Our secular legacy
The uproar over headscarves in French schools has falsely pitted secularists against Islamists, writes Hala Mustafa*
When French President Jacques Chirac urged the parliament to pass a law
banning conspicuous religious symbols in public schools (Islamic
headscarves, large crosses, the Jewish skullcap), he said that this
move was meant to protect secularism, which he described as
non-negotiable and irreversible. Hardly had Chirac finished his
statement that a flurry of protests came from some Islamic and Arab
quarters.
Critics described Chirac's position as racist, biased against
Muslims and antagonistic to Islam. For those who follow the cultural
and social life in today's Arab and Islamic world, this reaction was to
be expected, for there is no shortage of conspiracy theorists in our
midst. Cultural, let alone political, reason is often silenced by those
willing to pour intellectual venom on anyone with a different view.
Few paused to consider the motives France may have for such a
move. Few addressed the merits of the secularism the French president
wants to preserve, not for his own personal glory or that of his
government, but to uphold France's long record of struggle for human
freedom, fraternity and equality. Few showed willingness to examine
secularism neutrally and objectively. But is it true that the Arab and
Islamic world has not known secularism, and not enforced it, at least
partly, for centuries? Is it true that secularism is against religion?
And will the day ever come when the Arab mind would surmount the
barriers of rejection and listen to reason?
Few, it seems, are ready to approach the question of
secularism with objectivity. This is why secularism remains a much
distorted and maligned concept. Some see it as too "Western". Others
think it antagonistic to religion. In most cases, one-sided and biased
explanations cast a shadow on the truth of secularism. One of the
endemic problems of Arab culture is its propensity to ritualise the
past and regard openness with suspicion. This is why no talk of
democracy is possible without addressing the values, ideas and concepts
governing political culture.
Democracy does not materialise the moment it is approved by
the constitution or the law, or the moment voters appear at the polling
stations. Democracy is a product of the environment in which it is
applied. In other words, the essence of democracy depends on whether
the prevalent culture is favourable to, or antagonistic to, freedom,
tolerance and equality. All of these concepts are at the heart of civil
rights and liberties.
Democracy aims to bring about the largest possible amount of
rights and freedom to the individual. It was no coincidence that
democracy, as a form of government, only took root after decades of
struggle. The Magna Carta, declared in England in 1215, was the first
legal document spelling out the idea of citizenry and individual civic
rights. The American Declaration of Independence, ratified on 4 July
1776, was no less revolutionary. The latter was crowned with the
drafting of the constitution in 1788, which confirmed the civic rights
of the individual. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their creator, with
certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness," notes the US constitution.
The French Revolution in 1789 put together the first specific
declaration on individual rights and basic freedoms. The French
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen is one of the best
known human rights declarations. It became universal when the United
Nations adopted it in 1948. In its first article, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights announces that "all human beings are born
free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and
conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of
brotherhood."
Democracy took root only after these rights and freedoms were
accepted. Democracy, therefore, was more of a result than a cause of
freedom. Human rights and freedoms developed in the context of
secularism, for the latter paved the way to tolerance, freedom, and
political accountability, just as it ended despotism in all its
political and religious forms, including the practices of the clergy in
Europe's Middle Ages. Man's natural right became a foundation for
government; social contract theories paved the way for democratic
systems; and man-made laws ended all forms of discrimination and
fanaticism.
Secularism, generally defined as the "separation of church and
state", was never meant to undermine religious beliefs. On the
contrary, it helped protect religious beliefs, while preventing their
use for political and authoritarian ends. Secularism is a set of
regulatory measures aimed to separate the religious and political
domains so as to prevent despotism. It is a guarantee that no social or
political force would impart on itself, or on its views and
interpretations, a sacred status in the name of religion, then proceed
to impose it on individuals, society and the state.
What paved the way for secularism was the great interest
Europe's Renaissance took in philosophy, history, poetry, literature
and arts, all of which form the ingredients of modern civilisation. The
spread of secularism in Europe and America (and thereafter to other
parts of the world) took place only after bloody conflicts which cost
the lives of many intellectuals and artists. Freedom was the fruit of
the worthiest struggle known to humanity -- the struggle for human
dignity. If secularism is occasionally confused for antagonism to
religion, this happens as a result of the spread of some doctrines in
the 19th century, particularly Marxism, with its atheist inclinations.
It is erroneously assumed that the Islamic world is unfamiliar
with secularism. In fact, Islamic societies mostly abide by the modern
idea of a nation state, have constitutions that endorse civic rights,
and pass legislation that is clearly man-made. As a rule, the Islamic
world does not uphold the unity of church and state, even though the
dividing lines between the two gets occasionally blurred.
The secular aspect of Islam is not new. Prophet Mohamed did
not recommend a certain system of government or name a successor. The
change of the Muslim system of government, from the caliphate to
hereditary monarchy, is a sign that no particular political system is
obligatory in Islam. What we have are general principles used for
overall guidance.
Islam does not recognise the principle of religious authority
or endorse ruling through divine mandate. Jamaluddin Al-Afghani, for
example, called for "the establishment of a constitutional government
subject to the oversight of an elected parliament", insisting that the
nation should choose its ruler. Abdul- Rahman Al-Kawakibi said that
"rulers and politicians who attempt to confuse politics with religion
are hiding behind the latter in order to tighten their grip on the
gullible members of the nation, a conduct which has no basis in Islam
as a religion."
In his endorsement of the National Party, Sheikh Mohamed Abdu
said, "the National Party is a political, not a religious, party. It is
made up of men who differ in denomination and creed. All Christians and
Jews, everyone who tills the soil of Egypt and speaks its language, may
join this party, regardless of the difference in creed."
In Islam and the Principles of Government, published
1925, Sheikh Ali Abdel-Razek, one of Al- Azhar's most luminous
scholars, stated that "Islam is a religion, not an authority or a
caliphate ... a message, not a command." In 1950, Khaled Mohamed Khaled
addressed the same issue in From Here We Start, saying "Islam
is a religion, not a state, and does not need to be a state ...
Religion offers signs that illuminate our path to God. It is not a
political force that controls people and forces them to follow the
straight path."
Two of our contemporary scholars, different as they are in
their doctrinal background, make the same point. Mohamed Ahmed
Khalafallah states "the prophet-messenger draws his authority from God
who chose him, whereas the caliph draws his authority from the people
who chose him." In Islam, Arabism, and Secularism, Mohamed Emarah, argues that Islam, just as European secularism, has a utilitarian aspect.
This quick review demonstrates how secularism, a Western
legacy, has served the cause of freedom, democracy and individual
rights. Islamic legacy, meanwhile, has never been absent from the
course of human advancement. We have gone through times of freedom and
creativity, and others of repression and backwardness, and we have the
right to disagree. Only, no one has the right to confiscate knowledge
or stifle objectivity.
* The writer is editor-in-chief of the quarterly journal Al-Demoqrateya (Democracy) published by Al-Ahram.
