Posts filed under ‘Secularism’
Why do many Muslims mistrust secularism?
Jorgen S. Nielsen
852 words
7 May 2007
(c) 2007 THE DAILY STAR, BEIRUT, LEBANON.
Beirut — Some years ago, the exiled Tunisian Islamist leader Rashid Ghannoushi wrote a book on public rights in Islam. He pointed out that there were particular historical reasons why Europe had separated religion and state. The church had misused its powers, had stood in the way of scientific progress, and the state had made religion a tool of oppression. That’s fine for Europe, he said, but in the Muslim world people didn’t share that history; they had to find their own way of doing things.
This is a pretty mild Muslim response to the concept of Western secularism. In sharper versions, secularism is one of a list of unfavorable Western inventions which include materialism, Zionism, promiscuity and imperialism – to mention but a few in no particular order. At the extreme, Osama bin Laden has his own list of evils.
Why is it that Muslims appear to find it so difficult to see anything positive in Western secularism? Are we so different after all?
There are some Islamic movements that are serious in their call for the complete integration of religion and state, with religion predominating in public life as in private. Additionally, in the languages of some Muslim populations, the discussion is made almost impossible by the fact that the word used for secularism translates into English as “no religion” or “without religion.” This is the case, for example, in Urdu, whereas the original meaning of the word was simply “that which has to do with this world, as opposed to the next.”
Once one gets underneath the surface of the topic, though, things become more complicated. And they differ from country to country. Saudi Arabia is not Egypt is not Iran is not Pakistan is not Syria, and so on.
Certainly, Muslims do not like a lot of what they view as being Western: the loneliness of the individual, the breakdown of the family, the destruction wrought by drug addiction, random violence, recreational sex. Of course, they are not alone in feeling these concerns, and it is natural to conclude that they are the result of the decline of religion. But this interpretation has also been popularized by Western media, especially by American films which everyone can now see on satellite television.
But there are other perspectives. In the mid-1920s, the Egyptian scholar Ali Abd al-Raziq, a professor at Al-Azhar, published a book entitled “Islam and the Roots of Government.” In it he argued that the Prophet Mohammad had founded a religion, not a state, so religion should not determine state structures today. The book was immediately condemned and, we are told by most Islamic scholars, is no longer of interest. But it has remained continuously in print since then and can still be bought in Cairo bookshops. So someone must be reading it.
In a conversation with a group of Islamic scholars in the United Kingdom recently from one of the more conservative movements, we got on to the topic of an “Islamic order.” Clearly, it was not enough that a government or economic system should call itself Islamic. It had to be Islamic. But what did that mean? For the scholars such a system had to offer social justice, a reliable legal system, personal liberty, equality, popular participation, accountable rulers and the like. One of them ventured that northern European welfare states were arguably a good deal more “Islamic” than any state in the Muslim world.
If such important values are shared, then why are there such mixed feelings about the idea of secularism in Muslim societies? Clearly the attack on secularism is encouraged by clerics. If religion in its traditional forms is pushed to the margins of public life, what remains for the clergy? But that on its own is an unsatisfactory explanation for the mistrust of secularism. After all clerics have a receptive audience for their views.
On the so-called Arab street, secularism is more often than not seen as a foreign import. It was brought in by foreign colonial powers as a way of limiting the power of Muslim religious institutions which often were at the forefront of resistance against the colonial powers. Many modern Muslim states are regarded as the heirs of the colonial powers by their people. Secular politics are associated with secular military dictatorships that were established during the years of the Cold War, and supported by one or the other of the secular superpowers.
Today, the only effective challenge to this inheritance, many Muslims believe, comes from Islamist movements, and people arguing for a secular perspective run the constant danger of being accused of collaboration with the West. It is this that makes it more likely that many will tilt away from modern, pluralistic secularism toward a religious political system.
Jorgen S. Nielsen is director of the Danish Institute of Damascus and a professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom. This article is part of a series on secularism and Muslim-Western dialogue distributed by the Common Ground News Service.
I wasn’t sure I liked this artice. It was more opinion and less fact. Even if it is in the opinion section it assumed quite a bit… and was really biased. I added this story because it links together opposite things, secularism and islam.. They aren’t usually seen in the same sentence.
Add comment May 9, 2007
A Test for Turkish Democracy
The military may have overplayed its hand in challenging Abdullah Gul’s candidacy for president.
April 30, 2007 6:00 PM
The Guardian
The Turkish generals’ implicit midnight warning that, as the “absolute defender of secularism”, the army would not tolerate Islamist meddling with the constitutional legacy of Kemal Ataturk carried a dark echo of previous military coups.
It is only 10 years since tanks were sent on to the streets to help topple Necmettin Erbakan, a prime minister who, the army believed, had confused his politics with religion. Earlier interventions were even less subtle and left lasting scars
Turkey’s historically uncertain embrace of democratic governance is one reason why its fitness to join the EU has been questioned. Proponents of Ankara’s membership say this is exactly why Turkey should be locked into the European community without more ado.
But the contours of the latest crisis, over the moderate Islamist government’s choice of foreign minister Abdullah Gul as the next president, suggest times have changed, even if Turkey’s detractors have not noticed.
The military’s statement was hardly an ultimatum. It expressed “solid determination” to uphold the law – then rather lamely complained that it wanted to be “one of the sides in this debate”. It is hard to see that as a direct threat to violently overthrow the prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Mr Erdogan’s confident reaction also suggested Turkey has moved on – that a decade is a very long time in politics. In a disdainful swipe at the military, he said it was “unthinkable” that the armed forces should challenge an elected government in modern Turkey. Mr Gul said withdrawal of his candidacy was “out of the question”.
Semih Idiz, a leading columnist with Milliyet newspaper, said these exchanges marked a “watershed” in Turkey’s development. “It may be that the military overplayed its hand this time,” he said. “The government had to make a stand against the army and it did. It has been strengthened morally. It has enabled it to stress its democratic agenda.”
The 700,000 demonstrators protesting the choice of Mr Gul in Istanbul at the weekend were equally opposed to a military coup and had said so volubly, Mr Idiz added.
He said the government could probably rally even greater numbers of supporters if it had to. And it had been heartened by backing from the US and EU. The latter described the confrontation as a “test case” for Turkish democracy.
Faruk Logoglu, a former ambassador to Washington who heads the Centre for Eurasian Strategic Studies in Ankara, said fears of intervention by the generals were exaggerated. “Whatever happens next, it will not be a military coup,” he said.
The army had a right and even a duty to express its point of view, Dr Logoglu added. “But the ultimate bottom line is that all these difficulties will be resolved by political and judicial means or via the ballot box. I think we will muddle through.”
Interviewed last month at the foreign ministry in Ankara, Mr Gul said he expected the opposition to kick up a row about supposed threats to secular institutions, whoever his ruling Justice and Development party (AKP) selected. One contentious issue is that Mr Gul’s wife, Hayrunisa, wears a headscarf.
“We will have a debate. We are listening. Presidential elections are always controversial. [But] no one finds these arguments convincing any more,” Mr Gul said. Mr Erdogan’s reform record, and 35% overall economic growth in the past four years, were what mattered.
Political analysts and officials agree that if the constitutional court suspends the presidential election in a ruling expected on Wednesday, an early general election (a poll is due in any case by November) will almost certainly be called. They also mostly agree that Mr Erdogan and the AKP will win again.
“What is happening is a very healthy democratic debate,” a senior government official said. “It has crystallised the issues facing Turkey for Turks and for the world, and there is full transparency. The military was compelled to make its statement. But it is not like the old days. The institutions are functioning according to the constitution.”
All the same, Mr Gul’s presidential candidacy has highlighted political, religious, and geographical divisions and may not survive the ruckus. “Civil society is becoming more active. It shows the system of democratic checks and balances is not yet fully developed,” Dr Logoglu said. “They may have to find somebody else.”
At first glance this story doesn’t really seem to have much to do with religion but i read on and figured out it was all about religion, or rather lack of it…. SECULARISM…. I liked it because it linked other issues as well including democracy, politics, and world issues. It was however still based around secularism. An interesting article..
What is most interesting however, is the fact that it was incredibly widely covered, there are numerous stories in mainstream publications. Including;
Turkey’s Gul Withdraws candidacy
8 days, 18 hours, 44 minutes ago
FORMER Islamist Abdullah Gul withdrew his candidacy for Turkey’s presidency overnight after pressure from the military and demonstrators who accuse his ruling party of subverting the nation’s secular order.
Turkey to hold snap elections
12days, 2 hours, 20mins ago
TURKEY’S Parliament has overwhelmingly approved a ruling party call for snap general elections in a bid to resolve a damaging crisis sparked by secularist objections to having a former Islamist as president.
Time Magazine
Trouble in Turkey
May. 14, 2007
…democratically elected government. The protest was part of a larger revolt by Turkey’s “secular establishment,” which includes the army and…
These are all articles from different news sources, and to avoid goining on forever there are many other publications that published this particular issue. Feel free to find more if you wish 
Add comment May 2, 2007
