Secularism and religions in the Arab World

Tarek Heggy interview with Mazen Latif Ali -- Secularism and 

religions in the Arab world

The Civil Dialogue Foundation, in its work towards a revitalization of intellectual, cultural and political dialogues with the most prominent writers, conducted the following interview with thinker Tarek Heggy on the issues of secularism and religions in the Arab region.

Will Arab secularists be able to take the position to which they aspire in the 21st century?

There is no definitive answer negatively or positively to this important question. The struggle of Arab secularists within their environments is a complex one with centuries of theocracy and tyranny. Over the last century and a half, Arab secularists have progressed and been delayed repeatedly because of their bitter struggle with several forces, including ignorance, illiteracy, tyranny, the power of religious institutions, and finally the Islamic tide that has hit the region since the failure of the liberal project followed by the Arab national project. This conflict must be viewed from all these angles. Nor can one overlook the internal weaknesses of the movement of many Arab secularists, which began from their first loss due to its designation.

How do you view the future of secularism in Egypt and the Arab world?

I am not pessimistic about the future of secularists in Egypt and the Arab societies though I realize the magnitude, dimensions and gravity of the battle between the two parties: the proponents of science, civil society and the values ​​of modernity versus the proponents of tyranny and theocracy.

Where can the position of the Liberal movement and the secular current be classified between the political currents and intellectual trends prevailing in Egypt in particular and the Arab world in general?

The liberal movement’s battle with reality in Egypt and most Arab societies is a mirror image of a similar battle that has taken place in Europe since supporters of science began to pull the rug out from under the feet of dictators and their religious supporters. I have no doubt that proponents of science will win, but not easily.

How can we break the mental correlation between secularism and the Arab dictatorships that ruled in the name of secularism?

This is a very important question as the banner must be "liberalism, modernity and civil society", not just secularism. Rulers such as Abdel Nasser, Hafez al-Assad, Houari Boumediene, and Saddam Hussein were secular (to a certain extent). But they were the enemies of political and economic liberalism in varying forms. In the face of certain aspects of their failure, they also provided a great opportunity for the obscurantists to gain significant ground at the grassroots level. And do not forget that those I mentioned were simple men with modest intellectual abilities.

Secularism represents the separation of religion from the state. The question is, after the bitter experiences of political religion for centuries, is not your vision an eternal break from the tyranny of religion?

The essence of secularism is not related to hostility towards religion.  Rather, it is based on the cornerstone of separating religion from the state, establishing a civil society, and establishing the relationship between the sons and daughters of the society with each other and with the state on the basis of citizenship. There is no doubt that the greatest enemy to this vision today is the current of political Islam. Giving the "separation of religion from the state" law an opportunity to be supported by broad sectors of society requires leadership that is not hostile to religion, but to mix religion with state references. It also requires extensive wisdom and administrative capabilities to prevent political Islam from gaining popular acceptance. Here we should focus on the difference between intellectuals who do not have leadership, administrative and political experience, and between leaders who know the deep and subtle differences between the criticism of religion as a religion (and this is the field of academic study) and the separation of religion from the state.

How do you view the position of Arab secularists from America?

Arab intellectuals were generally influenced by either Arab nationalist ideology or political Islam, which made most of them hate the United States. Indeed the United States, like the great powers of history (the British Empire in the recent past and the Roman Empire in the distant past), cannot be viewed from the perspective of love and hate. The superpowers become so under economic and military imperatives, not by emotional or idealistic matters. In short, the position of most Arab secularists on America is intellectually flawed. The United States of America is a great power looking for its interests and we have to deal with it in this sense.

What is the common space between all religions? What is the variable space in these religions? And why?

If we are talking about religions in general, and not specifically Abrahamic religions, the differences are many.  Abrahamic religions share many common elements, which is not the area of ​​exposure. Also, I believe that while secularists will face little problem with non-Abrahamic religions, secularists dealing with Abrahamic religions will encounter difficulties. The situation with Christianity is easier than with Judaism and Islam because of the existence of the "Sharia" in both Judaism and Islam.  I believe however that the will of the clergy and other rulers of societies in the name of religion can be curbed in all Jewish, Christian and Muslim communities.

What is the philosophy of survival of heavenly books with the possibility of distorting them?

The problem is not the survival of the heavenly books. The problem is with those who envisage the governance of societies on the basis of rules derived from heavenly books.

Is there a restriction on the concept of freedom in religion in general? How does this fit with the human instinct that is bound to absolute freedom?

Clerics (no matter the religion) tend to restrict the concept of human freedom. This is not compatible with the human instinct tied to freedom. There is no solution to this problem except by separating religion from the state.

What is the relationship and influence of secularism on the advancement of feminism and the achievement of gains for the cause of women?

Theocrats in general are enemies of women's freedom. In contrast, secularists and liberals (as well as leftists) are supporters of feminism and women’s rights. Unless the principle of separation of religion and state is established, we will not attain the full rights of women.

We hear about the rising tone of liberalism in recent times, especially in the Gulf countries with the decline of the role of the religious ultra-Orthodox. If this is true, will we witness the birth of true liberalism or a special case that serves the ruling authorities without the people?

In the Gulf, there are no real democracies. In these countries there are also no modern societies, despite the richness and purchase of the products of Western civilization. The peoples of the Gulf are only tribes that live according to the sociology of the Arab nomadic tribe. Talking about true liberalism in Gulf societies is therefore a striking leap in history. Yet, the political systems in these societies look around in search of a champion in the face of the tide of political Islam and find among the available supporters "liberal symbols" and use them. I believe it will be difficult for the birth of true liberalism to occur outside the following Arab societies: Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia.