Religious extremist, in fact, a Muslim extremist is almost always the implied meaning of an extremist mentioned in any news headings or discussed in articles around the world. The Oxford dictionary defines extremist as:

A person who holds extreme political or religious views, especially one who advocates illegal,violent, or other extreme action.

Talibans of Afghanistan are known for their strict adherence to the conservative interpretation of Islam. ISIS come under the same umbrella and qualify the oxford dictionary of extremism. But are these religiously motivated groups the only extremists in the world? What if a person holds equally opposing- extreme views? Secular extremism is the other side of the coin.

Secularism takes matters to the other extreme. It absolutely segregates religion from state affairs and sees religion as one’s private affair. In a secular state, the policies and matters of states are governed entirely by the people’s vote and no dictation in this regard is accepted from religion. Even the primary education is completely deprived of any mentioning of religious notions and teachings. The rational minded people in a secular state tend to disapprove anything not conforming to logic and scientific experimentation.

In the “Islamic” Republic of Pakistan, media and highest political and military ranks are all under the influence of an elite group of secularists. Secularists and Liberals are often painted with the same brush. Both consider religion and religious people as the dreadful evil for the society. They scornfully label religious clerics as “Medieval Mullah”, “Jahil (Ignorant)”, “Extremist” but go to the same medieval mullah to recite the Nikkah (a prayer and a declaration of marriage) of their daughters. Print and electronic media is stuffed with secular journalists, hosts and anchors who do nothing but a 24 hours job trying to find ways to justify these labels. The secular and liberal parties like ANP, PPP and MQM would stage a sit-in and gather processions after a video surfaces the media in which a girl in black veil is shown flogged by some “scary-looking” beard men. But they never utter a single word of condemnation when a single drone strike kills 80 Madrassah students in Bajur Agency in 2006. At least 69 were reported as children aged 17 or under. They justify these killings saying that those Madrassa children were sons of “Barbaric” militants and there were high chances of them becoming militants when they had grown up. Also because they were the children of a lesser GOD. They are always reluctant to give a religious young man the same status they give to a fresh university graduate. The university graduate, whatsoever uncultured, abusive and foul language he may use, he is seen as a sober and cultured person. While the poor young Madrassa student gets the labels of child rapist, “jahil molvi”, extremist, terrorist, uncultured, illiterate, misogynist – in short, the highest degrees of hateful words. Secular politicians are seen appealing for demolishing of all the Madrassas in Pakistan and banning any form of religious teachings at all. The level of hatred towards these religious men is astonishing so much so that a senior secular politician had recently demanded to demolish Lal Masjid or if possible, drop an atomic bomb on the mosque. This is sheer extremism but never gets the deserved title.

The staunch advocates of a tolerant society are in fact the least tolerant of all. The human rights activists are the key players in justifying the state oppression. The freedom of speech champions leave no stone unturned to silence the criticism against establishment and voices raised against the cruelty of secular powers – but they do their best to suppress the uproar against blasphemous caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W) convincing Muslims to accept it in the name of freedom of speech. There is a rigid dichotomy between their stated missions and actions.

Secular extremists are a menace for the society in the same lines as religious extremists are. Love and mutual respect cannot prevail in a society with such a prejudiced extremist view of each other.

Both secular terrorists and Taliban extremists are the reason why Pakistan suffers both by reputation in the international media, culturally, morally and by loss of lives.

Segregation of state and religion is not taking matters to “other extreme”, since it does not terrorize people, or use violent methods. I’ll quote a couple of examples from history to clarify what actually secular extremism/terrorism is which is on par with the attitude of the Taliban and the ISIS. After the French Revolution, the secular authorities forcibly shut down the churches, forcing the clergy to renounce their faith, and forcing people to stay away from any religious practice. They went on to establish a ‘Church of Reason’ instead. Many clergymen were killed just because of their religious affiliation. The second example is what followed the revolution in Russia, where similar force was used to demolish mosques and churches and terrorize the religious people. Something along the same lines have happened in the history of Turkey. No such thing has ever happened in Pakistan, which is why there is no such thing as secular extremism/terrorism in Pakistan. Merely segregating religion from political affairs - while allowing complete religious freedom to people from all faiths - is not extremism. It is actually an integral part of modern democracy and the concept of nation-state where all citizens are equal, regardless of their faith (something a religious state can never guarantee) – a concept that modern Muslims are yet to come to terms with in their mass confusion. There is no comparison between the two.

The corruption of the “secular” parties in Pakistan cannot be blamed on the concept of secularism because none of them invokes secularism for their actions, unlike the Taliban/ISIS who specifically use religion for their actions.

There is a difference between extremism and terrorism although they are often used interchangeably. The article wasn't about terrorism at all but an extremist approach of seeing things. If you start paying heed to the lines from: "They scornfully label religious clerics as “Medieval Mullah”, “Jahil (Ignorant)”, “Extremist” ...", you will come to the realization that secular extremism does exist.

According to the very definition of extremism ("A person who holds extreme political or religious views, especially one who advocates illegal,violent, or other extreme action."), the sort of extremist mentality towards religion and religious men does exist in our society - they do take matters to the other extreme.

On a different note, the very creation of Pakistan was based on the negation of nation's state theory. Allama Iqbal summed it up in a beautiful couplet:

"In taza khudaon men bara seb se watan hai...
Jo perhan is ka hai wo mazhab ka kafan hai..."

Well, the way you equated “secular extremists” with TTP and ISIS made me wonder if these two were being taken as extremes. Do you take these as two equally extreme viewpoints? The articles seems confused about that point.

Khair, If someone flaunts his/her extremist views in front of me and I label him jahil or a bigot, I can’t be called an extremist by any definition. Also, please let me know how matters are taken to the "other extreme" because calling for the separation of state and religion is not the other extreme. It would be extreme if I say that religion should be confined to homes and anyone going to mosques should be punished. Is there anyone in Pakistan who is saying that? Do enlighten me.

Speaking of Iqbal, there are countless contradictions in his ideas which is why I won’t really take his word for what nationhood means and how the affairs of the state should be run. For that, we need to look to the ground realities.

For me religious extremism is more hazardous than seculars. Religious extremism has crippled my country and its economy has come its knees. Mr wasim said that seculars are more powerful in pakistan if yes then they would have dared to bring change in several laws relating to blasphamy etc but they are't, are they??
What seculars want in Pakistan is change in narrative. We can not allow religious fanatics to slaughter our children in the name of religion,We have suffered alot we have lost our loved ones. Pakistan is in no more in position to sacrifice further in the name of jihad.. Its true that religious extremism is only reason which has made pakistan a maligned state in the comity of nations.. We can never blame religion for all this but those who maligned religion to pursue the interests of super powers and thier own country.. We can never blame religion for it but its follower because all religions preaches peace and love..

Any explanation of including "Siraj Ul Haq" in the list of extremists and terrorists?

Anyways this discussion has gone astray. My real point was to underscore the importance of analyzing two extremes in our society. And for those who think religious extremism is the only hurdle in the progress of our country need to restudy the political and economic history of Pakistan since 1947.

"Khair, If someone flaunts his/her extremist views in front of me and I label him jahil or a bigot, I can’t be called an extremist by any definition"

I agree to this extent, but you can't be called as a tolerant person either. This attitude of labeling rather than engaging in a healthy debate is what stimulates extremism. I cannot say anything about you, as I said in the article, I have seen many, many, many people making scornful remarks and even making fun of the deaths of their children (the drone attack incident I quoted). This is a hard to digest fact that the ones who call them human rights activist, free liberals and sympathizers of the whole humanity have not only double standards but they justify counter oppression. Very few have open hearts to listen to an extremist point of view. Then again, instead of coming up with a counter narrative, one simply shuts the doors of one's ears and mind, puts a label of Jahil, Terrorist, Pagal, Fanatic, Child Rapist Molvi and flees away thinking that the job is nicely done. This is extremism in my point of view.

You are yet to clarify what this other "extreme" called "secular extremism" is. Merely calling for the separation of state and religion it is not. Then what exactly is it?

You are right to the extent that mocking the children killed in drone attacks (would you like to tell me who is mocking those children, by the way?), labeling others jahil and terrorist *without listening to them* etc. is intolerance and there are plenty of intolerant 'liberals' in Pakistan too. It is still not extremism, though, which is what you were saying, particularly in comparison with TTP/ISIS.

P.S. If I listen to a bigot and after listening to him call him bigot, no, I can't be called intolerant by any definition. I'm just being close to the definition of the word here. If I label him intolerant without listening then yes, I'm intolerant.

I think I have explained it to the best of my abilities. See the whole discussion in a bird's eye view rather than just zooming into the separation between the religion and state.

Taking an extreme opinion and not tolerating other's view is extremism by definition. Thank you very much

Exactly, and as I explained, there are no extreme secular opinions in Pakistan, and plenty of extreme opinions on the other side. You're welcome.