From adaptation to convenience .. Is secularism possible in the Islamic world?

Contemporary language sciences carved a creative concept: kinematic terminology or linguistic kinetics; terminology and its semantic load - according to this concept - are not proven in any case but change by context change, and that is a constant and steady rule in the language system that is the framework that carries the concepts.

It follows that the semantic richness of terminology is constantly available, which shows the absurdity of trying to impose a conceptual or semantic content of a particular term, by standing at it at a point in its historical development.

Moreover, any process for dealing with terminology and concepts - and then with scientific and human knowledge - is a creative process; that is, the process of dismantling and rebuilding, or in the language of the Swiss psychologist John Piaget is the "process of adaptation", which is the result of an interactive dialectical relationship between assimilation (disassociation) and compatibility. (Modifications to the self-structure, as this is a necessary condition for development).

By employing this theory, i.e. the kinetic theory of linguistic evidence, the creative nature of language and the continuous creation of terminology or the enrichment of terminology, which is transmitted in time and space in its concept and new significance constantly; we ask: Is it possible to reproduce secularism in the Islamic world? Which position is the most correct one for this human intellectual product?

The conclusion is that we, with a reflection on secularism and terminology, note that we are faced with two non-historical and dialectical situations, and do not conjure up these scientific facts as recognized by language sciences and formative psychology, as confirmed by the historical movement in the field of interaction between cultures and civilizations.

As for the first position, it is the position of those who adopt a holistic view of secularism, and these do not place the term in its historical context, i.e. as it is a form of secularism, or just a historical passage that is in itself merely an interpretation of secularism as it appeared for the first time.

The subsequent struggle in the nineteenth century between the seminarians and the Jacobite laity, between the rural and the civil, and between the royalists and the Republicans; is responsible for rebuilding what Palmer calls a “myth” filled with “hyperbole and excess”, it talks about that the French Revolution was “in particular a attack On Christianity and all religions. "

The owners of the first position do not read secularism and understand it with the historical function it has undertaken, and deal with it as a closed and comprehensive doctrinal system, that goes beyond the call to oppose theocratic rule, and the separation of religion and state to the separation of religion and life, between the public and the private sphere; rather it imposes its global vision even on The private life of people.

These - although many of them claim to adopt historical and dialectical analysis - are far from historical analysis, and are unable to arm themselves with critical thought, and then end up with closed and comprehensive positions, by claiming that there is no way for the renaissance in the Islamic world except by borrowing secularism in its entirety; rather by borrowing a historical section One of many visions within secularism itself, i.e. inclusive secularism.

Moreover, they ignore that such a deficient metaphor is impossible in terms of the laws of human urbanization, and on the one hand that every metaphor must ultimately lead to an adaptation process i.e. to a process of assimilation and appropriateness, an assimilation based on a historical awareness of the kinetics of the concept and its transformations , And the changes that occurred in him during his long history.

On the other hand, each process of adaptation imposes the adequacy of any criticism of the self and benefit from the human experience, especially what has become public, shared and capable of being transmitted across cultures and civilizations, or what may be called a cross-cultural participant, or a cross-cultural common, and what is today also known as universal principles Universally recognized. For reference, the western experience has benefited from several gains from Islamic civilization after its heritage was subjected to an assimilation and appropriateness process.

As for the owners of the second position, they do not differ from the owners of the first position in the approach to looking and dealing with the term, even if they conclude a different result - that is, the comprehensive rejection of secularism - without distinguishing between universal and partial secularism.

As for the curriculum, they deal with secularism as an integrated package and do not distinguish between its levels, nor do they conjure up the historical function that it carried out in its historical context, i.e. in that it is in essence the pursuit of humanizing the state and making it a human state, in exchange for the state of priesthood that is unjustly dominant over The necks of servants in the name of God, which used to buy verses of God a little price.

And if they stood at that position and went to the essence of secularism - away from historical interpretations and applied slippages - they would find that it meets in many aspects with Islam.

Proceeding from this, the redefinition of secularism - by returning it to the origins before the dispute arose - appears to be a fundamental issue, and it is the definition that moves secularism from a closed doctrinal system to looking at it as a functional and purposeful view, that is, it seeks to stand at the purposes of secularism as crystallized in Western societies.

From this angle, the definition of Dr. Muhammad Abid al-Jabri seems correct, when he rejected on the one hand the definition of the term secularism as only a separation of the church from the state, affirming its incompatibility with the Arab-Islamic reality; and when he went - on the other hand - to replace it with the idea of ​​democracy based on preserving the rights of individuals and groups , And rationality guarantor of rational political practice.

It is clear that Dr. Al-Jabri emphasized - in his definition - the historical function of this term, and did not fall into the comprehensive definition of secularism; that is, he did not look at it as a closed or belief form or a new religious doctrine, but rather - in his definition of secularism - stood at its purposes and historical function.

And if we want to return to the question we asked, namely: Does Islam accept secularism? I can say that he rejects it in the holistic, unhistorical sense; it is with it in the functional sense.

That is, Islam is with secularism if it is meant by democracy based on guaranteeing the rights of individuals and groups, and rationality guaranteeing good practice, and if it is intended to build the human state in exchange for absolute theological rule, and the state based on citizenship and recognition of the right of non-Muslims to this citizenship and its consequences Of rights and duties, and the state based on the sovereignty of the nation.

All of this does not contradict the Islamic reference of the state. Rather, it is the Islamic reference itself that confirms that the state is a human state, and refuses to give the ruler any absolute authority derived from the divine mandate; and this requires lifting the delusional contradiction between the idea of ​​sovereignty and the idea of ​​governance, and between the Islamic nature The state and the idea of ​​citizenship.