Secular States and Muslim Societies

It seems to be commonly assumed that "secular" simply means the opposite of 'religious', and vice versa - whatever that means. This circular definition is incoherent and problematic for believers because it implies inherent opposition between religion and secularism.

Communities or institutions can be Christian, Islamic, Jewish, etc., for instance, when constituted of people of that faith, but an abstract entity like the state cannot be religious. A state is no more religious than an inanimate object like a chair. It doesn't possess the ability to think or reason or question. Only a person can do that and therefore only a person is capable of being "religious."

Any state is an inherently secular institution in the sense of inability to have or practice religious beliefs, but few are not secular enough in being neutral regarding religion. A state is made up of individuals responsible for maintaining some form of order and governance among a large group of people, many or most of whom are indeed religious; however, only believers can define being religious for themselves.

That does not resolve the question of the relationship between the state and believers among the citizens of the state. Should the state, as part of its obligation to maintain social order, play a role in enforcing religious beliefs? And should religious beliefs shape how the state maintains order?

On the first question, the state cannot, and not only should not, enforce religious belief. While guided by centuries of practice and thought, religious belief is always for the individual believer. Belief cannot be enforced because it logically requires the equal possibility of disbelief.

Whether religion should help shape public policy, or be present in public life, is another matter. Religion should play this role because secularism alone is incapable of resolving profound moral questions for believers.

Countries like Turkey and France have adopted secularism as an assertive ideology. Their model assumes that any form of public religious expression, even the wearing of a headscarf by Muslim women, threatens the fabric of their social order and civil liberties. This policy is as irrational and offensive to the principles of freedom and human rights as so-called religious states like Iran and Saudi Arabia that claim to enforce one particular religious view to the exclusion of all others. It is as wrong to deny believers their commitment to a religious worldview as it is to impose a religious worldview on unbelievers.

A secular state should remain neutral regarding all religious doctrine, but should ensure and facilitate a public role for religion. This is a paradox to be mediated through practice, within the framework of democratic governance and protection of fundamental rights.

The state is already secular in all Islamic societies today, but not secular enough in the sense of balancing neutrality and with regulating the public role of religion.

Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im is a professor at Emory University School of Law and author of "Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari`a (2008)."

By Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na‘im |  October 9, 2008; 1:09 PM ET
Share: Email a Friend | Technorati | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: A Path to Jewish Renaissance | Next: Crossing Central Park

Posted by: sar4000 | October 11, 2008 4:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: ASTORIA | October 11, 2008 12:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.