Dear Khalid,
What a pleasure to have a little “nwk
jhwk” (w = wao) with
you!
Any definition of a word (i.e. Secularism) based on
personal observation or experience can not be accepted as universal. On the
other hand the definition of the same word given in a dictionary can be
considered universal but an individual is free to object and to have his
own definition.
I start with a dictionary definition (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular ), that:
“Secularity (adjective form secular) is the state of
being separate from religion; and also, despite occasional confusion,
secularity is synonymous neither with atheism nor agnosticism.”
The first sentence, clearly states that there is no
religion in Secularity. The second
sentence tells us that neither atheism nor agnosticism is the part of
Secularity.
On the other hand it does not forbid the believers or
non-believers, to follow a secular path (without mixing their faith with
secularism).
Under above conditions the secular believers and
non-believers belong to the same Secular Group (1).
Your separation of this group in two separate independent
groups (A) and (B) is not valid. These two are sub-groups of group (1).
Since (A) and (B) belong to the same group (Secular), the dialogue between
the two is assured without any question.
The group (C) is a religious group which has nothing to
share with the group (1). One may object that there is some thing common
between (C) and sub-group (B) of group (1) and that is religion (Islam).
The secular Islam (1) and religion of Islam (C) do not stand for the same
Islam. In the first case (1), Islam is Secular and in the second (C)
Secular is Islamic. These two have entirely opposite meanings.
What action the group (1) should take to diminish the
domination of the group (C) and to transform the Islamic States and
Societies into Secular?
For our present discussion we have only two groups (1)
Secular and (C) Religious (Non-Secular). If these two are properly defined,
there is no need of making sub-groups and naming the members of the
sub-groups. In (A), it was not necessary to name all the non-believing members.
Perhaps, it was necessary to bring forward the poetic “rainbow” theory in
the discussion. It is aptly applied to (A), but it seems that three colours are missing. In case of (B) and (C), there is
no rainbow!
Usually, there is one primary rainbow which has bright colours but according to the favourable
metrological conditions we also have a secondary rainbow with faint colours and then there are some supernumerary arcs
almost invisible. It is simply to say that you could have given us the
members of the group (B) as the secondary rainbow!!
My best wishes and regards.
Ahsan
Dec. 3, 2008.
----- Original