Secularism - 3 key philosophical problems for its muslim adherents | an extensive 🧵
- The Paradox of Tolerance.
- The Problem of Neutral Equality.
- The Problem of Meta-Ethics.
- The Paradox of Tolerance.
- The Problem of Neutral Equality.
- The Problem of Meta-Ethics.
- Preface: definition.
Secularism here, would be understood in its most minimal sense, that is appealed to, by muslim secularist - as simply an idea that demands absolute exclusion of Islam from the constitutional and governmental order of the state.
(1/35)
Secularism here, would be understood in its most minimal sense, that is appealed to, by muslim secularist - as simply an idea that demands absolute exclusion of Islam from the constitutional and governmental order of the state.
(1/35)
To steel-man the idea of muslim secularists in good-will, secularism wouldn't be defined in the meaning of/or dealt as "secularisation" (Al-Attas) as implemented by the likes of Ataturk - therefore this critique presupposes that secularism of muslim-secularists,
allows expression of Islam/Religion in the public sphere (equally with other religions) and doesn't absolutely limit it to the complete private.
1. The Paradox of Tolerance.
So, the likes of prof. @Taimur_Laal would have you believe that secularism is a completely a basic idea that doesn't entail anything philosophical beyond a simple distinction, and in fact allows islam a complete freedom in its religious workings.
So, the likes of prof. @Taimur_Laal would have you believe that secularism is a completely a basic idea that doesn't entail anything philosophical beyond a simple distinction, and in fact allows islam a complete freedom in its religious workings.
But there are quite some critical philosophical problems even with such a simplified understanding of secularism. The issue however is that secularism has its own ideals and values that are necessary to it - an opposition of which,
(5/35)
(5/35)
it cannot withstand in order to stay what it is. The most fundamental of these ideals or gods of secularism are "absolute tolerance and freedom". All religions need to have tolerance for each other,
and each of them is 'equally free' to express themselves in an horizontal field - state being vertically above/transcendent of such expressions and dialogue. Now the problem (no.1) is that, what if one of the religions,
inherently (by the nature of what it is) doesn't even accept the ideal of absolute tolerance (that secularism inherently demands)? How would the secular state deal with such an expression of religion? Would the absolute tolerant, in such a scenario,
tolerate the also the intolerant that opposes its very foundations of legitimacy? So, even though state (in secularism) is painted as impartial towards any religion - in order to stay secular, it would have to force a bias against a religion that inherently opposes
the ideal of tolerance therefore losing its status of complete neutrality (equality to all religions) and suppressing the ideology that challenges the very philosophical foundations of the secular state.
2. The Problem of Neutral Equality
The second problem with a secular state for muslims would be that this state would allow equal opportunities to every single religion (regardless of what that religion is) and their ethical culture in the public sphere - now, the question here
The second problem with a secular state for muslims would be that this state would allow equal opportunities to every single religion (regardless of what that religion is) and their ethical culture in the public sphere - now, the question here
is, would such a religiously neutral state allow the likes of Satan worshippers an equal opportunity to express and promote their religion in the public sphere as much as Muslims? (Granted that violence between them is controlled by the state).
Since the state/political has nothing to do with religious ethics (a point to be discussed later) and assumes itself to be transcendent of any religion,
on what philosophical grounds would a muslim-secularist make the case against the promotion satanist ethical culture in the public sphere? Not to miss (problem no. 2.1) a purely Islamic argument,
(15/35)
(15/35)
such a secular state by allowing equal opportunity to every other satanic + shirk promoting religion in the public sphere would necessarily be curtailing the religious commands of Islam,
that doctrinally necessitate an elimination of shirk 'promoting' (not just practicing) ideologies in a Muslim majority land. Therefore a completely neutral and tolerant state,
in order to maintain the ideal (God) of absolute tolerance and freedom (except ironically against itself ofc) in society - would have to curtail some rights of one religion and defend some rights of the other - hence not showing complete impartiality but rather a
humanistic understanding of equity based on the ideal of tolerance. And this segues into our last problem.
3. The Problem of Meta-Ethics of Secularism.
Our last problem is a critical one i.e. the separation of ethical and the political in such an understanding of Secularism. A secular state, claiming to be transcendent to all religions (islam),
Our last problem is a critical one i.e. the separation of ethical and the political in such an understanding of Secularism. A secular state, claiming to be transcendent to all religions (islam),
has a very key problem in the domain of ethics (for muslim-secularists particularly). For the students of political philosophy, it's common knowledge that for the most part,
(20/35)
(20/35)
'the telos of the political' has almost always been defined with the 'ethical/virtue" - meaning that the purpose of the political governance is to promote or maintain the ideals of virtue in society (unless a Machiavellian understanding of politics is adopted).
The development and progress of the collective virtue (either in intellectual language or moral) has been imagined to be the primary objective of governance. Even in the imaginations of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson (founding fathers of American ideology),
an absence of virtue in the political (individuals or communities) makes every analytical structural theory of governing institutions meaningless and void. Therefore,
since the political is essentially linked with the ethical - the state has to have a definitive and clear understanding of the ethical and the moral, by the very nature of its telos,
it has to have an ethical framework where the subjects of anthropology & teleology (at least) are definitively understood to be able to carry out the operations of virtue. In secularism now, since the state is viewed transcendent of religious ethics,
it would define an ethical framework i.e. an understanding of the moral values (including questions of teleology and anthropology) on its own, with its own particular visions and metaphysical assumptions. If for muslim-secularists, the issue with this isn't clear,
then to state it properly - as a muslim-secularist, one would hold the religious belief that Allah has revealed the best and the most complete of the ethical frameworks for the success and maintenance of the socio-moral order of the human society BUT then simultaneous
allow a political group of individuals/institutions (separate/transcendent of religious frameworks) to construct their own ethical frameworks (in order to perform the very purpose of the political) with their own understanding of morality,
and this constructed framework of ethics would be more capable of governing the society than the religious/revealed framework. Considering Islam's ethico-social worldview to be divine,
yet not sufficient enough to be infused into the political and then letting the political/state invent its own extra-religious ethical philosophy (usually with the metaphysical assumptions of Liberal humanism: hence the ideals of Absolute Liberty-Equality-Tolerance)
that is implemented as a sort of meta-ethics above Islamic ethics is a seriously critical problem for muslim-secularists. The state can't do without ethical frameworks, so when a state has been pushed above the religious,
a truly secular state cannot adopt the religious worldview of any of the religions (in order to preserve its very secular identity), it would naturally have to construct its own understanding of teleology & ethics - a system built independent of God's system,
and for the purpose of controlling and regulating that religious system is what we refer to as "Taghut".
- Conclusion
These are the 3 foundational problems with even the most minimal and simplistic understanding of secularism - which shows that even if one doesn't adopt the idea of secularism as a complete philosophy (secularisation - Al-Attas),
These are the 3 foundational problems with even the most minimal and simplistic understanding of secularism - which shows that even if one doesn't adopt the idea of secularism as a complete philosophy (secularisation - Al-Attas),
the most basic political (structurally political) view of secularism also entails critical metaphysical ideas that stand in sharp contradiction to those of Islam.
جاري تحميل الاقتراحات...