the first to believe.” [7:143] Now mighty Messenger of ALLAH prophet Musa (a.s.) cannot see ALLAH. And these men kisna, rama were even seen by dogs, pigs, donkeys and monkeys.

Proof 12:

The Messenger (pbuh) also described Allah, as “His veil is Light, if He unveils it, the Light of His Face will burn all what His Sight reaches (which is everything!)” [Muslim]

Also the same argument is given in the Quran: “……..’You cannot see Me, but look upon the mountain if it stands still in its place, then you shall see Me.’ So when his Lord appeared to the mountain, He made it collapse to dust, and Moses fell down unconscious.” [7:143]

Proof 13:

ALLAH mention in the Quran: “And put your trust [O Muhammad (pbuh)] in the ever living One Who dies not, and glorify His Praises, and Sufficient is He as the All-Knower of the sins of His slaves,”” ( Al-Furqan, Chapter 25, Verse 58)

“”He is the ever living,(none has the right to be worshipped but He); so invoke Him making your worship pure for Him Alone (by worshipping Him Alone, and none else, and by doing righteous deeds sincerely for Allah’s sake only, and not to show off, and not setting up rivals with Him in worship). All the praises and thanks be to Allah, the Lord of the ‘Alamin (mankind, jinn and all that exists).”” (Sura Ghafir, Chapter #40, Verse #65)

Now, Death of Jesus is believed by the Christians themselves as being crucified in the cross. (we muslims don’t believe that Jesus (as) died, but we believe He (as) will certainly die in the future) The death of Rama and his brothers was in accordance with Hindu ideas of the death of the righteous. Rama and his other brothers left Ayodhya, crossed the Sarayu, surrendered their mortal life, and entered heaven. ( source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/dutt/ramaconc.htm ) The common, orthodox depiction of Krishna’s death relates that he was shot in the foot with an arrow while under a tree. The Vishnu Purana speaks of krishna being shot in the foot with an arrow, and states that this was the cause of his death. (source:http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m16/m16004.htm). Also sarala’s Mahabharata of Orissa has other text on the same topic.

Conclusion:

In conclusion about the Christian and hindu belief of incarnation, I will quote their own books:

“God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?” [Numbers 23:19]

“He is bodiless and pure.” [Yajurveda 40:8]”” • “The Formless Supreme Spirit that pervades the universe can have no material representation, likeness or image.” — (Yajur Veda 32:3.) “That which cannot be seen by the eyes, but by which the eyes see, [Kena Upanishad] “His form is not to be seen; no one sees Him with the eye.” [Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:20] “There is no likeness of Him.” [Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:19]

Further More:
Hindus themselves don’t agree with the concept of avtar (how funny it is)
1. Pandit Sunderlal, Sri Balram Singh Parihar, Dr. Ved prakash Upadhyay, Dr. P.H. Chaube, Dr. Ramesh Prasad Garg, Pandit Durga sankar Satyarthi, Shri Kasheri Lal Bhagat agreed that Autar does not mean God takes birth on earth but Autar means one who represents God and conveys his message, or is a messenger. (Hazrat Mohammed Aur Bhartiya Dharm Granth ; By Dr. M. A. Shrivastav)

acharya Shankar Dwivedi (a chaturvedi and now a revert muslim named ahmed pundit) gave excellent answer to the avtar question. So did Abdur Raheem Bhattacharja, a batuk mahamohapddhaya of Bengali Brahmins and a revert muslim.
In early texts, such as Rig Veda, there are no references to Krishna.

• “”He is bodiless and pure.” [Yajurveda 40:8]”” now, krisna, rama had a body, hand, legs, head etc, etc, etc. • “The Formless Supreme Spirit that pervades the universe can have no material representation, likeness or image.” — (Yajur Veda 32:3.) • This guy krisna, rama surely indeed had material representation (man himself is a material representation, without material representation there cannot be any man), krisna, rama not only has image but also even has murti, idol etc. • “That which cannot be seen by the eyes, but by which the eyes see, [Kena Upanishad] now kisna, rama was not only seen with eyes he was drawn with hands in pictures too. • “His form is not to be seen; no one sees Him with the eye.” [Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:20] Again, kisna, rama was not only seen with eyes they were drawn with hands in pictures too. • “There is no likeness of Him.” [Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:19] like Every men kisna, rama also had hands, legs, face etc. etc.
There are many other hindus who regard the story of the Gita as an allegory; Swami Nikhilananda, for example, takes Arjuna as an allegory of Atman, Krishna as an allegory of Brahman, Arjuna’s chariot as the body, etc.Compare to this the chariot allegory found in the Katha Upanishad
Mahatma Gandhi in his commentary on the Gita,interpreted the battle as “an allegory in which the battlefield is the soul and Arjuna, man’s higher impulses struggling against evil.” Swami Vivekananda also said that the first discourse in the Gita related to war can be taken allegorically.Vivekananda further remarks, “this Kurukshetra War is only an allegory. When we sum up its esoteric significance, it means the war which is constantly going on within man between the tendencies of good and evil.”
In Sri Aurobindo’s view, Krishna was a historical figure, but his significance in the Gita is as a “symbol of the divine dealings with humanity”, while Arjuna typifies a “struggling human soul.”
Still further the many hindu don’t believe in any avatar. For example:

Second principle of the Arya Samaj:
………….. He is formless…… unchangeable (kisna changed his body upon his death, upon his birth)…. Unageing (kisna became a youth from a child)…….
……… Man-worship” or “God-men”(avtar) are disgusting and horrible for the faith and denounced (The Adi-Dharma doctrinal beliefs)

Monotheism’s Unknown History- (AbdULLAH Abdul Ghanee)

[ This is the work of one of our brother in Islam ‘AbdULLAH Abdul Ghanee’, this work is posted here with his complete consent. The author gives his permission to anyone to use, publish reprint his works for da’wah purpose. There is no copyright issue regarding his work and it’s absolutely free]

❁ ‘I seek Refuge to ALLAH from shaytan the cursed one’

• “And verily, We have sent among every Ummah (community, nation) a Messenger (proclaiming): “Worship Allah (Alone), and avoid (or keep away from) Taghut (all false deities, do not worship Taghut besides Allah).” Then of them were some whom Allah guided and of them were some upon whom the straying was justified. So travel through the land and see what was the end of those who denied (the truth).” (Qur’ân 16:36)

• “And for every Ummah (a community or a nation), there is a Messenger; when their Messenger comes, the matter will be judged between them with justice, and they will not be wronged.” (Qur’ân 10:47)

• “And, indeed We have sent Messengers before you [O Muhammad (pbuh)]; of some of them We have related to you their story and of some We have not related to you their story, and it was not given to any Messenger that he should bring a sign except by the Leave of Allah. So, when comes the Commandment of Allah, the matter will be decided with truth, and the followers of falsehood will then be lost.” (Qur’ân 40:78)

• “And (remember) when your Lord brought forth from the Children of Adam, from their loins, their seed and made them testify as to themselves (saying): “Am I not your Lord” They said: “Yes! We testify,” lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection: “Verily, we were unaware of this. Or lest you should say: “It was only our fathers aforetime who took others as partners in worship along with Allah, and we were (merely their) descendants after them; will You then destroy us because of the deeds of men who practiced falsehood”)” (Qur’an 7:172-173)
Monotheism is the natural instinct placed into the people by God (Quran 30:30). The message of “worship God Alone” is universal and was preached by all messengers from God. With time, the practice of religion frequently deteriorated to incorporate polytheistic elements. Yet traces of the original monotheism can be found in many, if not all the religions. The purpose of this book is to examine this very issue from authentic and established historical facts.

China:

In China the main religion are Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, State- Atheism (Chinese government is officially atheist). Generally, the percentages of people who call themselves religious in China have been the lowest in the world.

Scholars doubt the use of the term “religion” in reference to ‘Buddhism’ and ‘Taoism’, and suggest “cultural practices” or “thought systems” as more appropriate names. ‘Confucianism’ as well is an ethical and philosophical system rather than a ‘religion’.

Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism have a very ‘vague’ concept of God. On the surface it is popularly understood that these ‘religions’ (cultural practices or thought systems) have no concept of God.
China has a very long and complex history and there is a very complex mix of forces, events, historic figures, philosophies etc that has shaped the Chinese history, religion, culture, tradition, and politics and so on. The politics, state and governments of China had often influenced and at times altered and modified various religious trends, practices, forces and so on.

But consistent with the Qur’anic claim (in 16:36):
“And verily, We have sent among every Ummah (community, nation) a Messenger (proclaiming): “Worship Allah (Alone), and avoid (or keep away from) Taghut (all false deities, do not worship Taghut besides Allah).” Then of them were some whom Allah guided and of them were some upon whom the straying was justified. ………….” (Qur’ân 16:36)

One can find the undeniable traces of monotheism in ‘Chinese History and Religion’. Let us look at it now from here on.

Shangdi- “The Supreme God”

Shangdi (上帝 Shàngdì, Shang Ti) is the Supreme God in the original religious system of the Han Chinese people (traditional Chinese religion), a term used from the second millennium BC to the present day. Literally the term means “Above Emperor” or “Above Sovereign”, which is taken to mean “Lord On High”, “Highest Lord”, “the God above”, “the Supreme God”, “Above”, or “Celestial Lord”. Another title of Shangdi is simply Di (帝). Shangdi is chiefly associated with Heaven. From the earliest times of Chinese history, and especially from the Zhou Dynasty (周朝, 1122 BC to 256 BC) onwards, another name, Tian(天), is also used to refer to the Supreme God of the Chinese people (Heaven worship). Tian is a word with multiple meanings in the ancient Chinese language; it can either mean the physical sky or the presiding God of Heaven. When Tian is used in the latter sense, it has the same meaning as Shangdi. By the time of the Han dynasty, the influential Confucian scholar Zheng Xuan declared that “Shangdi is another name for Tian.” Shangdi is never represented with images or idols in Chinese tradition.

Creator of the universe

Shangdi is considered by some to be the Creator of the universe. If this is true, this would predate the later Daoist creation myth of Pangu (which dates to around 200 AD) by at least 500 years.
However, a trend of “depersonalization” of Shangdi began to appear, or at least grow, after the Warring States (戰國) period with the ascension of Daoism. Oddly, later Daoism appears to restore personality traits to Heaven around 900 AD:
The Mohist philosopher Mozi (墨子), of the Warring States, in the philosophical text ‘Mozi’, explicitly mentions Shangdi 26 times. For example, in paragraph 8, Book 7, Chapter 27 of “Will of Heaven,” Mozi writes: “I know Heaven loves men dearly not without reason. Heaven ordered the sun, the moon, and the stars to enlighten and guide them. Heaven ordained the four seasons, Spring, Autumn, Winter, and Summer, to regulate them. Heaven sent down snow, frost, rain, and dew to grow the five grains and flax and silk so that the people could use and enjoy them. Heaven established the hills and river, ravines and valleys, and arranged many things to minister to man’s good or bring him evil.”

Mozi-The Monotheist Philosopher of Confucianism:

It was ‘Mozi’ (479-438 B.C.), born about the time that Confucius died, who really developed Confucius’ own religious teachings. Mozi was plainly a monotheist. For Mozi, Heaven is the divine ruler, just as the Son of Heaven is the earthly ruler. Mozi believed that spirits exist, but their function is merely to carry out the will of Heaven, watching for evil-doers and punishing them. Thus they function as angels of Heaven and do not detract from its monotheistic government of the world. With such a high monotheism, it is not surprising that Mozi should have taught that Heaven loves all people equally and that each person should similarly love all human beings without distinguishing between his own relatives and those of others (Dubs, 1959-1960:163-172). Such teachings are the logical consequence of a universalistic monotheism. Mozi criticized the Confucians of his own time for not following the teachings of Confucius. In Mozi’s Will of Heaven (天志), he writes:

“Moreover, I know Heaven loves men dearly not without reason. Heaven ordered the sun, the moon, and the stars to enlighten and guide them. Heaven ordained the four seasons, Spring, Autumn, Winter, and Summer, to regulate them. Heaven sent down snow, frost, rain, and dew to grow the five grains and flax and silk that so the people could use and enjoy them. Heaven established the hills and rivers, ravines and valleys, and arranged many things to minister to man’s good or bring him evil. He appointed the dukes and lords to reward the virtuous and punish the wicked, and to gather metal and wood, birds and beasts, and to engage in cultivating the five grains and flax and silk to provide for the people’s food and clothing. This has been so from antiquity to the present.” (tr. Mei 1929:145)

Original Chinese: 「且吾所以知天之愛民之厚者有矣，曰以磨為日月星辰，以昭道之；制為四時春秋冬夏，以紀綱之；雷降雪霜雨露，以長遂五穀麻絲，使民得而財利之；列為山川谿谷，播賦百事，以臨司民之善否；為王公侯伯，使之賞賢而罰暴；賊金木鳥獸，從事乎五穀麻絲，以為民衣食之財。自古及今，未嘗不有此也。」
Mozi, Will of Heaven, Chapter 27, Paragraph 6, ca. 5th Century BC

‘Ma Rong’ (馬融), an East Han Dynasty (東漢朝) scholar, in one of his works claimed Shangdi (or more precisely 上帝太一神, pinyin: Shangdi Taiyishen) is the personification of “the Supreme Ultimate”, which is the Ultimate Origin and Ground of Being for all existence. (also Taiyi Shengshui). Another East Han Dynasty Confucian scholar, Zheng Xuan (鄭玄), in one of his works said: “Shangdi is the parent of all peoples.” In his annotations of the Shangshu(aka Shujing), Zheng says: “Everyone is a child of Heaven.”
Later, the Ming Dynasty (明朝) records in the Statutes of the Ming Dynasty regulations note the words spoken to Shangdi by Ming Emperor Jiajing(嘉靖) in the Temple of Heaven. The specific words are recorded in the Text of the Border Sacrifice, depicting the 1538 AD Annual Sacrifice Ritual.

Worship of Shangdi

From the earliest eras of Chinese history, Shangdi was officially worshipped through sacrificial rituals. Shangdi is believed to rule over natural and ancestral spirits, who act as His ministers. Shangdi is thought to be the Supreme Guide of both the natural order and the human order. The ruler of China in every Chinese dynasty would perform annual sacrificial rituals to Shangdi at the great Temple of Heaven in the imperial capital. During the ritual a completely healthy bull would be slaughtered and presented as an animal sacrifice to Shangdi. It is important to note that Shangdi is never represented with either images or idols. Instead, in the center building of the Temple of Heaven, in a structure called the “Imperial Vault of Heaven”, a “spirit tablet” (神位, or shénwèi) inscribed with the name of God is stored on the throne. That name is “Supreme Sovereign God of Heaven” (皇天上帝, Huangtian Shangdi). During an annual sacrifice, the emperor would carry these tablets to the north part of the Temple of Heaven, a place called the “Prayer Hall For Good Harvests”, and place them on that throne.

Attributes of Shangdi:

The many references to Shangdi assign attributes to his character, including: maleness, emotion, compassion, intellect, judgement, mastery, and greatness. A few examples follow below;

 The Shujing (書經), the earliest of Chinese narratives, represents Shangdi as a good god who punishes evil and rewards goodness. “Shangdi is not invariant [for he judges a person according to his actions]. On the good-doer He sends down blessings, and on the evil-doer He sends down miseries.
 The Shijing (詩經), the earliest of Chinese poetries, attributes speech to him in poem 241. Other significant portrayals include poems 245, 236, 300; as well as poems 192, 224, 235, 254, 255, 258, 274, 276, & 304.
 The Wujing (五經), and the official sacrificial rituals show people praying to Shangdi (i.e. Liji (禮記) 04:1:13; aka Liji Book 4, Section 1, verse 13).
These portrayals appear to predate Taoist or Buddhist interpretations by anywhere from 500 to 2000 years.

The Story of emperor Ch’eng Tang (circa 1760 B.C.):

Ch’eng Tang lived during the evil days of the last Hsia emperor. He was greatly troubled by his King’s misdeeds, but would not attempt to straighten things Out without the express command of Heaven(Tian; Tian is a word with multiple meanings in the ancient Chinese language; it can either mean the physical heaven or the presiding God of Heaven). Then a voice came to him in a dream: “Attack. I shall give you all the strength you need; for I have received for you heaven’s mandate.” Ch’eng Tang then destroyed the Hsia dynasty and Set himself up as emperor. His conscience was not fully at rest, however, and for several years Tang wondered whether he had acted rightly. Finally a severe drought came upon the land and Ch’eng Tang dressed himself as if he was about to be sacrificed calling out to God” do not destroy my people because of my sinsl” Rain is said to have fallen at that moment. Ch’eng Tang may have followed God, at least insofar as he understood Him, but his example is unique in Chinese chronicles. Passing generations gave an increasing attention to the laws of God, while forgetting His personality.
Confucius (511-479 BC) remarked that regardless of whether God exists or not, His worship is good for the people. It was in his time that the more personal title Shang Ti was abandoned for the more impersonal label Tian (Heaven).

Hinduism

Concept of ‘ONE UNSEEN GOD’ and concept of ‘Monotheism’ in Hindu Scriptures:

Hindu Scriptures: “There is no likeness of Him.” [Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:19]
* Hindu Scriptures: “His form is not to be seen; no one sees Him with the eye.” [Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:20]
* Hindu Scriptures: “That which cannot be seen by the eyes, but by which the eyes see, [Kena Upanishad]
* Hindu Scriptures: “The Formless Supreme Spirit that pervades the universe can have no material representation, likeness or image.” — (Yajur Veda 32:3.)
* Hindu Scriptures: “He is bodiless and pure.” [Yajurveda 40:8]
Hindu Scriptures: ” O friends, do not worship ANYBODY but Him, the Divine One. Praise Him ALONE.”[Rigveda 8:1:1]
* Hindu Scriptures: “He is ONE ONLY without a second.” [Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:1]
* Hindu Scriptures: “There is only ONE God, not the second; not at all, not at all, not in the least bit.”[Brahma Sutra]
* Hindu Scriptures: “God creates but nobody create God.” (Rig Veda Mandal 10 sukta 129)
* Hindu Scriptures: “Verily, great is the glory of the Divine Creator.” (Rig Veda 5:1:81)
* Hindu Scriptures: “God is verily great” (Atharva Veda 20:58:3)

CONCEPT OF SHIRK IN HINDU SCRIPTURES

Hindu Scriptures:

“Of Him there are neither parents nor lord.” [Svetasvatara Upanishad 6:9]

* Hindu Scriptures: “They are enveloped in darkness, in other words, are steeped in ignorance and sunk in the greatest depths of misery who worship the uncreated, eternal prakrti — the material cause of the world — in place of the All-pervading God, but those who worship visible things born of the prakrti, such as the earth, trees, bodies (human and the like) in place of God are enveloped in still greater darkness, in other words, they are extremely foolish, fall into an awful hell of pain and sorrow, and suffer terribly for a long time” (Yajur Veda 40:9.)

* Hindu Scriptures: “Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures.” [Bhagavad Gita 7:20]

***A number of authorities agree that the original principles of Hinduism advocate monotheism. In Hinduism, the Creator and Absolute God is called “Brahman”. Brahman is referred to as formless or “nirakara”, and beyond anything that we can conceive of and has no gender, form or features. To conclude, we quote from the Gayatri Mantra in the Yajur Veda which is perhaps the most recited prayer for the Hindus:

“Let us meditate on God, His glorious attributes,
who is the basis of everything in this universe as its Creator,
who is fit to be worshiped as Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient
and self existent conscious being,
who removes all ignorance and impurities from the mind
and purifies and sharpens the intellect.”

Our Comment:

After reading the above, it is easily understandable that even Hinduism; the largest gross polytheist religion is not only about polytheism as per the popular understanding. Rather the purity of ‘Monotheism’ is readily available in Hinduism. In line with the pure ‘Monotheist’ understanding of Hindu religious books one can find ‘religious trend’ or movement in Hinduism that uplift this ‘Monotheistic’ truth in the religious-spiritual life of many Hindus. Now, let us look more closely to these trends within greater Hinduism.

Arya Samaj

Arya Samaj (‘noble society’) is a Hindu reform movement founded by Swami Dayananda on 1875. (Dayananda was an important Hindu religious scholar, reformer and the founder of the Arya Samaj “Society of Nobles”, a Hindu reform movement, founded in 1875. He was the first man who gave the call for ‘Swaraj’- “India for Indians” in 1876. President of India S. Radhakrishnan later called him one of the “makers of Modern India” ). The establishment of several “Vedic Schools” to put a marked emphasis to impart Vedic values, culture and religion to its students was a important feature of Dayananda’s Arya Samaj movement. The most noteworthy feature of the Schools was that only those texts which accepted the authority of the Vedas were to be taught. Currently, there are approximately 3–4 million followers of Arya Samaj worldwide.

The First and Second principles of the Arya Samaj

1.The first (efficient) cause of all true knowledge and all that is known through knowledge is God, the Highest Lord (Parameshwar).

2.God (Ishwara) is existent, and blissful. He is formless, omnisicient, unborn, endless, unchangeable, beginning less, the support of all, the master of all, omnipresent, immanent, unageing, immortal, fearless, eternal, and holy, and the maker of all. He alone is worthy of being worshipped.
[taken from: the principles of arya samaj]

Adi-Dharma:

The Adi Dharma movement of the Brahmo religion is today the largest of the Brahmo developments with over 8 million adherents. The Adi Dharma was originated by the Bengali Brahmin Thakur clan of Ram Mohan Roy, Dwarkanath Tagore and Prasanna Koomar Tagore who were Rarhi Brahmins of theVandhopadyaya (Sandilya gotra) division. These famous group of individuals were the highest caste Kulin Brahmins of Bengal.

The Adi-Dharma doctrinal beliefs:-

1. There is only One “Supreme Spirit”, Author and Preserver of Existence. (… Beyond description, immanent, transcendent, eternal, formless, infinite, powerful, radiant, loving, light in the darkness, ruling principle of existence, …. Polytheism is denounced. Idolatry ie. worship of images is opposed.)

2. There is no distinction between men. (All men are equal. Distinctions like caste, race, creed, colour, gender, nationality etc. are artificial. There is no need for priests, places of worship, long sermons etc. “Man-worship” or “God-men”(avtar) are disgusting and horrible for the faith and denounced since there is no mediator between man and God).

Brahmo Samaj:

Brahmo Samaj was one of the most influential religious movements responsible for the making of modern India and began the ‘Bengal Renaissance’ of the 19th century pioneering all religious, social and educational advance of the Hindu community in the 19th century. It was conceived at Kolkata in 1830 by Dwarkanath Tagore and Ram Mohan Roy. Brahmo Samaj has separated itself from popular Hinduism in the past and is now considered as a different religion but the very fact that it has it’s origin from within the ‘top most tier of the Hindu society’ and was embraced by the well-read Hindu aristocracy of the past carries great weight in itself.
Principles of Brahmo Samaj

The following prime principles are accepted by the vast majority of Brahmos today.

• On God: There is always Infinite Singularity – immanent and transcendent Singular Author and Preserver of Existence – He who is manifest everywhere and in everything, in the fire and in the water, in the smallest plant to the mightiest oak.

• On Love: Respect all creations and beings but never venerate (worship) them for only Singularity can be adored.

Other Doctrines of Brahmo Samaj

The following doctrines, as noted in Renaissance of Hinduism, are common to all varieties and offshoots of the Brahmo Samaj:

• Brahmo Samajists have no faith in Avatars.
• Brahmo Samajists denounce polytheism and idol-worship.
• Brahmo Samajists are against caste restrictions.

Sikhism:

Sikhism is an Aryan, non-Vedic religion. Some consider it as an offshoot of Hinduism. It was founded by Guru Nanak at the end of the 15th century. Guru Nanak was born in a Kshatriya (warrior caste) Hindu family. It is a religion that has the sixth largest following and number over 26 million across the world. The fact that Sikhism is originated from within Hinduism and some consider it as an offshoot of Hinduism is a very important point to note here.

Sikhism is a monotheistic religion. In Sikhism, God—termed Vāhigurū—is shapeless, timeless, and sightless. God has no gender in Sikhism, indeed Sikhism teaches that God is “Nirankar” [Niran meaning “without” and kar meaning “form”, hence “without form”].

It is mentioned in Sri Guru Granth Sahib, volume 1 Japuji, the first verse:

“There exists but one God, who is called The True, The Creator, Free from fear and hate, Immortal, Not begotten, Self-Existent, Great and Compassionate.”
Sikhism enjoins its followers to practise strict monotheism. It believes in only One Supreme God who is, in the unmanifest form, called Ek Omkara.

In the manifest form He is called Omkara and has several attributes such as:
1.Kartar – The Creator, 2. Akal – The Eternal 3.Sattanama – The Holy Name 4.Sahib – The Lord 5.Parvardigar – The Cherisher
6. Rahim – The Merciful 7.Karim – The Benevolent.
He is also called Wahe Guru – the One true God. Besides Sikhism being strictly monotheistic, it also does not believe in Avataravada – the doctrine of incarnation. Almighty God does not incarnate Himself in what is known as Avatara. Sikhism is also strongly against idol worship.

Zoroastrianism-

Zoroastrianism is an ancient Aryan religion that originated in Persia more than 2500 years ago. Though it has relatively few adherents, less than one hundred and thirty thousand in the whole world, it is one of the oldest religions. Zoroaster was the founder of Zoroastrianism, also commonly known as Parsi-ism. It is also known as the religion of fire worshippers and Magianism.

CONCEPT OF GOD IN ZOROASTRIANISM:

“There is one universal and transcendental God, Ahura Mazda, the one uncreated Creator to whom all worship is ultimately directed.”

God in Zoroastrianism is known as ‘Ahura Mazda’. ‘Ahura’ means ‘the Lord’ or ‘The Master’ and ‘Mazda’ means ‘the Wise’; hence ‘Ahura Mazda’ means ‘the Wise Lord’ or ‘the Wise God’. Ahura Mazda stands for God, in a strictly monotheistic sense.

Qualities of God according to the Dasatir (Zoroastrianism scripture)

According to the Dasatir, Ahura Mazda has the following qualities:
• He is One.
• He is without an origin or end.
• He has no father or mother, wife or son.
• He is without a body or form.
• Nothing resembles Him.
• Neither the eye can behold Him, nor the power of thinking can conceive him.
• He is above all that you can imagine.
• He is nearer to you than your own self.

Qualities of God according to Avesta

According to the Avesta, the Gathas and the Yasna give various characteristics to Ahura Mazda such as:
Thus, in Zoroastrianism too, we find a concept of an eternal, omnipotent God. Several verses of Yasna praise the Lord as a Bountiful Creator.
Creator (Yasna 31:7 & 11, Yasna 44:7, Yasna 50:11)

Most Mighty – the Greatest, (Yasna 33:11, Yasna 45:6)
Beneficent (Yasna 33:11, Yasna 48:3)
Bountiful- (Yasna 43:4,5,7,9,11,13,15, Yasna 44:2, Yasna 45:5, Yasna 46:9)

Ahura Mazda as the uncreated God wholly wise, benevolent and good, as well as the creator and Ahura Mazda was the sole uncreated creator of the universe. Source of all goodness was the only Ahura worthy of the highest worship. hura Mazda is described as the highest deity of worship, along with being the first and most frequently invoked deity in the Yasna (act of worship)
Comments: like every other ancient religion Zoroastrianism has the unquestionable trace of monotheism but still it mix some impurity of polytheism with the purity of Monotheism, For example, the evil (shaytan) known as druj in Zoroastrianism is perceived in Zoroastrianism as a ‘uncreated being’, source of all evil/ wrong/ sin. Druj is also perceived as being in a struggle against Ahura Mazda in which it is believed that Ahura Mazda will eventually win. This type of belief certainly corrupt the monotheistic purity of Zoroastrianism.

UnKnown Tribes & Nations

Monotheism in unknown tribes and nations:

The material below is an attempt to show that how different tribes in different parts of the world had Monotheism, i.e., worship of one true God. These smaller tribes and nations may not be well-known and their history may not be like that of many advanced civilizations but the traces of ‘Monotheism’ among these primitive people blow a serious injury to the concept that- only highly developed civilization had the intellectual maturity to arrive at the logical ‘Monotheism’ from polytheism as a process of evolution from their primitive polytheistic religion.

1) The Kapauku Papuans Of West Guinea

The material is taken from a book called “The Kapauku Papuans Of West Guinea” by Leopold Pospisil. It is a case study of Stone-Age Kapauku tribe who led their aboriginal lives undisturbed by the spreading western civilization until 1938. The Kapauku Papuans are mountain people who belong to one of the several tribes whose members inhabit the central highlands of western New Guinea. Their country, most of which lies 1500 m above sea level, is composed of rugged mountain chains and deep valleys.
The Kapauku have an interesting world view. If we have to compare their religion versus Islam, the difference is very little. Regarding the Creator of the universe, the Kapauku believe:
The universe itself and all existence was Ebijata, “designed byUgatame”, the Creator, Ugatame has a dual nature: He is supposed to be masculine and feminine at the same time, is referred to as the two entities, and is manifested to the people by the duality of the sun and the moon. To my enquiry whether Ugatame was the sun and the moon I received the answer a firm denial. The sun is conceived as the ball of fire, because it provides light and is warm; moon is believed to be a cold light like that of a firefly or the bacteria that infest rotting wood. Sun and moon are only manifestations of Ugatame who thus makes his presence known to the people. they definitely are not Creator himself.

On the nature of Ugatame, the Creator:

Ugatame is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, credited with the creation of all things and with having determined all events. Strangely enough, however, he is not believed to exist himself. When I questioned this contention, a Kapauku defended skillfully by a question: “But how can he exist when he created all the existence?” Obviously Ugatame is beyond existence, because to Kapauku all that exists must be of phenomenonal nature; one must be able to see, hear, smell, taste or feel it. But the Creator is beyond this phenomenal dimension, because of the simple reason that He created it. Because He is so to speak, in the fifth dimension and is not of phenomenal nature, He is able to be omnipresent.”
How about good and evil?

From this position the Kapauku “logicians” reason further that evil as well as good have been equally created and determined by Ugatame. Consequently, he can be neither good, nor bad, but he must be indifferent…. In the world created by Ugatame everything is real to the Kapauku. Even the evil spirits that belong to the creation of Ugatame are necessarily phenomenal and not supernatural.
On the aspect of free will, Kapauku think:

As a further extrapolations from above premises the Kapauku argue that because everything has been determined by Ugatame there cannot be anything like a free will in man, and consequently there is no sin. After all, Creator created good as well as evil, so why should he punish a man for executing his own will?
An interesting argument between a Kapauku and a Christian Missionary:

“… a Kapauku is basically logical; he refuses to accept dogmas that either oppose clear empirical evidence or that contradict his commonsense or logic. On this subject an incident in the year 1955 was illuminating to me. A very old man from the mapia region, supported by his two sons, managed to come to see me in the Kamu valley. As he explained to me, his main purpose in coming was a problem he wanted to have clarified before he died. The problem concerned the white man. He could not understand how it is possible that the white man could be so clever and ingenious in designing such amazing contrivances as aeroplanes (which the old man could see flying over his valley), guns, medicines, clothes, and steel tools, and at the same time could be so primitive and illogical in his religion. “How can you think,” he argued, “that a man can sin and can have a free will, and at the same time believe that your God is omnipotent, that He created the world and determined all the happenings? If He determined all that happens, and (therefore) also the bad deeds, how can a man be held responsible? Why, if he is omnipotent, did the Creator have to change himself into a man to allow himself to be killed (crucified) when it would have been enough for him just to order men to behave?” The notion that anything can be absolutely bad or good was quite incomprehensible to him. Furthermore, the Christian notion of man resembling God in appearance appeared to him as utterly primitive (tabe-tabe, meaning stupid).

It is quite surprising that a tribe from stone age could argue so rationally and logically with a Christian Missionary on the aspect of God. We Muslims also use the same arguments when it comes to the concept of God. And of course, when the Kapauku heard that the God became man they called the concept “primitive” and “tabe-tabe” (stupid). Well, “polemics” against Christianity started in the Stone Age itself, Muslims are not to be blamed for that!!!

Lastly, now where is this Ugatame, their supreme god, residing? Waiting for the shock:
In the view of Kamu Kapauku the world is a flat block of stone and soil that is surrounded with water and extends indefinitely into the depth thus providing no room for an underworld. Above the earth is a solid bowl of blue sky that limits the known world at the horizon. During the day the sun travels from east to west on the inside of the inverted bowl of sky and thus provides light. In the evening it slips under the edge of the bowl and travels above it from west to east. Because the bowl of the sky is solid, it shields the earth from sun’s rays, thus bringing night. an empirical support for this theory according to my informants, is provided by the stars. They are thought to be perforations in the solid sky, through which the rays of the returning sun penetrate at night. In the morning the sun emerges in the east under the canopy of the sky, thus making a new day. Beyond the solid bowl of sky exists another world that may be similar to ours, the abode of Ugatame, the Creator.”

2) The Religion Of Dinka Of Africa

The people of Dinka live in a land which lies in a vast arc around the swamps of central Nile basin in the Southern Sudan. It is a flat country of open savannah and savannah forest, intersected by many rivers and streams converging upon the central basin of the Nile. About the nature of the Dinka’s religious philosophy:

The word which any enquirer into Dinka religion will first and most frequently hear is nhialic. Literally, the word is the locative form of nhial, meaning ‘up’ or ‘above’, and nhialic is the word used in many contexts in which we shoud speak of ‘the sky’. Part of the meaning of nhialic, then, is conveyed by the ‘sky’ and ‘in the above’.
But further, nhialic is addressed and referred to as ‘creator’ (aciek) and ‘my father’ (wa), and prayers and sacrifice are offered to him.
Regarding the attributes of nhialic:
It would be easy, it is true, to translate nhialic aciek and nhialic wa as ‘God the creator’ and ‘God (my) father’, for the attributes of nhialic and ‘God’ there closely coincide, as do many others – unity, power, justice, ‘highness’, for example.
In Dinka there are important interconnections between notions of creation and of fatherhood, through the verb ‘to create’ is never interchangeable with the verb ‘to beget’. Divinity (i.e., nhialic) created (cak) men in the beginning, and the men he created begot or bore (dhieth) children. Divinity did not ‘beget’ or ‘bear’ men, and it would be a linguistic mistake in Dinka either to use this express for the creation of men by Divinity, or to say that father and mother ‘created’ their child. Dhieth means both ‘to beget’ and ‘to give birth to’, so that verbally the activities of men and women in procreation are not distinguished from each other. When a man was asked to explain what happened in coitus, he described the physical act, and added ‘And that is called begetting (dhieth), and Divinity will then slowly create (cak) the child in woman’s belly.’
And, of course, it goes without saying that when the woman is barren, it means that the Divinity has ‘refused’ her a child.
Other attributes of Divinity are the Absolute Truth and the Judge.
Divinity is specially needed to intervene in human affairs, to put them straight by making the truth appear. Wet nhialic, the ‘word’ of Divinity, is the truth, or what really and absolutely is so; and the Dinka think that in certain circumstances men may speak this totally objective ‘word’, representing to others the true nature of things, whether of present, past, of future situations. Cit nhialic, ‘like Divinity’ or ‘as Divinity’, is one of the common expressions men used to guarantee the truth of what they say, and ‘Divinity will see’ is what any Dinka will say if he suspects another of lying or cheating him and can take no further action of his own in the matter. In some of the invocations reproduced later it will be seen that Divinity is made the final judge or right or wrong, even when men feel sure that they are right. Divinity is thus the guardian of truth – and sometimes signifies to men what really is the case, behind or beyond their errors and falsehoods.

The author went on to say:

The Dinka have no problem with the prospering sinner, for they are sure that Divinity will ultimately bring justice. Since among them every man at some time must meet with suffering and misfortune, death or disease among his family or his cattle, there is always evidence, for those who wish to refer to it, of divine justice. It is a serious matter when a man calls on Divinity to judge between him and another, so seriously that only a fool would take the risks involved if he knew he was in the wrong, and to call upon Divinity as witness gives the man who does so an initial presumption of being in the right.

Divinity is also considered as the supreme being.

Nhialic, Divinity, has no plural; it is both singular and plural in intention.
Some interesting thoughts of Dinka about the Divinity:
Divinity is ‘in the above’, and what rises into the sky thus approaches Divinity. I have been asked whether an aeroplane ever touches the sky, and if Divinity can be seen from it. This is a clear indication that the Dinka can regard Divinity as distinct from the ‘physical’ sky, for the sky itself can obviously be seen from the earth. The way in which terrestrail being may approach Divinity is by going high, by levitation, or sometimes by building a mound or ‘pyramid’. There are many reports of the rising of holy men into the sky, and sometimes by those who claim that special relations have been established between divinity and themselves. Conversely, Divinity makes contact with the earth by letting something fall, or by hurling something down. Such contacts are made in rain, lightning, comets and meteorites, and also in which fall and possess men. All these are manifestations of Divinity.
How about the beginning of relationship of Dinka and Divinity?
Logically, and for the Dinka historically, their relations with Divinity begin with a story of the supposed conjunction, and then division, of the earth and the sky – the emergence of their world as it is.
Dinka, to our surprise, have their own ‘version’ of Adam and Eve story, i.e., the first human beings on the earth.
One of the myths of the separation of earth and sky already given shows that the Dinka also have the idea that Divinity originally created a pair, Garang and Abuk, from whom all men are descended.
The first human beings, usually called Garang and Abuk, living on earth had to take care when they were doing their little planting or pounding, lest a hoe or a pestle should strike Divinity, but one day the woman ‘because she was greedy’ (in this context any Dinka would view her ‘greed’ indulgently) decided to plant (or pound) more than the permitted grain of millet. In order to do so she took one of the long-handled hoes (or pestles) which the Dinka now use. In raising this pole to pound or cultivate, she struck Divinity who withdrew, offended, to present great distance from the earth, and sent a small blue bird (the colour of the sky) called atoc to sever the rope which had previously given the men access to the sky and to him. Since that time the country has been ‘spoilt’, for men have to labour for the food they need, and are often hungry. They can no longer as before freely reach Divinity, and they suffer sickness and death, which thus accompany their abrupt separation from Divinity.

There are, of course, other ‘versions’ of the same story as described above.
From what we have seen above, it is clear that Monotheism existed among the tribes. And when Muslims encounter the Monotheism, we say, subhânallah, this is what Allah mentions in the Qur’ân. We have to look for His Signs as Allah says:

“Soon will We show them our Signs in the (furthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?” (Qur’ân 41:53)

3) Karen people of Burma

Don Richardson (A researcher and Christian apologist who have done a considerable amount of research on this topic) say:

” about 90% of the world’s folk religions are permeated with monotheistic presuppositions.”
Don Richardson elaborates with tribe after tribe, even showing that there were hymns with theology that was clearly consistent with the fact of one true God. Here is one selection, from the Karen people of Burma:

“Y’wa is eternal, his life is long.
One aeon – he dies not!
Two aeons – he dies not!
He is perfect in meritorious attributes.
Aeons follow aeons – he dies not!”
Such people actually refer to Him as Creator. Another hymn extolled Y’wa as Creator:
“Who created the world in the beginning?
Y’wa created the world in the beginning!
Y’wa appointed everything.
Y’wa is unsearchable!”

Still another hymn conveyed deep appreciation for Y’wa’s omnipotence and omniscience, combined with acknowledgment of a lack of relationship with Him:

“The omnipotent is Y’wa; him have we not believed.
Y’wa created men anciently;
He has a perfect knowledge of all things!
Y’wa created men at the beginning;
He knows all things to the present time!
O my children and grandchildren!
The earth is the treading place of the feet of Y’wa.
And heaven is the place where he sits.
He sees all things, and we are manifest to him.”
The Karen story of man’s falling away from God contains stunning parallels to and the Quran:
“Y’wa formed the world originally.
He appointed food and drink.
He appointed the “fruit of trial.”
He gave detailed order.
Mu-kaw-lee deceived two persons.
He caused them to eat the fruit of the tree of trial.
They obeyed not; they believed not Y’wa …
When they ate the fruit of trial,
They became subject to sickness, aging, and death …”
These Karen people had obstinately adhered to their own folk religion despite high pressured attempts by the Burmese to convert them to Buddhism!

4) On the Kalahari Desert, in the Ituri forest

Don Richardson in his book “Eternity In Their Hearts” (1981) reaches a similar conclusion. He writes:
“Back on the Kalahari Desert, in the Ituri forest, and innumerable other locations, however; the young anthropologists were getting down to a deeper level of questioning. They would ask the animists:
“By the way, who made the world?” and were startled to hear them respond, often with a happy smile, by naming a single Being who lived in the sky.
“Is he good or bad?” was a usual second question.
“Good, of course”, was the invariable reply.
“Show me the idol you use to represent him”, the researcher might ask.
“What idol? Don’t you know that he must never be represented by an idol?”
Evidence in Dispersed (Primitive) Religious Communities
Wilhelm Schmidt’s original German work was translated into English and published in 1930 as a single volume titled, “The Origin and Growth of Religion: Facts and Theories”. In his work, Schmidt observes that many of the most “primitive cultures” (i.e. hunters, food gatherers and storers, and pastoral nomads maintaining flocks) have a simple faith in a Supreme Being who has neither wife nor family. Under Him and created by Him are the primal pair from which the tribe is descended. According to Schmidt we find this form of belief among the Pygmies of Central Africa, the South-east Australians, the inhabitants of North central California, the primitive Algonkins – and to a certain extent the Koryaka and Aimu.

An Scholarly Viewpoint

Monotheism Preceded Polytheism

Other people were also originally monotheists, knowing of only one true God. The late Dr. Arthur C. Custance wrote a series called The Doorway Papers (Brockville, Ontario, Canada). In Paper 34 he gives evidence to show that this was the case with many such people, contrary to the views of many scholars. At first scholars examining the records of ancient peoples:

“… found themselves dealing with a tremendous number of gods and goddesses and other spiritual powers of a lesser sort which seemed to be always at war with one another and, much of the time, highly destructive. … As earlier and earlier tablets, however, began to be excavated and brought to light, and skill in deciphering them increased, the first picture of gross polytheism began to be replaced by something more nearly approaching a hierarchy of spiritual beings organized into a kind of court with one Supreme Being over all.” (p. 3)

Stephen Langdon’s “Semitic Mythology” in 1931 also propounded the view that monotheism preceded polytheism (contrary to then popular / established belief). He made his point very clearly:

“In my opinion the history of the oldest civilization of man is a rapid decline from monotheism to extreme polytheism and widespread belief in evil spirits. It is in a very true sense the history of the fall of man.”
In an article written in 1936 he further states:

“The history of Sumerian religion, which was the most powerful cultural influence in the ancient world, could be traced by means of photographic inscriptions almost to the earliest religious concepts of man. The evidence points unmistakably to an original monotheism, the inscriptions and literary remains of the oldest Semitic peoples also indicate a primitive monotheism, and the totemistic origin of Hebrew and other Semitic religions is now entirely discredited.”

Max Muller, a German scholar wrote in “Lectures on the Science of Language” published in 1875:

“Mythology, which was the bane of the ancient world, is in truth a disease of language. A myth means a word, but a word which, from being a name or an attribute, has been allowed to assume a more substantial existence. Most of the Greek, the Roman, the Indian, and other heathen gods are nothing but poetical names, which were gradually allowed to assume divine personality never contemplated by their original inventors. … Eos was the name of dawn before she became a goddess, the wife of Tithonos, or the dying day. Fatum, or Fate, meant originally what had been spoken; and before Fate became a power, even greater than Jupiter, it meant that which had once been spoken by Jupiter, and could never be changed – not even by Jupiter himself. … Zeus originally meant the bright heaven, in Sanskrit Dyaus; and many of the stories told of him as the supreme god, had a meaning only as told originally of the bright heaven, the Danae of old, kept by her father in the dark prison of winter. …”

In another book, “History of Sanskrit Literature”, Max Mueller wrote:

“There is a monotheism that precedes the polytheism of the Veda; and even in the invocation of the innumerable gods the remembrance of a God, one and infinite, breaks through the mist of idolatrous phraseology like the blue sky that is hidden by passing clouds.”

Other Scholarly Opinions:

The famous Egyptologist, Sir Wallis Budge, in his best-known text, ‘The Book of the Dead’ has stated,
“After reading the extracts it is impossible not to conclude that the ideas of the ancient Egyptians about God were of a very exalted character …….. Here then we have Only One God who was self-created, self-existent and almighty, who created the universe.”

Other scholars have endorsed the arguments of Sir Wallis Budge, and he himself quotes others. One example is:
“As a result of their studies of Egyptian texts, many of the earlier Egyptologists, e.g. Champollion- Figeac, de Rouge, Pierret and Brugsch, came to the conclusion that the dwellers in the Nile Valley, from the earliest times, believed in the existence of one God, nameless, incomprehensible, and eternal.” (p.105)

Sir Flinders Petrie, the famous Egyptologist, had the same belief. In The Religion of Ancient Egypt, published by Constable, London, 1908, he wrote:

“Were the conception of a god only an evolution from such spirit worship, we should find the worship of many gods preceding the worship of one god … What we actually find is the contrary of this, monotheism is the first stage traceable in theology … Wherever we can trace polytheism back to its earliest stages, we find that it results from combinations of monotheism. … Each city appears to have had but one god belonging to it, to which others were in time added. Similarly, Babylonian cities each had their supreme god, and the combinations of these and their transformations in order to form them into groups when their homes were politically united, show how essentially they were solitary deities at first.”

References

1. Creel, Herrlee G., The Origins of Statecraft in China. ISBN 0-226-12043-0
2. Ethel R. Nelson, Richard E. Broadberry, Ginger Tong Chock. God’s Promise to the Chinese, p. 2.ISBN 0-937869-01-5
3. 惟上帝不常，作善降之百祥，作不善降之百殃。Shujing ch. 13, the Instructions of Yi.
4. Leopold Pospisil, The Kapauku Papuans Of West Guinea, 1978, Holt, Rinehart & Winston
5. Godfrey Lienhardt, Divinity And Experience: The Religion Of The Dinka, 1978 (Reprint Of 1961 Edition), Oxford At The Clarendon Press
6. Arthur C. Custance, The Doorway Papers (Brockville, Ontario, Canada)
7. Stephen Langdon, Semitic Mythology, 1931
8. Max Mueller, History of Sanskrit Literature
9. Wilhelm Schmidt, The Origin and Growth of Religion: Facts and Theories

Media and the Psychological Warfare- by Ryan Faruk

Media and the Psychological Warfare: Ryan Faruk
“The U.S doesn’t need to send its army anymore, it has sent the television instead”, quoted one intellectual during his lecture on the Anti-Christ and the New World Order. Interestingly, people’s lives are centered on the house these days. It’s easy to see them going for a drive along the driveway but seldom do they speak to their neighbors or to members of the community. Communal involvement has decreased dramatically. In 1974 nearly one in four Americans visited a neighbor several times a week. By 1994 that figure had declined to 16 percent. There was a shocking increase in the number of people who had never spent an evening with a neighbor—a 41 percent increase since the same question was asked twenty years earlier. Our world views are changing because strange behavioral changes are taking place, and all this, in the matter of just a century. We live in a globalized world. Barriers of culture, ethnicity, and taste are evaporating and becoming one and the same. Why did this happen in the first place? Globalization has provided us with a vast amount of information; but life has become more uncertain than ever. Human nature has certain flaws. One such flaw is in the understanding of cause and effect. People would generally look at the effect and mistaken it as the cause. That is why logic was taught to redress those flaws. The problems we face as human species have remained the same though. The cause seems to have shifted. For example, The Sexual Revolution (a term inconceivable by early men) of the sixties had a profound impact on our globe. Rates of sexually transmitted diseases have soared up. Homosexuals are claiming for the legality of their sexuality. We just had two World Wars in which sixty million people have been killed. A hundred and eighty million people have been abolished in the war of ideologies. Murders in the form of abortion have plummeted. Pornography is rampant and rate of rapes have gone high. Political turmoil is ever increasing. As democratic individualism grows, the notion of ‘I hold my own destiny’ seems to soar. That’s not poetry. That is a fact! George Gallup wrote, “Americans are among the loneliest people in the world” (The reason for quoting American statistics is due the rate of its emulation and its frequent referring by other nations). Isolationism is the result of individualism. It has increasingly evolved into immorality and family breakdowns. Bangladesh seems to be a large importer of such untested ideologies. It was estimated that six out of ten children born in the 1990s in the U.S will live in single-parent households by the time they’re eighteen years old.
TV shows like ’30 seconds to fame’ and the ‘X files’ have led people far astray from the reality of life. Advertisements are nothing but manifestations of monstrous lies. Shampoos haven’t been able to make our hair glitter nor have toothpastes been able to get that extra attention that some thrive for all the time. The whole philosophy of a ‘purpose behind everything’ seems to be getting distorted. Take the example of a duster. If it is incapable to act as an eraser the whole rationale behind it being a duster gets misplaced. Similarly, clothes are there for a purpose- to hide our shame. If it is drawn over to reveal, the whole purpose behind it being a medium of modesty and honor gets lost. George Orwell said, “The public are swine; advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill-bucket”. The television seems to have reversed the purpose of commodities. Medium has become the goal! Take the cloth example mentioned earlier.
The 30 inch black box inside our houses is bombarding nothing but mass consumerism. It’s interesting to note that the word ‘consumer’ in old English literally meant the devil- the one who consumes the soul. Why this mass consumerism? Human wants are unlimited. Why do we keep on wanting more when we know that there’s no upper limit to it and we won’t be able to reach that limits of satisfaction? Archbishop Fulton Sheen said, “Advertising tries to stimulate our sensuous desires, converting luxuries into necessities, but it only intensifies man’s inner misery. The business world is bent on creating hungers which its wares never satisfy, and thus it adds to the frustrations and broken minds of our times.”How did so many transformations take place simultaneously? This is a question that is of supreme importance. More and more billboards keep showing up with more and more of the youth and less and less of the older generation! At the same time the hoax of ‘we must abolish old age homes’ seem to be rampant! If someone says all this happened by chance, then he should go and buy a house in Disneyland! It’s a world culture that worships the youth. The world is in a state of war with the humans, but we are heedless and our eyes are shut. Why? The answer lies in a human flaw that needs to be re-dressed- overlooking on things that look simple and safe!
The word television is derived from mixed Latin and Greek roots, meaning “far sight”: Greek tele, far, and Latin visio, sight (from video, which means – to see, or to view in the first person). It was commercially available since the late 1920’s but its invention dates back to the late 18th century in Germany. Around the globe, broadcast television is financed by government, advertising, licensing (a form of tax), subscription or any combination of these. Studies have shown that watching television has adverse effects on the behavior of human beings, especially children. TV is so popular, in fact, that the average American watches four hours of it each day. This is nearly the highest viewership in the world. The average U.S. household has at least one TV set turned on for about seven hours a day. The average school-aged child spends twenty-seven hours per week watching TV (some preschoolers watch much more). Television absorbed almost 40 percent of the average American’s free time in 1997, an increase of roughly one-third since 1965. Over the course of a year, children spend more time watching TV than they spend in school or participating in any other activity, except sleep. People still have about the same amount of leisure time as they did during the World War II period. The key factor, rather, is what people are doing with their leisure time. Between 1965 and 1995 Americans gained an average of six hours a week in leisure time, and yet, almost all six of those additional hours were spent watching TV! Harvard professor, Robert Putman, in his book, Bowling Alone, describes the downward spiral of social relationship in North American culture from the end of World War II to the present. The TV is molding who we are. It is isolating us from the reality of communal life.
What is the solution for violence in Bangladesh? As more women start to join the labor force the amount of time children get to see their mothers gradually decreases. Children, have a dual nature. On one hand they are cute and cuddly. On the other hand they are smelly! Nobody likes them. Men tend to see children as a bunch of young people running around in the house! Mothers are more in contact with their kids due to their gracious nature. They can develop a strange bond of cooperation with their young. The notion of a nuclear family has even made this impossible. Instead, she gives the little child something that will listen to its cries. It’s the television set that acts as the Pied Piper of Hamlin. The history of the myth The Pied Piper of Hamelin dates back to 26 June 1284. The poem first existed as a German myth in the town of Hamelin where the piper spirits away the children of Hamelin who are never seen again. It’s very interesting again to note that in Greek mythology the piper by the name of Pan stands for the devil and the word Pied is synonymous of the word for multicolored! The multicolored devil! More interestingly, several studies have shown that children like to see round faces. They abhor the squared ones. Very good examples are cartoon characters like Tom and Jerry. Its historical significance is interesting. The Jews used to be called ‘dirty mice’ during the Holocaust. In order to shift this negative image the character of Jerry was developed. No wonder the cat gets whacked throughout the show and the mouse never gets caught. Could that be real? Frequently in cartoons Arabs are shown as thieves, terrorists with long, square and brutal faces. It’s an image that politicians have successfully been able to bombard for the future attacks in the Middle East. Messages that these cartoons and the characters propel are seriously negative in terms of morality. In Stranger in our Homes, Dr. Susan R. Johnson writes about the harmful effects televisions have on the emotional and mental development of children. Dr. Susan who is a pediatrician, states that viewing television alters the development of the brain and stimulates behavioral change. Take the character of Aladdin for example. Aladdin is a thief who falls in love with Jasmine, the daughter of the King of Agrabad. The rational father would not let his daughter marry Aladdin. So there is no other way for the two, deeply in love and wanting to get married to other than break the age old traditions! ‘’Break the traditions’’, that is the message. Take another example- The Simpsons. The director of this longest running serial is a self proclaimed anarchist, whose motto in life was to break all sorts of authority. The family was conceived by Matt Groening with the producer James L. Brooks. Groening created a dysfunctional family and named the characters after members of his own family, substituting Bart for his own name. Bart, who is the son of Homer, persistently misbehaves with his father. A leading Islamic scholar and thinker Sheikh Hamza Yusuf Hanson states that children who watched this serial behaved very aggressively with their parents.
During the 60’s, national violence commissions and an overwhelming number of scientific studies have continually come to one conclusion: televised and filmed violence can powerfully teach, suggest- even legitimize- extreme antisocial behavior, and can in some viewers trigger specific aggressive or violent behavior. The researches of many behavioral scientists have shown that a definitive cause and effect relationship exists between violence on TV and violent behavior in real life. Data complied between the 60’s and 70’s show that the television moguls’ did not keep up with their promise of reducing the amount of violence. Instead, Congressman John Murphy of the New York found NBC topping the list with 71% of its prime time shows being loaded with violent material followed by ABC with 67% and CBS 57%! If one looks at crime statistics, we find that America is by far one of the most violent of all Western nations. The homicide rate in the 70’s was ten times higher than that of Scandinavian countries, or four times greater than Scotland or Australia’s! There were more murders in the island of Manhattan and Philadelphia than in the whole of the United Kingdom. Violent crime since then has been increasing at a rate of six to ten times the rate of population growth in this country. The rate of violent content was found to be almost half in the UK and lesser in the Scandinavian countries as compared to the U.S. One of the major socio-cultural differences in the statistics was the amount of violence screened on public television. According to the Nielsen Television Index, preschoolers watched an average of 54 hours of television every week. No wonder why kids have more knowledge about unnecessary things like different brand names with little or no knowledge of relevant material like biology whatsoever. They would generally know the names of Standard Chartered, J.P Morgan Chase, Ralph Lauren rather than knowing how to survive if there were food shortages in the future! They learn to order more but care less about self-sufficiency methods. A 1991 study showed that there was an average of 200 junk food ads in four hours of children’s Saturday morning cartoons.
Stanford Psychologist Albert Bandura has shown that exposure to a novel aggressive behavior on a one-time basis can be repeated in free play by as high as 88% of the young children seeing it on TV. Other studies have shown that violence watched by children at age 9 influenced the degree to which they were aggressive 10 years later, at age 19! This is because the brain releases a certain chemical epinephrine that makes certain information literally impossible to erase. This is a serious problem. People who don’t watch TV can still become targets. Many a time villains are portrayed as heroes. In the eyes of many young viewers, these criminals possess all that’s worth living in life- fast cars, beautiful admiring women, super potent guns, modish clothes. In the end, they die like heroes, almost as martyrs. People love and cherish these negative and dreamlike characters. This is because ‘human beings imitate’, mentioned an ancient Muslim scholar Ibn-Al Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah in his book Uloom-Al-Muqiyeen. Recent research has confirmed the statement. Watching TV only for a few hours, and according to some studies even for a few minutes, can and often does instigate aggressive behavior that wouldn’t otherwise occur! Psychiatrist Frederic Wertham says that children are impressionable therefore susceptible. Constructive scenes give constructive and destructive scenes give destructive ideas. Dr. Victor B. Cline’s research has shown that violence to some extent make children de-sensitized to or emotionally blunt to it. More and more people seem to live in a state of hypnosis. Instead of good outdoor activities, some watch TV for straight four hours! In Bangladesh, lifestyles patterns seem to change. In the name of development came more rapes, eve-teasing, female dishonoring via half naked photos on billboards and more family breakdowns. All this is happening, but who’s responsible for it? Where is the army that’s waging this war?
After the Korean War the U.S soldiers complained of the fact that they have been unusually tortured. One of the methods they said was repetition. The practice has been singled out since then and has been used comprehensively as one of the most effective tools by the main stream media for mass indoctrination. Professor Noam Chomsky of the Michigan Institute of Technology in the documentary ‘Manufacturing Consent’ states that indoctrination has been pretty much consistent with democratic societies. One of the major tools being used is the media. History of political science agrees with this notion. When a group of politicians rounded themselves up with psychologists they successfully built up the theory of behavioral politics, which deals with how humans behave in the political arena. Politics deals with the distribution of power and when power rests on the foundations that are essentially corrupt, it is used to corrupt and to oppress. Where force cannot be used in democratic societies, minds need to be controlled. The evolution of behavioral politics has greatly contributed in physical and mental isolation of the masses. The isolation of power in the hands of few has successfully managed to keep the masses out of the political scenario. The hidden agendas and the tyrannical foreign policies remain out of our reach. The fundamental question of why politicians do what they do still remains an unsolved mystery for many.
What is this TV all about? If one watches closely, it is an upshot of a pretty well-thought-out plan. Before dealing with the subject one needs to get over some of the pre-requisites. Let’s deal with a bit of physics. When two pendulums move backward and forward together, the one that swings with a lower speed eventually tends to fix its motion with the one that swings faster. This is a follow up of a principle in physics known as entrainment. Later on it was found that the faster independent pendulum releases oscillating waves which dominated the weaker one’s motion. Our brain also has what are called brain-waves. The television set contains a cathode ray gun which fires when the TV is on. The rays alter the brain waves and causes entrainment. Thus, the viewer is caught in what can be called as a hypno-gogic state. It’s a state of temporary hypnosis. And in a state of hypnosis, people are open to suggestions! A sudden movement of the palms in front of the viewers’ eyes alters those waves and there is a quick return to the normal state. Hence one will find people caught up with the TV so much that they don’t have time moving their heads or eyes towards something more important. People cry even when they know that the hero would win and the villain will eventually be defeated! The amount of obscenity that some of the programmes exhibit shape up the way in which many people think. Music and soft porn in the form of movies have dreadful effects on human activities. Music has been characterized by Aristotle as one in the seven necessary elements of tragedy. He defines tragedy as “the imitation of an action that is serious and also as having magnitude, complete in itself.” He continues, “Tragedy is a form of drama exciting the emotions of pity and fear. Its action should be single and complete, presenting a reversal of fortune, involving persons renowned and of superior attainments, and it should be written in poetry overstated with every kind of imaginative expression.” In order for the tragic hero to arouse these feelings in the audience, he cannot be either all good or all evil but must be someone the audience can identify with; however, if he is superior in some way(s), the tragic pleasure is intensified. His disastrous end results from a mistaken action, which in turn arises from a tragic flaw or from a tragic error in judgment. Often the tragic flaw is hubris, an excessive pride that causes the hero to ignore a divine warning or to break a moral law. It has been suggested that because the tragic hero’s suffering is greater than his offense, the audience feels pity; because the audience members perceive that they could behave similarly, they feel pity. People get caught up with this and start taking unreal things as if they are a part of reality. This is known as the suspended state. Moreover the viewing of television also causes the left side of the brain which is responsible for logic and critical thinking to temporarily stop. The right part of the brain which stays active during television viewing is responsible for emotional activity.
Hollywood and Bollywood seem to have swept nations with their evil theory of world view. “You only go around once in life, so get all the gusto you can get”, is the message of this age. Other TV commercials have similar messages like: Deep down you want Hoover (Hoover Vacuum), Never let ‘em see you sweat (Gillette Dry Idea), Because I’m worth it! (L’Oreal), The closer you get…..The better you look (Nice ‘N Easy Shampoo), The essence of man (Brut Cologne & Aftershave; it has been proven from studies that beard growth is actually natural and healthier for males!). Studies have shown that the quality of life of the people who have left watching TV have greatly enhanced. Before getting anything in the house for the kids, the elders must know how to use them.
Real knowledge comes through reading. Reading slows down the mind and strengthens it. Reading stimulates the imagination in a way that television cannot. It bridges the gap between passive viewing and participating in what one is reading about. Reading takes more mental effort than watching TV or a movie, without overwhelming the mind. In the book called Psychopaths, researchers have shown that psychopathy is no longer limited to the clinical definition. Psychopathy has in reality become a virtual way of life in many Western countries. Today the ‘New Man’ behaves impulsively with no conscience, scruples, morality or religious restraints to inhibit it. The world hasn’t been stranger before.

Myths and Lies of secularism

Definition:
Secularism is defined as “The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs.”[1] Secularism is defined in the Webster dictionary as: “The belief that religion and religious affairs should not enter into the function of the state.” [2]

History

Part 1

Secularism was the word adopted by George Jacob Holyoake in the early 1850s to describe a system of morals and social action shaped exclusively by this-worldly considerations, irrespective of religious beliefs. [3]

Holyoake argued that “Secularism is not an argument against Christianity it is one independent of it. It does not question the pretensions of Christianity”; it advances others. Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there is light and guidance in secular truth, whose conditions and sanctions exist independently, and act forever. Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this life.” [4]

Our Question: [Our question starts here]
Question # 1: If “Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere” then why men should not follow those “light or guidance” in public, political and state affair since there is “light or guidance elsewhere” apart from secularism?

Question # 2: If “Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere” then why should men follow “only the light or guidance” of secularism in the public, political and state affair since there is “light or guidance elsewhere” apart from secularism? [Our Question ends here]

George Holyoake’s 1896 publication English Secularism defines secularism as:
Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three: (a) The improvement of this life by material means. (b) That science is the available Providence of man. (c) That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good. [5]

Our Question: [Our question starts here]
Question # 3: If the founder of secularism (George Holyoake) wrote secularism is “mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable.” Then why the so-called religious believers are adopting secularism? Are they more secular than the founder of secularism?

Question # 4: If the founder of secularism (George Holyoake) wrote secularism is “mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable.” and why secularism should be used to rule over those who believe in religion? [Our Question ends here]

History:

Part 2:

‘Religion and politics should be separate’ claims a secularist. As far as the phrase in Bengali “Dhormo O Rajniti shompurno Alada;” (religion and politics is separate) and “Rashtro O Dhormo shompurno Alada;” (state and religion is separate), these phrases are translation of the famous English phrase “separation between Church & State.”

The phrase “separation between Church & State” was first written in Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802
“Separation between Church & State” the detailed text read as

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” [6]

Philip Hamburger, the John Wilson Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, writes in his book “Separation of Church and State” published by Harvard University Press (March 30, 2004) on the topic of Thomas Jefferson’s “Separation between Church & State” letter. He writes in his book:

“The Nativist Protestants, fearful of the Catholicism of ever increasing immigrants from Southern Europe, adopted separation as an ‘American’ ideal. These Protestants believed that the exclusive nature of Catholicism, along with its clear endorsement of the union between church and state.” [7]

“Jefferson supported separation out of hostility to the Federalist clergy of New England. Nativist Protestants adopted the principle of separation to restrict the role of Catholics in public life. Gradually, these Protestants were joined by theologically liberal, anti-Christian secularists, who hoped that separation would limit Christianity and all other distinct religions.” [8]

“The First Amendment has been interpreted to limit religion in ways never imagined by the late 18th-century dissenters who demanded constitutional guarantees of religious liberty” and that “the constitutional authority for separation is without historical foundation,” [9]

Our Comment: From the above mentioned opinions of the scholars, we can safely conclude that the ‘historical justification’ of secularism is at best a suspicious-political maneuver to stop a particular group from gaining influence. This is not a logically and philosophically good justification. We can also safely conclude that the historical justification of secularism is not at all convincing. But why then the secularists downplay this issue? We will later see why the secularists conveniently skip these important issues and continue to act as if secularism is based upon solid justifiable ground. [Our comment ends here]

Therefore according to Philip Hamburger, the John Wilson Professor of Law at the University of Chicago:
“The idea of separation should, at best, be viewed with suspicion.” [10]

Our Question: [Our question starts here]

Question # 5: When the scholars and experts on the subject believe that “the idea of separation should, at best, be viewed with suspicion” then why the so-called religious people put their blind faith in the Idea of “Separation between Church & State”? [Our Question ends here]

Andrew B. Murphy is assistant professor of political philosophy and humanities at Valparaiso University in Valparaiso, Indiana writes:
“It is unsettling because the depth and breadth of Hamburgers scholarship (he is John Wilson Professor of Law at the University of Chicago) make it impossible for critics to dismiss his arguments as an ideologue’s pining for “Christian America” or as a case of shrill partisanship” [11]

If separation of church and state is not justified historically, we may reasonably ask what some of the implications of such a misconception might be.

We will now also explore other important issues about secularism, issues which ‘secularists’ themselves never discuss, and they continue to pretend that secularism should be accepted by everyone, even though ‘secularism’ is severely faulty but nevertheless they want impose their philosophy on an unwilling opponent forcefully.

Secular Extremism:
Secular Fundamentalism and Secular Authoritarianism

Part 1:

Distinguished political theorist William E. Connolly, who is professor and chair of the Department of Political Science at The Johns Hopkins University, wrote a book named “why I am not a secularist”. In his book he writes:

“Secularism, although admirable in its pursuit of freedom and diversity, too often undercuts these goal through it’s narrow and intolerant understandings of public reason.” [12]

“He is one of liberalism’s most valuable critics, in part because his intellectual journey begins with the experiences and preoccupations that led to liberalism.” —American Political Science Review

Yet he believes that, secularism has failed to recognize the complexity of public views because it has excluded religious and theistic viewpoints.

William E. Connolly, also writes,

“Secularism is not merely the division between public and private realms that allows religious diversity to flourish in the latter. It can itself be a carrier of harsh exclusions. And it secretes a new definition of “religion” that conceals some of its most problematic practices from itself.”

Part 2:

Often the secular will argue that “religious fundamentalism”, “extremism”, are intolerant and secularism is tolerant and pluralistic. Let’s see what secular expert’s of secularism say about this issue.
Stanley Fish is a professor of humanities and law at Florida International University, in Miami and distinguished Visiting Professor of Law at Cardozo School of Law. He has also taught at the University of California at Berkeley, Johns Hopkins, Duke University and the University of Illinois, Chicago. He is the author of 13 books and he writes:

“Tom Krattenmaker, who studies religion in public life, wonders why, given their celebration of open-mindedness and critical thinking, secularists “so frequently leave their critical thinking at the door” when it “comes to matters of religion?” Why are they closed-minded on this one subject?” [13]

Our Question: [Our question starts here]

Our Question # 6: Why they don’t want to understand religious argument on the topic of “religion in public life” (including politics and state) if they are as open-minded and open towards learning as they claim about themselves? Isn’t it self-contradictory? [Our Question ends here]

Part 3:

The New York Times Newspaper has been variously described as having a liberal bias or described as being a liberal newspaper. [14] In December 2004 a University of California, Los Angeles study gave The New York Times a score of 73.7 on a 100 point scale, with 0 being most conservative and 100 being most liberal. [15] The New York Times write:

“The liberal order does not extinguish religions; it just eviscerates them” [eviscerate-verb, evisceration- noun, the removal of an internal organ from a person’s body.]

Our Question: [Our question starts here]

Our Question # 7: The question is who gives the secularism to (whether state or media or court) the authority to eviscerates any religion? [Our Question ends here]

Probably the answer is given by one of the founding father of ‘secularism’ philosopher John Lock as he wrote:

“For no Man can, if he would, conform his Faith to the Dictates of another.” [16]

Part: 4

So, the seculars argue, that the involvement of religion in public, political, state affairs is ‘unreasonable’, Religious extremists are ‘intolerant’ and on the other side the ‘secular claim’ on the public, political and state affair is ‘reasonable’ and the seculars are ‘tolerant’ towards others as compare to religious extremists.
Stanley Fish is a professor of humanities and law at Florida International University writes:

“The sense it makes depends on “reasonable” having been defined as congruent with the liberal values of pluralism and moderation, and “unreasonable” having been defined as any viewpoint that refuses to respect and tolerate its competitors, but seeks to defeat them. In liberal thought, “reasonable” is a partisan, not a normative notion. It means “reasonable” from our perspective.
In saying this, I am not criticizing liberalism, just explaining what it is. It is a form of political organization that is militantly secular” [17]

“The second response is to demonize secularism’s opponents as fanatics, fascists and know-nothings, and resolve to stamp them out.” [18]
“What the state gets by “excluding religion from any binding social consensus” is a religion made safe for democracy.” [19]

Our Question: [Our question starts here]

Our Question # 8: Will the so-called religious supporters of secularism obey the state in the issue of state ‘eviscerating’ their religion; will they follow state or the religion? [Our Question ends here]

Probably the answer is given by one of the founding father of ‘secularism’ philosopher John Lock as he wrote:

“For no Man can, if he would, conform his Faith to the Dictates of another.” [20]

Secular Religion or
Religion of Secularism

Is secularism a religion? Is it a new kind of religion? Is it a new secret religion? What is the opinion of secular scholars, activists, groups and secular associations? In other words, what the leading secularists of the world believe? Do they believe ‘secularism’ to be a new religion? Let me explain why it is important, it is important because all the secularists in the third world countries all over the globe follow the ideology of these leading secular scholars, activist, and thinkers of the leading secular countries of the world. What the leading secular countries achieved yesterday their followers (who are influenced by their ‘secular’ ideology) in the third world countries want to achieve the same results today.

Secular Religion: The Religion of Secularism

‘Secular religion’ is a term not coined by this author. It is already an established word used by very prominent ‘secular’ thinkers, intellectuals and so on. Social philosopher Raymond Aron notably uses the term to refer to Communism.[21] Likewise, philosopher of science Michael Ruse has made use of the term in discussing evolution theory.[22]Similarly Thomas Frank suggests that the free market has become a secular religion in the United States. [23]

American Humanist Association is an
organization associated with International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) a world umbrella organization. [24] Embracing secular, humanist, atheist, rationalist, skeptic, Ethical Culture, free thought and similar organizations worldwide.

“American Humanist Association believes Secularism is a religion. Secularists acknowledge this in their “Humanist Manifestos”. [25]

Interestingly, the secular definition of “religion” is extremely similar to the definition of “Deen” [ Deen Al Islam: Islam is a Deen: A complete way of life(including public, political and state) ]. But here we will focus on the secular definition of the “secular religion” or “religion of secularism”. We don’t want to identify ‘secularism’ as a religion as one of the leading official secular organization which is a authority in the matter of secularism itself claiming that “secularism” is a new religion in the following language:

[“Religio’ is the Latin for ‘religion’. ‘Re-lig-io’ refers to something that binds together, as in ‘lig-ament’. A religio (our religion) is that which binds people and society together.
Religion is not that privatized, sanitized, internalized foolishness which we imagine today — that we are forbidden to bring up in the public arena. The public arena is all about religion. It is never a matter of whether we have a religion, but only which one.
Every society has a religio, i.e., a religion. Any society is defined by its common moral and legal boundaries. Any legal system is always based on prior moral commitments, i.e., on ‘religio’. Without those boundaries, it will have no identity, and thus cannot survive.
Hence, there can be no such thing as separation of religion and state (in the sense we are told today). Every state has its religion, like it or not. State has, by Supreme Court edict, a secular religion. The public schools are the state Church of Secular Humanism, which our children are, for the most part, coerced to attend. There is no separation of church and state, only of Biblical church and state. Secular religion rules supreme — and at gun point.
Ironically, both our Supreme Court and the Humanist Manifesto recognizes secularism as a “religion” [26]

“Secular religion” [secularism] possess qualities similar to those of a religion. Such qualities include such things as dogma, a system of indoctrination, the prescription of an absolute code of conduct, designated enemies, and unquestioning devotion to a higher authority. [27]

This Idea that ‘secularism’ is a new religion is also supported by the Founder of secularism George Jacob Holyoake as following:

“Secularism is not an argument against Christianity it is one independent of it. It does not question the pretensions of Christianity; it advances others.” [28]

It can further be supported by the statement like “The idea of Secular Religion is similar to the Islamic and Judeo-Christian concept of idolatry.” [29]

Furthermore, according to BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) “most secularists are atheists.” [30]

It is also to be remembered that according some secular states and courts, ‘secularism’ is a different religion and the secular organizations (like IHEU) enjoys facilities such as if anyone give them donation that money is deducted from the income-tax of that individual.

Our Question: [Our question starts here]

Our Question # 9: According to the seculars (a) “The public arena is all about (secular) religion”,
(b) Religion is not that privatized, It is never a matter of whether we have a religion, but only which one (in this case the secular religion) (c) there can be no such thing as separation of religion and state (according to the seculars. separation of traditional religion like Islam creates the new state religion of secularism). So our question is.

9A) Why the seculars ‘propagate’ their two-faced ideas in which they [secretly] themselves don’t believe?

9B) Why the so-called religious believers blindly believe in the ‘secular’ ideas of a) religion is private matter b) separation of state and religion, when the seculars themselves (who preach these ideas) don’t believe in their own principals?

9C) “Every state has its religion” [in this case the religion of secularism]. “State has, by Supreme Court law, a secular religion, Secular religion rules supreme”. “There is no separation of (secular) church and state” after all these secular declaration will the so-called religious believer still put his faith in the principals of secularism?

9d) Will the so-called religious believers will now choose for themselves a new religion (the religion of secularism)?
[Our question ends here]

Blood bath in sacred (secular) water:
Secular genocides

Secularists often argue that ‘religious fundamentalism’ is bad because it is associated with violence and it sheds blood. They often refer to the middle age and history of crusades, and other wars fought for religion and so on. Here in this section we will show that the violence committed and blood shed by the ‘seculars’ are thousands times greater than their counterparts, however we stress from the very core of our conviction and unlike the secularists who don’t believe what they preach, we recite:

“….if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people….”
(The Noble Quran, 5:32)

Now let us show that “secularism” is the most violent and most dangerous kind of blood thirsty ideology:

United States of America:

The United States is officially a secular nation. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” and it is the only state in the human history to use “Atomic bomb” in Hiroshima-nagasaki during world war two. Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000-80,000 in Nagasaki. [31]

It is a democracy and a secular country that killed millions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Korea after world war two.

France:

France is a democratic hard-core secular country and French genocide against the Muslims of Algeria is another illustrated example of secular extremism. [32] Approximately 1.5 million Algerian Muslim Arabs were tortured and massacred under the French rule according to Algerian sources.

French revolution

French revolution was as secular as it possibly could be with it’s fight against catholic church’s influence and wealth, killing of the priests and so on. The revolution resulted in the murder of thousands of human life with death of 16,000-40,000 only during period of The Reign of Terror (27 June 1793 – 27 July 1794), Among people who were condemned by the revolutionary tribunals, about 8 percent were aristocrats, 6 percent clergy, 14 percent middle class, and 72 percent were workers or peasants accused of hoarding, evading the draft, desertion and rebellion. [33]

India:

World’s largest democracy and a secular state, India has killed Muslims in Kashmir, Gujarat and Sikhs in India.
Israel: Israel is too a democracy and an expert in genocide with her history of genocide against Palestinian, Lebanese and Jordanian Muslims as well as Muslims living within Israel,

Genocide by secular governments of the past:

‘If you will not have God you should pay your respects to Hitler or Stalin. -Allen D Hertzke” [34]

Hitler killed Jews, Slavs, ethnic Pols, ethnic Serbs, Romani people, Jehovah’s Witness and so on. Hitler was by every consideration a secular.
The votes that the Nazis received in the 1932 elections established the Nazi Party as the larges parliamentary faction of the Weimar Republic government ended in Adolf Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor of Germany on 30 January 1933. [35]

Casualties for the Stalinist period varying from 8 to 61 million. [36]

In official study materials published in 1948, Mao envisaged that “one-tenth of the peasants” (or about 50,000,000) “would have to be destroyed” to facilitate agrarian reform. [37]

At least 200,000 people were executed by the Khmer Rouge (while estimates of the total number of deaths resulting from Khmer Rouge policies, including disease and starvation, range from 1.4 to 2.2 million out of a population of around 7 million). [38]

Shattering a secular lie: Equality of
Religions

Secularism claim to treat with all the religion equally. That means it will treat Christianity and Islam [the two largest religion in the world] equally. The reason why secularism succeeds can be partially attributed to the nature of “Christianity.” Secularism was born out of Christian world and hence the church was separated from state once secularism triumphed. But the reason why it was not at all a problem for the Christians to accept secularism was because Christianity as a religion separates between God and Caesar, as it is mentioned in the bible:

“Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s”
(Matthew 22: 21)

Jesus said “My Kingdom is not of this world…..my kingdom is from another place”
(John 18:36)

Or for example according to Martin Luther King: “Christ’s name can not be invoked in calls to destroy earthly kingdoms by the sword.” [39]

Or for example Samuel P. Huntington, the legendary author of one of the most widely discussed book of our time, “The Clash of Civilizations” writes in the same book “Christianity displays the unique dualism between God and Caesar, church and state, spiritual and temporal authority.” [40]

Indeed it is true that ‘crusade’ was fought by the Christians, But ‘crusade’ was fought by the “church’s” order and not by the bible’s order. So, once the Christians moved towards bible (protestant Christianity) and against the church (protestant Christianity) it was easier for Christianity to accept a separation of church and the state.
Now consider the Islamic position on this matter:

‎”…….and those who did not judge by what ALLAH revealed, those are they that are the Kafirs (unbelievers)” [Sura Maidah: 5: Ayat 44]

“Judge between them in the light of what has been revealed by ALLAH, and do not follow their whims and beware of them lest they lead you away from the guidance sent down to you by ALLAH.”
[Sura Maidah: 5: Ayat 49]

“But no, by your Lord, they can have no faith, until they make you judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission.” [Sura Nisa 4: ayat 65]

Our comment: Now from the above references it is absolutely clear that Islam and Christianity have totally different ‘theological’ stance on the topic of secularism. One of the reasons why ‘secularism’ flourished in Christian world is because the Christians find in bible verses like the ones mentioned above. But in Islam has very different viewpoint on this. For example:

“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.” [41]

One of the most well respected scholar of the Muslim world Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi writes
“Islam is a comprehensive system of worship (`ibadah) and legislation (Shari`ah), the acceptance of secularism means abandonment of Shari`ah,” [42]
“Christianity is devoid of a shari`ah or a comprehensive system of life to which its adherents should be committed. The New Testament itself divides life into two parts: one for God, or religion, the other for Caesar, or the state.” [43]

“For this reason, the call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam.” [44]

This shows the diagonally opposite view point of Islam and Christianity on ‘secularism’. So, Islam will continue to oppose ‘secularism’ and Christianity accept ‘secularism’ as they find the support for secularism in the bible itself. So, now those so-called religious people who support ‘secularism’ claim that Islam and Christianity as same? So, how ‘secularism’ will treat two different religion which have completely different view point on the topic of ‘secularism’? If secularism treat them differently then it will be against the false claim of secularism that it treat every religion equally. If it two religion the same then it have accept the

Quranic principal: ‎”…and those who did not judge by what ALLAH revealed, those are they that are the Kafirs [unbelievers]” (Sura Maidah: 5: Ayat 44)

just as it accepts the biblical principal:

“Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Matthew 22: 21)

Conclusion
& Findings of this Paper

In this section I will summarize the findings of this paper.
Findings:

1.“Secularism is a religion “according to the seculars themselves. [See: page-7,8]

2.‘Secular people’ themselves don’t believe in the ‘secular’ principals like “separation between state and church”, “religion is a private matter.” Etc. [See: page-7]

3.Secularism is totalitarian, authoritarian ideologies which suppress the “freedom of thought”, “opinion of the religious people”. This is the view of a ‘secular’ expert on ‘secularism’. [See: page-4,5]

4. Secularism is the most bloodthirsty & violent form of ideology. [See: page- 8,9]

5. The historical argument of ‘secularism’ is misunderstood. [See: page- 2,3]

6. ‘Secularism’ is a kind of ‘extremism’ and ‘extremist-fundamentalism’. [See: page- 4,5]

7. Seculars believe that their religion (secular religion) is the state religion of all the secular states in the world. Interestingly, those secular who don’t believe in this view point (I doubt if there are any such seculars), they never oppose the claim of the other secular group (who claim their religion is secularism). But those secular who don’t believe that secularism is a religion (I doubt if there are any such seculars) they oppose every other religion in state and public affair but they never oppose the view that secularism is a religion according to the leading seculars of the world.

8. I don’t know why some so-called religious people accept secularism when some seculars claim secularism is a different religion and other group of seculars never opposes the claim of the group who believe secularism is their religion. Why the so-called religious people who don’t want their religion (Islam) in state, politics and public affair follow another religion (religion of secularism) in state, politics and public affair.

7. I recommend the reader of this paper to read ‘Islamic’ viewpoint on secularism from a good ‘Islamic’ book on this topic. This is a vast topic and beyond the scope of this paper. However, it is extremely important for the Muslims to know about the detail Islamic view point on secularism.

Reference:
1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com
2. Islam vs. Secularism, AlJumuah [The Friday Report], volume III, no. 10. Retrieve from http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=116 on 3.20 p.m. 28.10.2010
3. http://www.answers.com/topic/secularism
4. Secularism, Catholic Encyclopedia. Newadvent.org
5. Holyoake, George J. (1896). English Secularism. Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Company.
6. Jefferson, Thomas (1802-01-01).”Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists”. U.S. Library of Congress. Retrieved 2006-11-31.
7. Shawn Harding, Review of the book “Separation of Church and State” Philip Hamburger, Harvard University Press (March 30, 2004)
Retrieved at 8.39 p.m. 27.10.2010 from http://www.amazon.com/Separation-Church-State-Philip-Hamburger/dp/0674013743
8. Separation of Church and State, Philip Hamburger, Harvard University Press (March 30, 2004)
9. Shawn Harding, Review of the book “Separation of Church and State” Philip Hamburger, Harvard University Press (March 30, 2004)
Retrieved at 8.39 p.m. 27.10.2010 from http://www.amazon.com/Separation-Church-State-Philip-Hamburger/dp/0674013743
10. Ibid
11. “Beyond Separation of Church and State”, by Andrew B. Murphy, assistant professor of political philosophy and humanities at Valparaiso University’s Christ College in Valparaiso, Indiana
12. William E Connolly, Why I Am not a Secularist, (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN 2000)10
13. Liberalism and Secularism: One and the Same, Fish. Stanley. Retrieved from, “ http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/liberalism-and-secularism-one-and-the-same/ “ retrieved on 10.56 p.m. 27.10.2010
14. “New York Times, Washington Post, and Local Newspapers Seen as Having Liberal Bias”. Rasmussen Reports. July 15, 2007. Archived from the original on March 7, 2008. Retrieved September 16, 2008.

15. Groseclose, Tim (December 2004). “A Measure of Media Bias”. University of California – Los Angeles. Retrieved September 15, 2008.
16. John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration (Hackett, Indianapolis, IN 1983) 26.
17. Liberalism and Secularism: One and the Same, Fish. Stanley. Retrieved from, “ http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/liberalism-and-secularism-one-and-the-same/ “ retrieved on 10.56 p.m. 27.10.2010
18. Ibid
19. Ibid
20. John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration (Hackett, Indianapolis, IN 1983) 26.
21. Aron, Raymond. The Opium of the Intellectuals. London: Secker & Warburg, 1957, pp. 265-294
22. Ruse, Michael. “Is Evolution a Secular Religion?”. Science, 7 March 2003
23. Frank, Thomas. “The Rise of Market Populism: America’s New Secular Religion”, The Nation, October 30, 2000.”’
24. “About IHEU”. IHEU. Retrieved 2007-11-12.
25. American Humanist Association, Humanist Manifesto 2, retrieved from
http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Apl/HumMan2.htm on 6.09 PM, 28-10-2010, also see: http://www.infidels.org/
26. American Humanist Association, Humanist Manifesto 2, retrieved from http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Apl/HumMan2.htm on 6.09 PM, 28-10-2010, also see: http://www.infidels.org/
27. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religion
28. Secularism, Catholic Encyclopedia. Newadvent.org
29. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religion
30. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/secularism.shtml retrieved at 8.20 p.m. 26-10-2010
31. Frequently Asked Questions #1″.Radiation Effects Research Foundation. Retrieved Sept. 18, 2007
32. Ageron, Charles Robert (1991). Modern Algeria: A History from 1830 to the Present. Trenton, N.J.: Africa World Press.
33. “French Revolution”. History.com. The History Channel. Retrieved 24 October 2007
34. Hertzke, Allen D. (2006). Freeing God’s Children: The Unlikely Alliance for Global Human Rights. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 24.ISBN 9780742547322.
35. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933
36. Bibliography: Courtois et al. The Black Book of Communism
37. Goldhagen, Worse than War, p. 344
38. Peace Pledge Union Information – Talking about genocides – Cambodia 1975
39. ‘Secularism?’ by John Keane. Retrieved from http://www.johnkeane.net/pdf_docs/scanned_books/secularism/secularism.pdf on 29.10.2010 at 3.02 PM.
40. Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York & London, Simon & Schuster, 1996.
41. Islam vs. Secularism, AlJumuah [The Friday Report], volume III, no. 10. Retrieve from http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=116 on 3.20 p.m. 28.10.2010
42. Al-Hulul al Mustawradah wa Kayfa Jaat `alaa Ummatina’ “How the Imported Solutions Disastrously Affected Our Ummah”, pp 113-4
43. Ibid
44. Ibid

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!