From Fundamentalism toward Secularism

On the 17th of December, President of France Jacques Chirac pitched a “hot ball” before the French parliament. The “hot ball” was a ban on using religious symbols in French public school. The ball rolls up, and Muslim community tried hard to kick it back.
The militant Muslim group are against the rule since the Muslim female students in French public school will be forced to take their scarves off. Syekh Al-Azhar Sayyid Tantawi believes that the French government has the right to issue the rule but it was protested against by the Muslim hardliners in Egypt (Al-Hayât, 3/1)


Few Muslims try to be critical and objective in observing the above phenomenon as if the French government only focused upon Islam on banning the use of headscarf. Yet, the ban also includes all religious symbols like cross, skullcap and other identical symbols of certain other religions. To Chirac it is against “secularism” which is the foundation of French society.


Why was this regulation created? To me, two rational reasons are the backgrounds. Firstly, the rapid growth of religious fundamentalism symptom which has become a global phenomenon. As Karen Armstrong (2002: ix) has written, the growth of religious “fundamentalism” phenomenon is a very significant phenomenon at the end of 20th century.

Fundamentalism meant here is not only occurring in the Semitic religions –Judaism, Christianity, and Islam- but also be in all “formal” world religions. Religious fundamentalism is the strong desire to return to the fundamental teaching of religion and the attempt to hold up and withstand “historical duplication” in the current condition. Furthermore Armstrong viewed that fundamentalism is not only a movement back to roots, but also a movement against modernity which leads to multi-dimensional crisis.

Secondly, there is the spread of global terrorism and universal humanitarian crimes using religious teaching as a “mask” for legitimacy. There have been many instances, for example, WTC 11-9-01, American military aggression upon Afghanistan supported by the word “Crusade” of George W Bush, the Bali blast and the Marriot blast, escalating violence in the Middle East due to the battle of Islamic and Jewish fundamentalism, the nuclear crisis between Pakistan and India rooted from the Islamic and Hindus fundamentalism and many other cases of violence fed by religious “labels”.

To modern society – especially France - the phenomenon of religious fundamentalism and terrorism has become a very serious threat since the modern century has “imprisoned” religion in the private domain while it previously dominated the public domain. But by the end of 20th century, religion has escaped from the “prison” and return to the public sphere. It is as if the “historical ghoul” haunting European society like religious hegemony upon civil political sovereignty and bloody conflict between the Catholic and Protestant will reoccur due to the appearance of religious fundamentalism symptom.

Religiosity in the modern age expected by the western intellectuals to take the form of “civil religion” hasn’t come true. Instead, religious fundamentalism has become strengthened by the use of religious symbols. For the fundamentalist, religious symbols are not only identity markers but are symbols of resistance.

THE headscarf is an Islamic symbol. It is no longer a symbol of piety and modesty, but has become a symbol of resistance. (Fadwa El Guindi: 1999).

The problem of the relation between secularism and religion in the western society is never ending. It has an antagonistic relation: like oil and water which never meet and are always contradictory. However, the objective of the French government regulation is no more than the reaffirmation of the antagonistic relation between secularism and religion.

Substantially, not all secular governments are against religion. The government has not used religion as legitimacy for their policies. In America, Holland, Germany, England, religions still have space. What happened in France is –in Roger Garaudy’s terms- “secular fundamentalism”, or in Arkoun’s terms –“secularianism” (al-‘almânawiyah) and not “secularism” (al-‘almâniyah).

Muhammad Arkoun, a secular muslim thinker living in France criticized “secularianism” brought by “militant secularist” (les laicistes militants) rejecting any religious subject in French public school. What is meant by religious subject here is not about religious rituals or about using religious symbols- but the subject of historical critic of religions which is an integral part of society. (Arkoun, 1998:61).

Arkoun illustrates that secularism contains liberalism. Secularism tries to be open and free. Unlike secularism, liberalism is often being understood as “libertinism”: unlimited and unregulated freedom.

Whereas for Abd Karim Soroush, an Iranian intellectual, the growth of modern science thought and rationality implicates the appearance of secularism. Modern scientific knowledge has changed not only human’s view about world, but also his ability and position. He affirms that, secularism is “scientification” and rationalization of social and political considerations. (Soroush, 2002: 79-80)

The same ideas are conveyed by Moroccan intellectual, Muhammad ‘Âbid Al-Jâbirî, who writes that the essence of secularism is “democracy” and “rationality” (al-dimuqrâthiya wa al-‘aqlâniyah). Debates happening in Arabic and Islamic intellectual circles regarding secularism are worthless debates, since they never handle the core of the problem. To him, it’s better to eliminate the terms of secularism from Arabic thinking and replace it with the terms “democracy” and “rationality”. (Al-Jâbirî, 1992: 104)

To me, the negative impression of secularism is the result of ignorance. If only we try to understand the essence of secularism, the “fear” of Al-Jâbirî should not re-appear. Debates about secularism will no longer be about labels and packaging, but about content and substance.

Whereas to the western society, secularism has become a “monument” which will always remind them of tragedy. Lets secularism becomes “text” which will constantly be interpreted according to history. Moreover, within the growing religious fundamentalism revolution currently, secularism –not “secularianism”- is still the alternative. It is supported by the substance of secularism: rationality, democracy, liberalism, inclusivism, tolerance, which is the primary requirement of the modern human. If one offered me a choice between “religious fundamentalism or religious secularism?” I would definitely choose “religious secularism.” (Luthi Assyaukani - taken from www.islamlib.com)