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.
