Written by: Dr. Iyad Barghouti
This article is not to support either religion or secularism, nor to differentiate between them. Likewise, it is not to discuss the context in which secularism appeared in its various forms, nor the apostasy that often occurs from certain forms of faith - or non-belief - so that it is negatively reflected. on social relations between people
It is an article that attempts to diagnose a case in which the "secular" intellectual (this time) deviates from the essence of his mission in defending freedom of choice to a kind of ideology that carries severe harm to the people and the nation, a case in which the intellectual who is supposed to care about the major issues of his people appears to be the head A bayonet in diluting, and perhaps the loss of those issues.
Secularism was manifested by its pioneers in the Arab region historically, with attitudes towards issues that were perhaps religiosity, and the attitude towards religion in general was the least present. Secularism is essentially an attitude towards the state, or a state of the state that many describe as civil, as it equates its citizens and does not differentiate between them, especially for considerations related to their religious faith. In this regard, it is a position opposed to the regime, which sometimes resorts to using religion to establish its legitimacy, impose its hegemony, and exercise its tyranny.
It, that is, secularism, is a position on freedom, or a state associated with freedom, especially religious freedom and freedom of belief.
It is a state associated with the Enlightenment movement, the biased position of reason, rationality, and freedom from illusions in science and the subjects that require it. It was also associated with openness to other cultures
It is not an ideology nor should it be, just as religion is. Therefore, they are different experiences and cultures from one country to another in those countries that are considered secular.... especially in their relationship with the phenomenon of religiosity.... The secularism of France, which dealt with the manifestations of religiosity sharply, differed from the English experience in which the king is considered the head For the Anglican Church, it also differed from the Japanese experience, in which the emperor is considered a god in one way or another
The first secularists
Since the emergence of the secular movement in the Arab region in the late nineteenth century, it did not take a specific position on religious faith. Religion or its rejection is based primarily on a political basis
When looking at the most important early secularists or even those who formed a second and third generation of Arab secularists, such as Ali Abdel Razek, Farah Antoun, Salama Musa, Taha Hussein, Ahmed Lutfi Al-Sayyed, Qasim Amin, Antoun Saadeh, Mahmoud Amin Al-Alam, and Al-Jabri And Abdullah Al-Aroui and many others, we find a great difference in their positions of religion, among them the clergyman and among them the non-religious, among them the Muslim and among them the Christian, but what brought them together was that they were basically advocates for the renaissance of the nation, and they believed in the unity of the nation and its issues, and they adopted human rights, including women’s rights and freedom Thought and the adoption of rationality, and each formed an enlightenment movement that rejects the closed state, and calls for a civil state and a “correct” relationship between religion and politics.
Pioneers such as Sheikh Jamal al-Din al-Afghani and Sheikh Muhammad Abduh, and at a later stage thinkers such as Dr. Hassan Hanafi, relied on their religious background in an attempt to find a religious reform movement that favors and elevates people. Even thinkers and activists such as Rifaat Al-Saeed and Faraj Foda, who were famous for their criticism of the religious institution and its political and social behavior, as well as some political Islam movements, did not go to talk about people's faith, religiosity, sanctities, and religious symbols. They all dealt with issues of man, renaissance, progress and modernity.
And with the state, freedom, science and even religion with morals and respect for pluralism and understanding of the different experiences of people. Also, the positions of those who were contemporary with the Palestinian cause were with the Palestinian right, and were against Israel as a Zionist state that constitutes a spearhead for imperialism in the region.
The new secularists
The designation of the “new secularists” has nothing to do with a specific generation of secularists in the Arab space, as much as it is a simulation of the designation “neoconservatives” in the United States of America mainly. It departed from the traditional approach of the pioneers of secularism in the region, and represented a secular “fundamentalism” in exchange for religious fundamentalism, as the two parties together contributed to striking rationality and patriotism in one way or another.
It is important to clarify that many secularists today are still following the path of their early ancestors, "responsible" patriotic democrats. A few of the secularists now are the ones who went towards the “new” secularism, which abandoned the previous characteristics of the early secularists and went towards “liberalism” and placed it in a different place.
Before talking about our objections to some of the ideas of these new secularists, it must be acknowledged that many of them have intellectual productions that deserve attention and sometimes appreciation. However, some remarkable propositions, ideas and stances made them differ from the traditional secularists who carried the project of the nation's renaissance, to be "tools". In counter projects, whether they wanted it or not
In contrast to the early "traditional" secularists who did not address religion per se, and did not consider secularism an ideology required of society to adopt and believe in it, the new secularists went to the ideology of secularism, and to calling on individuals to adopt it instead of calling for the secularization of the state. This divided the world from their point of view into believers and non-believers, religious and non-religious, and thus established an eternal struggle between people, just as the fundamentalist applications of religions did, instead of the natural division of people being oppressors and oppressed, persecuted and persecuted, exploited and exploited.
As some religious institutions or their followers did, which "celebrated" whenever they converted to Islam "working" in Saudi Arabia, the "new" secularists rejoice if a religious person abandons his religion. They eagerly follow the increase in the percentage of atheists in the Arab countries, and they worry if this percentage decreases, just as the opposite side does when religious people increase or decrease... They are two sides of the same coin. This issue, the increase or decrease of believers or non-believers, is not what occupies the mind of the true secularist who is obsessed with the level of freedom more than the level of religiosity or lack thereof.
One of the most prominent manifestations of religious fundamentalism to its extreme extent in the Islamic case is what some religious intelligentsia have gone to with regard to what has been called the “Islamization of science”, which is an attempt to apply the rules and data of religious thought to scientific research methods, and this leads its owner to the conclusion that all What is discovered or will be discovered scientifically already exists in religion. On the other hand, that is, in exchange for that religious intelligentsia claiming that the laws of science must be subject to religion, the new secularists were preoccupied with trying to rationally prove the “irrationality” of faith. The secular fundamentalists have tried, just as the religious fundamentalists have tried to subjugate all the space of man's material and spiritual life for his own considerations, without trying to separate the working mechanisms of the mind, science, and the spiritual aspect of man.
The new secularists tried, and even put most of their efforts to prove the "irrationality" of faith and considered that a great achievement, so they went into the details of the details in issues of myth and miracles and discussed their implausibility in the light of scientific "logic"... They discussed the Isra and Mi'raj in the light of the laws of gravity and the speed of light And they discussed the virginity of Maryam with the laws of gynecology. Perhaps it is necessary to go back to Ibn Rushd to know the extent of the necessity of putting science and faith in their context
The studies related to the religious phenomenon, religious thought, philosophy of religion, and sociology of religion that are carried out by religious or non-religious specialists are very important studies due to the enormous influence of religion on wide numbers of the masses.
However, some of the "new" secularists go to study some matters whose usefulness is difficult to understand except from the point of intellectual "disputes"... So what does it mean to study whether alcohol was forbidden in Islam or not? What is the benefit of studying the relationship of the Prophet with his wives on the example.
However, such concerns, which are often childish in nature, are not the most dangerous in the thought and practice of the new secularists. Rather, it is possible to note some of the "sins" that he adopts and which some of the symbols of the new secularism look at, including
- The absence of cultural responsibility among many of them... The intellectual should pay attention not only to the truth or truth of what he says, but also to the consequences of what he says and the impact of that saying. Within this, the new secularists - Youssef Zaidan, for example - deal with topics that constitute symbols of the nation and deny its validity or work to offend it and reduce its prestige, such as his saying that the city of Jerusalem is not holy, or that Al-Aqsa Mosque is not the one in Jerusalem, or that Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi And Ahmed Orabi are two bad people. Doubting these symbols and tampering with them in the popular mind and conscience will destabilize the factors of the nation's cohesion and serve its enemies.
Everyone has the right to believe what he wants, but it is the duty of that person to realize the importance and perhaps the risks that may result from promoting that belief. Therefore, attention must be paid not only to what is said, but also to how it is said, when it is said, and to whom it is said...
The new secularist, when he questions the symbols of the unity of the nation, whether these symbols are realistic or mythical, real or imagined (many of the factors of unity of nations, even the advanced ones, are nothing more than myths), he is playing the role of the cultural comprador who messes with the unity of his nation and serves its enemies whether realizing it or not realizing it.
The new secular is also hostile to political (and non-political) Islam in principle, and this may be understandable, but it is not understandable to put all the movements of political Islam in one basket, so that ISIS, Al-Nusra, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Nahda movement and others become equally “bad.” Likewise, this position rejecting all the principles, behavior and narrative of all movements of political Islam leads this secularist to promote the Zionist narrative. One of them went so far as to demand the division of Al-Aqsa Mosque between Muslims, Jews and atheists, on the grounds that the Islamic narrative is not "scientific".
It is not surprising that some of the intellectuals of normalization with Israel are neo-secularists. They have transferred the normalization of "necessity", which the intellectuals of power viewed during the Camp David and Oslo days, to the normalization of admiration... the normalization of the Emirates and Bahrain... on the grounds that Zionism is modernity and it is the West they want to be. One of the symbols of these people (Sayyid Qimni) demanded the return of colonialism "to have mercy on us from the Islamists," as he said, without taking into account that the colonialism that calls for a return to it is what created ISIS, Wahhabism, and many religious and non-religious tyrannies in the region.
In matters of normalization, the new secular intellectuals are more "bold" and "insolent" than the normalized politicians... While the politician tries to hide behind some interests and circumstances, we find an intellectual like Youssef Zaidan who has been saying, for some time, that whoever "does not support normalization is ignorant." ..
The position of the new secularists differs from the traditional secularists in their attitude towards power.
While the traditional secularists are considered to be opposed to the regime in one way or another because of tyranny, the abandonment of national issues, the use of religion against the opposition, and discrimination between citizens on ideological grounds, we find that the new secularists are allied with the authority and with "tyranny" on the grounds that the opposition is Islamists. The thing that caught the attention of Sayed Qumni most about the policies pursued by President Sisi was his call for reforming religious discourse, and he did not care about all the other policies of the president.
In contrast to the traditional secularists who are keen to search for ways to save their nation and their people from dependence, tyranny and backwardness, the new secularists consider that backwardness is something linked to the nation that cannot be eliminated. Ahmed Asaid, for example, considers that the path of Morocco's progress is its liberation from all eastern attachments and its orientation towards the West, as he said, "Morocco must separate from the East if it wants to get out of underdevelopment." Assid also defended normalization with Israel under the pretext of the relationship with the Moroccan Jews, who were "expelled from their land at the great instigation of a political party."
The traditional secularists were influenced by the West, by the freedom, justice and equality that the French Revolution talked about, and by the economic, social and scientific progress that resulted from the industrial revolution, but they did not overlook the other colonial face of the West, and its constant quest to control the Arab region and the rest of the developing world. As for the new secularists, they are fond of the West in all its details and without reservation. Colonialism, from their point of view, is a positive thing, and without it, the colonized peoples would not have advanced. Sayed Qemni said in one of his interviews, "If the Europeans had not gone to America, the Redskins would have been consumed with fire."
This intense admiration for the West coincided with extreme contempt for the East (for oneself), which reminds of Ben-Gurion's reaction when he got off the ship that took him to the port of Jaffa, where he expressed his disgust at the situation there. It seems that the new secularists took a negative stance towards Islam, not as a religion (they did not take such a stance towards Judaism and Christianity), but rather because of its association with the East as a religion, culture, and values.
In the same context, some of the new secularists have ridiculed the Palestinian struggle, as the Palestinians "sold their lands and the group bought," as Sayed Qumni said. He also said that the Palestinians did not wrestle over land, but rather over a mosque. Sayed Qumni also described the "Arab Spring" in the same way when he said, "Everyone defends his mosque."
The new secularists are the opposite image of religious fundamentalism... They are totalitarian and tyrannical under the pretext of rejecting backwardness, and they are unpatriotic under the pretext of the "backwardness" of the patriots. They knowingly or unknowingly offered free services to the Zionist narrative and stood proudly on the side of normalization with Israel.
* Palestinian academic residing in Ramallah
