A Secular State for Muslim Societies?

THE CASE FOR THE SECULAR STATE

Maryam Sakeenah

In a country plagued by violence in the name of religion and sect and infested with decadent religio-political outfits, secularism as a pillar of statehood comes to be seen as an ideal. The typical response by the religious to the eulogization of secularism in Muslim societies is to warn their followers that secularism is equivalent to unbelief and is a great evil against religion.

In understanding the secular state to be an ideal polity free of the tyranny of religious politics and based on pluralism and egalitarianism, we gloss over both its nuanced history and its practice in the present. On the other hand, viewing secularism as unbelief and as hostile to religious belief is not only inaccurate but also ignorant of the great ravages religious politics is capable of and has often unleashed, especially in European history.

More accurately, a secular state ideally entails the dissociation of religion from the state, guaranteeing religious liberties to all groups without prejudice and discrimination on religious grounds. It does not mean the elimination of religion, but its privatization.

In the European experience, the achievement of the secular state was indeed a liberation from the religious oppression of the Church throughout much of what is described as the Dark Ages. In pre Enlightenment Europe, religious politics were indeed unregulated and unaccountable, exploiting with impunity under the ‘Divine Right of Kings.’

Having said that, the universalization of the European secular experiment is a mistake we often fall into making, given the well entrenched Eurocentrism of education in postcolonial societies. Non Eurpoean societies had radically different approaches to and experiences with the question of religion and state.

Even a cursory glance at Muslim history makes it clear that the religious state was not always an instrument of corruption and abuse. It is difficult to contest the progressive and prosperous character of religious rule in the earliest history of Islam before the monarchical takeover of the Caliphate.  There is evidence attesting to how rights and privileges were accorded justly, the supremacy of law held high and protections extended to non Muslims.

In most of Islam’s history, involvement of religious scholars and religious leaders in politics checked, regulated and held governments accountable. In fact, religious leaders- specifically the great Imams of both the Shiite and Sunni tradition often became active forces of resistance to political excesses and abuse of religion. The example of Hussain R.A and the Imams of the Ahl ul Bayt as well as other Companions and Tabiyeen is a powerful legacy. 

The example of Al Andalusia under Islamic rule shines through history as a model of pluralism as well as intellectual, cultural and social progress. This is why the thesis that the secular values of egalitarianism and pluralism can in fact be accommodated within the ideal Muslim state exists. What needs to be understood here is that given this history, Muslims are entitled to conclude that the achievement of what are understood as secular ideals does not require the liberation of the state from religion. In other words, while standing as a refreshing exception, Andalusia shows that the achievement of a progressive, diverse and tolerant civilization is possible and has been achieved without going through the separation of church and state- unlike in the European experience.

In the Middle East, quite contrary to Europe, one finds that secularism has been a foreign implant and secular regimes have been backed by Western states with their own neocolonialist agendas. Such secular regimes in the Middle East have often been brutal and oppressive, corrupt, high-handed and even undemocratic. They have never really represented the popular will. This reality of secularism in the Muslim world is far from the ideal of secularism that fires our imaginations.

In fact the reality of secularism even in the West is anything but. It has assumed the character of a totalitarian ‘ism’ aggressively fanatical in its intolerance of religious belief.  According to Phillip Bond and Adrian Pabst writing for the International Herald Tribune, "European societies enshrine the primacy of secular law over and against religious principles. Far from ensuring neutrality and tolerance, the secular European state arrogates to itself the right to control and legislate all spheres of life; state constraints apply especially to religion and its civic influence.”

Karen Armstrong, referring to the concepts of ‘dharma’ in Hinduism and ‘deen’ in Islam asserts how secularism is a radical modern innovation as religion was always understood by human beings as a way of life without the public/private schism. She writes, ‘Questions like social justice or rights have always had sacred import.’

Whether we believe in the establishment of secular states in Muslim societies or not, we must accept that the case for secular states in Muslim societies is not only ahistorical, it is stridently Eurocentric at best, and neocolonialist at worst.  

THE CASE FOR AN INTELLECTUAL DISCOURSE ON ISLAM

THE CASE FOR AN INTELLECTUAL DISCOURSE ON ISLAM

Maryam Sakeenah

The righteous rage that boils over into lynchings, mobs, suspicions and allegations of blasphemy shows a loss of balance and rationality in our social behaviour. This is a disturbing truth that needs a serious collective introspection. Among other things, a lot of this (self) righteous rage is because of an inability and unwillingness to intellectually confront and address diversity, difference and dissenting opinions.

The religious discourse in our society is largely anti intellectual to the extent that even an intellectual approach to religion is sneered at as deviant, threatening and disrespectful. This simplistic, anti intellectual discourse is asserted by wielding power and instilling fear by religious leaders, and the use of threat and violence by those who lack the privilege of religious authority.

The decadence of religious discourse in this part of the world is rooted in the colonial past when the prestigious madrassah was systematically  marginalized and disempowered as part of the colonial education policy of ‘schooling the world.’ The cornered madrassah took refuge behind a defensive, protectionist, insecure religious discourse, trying to hold on in a rapidly changing milieu. In an attempt at self preservation, this defensive discourse refused to engage and became airtight and obscurantist. This still characterizes the madrassah and those who emerge from the system: a stubborn refusal to intellectually engage with alternative discourses that the modern world is teeming with. But we cannot insulate our youth from the tide of intellectual assault from modern ideas and new patterns of thinking. There will be questions raised, and our refusal to engage or even bother with articulating responses will alienate thinking minds.

It is already happening at an ever-increasing rate. As a teacher on Islam, I have observed an incremental trend over the years, of skepticism among young people exposed to the kind of heavily Westernized  modern education we have at private urban educational institutions. There are lots of questions as they encounter diverse patterns of thought. Unfortunately, answers through religion are most often not available, and even asking is often put down as impertinent. This produces a disenchantment with a faith that is unable to address critical and vital questions of the day. It is these disenchanted bright minds that possess social and cultural capital to make up the pool that supplies the academia, the media and the bureaucracy with fresh human resource. Hence this early skepticism which hardens into a strident secularism, filters into institutions of state and society, to be systematically wielded and exerted with power.

At the other end, this systematic empowerment of the secularized, socially privileged lot breeds frustrated rage in the conservative mind. The conservative mind is fiercely anti intellectual. This anti intellectualism takes any intellectual challenge as an audacious affront, a ‘conspiracy against Islam’- hence violence becomes the only ‘language’ to respond with.

These developments are ominous, and the cracks and gashes are already appearing, cutting across society, letting the red hot lava boil over. Unfortunately, few are cognizant of this and even fewer conscious of our responsibility to stem the process in our capacities. Any calls for a progressive Islamic discourse are put down with suspicion of hidden agendas. The truth is, developing a modern intellectual and philosophical Islamic discourse and mainstreaming it is nobody’s agenda but Islam’s own need. In fact, Islam has had progressive thinkers throughout its history. Being progressive is not deviance; it is an approach which makes human beings throughout time sift through all the narratives and reveal the essence in a way that is most relevant and applicable for their times.

In more open societies in the West, Muslim communities have no option but to engage and adapt, hence one sees an increasing realization of the need to come up with an intellectually robust spirituality that does not cave in or go berserk on encounter with difference. Thinkers and scholars like Tariq Ramadan, Yasir Qadhi, Omar Suleiman and Hamza Yusuf among others are rising up to the intellectual challenge Islam is faced with. Their fidelity to Islamic fundamentals and tradition makes their progressive voices credible and authentic.

An intellectual discourse on Islam should not be polemical but dialectical. It should be guided by Islamic tradition yet fully cognizant of influential modern and postmodern ideas. It should reflect an awareness of and respect for the diversity and pluralism within Islam and outside of Islam. It should be equipped with tools and methods for credible research and aim to mediate between ideas, creating common grounds. It should engage in a modern ijtehad with the traditional tools of Muslim jurisprudence, to address contemporary issues like homosexuality and the reconstruction of gender, new atheism, militant Islamism etc. Such a project must use the language, approach, style and tools most familiar to the modern mind. This will bring two great benefits: firstly, rescuing the skeptical modern Muslim mind from disenchantment by addressing critical questions. Secondly, mainstreaming an intellectual religious discourse which respects diversity and demonstrates to the mass Muslim mind that difference can be lived with and engaged with intellectually.

Religious scholars and intellectuals here need to realize the need to develop a new religious discourse that arms itself with reason, not fear and violence.

OF MOB LYNCHINGS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE

ROOTS OF RAGE

Maryam Sakeenah

How does one move on with all this deep, searing pain over the mob lynching of a body that bore a beautiful heart and a precious mind? And with our senses still reeling, we hear of at least two more horror stories of blasphemy related violence. Grueling as it is, one has to navigate a path out of the all-consuming despair, shock and horror.

Self righteous anger over suspicions of irreligion are all too familiar here. But the roots of the rage go deep; into histories, ideologies, politics and lawmaking. The roots are hard to extricate, but understanding can prevent us from consciously or unconsciously watering and nurturing this poison tree with our words and actions. And so, with this terrible burden of shame to bear as a Pakistani and Muslim, I attempt an understanding.

It is unquestionable that a number of violent crimes are driven by religious zealotry. Desperate attempts to deny that, supposing that this would ‘save’ Islam’s image are pathetically delusional.  In doing what the students of Mardan university did in the name of religion, they lynched their own professed faith; and when we take the bait and draw all the wrong conclusions- either haplessly proving that ‘religion has nothing to do with it’, or directly blaming faith and religious doctrine itself for the atrocity, we fuel the blind hate further, becoming the lynch mobsters sinning against a faith that has equal potential for beauty, peace and healing.

While the mobsters let themselves be swayed and drunken by righteous anger, deep within somewhere, there was an uncomfortable knowledge that this was a sacrilege, an atrocity that no religion, no god, no prophet can condone. But mobs don’t pause and reflect; they veer into madness. While the zeal was religiously driven, it was not inspired or guided in any direct way by religious doctrine. That distinction is important to make.

But equally important is the need to address why our mass behavior descends into mob zealotry and fanatical violence driven by and in the name of religion? The reasons go very deep.

While allegations of blasphemy in the Mashal Khan case are far from proven, it is clear that he professed progressive views, a critical and questioning mind. The local mass religious mindset, however, does not allow questions and cannot withstand intellectual challenge. This is in large part because the religious discourse in our society is largely anti intellectual to the extent that even an intellectual approach to religion is sneered at as deviant, threatening and disrespectful. This simplistic, anti intellectual discourse is asserted by wielding power and instilling fear by religious leaders, and the use of threat and violence by those who lack the privilege of authority.

This decadence of religious discourse in this part of the world is rooted in the colonial past when the prestigious madrassah was systematically  marginalized and disempowered as part of the colonial education policy of ‘schooling the world.’ The cornered madrassah took refuge behind a defensive, protectionist, insecure religious discourse, trying to hold on in a rapidly changing milieu. In an attempt at self preservation, this defensive discourse refused to engage and became airtight and obscurantist. This still characterizes the madrassah and those who emerge from the system: a stubborn refusal to intellectually engage with alternative discourses that the modern world is teeming with. But we cannot insulate our youth from the tide of intellectual assault from modern ideas and new patterns of thinking. There will be questions raised, and our refusal to engage or even bother with articulating responses will alienate thinking minds.

 At the other end of the spectrum, this anti intellectualism teaches conservative minds to take an intellectual challenge as an audacious affront- hence violence becomes the only ‘language’ to respond with.

In more open societies in the West, Muslim communities have no option but to engage and adapt, hence one sees an increasing realization of the need to come up with an intellectually robust spirituality that does not cave in or go berserk on encounter with difference.

Religious scholars as well as secular voices need to realize that this is not just about having or not having the blasphemy law. It is about the need to develop a new religious discourse that addresses and accommodates the genuine questions that the modern mind is full of- a discourse that arms itself with reason, not fear and violence.

The many passionate condemnations of the incident by religious leaders and action against hate speech as well as public demonstrations in solidarity with the victim family are welcome developments that help to restore one's faith in ourselves despite this awareness of the terrible darkness engulfing us. But a deeper and more farsighted approach for religious leaders and educators would be to guide a new discourse on religion that contends with alternative perspectives and intellectual challenges with maturity, wisdom and openness; a discourse that accommodates diversity and makes respectful space for difference.

Another more personal lesson for me is to remind myself that while self righteous consciousness of professed faith charges mobs to blind rage, a deeper rooted faith also inspires some like Ibn Ali Miller- or closer to home, that nameless Imam from Chitral- to stand in the midst of the storm of hate and violence to save, make peace and heal. It is up to us to make the choice. In our capacities and within our spheres, those who still value faith must  resolve to passionately impart compassion, empathy, tolerance and respect for difference as part of and through faith- otherwise, our proclaimed belief cannot prevent us from committing excesses and injustices in religion’s name.