Contemporary Western studies have been issued proving the theoretical, historical and practical dissociation between democracy and secularism. In contrast to the marketing of secularism at the hands of some Arab elites who emanate from the conscience of their people, these sober studies show unequivocally that there is no relationship between democracy and secularism. , the likes of Hafez al-Assad, Bashar al-Assad and Saddam Hussein; Most of those who link democracy and secularism in the Arab world ignore the bloody history of these secular regimes in the twentieth century, and they are not aware - it seems - of the theoretical debate in the West on this issue, nor of the place of religion in the constitutions of different countries of the world, in a way We detailed it in our previous article, "Christianity is an official religion."
The American revolutionaries believed that "the rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God... and that religion - before and after the revolution - provided moral and political principles to the revolutionaries, and shaped the new American nation."
Although Christianity is a non-political religion in its origin and formative origin, as a philosophical and moral perspective, it has had a profound impact on Western democratic development, especially among peoples with a Protestant background, unlike the sclerotic French Catholicism that sided with the absolute monarchy against the French Revolution.
This contradicts the Arab secular narrative - with French roots - which traces the roots of the democratic idea exclusively to the Greek and Roman heritage prior to the Christian era.
Hegel noted in his book "Mind in History" that "the Protestant Church sees that all life - that is, its activity in general - is the field of religious work." Because of the combination between the religious and the secular in the Protestant sect, democracy reconciled with religion in this Christian sect, which reduced the papal priesthood and the guardianship of people’s consciences; Therefore, we find a coherence between religion and freedom in the English Revolution (1642-1688), the first modern political revolution. The slogans written on the banner of William III of England - also known as "William of Orange" (1650-1702) as he stormed England to establish the first constitutional monarchy in history in 1688: "For liberty, for the Protestant religion, for Parliament ".
The same coherence between religion and freedom was repeated in the American Revolution (1776-1783), as was noted by one of the most important scholars of American religious history, Thomas Kydd. In his book "Lord of Freedom: A Religious History of the American Revolution," this American scholar explained how the American revolutionaries saw "rebellion against tyrants in obedience to God", and how "religion - before and after the revolution - provided moral and political principles to the revolutionaries, and shaped the new American nation." It is no wonder that the American Declaration of Independence states - in its chest - that natural human rights are a "divine grant", rather than describing them as "natural rights" as is common in European political philosophy. The French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville (1808-1859) was the first to notice this combination between faith and freedom in the birth of the American republic. He reached in his profound book "Democracy in America.", which turned a foundational text in political philosophy, into an expressive summary that believes that "tyranny is possible without faith, but freedom is not."
The closest Christian doctrine to Islam in this structural aspect between faith and freedom is the Protestant doctrine, because of what Protestantism absorbed from the realism of the Old Testament, and from the Mosaic political heritage. This similarity was not lost on the political thinker Ali Izetbegovic. In his great book “Islam between East and West,” Izetbegovic wrote, “The Qur’an contained the reality of the Torah… In this respect, Protestant Christianity is closer to Islam than Catholicism.” The state of cohesion between religion and freedom in the history of the American Revolution is similar to the inspiration Islam provided to Muslim peoples in the wars of national liberation against Western colonialism, as happened in the glorious Algerian revolution (1954-1962) against French colonialism. As well as the inspiration of Islam for these peoples in their current battle for political freedom, since the outbreak of the Arab Spring revolutions. Islam has been - and will continue to be - the peoples' shield and constant inspiration in the hour of hardship.
In recent years, a number of Western thinkers have embarked on revealing the Christian roots of Western liberalism, and clarifying the Christian backgrounds directed at some Western political philosophers, pioneers of democratic thought, such as the English John Locke (1632-1704), for example. Included in this section is Kim-Yan Parker's book "John Locke's Evangelical Politics", a work of the Canadian Academy of Religious Studies. Many religious Christians in the West no longer accept the marginalization of the Christian religion in the public sphere. Instead, they are calling for breaking the monopoly of the secular discourse on the public space, and granting religious discourse and religious forces their natural right in a democratic society. Some of them have begun to call for non-secular democracy in Western societies with Christian background.
Many fair Western researchers have concluded that the development of countries in the Islamic world according to its own natural laws automatically leads to constitutional and political Islamization, unless this is prevented by internal oppression, external interference, or the domination of religious and non-religious minorities over the narratives of identity, memory and the future.
In this context, Daniel Mullen's book "Democracy Without Secular: A Pragmatic Criticism of Habermas" comes in which Mullen firmly defends the right of the Christian religion to express itself in the public sphere, and the right of Christian political forces to speak about their political choices with Christian reference without Roll or turn, and without “translating” these options into a secular language, as required by the German atheist philosopher Habermas, who clings to the secular guardianship of public space. Mullen confirmed the rise of religion in the Western public space in recent decades, noted the tense secular reaction to it, and argued strongly against secularism's monopoly on political discourse, and its quest to put religious discourse in a corner, and considered this a threat to liberal democracy. Mullen's most notable conclusion was that "a non-secular democracy gives us a more liberal space" than a secular democracy.
In the Arab context, the Palestinian thinker, Dr. Raja Bahloul, clarified - brilliantly and profoundly - that there is no philosophical connection between democracy and secularism, and in a number of his studies and research he dismantled the illusory contradiction between “God’s rule” and “the rule of the people” in the minds of some. Among these studies, a research entitled “Democracy without Secularism: Reflections on the Idea of Islamic Democracy,” and a study entitled “The People vs. God: The Logic of Divine Governance in Islamic Democratic Discourse,” both in English. He also addressed the topic quickly in his article: “Does democracy require secularism?" In the arabic language.
Many fair Western researchers have concluded that the development of countries in the Islamic world according to its own natural laws automatically leads to constitutional and political Islamization, unless this is prevented by internal oppression, external interference, or the domination of religious and non-religious minorities over the narratives of identity, memory and the future. The expansion of Islam's presence in public affairs correlates with the expansion of political freedom and basic rights in Muslim-majority societies, and the struggle for democracy is a struggle for Islamic life at the same time. It does not require a coercive authority - as the groups of extremism and reckless violence believe - but rather it needs free peoples who believe in Islam and in human humanity. The paradox between societal religiosity and political secularism is a fabricated phenomenon in Islamic societies, a phenomenon that ruptures these societies, and deprives them of reconciliation with themselves, and the resumption of their civilization.
The constitutions of all Arab countries - with the exception of Lebanon - have stipulated Islam as an official religion or a legislative reference, or both.. Then they varied beyond that in terms of constitutional details related to Islam. Even Lebanon, with its complex religious mosaic, stipulates that the state’s constitution performs “obligations of reverence for God Almighty” (Article 9), and prohibits the “dignity of one of the religions or sects” (Article 10). However, today there are those who are exploiting the current state of frustration and exhaustion in the Arab world to impose constitutional precedents that contradict this well-established Arab political tradition, which stems from the conscience of the Arab peoples. Every day, new academic and media institutions appear in the Arab world that push this unfair path to the Muslim majority, in what looks like an open war against the Islamic reference, and insistence on its exclusion from the public sphere.
Perhaps a questioner will ask about the extent to which the constitutional texts benefit Islam as an official religion or as a moral and legislative reference, if this stipulation does not change anything in reality, in light of authoritarian regimes that do not abide by constitutions. This is a good question, as we all know that Arab constitutions are mostly ink on paper, and our friend Nathan Brown, a professor at George Washington University and a specialist in Arab constitutions, wrote his book “Constitutions of Paper” to explain this sad fact. Most of the constitutions of Arab and Islamic countries are included in the "false constitutions" that researchers David Lau and Mila Verstig wrote in their study published under this title, and they mean constitutions that promise many rights, and the authority responsible for implementing them does not fulfill those promises.
Among the ten countries that are most practically committed to the rights and duties stipulated in their constitutions - according to this study - the name of a single country with an Arab or Muslim majority does not appear during the time period discussed by the researchers, which is the three decades between 1980 and 2010. While there are many countries with an Arab or Muslim majority among the countries that are less committed to the rights and freedoms stipulated in their constitutions. All this indicates that the existence of constitutions charged with Islamic political values, and democratic rights and freedoms, is not a sufficient criterion for judging the Islamic system of government in that country or its democracy. Rather, the tyrannical ruler may exaggerate more than others in quoting the principles of Islam and democracy in the constitution, as compensation for political legitimacy, and to mislead ordinary Muslims whose conscience is attached to the values of their religion.
But whoever wonders about the value of unimplemented constitutional texts neglects an important wisdom of Islamic scholars, which is that the truth by which falsehood is intended does not make truth void, nor falsehood a right, and that we should not be ashamed of the truth by some people employing it in the service of falsehood. The fact that tyrannical regimes are hypocritical of their people by citing Islam in the constitution without any practical commitment to the requirements of that quote does not mean that the quote about Islam is wrong in itself, but rather it is from the truth that falsehood is intended for, and its remedy is to adhere to the truth, and strip it of employment for the sake of falsehood. This applies to all constitutional principles, religious or non-religious.
The fact that the Syrian constitution promulgated by Bashar al-Assad in 2012 is the only constitution in the world that stipulates that “freedom is a sacred right” (Article 33, paragraph 1), hypocritical to the Syrian people and circumventing their demands for freedom at the beginning of the Syrian revolution, does not mean that the Syrian people abandon their Freedom demand. And the fact that the UAE constitution calls for the building of a “democratic representative government with integrated pillars, in an Arab Islamic society free from fear and anxiety” (preamble to the constitution) - with all we know of policies to the contrary - does not mean that the representative government is wrong, nor that the liberation of the Arab Islamic society from fear Worry is not desirable and legitimate. The same is said about the quotation on the Islamic reference in the constitutions of Arab countries, as it is a right that must be adhered to, while working to strip this right from what it wears today of bad employment at the hands of tyrannical regimes.
There are also practical democratic Islamic experiments that are considered one of the most successful and stable democracies that preserve the rights of minorities, as is the case of Malaysia - for example - whose constitution states that “Islam is the religion of federalism, and other religions can be practiced in peace and harmony in all parts of the federalism” (Article 3) And that the King of Malaysia is the leader of the Islamic religion in the country (the same article), knowing that the proportion of Muslims in Malaysia is less than the proportion of Muslims in any Arab country.
There is another objection raised by some today, which is that preoccupation with identity battles confuses peoples as they fight life and death battles for the sake of freedom. The truth is that the battle for freedom is inseparable from the battle of identity. And that peoples do not achieve their freedom away from their identity, but restoring confidence in themselves and their identity is the way to achieve freedom. Freedom is not within the reach of cowardly, shaken peoples who lack confidence in themselves. Also, the war on the freedom of Muslim peoples today is interlinked with the war on their identity. Internal tyranny and external colonialism combined the war on identity and the war on freedom in our societies, both of which seek to produce a pattern of Islamic religiosity free of fat, which does not support the oppressed and does not deter the oppressor, nor does it express the authenticity of the Islamic message and its liberating function, rather it is just a fabrication of the inheritances of piety. The heresy and false asceticism that infiltrated Islamic culture from ancient religions and philosophies.It is no wonder that the Islamic political forces were the target of eradication more than others, because they are fighting on the front of freedom and identity together.
In this context, it is also important to realize that a non-threatening identity does not need constitutional immunity and political protection. Therefore, the United States - for example - does not have an official language, because the English language that invades every corner of the world today is not threatened in its own home, of course. But the matter is different for a number of other languages, such as the Arabic language today, for example. Today, the Islamic identity faces existential threats in which international forces with a historical memory hostile to Islam cooperate with local secular forces and some members of religious and non-religious minorities who seek to occupy the Arab cultural space and direct it according to their religious biases and irreligious whims.
And if the external deterrent has immunized a number of religious and non-religious minorities in the Arab world against oppression and persecution, and granted them special privileges since the European intervention in the affairs of the Ottoman Empire in the early nineteenth century until today, then the Muslim majorities are not immune to patterns of internal and external aggression and domination, which is what Today, it suffers more than others from all kinds of persecution, destruction and displacement. These Muslim majorities need self-respect and fairness to themselves, without falling into unfairness or injustice to the minorities, which are united by close ties of kinship with Muslims of lineage, culture, history and geography. In fairness to the majorities, they have the interest of all - a minority and a majority - as there is no political stability at the expense of the majority, and any political system that is built at the expense of the majority and its belief and moral system, is a dormant volcano, and a project for a postponed civil war.
The duty of every free Muslim, in the time of painful political transition we are living in today, is to confront those who take advantage of the state of exhaustion in our societies to impose constitutional precedents at the expense of Islam.
This is a time of struggle for true democracy that stems from the conscience, values and identity of the people, and the rejection of the coercive secular guardianship under the guise of tyranny and colonialism.
This is the time to cling to the tolerant Islamic reference, which embraces everyone with its broad human spirit and solid moral base.