Razib at GNXP has spotted my polemic against secular fundamentalists, and produced a discussion worthy of comment, but one which I view to be beyond the scope of what I am aiming for in this blog.
However, there were a few specific points raised by commentators to his site that I wanted to respond to. So I have decided to post them here rather than ramble in his comments section. I also address the purpose of my original post.
One commentator (I believe it is one of the co-authors of GNXP) writes that
"Islam needs to be neutered in the same way Christianity has been neutered[...]"
This is indeed one of the main talking points today; the "need" for a "neutering", or "debunking", or "refuting", of that edifice known as "Islam", in much the same way that "Christianity" has been disabled. The Muslim must see the worthlessness of his religion, just as the Christian has (apparently) realised the folly of his! Accepting this would, of course, mean accepting the idea that Christianity has been castrated from the conscience of Western man. From where I sit, though, Christianity still seems the heartbeat of the US social fabric. Not many European politicians, if any, could get away with constant references to 'faith'. Even a supposed liberal like Kerry has no hesitation in mentioning his faith. Blair, unlike Bush and Kerry, keeps his religious beliefs private. The latter's 'Good and Evil' quasi-theological rhetoric is more reminiscint of religious politics in the ME, than a secular politician. And if we consider Christianity outside of Europe and North America, then there we would need to consider the resurgence of Christianity across Africa (over here, in the UK, we have African missionaries spreading the Gospel: an interesting reversal of history!), the Far East, as well as South America (see the excellent J. Casanova, Public Religions in the Modern World). In any case, let us consider what this apparent "neutering" of Christianity requires us to assume.
First of all, it should be pointed out that Kant, the man who destroyed all the classical arguments for God, was a pious Christian. Indeed, a great many "scientists" (natural philosophers) and philosophers in Western Europe were Christians of one form or another. Secularism, liberalism, atheism, etc. are the outcome of discussions between Christian peoples, by and large. Other peoples, however, including the Muslim, encoutered these 'Good Things in History' under the boot and at the end of the gun. This leads us onto the next point.
If Islam (Muslims) needs to go down the 'Same Historical Path' as Christianity (European Christians) then we must consider what this means carefully. This is because Nazism and Communism, the eugenics programs of the early 20th-century, Social Darwinism and other scientific-racist attempts to control and transform society, imperialism and colonialsm, as well the plundering of a New World, plus the near extermination of the New World peoples, are all something which a part of European history, which includes its intellectual traditions. To what extent can they be divorced from the rise of Christian Europe and its European peoples (the US, Canada and Australia share in Europe's legacy to a certain degree regardless of modern politics)? For if a genealogy is produced of Western thought and practices, I'm certain some connection will be made between, say, the Englightenment and Nazism or Communism. If people are seriously advocating that 'Muslims Must Follow the Path of Christians' then these other 'Not So Good Things in History' cannot be brushed under the carpet, and their place must be considered.
Further, it needs to be pointed out whether a "neutering" of "Islam" is possible or not. This not to say that "Islam" is immune from criticism. Far from it. The point again ties in with the above paragraph. What is it that allows us to assume that 'history' is moving in a certain 'direction'? I am not advocating that history is 'One Damn Thing after Another'. Yet teleological assumptions in certain forms of Western historiography do not allow people to see beyond their own time and space. Why must a "neutering" of "Islam" produce Western liberalism? Am I being told that liberalism is so all-encompassing that there is no escape from it? Unless direct intervention from a diety is being claimed, this would suggest that liberalism is in fact the opposite of what it claims: it is very intrusive, intensely ideological and is willing to stifle all alternative view points, all most at any cost; even at the expense of its own, much cherished, principles. Interestingly, people now demand that the "supremacy" of "Western civilisation" (which is being equated here with the liberal-secular axis) must be underlined. I have no immediate problems with this, as I have made clear (France and Turkey can ban headscarves because of their belief in secularism). But this would suggest that greater coercion and manipulation is required in order to create adherents to this ideology.
Razib writes in one of his footnotes:
"Imagine that the 1 out of 4 who wear head scarfs starts to call the 3 out of 4 who don't sluts, and begins to spread rumors about their sluttiness..."
This is precisely the argument I have made above. An unwarranted assumption from the "liberal" on behalf of the head-scarf wearing Muslim woman: she must want to call the scarf-less female a "slut" [1]. And, for some unknown reason, the scarf-less woman must be viewed as an extremely "bad" Muslim (or a "slut"). Therefore, the latter is coerced into wearing a headscarf, because for some untold reason she has no voice of her own! Little scope for what both might want, think, reason or conclude. This is not much different from how a religious "fundamentalist" might think or act and is actually quite derogatory.
I would say that in this case it is the "liberal" who denies the Muslim woman agency. Her 'rights' to speak for herself seem to be ignored by the male `ulema, Western or Muslim. In these sorts of discussions she is often treated no better than the slave, the propertyless, the child or the indeed the female of classical philosophy; a voiceless thing to be debated over, classified, discussed, dissected, and analysed, but never asked herself of her own opinion or allowed the time and space to create her own ideas or to participate in the debate. Indeed, she is often no better than the Untermenschen.
"Islam" (as a practice) will be "neutered" if Muslim peoples find they can live without "it" [2]. What exactly the "it" is in the words of the commentator is not clear. If "it" refers to "laws" and "rules", then these fall into abeyance when societies find they can do without them. How many laws against various sexual acts still exist on the books in the US? How many are enforced? Blasphemy laws still exist in the United Kingdom, the home of the Life of Brian. The connection between Law and Ideology should not be ignored: just as law in Western nations has everything to do with freedom, democracy, human rights and other 'Nice Words', and nothing to do with power and control by the state, ever increasing regulation and regimentation of our everyday lives, neutralising subversion, and cocercion of the 'lesser' nations, than law in Islamic nations has nothing to do with these 'Nice Words' and everything to do with being "God's Law". Beyond this practical concern, I cannot see anything else which 'must to be neutered'; unless the commentator wishes to exterminate "religion" altogether from the human conscience, which is a secular delusion that has long been refuted.
Notes
[1] The "religious" counter-argument would be that a Muslim woman, especially one who was so concerned with the headscarf (because, apparently, the headscarf is a sign of a "pious" Muslim female), would have realised that gossip and backbiting, as well as slander, are viewed as sinful in Islamic formulations of religious ethics.
[2] Obviously, as a Muslim I believe al-Islam is impervious to human activity, in as much as it is makes truth-claims for man beyond this world.
Blog feed
First of all, it should be pointed out that Kant, the man who destroyed all the classical arguments for God, was a pious Christian.
this is the "standard model," which i accepted, and as an atheist i personally trumpted kant's personal pietistic lutheranism as an insulation against the argument that this deconstruction of the "proofs" of god were self-interested. but, this biography suggests that kant was a nominal christian at best who followed the forms and rituals to avoid public censure and more in spirit similar to hume. of course, this seems to go against a categorical imperative toward ethics, but....
Secularism, liberalism, atheism, etc. are the outcome of discussions between Christian peoples, by and large.
it must be noted that yes, the modern secularism we see around us is a product of western civilization, but indian & chinese civilization produced quite a few atheists and secularists. the carvaka sect, which was explicitly materialistic, is an example of a robust atheism in the indian subcontinent, while the confucian philosopher hsun-tzu (3rd in importance after confucius and mencius) tended to mock excessive belief in spirituality, though he taught the utilitarian importance of rites in maintaining social order. my general point is that though modern chinese atheism might ostensibly derive from communism and indian elite secularism from the west, they might have been tapping into a native substrate (this is likely true in the case of the chinese, other east asian groups like the japanese and koreans who haven't gone through communism still show far lower levels of god belief than westerners aside from perhaps the swedes and ex-communists).
Posted by: razib | July 20, 2004 at 06:07 PM
Obviously, as a Muslim I believe al-Islam, is impervious to human activity, in as much as it is makes truth-claims for man beyond this world.
The problem with ideals, though, is that they aren't ever implemented in full. There's always some degree of slippage, greater in some cases than other.
It's indicative, I think, that the various secular and religious ideological hegemonies established in the course of the 20th century--Nazi Germany, the Communist states of Eurasia, the Islamist states of the Middle East, sundry fascisms in Italy and Argentina and Iraq'--have all failed to produce good results. Perhaps reality should stop being shoehorned to fit into ideals, of whatever kind.
Posted by: Randy McDonald | July 20, 2004 at 06:34 PM
One more point:
An unwarranted assumption from the "liberal" on behalf of the head-scarf wearing Muslim woman: she must want to call the scarf-less female a "slut" [1]. And, for some unknown reason, the scarf-less woman must be viewed as an extremely "bad" Muslim (or a "slut").
Why so surprised? That is an expected, if not strictly inevitable, outcome of making the headscarf mandatory. The point of the whole exercise is to reduce temptations towards immodest and indecent behaviour, placing particular emphasis on female responsibility for male lust. If one believes that all Muslim women--possibly all women generally--should wear the headscarf as both a social and a religious requirement, it follows that women who don't wear the headscarf are abandoning these requirements. Why do they do this? Well, it follows logically enough from the basic reason from the headscarf that these women want to be immodest. From "immodest" to "slut" is a very short journey indeed.
Posted by: Randy McDonald | July 20, 2004 at 06:50 PM
That is an expected, if not strictly inevitable, outcome of making the headscarf mandatory.
[...]
Well, it follows logically enough from the basic reason from the headscarf that these women want to be immodest. From "immodest" to "slut" is a very short journey indeed.
I disagree, for one, the headscarf is not mandatory, it is not considered mandatory by, for example, a substantial portion of the Muslim community in India. The women in my family don't use headscarves or the burkha, and they are, I'm happy to report, not considered immodest.
Posted by: ubaid | July 20, 2004 at 09:57 PM
Very well. Why do certain conservative Muslims identify headscarves as mandatory, I wonder.
Posted by: Randy McDonald | July 20, 2004 at 10:05 PM
re: the "neutering of christianity"-well, i believe we were speaking in the western context. certainly the USA is a god-soaked land in rhetoric, but in practice there is a relatively large amount of religious freedom. even GW bush noted that in the USA you can believe in no religion if you choose, this from a man who isn't known to be a friend of atheism.
i will grand that "muscular christianity" is not out of vogue in much of the third world, and look where it leads, catholic-protestant violence in latin america, bizarre child-enslaving cults in uganda and so forth. this is not normal christianity, but when one takes religion seriously as a set of rules and strictures for the temporal realm then you get weirdness. additionally, even though nigeria is 50/50 divided between christians and muslims (there is a small explicitly traditionalist pagan minority and paganism to some extend exists as a substrate among many muslims and christians), it is the muslims who have engaged in the most religious violence in the north. i am not asserting that this is inherent in islam, it is likely emergent from various social and political facts related to hausa-fulani supremacy, but it is a fact nonetheless that in much of africa muscular islam is a bit more assertive than muscular christianity.
the general point about "neutering" is that the age of using christianity as a prescription for society, eg, calvin's geneva and puritan new england, is over. there are vague platitudes like "faith based programs," but it is mild pap compared to the reality of god-as-king-on-earth. the pummeling of religion into the private realm is what we mean by "gelding islam." of course, those who assert that islam is a "total way of life" will object. and hence, the conflict....
Posted by: razib | July 20, 2004 at 10:24 PM
Very well. Why do certain conservative Muslims identify headscarves as mandatory, I wonder.
So do I :)
Posted by: Ubaid | July 21, 2004 at 05:52 AM
Firstly, why do Muslims identify headscarves as mandatory? Because they read the texts. If you can't read Arabic, you're like a person who doesn't speak German claiming to be an expert on Nietzsche. I'm sorry, but that doesn't fly. One can discuss, but one has no authoritativeness. That said, there *is* disagreement on what form of headscarf is mandatory, if mandatory at all, and yet: What does mandatory mean? I may believe that it is an individual responsibility, but that it cannot, and moreover, should not be socially enforced. The lack of distinction in the above posts betrays a certain inability to conceptualize Islam to the extent that it has been refined by scholarship (again, inaccessible to most secular acolytes, who are content to repeat Christian assumptions ... and we know what they say about assumptions.)
Secondly, the comment is made: "It's indicative, I think, that the various secular and religious ideological hegemonies established in the course of the 20th century--Nazi Germany, the Communist states of Eurasia, the Islamist states of the Middle East, sundry fascisms in Italy and Argentina and Iraq'--have all failed to produce good results. Perhaps reality should stop being shoehorned to fit into ideals, of whatever kind..."
Let's look a little closer. Everything Europe achieved over the last sixty years, let's be honest, a lot of that was due to the United States. Are you sure that the best side won? Well, there's so many ways to look at the past in light of the present. The Soviet Union was more multicultural, at least in ideal, than any of its opponents or perhaps even allies in the time of WWII. Conceivably, the USSR could have turned into a pseudo-socialist super-state, had they had leadership smarter than Gorbachev's... They could have gone on to become what China is becoming. Or maybe not. We don't know.
But the US, which defeated Nazism and helped contain Communism, was initially a racist, prejudiced and sexist society. The black soldiers who fell slaying Nazi soldiers, they were themselves viewed as inferior even by their own. Yet they continued to sacrifice. England, too: England's empire was built upon the backs of slavery, colonialism and garrison government. That is what allowed England to become what it is today, and England only survives in its bubble because the United States would not allow any serious rivals to threaten its control over Europe, even if that means containing Europe itself.
This sounds ugly, but this is fact. This is how politics works. Ultimately, those societies that are convinced of the righteousness of their cause triumph, and these are the ones in which social vision, as defined by nationalism and religion, are quite strong. Such as today's America, or China, or India. Secularism cannot pummel religion into a corner: In and of itself, it's helpless. I have not yet seen a secular nation become anything approaching a world power, even a regional power, because that secular nation turns its secular assumptions -- generally about nation -- into religious ones, metaphysical claims and all that, all the while vehemently denying as much. To hear the French secularist talk about laicism is to fear one has dropped into a khutbah somewhere in Pakistan, what with the terms that are used here: "the pummeling of religion into the private realm?" How is that any different from the conservative Muslim declaring war on secularism?
In the end, there is no such thing as secularism. There are competing metaphysics, and those who are most inspired by these metaphysics are, generally, given a great edge. American religion is its Christian/national/democratic/republican mythology, a la a Thomas Jefferson and George Washington who kept slaves yet liberated humanity, the same as the rhetoric of Abraham Lincoln, that America was "the last, best hope" for all the planet, that this nation "of the people, by the people and for the people, should not perish from this Earth..."
Amen?
Posted by: haroon | July 21, 2004 at 04:33 PM
I think you 'neuter' a religion when some of its adherents are willing to propound that the religion is, and maybe never was, divine. That is, when a religion's own adherents accept that it is a human construct. In the case of Islam that would require for Muslims to say 1) You cannot discover Allah in an objective manner; all you have is belief in Him, 2) Revelation is bunk. Muhammad wrote the Quran. I think if these two ideas are widely propounded (they roughly correspond to what Kant and the Enlightenment did to Christianity), you can say that Islam has been "neutered."
You also say in your piece that you find Christianity quite alive and well in America. I agree with that. Its rampant. However, what's interesting is that a large part of the intellegentsia does not acknowledge Christianity. Its almost as if there's two levels. One for people who are faithful, and another for those who do not acknowledge them. It reminds me of what Plato's followers used to do. They would say that they themselves were the virtous, and simply assumed all the others were virtous as well (even though all the rest were partying Bacchae style with Dionysis in rites called the Sacred Mysteries). Does Christianity exist in America? Yes. But is it acknowledged by a large number of the intellegentsia? No. (This, incidentally, is part of the reason why Bush is considered backward amongst the rich, highly educated elites). And until recently, even rich, highly educated Christians did not use to reveal their religious appellation. In many boards that is still a no-no topic.
Posted by: eteraz | July 21, 2004 at 07:57 PM
adab eteraz.
re: your point on neutering. i agree with where you're coming from... but i'd like to hear more, out of curiosity, regarding your idea that neutering islam means, in part, accepting that one cannot "know" God objectively. is that intimately connected to your proposition (or should i say corollary?) that "revelation" would have to be "considered" "bunk" (you didn't say 'considered,' i added it into the sentence... because i didnt know how else to say it...)
ive been meaning to post along these lines for some time...
Posted by: haroon | July 22, 2004 at 02:14 AM
For a long time, I have wanted to ask the rabid defenders of secularism – who, as I have said before, seem to me little different than inclement a’immah at many masajid – what exactly they mean by secularism. Firstly, the problem is one of etymology and metaphysics. When we say that we are of a secular inclination, well, what does that imply?
1. A secularist is someone who does not believe in religion.
Isn’t that just an atheist, or perhaps an agnostic. Never mind, let’s take it at face value: What if a secularist still has values? Of course he does. So then, where do those values come from? If they come from his own reason, why is his reason the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong? Come to think of it, how can we separate a secularist from a person who says, “I am religious, this is what I believe God says is right and this is what God says is wrong.” In the end, both are in some sense exercising their capacity to make judgments. One attributes them to himself, one to God.
2. A secularist is someone who believes church and state should be separated.
Since I am an American, let me describe America’s secularism, so far as I understand the United States. There is no provision in America’s Constitution, or constitution (regarding character), to consider America “secular”. Only, the government cannot institutionalize religion, nor can religion – as a formal, “secular” or tangible institution – assume the role of government. Nevertheless, religious people can and do take part of the government. Whether or not we question their sincerity, we cannot deny that they claim religion as a guiding principle in their lives. In this, both George Bush and John Kerry are at least broadly similar.
So what is secularism? In the end, there are metaphysics that admit of the possibility of something beyond immediate human experience, and metaphysics that do, and can be just as intolerant, but refuse to be. Whether “religion” or not, the features and assumptions are broadly similar: Say, extreme nationalism, Nazism, Communism, etc. The only difference is, American society makes allowances for different understandings of reality, whereas Turko-French secularism (“Laicism”) refuses to admit of any possible understanding of reality separate from the state’s understanding of metaphysics. Hence, because the state has decided it is wrong for women to wear scarves in school, it is therefore wrong. Yes, a majority of Muslim French woman may allegedly support such a ruling, but does this mean the minority is not only wrong – but must be penalized for its error?
As I recall, some rabid secularist was claiming that a hijabi woman would immediately label a non-hijabi a “slut.” Okay. Yeah. Anyway. Ignoring the rabid presumptuousness – rabidness being a theme here – we should also add that this person conflated the belief that hijab is a religious obligation with hijab being a social edict, that *must* be enforced. I don’t see how that follows, until I understood. You see, in France, the government preaches (I am quite conscious of the implications and precision of that verb), the government fulminates, that hijab is both an error and therefore the holder of that belief is in error. On the contrary, I may argue that hijab is a religious necessity, but I neither believe it should be forced on people, nor do I believe that I am any better than a woman who chooses not to wear hijab, not just because I am not a woman, but because that would be arrogant and presumptive. I do not think I am a very good Muslim, in fact not a good Muslim at all, but I can call the kettle black if it’s black, white if it’s white, and wrong if it’s wrong.
The problem, really, is the belief that a secular understanding of the world – which has, practically speaking, as little underneath as a religious understanding – should become triumphant. In that regard, I consider George Bush to be a more tolerant and open-minded individual than Jacques Chirac. For all his whining about human rights, tolerance and this and that, he has revealed himself to be a preacher – yes, preacher – of hate and insecurity. If any countries should be insecure, they could be Israel, America and the Arab states, for fear of foreign attack, terrorism and the like. France, on the other hand, is acting as if radical Islam is about to pull out the carpet from underneath Paris, when in fact they are only debating whether or not it is good to pray on carpets, though I might add, they debate with some vehemence. The antidote to radicalism, in religion and secularism, is clemency and tolerance for other points of view. Not enforcing one set of standards so blindly: If the French are “right” to forbid hijab, then why can’t the Moroccan government forbid yarmulkes? (“yomickas..."). Except, of course, that would make them anti-Semitic.
Posted by: haroon | July 22, 2004 at 02:34 AM
who, as I have said before, seem to me little different than inclement a’immah at many masajid – what exactly they mean by secularism
sure, that's why muslims move to nations dominated by rabid secularists just like rabid secularists move to nations dominated by rabid muslims. after all, it's all the same.
Posted by: razib | July 22, 2004 at 04:23 AM
*Not true*. Not at all! I would move to the following Western countries: Canada and England (more broadly, the UK). I would not, and never want, to move to France, or Germany. I'm glad you brought this up, because it's an unfortunate conclusion one cannot avoid. When you consider the Western world's "major nations", there are only a handful that are truly tolerant.
Of the Anglo nations, it seems Australia is the least tolerant, America more so, England similar to America (though the population both is more liberal and also has the British National Party, so I don't know what to say about that), and then Canada, probably the most tolerant. There are no other major Western nations that could play such a social role, because their societies are too paranoid and insecure. This is why, ultimately, the EU will not counterbalance any major global power, because it is composed of insecure, and intolerant, states (though the two are not always equivalent: so don't go conflating them.) Once again, a dangerous assumption has been made.
It is likely many French Muslims wish they could leave, or, more likely, wish France followed a British or American model with regards to tolerance. I know many Muslim Americans who have, since 9/11, moved back to Pakistan (though that is for "cultural" reasons). Those who move to other nations, to seek more freedom and dignity, and this is a small number, they go to Canada, Dubai, the Persian Gulf, Singapore, etc. This is interesting. How many Americans go to Canada? An increasing number. Even to Montreal. Is it only language that prevents them from seeking out Germany and France?
There are degrees between Western nations, and the Anglo nations are in this regard superior. Whether or not that will come out as racist, I don't know, but if America became as intolerant as France, I personally would likely leave -- if feasible -- to Canada, to Dubai, to a place where I would be respected as a person. The rabidly intolerant, secular states, are not for no reason considered as such, and of these, we have two foundering European have-been powers, who desperately want to revive the EU or make it great, yet without the English spirit of accommodation, I shudder to think what exactly the EU will be. Except, of course, for secularists who can't reproduce, who will fade away, but not without granting the State power to decide right and wrong. That is secular extremism. In America, the State is not supposed to decide moral rights and wrongs (hence, both sides of the gay marriage appeal to this fact in their positions), but the State is simply not supposed to interfere in moral life.
This model will be more successful.
As for your comment that Muslims move to nations dominated by rabid secularists, they do so for economic expediency and possibility. Most people who migrate into Europe still have their ultimate dream as the United States. Many Subcontinents and East Asians, they migrate to Singapore, they try for Hong Kong, they go for Malaysia, the Persian Gulf, etc. Why would they go to the latter several countries, which are clearly not secular? Dubai is, after all, not a secular state, nor is Malaysia. Yet, though they are Muslim states, they are *not* Iran, Saudi Arabia or The Sudan. There are also degrees between Muslim states, as there are between Western states, both categories of which define secularism and religion internally in different ways, and as a result, either prosper or flop.
Posted by: haroon | July 22, 2004 at 01:01 PM
Let's look a little closer. Everything Europe achieved over the last sixty years, let's be honest, a lot of that was due to the United States. Are you sure that the best side won? Well, there's so many ways to look at the past in light of the present. The Soviet Union was more multicultural, at least in ideal, than any of its opponents or perhaps even allies in the time of WWII. Conceivably, the USSR could have turned into a pseudo-socialist super-state, had they had leadership smarter than Gorbachev's... They could have gone on to become what China is becoming. Or maybe not. We don't know.
Perhaps. Then again, the Soviet Union had an awful history of class and ethnic genocide, with millions of dead, from its start. (Lenin was not especially benign.)
Yet the US, which defeated Nazism and helped contain Communism, was initially a racist, prejudiced and sexist society. The black soldiers who fell slaying Nazi soldiers, they were themselves viewed as inferior even by their own. Yet they continued to sacrifice. England, too: England's empire was built upon the backs of slavery, colonialism and garrison government.
That's true. Hitler's reported recommendation to the British that they retain control of India by executing as many Indian nationalists as possible, along with the Soviet record in the Caucasus and Central Asia, strongly suggest that as colonial relationships of inequality went, Britain's record wasn't so bad.
That is what allowed England to become what it is today, and England only survives in its bubble because the United States would not allow any serious rivals to threaten its control over Europe, even if that means containing Europe itself.
This sounds ugly, but this is fact. This is how politics works.
This is true. The problem for Europe is that there aren't any states which are capable of challenging the United States. Even the mooted Franco-German confederation of a while back--the creation of a confederal state with a technologically advanced economy possessing a GNP of four trillion US dollars, a large military force including nuclear weapons and ICBMs, autonomous space capabilities, and close to 130 million people--would be hard-pressed to challenge a United States with at least twice the resources available to it. Post-Second World War Europe has been strongly marked by the United States simply because there's an unavoidable and inescapable gap. European unity is working, and does show progress, but it's incapable of being truly autonomous from the western alliance system.
I have not yet seen a secular nation become anything approaching a world power, even a regional power, because that secular nation turns its secular assumptions -- generally about nation -- into religious ones, metaphysical claims and all that, all the while vehemently denying as much.
Hmm. On the authoritarian end, both the Soviet Union and the modern PRC come to mind as secular states that became world powers. On the liberal end, France is a considerable factor in world affairs, and its trajectory (unlike Germany) has been up since the end of the Second World War. There's also the question of how, exactly, Japan fits into this paradigm.
To hear the French secularist talk about laicism is to fear one has dropped into a khutbah somewhere in Pakistan, what with the terms that are used here: "the pummeling of religion into the private realm?" How is that any different from the conservative Muslim declaring war on secularism?
Perhaps it's because there aren't secular terrorists interested in murdering conservative Muslims at prayer, nor is secularism likely to produce this outcome.
In the end, there is no such thing as secularism. There are competing metaphysics, and those who are most inspired by these metaphysics are, generally, given a great edge. American religion is its Christian/national/democratic/republican mythology, a la a Thomas Jefferson and George Washington who kept slaves yet liberated humanity, the same as the rhetoric of Abraham Lincoln, that America was "the last, best hope" for all the planet, that this nation "of the people, by the people and for the people, should not perish from this Earth..."
All secular ideologies have incorporated Abrahmic messianic/millenarian principles, yes, and are in that sense products of their societies. That doesn't mean that they're not secular.
Posted by: Randy mcDonald | July 22, 2004 at 04:16 PM
Haroon:
As I recall, some rabid secularist was claiming that a hijabi woman would immediately label a non-hijabi a “slut.” Okay. Yeah. Anyway. Ignoring the rabid presumptuousness – rabidness being a theme here – we should also add that this person conflated the belief that hijab is a religious obligation with hijab being a social edict, that *must* be enforced.
Just wondering: Am I the rapid secularist being referred to? Or is it Razib?
Posted by: Randy McDonald | July 22, 2004 at 04:18 PM
An attempt to define being secular.
Many enlightenment thinkers were not against religion per se, but wanted to limit the extent of its influence in the political/legal spheres. You have to remember that the Enlightenment is coming on the heels of vast inter-religious wars and skirmishes between Protestants and Catholics and Protestants vs. Protestants. A lot of blood was shed, and a lot of animosity and paranoia pervaded. The most sensible thing, people realized, is not to ban all these catalysts of arguments and bloodshed, but to limit their influence. That is what I'd define as secularism: the impulse to limit the influence of religion on government and society, and in so doing, it suggests for legislators/thinkers to perform a sort of mental hypothetical: try to look at the world from more perspectives than just your own. A "religious" mind can perform this hypothetical also. But the difference is that in the case of a religious person doing it, there is the element of a guilty conscience - I am selling out my beliefs. That is why a necessary corollary of secularism is irreligiosity, by which I mean, more skepticism towards religion per se. In other words, SECULARISM REQUIRES SKEPTICISM AND UNCERTAINTY. If you believe something too hard - it doesn't matter what it is - you are putting the idea of secularism in jeopardy, because you are going to be unable to bring a hypothetical equality between your perspective and that of your peers. It is for this reason that the system in France does not qualify as original secularism. The problem is that the French cannot consider the Algerians and the Morrocans their equivalent. When that happens, all secularisms fail because you end up at the same position you were if you were religious. A good way to understand this is the history of the United States. The United States did not start off as a secularist society. It was quite Christian-centric until the mid 50's. That made sense, because until then slavery and jim crow were very prevalent. In the United States, those that sought equality did not go after religion - as America seems to do when it goes to Muslim countries - rather, they went after the inequality in society i.e. Thurgood Marshall and Brown v. Board of Education. When the inequality was shattered - at least nominally - the main religion got sucked out of the government too. The victory of a non-Catholic in the 60's was a consequence of the nominal equality that was permeating the country. And we see, from that day forward, the more the idea of this hypothetical equality is practiced, the less religion you find in society at large. HOWEVER, it is not as if the religious just died off; they just had more kids and that is why today the United States is so split up down the middle. I'm sorry to say but like I said, I don't think its possible for religious people to perform that mental hypothetical equality because doing so would lead to a bad conscience and a paranoia of selling out. So, a working definition of secularists: those who are WILLING to 'sell out.' This is why there is no such thing as Islamic Secularism and, further, we should not believe it when some Attorney General's say that they can carry out the rule of law with equality.
Posted by: Eteraz | July 22, 2004 at 04:56 PM
"Perhaps it's because there aren't secular terrorists interested in murdering conservative Muslims at prayer, nor is secularism likely to produce this outcome..."
That's an inintriguing, albeit redundant and incorrect point.
Firstly, there aren't secular terrorists interested in murdering conservative Muslims at prayer because there are significant and practicable ways for them to undermine and defeat them, such as in the way secular extremists have banned hijab in Turkey or France, or banned religious education in many countries, or severely restricted the use of religion such as in Uzbekistan.
Terrorism is generally the weapon of the weak, or is used in response to warfare considered unfair or in retaliation (aka as vengeance), not commenting here on the morality of either side. Furthermore, the argument that only the religious kill for their God is again incorrect, and is connected to the following statement:
"All secular ideologies have incorporated Abrahmic messianic/millenarian principles, yes, and are in that sense products of their societies. That doesn't mean that they're not secular..."
How can a secularist worldview incorporate metaphysical themes, of a religious nature, and remain secular? My point in my previous posts was that secularism is an illusion: It is a series of metaphysical claims, in form no different than religion, which is believed by its adherents to be somehow not a religion.
Secularists can and do kill. The Soviet Union demolished mosques and churches, killed believers, tortured and imprisoned them. Secular governments kill Islamists, religious persons, and persons of opposing leftist ideologies, such as leftists or Communists. In the United States, American soldiers tortured, abused and humiliated Iraqis alleged to be part of al-Qaeda and religious groups. If the US is a secular nation, and these actions were done with the approval of a "secular" government, then what are the consequences of those actions?
When Bush I dropped tens of thousands of tonnes of bombs on Iraq, he was killing people for money. For Oil. For power. His gods were oil, power, domination -- and he killed for them. People, whether religious or not, kill for their gods, torture for their gods and violate their own standards. Some people make themselves into God and then kill for their own sake, a la Saddam Hussein.
The arguments that Muslim terrorists are somehow "Different," that their religiosity impels them to some higher standard of brutality, is egregiously incorrect. The most vile regimes of the past century were Nazi and Communist, and look at what they accomplished. While some al-Qaeda types behead hostages in Iraq, American soldiers are accused of beating prisoners to death with flashlights in Afghanistan. Suddenly we are to suppose that a "different" standard is at work?
I will grant that Muslim standards are on the whole plagued by ignorance, corruption and brutality, but many other non-Muslim and non-religious societies have been as bad, if not worse, in these regards, and so, whether or not religion is itself the factor -- or something more elemental, to do with human nature and culture -- is perhaps a moot point...
Posted by: haroon | July 22, 2004 at 05:33 PM
eteraz:
i agree with your point regarding secularism and religion, in general. however, i would like to point out that a religious society can nevertheless have the rule of law, albeit that the rule of law is suffused with religious principles. nevertheless, this rule of law can still be internally consistent, and the lack of such internal consistency could be viewed as a form of injustice.
for example, in saudi arabia, the elite (the royals) are not subject to religious law. if censorship, social restrictions, etc., affect all, then they can be considered internally consistent. the lack of such internal consistency hampers France, too, for France on the one hand claims to be a secular and neutral state, when in fact it is advancing an agenda of statist domination and individual submission to the moral authority of the state, which can penalize and reject those who refuse to conform to a majoritarian ethos (as guided by the State.)
furthermore, regarding your point of "broad-mindedness". understood. but i feel the need to qualify to some extent. ya'ni, a religious muslim society can stipulate different standards for different groups, in some situations, and this can be viewed as similar to secular allotments. for example, Saudi Arabia could ideally exempt non-Muslims from requirements to worship or close houses of prayer, or allow them to take Saturday or Sunday off, or allow them to purchase alcohol to be consumed in their homes, or purchase pork. In Pakistan, for example, at least on paper, Christians and other non-Muslims have rights that Muslims do not by virtue of their existence as a group.
To me, some blend of individual and group rights, with a high degree of general legal equality for each individual, must be afforded in the increasingly diverse modern world. Both to alleviate forms of injustice, assist disadvantaged groups and to allow social coexistence and cooperation. Otherwise, we will end up with the Franco-German mentality towards religion, or the Iranian-Saudi mentality towards secularism and the non-Islamic...
Posted by: haroon | July 22, 2004 at 05:41 PM
Using the taking a day-off example & then to other issues to illustrate a point about internal consistency.
In the United States if you sued, saying that Saturday and Sunday should not be off days because those are the Jewish and Christian holy days, you will not be told, 'live with it, this is a country founded by Jews and Christians.' Rather, you will be told that the days we take off have nothing to do with religion, or the Jewish/Christian God; and are accepted as the off-days because of a generally accepted custom. Now you might be wont to call this a lie and say that even the secular courts are exhibiting their religious preference, but you do have to recognize that the courts will not invoke the religion of Jews and Christians to sustain Saturday and Sunday as our off days. And by virtue of the fact that their religious value is not raised as an argument in their favor, they have exhibited a sense of equality. In a Muslim country, one that is not secular, a Christian bringing such a claim would be told that Friday is the off-day because 'this is a predominantly Muslim country.' Assuming that quality of life is equal in both the secular and religious country, I have to ask you, which country would you rather live in? The one that attempts to 'neutralize' its customs? Or the one that makes you feel excluded? To me, that's what it boils down to. That's why I wouldn't want to live in a place where the law of the country and the law of its majority population were one and the same.
A starker example of this is the word "God" in American society. It is present on money and in a number of its famous documents and creeds. However, when the presence of "God" is justified, it is never by saying, "well 90% of America believes in God." [This is the argument that Fox news uses, but not the government]. Rather, it is said that the word "God" is shorn of its theological and metaphysical meaning and is simply a figure of speech referring to a higher power. Were I an atheist, that argument would be much more palatable to me than one I am likely to get in a thoecentric government, namely, "the rest of us believe in God, you are wrong for your disbelief." Even if that was put in the most civil way possible, I couldn't help but feel excluded. I am willing, however, to concede that there exists the possibility of a society that operates on religious law in which those not of that religion are not likely to feel excluded. However, when religious people remind me of this possibility, I have to ask the question I ask of communist idealists: where have you succeeded? [This is often your criticism of communism, remember]. I think the debate we're doing here is good, but it is ignoring something very important. It seems to me that places where legal and social 'neutrality' is an reality are also those places where money is highly valued and materialism is rampant. An argument in favor of exalting wealth.
Posted by: eteraz | July 22, 2004 at 06:42 PM
The "secular" has its roots in a form of Christianity -- the separation of the "religious" ("other-worldly") duties of the pious monks as opposed to the "secular" duties of the Secular Abbot. "The secular" has implied either "this-worldly", "areligiosity", "irreligiosity", or outright "atheism". An important person to consider here is William of Ockham, who is overlooked, but who, imho, had direct consequences for how the "secular" was understood.
'Secularism', it must be pointed out, was first coined by the English agnostic Holyoake. He showed an indifference to religion (which is, generally, a mark of English secularism). Only after the positively atheistic Bradlaugh did secularism take on the a firmer relationship with atheism or anti-religious attitudes. Even then, there have been well-known modern Christian apologists for 'secularism'. I would go on to say that secularism is a collection of various philosophical positions on the very 'nature' of this world, that may include being 'sceptical', but in no way monopolises such attitudes nor is it immune from "blind belief" (the opposite of 'sceptical attitudes').
I don't think I can agree with Eteraz's idea of the secularist being the "sell out". This seems to give "the religious" some normative element (i.e. people are "religious" and become "secularist" because they take the "risk" of "selling out"). This is false for a number of reasons -- if only because we will struggle to find a common definition for what is "religion" and so who is "religious" (pace Geertz!).
Though I do agree that secularism is, somehow, intertwined with the confessional wars of Europe. As are classifications like "private" and "public" and the oft-repeated "separation of church and state". As are a whole host of other assumptions and ideas and attitudes. 'Secularism' is, afterall, a complex historical phenomenon; not a free-floating "truth". But this only lends to itself to the provincialisation of secularist views of the world. Today, everything can be historicised, parochialised if you will. Even "reason".
Whether or not a 'secular' realm exists in Islamic history is another question. Certainly, if we take the 'secular' to mean "this-worldly", then Islamic history has been very 'secular'. An old polemic against Islam in the mid 20th-century was that Islam couldn't be a proper 'religion' for the modern world because it was too "worldly" and not "other-worldly" or "spiritual" enough! Obviously, this criticism assumes what "religion" is, and what it means to be "religious".
I would recommend the anthropologist Asad and his _Formations of the Secular_. Anthropology is, afterall, a method of correcting our biases...
As for a neccassry connection between scepticism and secularism, again I would disagree. There have been many 'religious sceptics'. The most famous sceptic in Muslim history ended up becoming the most famous theologian within and without the Muslim world. I wold also argue, agreeing with the arch-sceptic John Gray, that modern secularisms are anything but sceptical in their beliefs.
I think you're confusing being sceptical with being a full-time, professional Sceptic. If you read the debates between Ash'arites and Mu'tazilites, you will see that an al-Ghazali or al-Razi profess sceptical attitudes towards being able to grasp a "moral fact", sometimes any "fact", "out there". Al-Ghazali has even been called a "functional sceptic" by an intellectual historian.
Afterall, many secularists, especially those who use the 'hard' sciences to "prove" their beliefs, struggle when the certainty of language and the ability of history to undermine assumptions pull the rug from beneath their feet...
Lastly: By saying that Indian and Chinese civilisations also produced "secularists" and "atheists" is to stifle what they had to say about themselves, under our own ideas of what these words mean. We might give them such labels, but this is different from saying that they were such and such. But then, it is said, that each epoch re-writes history to make sense of its own world.
Posted by: Thebit | July 22, 2004 at 06:45 PM
Eteraz:
[T]he possibility [exists] of a society that operates on religious law in which those not of that religion are not likely to feel excluded.
I suggest that this is a certainty. One need only look at Iraq, where Islamic fundamentalists are formulating a concept of public governance that denies women basic freedom, people who dissent from Islamist moral conventions, and people who don't belong to the Muslim community, the opportunity to exist autonomously even in private--I touched upon it back in March at http://www.livingontheplanet.com/bl/archives/000356.html and more recently at http://www.livejournal.com/users/rfmcdpei/458841.html. It's the basic problem that faces any ideological utopia: What do you do withy people who don't buy your project, or people whose interests will be hurt by your project?
As for materialism, I suspect that since materialism and conspicuous consumption appears in almost every society where there's a certain level of surplus wealth--Christian societies in Europe and North America and Latin America, Confucian and Buddhist societies in Asia, Muslim societies in the Middle East, Hindu societies in South Asia and the diaspora--it's an inevitable consequence of economic development. As such, I don't think it's particularly relevant as a basis for criticism of one Huntington-level civilization or another.
Posted by: Randy McDonald | July 22, 2004 at 06:53 PM
Hey Eteraz, u said: That's why I wouldn't want to live in a place where the law of the country and the law of its majority population were one and the same....
That doesnt make any sense to me.
Of course the law of the majority is the law of the country in America. How can the opposite be true? The majority are religious but in this way: They believe in God just as a higher power, not in any strictly theological way.
They dont want God to tell them what to do, they just believe God will help them not hurt them. So the way America understands God is the way law understands the mentions of God in conversation, on currency, things like that.
Posted by: uh | July 22, 2004 at 07:01 PM
Salam Eteraz (how's work?)
Just out of curiosity. Echoing the comments above this post, I do not know how one can distinguish between the customs of a democratic nation and the assumed neutrality of its government. Again, America's government is secular only insofar as it does not institutionalize religion. The common legal understanding of religion is generally how Americans understand religion: Americans invoke faith left and right, but immediately tend to reject religion when it imposes serious social demands (hence, Catholics grumbling that the Church can deny them Communion, accusing the Church of this or that, the vast majority never for once wondering whether their actions do violate Catholic doctrine and vindicate the Church)
Secondly, your argument on exclusion seems questionable to me. Egypt is one of the most nationalistic, conservative societies in the Earth, which is *not* secular but not fundamentalist. If we judge it in terms of wealth, we judge by a secular and materialistic standard, which is unfair if the undergirding of society presumes that wealth is not the raison d'etre of human existence. Are Americans included? Do Americans feel included? Do they feel part of society? Considering the rate of mental disease, suicide, paranoia, anxiety and the like, clearly many things are wrong with the society. This may or may not be the fault of society, but I don't see how "exclusion" and "inclusion" can be so easily trumpeted.
Your argument rests on your personal preferences, which is fine. I, for one, do not care how courts justify the weekend: I know why it is the way it is and I don't care, either. I can accept that, being a minority -- I'm not so insecure. I can also accept us celebrating Christmas in public school, since that is the religion of the majority where I went to school. I felt excluded, at times, but everyone will feel excluded at times. To attempt to promote perfect inclusion would be as if one was saying, "only love guides life," for without parallels *and* perpendiculars, where would we be? I would *not* want to live in such a one-track society. Would you?
Posted by: haroon | July 22, 2004 at 07:07 PM
Haroon:
"Firstly, there aren't secular terrorists interested in murdering conservative Muslims at prayer because there are significant and practicable ways for them to undermine and defeat them, such as in the way secular extremists have banned hijab in Turkey or France, or banned religious education in many countries, or severely restricted the use of religion such as in Uzbekistan."
Islam isn't exactly unique, I fear, in facing secularism. There's very interesting parallels with Catholicism in 19th and 20th century Latin America and Europe that you mgiht want to explore.;
As for the anti-_hijab_ legislation in France, it was passed in the context of serious concern that the _hijab_ was being imposed on French Muslim women, against their will, as part of a larger program (nothing so coherent as that word implies, though, rather a nexus of attitudes) that's quite misogynistic and rooted in an ultraconservative Islam. The majority of Frnech Muslim women--particularly the majority of young French Muslim women--seem to welcome the law as a form of protection.
What would you recommend in place of this law, to allow French Muslim women to engage with the world as secular or not as they wish?
"Terrorism is generally the weapon of the weak, or is used in response to warfare considered unfair or in retaliation (aka as vengeance), not commenting here on the morality of either side."
True. How many secular terrorists are active in Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or Sudan?
Let's narrow things further: How many secular terrorists active in the Muslim world draw their inspiration from one totalitarianism or another (Communism, fascism, ultranationalism), and how many draw their inspiration from, say, a commitment to secular democracy on the American model, or the French, or what have you?
How many people are willing to kill in the name of (say) Soros' vision of an open society, of a society lacking ideological boundaries?
"How can a secularist worldview incorporate metaphysical themes, of a religious nature, and remain secular?"
That's easy: There's never a Year Zero. There's never a clean start to any ideology, no matter what its proponents claim. Judaism was rooted in the ill-understood religious ferment of the second millennium BCE Levant and the collapse of Egyptian hegemony in Palestine; Christianity synthesized Roman and Jewish cultures, the former in their grand imperial diversity; Islam took place in the context of an Arabian peninsula marginalized by rival Byzantine and Persian empires, the peninsula itself in a state of religious ferment. Secular ideologies aren't very different from this, particularly inasmuch as they have similar points of departure and have similar end-points. Cf. Confucianism, particularly as a social and political program with belief in the divine as a peripheral matter.
"Secularists can and do kill. The Soviet Union demolished mosques and churches, killed believers, tortured and imprisoned them. Secular governments kill Islamists, religious persons, and persons of opposing leftist ideologies, such as leftists or Communists."
Where, exactly, have I said that they didn't? Secularists do kill, just like religionists. Secularists committed to democracy and pluralism do not, just as religionists committed to the same do not.
"If the US is a secular nation, and these actions were done with the approval of a "secular" government, then what are the consequences of those actions?"
Depends. Was the torture of these people an inevitable consequence of democratic and secularist principles, as accepted in the United States, to their fullest intended degree? Inasmuch as basic legislation in the United States prohibits torture, I suspect not.
"The arguments that Muslim terrorists are somehow "Different," that their religiosity impels them to some higher standard of brutality, is egregiously incorrect."
Who said this again? I don't recall seeing it in the discussion above.
"I will grant that Muslim standards are on the whole plagued by ignorance, corruption and brutality, but many other non-Muslim and non-religious societies have been as bad, if not worse, in these regards, and so, whether or not religion is itself the factor -- or something more elemental, to do with human nature and culture -- is perhaps a moot point..."
Yes. It strongly suggests that any ideology committed to an eschatological view of history and The Way Things Should Be is problematic, since sooner or later it ends up killing people in the name of the future and is beyond any worthwhile implementation, regardless. Best to try to abandon that eschatology, or at least its implementation in public policy.
Posted by: Randy McDonald | July 22, 2004 at 07:07 PM
Haroon:
"Do Americans feel included? Do they feel part of society? Considering the rate of mental disease, suicide, paranoia, anxiety and the like, clearly many things are wrong with the society. This may or may not be the fault of society, but I don't see how "exclusion" and "inclusion" can be so easily trumpeted."
Comparative living standards do matter, I suspect. Again, social anomie appears to be an inevitable consequence of development. If we're quoting statistics, then, how many Egyptian women suffer FGM? How many American women do? They go both ways.
Posted by: Randy McDonald | July 22, 2004 at 07:09 PM