Muslim secularists

“Our organization has a two-pronged goal. The first is as a think tank with a specific mission to “separate mosque and state” in the Islamic consciousness and to try to do that through a constant engagement of Muslims in the war of ideas between political Islam – Islamism — and western secular democracy. Americans and Muslims need to realize that this is a Muslim problem that needs a Muslim solution.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/08/8-questions-with-dr-zuhdi-jasser-of-the-american-islamic-forum-for-democracy/print/#ixzz0zYBlTeVZ

Religious leaders published by think tank

In December 2008 the Institute for Public policy Research published Faith in the Nation: Religion, identity andthe public realm in Britain today A collection of essays by the Archbishop of Westminster, the Chief Rabbi and other senior faith leaders ‘to express their views on Britishness, multiculturalism and the role of religion in the public realm. ‘

The executive summary describes the document as ‘timely’

A growing sense of antagonism between some religious voices and a chorus of liberal secularists in the media and elsewhere is spilling over into political debate on such topics as faith schools and human embryology, and has arguably had a stunting impact upon our understanding of the place of faith in democratic society….

BHA launches secularism booklet

The New Humanist’s Paul Simms reports on the recent launch of the BHA’s secularism pamphlet.

The debate was opened by philosopher David Papineau…who put his case for a secular society as one intended not to cause differences, but rather to ensure that all citizens are free to practice their religion (or lack thereof) as they please, with the state favouring none. He presented secularism as a fair system, and one which encourages the loyalty of all groups to the state, since they have no need to fear that it is infringing on their religious autonomy.

Black History Month – Ali Abd al-Raziq

Ali Abdel Raziq (1888-1966) was an Egyptian Islamic scholar and sharia judge. 

An early modernist he was chiefly concerned with the role and nature of the caliphate in Muslim society.

His main work is called “Islam and the Foundations of Governance” (Al-Islam Wa Usul Al-Hukm) and was first published in 1925. Due to its controversial standpoints regarding the necessity of the caliphate and religious government, the book triggered an intellectual and political battle in Egypt.

He concludes that since there was no basis for the caliphate in either the Qur’an or in the Hadith there may not be anything un-Islamic about not having it either (but nor is there anything un-Islamic about having a caliphate). In essence he claims that the Muslims may agree on any kind of government, be it religious or worldly, as long as it serves the interest and common welfare of their society.  

Ali Abd al-Raziq went a bit further than this, however, and recounting the horrors of the caliphate, among other things, also argued that religion should not be involved in government or politics. It is exactly this separation that is supposed to protect the religion from political misuse and to enforce morals.

He thus adopted what was essentially a secular approach to politics – there might not be a problem with religious values forming the backdrop to political debate, but he opposed the use of religion as the sole determining factor in political decisions. He was thus a defender of the separation of mosque and state for Islamic nations, a fact which earned him a great deal of opposition from traditionalist scholars and jurists.

From Wikipedia (I know!) and About.com

So what is secularism then?

A subject close to the O Project’s heart- can religious and non-religious people work together on the secularist project? Giles Fraser accuses the National Secular Society (NSS) in the Church Times of “trickery…with respect to the word ‘secular’”:

I contend that the core meaning of secularism is the belief in the separation of Church and state. Religion, the secularist contends, ought not to have a place in shaping the laws or political realities by which we live.

…The NSS often employs this meaning of secular, especially when it is trying to look grown-up in making representations to government. Thus it says it wants “a society in which all are free to practise their faith, change it or not have one, according to their conscience”. It goes on about the importance of public space being open to all, irrespective of faith.

Yet, not far below the surface, another meaning of secular breaks out.

Is fundamentalism a revolt against secularism?

Interviewed  in the current edition of Islamica, famed theologian Karen Armstrong is asked “What has made Fundamentalism, seemingly, so predominant today?” She answers 

“The militant piety that we call “fundamentalism” erupted in every single major world faith in the course of the twentieth century. There is fundamentalist Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism and Confucianism, as well as fundamentalist Islam. Of the three monotheistic religions-Judaism, Christianity and Islam-Islam was the last to develop a fundamentalist strain during the 1960s. Fundamentalism represents a revolt against secular modern society, which separates religion and politics. Wherever a Western secularist government is established, a religious counterculturalist protest movement rises up alongside it in conscious rejection.

Religion and politics don’t mix says Muslim

Firas Ahmad, deputy editor of Islamica Magazine warns of the dangers of mixing religion and politics. He recounts how  the evangelical political lobbying group Moral Majority were so concerned with the perceived immorality and secularisation of liberal America that they aligned themselves with right-wing politics and in the process founder Jerry Falwell “did more to diminish the dignity of belief than he achieved in limiting the sinfulness of modern life.”

When the previously unreligious Ronald Reagan stood against, believing evangelical Christian, Jimmy Carter in the presidential electionsm it was only when “Reagan guaranteed Falwell his full support against abortion, the future president rediscovered his religious roots and Falwell tasted the spoils of his first major political victory.”

The damage that this does to the moral voice of religion is “apparent in a poignant scene from the recent documentary, “Jesus Camp.” In it, an enthusiastic 12-year-old boy, steeped in evangelical ideology, rejects global warming as liberal nonsense. There is no reason for Christianity to take an ideological stand against protecting the environment. However, there is every reason for politicized Christianity, allied with Republican interests, to reject global warming on behalf of large oil companies. Religion is never more meaningless than when it becomes the pawn of political or economic ambition.”

Government blocks secular school that would teach all world views

Anushka Asthana reports in the Observer that senior government officials have blocked attempts to create the first school without an act of collective worship branding it a ‘political impossibility’.

“Dr Paul Kelley, head of Monkseaton High School in Tyneside – the first to join the government’s flagship ‘trust school‘ scheme – wanted to challenge the legal requirement in all state schools for pupils to take part in a daily act of worship of a broadly Christian nature. There are only a handful of exceptions at faith schools where the daily worship can be based on a different religion.

He also wanted to change the way that religious education was taught, introducing tuition about a number of world views, some that involved faith and some that did not. He intended to follow a ‘third way’ that neither banished religion from the classroom completely nor had children attending daily worship.

According to the Observer “One senior figure at the then Department for Education and Skills, told Kelley that bishops in the House of Lords and ministers would block the plans.”

2006 poll of USA and European countries reveals Britain is tolerant, not very religious but also not very secular

An old poll from December 2006 I’ve just come across conduced by Harris Poll and the Financial Times into the religious views and beliefs  in the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the USA. Key results for the UK (sample size 2090):

• Ony 35% believe in any form of God or any type of supreme being (only France was lower with 27%)
• 35% are agnostic and 17% atheist
• 7% Not sure; the largest percentage of all the countries
• 39% do not share the same religious beliefs as either of their parents; the largest percentage of all countries and the only country for which this is higher than those saying they have the same religious beliefs as both of their parents. Suggesting a strong generational shedding of belief.
• 70% people believe in the separation if church and state (although that isn’t defined) the lowest of all the countries. It is probably worth noting the different charcteristics of the different churches in question. It could be that Britain’s rather laid back churches are less intrusive as much as British people being less secular on principle.
• 56% people thought religion should be taught in state schools, 29% saying no. Only Italy was more in favour of religious teaching and less opposed.
• Only 23% thought the EU was predominantly Christian club – the lowest of the European countries and a testament ot the UK’s multifaith credentials?
• Only 10% would object to their child marrying someone of a different faith and 73% would not. France and Spain indicated a slightly higher level of tolerance, both with 7% and 74 respectively
• Worryingly the UK matched France with 39% believing that Islamic veils should be banned in all public places (higher than the other countries polled) but at 48% were ahead of France and Spain in feeling that children should be allowed to wear a religious sign or article of clothing at school which is representative of their beliefs. Taken together these suggest a particular anti-Muslim dimension to British secular thought.

Flawed theory that bigger families mean more religiosity

Mary Eberstadt argues in the June/ July edition of Policy Review that contrary to popular opinion, secularism did not lead to smaller families but it was smaller families (and the reduction of major experiences like births which normally make us think of higher purposes) that led to society becoming less religious.

She uses a few examples to highlight the correlation between family size and religiosity and  of course a basic rule in statistics is that correlation does equal correlation. In this case she suggests that the direction of causation could go either way – from small families to less religion or form less religion to smaller families. Although she talks about evidence that supports the former hypothesis she doesn’t actually say what that evidence is as far as I can see.

She then goes onto to conclude that if her hypothesis is correct then future trends in the reduction in religiosity are no a full gone conclusion – if family sizes go up in the future.  This has happened in the past she says and could happen again (if for example the US provided cheaper education although I always thought higher education mean smaller families!) although she doesn’t acknowledge the critical population crisis the world is facing and that the urgent need for population reduction is being recognised from Rwanda to the UK.

Gordon Brown’s religion

Paul Vallely, Associate editor, the Independent writes to Prospect Magazine:

“Richard Cockett asks whether Gordon Brown will be able to find a language to articulate his Christian faith in a way that bridges the divide between secularists and believers. Don’t hold your breath.

Although Brown is happy to embrace values associated with the Presbyterian tradition—“duty, responsibility and respect for others… honesty and hard work”—there is nothing Calvinist about his theology; indeed, there is almost no theology at all. Brown quotes Isaiah in the way that he quotes Martin Luther King and even (though he does not name him) Ronald Reagan, as a colourful and succinct summary of his own beliefs.

Those beliefs, by contrast, are invariably set out using vocabulary of the Scottish Enlightenment. Christianity is held at arm’s length. Brown speaks approvingly not of religion but of “the churches,” which he sees as little Burkean platoons, vital to civil society not for their religious beliefs but because they implement what the common good requires.

This is why, despite coming from a quite distinct church tradition, Brown is happy to work with the Vatican, where in 2004 he became the first British cabinet minister ever to speak. He regards Rome as an effective international actor on issues of global poverty, partly because a huge percentage of clinics and schools in Africa are run by the church, but also because he understands that the churches are the organisations which turn out the most activists for campaigns like Make Poverty History and Jubilee 2000. Brown sees Rome as a powerful ally in the struggle to get the UN’s millennium development goals taken more seriously.

In all this he reverts to a modernist universalism, by contrast with Blair, whose attitude to religion was distinctly postmodern. You will get no talk from Gordon about a post-secular society. Secularists will find this refreshing, but Muslims in particular will have difficulties; they do not buy into Brown’s notion that Britishness must be predicated only on shared values, and want their cultural and religious identity acknowledged. Interesting times.”

Study shows religious freedom for others benefits us all

The Hudson Institute recently released the initial findings of the Center’s forthcoming book, Religious Freedom in the World 2007. This survey describes and analyzes 100 countries, especially those where religious freedom is most violated. It ranks them comparatively, includes scores and charts of freedom, details world trends, correlates religious freedom with measures of economic freedom, social wellbeing, civil liberties, and political rights, and features essays by experts explaining relevant issues.

Lebanese group calls for secular state

The Saily Star, Lebanon reports that “more than 100 intellectuals, political figures and academics met on Tuesday…to launch an initiative aimed at spearheading political change and abolishing confessionalism [system of government that distributes political and institutional power proportionally among religious communities] in Lebanon. The new program, known as the “Civil Center for National Initiative,” calls for the formation of an “intellectual and practical initiative” to lay a foundation for a “Lebanese civil state which does not incite hatred toward any sect or religion, nor reject any religious sect,” according to an inaugural statement read at the meeting.

…The inaugural statement…stressed respect for the legal system and the adoption of a new set of laws.

New laws must be “humanist and secular, since the only other alternative – religious law – cannot be applied without marginalizing certain segments of society,” the statement said. 

“The current confessional political system in Lebanon is no longer viable,” according to the center’s founding members. They proposed that the system be replaced by a civil state promoting equality among citizens without infringing on individual religious freedoms.

Arabs urge government to stop focussing on religious identities

The National Association of British Arabs (NABA) has strongly condemned the attack on Glasgow Airport and the car bombs found in London at the weekend – stressing that secular opinion as well as that of Muslims, Christians and others must be taken into account in seeking to move beyond war and terror.

Dr Ismail Jalili (pictured), who is chair of the National Association of British Arabs and past president of the British Arab Medical Association and the Iraqi Medical Association – UK,said: “We welcome Gordon Brown’s acceptance that there must be an approach to ‘hearts and minds’ but this can only be achieved by Britain resuming its important role on the world stage as a mediator for good. We urge him to address the international issues behind terrorism.”

He went on: “We also urge [the Prime Minister] and the media to review the wisdom of previous government policy which has focused on faith to the determent of secular organisations. This focus has detracted and diverted potential gains that could have been made into persuading and empowering disillusioned youth to participate via the British democratic framework.”

Hat tip: Ekklesia

Muslim scholars must come forward with an understanding of a “Land of Co-existence”

In the wake of heighened security across the UK, ex-Islamic extremist Hassan Butt writes in the Observer that “foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a dualistic model of the world. Many Muslims may or may not agree with secularism but at the moment, formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion. There is no ‘rendering unto Caesar’ in Islamic theology because state and religion are considered to be one and the same. The centuries-old reasoning of Islamic jurists also extends to the world stage where the rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) have been set down to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.

What radicals and extremists do is to take these premises two steps further. Their first step has been to reason that since there is no Islamic state in existence, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr. Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world. Many of my former peers, myself included, were taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief. In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.”

He argues that a “reasoning that has struck me and a number of other people who have recently left radical Islamic networks as a far more potent argument [which] involves stepping out of this dogmatic paradigm and recognising the reality of the world: Muslims don’t actually live in the bipolar world of the Middle Ages any more.

The fact is that Muslims in Britain are citizens of this country. We are no longer migrants in a Land of Unbelief. For my generation, we were born here, raised here, schooled here, we work here and we’ll stay here. But more than that, on a historically unprecedented scale, Muslims in Britain have been allowed to assert their religious identity through clothing, the construction of mosques, the building of cemeteries and equal rights in law.

…If our country is going to take on radicals and violent extremists, Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I’d like to term the Land of Co-existence. And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.”

Doesn’t this suggest then that for secularism to succeed  in the UK it requires theological justification as well as traditional non-religious arguments?

O Project article calls for non-religious to be included in ‘inter-faith’ dialogue

I have an article published in Catalyst today – “Faith no More?” - looking at inter-faith dialogue and calling for non-religious groups to be included. 

Catalyst is a magazine at the forefront of new thinking on race relations and racial equality today, both in Britain and abroad.

Ignore Islam, ‘ex-Muslims’ urge

Dominic Casciani reports for the BBC that “A group saying it represents large numbers of “ex-Muslims” is urging policy-makers to ignore the faith. Campaigner Maryam Namazie said 25 founding members were being named at the body’s Westminster launch, representing people scared to speak. The Council of ex-Muslims believes it represents the views of a majority of secular-minded Muslims in Europe….”

Council of Europe reaffirms separation of church and state

In a report to Council Ministers, Lluis de Puig, the special rapporteur on culture, science and education at the Council of Europe urges that all countries of Europe embrace a separation of state from religion. He says that although religious bodies have a role to play in a democratic society, it must not be special or privileged role. When intervening in political or social debates, religions must take their place as members of civil society along with all the other interest groups. There is no longer any justification for giving religion special rights. He reports that:

“Mrs Pegna, Vice-President of the European Humanist Federation…welcomed the Resolution of OSCE inviting member states, inter alia, to “ensure the effective equality between believers and non-believers” and to “foster a climate of mutual tolerance and respect between believers of different communities as well as between believers and non-believers”.

This danger of a drift beyond the perfectly proper interest of faith-communities as citizens in the activities of their governments, in accordance with democratic principles, towards religious interference in what should be purely secular matters is a danger that should be resisted. However, we should not ignore the historical contributions of religions to the evolution of human thought and to progress. Religions have contributed as much to the creation of a humanist morality as to a religious one; and, in Europe, secular codes of social conduct and secular moral attitudes owe much to the Judaeo-Christian tradition.

Hat tip: NSS

Non religious strands of thought have much they can share with religious approaches

Co-Director of Christian think tank Ekklesia Simon Barrow (pictured) writes that Christians need not seek for privelidged access to the media or government.He writes that “it remains the case that different religious traditions think of God in different ways, and often disagree over whether they are even talking about the same reality. Not all are theistic, and some (in Buddhism, say) are non-theistic. On the other hand, many strands of non-religious thought (when not wholly defined by what they consider themselves to be against) often have profound points of consonance with approaches to life otherwise defined as “religious”. Humanism, Judaism and Christianity share some common roots, for example. So defining (let alone defending) “a God slot” becomes more and more difficult, when you think about it

Christian think tank calls for non-religious inclusion in Thought for the Day

Co-Director of Christian think tank Ekklesia, Jonathan Bartley (pictured) has today called on the BBC to end its policy of not allowing non-religious contributors in it’s morning reflection slot ‘Thought for the Day.’ Bartley, speaking on the Today programme this morning said “Thought for the Day has an absolutely vital role to play.but as a space to reflect and challenge us about the meaning, the direction, the wholeness of our lives and as such I don’t think that’s limited to religious people. Therefore humanists, agnostics atheists secularists those that even draw occassionally from religion without subscribing to religious doctrines should be able to have a platform and a part in it to express their opinions. I think that slot would be much richer for it”.  Listen here (requires RealPlayer) or read Ekklesia press release