Social Muslim call to prayer echoes out in Minn

[Voodoo_Child906]

Secularism wasn't necessarily rejected though, many Muslim countries were fair secular in the mid 20th century. Its just that secular projects failed miserably.

Not sure what that means, what projects are you referring to?

 

[Islam Imamate]

Would you also prohibit churches from using speakers in their bell towers instead of actual bells?

Given all the Religious Liberty bills being passed, at least here in the South, if issues arrive many communities will have painted themselves into a corner.

Note that I didn't say that the mosque should be prohibited from using speakers to amplify the human voice but rather that ideally they should decide to do so on their own in order to be good neighbors and to not disturb the surrounding residents. Even if you have the right to do something that doesn't mean you should.

But yes good point about the religious freedom laws. If they apply to churches they should apply to mosques as well.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Not sure what that means, what projects are you referring to?

Arab nationalism, Arab socialism, Ba'athism and so on and so on.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Arab nationalism, Arab socialism, Ba'athism and so on and so on.

Pan Arab Nationalism or any other ideology would have to directly compete with Islam for the hearts and minds of the people. Muslims were faced with a choice between a secular ideology of the west based on ethnicity (or other factors) and one where ethnic sub divisions are irrelevant and only Islam serves as a unifying factor in trans national politics. For a lot of Muslims Islam must be at the forefront of their social and political lives.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Pan Arab Nationalism or any other ideology would have to directly compete with Islam for the hearts and minds of the people. Muslims were faced with a choice between a secular ideology of the west based on ethnicity (or other factors) and one where ethnic sub divisions are irrelevant and only Islam serves as a unifying factor in trans national politics. For a lot of Muslims Islam must be at the forefront of their social and political lives.

But you're missing the point that many countries in the region did embrace the secular ideologies over Islam in the mid 20th century. Its the failures of those secular ideologies that partly led to the religious resurgence in the 70s.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

But you're missing the point that many countries in the region did embrace the secular ideologies over Islam in the mid 20th century. Its the failures of those secular ideologies that partly led to the religious resurgence in the 70s.

For a time they had success and were embraced, they broke down for a number of reasons with a conflict with Islam being one of them. If we look at the shining star of muslim secularism, modern Turkey, the Islam-focused policies of Erdogan and the AKP are beginning to remake Turkish politics and society.

 

[Islam Imamate]

For a time they had success and were embraced, they broke down for a number of reasons with a conflict with Islam being one of them. If we look at the shining star of muslim secularism, modern Turkey, the Islam-focused policies of Erdogan and the AKP are beginning to remake Turkish politics and society.

No, conflict with Israel did more to undermine them. The 2nd Arab-Israeli War did a lot to undermine Arab nationalism and in general the ideologies failed on their own terms which then led to the Islamic resurgence. No one wants to stay on a sinking ship.

Its the same in Turkey; the old Kemalist ideology had led to stagnation and an entrenched military/bureaucratic elite while Erdogan's liberalizing economic policies led to consistent economic growth and led to an emerging cohort of middle class entrepreneurs and professionals(who tended to be more religious). So again, secularism failed.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

No, conflict with Israel did more to undermine them. The 2nd Arab-Israeli War did a lot to undermine Arab nationalism and in general the ideologies failed on their own terms which then led to the Islamic resurgence. No one wants to stay on a sinking ship.

Its the same in Turkey; the old Kemalist ideology had led to stagnation and an entrenched military/bureaucratic elite while Erdogan's liberalizing economic policies led to consistent economic growth and led to an emerging cohort of middle class entrepreneurs and professionals(who tended to be more religious). So again, secularism failed.

How did they fail on their own, what were the factors and why did the people fall back on Islam?

 

[Islam Imamate]

How did they fail on their own, what were the factors and why did the people fall back on Islam?

I just mentioned one big one; the 2nd Arab-Israeli war. People supported Arab nationalism because they thought it would make the Arab world stronger and would lead to victory over the Zionists which obviously did not happen.

Another problem is that their development model hit a snag; these countries had large, bloated state industries which were able to offer decent wages and benefits but which weren't sustainable and could only develop so far. They also offered unsustainable subsidies on basic goods like food and fuel and a welfare state.

So under the guidance of the international financial institutions(IMF, World Bank) they liberalized their economies and sold state industries which led to lower wages, fewer to no benefits, massive cuts to the welfare state, and fewer subsidies(though the states were forced to keep some of them under threat of revolt).

As for why people fell back to Islam, part of that is the age old tendency of religious people to blame failure on moving away from God; in the Middle Ages the states would generally only crack down on taverns and brothels(which they tended to tax instead of outlaw) during a plague, thinking the pestilence to be a punishment for loose morals.

But much deeper than that is the success of the Islamist movements; as the state cut its welfare programs and as people lost benefits the Islamists set up extensive private social welfare networks that tried to fill the gap. They offer healthcare, education, microcredit and so on and so on. They're also the most resilient and effective opposition movement to the dictatorships which helped them build their moral authority; the rise of the Islamic Republic from the ashes of the Shah's regime might be the most dramatic example.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Secularism wasn't necessarily rejected though, many Muslim countries were fair secular in the mid 20th century. Its just that secular projects failed miserably.

They failed miserably because they were attacked from the outside. Israel whooping secular Egypt in 1967 and the subsequent and unwavering support of the US to both Israel and Saudi Arabia has only fueled theocracy and fundamentalism.

Saudi Arabia is like the generator of the worst kind of fundamentalism and it's the US's strongest ally and has been for decades. When the world's lone superpower supports you so firmly, you're gonna have sticking power.

Not surprisingly, Turkey under Erdogan is both more repressive and more religious. I recently learned that he's planning on turning the Hagia Sophia back to a mosque, when it has been a secular museum for almost 100 years.

 

[Islam Imamate]

They failed miserably because they were attacked from the outside. Israel whooping secular Egypt in 1967 and the subsequent and unwavering support of the US to both Israel and Saudi Arabia has only fueled theocracy and fundamentalism.

Saudi Arabia is like the generator of the worst kind of fundamentalism and it's the US's strongest ally and has been for decades. When the world's lone superpower supports you so firmly, you're gonna have sticking power.

But that's the thing, this is no accident. The secular rulers try to take on populist foreign policy stances, like anti-Zionism and anti-imperialism and regional militarism, to bolster popular support but this is a risky proposition as it can invite disastrous military conflicts.

Meanwhile the conservative monarchies are more pragmatic and therefore ally with the superpower of the time; the Sauds overthrow the British installed Hashemite monarchy but turned on the very same warriors that put them in power when those warriors started to threaten British interests in the Levant. They knew not to fuck with British. Once British power waned they started sucking up to the Americans.

Not surprisingly, Turkey under Erdogan is both more repressive and more religious. I recently learned that he's planning on turning the Hagia Sophia back to a mosque, when it has been a secular museum for almost 100 years.

Not really, it just that when Turkey was repressive under the Kemalist military Westerners didn't really care because that repression took on a secular veneer and because it was a reliable Western ally. In the 90s thousands of Kurds were disappeared by the Kemalist government, most of whom were never found and none of them ever found alive. Of course there were also the coups which came like once in a decade and headscarves were banned in various public spaces like university campuses and for civil servants. And yet Turkey was still held up as a "moderate" Muslim country.

If you are a secular Muslim government and you want your human rights violations to be ignored you must do two things at two levels; at the level of international diplomacy you have to reliably side with the West and from an economic standpoint you have to cultivate your country as a pleasant tourist destination for middle class Europeans who can't afford more expensive tourist destinations. Part of that is repressing the religiosity of your citizens so Western tourists aren't triggered by the sight of veiled woman or bearded men in traditional clothing. Do that and you'll be considered a "moderate" Muslim country regardless of your human rights violations so long as those violations are kept out of the sight of Western tourists.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

But that's the thing, this is no accident. The secular rulers try to take on populist foreign policy stances, like anti-Zionism and anti-imperialism and regional militarism, to bolster popular support but this is a risky proposition as it can invite disastrous military conflicts.

Meanwhile the conservative monarchies are more pragmatic and therefore ally with the superpower of the time; the Sauds overthrow the British installed Hashemite monarchy but turned on the very same warriors that put them in power when those warriors started to threaten British interests in the Levant. They knew not to fuck with British. Once British power waned they started sucking up to the Americans.

Right, so we have the issue of popular sentiment vs behavior of the rulers. I think when people (especially Western ones) say things like "secularism can never work in Muslim countries," they're referring to the former. Like this deep religiosity is such a part of the culture, that secularism is rejected outright.

But the truth is that the population HAS embraced secularism, and it could be argued that they could even embrace it today. But their rulers and outside forces are the ones that stoke the fires of fundamentalism

(It should be noted that secularism doesn't = atheism. Kurdish areas are rightfully seen as models of political organization in the area by many Western leftists because of their secularism, BUT they're almost 95%+ Muslim themselves. They just don't infuse their religious beliefs into state affairs.)

Not really, it just that when Turkey was repressive under the Kemalist military Westerners didn't really care because that repression took on a secular veneer and because it was a reliable Western ally. In the 90s thousands of Kurds were disappeared by the Kemalist government, most of whom were never found and none of them ever found alive. Of course there were also the coups which came like once in a decade and headscarves were banned in various public spaces like university campuses and for civil servants. And yet Turkey was still held up as a "moderate" Muslim country.

Obviously Islamist governments don't have a monopoly on authoritarianism, but they almost invariably enhance it when they're in power or when they have influence.

It's a complicated picture but the main idea is that secularism could/is widely embraced by the Turkish people, but Erdogan is pushing a particular form of Islamism:

This article explains it nicely-

While most international observers take it for granted that Islamism is on the rise in Turkey, in reality something deeper and more profound is taking place. True, Erdogan’s new regime is seemingly dismantling Ataturk’s secular republic. But in reality what is really changing is Islamism itself. Mustafa Akyol, an expert on Turkish Islamism, explains this as a reaction to Islam being identified with political power but also political oppression, corruption and degeneration.

https://www.hoover.org/research/erdogan-nationalist-vs-erdogan-islamist

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I just mentioned one big one; the 2nd Arab-Israeli war. People supported Arab nationalism because they thought it would make the Arab world stronger and would lead to victory over the Zionists which obviously did not happen.

How did Pan-Arab Nationalism fail here? If anything a united Arab coalition working synchronously with each other was a better alternative than individual Nations/Kingdoms taking on Israel one by one.

Another problem is that their development model hit a snag; these countries had large, bloated state industries which were able to offer decent wages and benefits but which weren't sustainable and could only develop so far. They also offered unsustainable subsidies on basic goods like food and fuel and a welfare state.

So under the guidance of the international financial institutions(IMF, World Bank) they liberalized their economies and sold state industries which led to lower wages, fewer to no benefits, massive cuts to the welfare state, and fewer subsidies(though the states were forced to keep some of them under threat of revolt).

As for why people fell back to Islam, part of that is the age old tendency of religious people to blame failure on moving away from God; in the Middle Ages the states would generally only crack down on taverns and brothels(which they tended to tax instead of outlaw) during a plague, thinking the pestilence to be a punishment for loose morals.

But much deeper than that is the success of the Islamist movements; as the state cut its welfare programs and as people lost benefits the Islamists set up extensive private social welfare networks that tried to fill the gap. They offer healthcare, education, microcredit and so on and so on. They're also the most resilient and effective opposition movement to the dictatorships which helped them build their moral authority; the rise of the Islamic Republic from the ashes of the Shah's regime might be the most dramatic example.

Ok so Islamism provided social, political and economic stability during times of flux when foreign secularism/nationalism was linked to economic turmoil. In times of turmoil and depression (Post Enlightenment) Europeans did not go back to the Holy Roman Empire and Feudalism, its time was over. They instead moved to modern forms of governance like Communism, Fascism, Constitutional Monarchies, Constitutional Republics. This goes back to Islam being a much more robust social, economic and political system than any other religion today and why it's so easy for muslim societies to "fall back" on what they once knew.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Right, so we have the issue of popular sentiment vs behavior of the rulers. I think when people (especially Western ones) say things like "secularism can never work in Muslim countries," they're referring to the former. Like this deep religiosity is such a part of the culture, that secularism is rejected outright.

But the truth is that the population HAS embraced secularism, and it could be argued that they could even embrace it today. But their rulers and outside forces are the ones that stoke the fires of fundamentalism

But that's not always the case. You're missing the fact that in the in 20th century the rulers did the opposite, they embraced secular ideologies and in many countries the population went with them. But those projects failed which undermined those ideologies and the populations turned towards Islamism, especially as those secular elites became an ineffectual and corrupt ruling class.

(It should be noted that secularism doesn't = atheism. Kurdish areas are rightfully seen as models of political organization in the area by many Western leftists because of their secularism, BUT they're almost 95%+ Muslim themselves. They just don't infuse their religious beliefs into state affairs.)

Yeah sure I wouldn't conflate the two. Secularism can mean different things; French style secularism which means confining religion to the realm of private affairs or American style secularism which means the state endorses no religion but society may or may not be publicly religious. Secularism in the Muslim world is more often influenced by French style secularism(unsurprisingly given the history of French colonialism in the region) though at times the secular elites have had to make certain small concessions to the conservatism of their populace such as writing into the constitution that Islam is the religion of the state(while making sure that this has few to no practical implications for day to day affairs).

Obviously Islamist governments don't have a monopoly on authoritarianism, but they almost invariably enhance it when they're in power or when they have influence.

In many ways Erdogan is less repressive than the Kemalist military elite he swept away but for the reasons I mentioned earlier(ambivalent relations with the West, encourages religious norms like hijab and mustaches) he has a worse reputation in the West. Again Westerners don't really care about human rights in the Muslim world as much as they care about the optics; they don't care if its a police state if the women wear skirts instead of hijabs.

In fact he's become more repressive as he's returned to the more Turkish nationalist character of the Kemalist establishment while he was actually a democratizing force in the early reforms years when, leaning on Islamic identity politics, he reduced the role of the military, sought to reconcile with the Kurds, and relaxed restrictions on public displays of religion.

So your article actually contradicts your point here. The same holds true for Egypt; the Muslim Brotherhood government under Morsi is far, far less repressive than Sisi's anti-Islamist government.

It's a complicated picture but the main idea is that secularism could/is widely embraced by the Turkish people, but Erdogan is pushing a particular form of Islamism:

This article explains it nicely-



https://www.hoover.org/research/erdogan-nationalist-vs-erdogan-islamist

That article makes the point that I've made elsewhere, that Erdogan represents the return of Turkish nationalist authoritarianism more than genuine Islamism. Erdogan is probably closer in values to Macron in his values than an austere religious man like Mohamad Morsi.

How did Pan-Arab Nationalism fail here? If anything a united Arab coalition working synchronously with each other was a better alternative than individual Nations/Kingdoms taking on Israel one by one.

Because the Arab nationalists failed in their mission to defeat the Zionists and develop the country. Not sure how much more clear I can be than that.

Ok so Islamism provided social, political and economic stability during times of flux when foreign secularism/nationalism was linked to economic turmoil. In times of turmoil and depression (Post Enlightenment) Europeans did not go back to the Holy Roman Empire and Feudalism, its time was over. They instead moved to modern forms of governance like Communism, Fascism, Constitutional Monarchies, Constitutional Republics. This goes back to Islam being a much more robust social, economic and political system than any other religion today and why it's so easy for muslim societies to "fall back" on what they once knew.

Islamism is a modern movement though. Sure it draws from the deep Islamic tradition but its forms and structures are wholly modern and most traditional Islamic institutions(Sufi lodges, waqf, sharia courts, guilds) have been swept away in the vast majority of Islamic countries with only a few exceptions(Sufi brotherhoods remain popular in Senegal where ~95% of the population is part of one).

The modern Islamist movement is composed of civil society organizations like charities, professional organizations, unions, student associations and so on and so on.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Because the Arab nationalists failed in their mission to defeat the Zionists and develop the country. Not sure how much more clear I can be than that.

Egypt or Syria under Islamism would not have fared any better against Israel so this doesn't really follow.

Islamism is a modern movement though. Sure it draws from the deep Islamic tradition but its forms and structures are wholly modern and most traditional Islamic institutions(Sufi lodges, waqf, sharia courts, guilds) have been swept away in the vast majority of Islamic countries with only a few exceptions(Sufi brotherhoods remain popular in Senegal where ~95% of the population is part of one).

The modern Islamist movement is composed of civil society organizations like charities, professional organizations, unions, student associations and so on and so on.

Islamism definitely has modern components but its core is still is rooted in religion and the supernatural, but this is beside the point. You're original question to Mr. Bald1 was why would muslims want Secularism when it has failed in the muslim world. The answer is, perception and reality. Secularism has been associated with failure when at times it had very little if anything to do with the failure. You mentioned:

- Arab-Israeli conflict
- Failure of state industry
- Privatization of state industries
- Which led to lower wages, fewer to no benefits, massive cuts to the welfare state, and fewer subsidies

Secularism is defined as the separation of religion and the state, how did this separation directly cause all of these?

*Edit: It sounds like your main beef is with Capitalism and not Secularism.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Egypt or Syria under Islamism would not have fared any better against Israel so this doesn't really follow.

I compared them to the conservative monarchies which have made the smart choice to ally with Israel and the West instead of fighting a losing battle.

Islamism definitely has modern components but its core is still is rooted in religion and the supernatural, but this is beside the point. You're original question to Mr. Bald1 was why would muslims want Secularism when it has failed in the muslim world. The answer is, perception and reality. Secularism has been associated with failure when at times it had very little if anything to do with the failure. You mentioned:

- Arab-Israeli conflict
- Failure of state industry
- Privatization of state industries
- Which led to lower wages, fewer to no benefits, massive cuts to the welfare state, and fewer subsidies

Secularism is defined as the separation of religion and the state, how did this separation directly cause all of these?

*Edit: It sounds like your main beef is with Capitalism and not Secularism.

I don't have a beef, I am pointing to the historical reality that secular ideologies have generally failed miserably in the region when compared to the conservative monarchies.

Those secular ideologies are what lay behind the political decisions that led to those failures. If secularism is supposed to lead to progress then why have secular ideologies consistently led to failure? I don't know but it just seems to me that the most successful Muslim countries are the ones that reconcile their religious tradition with their efforts to modernize instead of turning their back on that tradition in favor of the secular flavor of the decade.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I compared them to the conservative monarchies which have made the smart choice to ally with Israel and the West instead of fighting a losing battle.

Correlation does not equal causation, you still have not explained why the separation of religion and state was responsible for this decision.

I don't have a beef, I am pointing to the historical reality that secular ideologies have generally failed miserably in the region when compared to the conservative monarchies.

Those secular ideologies are what lay behind the political decisions that led to those failures. If secularism is supposed to lead to progress then why have secular ideologies consistently led to failure? I don't know but it just seems to me that the most successful Muslim countries are the ones that reconcile their religious tradition with their efforts to modernize instead of turning their back on that tradition in favor of the secular flavor of the decade.

You're using 'secular' here in a way that I'm not following, what about the separation of religion and state lead to those political failures? Also it's not just Secularism that lead to the most successful epoch in history, many other factors and were combined to create the modern world. Why do you think Europe was so successful these past centuries utilizing the ideals of the Enlightenment?

 

[Islam Imamate]

Correlation does not equal causation, you still have not explained why the separation of religion and state was responsible for this decision.


You're using 'secular' here in a way that I'm not following, what about the separation of religion and state lead to those political failures? Also it's not just Secularism that lead to the most successful epoch in history, many other factors and were combined to create the modern world. Why do you think Europe was so successful these past centuries utilizing the ideals of the Enlightenment?

Somehow this never gets applied to Islam though and its always blamed for the woes of the region. But when the historical reality that secular ideologies consistently fail is pointed out suddenly its "c-correlation not causation!"

You can pretend that's all that secularism is("separation of church and state") but its certainly not just that. In the Muslim world what's been imposed and imported is often French style secularism which is not merely separation of religion and state but rather a state that is overtly hostile to religion in the public sphere. Its taken particular forms in particular countries given particular time frames but that's more or less what the secular elite have tried to bring about in the Muslim world.

Its a complicated subject and I'm not equipped to fully flesh out all the details though I think I've given it the ole college try with the walls of texts I've posted in response to the modernist platitudes on the subject that have been posted ITT. Given the almost consistent failure of secular projects in the region and the success of the countries that have embraced the Islamic tradition in one form or another I really see no reason to embrace the simplistic narrative of "Islamic reform" or the ideas of the cult of progress that claim that societies need leave religion behind or aggressively confine it to the realm of private affairs to advance.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Somehow this never gets applied to Islam though and its always blamed for the woes of the region. But when the historical reality that secular ideologies consistently fail is pointed out suddenly its "c-correlation not causation!"

You can pretend that's all that secularism is("separation of church and state") but its certainly not just that. In the Muslim world what's been imposed and imported is often French style secularism which is not merely separation of religion and state but rather a state that is overtly hostile to religion in the public sphere. Its taken particular forms in particular countries given particular time frames but that's more or less what the secular elite have tried to bring about in the Muslim world.

Its a complicated subject and I'm not equipped to fully flesh out all the details though I think I've given it the ole college try with the walls of texts I've posted in response to the modernist platitudes on the subject that have been posted ITT. Given the almost consistent failure of secular projects in the region and the success of the countries that have embraced the Islamic tradition in one form or another I really see no reason to embrace the simplistic narrative of "Islamic reform" or the ideas of the cult of progress that claim that societies need leave religion behind or aggressively confine it to the realm of private affairs to advance.

I'm not pretending or presuming anything, Secularism is defined as the separation of religion from state but I realize that terms are nuanced and people often apply different attributes to them. I want to know what exactly you were getting at and it looks like you are using an almost Neo Atheistic definition to Secularism which not only limits religion in the public life but strives for it's antiquation. Now I'm not as learned on this subject as others here but I don't know of any regime in the region that took this stance on secularism. It's also still not clear on why you're blaming Secularism itself for a regimes failure, do you think that possibly there were other factors involved and not just the perceived rejection of religion?

Why do you believe that Secularism and the ideals of the enlightenment were so successful in Europe but in your mind failed so miserably in the Middle East?

 

[Islam Imamate]

I'm not pretending or presuming anything, Secularism is defined as the separation of religion from state but I realize that terms are nuanced and people often apply different attributes to them. I want to know what exactly you were getting at and it looks like you are using an almost Neo Atheistic definition to Secularism which not only limits religion in the public life but strives for it's antiquation. Now I'm not as learned on this subject as others here but I don't know of any regime in the region that took this stance on secularism. It's also still not clear on why you're blaming Secularism itself for a regimes failure, do you think that possibly there were other factors involved and not just the perceived rejection of religion?

Why do you believe that Secularism and the ideals of the enlightenment were so successful in Europe but in your mind failed so miserably in the Middle East?

Yeah that definitely shows that you're not aware of the history if that's the case. Turkey is the best example but many of the elite of the former French colonies(e.g. Tunisia, Algeria) took on that style of secularism. Iran under the Shah is another example as is Egypt under Nasser.

Anyway I am not necessarily blaming secularism, the countries all have their particular histories and particular problems which they dealt with varying success so we could type out hundreds of thousands of words with thousands of citations and not get to the bottom of the problem.

But what I am doing is challenging the notion that Islam needs to be reformed so that it remains only a matter of private belief that makes no claims on the public sphere and gets out of the way of secular regimes and civil society by pointing to the historical reality that the conservative monarchies are vastly more successful than the countries that embraced secular ideologies.

I wouldn't say secularism isn't inherently bad though; Senegal is one of the only stable democracies in the Muslim world and in Africa and also a secular former French colony. But unlike Turkey its elites were not hostile to religion in the public sphere and tried to relegate it to a matter of private belief. On the contrary, the civil society in Senegal is highly religious and dominated by the Sufi brotherhoods of which ~95% of the population is a part. So that country too shows that Islam is not necessarily a problem but can in fact be part of the way forward. In fact that to me is an ideal combination; secular state and a religious civil society. But regardless of how I feel the conservative monarchies of the Gulf, as well as Brunei, are wildly successful despite not being secular states.