The Legacy of Western Colonialism, Arab Authoritarianism, and Islamic Extremism Taints Image of Secularism

 

Since the fall of the Assad regime, Syrians have been discussing the kind of future government they desire. These discussions have occurred on Facebook and at conferences inside and outside Syria. The 14-year war has intensified these debates, and the identity of the new power in Syria, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), led by Ahmed al-Sharaa, has further influenced them. This formerly extremist Islamic group has recently moderated its positions and become more open to various political perspectives. However, the latest development has raised skepticism: the new government has adopted a temporary declaration of constitutional law as its legal foundation, asserting that Islam should be the source of legislation and the president's faith. This has intensified the heated debates surrounding the new state's stance on Islam.

 

In his article “How Did Secularism Get Its Bad Reputation?” Mada al-Fateh in Al Quds Al Arabi examines the origin of secularism’s negative reputation in the Arab world. He introduces his article with a quote from Maysoun Melhem, a journalist and broadcaster for the German channel Deutsche Welle, who posed two questions on her Facebook page: "Why are those who fear a federal secular state afraid? What reasons lead those who reject secularism to do so? Secularism represents equal respect for everyone's beliefs, while federalism signifies union."

 

Using Melhem's question as a starting point, Fateh argues that secularism has suffered collateral damage due to ultra-conservative and religious propaganda as well as extremist secularist forces. Meanwhile, those looking to shape the new government in Syria to fit the Islamic agenda see secularists as atheists. Still, the misinformation spread by conservative religious groups has been difficult to overcome. The opponents of secularism argue that Islam is not merely a religion but a comprehensive way of life that encompasses a system of governance. These ideas were promoted by intellectuals, faqihs, and influential movements like the Muslim Brotherhood, which extended into various countries. Islamic and Salafist groups (like the HTS) view secularism as incompatible with the Sharia (Islamic law). 

 

Secularism faces criticism on an institutional level. A prominent Islamic institution, such as Al-Azhar in Egypt, resists relinquishing its power to a governmental body because it would diminish its authority and influence in society. Aside from linking secularism with a colonial legacy and its role in eroding traditional values, colonial powers' imposition of secular policies has had a counter effect: it tends to generate skepticism towards secular governance.

 

Theoretically, secularism relies on the principle of separating state and religion. It ensures that religious beliefs do not influence government policies, allowing individuals to practice any faith — or none — without state interference. Thus, secularism delineates the boundary between religion and government, enabling the state to maintain neutrality in religious matters by refraining from promoting or favoring any particular faith. While the struggle in Syria continues over the future form of government, it is notable that secularism has been the arch-nemesis of nepotism and corruption, as it bases laws and policies on efficiency and universal human rights rather than on religious doctrine and sectarian affiliation. This contrast is evident in places considered pseudo-democratic, like Lebanon, where government positions are allocated based on sectarian division affiliations.

 

Given the rarity of secular cases in the Arab world, many reform-oriented Arab politicians and intellectuals analyze global experiences. Therefore, it is unsurprising that academic works on secularism in the Arab world frequently reference examples from the United States and Europe. However, the two regions differ somewhat in their relationships with religion and the state. American secularism emphasizes religious freedom, allowing religious groups to have public influence as long as the government remains neutral. Although the state does not officially endorse any religion, spiritual groups play a role in public life (e.g., political speeches, oath-taking, etc.). In contrast to the United States, Europe presents a more regulated form of secularism, particularly in France, where the state limits religious expression in public institutions (e.g., banning religious symbols like hijabs, large crosses, and turbans in public schools). In some instances, European secularism aims to exclude religion entirely from public life, advocating for a stricter separation than that found in the U.S.

 

Robin Wright, a prominent journalist and author for The New Yorker and other publications, comes to mind as I write this essay. She has authored several books on radical Islam and defends the Gulf region against accusations of religious extremism and violence. Her thesis argues that the Republican and radical Arab regimes, like Syria and Iraq, which align more closely with a Western interpretation of secularism, are more violent than the Arab Gulf states.  

 

Some Arabs and Muslims feel alienated from secularism for two reasons: its ties to Western colonialism and its associations with authoritarianism. Historical and scholarly evidence supports these links. As an academic and political science student in the 1980s, I reflected on the literature related to political development that I read and recommended to my students. This literature focused on conservative monarchical states that were non-secular yet less authoritarian, in contrast to the ostensibly authoritarian republican regimes like Syria and Iraq, which publicly claimed to pursue revolutionary change that incorporated secularism.

 

One question is why Arab radicals would embrace secularism. Acknowledging the considerable conservative and religious opposition to their economic and social policies, particularly the nationalization of private property from the 1950s to the 1980s, the military focused on the new, youthful generation within its ranks and in society. Because ultra-conservative religious groups criticized socialism as merely a facade for communism, the military relied on the youth and their openness to new ideas like secularism. Since nationalism is a core aspect of their ideological stance, the military needed an effective way to broaden its appeal and counter the religious opposition. This approach integrated an ideological framework that moved beyond sectarianism and asserted that it represented the nation in all its religious diversity. 

 

However, this strategy has proven hypocritical, as history shows. The Syrian regime masked its oppression of the Sunni majority under the pretense of secularism while consolidating power for its Alawite sectarian minority. The same applies to Saddam Hussein, who used secularism to justify his persecution of the Shiite majority. Likewise, Hussein leveraged “secular Arabism” to diminish distinct Kurdish nationalism. These regimes, along with Nasserism in Egypt (1954-1970), proclaimed “secularism” but also engaged in repression, leading some to prefer Islamic alternatives.

 

Contrary to expectations, the experiences of Arab immigrants in the West have not dispelled the misconceptions about secularism in the East. Ironically, while many believe that Arab and Muslim immigrants enjoy favorable conditions in the U.S. and Europe, this perception has not fostered a pro-secularist attitude in the East. “Anyone who has had the opportunity to learn about or engage with these communities can confirm that the presence of Arab and Muslim communities in Europe, along with their access to numerous rights that some lack even in their home countries, arises from the strong foundation of Western secularism, which is intertwined with freedoms and democracy in that context," writes Fateh.

 

Fateh identifies another reason for dissatisfaction with secularism: "Secularism's negative reputation does not arise solely from its European roots or the definitions found in linguistic and legal dictionaries. It also stems from the practices associated with it, which highlight the persecution of religious individuals and the suppression of spiritual expressions."

 

Nevertheless, we cannot overlook the reactions of impassioned Turkish secularists. Some have widened the rift between secularists and the Turkish state. Fateh takes a balanced approach to secularism, defending the Turkish viewpoint against accusations from radical secularists that date back to the pre-Islamist era in Turkey. These secularists argue that the Turkish government is violating the state’s neutrality regarding secularism by allowing veiled women to appear in a photo representing the state, citing a Quranic verse in an official speech, or even merely referencing a history that is entirely linked to Islam.

 

 

An intriguing case raised the troubling issue of observing religious traditions in an Islamic society like Turkey. For example, fierce opposition erupted against a Turkish corporation's CEO when he sent a message to his employees congratulating them on the arrival of Ramadan. The CEO faced backlash because the company did not recognize Ramadan as a celebration worthy of acknowledgment and maintained a neutral stance regarding religion. In short, such congratulations were considered inappropriate and unacceptable.

 

Fateh’s discussion highlights several misconceptions about Western secularism and the role of Islam within it. Western Europeans profess democracy, secularism, and equality. However, as he notes, “Europeans do not understand secularism as a system that equates the dominant public culture with marginal or minority cultures. These countries deliberately emphasize their Christian identity and cultural references at every opportunity, even while waving the banner of secularism.” For instance, polygamy, or marrying up to four women, is permitted in Islam but is illegal in the United States. Other examples include the use of certain drugs in religious ceremonies, animal sacrifice, and various other practices. In summary, the apparent inconsistency between Western secularism and the treatment of Islam stems from a misunderstanding by some Middle Easterners of European secularism. There is no true equality among religions and beliefs in the West.

 

However, Fateh makes a critical point when he refers to “intellectual minorities with hostile attitudes toward religions” as attempting to adopt secularism as a means of governance in their pursuit of equality with the majority's religion or culture. This argument has been overused and misused in the Arab world to undermine people’s freedom of conscience, which includes both following the religion of their choice and opting not to follow any religion at all. In other words, it is legitimate for someone who belongs to a minority religion to align with a secular group to gain a majority, assert dominance over the state, or alter the domestic balance of power.