"Secularism
is a device that seeks to
protect religion from the corruption of
politics
and politics from becoming usurped by religion .....
Muslims must realize that
not only does
Islam influence politics,
but politics too shapes what Islam is.
Today
as all religions experience revivals we must find a ways
to
guarantee religious freedom without proscribing the scope of
religion.
Ultimately the plight of the minorities is at the mercy
of
those who are enlightened among the majority and
are willing to
break ranks with their kind to stand up for equality and justice
for all.
Systems are safe only as long as we
strive everyday to
keep them safe."
The Myth of Secularism
Religion and Politics are Mutually Constitutive
He has been the President, Vice President and General Secretary of the Association of Muslim Social Scientists.
Had
Allah willed He could have made you all one community?
But He
made you as you are (diverse) as a test.
So vie one with another
in good works.
Unto Allah you will all return,
and He will then
inform you of the meaning of differences within you.
[Quran 5:48].
Identity and Politics are Inseparable
As
a Muslim intellectual living in the West, researching and
teaching political theory and political philosophy, I have always
marveled at the durability of the idea of secularism. For a
civilization that boasts considerable sophistication in most
areas, to assume that politics and religion constitute two
separate realms or that the two can be separated is
uncharacteristically naïve. This belief, not in separation of church and
state, but in the separability of church and State, in my opinion is one of the enduring myths of modernity. This myth rests on the false assumptions of pure politics and pure religion.
Secularism
is a device that seeks to protect religion from the corruption of
politics and politics from becoming usurped by religion.
All
core issues are not only normative in nature but also impinge on
individual and collective identities. Neither the conception of
the individual self nor the construction of the collective self is
free from political or religious considerations. Even in
societies that were anti-religious such as the former Soviet Union
and present day China, or more secular than the US, such as
France and Turkey, religion remained an important political issue
and politics shaped the way religion was practiced.
Christianity played a
significant role in the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe
and Islamists found a way to come to power in secular
fundamentalist Turkey. The place of religious symbols in public sphere, whether it is Hijaab
(Muslim headscarf) in French public schools or the Ten
Commandments in American courts, remains contested primarily
because there is no consensus on the exclusion of religion from
public sphere anywhere.
Not only does religion play a role in politics, but politicization of religion is also a common occurrence. Notice
how some Republicans are relishing the idea of taking Howard Dean
to cleaners, if he were to become the democratic nominee in the
coming Presidential elections, by painting him as an advocate of
gay marriages. This would be a clear case of exploiting religious
sentiments (that marriage is a divine institution) for political
gains. I have noticed that often, American politicians try to couch
their religious motivations in secular terms while advocating
specific policies. A very good example is the unyielding support
for Israel and Israel’s occupation of West Bank and Gaza among
certain Republican politicians with evangelical connections. While
they support it for Biblical reasons they justify it by arguing
that Israel is the “only democracy in the Middle East.” I often
wonder if their support for Israel will stop if Israel became less
democratic, or it can be shown that some people within its
borders do not enjoy basic democratic rights?
In
the Muslim world on the contrary, legitimacy comes from Islam and
therefore many politicians justify material motivations using
Islamic cover.
While
religious politicians in the West often use secular discourse for
legitimacy, Muslim politicians deliberately Islamize mundane
issues for the same reason. Notice the Islamization of Saddam Hussein’s rhetoric in the first Gulf War.
Religion
in the West lacks legitimacy in the public sphere and must
therefore be concealed, in the Muslim World all legitimacy derives
from Islam hence Islam is used as a justification for politics.
There
are two reasons why religion and politics are intertwined. The
first is the increasing use of complex discourses for the purpose
of legitimization. Today
all politicians seem to follow the Machiavellian dictum – it is
not important to be just, it is important to be seen to be just
– and therefore politicians and political parties and regimes
produce discourses to legitimize their goals and strategies. It is
in the production of these discourses that religion either
underpins political logic are camouflages politic motivations,
depending upon the cultural context.
The
second reason and perhaps the most important reason why religion
will always play a role in crucial issues is the important role
that religion plays in identity formation. All political issues
that are important eventually affect individual and collective
identity and in the process trigger religious sentiments. As long
as religion plays a role in the identities of people, it will play
a role in politics.
Self-Restraint or Constitutional Limits
Both
Governor Mario Cuomo and Congressman Mark Souder link religion
with private and public morality. They both agree that it is
difficult for a believer to divest herself of her religious values
while also serving in a public capacity. However, it is
interesting to see how each of them uses separate mechanisms to
limit the impact of religion in public policy. Governor Cuomo
argues that politicians must exercise self-restraint and only allow
those religious values that are universal in nature to influence their
politics and abstain from allowing particularist values to shape
their agenda. Congressman Souder rejects the notion of a natural
God and common religious values by suggesting that the uncommon is more important than common ground between religions. This is an interesting contrast between identity and difference.
Cuomo seeks to overcomes differences by seeking the identity of
all faiths while Souder celebrates difference in search of
identity.
What
if they do agree upon some basic issues, what if the Christian
Coalition does manage to construct a broad coalition to deprive
Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism the same legal protections as
Christianity (for example in England blasphemy laws protect Jesus
but not Muhammad)? When Muslims repeatedly requested President
Bush to condemn anti-Islam (Islamophoebia)[i]
bigotry from prominent Christian figures such as Rev. Pat
Robertson, Rev. Franklin Graham, and Rev. Jerry Falwell, the
President hedged for weeks, because these individuals have a large
following that translates directly into political power at the
ballot and in campaign fund raising.
In
an era when religious minorities in America are becoming
extremely nervous about the relations between Christian Right and
the Republican establishment which controls both the White House
and the Congress, a plain, unequivocal statement -- “we will not
impose Christian beliefs on non-Christians,” – would have gone a
long way. Congressman Souder makes the point that as a Christian
politician he is conscientious enough to fulfill his
constitutional obligations. He will abide by the constitution since he
has sworn to protect and abide by it. After listening to Governor
Cuomo’s eloquent argument for self-restrain, I wish someone had
asked Congressman Souder would he self-consciously abstain from
advocating the amendment of the constitution to make his religious
beliefs the law of the land. In a democracy what stands between
minority rights and majority domination are constitutional
guarantees, which are themselves at the mercy of good intentions
of the majority.
The Muslim World today is experiencing deeply divisive and traumatic religious resurgence.
This is not a venue to discuss them, but I think it is important to draw an interesting parallel that is prompted by Congressman Souder’s claim that his faith is a worldview.
The
Islamists too make this claim. They argue that Islam is not a
religion, it is a worldview and they even compared it to other
ideologies and worldviews such as capitalism and communism.
Islamists’ have penned tons of books comparing Islam with
communism, socialism, capitalism, liberalism and democracy to prove that
Islam not only has something to say about every aspect of life,
but also whatever it may have to say on any subject is necessarily
superior to what other ideologies have to say on the same
subject. This for them is an article of faith.
Claims about religious creeds as an all-encompassing worldview have the potential to blossom into totalitarian ideologies.
The two politicians demonstrate contrasting models. Governor Cuomo is a model of statesmanship
as he chooses wisdom over parochialism and seeks to exercise
self-restraint on personal beliefs in search of common public values.
In doing so he chose to become a generic religious politician and
not just a Catholic politician. Congressman Souder on the other
hand is a model of citizenship where his commitment to the
US constitution proscribes the role of his religion in politics.
But his view that his faith is a worldview and a true worldview,
including those elements that question the authenticity of other
faiths, places the constitution in jeopardy. I fear that his
citizenship will prompt him to uphold the constitution, but his
Christianity will compel him to change the constitution whenever
possible to accommodate his beliefs. The statesman will always be
the ally of religious minorities in pluralist democracies, but the
Christian citizen is an imminent threat to constitutional
guarantees of freedom from religions.
Islam and the Political Sphere
O
humanity! We have indeed created you from one man and one woman,
and have made you into various nations and tribes so that you may
know one another
[Quran 49:13].
And
let there be amongst you a group of people who invite to
goodness,
encouraging that which is right and forbidding that
which is wrong;
it is they who are the successful
[Quran 3:104].
The
two verses from the Quran cited above and the one with which I
began this chapter make two important points: 1). Diversity is a
consequence of divine designs and 2). Muslims have an ethical role
to play in the public sphere. The verses 3:104 in the opinion of
some Muslims scholars is a Quranic call for political parties to
emerge and play a normative role in the public sphere. I have
argued that the mission of Islam/Muslims in the West can be to
become the moral conscience of free societies. The objective of Muslim
participation in Western, particularly American politics should be
to encourage what is right and forbid what is wrong rather than
seeking to advance the geopolitical agendas of the Muslim World.[ii]
| Islamic
sources recognize racial and ethnic and even religious
differences and advocate a culture of inclusion and
equality. However, there are also sources that lend
themselves to exclusivist politics. Consider the following
verses: |
Those
who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish
(scriptures),
and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe
in God and the Last Day, and do good deeds,
shall have their
reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they
grieve
(Quran 2:62 and 5:69).
And
if one seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be
accepted from him;
and he is among the losers in the Hereafter
(Quran 3:85).
Today
liberal and radical Muslims are divided over which of the above
two verses should determine Muslim relations with other faith
communities. The first verse is inclusive and clearly
indicates that those who are good people have nothing to worry.
And if one treats the word “and” as separating sets of people,
Muslims and Christians… and those who do good deeds, one could
even argue that atheists who do good deeds, such as stand up for
justice, help the poor etc, may have nothing to fear. This status of fundamental moral equality of all people can become the basis for political equality in a multicultural, multi-religious society.
But radical Muslims who believe that only Islam has the Truth and only good Muslims are good people,
rely on 3:85 exclusively arguing that it is not only the ultimate
source for defining Muslim-non-Muslim relations but also abrogates both 2:62 and 5:69. Some Muslim leaders in Dallas, Texas now object to my speaking there because
I once rejected this idea of abrogation of Quranic sources that
radicals do not like by arguing that, the only reason why God
repeated 2:62 in 5:69 was to ensure that bigots did not use 3:85 to
annul 2:62. How can one verse abrogate two verses from the same
sources was my point. Muslims must realize that not only does
Islam influence politics, but politics too shapes what Islam is.
Today
Islam has once again become the ethical language of the Muslim
World. Islam will not only guide Muslim public discourse but also
Muslim conception of what is ethical politics. The Iraqis today
have managed to make President Bush an advocate of Islamic
democracy. European Muslims are making sure that Europe’s foreign
policy balances US’ pro-Israeli stance in the Middle East. As
Muslims become a political force in America, they will most
certainly seek to redefine the role of religion in American politics. I
only hope that an inclusivist rather than an exclusivist
understanding of Islam shapes American Muslim politics. I hope
2:62 prevails over 3:85 and that Muslims seek to emulate Governor
Cuomo and not Congressman Souder.
Final Thoughts
The
reason why the myth of secularism is so precious to modernity is
not its potential to separate religion and politics but its
potential to advance a framework for dealing with religious
diversity under conditions of unequal power. In perfectly
homogenous societies, it does not matter if the state is
influenced by religion or not. It is only when there are other faith
communities, or other interpretations of the same faith that the
state can become an instrument of religious oppression in the
hands of the majority.
But religion disguised as national interest or secular reason can play havoc with minority rights.
As
religion becomes more assertive, and religious zealots become
more adept at “playing the system” then constitutional guarantees
become meaningless if even the constitution of the Supreme Court
can be rigged.
In the modern West, the
best examples of freedom and protection of religious minorities
has come under the reign of secular democracies, in the Muslim
experience the same has happened under the reign of Islam. Today
as all religions experience revivals we must find a ways to
guarantee religious freedom without proscribing the scope of
religion. Ultimately the plight of the minorities is at the mercy of
those who are enlightened among the majority and are willing to
break ranks with their kind to stand up for equality and justice
for all. Systems are safe only as long as we strive everyday to
keep them safe.
M.
A. Muqtedar Khan is a Visiting Fellow at Brookings Institution
and Director of International Studies at Adrian College. He is
also a fellow at the Institute of Social Policy and Understanding.
He is the author of American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom (2002) and Jihad for Jerusalem: Identity and Strategy in International Politics (2004). He writes and maintains www.ijtihad.org.
Posted January 01, 2004
END NOTES
[i]
Muslims hope that one day this word will become as powerful
as the term anti-Semitism in calling attention to prejudice.
[ii] See M. A. Muqtedar Khan,
American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom (Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications, 2002).
The
formula that is driving the Licence Raj basically calls for plundering
the public treasury through government procurements and contracts which
finally cost the tax-payer anything between double, triple to ten times
what it should actually cost them.
The
vast majority of Indians, when not in the squatter areas, continue to
endure slave-like existence in the estates and have since been joined by
the Dusuns and Dayaks. The Malays who are not in the shanty towns are
still in their kampung shacks, while the Chinese remain in their
dilapidated houses in the new villages which haven’t seen many
improvements since the British left.
In reality, the ruling elite usurped the power of the King over Article 153 and made it and the NEP into a sapu bersih (clean out) policy for themselves and their favoured few, the Fat Cats.
