I recently came across this interesting presentation on Islam and
Secularism by Tunisian intellectual Rashid Ghannouchi. Tunisia is at a critical juncture, having
just elected an Islamically-inclined party, Ennehda, to power after having successfully
staged their revolution that went on to spark the Arab Spring. And Ghannouchi
is the intellectual head of this movement.
I have read some of his works written in years past when he was
in exile and so I was looking forward to his perspective after having finally
achieved a platform for implementing his vision. Unfortunately, I came away
greatly disappointed in what I felt to be a grossly apologetic approach to
synchronizing the paradox of Islam and Secularism.
I’ve taken snippets from his talk followed by my
comments. However, in order to taste the full complement of flavors experienced
in his talk, you really must read it from beginning to end.
=-=-=
“Secularism appeared, evolved, and crystallized in the
West as procedural solutions, and not as a philosophy or theory of existence,
to problems that had been posed in the European context. Most of these problems
emerged following the Protestant split in the West, which tore apart the
consensus that had been dominant in the Catholic Church, and imposed the
religious wars in the 16th and 17th century. It was thus that Secularism and/or
secularization began.”
Secularism is not simply a set of ‘procedural solutions’.
How could a set of mere ‘procedural solutions’ have been proposed to clean up
the mess made by the religious wars of the 16th and 17th
centuries? One needs only to look back at the embryonic stages of secularism
and study the environment in which it was gestated to realize that the
Reformation, the Renaissance, Enlightenment and other deeply philosophical events
were key in the formulation of Western Secularism.
Europe needed an entirely different mindset and worldview
in order to overwrite centuries of damage caused by the paternalistic Church. And
thus, Secularism conveniently separated the over-reaching arm of the Church
from the state and declared all religious matters divorced from the public
realm. No ‘procedural solutions’ could
have ever achieved such a monumental paradigm shift.
True, secularism has a procedural component, such as the significance
of rule of law or the separation of powers, but to suggest that it isn’t a
philosophy or that it doesn’t strongly promote and encourage a certain theory
of existence (i.e. atheism) is patently incorrect.
“In the United States religious interference in the
public domain is evident, despite the differentiation that exists there remains
a significant religious influence. Their leaders' speeches are laden with
religious content and references, and religion is debated in all electoral
campaigns where it manifests itself in issues such as prayer in schools and
abortion.”
To argue that the US intermixes religion and politics in
issues of any substance is naïve. The
rare sprinkling of religion into the political realm is superficial at
best. The role of religion in core
governance issues is nonexistent. The fact that religion is allowed a chair at
the table of government is merely a PR ploy.
Only peripheral issues, such as abortion, contraception, and prayer in
school, are regularly marched before the public (coincidentally during election
season), so as to distract from the more vital issues such as social services ,
foreign policy, economics, etc.
“This will naturally lead to a diversity in
interpretation, and there is no harm in that except when we need to legislate,
at which time we are in need of a mechanism, and the best mechanism that
mankind has come up with is the electoral and democratic one which produces
representatives of the nation and makes these interpretations a collective as
opposed to an individual effort.”
Based on what is he able to declare that the best legislative
mechanism that mankind has come up with is the electoral and democratic
one? With so many apparent abuses and
failures of the democratic methodology, how can this be the best mankind has
devised? It is folly at best, and disingenuous misrepresentation at worst, to
suggest that a republic based on democratic procedures can most optimally yield
a just and fair government. Have not centuries of this exact political
experiment in Europe and the US proven that all democracies inevitably spiral
downwards into the sewage of plutocracy and oligarchy? Why are we so in a rush
to duplicate the failures of our masters?
“But if what is mean is the separation in the French
sense or in accordance with the Marxist experience then we may engage in a
dangerous adventure that may harm both religion and state. The total stripping
of the state from religion would turn the state into a mafia, and the world
economic system into an exercise in plundering, and politics into deception and
hypocrisy. And this is exactly what happened in the Western experience, despite
there being some positive aspects. International politics became the preserve
of a few financial brokers owning the biggest share of capital and by extension
the media, through which they ultimately control politicians.”
The speaker has failed to provide any alternate method by
which a secular democracy can be employed without inevitably resulting in the
above-mentioned negative after-effects.
“There is no value to any religious observance that is
motivated through coercion. It is of no use to turn those who are disobedient
to God into hypocrites through the state's coercive tools. People are created
free and while it is possible to have control over their external aspects, it
is impossible to do so over their inner selves and convictions.”
This is a typical red herring by the pro-secularism side
and while I expect such misleading drivel from the likes of Bush, I am very
disappointed to read it from Ghannouchi.
They paint a binary landscape in which complete freedom of religion
exists solely in a setting where religion plays a minimal role in governance or
religion and politics mix into a toxic potion resulting in coercion and
compulsion by oppressive religious state authorities.
No one is arguing for state interference in private
religious matters. No one wishes for the
state to have control over ‘their inner selves and convictions.’ It isn’t a
choice of absolute liberalism or absolute authoritarianism.
“The state's duty, however, is to provide services to
people before anything else, to create job opportunities, and to provide good
health and education not to control people's hearts and minds.”
What about creating a rich, fertile society in which man
can fully express his humanity, which happens to be through adherence to the
Quran and Sunnah.
“For this reason, I have opposed the coercion of
people in all its forms and manifestation and have dealt with such
controversial topics such as al-Riddah (apostasy) and have defended the freedom
of people to either adhere to or defect from a religious creed, based on the
Qur'anic verse that says: 'there is no compulsion in religion'.”
Sadly he shows his limited understanding of the ideal mix
between religion and politics when he restricts his samples to the
media-mandated hot topics of veiling and apostasy.
These are all straw men, propped up and consequently shot
down by him to simply further his pro-secularism contentions. No sane advocate
of combining religion and politics is suggesting that the state must force
religiosity on its citizens. Rather, the
state must cultivate an environment conducive to carrying out one’s religious
obligations while enriching one’s spiritual development.
“This is why Muslims consider Islam's proof to be so
powerful that there is no need to coerce people, and when the voice of Islam
proclaims 'Produce your proof if ye are truthful' this challenge is being
proposed at the heart of the political and intellectual conflict.”
Again, the argument isn’t about coercing citizens to
observe religious rituals. It is about
enacting religious principles in state institutions. It is about removing predatory capitalism
from the economy. It is about instilling
a more just foreign policy, in line with the Quran and Sunnah. It is about
educating the masses away from materialism and back towards a more spiritual
worldview
“The fact that our revolution has succeeded in
toppling a dictator, we ought to accept the principle of citizenship, and that
this country does not belong to one party or another but rather to all of its
citizens regardless of their religion, sex, or any other consideration. Islam
has bestowed on them the right to be citizens enjoying equal rights, and to
believe in whatever they desire within the framework of mutual respect, and
observance of the law which is legislated for by their representatives in
parliament.”
And all this can only be achieved via a secular
democracy? Is our intellectual capital
so exhausted that we cannot even consider an alternative Islamically-anchored possibility?
