Hi Pa Modou!
 Thank you for forwarding Dr. Jah's article. The subtle, disguised yet purposeful elements of the article make it necessary to, if not counter the arguments therein presented, at least challenge them. As Dr. Jah stated, words do have magical powers and the magical effect in twisting and breaking them down and playing with semantics can, in the hands of those with a purpose, be used to push forward and justify such purposes. When I started reading the article, I was turned off by the amount of space used to define and present simple words, that unless one wants to prove otherwise, are not viewed beyond their present, everyday meanings. Just as I was about to delete the mail, I reasoned that there is definitely a purpose with the article and decided to read on. I was therefore not surprised when the true purpose of the article was made inherently clear towards the end when Dr. Jah switched modes and began sounding as if he was delivering a sermon. 
 Let us look at the points raised in the article. Dr. Jah first qualifies The Gambia as a state by giving it the attributes of a permanent population, defined territory, government and capacity to enter into relations with states as defined in Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States. There is no argument here except the fact that the permanent population that makes up the state known as The Gambia is a very diverse population made up of different tribes, cultures and religions who, by virtue of their citizenship of The Gambia, have equal rights whether they are in the minority or the majority. It is in light of this fact that the authority that has the responsibility to govern this permanent population governs with principles as neutral as possible.
 After defining the state, Dr. Jah goes on to define the term "secular" and put it in its historical perspective to try to prove that there is a philosophical program behind the evolution of the term. Apart from those who try to prove a point or win an argument, how many people research the evolution of not only this term but other terms when talking about their meaning in contemporary terms? According to him, "the term secular . conveys a meaning with a marked dual connotation of time and location; the time referring to the 'now' or 'present' sense of it and location to the 'world' or 'worldly' sense of it." If the very term under contention denotes the present world, why on earth should its use on an everyday basis take into account its historical evolution? For those whose purpose is to prove something like Dr. Jah, the extra research in trying to discover the historical context of the term might be feasible but for the average Samba or Fatou who has no knowledge of the history of the term and is only interested in the conventional, everyday meaning of the term, the suggestion that the hidden meaning of the term has a psychological impact is at best a fallacy. 
 Touching on the definition of the term "secular", Dr. Jah contends:  "secularisation comprises the disenchantment of nature, the desacralisation of politics and the deconsecration of values" which "can technically mean to deliver man first from religious and then metaphysical control over his reason and his language". He further contends that the sum total of his research into the meaning of the term can point to two facts that are: "(a) worldly materialistic and relativistic philosophy and (b) rejection of religion as the basis of morally, education and civic affairs." (Pa Modou, is "morally" supposed to read "morality"?) Now, according to the Microsoft Encarta World English Dictionary, secular means: 

1.  not concerned with religion:  not controlled by a religious body or concerned with religious or spiritual matters
2.  not religious:  not religious or spiritual in nature   secular music 
3.  not monastic:  not belonging to a monastic order
4.  occurring once a century:  occurring only once in the course of an age or century
5. occurring over long period:  taking place over an extremely or indefinitely long period of time
The Wordsmyth dictionary goes along the same lines when it defines secular as: 
"1. of or concerning the world and material concerns as opposed to religious or spiritual concerns; temporal.
2. having no religious aspects"
What can be deduced from the above two definitions of the everyday, present world meaning of the term devoid of historical nuances is that secular means among other things some of which do not have bearing on this discussion, something or someone "not controlled by a religious body or concerned with religious or spiritual matters" and  "having no religious aspects".  In trying to further his hypothesis, Dr. Jah wittingly strips secular of its application to the system of state by arguing that of all the characteristics of the state, it is only the population that is living and capable of reasoning and should thus be the only aspect of the state to which the term "secular" can be applied. This manipulative definition of the term throws all rational application out of context. If the everyday meaning of the term can mean "having no religious aspects", everything without religious aspects can be deemed secular. This can include the population, the system of government, the state's relations with other states, the music, the discussions etc., i.e., anything not concerned with religion. To argue that the term has an encompassing touch that makes it impossible for one to be religious whilst living under a system of governance which is not based on the codes of religious governance is at best an oversimplification and at worst an exaggeration or manipulation of the meaning of the term. To argue that being secular tantamounts to a "rejection of religion as the basis of morality, education and civic affairs" borders on fallacy. One can yearn to have a system of governance that takes into consideration the diversity of the population whilst choosing religious guidance in aspects that have to deal with education, morality and other aspects of self, family and community. This very aspect is provided for under The Gambia's Constitution. In chapter 2, section 7, which states: "in addition to this Constitution, the laws of The Gambia consist of - 
(e) customary law so far as concerns members of the communities to which it applies;
(f) the Sharia as regards matters of marriage, divorce and inheritance among members of the communities to which it applies."
Even under the Constitution of The Gambia, non-secular aspects are included. Sharia, in aspects which do not have national implications but which are limited to Muslims, is provided under the Constitution. It would have been an encroachment of the rights of non-Muslim Gambians to state that Sharia would be the law that applies in the above instances just as it would be an infringement of the rights of Muslim Gambians to state that Christian or Jewish religious law codes would be applied to them in the above instances. In order to balance the rights of all citizens of The Gambia, laws and systems which are specific to cultural, religious and other groupings are provided for whilst laws and systems which transcend individual groupings and have a national scope are used as a basis to govern the state.
 

<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>

To view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]

<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>