|
Secularization
as Part of the Current World Order
|
By
Siraj Islam Mufti, Ph.D.
Researcher
and freelance writer
|
15/04/2002
|
 |
|
Secularizing
Afghanistan
|
A
consistent theme given prominence in the impending war of
civilizations is the secularization of the Muslim world. With the
United States gaining its world superiority, it is now being pushed
with the utmost vigor and has become a sine qua non for its
dealings with Muslim countries.
The
problem is that secularism is a purely Western construct, developed
in the particular European environment in response to Church
excesses and the ensuing antagonism it produced, furthered by
internecine Christian wars of the time, culminating in the
separation of church and state. Thus, secularism, as it evolved, is
based on the exclusion of faith having any significant role in human
affairs and is devoid of the essentiality of transcendence with its
vital role in human existence. This is the opposite of the Muslim
experience with Islam. Rather than letting them lead their lives in
accordance with their Islamic aspirations, the U.S. is intent on
imposing a Western secular value system upon Muslims. In order to
accomplish this objective, Islamic schools and mosques have now
become the major targets.
Since
every measure taken after September 11 is labeled as a “war on
terrorism,” Islamic schools and mosques are not immune and are
being projected as the breeding grounds of terrorism. Thomas
Friedman of the New York Times writing in a column in the
November 27, 2001, issue believes that the West is “not fighting
to eradicate ‘terrorism.’ Terrorism is just a tool … [it is]
fighting to defeat an ideology: religious totalitarianism. … But
unlike Nazism, religious totalitarianism can’t be fought by armies
alone. It has to be fought in schools, mosques, churches and
synagogues, and can be defeated only with the help of imams, rabbis
and priests.”
There
are many secularist leaders within Muslim countries who are ready
and willing to do the job: for example, General Pervez Musharraf of
Pakistan. In a speech to his nation on January 12, 2002, he
attempted to prove that every ill afflicting his country, and
Muslims in general, is because of the “misinterpretation” of
Islam, and if cured of it, Pakistan could become a “progressive”
heaven on earth for other Muslims to emulate. As a result, he has
since then instituted restrictions on the building of new mosques
and ordered that all religious schools henceforth be registered and
their curricula “improved” by including secular subject matters.
The U.S. administration was pushing for these changes all along, and
now has promised some help in “reforming the education” of
Pakistani youngsters.
Thus
Pakistan is “progressing” on the lines that Egypt already is,
where religious education is in state hands and the construction of
mosques is placed under strict restrictions: requiring a deposition
of surety with a bank and the acquisition of a permit from the
relevant government ministry. Such is the case with most other
Muslim countries.
 |
|
General
Pervez Musharraf is pushing forward the secularization of
Pakistan |
This
was great news for Western leaders, especially the media, since
Pakistan is home to strong Islamic movements. They appreciated the
“leadership” qualities of Musharraf and his “vision” of “a
new course for the Muslim world.” As an example, the January 28
issue of Newsweek adorned him with a lengthy five-page
article entitled “Pakistan’s Striving Son.” Admiring his
unique courage, it said, “his government launched a series of
dramatic policies that, if successful, will mean a real about-face
for Pakistan. … Not only Musharraf wants to move Pakistan away
from its long and troubled drift into theocracy, but he says he
hopes to set an example that other Islamic countries with
fundamentalist undercurrents will follow” (Mind you, Islam does
not advocate rule by clergy or any elitist group, but it is
egalitarian, and stands for popular vicegerency of humans under the
sovereignty of God).
Then
comparing him with Anwar Sadat of Egypt, it says, “Musharraf
exhibits similar daring and vision, and also similar hubris. Many
Pakistanis fear, and some of them wish, that he may yet meet
Sadat’s bloody fate.” The same magazine had earlier called him a
weak military dictator with a dilemma. Even now, it stated,
“Musharraf is touchy when his democratic credentials are
challenged. He pledges to hold parliamentary elections in October,
but also plans to remain in place as president. ‘I have to do it
not just for my sake, but for the sake of the nation,’ he says (echoing
a line dear to many a dictator)” (Italics added).
The
West, in all honesty, must admit that terrorism cannot be associated
with any particular religion or people; and for that matter, it
should also examine itself. Europe and the U.S. have by far the
greater amount of terrorism, as apparent from the daily incidents of
homicide reported in U.S. towns and metropolises. For example, in
the U.S., 22,000 innocent civilians die every year as a result of
heavy firearm shooting: because a growing number of fanatics (among
them children) have in some cases suddenly started firing
indiscriminately at persons in their vicinity - in schools,
workplaces, and other places. And the government is unable to check
this widespread terror among its citizens. Yet, it plays the role of
policeman for the world, arrogating to itself the right to
categorize whomever it wants to label as “terrorist.”
This
blame is specifically directed at Islam and Muslims. Writing in the
March 18, 2002, issue of the Washington Times, Anthony
Sullivan and Louis Cantori, two well-known Middle East experts,
write, “There is the policy posture that suggests Washington’s
agreement with the notion that Islam is inherently a “fanatic”
religion. … The demonization of Islam is troubling in two
respects. First, it may be understood to justify establishment of an
American world empire. Any such American imperium would assuredly
not prove to be in the long-term interests of the United States.
This policy orientation, of course, reflects views which are
expressed regularly by American neoconservatives.” Further, that
“the apparent association of Islam with fanaticism is related to
an additional troubling phenomenon. This association suggests that
both government officials and journalists have not understood how
categorical and widespread the condemnation by prominent Muslim
religious leaders of what occurred on September 11 has been”
(Italics added).
Let
us also look at Islamic schools in Muslim countries, which have been
following the same curricula for generations and hundred of years.
Like other religious schools, their primary goal is to teach the
Islamic faith, its scholarship, and its ethical and moral
principles. Their curriculum encompasses reading of the Qur’an and
its Tafsir (exegesis) provided by a reputed scholar, along
with Hadith (sayings of the Prophet of Islam) and Fiqh
(Islamic jurisprudence) literature at the advanced level. There is
nothing in the courses taught that could be remotely associated with
terrorist teachings, such as the mechanics and use of firearms. In
fact, incidences of violence are very low among graduates from these
schools. On the other hand, it is the secular schools, colleges and
universities (those inherited from the colonial period, and added on
to) where armed groups exist and where incidents of terror and death
take place. To those critics who often give the example of the
Taliban one could ask the question, where did they learn this art?
It was during the war with the former Soviet Union from where they
received their training, along with the active assistance of the
U.S. If this is true, as is generally acknowledged, then why are
those who trained them accusing others of its occurrence in places
where it is not?
In
order to fight terrorism, the West and the U.S. would have to
address the causes that lead to it. Terrorism is an act of
desperation by those deprived of their rights; all it needs in order
for it to end are just and fair solutions. Muslim desperation with
the U.S., extending from a few terrorists to their predominantly
large peace loving populations (totaling 1.3 billion in more than 55
countries), is largely due to the following reasons:
It
is unjustly aligned with Israel against the Palestinians, while
Israel violates its agreed upon accords and continues the
Occupation, raiding Palestinian homes and killing civilians and
children with U.S. supplied tanks, gunships and F16s.
It
has instituted mindless cruel sanctions on Iraq, which has caused
the death of more than 500,000 children and another 500,000 adults,
mostly the elderly. And in general, it not only backs, but also
ensures that their ruthless rulers remain entrenched in the status
quo.
The
real root cause of problems of the West is its adoption of Godless
secularism that, along with its associated atheism, has led to its
crass materialism, hedonism and moral and environmental decay. It
has produced grave problems in its society, causing its
disintegration, which is also very evident in its basic institution
of the family. It is because of the absence of ethical and moral
education that Western society is suffering from decadence, with
constant increase in daily occurrences of crime and drug use,
juvenile delinquency, violence, sex exploitation and abuse, along
with rampant racism. Admittedly, Muslim societies suffer from grave
problems of economic and political leadership, but their family
institutions are strong and they possess a long tradition of firmly
established values emanating from their mosques and religious
schools.
Indeed,
the current phenomenon of satellites beaming their shows into most
homes in the Muslim world provides a stark contrast: that with the
importation of secular values, the problems peculiar to the West are
now emerging in the Muslim societies as well. Is this what the West
wants to propagate to others? Shouldn’t it rather seek remedy for
its grave moral and societal problems, rather than throw them onto
the world stage?
The
right course would be for the West and the U.S. to refrain from
blind advocacy of secularism as the solution for Muslims and to
conversely seek and adopt mutually beneficial ways of life in
cooperation with them. Many Western intellectuals are conscious of
the immorality of their social order and its implications for future
social economy. Therefore, these leaders of conscience, rather than
acquiescing in eroding the eternal transcendental nature of Islam
and replacing it with spiritually blind, transient, relativistic and
valueless secularism, should join forces with their counterparts
from Muslim countries. They should thus work conscientiously to
restore transcendence to their society - that is groping for it, in
the prevailing darkness of minds - with their extant God-given
goodness. Only when they are so engaged sincerely, they would,
hopefully, through their unrelenting activism be able to convince
government leaders and politicians not to become captives of
arrogance and give in to wrongful ways, thereby arriving at a
beneficial norm for the good of humankind.
|
