What’s the difference between secular and Islamic state? – Nehru Sathiamoorthy

Malaysia can be either a secular capitalistic state or an Islamic state – but it can not be both – because if it tries to be both, it will just end up being neither, writes Nehru Sathiamoorthy. – Scoop file pic, December 29, 2024
Opinion/Analysis


What’s the difference between secular and Islamic state? – Nehru Sathiamoorthy


And is attempting to do both possible or productive?


Updated 8 hours ago
29 December, 2024

FIRST of all, let us see what a secular capitalist is.

To put it simply, a secular capitalist is a person who wakes up every day with the aim of collecting more capital. If a capitalist goes to bed without having more capital than when he or she woke up, they will feel that their day went to waste.

A secular capitalist will only consider their life to have meaning and worth if they die with more capital – be it in the form of money, shares, land or businesses – than when they were born. Otherwise, they will consider their entire life to be without worth or value.

We tend to assume that indoctrination is not an aspect of a secular capitalistic society, but this is not true. Like every other belief system, secular capitalism also requires intense indoctrination. We know this to be the case because many people in a secular capitalistic society have embraced the secular capitalistic doctrines to the point it has become their identity.

When secular capitalism becomes an identity, a person will accumulate capital even when there is no need for them to accumulate capital.

In other words, if you have been fully indoctrinated into capitalistic doctrines to the point that it forms your identity, you will likely still be attempting to collect capital, even after you have billions of dollars in wealth and assets – simply because if you do not collect capital, you won’t know what to do with yourself.

This level of identification with an ideology does not occur naturally – a person has to be intensely indoctrinated to form such a strong bond with an ideology, that it persists even against reason and rationality.

A major component of secular capitalism lies in the belief that you are entitled to enjoy the best things that the world has to offer only to the degree that you are capable of accumulating capital.

In other words, if you are a successful secular capitalist, you will feel that you have the right to enjoy the world. Whether it is the best food, the best house, the best car, beautiful women, fame, power or adulation – you will feel that you deserve to enjoy it all, only if you manage to accumulate a great amount of capital.

Now that we know what a secular capitalist is, let us see what a Muslim or an advocate of an Islamic state is.

Well, to put it simply, a Muslim is a person who believes that their goal in life is to follow a set of rules and exercises, which they believe is given to them by their god, which they say has been codified in their holy book, called the Quran.

To put it simply, a Muslim is a person who wakes up every day with the aim of completing a set of exercises that has been laid out to them by their god.

A Muslim, in other words, is a lot like an athlete or a sportsman, who spends their life in a practice ground or a gymnasium, completing a set of exercise routines.

Part of the exercise that a Muslim has to complete entails praying five times a day, going to a communal prayer once a week, fasting for a month every year and going on a pilgrimage once in a lifetime and they have to complete this within the parameters of a certain rules, which requires them to only eat a certain types of food, pay tithe, and others.

If they manage to complete all these exercises and not break any of the rules, then they can expect to be rewarded by their god in the afterlife.

A Muslim, unlike a capitalist, does not expect to enjoy themselves in this world. As a matter of fact, a Muslim likely considers the pleasures of the world to be a sort of temptation that will tempt him or her away from completing their prescribed exercises or break the rules they are supposed to follow, which will in turn deny them their rewards in the afterlife.

It is probably because Muslims tend to consider the pleasures of the world to be a temptation, that when their fourth caliph, Caliph Ali, was assassinated, his dying words were “By the Lord of the Kaaba, I have succeeded,” (Fozto wa Rabbi’l-Ka’ba).

He probably said it because he considered life in this world to be filled with so many temptations that he considered dying before he could be tempted away from his practices and beliefs to be a form of success.

Now that we know what a secular capitalist and Muslim is, let us see whether an Islamic state and a secular state can co-exist.

To answer this question, let me ask you whether you can both get up every day trying to collect as much capital as you can so that you can enjoy the best that the world can offer and wake up with the aim of completing a set of exercises while avoiding being tempted by the temptations of the world?

Personally, I don’t think you can. I think these are two different mindsets. If you have one, you have to give up the other. You can’t have your pie and eat it too.

You can either create an Islamic state – where life as you know it will be ordered in such a way that person will be conditioned to wake up trying to complete a set of religious exercises and be prevented from succumbing to the temptations of the world, or you can order it in such a way that it will create a secular state – where a person will be conditioned to wake up every day to do what is necessary to accumulate as much wealth as possible so that they can enjoy the pleasures of the world.

You can’t do both, or even do a bit of both in different proportions.

This is because if you allow a capitalistic and Islamic way of life to co-exist, people will almost overwhelmingly choose to follow a capitalistic way of life, simply because a capitalistic way of life promises rewards that you can see in the here and now – while Islam promises reward that you can’t see and will only be yours in the afterlife.

If an Islamic state were to co-exist with a secular nation, what would inevitably happen is that the proponents of the Islamic state would inevitably have to apply harsh laws on their own adherents, in order to prevent them from being “tempted” by the secular capitalistic lifestyle around them.

The leaders of the Islamic state will also likely view the capitalistic world that they have to co-exist with in a suspicious manner, for “luring” away their adherents by promises of worldly rewards – even if the capitalistic society that they co-exist with isn’t consciously trying to lure away the adherents of the Islamic state.

As for the capitalistic society, it will also inevitably view the Islamic state as pointless and backwards, simply because a capitalistic society tends to view anyone who is not interested in accumulating capital or desirous of enjoying the pleasures of the world as leading a meaningless and purposeless life.

Anyway, I was tempted to write this piece after reading an article on Focus Malaysia about how UM had cancelled a forum titled “Malaysia’s Identity Crisis: Is Malaysia a Secular or an Islamic Country” at the 11th hour.

Seeing that it was cancelled, I thought I would pitch in and give my two cents worth about the subject.

By the way, I can only describe an Islamic state and a secular state, and postulate as to why I don’t think that an Islamic state and a secular state can co-exist, based on this definition.

As for what can be done to make them co-exist, frankly speaking, I don’t think it is possible. I think having an Islamic state co-exist with a secular state is as impossible as having a communist state co-exist with a capitalistic state.

Some people might point out that some countries, like China, have successfully made a communist state co-exist with capitalism, but I don’t think co-existence is an accurate description of what is happening in China.

I think that if Communist China chose to co-exist with capitalism, it only did so to “hide its strength and bide its time.” The Chinese communists had probably accepted that they were in a position of disadvantage vis-a-vis the capitalistic world, and thus they agreed to feign co-existing with the capitalistic world until it could become strong enough to compete against the capitalistic way of life.

In the same way, I think it is unlikely that an Islamic state and a secular capitalistic state can co-exist. Something will have to give. Malaysia can be either a secular capitalistic state or an Islamic state – but it can not be both – because if it tries to be both, it will just end up being neither.

Footnote: Although we generally contrast the concept of an Islamic state with a secular state, I have extended the definition to a secular capitalistic state, rather than just a secular state.

In my point of view, the side that promotes secularism in Malaysia is just not promoting secularism alone, but secularism with a capitalistic characteristic, which makes the secularism that we promote in Malaysia, to be significantly different from the secularism that is promoted in a communist society like North Korea or Cuba. – December 29, 2024

***

kt comments:

I disagree with Nehru that the side that promotes secularism in Malaysia is just not promoting secularism alone, but secularism with a capitalistic characteristic, which makes the secularism that we promote in Malaysia, to be significantly different from the secularism.

Secularism can be explained in a more simple way: namely, a secular state (nation) is one which keeps religion separate from its state law, policies, rules and procedures.

Wikipedia defines "secularism" as:

... the principle of separating religion and state, and treating everyone equally regardless of their religious beliefs. It can also refer to the idea of conducting human affairs without religion, or interpreting life based on material principles.

Secularism can be interpreted in different ways, and some supporters believe that religion should be treated the same as other political actors. Secularists generally oppose giving religious beliefs and organizations special treatment, and believe that the law should be sufficient to protect believers from discrimination.

The term "secular" can also be used to describe something that is not connected with religion, such as the Natural History Museum.

The word "secular" comes from the Latin word saeculum, which means "of a generation" or "belonging to an age". In medieval Western culture, the Christian doctrine that God exists outside time led to the use of the word "secular" to indicate separation from religious affairs.

Secularism emerged in the 18th century, in part due to the memory of the Age of Religious Wars.


So there you are. But alas, unfortunately, my matey Nehru has unnecessarily made the meaning of "secularism" far more complicated to understand that it should be, by adding the factor of "capitalism" into it.

We can be secular and at the same time be socialistic or even religious, BUT the state (government laws, rules, policies, procedures) must not be influenced not governed by religion. Thus I am BOTH a secularist (nationalism-wise) and a staunch Buddhist (religion-wise on a personal basis).

Yes, a Malaysian can be BOTH a 'secularist;' and a good Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, etc, BUT the state of Malaysia must not include religion and religious teachings-beliefs into its state laws, policies, rules and procedures.

Don't be mistaken that 'secularism' means 'no religion' in our beliefs, practices and spiritual devotion. Only the State must NOT utilise or include religion and religious beliefs-teachings in its formulation of laws, policies, rules and procedures. 

Eg. the USA does not (strictly enforced until recent 3 years) allow religion in schools - cannot have morning prayers in school nor make students pray - the students can do that privately outside schools. 

See:

When was prayer taken out of schools in America?

1962

Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), which focused primarily on school-sponsored Bible reading, the Supreme Court established what is now the current prohibition on state-sponsored prayer in US schools.

It has only been in recent times (last 3 years or so) that unscrupulous exploitative politicians, especially in the Southern more-religious parts of USA that such prohibitions have been openly violated against its Constitution.

Likewise in Canada. See:

When was the Lord's Prayer removed from schools in Canada?

1988

Zylberberg v. Sudbury Board of Education (Director) The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the use of the Lord's Prayer in opening exercises in public schools offended the Charter s. 2(a). 1988.