Secularism
was supposed to have been
capable of digesting religions;
not to turn into a religion in
its own right that banishes some
other religions. Was this not
the objection to religions after
all? That an Islamic State, for
example, does not treat Jews or
Christians well, that it does
not view them as equals, that it
gives Muslims special rights
which it denies to others?
Well, if secularism starts
behaving in this same way and
does not treat non-secular
people well and withholds some
rights from them, we will have
returned to where we began.
On the
invitation of a group of
students and people interested
in the ideas of religious
intellectuals, Dr Soroush
presented a talk at the Maison
des étudiants belges, Cité
Universitaire, in Paris on
Thursday 2 August 2007.
Dr Soroush
began by explaining the concept
of secularism. He said: In
Persian, we don’t have a
specific term for ‘secularism’;
in fact, it’s a term that’s
unique to the Latin languages.
Most Arabic speakers haven’t
found an equivalent for it
either and they’ve mostly chosen
to use the foreign original. Of
course, in Persian, terms such
as gitianegi and/or
donyaviat have been
suggested (derived from the
words for the cosmos and the
world). In Arabic, too, the
term ilmaniat has
occasionally been used which is
derived from the term for
‘science’ or for ‘the world of
differences’. In the Latin
languages, ‘secularism’ is
derived from the word
saeculum, meaning here and
now; that is to say, this world
and not the next world, this
world and not the world beyond.
So, in effect, secularism is a
confirmation of one world and a
rejection of two other worlds.
It means that our concern is
focused on this earthly, natural
world, in which we’re living
now, that we’re seeking to
understand and to succeed in the
world we’re in; we’re not
concerned about the world after
death or the world beyond (the
supernatural). On the whole,
secularism is a rejection of
asceticism, a confirmation of
partaking in and of this world
in every sense of the term, and
a snubbing of the hereafter and
the supernatural.
Dr Soroush
said: We haven’t acquainted
ourselves with this concept as
well as ought to have done. We
therefore haven’t coined a word
for it either and it hasn’t
stirred us mentally and
practically. But, in the West,
secularism emerged and grew in a
natural way and it turned into a
tree that spread its branches
everywhere. And now Westerners
are living under the branches of
this tree. Certainly, in
Islamic literature, you will
find two terms that are closely
linked to some aspects of
secularism or, at least it, are
very close to it
etymologically. One is the word
‘dahr’, which is
apparently from the same root as
‘duré’ in French and
‘duration’ in English.
Explaining
the word ‘dahr’, Dr
Soroush said: This is a word
that also appears in the Qur’an,
at the point where the deniers
say: We come into the world from
ourselves and we depart from it
by ourselves. And it is the
passage of time (dahr)
that kills us, there is no other
cause, there is no God, there
are no supernatural or invisible
forces. It is this world, here
and now, that raises us and,
ultimately, casts us down.
Dr Soroush
also said: ‘Dahr’ means
the age or the times and it is
fully in keeping with the word
‘secularism’ which contains the
idea of time. Of course, I’m
not suggesting that we should
call secular people ‘dahri’
because, in Arabic and Persian
and in a religious environment,
this term is considered
blasphemous and insulting. At
any rate, philosophers are of
the view that the distinguishing
characteristic of the nature
that we’re living in is that it
is time-bound and they describe
the supernatural world as a
world that is beyond time and
place. In English, ‘temporal
order’ is used to denote this
time-boundness and ‘eternal
order’ to give the sense of
being beyond time. ‘Temporal’
and ‘secular’ mean the same
thing; they both mean
this-worldly, earthly,
time-bound, natural and
material. It makes no
difference whether we say
‘material’ or ‘time-bound’
because the supernatural world
is neither of these two things.
According to theologians, time
is the offspring of matter, it
is the offspring of the motion
of matter. Hence, secularism
means attachment to and concern
for the material world, which is
the time-bound world.
Dr Soroush
also referred to the Asr Sura of
the Qur’an and said that another
related term was ‘asr’.
He said that, in this Sura, God
swears by ‘asr’ (which
can be rendered as ‘afternoon’,
‘evening’ or ‘declining day’):
“I swear by the declining day
that perdition shall be the lot
of man, except for those who
have faith and do good works.”
Qur’anic commentators have
disagreed over the meaning of
asr. Some have simply said
that it means afternoon, arguing
that, since God swears by the
day and the night, He can also
swear by the afternoon. But
some maintain that, here, asr
means time. I also met a cleric
who was so enraptured by
left-wing ideas that he
explained this Sura by saying
that one of the meanings of
asr is ‘pressure’. He said
that God was swearing by
‘pressure’, meaning that
revolutionary pressure had to be
brought to bear from on high to
reform society!! Setting aside
outlandish interpretations, it
would seem that the term ‘time’
can be a better rendering of
asr. In fact, God is taking
this weapon away from
disbelievers and saying: This
time that you’re speaking about
is my own creation, like the sun
and the moon, and I swear by
it. Although time has a status
that makes it worthy of being
sworn by, it does not step from
the realm of the created into
the realm of the creator.
Dr Soroush
then spoke about another
equivalent for the term
secularism and said: Some of
you who are familiar with the
philosophy and history of
theology have no doubt noticed
how, when our philosophers and
theologians discuss religious
issues, they say that we can
approach a subject in one of two
ways: rational or
transmitted/narrative. The
narrative approach is to look at
accounts that are available to
us about the words and deeds of
the Prophet and our revered
religious figures, to see what
they said about the relevant
subject. Another approach is to
rely on our own reason, without
reference to the verses of the
Qur’an and the Prophetic
narratives or Traditions; to see
what we understand of something
and what reason tells us about
it. ‘Rational’ in this sense
is very close to the
contemporary concept of ‘secular
reason’. That is to say, a
reason that is not under the
sway of religion and wants to
issue rulings, in its own right,
about worldly matters. When we
contrast reason with narration
in this way, we mean a reason
that’s independent of revelation
and this is exactly what a
secular person favours.
Dr Soroush
said: Now you can see that
secularism has a practical
aspect, which relates to life,
and a rational aspect, which
relates to thought. In the
aspect that relates to life, it
wants to reap satisfaction from
life and, in the aspect that
relates to thought, it wants to
understand and judge for itself
and not to follow the logic of
revelation. And, then, when a
people wills and endeavours to
put these concepts into
practice, secularism is born;
that is to say, a people comes
into being that does not bring
the supernatural into play or
ask invisible forces for
assistance when it judges and
analyses social and natural
phenomena. A people that does
not pray, does not promise to
give alms if its prayers come
true, does not plead for help
from revered figures, shuns
magic, discards myths and
superstition, and abandons
monasticism, asceticism and
austerity in life, because one
important practical aspect of
secularism is that human beings
are not ascetic. As Hafez (the
14th century Iranian
poet) put it: “I belong to
heaven, but on this present
journey / I am a captive of
beautiful youths.” The first
sparks of secularism in the West
were sparks of anti-asceticism;
that is to say, people abandoned
abandoning the world. They set
asceticism aside and took the
world seriously in every sense
of the word; that is to say,
they chose to partake rationally
in politics, economics,
education, science, art,
industry and so on.
Dr Soroush
then spoke about the different
types of secularism and said:
We have at least two types of
secularism: political
secularism and philosophical
secularism. The meaning of
political secularism is clear;
it means the separation of
religion and the State. It
means governing this world
without concern for the two
other worlds, as if this is the
only world and we, human beings,
are its rulers and our
self-justifying reason is the
judge of all things. It means
that the State’s legitimacy is
not pegged on religion. It means
that the State is neutral
towards religions. It means
that society’s laws are not
obtained from religion. But we
also have philosophical
secularism. Philosophical
secularism means that there is
no God. There is no
supernatural world. There is no
hereafter. It is akin to
naturalism and materialism. In
political secularism, you don’t
necessarily reject God, but, in
politics, you don’t concern
yourself with God and religion.
You don’t need to reject the
hereafter, but you don’t concern
yourself with it. But in
philosophical secularism, you
make judgments and your
judgments are negative, you
consider religions to be without
truth. When Max Weber said that
modernity meant the
demystification of the world,
this is what he meant.
Turning to
the causes of the emergence of
secularism in the West, Dr
Soroush said: Now, why is it
that secularism came into being
in the West from the 16th
century onwards, whereas it did
not develop in the world of
Islam and in the East as a
whole? What was the factor
behind secularism’s growth in
the West? First and foremost, I
have to say in this connection
that secularism had a natural
birth in the West. In other
words, it was an infant that
spent the appropriate length of
time in the womb of the West’s
history and, when it had reached
its full term, it came into this
world; its birth was not
accompanied by a Caesarean
section and bleeding. We can
attribute this to two causes.
The first cause was the
confrontation and clash between
science and religion. The
quarrel between science and
religion was a very fateful
quarrel in the history of
Europe. And it was not a
product of a conspiracy, ill
will, malice or irreligiosity.
In fact, it was a very natural
quarrel: there was growth in
the natural sciences, in
geology, biology, astronomy.
And new information came to
light that was in conflict with
the contents of Scripture and
the conflict intensified to the
point where it became impossible
to hide or deny. There was
Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and
Newton and, later, Buffon and
Darwin. Some of these people
were religious themselves. As
it happens, Galileo was a
religious man. Copernicus was
once a priest. Kepler was
someone who had gone several
steps beyond the common religion
of the masses to the point of
being superstitious. But the
product of these people’s work
was something that was not in
any way in keeping with the
contents of Scripture,
especially on the subject of the
motion of the earth and the sun
and the planets. The Church
tolerated these ideas for a
while but, then, the quarrel
flared up. The status that the
Church and Scripture acquired
thereafter never went back to
what it had been before the
quarrel. In all fairness,
despite all its hostility
towards science, the Church did
not go down the path of
fanaticism. The Church allowed
the publication of Copernicus’s
book. In The Revolutions of
the Heavenly Spheres,
Copernicus explicitly stated
that the earth was in motion and
that the sun was still, whereas,
according to Scripture, it was
the sun that moved and the earth
that was still. From the 400
copies of the book that were
published in the 16th
century, 200 still exist today.
The tales about Galileo having
been put to death are all
untrue. Of course, they did put
Galileo under house arrest. The
Church allowed the publication
of Copernicus’s book but wrote
an introduction to it. And the
important point that was made in
this introduction was “what is
stated in this book is a theory
and not the absolute truth”.
This was a laudable and sensible
solution.
The big and
small discoveries that were
being made here and there
gradually robbed Scripture of
the status that it had had
heretofore. Religion lost its
former power and status and,
from then on, it was no longer
the actor on the social and
political stage that it had been
before. As long as religion
was strong, it was in the
political arena. When faith
diminished and religion’s status
declined, this actor ended up
playing a smaller role. It
was not as if anyone evicted
religion from the political
stage; it just grew weaker and
moved to the sidelines. This is
why I said it was a natural
birth. The political stage is
for powerful players. When
religion was strong, there was
no need for anyone to invite
religion onto the political
stage. And, when it grew weak,
it inevitably left the stage;
there was no need for anyone to
evict it.
The second
cause was the rupture that
occurred in Christianity; that
is to say, the birth of
Protestantism from the ribs of
Catholicism. This Protestantism
reduced the Church’s strength;
in fact, it stood exactly
opposite the Church. Martin
Luther was the first person to
translate the Bible into
German. And he said that
everyone was their own priest
and he rejected the authority of
the Church.
These two
events together weakened the
Christian Church so that it
departed from the game of power,
and this departure meant that
there was now a separation
between religion and the State.
Some people imagine that, in
European countries, some people
drew up Constitutions stating
that, henceforth, there must be
a separation between religion
and politics. This was not at
all the case. The fact that
this has been stated in European
Constitutions was the effect of
this development, not its
cause. At any rate, the
secularism that was born was a
tolerant secularism. It was not
militant. Since it knew that
religion was weak, it felt no
need to attack it. As recently
as about 30 or 40 years ago,
many sociologists were of the
view that not just Christianity
but all religions were on the
decline. They believed that
history was moving in the
direction of political
secularism. So, what do you do
when faced with weaklings? You
are tolerant and you tell
yourself that they pose no
danger, they are doing no harm,
let them have their mosque or
church, let them observe their
rituals. Secularism proceeded on
the assumption that it should be
neutral towards religions and
view them all in the same light.
As far as secularism is
concerned, it makes no
difference that there are Bahais,
Christians, Muslims, Jews and/or
Zoroastrians in society, because
it assumed that they were all
being left behind by history.
Secularism in
this sense both led to the
separation of religion and the
State and adopted a neutral
approach to religions. Former
US Secretary of State Colin
Powell said with pride: “In the
US now, you can see mosques and
synagogues alongside churches,
and they are all coexisting
peacefully.” And, in fact, this
is something to be proud of and
it is a very laudable situation.
But gradually
secularism enters a new era
which I call the era of militant
secularism; a secularism that
has lost its capacity for
tolerance, that does not view
all religions in the same light.
A secularism that loses its
previous, strong digestion
system, as if surrendering to
secularism’s enemies. One
example of this is the question
of schoolgirls and the hijab
in France. Or Tony Blair, when
he said: “If they don’t like
our values, they can leave
Britain.” Turkey’s position is
the clearest of all in this
respect. It officially baulks at
the idea of having a Muslim
president. Some people come out
into the streets in the name of
defending secularism and Western
media fuel the flames.
Examining the
root causes of the emergence of
militant secularism, Dr Soroush
said: First, one of the
underlying assumptions of
secularism has now been
falsified. Political secularism
bore one meaning, which is the
separation of religion and the
State, and one historical
prediction, which is that
religion will become
increasingly weak. Hence,
secularism would become easier
with every passing day. Today,
the prediction has turned out
false and this is something that
you’ve been hearing from major
sociologists over the past 20 or
30 years, that religions are
gaining in strength. We won’t
go into why this is happening
now, but it is happening. In
sociology, they were always
speaking about the USA as an
exception, because religiosity
is strong in the US. But now,
this is happening everywhere.
People like Peter Berger and
Jose Casanova are openly saying
that secularism is not history’s
destination; just as they used
to say in Marxism that socialism
was historically inevitable, but
it became clear that this wasn’t
necessarily the case.
Now, when
religions grow stronger, it is
not clear whether they will be
tolerant towards them. This is
a flaw that applies to both
liberalism and secularism.
Secularism’s digestion system
was good for swallowing weak
religions, but it can’t swallow
strong religions. They get
stuck in its throat so it turns
militant. A new theory is
needed. Don’t look at Al-Qaeda
and the like, which the
gentlemen like to emphasize.
First of all, it is not a
broad-based movement and,
secondly, it is a minor
exception that will not last.
This is not what people mean
when they say religions are
growing stronger.
As to why
religion is springing back to
life, American sociologists say
that it is because there is a
crisis of identity. Some others
say that there is a crisis of
meaning and spirituality.
Whatever it may be, there are
obviously some causes and,
whatever these causes, the
effect is what we’re seeing.
The US attacked Afghanistan and
Iraq. Then, both countries
stipulated in their new
Constitutions that they must
derive their laws from the
shariah. This is something
that the Americans couldn’t have
imagined. In other words,
Saddam’s secularism has been
transformed into the current
anti-secularism in Iraq. In
Afghanistan, too, they’ve stated
officially that their laws must
not contravene the shariah.
The second time when Mr Bush was
elected president, it was
because some people thought that
he’s a very religious man. They
made a pact with God and voted
for him.
Religious
minorities now have a stronger
sense of identity. Because of
the way they behaved over the
hijab, the hijab has
turned into a matter of
identity. Before, it used to be
a religious matter, like the
prayer and fasting that Muslims
consider themselves duty-bound
to perform without making any
claims about it and without
making a show of it. They were
simply performing their duty.
The hijab has turned into
a matter of identity. Religion
has two aspects: identity and
truth. And militant secularism
unfortunately intensifies the
identity aspect of religion. And
this is to the detriment of both
religion and secularism.
The second
point is that, in countries such
as Turkey, where religion is
strong, secularism cannot be
imposed from above, with
militancy and high-handedness.
As I said, secularism had a
natural birth in Europe.
Religion grew weak, it left the
game of politics. But in Turkey
religion isn’t weak; more
people go to mosques there than
they do in Iran. Thirty years
ago, when I went to Turkey, I
saw big crowds of worshippers in
Istanbul’s mosques. When I
returned to Iran, I said: “I’m
sure something is going to
happen in Turkey.” In Turkey,
no one receives rewards for
being a Muslim; unlike Iran,
where if you make a show of
going to the mosque for the
ritual prayers a couple of
times, it has an impact on your
promotion in your university
post! There, you can see crowds
eagerly going to Friday prayers
and the daily congregational
prayers which shows that
religion is alive. And in a
place where religion is alive
and strong, it will definitely
play a role in politics. If you
want to harp on secularism in
such a place, then it’s clear
that it can only be militant
secularism; that is to say, a
secularism that wants to
quarrel, not a secularism that
favours tolerance.
In European countries, States
are slowly losing their
tolerance towards religious
minorities and their tolerant
secularism is turning into
militant secularism, which means
that it is no different from
religions. Because Secularism
was supposed to have been
capable of digesting religions;
not to turn into a religion in
its own right that banishes some
other religions. Was this not
the objection to religions after
all? That an Islamic State, for
example, does not treat Jews or
Christians well, that it does
not view them as equals, that it
gives Muslims special rights
which it denies to others?
Well, if secularism starts
behaving in this same way and
does not treat non-secular
people well and withholds some
rights from them, we will have
returned to where we began.
Finally, Dr
Soroush predicted that
secularism and liberalism would
be facing a series of serious
challenges in the future in view
of the resurgence of religions.
He said: I believe that neither
liberalism nor secularism will
remain in their current form.
However – and a thousand
howevers – I don’t want to
conclude, on the basis of what
I’ve said, that we should move
towards intolerance. Tolerance
is a great human value and
virtue, and this isn’t even
something that we need to learn
from foreigners. Hafez, our
great poet, said: “In these two
phrases lies peace in this world
and the next / With friends
magnanimity; with enemies,
tolerance.” From now on, the
West must formulate theories on
how they intend to be tolerant
towards the strong. So far,
their theories were directed at
being tolerant towards the weak,
but now the challenge is
greater. Muslims can contribute
to the formulation of these
theories and offer a civilized
response to this challenge.
Then, Dr
Soroush fielded questions from
the audience.
Translated from the Persian by
Nilou Mobasser