Secularism Under the Microscope - Notes
Dr. Aziz Al-Azmeh
Born in Damascus in 1947.
Professor at the American University in Beirut.
Studied at several Arab and foreign universities.
Wrote books in Arabic including:
Ibn Khaldun and His History
Historical Writing and Historical Knowledge
Arabs and Barbarians
The Heritage Between Sultan and History
Secularism from a Different Perspective
The World of Religion in the Present of the Arabs
Authored books containing selections from the writings of Al-Shidyaq, Ibn Taymiyyah, Muhammad Abdul Wahab, Al-Mawardi, and Ibn Khaldun.
Foreign publications:
Ibn Khaldun and His Students
Ibn Khaldun
Arab Thought and Islamic Societies
Islam and Modernity
Kings of Islam
His works have been translated into German, French, Persian, Turkish, Muharriya, Spanish, English, and Arabic.
Dr. Abdul Wahab Al-Messiri
BA in Arts - English Literature - Alexandria University (1959).
MA in English Literature - Columbia University, USA (1964).
PhD in English, American, and Comparative Literature - Rutgers University, USA (1969).
Expert in Zionism at the Center for Political and Strategic Studies at Al-Ahram (until 1975).
Former President of the Arab Organization for Human Rights, British Branch.
Member of the Permanent Delegation of the League of Arab States to the United Nations (until 1979).
Professor at Ain Shams University, King Saud University, and Kuwait University (until 1989).
Part-time professor at Ain Shams University (1989 - present).
Academic Advisor to the International Institute of Islamic Thought (1992 - present).
Member of the Board of Trustees of the Islamic University of Sciences and Social Sciences - Washington - United States (1997 - present).
Publisher's Note
The term "secularism" has sparked much debate and conflict since the dawn of the renaissance, making the dichotomy of secular and Islamic the most widely used.
Each team clung to its axioms, claiming to monopolize the truth, leading to rigid visions and rejection of the other.
The discussion of secularism is being brought up again to see if the Islamic party will stop accusing the other of being a Renegade and trying to copy the west blindly.
Will the secular party refrain from accusing the Islamic party of not using reason and moving towards more traditional irrational ideals.
Dialogue is the best way to soften that which has hardened and follow humanities path towards progress, nothing sharpens the mind more than difference and the truth can be found in debate.
The Term Secularism - Dr. Abdul Wahab Al-Messiri
Several terms are used in Arab political thought, such as enlightenment, modernization and globalization, and people are divided between supporters and opponents.
The term "secularism" is one of the most common and divisive terms which is intensely debated as if it has specific meanings, dimensions and implications.
The term is a translation of the English word Secularism, and the term Secular was first used at the end of the Thirty Years War (1648) when the Peace of Westphalia was signed which lead to the emergence of the modern nation state.
Initially The meaning of the term was limited to secularization of church property only by transferring it to non religious authorities such as the state.
In France, in the 18th century, the word meant from the point of view of the Catholic Church the illegitimate confiscation of church property.
Philosophers believed that the word meant the legal confiscation of church property for the benefit of the state.
The semantic field of the word expanded towards more complexity and ambiguity at the hands of John Holyooke (1817-1906), the first to coin the term in its modern sense.
Holyooke defined secularism as the belief in the possibility of improving the human condition through material means, without addressing the issue of faith, whether by acceptance or rejection.
Talking about improving the human condition is not a neutral conversation as it assumes a comprehensive vision of the human being, the cosmos, and the cognitive and value system, so the question is of where such a system comes from.
Holyooke does not explicitly address the issue of value (is it material values?) Or the issue of knowledge (is its source the senses only?)
He speaks of man without defining the basic characteristics of what constitutes the essence of man.
He talks about reform through material methods, this gives us a key to the nature of the model that will be reformed according to is it a natural or material human.
The term that Holyooke thought was neutral is not completely neutral, pointing to a comprehensive vision of the universe, and to a value system that has broken away from religious faith and adopted material methods.
Holyooke adopted a comprehensive material model without realizing it, even though he thought he would leave religious faith alone.
Holyooke's definition is mixed claiming that it does not address the issue of faith and although it has a comprehensive vision of the cosmos Holyooke is not personally aware of this fact.
The subsequent development of the meaning of the term did not help much, as some thinkers defines it as the separation of religion from the state.
It means literally the separation of religious institutions (the church) from political institutions (the state).
I believe that we must stop here, to clarify something that I think is important that may escape us despite it being self evident, that the reality of man consists of two levels (or two structures): the apparent structure and the underlying structure, and the current structure is usually a manifestation of the hidden one.
I prefer to see them as two overlapping circles, the first small and referred to as partial and the other large and referred to as total encircling the first, namely is just procedures that constitute a manifestation of the second, and cannot be fully understood save by returning to the more inclusive circle.
The separation of religion and its institutions from the state is an inevitable process in all societies, with the exception of some societies steeped in simplicity and primitive, where we find that the head of the tribe is the prophet, sorcerer, priest and the rituals of daily life are religious rituals.
In complex societies, there is a distinction between different authorities or fields that begins to emerge and even in pagan empires ruled by a deified king there is a distinction between the deified king, the chief priest, and the commander of the armies.
The religious institution cannot be united with the political institution in any complex political and cultural structure, just as the police institution for internal security in the modern state cannot be united with the army institution entrusted with external security, and the educational institution cannot be united with the religious institution.
When the Prophet said, You know more about the affairs of your world, he is in fact establishing such an institutional distinction.
The agricultural sector is free from moral and religious absolutes, and there is a distinction here between the revelation of the absolute and the process of agriculture.
With the increasing complexity of the Islamic state the distinction between institutions increased and the separation between them increased.
The definition of secularism ignores the issue of reference and the model underlying the term, as we must ask about the total and final cognitive framework in the framework of which the separation process takes place.
This has led to a major imbalance as the term secularism has been divorced from any final reference and has come to mean a set of procedures, and as if the matter has been decided in this way, even though these procedures differ in their significance depending on their reference.
There are those who use the term secularism referring to the process of separating religion from the state in a non material framework, and there are those who use it to refer to the separation process.
In addition to this fundamental imbalance in the term and its movement between the partial and the comprehensive, we find that its scope has shrunk, because some think that secularism is not a sweeping historical phenomenon, but rather a set of ideas that are spread and evangelized such as attacking the holy books.
From this reductionist perspective, the issue of secularism is discussed in the framework of transferring ideas and influence, it is said that secularism is a set of ideas that some intellectuals reach, and then adopted by a social class that publishes the idea of secularism gradually.
Some Arab historians of secularism perceive secular ideas to have emerged in Christian Europe because of the nature of Christianity which separates religion from the state, and because of the corruption and power of the church since secularism is a Christian phenomenon only, completely related to the west.
It cannot be that we undermine the importance of clear secular ideas and practices (such as government legislation), it undoubtedly helps people to accept secular ideals, especially if the transfer of ideas and the imposition of practices is supervised by a huge institution such as the central state.
The perception of secularism as a set of clear ideas and practices forms a simplistic perception, it ignores the existence of many secular elements in the human soul and it is a deep process even though it may be unconscious.
To clarify this idea, every thing and every idea that surrounds us is meant to lead us to a complete civilization, and the products create a conducive environment for the growth of a secular attitude towards life, and transforms peoples desires without them knowing through chemical and structural processes.
These processes that are inherent or naturally conducive to secularism are part of an organic structure, such as television ads that turn man into a one dimensional body, or tom&jerry cartoons that teach children darwinism.
The ideas and practices can be countered but one must be aware of their subtle influences.
The definition of secularism as a set of clear ideas and practices completely ignores this latent structural aspect, reducing the scope of the term, making it non comprehensive, and unable to monitor many forms of secularism.
It has not been envisioned as a fixed idea and a fixed plan that is applied in all parts of the world in the same way, resulting in the sclerosis of the term secularism.
Secularism is a complex series with unknown episodes that has no existence outside a specific socio cultural reality.
It may be better to talk about a series of secular events in which different episodes appear through acts of secularization, and they take different forms depending on time and place.
If we were to do this we would find that secularization rates in the early stages of the series differ from those in the later stages and what was objectionable in the early sixties became acceptable and permissible in the end.
These early stages of the secularism the nation state has not yet developed in its security and educational institutions and that there was no influence in media.
For all of this we find a discussion of private life and non interference, respect for religion and values and this a consequence of that time.
But things started to speed up regarding the secularization process, state started to grow and control individual and mass media was used to reshape our way of life pushing values to the side.
In the end the territory that was special eroded and shrank the secular state started pushing to reshape everything even values.
Sociology failed to create a way in which we could have total model of secularization they couldn't create a distance between the two they were inside of it.
western failed to incorporate new meanings of terms and focus on positives instead while looking at negative side as collateral damage.
The belief in only capitalism and socialism was strong and had no need to develop as the terminologies used was thought to be enough as it. A new meaning in capitalism meant that a terminology was needed so sociology failed to adapt terminologies that expressed it.
Sociology viewed secularism as only one idea among many instead of a unifying theme so nothing was unified.
With all that has occurred there has not been a unified way of explaining secularization.
Which led to an introduction of a bunch of terminologies.
These terminologies didn't explore a relationship with enlightenment or imperialism .
The terms showed only positives or were neutral about negatives and positives that both help build the idea of secularization.
Although a revision was brought up of these terminology one way they were not linked and we had no total models in place leading to various terms that have the common feature of modern world
In the end those that were learning about secularism segregated themselves from all the other fields and took its evolution separately but at the expense of not incorporating. A unifying aspect in all fields .
Leading to many branches of fields such as western thought about the individual in a liberal way but forgetting the whole picture.
These were thoughts from individuals living in said system making biased assumptions to not explore it completely. I must add that the term ‘Secularism’ because it has been used a lot has become more confused as it enters the Arabic and common tongue today than it ever was before.
Many use the term with the thought that they are doing the right thing by moving to the all of that while in truth they are making a mistake of not looking at historical context and mixing it with different values .
To put it simply there is very little scientific understanding that many Arabic writers have on the term . In Arabic understanding of the term it refers to what the west has to say.
That secularism and Arab nationalism should be different in understanding due to the Arab and Islamic roots of its people .
Even though this is right we must acknowledge that the Arab community has had to adopt and be influenced to be different things that have happened due to colonialism . This means that Arabs are forever stuck on not being able to fully secularise as they will copy those in the west .
* Secularism must be for humanity and nature and the one defining is there to take it and use and and exploit and thus be selfish.
* I say that it is not good to discuss secularism unless we discuss it in the terms that connect social connection to humanity thus making it something that can benefit all of society
* With that in mind secularization should be something that we should change to connect them the the individual experience of what someone feels as those are related.
This led to the separation and that the end to have these views only cause suffering there be something to go against the social system in place or for it but people must follow their own truth.
To reach all this the process that should be followed is for these three goals
1. A set list of secularism goals in every culture to help in understand
2. That society must help the secularized views on individuals as a group to help all
3. To have models and examples
Due to this all other social economical issues may arise.
I feel that if in fact there are a lack of terms a new term should exist though it does contain certain faults such as we can not always reach what we seek and need to find terms to help guide us .
When we describe this the same process that gives all these attributes but through time we have no ability to relate this so far so therefore
There is a new that occurs after all the definitions a person will feel this without them having to deal with something directly leading a loss in all their power.
Because of this we must look at a wide arrangement of views from the east to the west in all of its interactions so that people have all and complete understanding .
I do not agree with all of the things that were said so now I am trying to explore the relationship that is there and that is what I am doing.”
Secularism in Contemporary Arab Discourse - Dr. Aziz Al-Azmeh
Secularism in the Arab world, like freedom, democracy, civil society, reason, history, etc., is dealt with using a lot of words but a little conceptualization at the same time.
It enters into gelatinous discourses and leans into the use and direct inclusion in current politics and immediate circumstances.
These notions are serious treatments, but these restrained and precise treatments of the concept are not seen widely in political talks.
There some reason this has occurred such as social and political factors that do not separate the idea of knowledge with political knowledge.
The reason is also that Arabic countries do not have long and steady historical adoption and transformations in unstable times has led to difficulty for it to flourish.
There may be too great of detail and to make it better the idea must be shortened without reducing the amount of importance that there is.What the author did not mention Is that what is to be talked about is that there has not been any scientific of method of describing is. It has been implied through its meaning. The buildings that are secular for example are all described though a negative connotation such as the absence to its use then the one we can use now.
Which has not helped to build in how it all can help us.
It does go to say is that due to all the issues is that there are some groups being pushed to this group and it wants to help those who are falling in This idea.
* But they find themselves alone which leads to little being done.
What has also not been taken into place is how everything in life the the value of the world and its changes so a person could not tell the truth about how the world can influence one .
* Thus a cycle in the way of thinking. So they want others to see what they think and in their view they think that they are above it all with an insight of those that understand.
Thus they may seem as if they try to bring to others to fall into a pit as mentioned above.
* It seems that it all comes down to the way a person looks from the outside and that they have no human values as all they contain is but it's so from every angle it turns to be from their actions even the thoughts we have about this.
There isn't much of a purpose to what's happening except the person can see the point if you take some of these thoughts with a certain grain something might come of the discussion to be held and how a lot can try to do what has not been seen in past and it has no human touch as someone who's human to connect it to.
There seems to always want to be someone in power though the main thing going the way how we can actually express how we feel when it is more important in real life to feel how you feel while at the high position with power may end here up power and power does not equal feeling.
At this part the author wants everything to be on people but with people who don't have respect and there is a lot of progress made for society that is still far away now there is not to be humanly for the new things brought to light in our culture in short that's how he feels. If everything that you say that makes those human if you have to just take the human out of it to understand them we could never understand each other does that all of this even have meaning.
The thought that everyone has to be one can never be reached for the meaning can never be agreed upon as for an attempt can never come for these events.
It may or may not work there is a need for things to be humanized.
From now on the main thing in this matter is in how something you cannot run with human as one we need to know the world of something the better that there is always for there and it's not going to work any other.
* People can never be at the side you can the other can never be is something very strong about having one to do this at all cost and has human must take one to another it is never going to something to be.
* It is important for human to want human values it is important that we have meaning in life so that's the human doesn't have any value without the thing is that it may just die and fade away and it's true all human will come and go but it's important that when they do come to this life must try to have purpose even as small as may as not to be known ever after it it will feel complete.
* So in a show that's a need for human that is there to make you go it has all to end before there be humans on Earth because that cannot be ever made.
* It is important in is important for us to explore and talk about this again so that we have a better and clear understanding of others with this.