Why are there so many misunderstandings about secularism in the Arab world (and parts of Western societies)?

That kid was amazing. Gives me hope for democracy. I think some people are afraid to stretch out of their comfort zones and learn about different cultures and religions. It takes some work and an open mind. But wow, is it ever worth it. It is a different way of looking at things then some of us are used to. Or maybe it takes some kind of personal attachment to really understand?

I can speak more accurately to your analogy of the religious right in America. They do equate secular to an attack on religion, and also confuse secular government with atheism, every move made to secularize to them is trying to remove religion from the country and the people. I think it has to do with a fear of the unknown. For instance, living in the south schools and government were having prayer and some other religious practices being taken out of these places. Law suits would be brought, and since it does break our rules of separation of church and state, things changed. Recently, in Memphis local government was ordered to stop reciting a prayer before their meetings start. It is shocking to me that in 2012 they were doing such a thing. Schools no longer can have Christmas holiday, they have Winter Break. Some retail stores ask employs to use Happy Holidays rather than Merry Christmas during the holiday season.

We who have lived in very diverse areas who have shown respect for religious diversity and understand we can all coexist and even reinforce each persons personal belief system are not afraid of our religious freedom being attacked. But, people who were used to having their religion in public places and now that is being stifled, feel under attack and that people are tryin to squash and quiet their beliefs.

I would guess in the Arab world a high percentage of people are what I would consider religious right, and they fear their rights being taken away to practice their religion, and that it will displease God.

@Adirondackwannabe – Yes, indeed. He talks like a young adult and is able to articulate a vision for a better future. I think it’s important for us in the West to be aware of these voices. What’s going on in Turkey is equally encouraging, but it will take time to change the views of the hardliners and turn them into a shrinking minority.

@mattbrowne Yes, when it come to the hardliners, open minds and change are not on the table.

I think it is a result of the old “If you ain’t with us, your agin’ us” mindset and the more devout or resolute you are in your faith, the more you cannot understand or tolerate those who do not think the same.

Fundamentalists of all beliefs are so positive of their own righteousness and their point of view is so focused and limited that it colors the way they think so that even teaching tolerance is seen by them as an attack.

In my understanding, it’s a matter of mutually contradictory visions of the public sphere.

Secularists believe that the public sphere should be a space where freedom of expression and freedom of religion are protected for everyone.

Whereas religious fundamentalists believe that if the public sphere is not reserved for only their religion, they are facing religious persecution. Their doctrines tell them that the public sphere must be a religious one, and it must be reserved for their religion. The very idea of secularism, the presence of other religious views in the public sphere that are not being oppressed by the state, is anathema to their world view.

I am pretty sure this same sentiment is shared by fundamentalists in the U.S. and in the Muslim world.

@JLeslie – A couple of years ago, we had a similar case in Germany: a small crucifix in classrooms at school. A ban would have outraged a lot of people. Some court decided that the parents of students in a particular classroom can decide for themselves. If no one has an issue with a crucifix it stays, otherwise it gets removed. Most parents who are atheists or agnostics or follower of a non-Christian religion are not bothered about the crucifix. They see it as a part of a tradition. Same for Merry Christmas cards.

@rojo – Yes, black and white thinking is so much easier than multicolored thinking. But how can we change this? I think it must start in first grade. But fundamentalist parents will disagree with open-minded teachers and the poor children are unsure what to believe.

@bookish1 – Things get interesting when different religious fundamentalists are competing in the public sphere, like Catholics against Protestants or Sunni against Shiites. When Sunni fundamentalists talk about unbelievers they don’t just mean Jews, Christians and atheists. They include Shiites and even liberal Sunnis. People who are not conforming just a tiny bit get vilified.

Even early teaching becomes problematic when those who need the most educating are either homeschooled or taught in religious schools that reinforce the paranoia.

@rojo – That’s the problem with homeschooling. It can create intolerant people.

@mattbrowne For many things I am ok with the religious “thing” being allowed to stay if it has been there for as long as everyone can remember. I don’t think it is worth the fight or upset to remove it. Like removing Under God in the Pledge, I don’t care if it stays, even though I think it really should not have been added.

@bookish1 My experience in the bible belt for the most part was not exactly how you characerize it. Most Christians seemed fine with allowing many different religions show their religion in public places. What they objected to was atheist representation. Also, I tend to be from the POV that I would rather the public arena be void of religion, secular, so we don’t have to worry about who we leave out, while religious people think the way to honor religious belief is to try to include religion in the public arena.

I do think there is conflict that probably can never be resolved with fundamentalist Christians who are told, and deeply believe, their job is bring Jesus to the public, and to “witness” at every chance they can. Prohibiting them from doing this in public places they argue is taking away their freedom of religion. Allowing them to constantly have their religion and religious symbols everywhere feels like it is taking away other people’s religious freedom.

I believe there must be different definition of religious freedom that people work from. I guess being Jewish, my definition is being able to go into the temple and being able to practice my religion without being enslaved or killed or having my basic rights of freedom infringed upon aside from practicing my religion. To live in a country where the government or even my neighbor doesn’t tell me what religion I should practice. Everything is relative.

@mattbrowne
I do not like to be lectured or “witnessed” to either in the private or public arena but I am willing to put up with it if they are responsive when told “No thanks, I am not interested” but my experience has been that they usually cannot or will not take let it drop at that point.

I try to go with the three strikes and you’re out method but why am I not supposed to take offense when they continue to proselytize yet they universally seem to take it as a personal affront when I finally have to resort to “F*ck Off” on the third strike?

I need to correct one thing regarding my last remark. In my experience in the bible they think and say and even act for the most part as they are ok with including everyone’s religion. But, I do believe if it became extremely diverse in a very equal way they actually would become quite uncomfortable. Like there are crosses visible everywhere on the side of the highways and people have them hanging at their desk at work, and possibly if Muslims and Jews were as visible with symbols everywhere the Christians would become uncomfortable. I think the majority a lot of the time has a hard time putting themselves in a minority position.

It’s like when one Black family moves in, no problem, but when the neighborhood goes 30% or more, whether it be black, Indian, Hispanic, you can pick, it starts to feel like “my” people are being crowded out to some people.

Whether its a pope, televangelist or grand mufti, when his revenue stream and ever increasing profits rely on growth of a believer population, secularism is rightly seen as a threat.

@ETpro I disagree. A country can be secular and still have tons of religion practiced in it. Take the US for example. We aren’t perfect at being a secular country, but basically we are.

From a website on Islam, the following text, which I feel reflects the thoughts of many if not most people I meet daily in the Arab world:
(I am short on time, right now, but I’ll think of a good way to express my personal view as well)

Islam vs. Secularism

Secularism is defined in the Webster dictionary as: “A system of doctrines and practices that rejects any form of religious faith and worship” or “The belief that religion and ecclesiastical affairs should not enter into the function of the state especially into public education.”

There is no doubt that secularism contradicts Islam in every aspect. They are two different paths that never meet; choosing one means rejecting the other. Hence, whoever chooses Islam has to reject secularism. In the following, we go in the details of explaining why.

1— First, secularism makes lawful what Allah has made unlawful.

The Rule of Allah (Shari`ah) is compulsory and has basic laws and regulations that cannot be changed. Some of these laws are concerned with the acts of worship, the relations between men and women, etc.

What is the position with regard to these laws?

Secularism makes adultery lawful if the male and the female are consenting adults.

As for Riba (interest on money), it is the basis of all financial transactions in secular economies. On the contrary, Allah says (s.2 A. 278): “O you who believe, fear Allah and leave what comes from Riba if you are believers. If you do not do so, then wait for a war from Allah and His Messenger.”

As for alcohol, all secular systems allow the consumption of alcohol and make selling it a lawful business.

2— Second, secularism is clear unbelief (Kufr).

Secularism is based on separating religion from all the affairs of this life and hence, it rules by law and regulations other than Allah’s laws. Hence, secularism rejects Allah’s rules with no exception and prefers regulations other than Allah’s and His Messenger’s. In fact, many secularists claim that Allah’s laws might have been suitable for the time they were revealed but are now outdated.

As a result, most of the laws governing the daily affairs of life in the countries ruled by secular systems contradict Islam. Allah says (S.5 A.50): “Do they seek a judgment of Ignorance? But, who, for a people whose faith is assured, can give better judgment than Allah?”

Ibn Katheer said in the Tafseer of this verse that Allah is denouncing those who reject His ruling and accept other rulings that are not based on the Shari`ah of Allah. Whoever does so is indeed a non-believer. Indeed, belief in Allah can never go with the acceptance of other than His rulings in one’s heart. Allah says (S.5 A.44): “If any do fail to judge by what Allah has revealed, they are non-believers.”

From the above, the status of secularism and its relation to Islam are clear. But the ignorance about the Islamic truth is still dominating the Muslim’s mind. Most secular systems repeat slogans like “no religion in politics and no politics in religion” or “religion is for Allah, and the state is for the people.” Such sayings portray their view of Islam as a religion to be practiced in the mosque only, and that it should not be allowed to rule life outside the mosque. Furthermore, they try to deceive people with democratic slogans like “personal freedom” and “people governing people.” That means that people come first and no place is made for the ruling of Allah.

This is why secularism is clear Kufr, this is why secular systems have no legality and authority and should be rejected by Muslims.

Islam suffers from being a relatively new religion. Its adherents seem to feel very self conscience. Therefore they take any apparent affront to their religion personally. You don’t see cartoon christian or Jewish gods causing much uproar in those faiths. The primary reason is that they have been around for a long time and the followers are much more secure in their faith. It might also be because neither faith asserts a profound militancy and strict adherence to a set of rules derived by their “holy book”.

Of course there are demented sects in the christian and Jewish faiths. Ultra orthodox Jews cause a great strain on Israel’s social and moral fabric. Fundamentalist Christians, in the U.S. also draw down rational governance with their irrational insistence that their cult deserves respect and support from the government and other citizens.

The point is that any group that puts faith before knowledge detracts from the freedoms and quality of life.

@Ron_C I really like this: ”...any group that puts faith before knowledge detracts from the freedoms and quality of life.”

@rojo thanks, red.

I’ve always knew there were reasonable people within the arab world, but many times opposing a status quo comes with a steep price. Realistically traditionalists, right wing Christians, right wing Islamists, right wing hardline Soviet communists and others have one thing in common as Dr. Altemeyer brilliantly explains, they have authoritarian mindsets.

@Ron_C I don’t accept it is relatively new and that is some sort of excuse. It is old enough that it doesn’t make a difference. Is that an excuse for Christianity vs. Judaism? All religions are in the modern age, in year 2013 of the common error. Whether a religion is 500, 1500, 2,000 or 5,700, I don’t think it matters.

@JLeslie Read my response again. I said nothing about nation states. I talked about what motivates religious leaders. Made a religious leader head of state, then the sectarian drive to gain ever more profits and power dominates that nation state till you toss out the theistic state leader.

@whitenoise – I googled the secularism is “a system of doctrines and practices that rejects any form of religious faith and worship” definition and got many hits, but not from Webster. Then I checked Webster and it says: “indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations”, which is a different statement, but still not my understanding and not what I learned at school. Wikipedia uses this definition: “principle of separation of government institutions, and the persons mandated to represent the State, from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief”.

Now who is right? Islamawareness.net or Webster or Wikipedia?

@Ron_C – When looking at many Muslim countries I feel reminded of Europe in the years 1618 – 1648. When looking at Egypt I feel reminded of Germany in the early 1930s, a young but failing democracy.

@ETpro – Do you know of greedy and rich Islamic scholars?

@Paradox25 – I checked out the website you mentioned. “Once our government leaders and the authorities condemn the dangerous elements in our society, it will be the duty of every patriotic citizen to help stomp out the rot that is poisoning our country from within.” That’s it in a nutshell. That’s the core problem of Islamism, Christian fundamentalism or any other totalitarian system or mindset. What makes Christian fundamentalism somewhat different is that “stomping out” no longer means killing people (there are extremely rare exceptions like killing abortion doctors).

@mattbrowne (edited by me)
I hope you don’t expect me to defend Islam’s – sometimes – warped view of reality. I posted my previous post not as (my) truth, but as a reflection of what I see around me every day, living in the Middle East.

In the meanwhile, I think I have the following observations to add:

M’hammd was not merely a prophet, he was a worldy leader. A lot of his decrees therefore pertain to governance and laws. To accept a higher authority than that of M’hammd would in their eyes conflict with their religion.

Islam is, far more than modern Christianity, an all-encompassing religion. They even have clear instructions for people on how to go to the bathroom. To ban Islam from public life clashes with this all-encompassing approach to Islam.

Most of the Arabs do not live in a very open, dmoocratic society. Quite often the only organised movement besides the ruling party, that is truly tolerated, is religious. The government is in general just not powerful enough to Also oppose the clergy. As a result clergy and government communicate in a balance with each other, tempting but not right out challenging the other. The common party to blame for all wrongs in that model is the occidental west.

There is, besides ‘dictatorship’, also a lot of poverty in the region, making people turn to whoever feeds them at any given moment. Again, in general, that will either be the government or the clergy. Again… both have little to gain from promoting occidental secularism.

Hope this makes sense.

On top…
Being of a different voice in the Arab world is a risky game. These are not all democracies. None of them. Recently Egypt was ‘liberated’ again by their military. Over 40 people didn’t live to tell.

@whitenoise – I know that you didn’t post it as truth. I was merely wondering about the Webster reference. Was it an old version of Webster? Or simply a lie to make the term secularism sound dangerous?

Well, when you say that good Muslims can’t accept a higher authority in worldly matter than that of Muhammad, this is like saying Islam and democracy are not compatible. I think a lot of Muslims in Egypt or Tunisia or Turkey disagree. They see Islam as a faith and not a political system. And they remind their fellow Muslims of the “no compulsion in religion” principle, something the Saudi religion police ignore. They use baseball bats to force people to pray five times a day.

Well, @mattbrowne, I think they may ideed be wrong. However, that leads us to a totally different discussion.

In essence Islam offers a lot of wiggle space for tolerance, though, I feel. It will however still see Sharia trumping man made law. It is surprising thoigh, how often sharia doesn’t need to clash with secular law based on, for istance. The golden rule and secular tradition as a moral base.

They may have to mix in some water with theri wine although that definitely is a different religion.

@mattbrowne
Your statement about saudi religious police is untrue. The Mutawah are not authorised to use violence and have no authority to arret people, for instance. If they do, they get arrested by the real police.

There have been incidents, but these are far from common place. In practise, it is fellow muslims that will (gently) push each other to get to their prayers.

@whitenoise – Thanks for the clarification about the Saudi police. I read this in a book, some time ago, so I guess the author hasn’t researched the subject properly. Still, just the existence of a Mutawah police force contradicts the “no compulsion in religion” principle. What if a Saudi no longer believes in God and says so openly?

@mattbrowne : I like your comparison of the Arab world now and Europe in 1618–48. I’ll have to think more on that.

@mattbrowne Yes, here is a list of the 10 richest Muslim leaders in the world. The Grand Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khamenei of Iran is number 2 in total wealth, second only to King Ali Hoseini-Khamenei of Saudi arabia. The Saudi Royal Family are tied with the Rothschilds for the wealthiest families on earth, each controlling roughly a trillion dollars in assets.

@ETpro Do you mean King Abdullah of Sadi Arabia?

He actually seems to be quite a liberal leader, interestingly enough.

@mattbrowne The main point of his material is that authoritarian mindsets usually have a common element that leads them to their outlook and habits concerning life in general. His book doesn’t address the exact outcomes resulting from authoritarian thinking patterns as much as it stresses what I brought up in my former point. Authoritarians also usually extend their behaviors and habits well beyond political and religious circumstances too, such as in everyday life.

Not all authoritarians are religious nuts, but the majority (if not almost all) of religious nuts likely have authoritarian mindsets. There aren’t too many books or websites that I actually care for, so if I post a link it’s usually a good detailed one. One more thing, Dr. Altemeyer rightfully (in my opinion) considers many hardline ‘leftist’ governments to be right wing, not left wing.

Any government in the grips of religion is a cruel and miserable situation. @whitenoise statement that government and religious authorities balance the power is a little misleading. The religious and political leaders balance eachother. Unfortunately the balance is on the shoulders of ordinary citizens. Now to make things even more miserable, fundamentalist Muslims are bombing and shooting school girls!

The only solution to a problem that purposely harms children is annihilation. The religion and the perpetrators of that religion must be abolished from the world. Any religion that imposes the death penalty on people that convert from that religion is too insecure to legally exist.

@ETpro – I think we have to distinguish between rich Islamic religious leaders and rich people who are Muslims. The King of Saudi Arabia is rich, but he is not a religious leader.

Islamism is theocratic fascism. It’s that simple. Male Muslims are the master race. Female Muslims as well as all Jews and Christians are second-class citizens like in an apartheid system. Everybody else has no rights whatsoever according to the holy Islamic law. They are seen as enemies of Islam.

Therefore it is very problematic when Western countries see Islamists (such as the Muslim Brotherhood) as allies.

@mattbrowne Therefore it is very problematic when Western countries see Islamists (such as the Muslim Brotherhood) as allies. Yes, it’s all about which evil at the moment best suits our special interests. We’ve seen this in Vietnam and Central America, where we had sided with right wing regimes which were very oppressive to the majority of their citizens.

And we are still seeing it in South and Central America.

We ask questions like “Why do they hate us?” or “Why don’t they do as they are told anymore?”

And we wear blinders to our own blunders.

I agree with @mattbrowne that “Islam is theocratic fascism”. Of course the vast majority that follow that religion are not homicidal fascists. They are honorable, kind, and accepting of other people’s beliefs, despite Islam, not because of it.

@Ron_C: @mattbrowne wrote: ”Islamism is theocratic fascism” (emphasis added.)
Islamism is a political ideology/worldview basing itself upon the religion Islam.

”@”;http://www.fluther.com/161399/why-are-there-so-many-misunderstandings-about-secularism-in-the-arab/#quip2758291mattbrowne True, but so what? The Saudi Royal Family has had a long and active role in funding Islamic fundamentalism. It works to their own benefit. I’m not surprised that they perhaps inadvertently funneled money into the 9/11 terror attacks, but I am also not forgetting that this happened and appears to continue.

@Ron_C – Here’s a formula that might help:

Islam as a faith = Islam minus Islamism

There are estimates that about 400 – 600 million Muslims out of the total of about 1.5 billion are non-violent Islamists supporting the Sharia. The violent ones are estimated at about 1 million.

We in the West should observe the non-violent part more carefully, which provides the breeding ground for gradually increasing radicalism of young frustrated men.

@ETpro – Saudi and Qatar clerics support the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Nour party in Egypt.

@mattbrowne
Saudi people are acually very critical of the brotherhood, because Mursi visited Iran rather quickly. Saudi Arabia has commited substantial financial spport to Egypt right after the fall of Mursi.

@whitenoise – Isn’t it true that Saudi oil money is used to fund Salafism/Wahhabism in other countries? Including the Al-Nour Party in Egypt? Al-Nour is an even more dangerous Islamist movement than the Muslim Brotherhood, don’t you think?

The relationship between Saudi royalty and Saudi religious leaders is the same as that of a criminal to his blackmailer. The only thing that the Saudi royalty fear is the loss of support of their religious leaders. Everyone else, including U.S. leadership, can be bought. You really have to worry about religious leaders when they start believing their own rhetoric.

At this time the Saudi religious community is paid very well, insuring their shaky loyalty to the King.