Skip to main content
Support

This publication is based upon presentations given at a conference on “Secularism in the Muslim Diaspora” in 2008 at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Four speakers discussed secularism among the Muslim diasporas in the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and the Netherlands and beyond. The questions they raised included: are secularism and its attendant ideas compatible with Islam? What are the problems of the Muslim diasporas assimilating into European societies? Should shar‘iah be incorporated into European legal systems? What is the role of the mosque in these societies? These questions and others were addressed with an eye to finding solutions to, among other things, the issues of migration, integration, and acculturation.

In recent years, there has been a debate among contemporary thinkers about secularism and its meaning. Secularism is often perceived as a product of the West and of a modern way of life and thought. It is seen as growing from the  power struggle between the Church and the State in the Middle Ages and evolving into the current way of political and cultural life in the West and, increasingly, beyond. Some scholars who are engaged in the study of secularism argue, however, that depending on its definition, secularism also has a deep history in the Muslim world.

Secularism can be examined from three points of view: institutions, people, and religion. The basic interpretation of secularism is the idea of the complete separation of religion and government where one, ideally, has no sway over the other. This is used when referring to a “secular state” or to the French concept of laïcité, or secular society. People can also be secular in their personal philosophy. For example, a secular Muslim may be no less a “believer” than the next. However, the secular Muslim may not adhere to a rigid practice of Islam and may believe that it, like all ideas, should be open to interpretation and, at times, even criticism. It is also possible for someone to be extremely traditional and observant in his or her own religious practice, but to believe that this is a personal choice and to hold that religious observance should not be “policed” or even officially encouraged by institutions of the state. There are those who argue that universal human rights are paramount to those who consider themselves to be secular. Lastly, one can examine the meaning of secular from the point of view of faith itself, or more accurately, that it is a directly opposing concept. Originating from the Latin sæcularis meaning “of this world,” secularism is focused on what is tangible in this world and not within the realm of the spiritual world. Clearly, the concept of secularism is a very complex one, and one of the conference’s contributions was to begin to highlight the many different ways in which this term is understood and applied among the Muslim communities in Europe.

Cheryl Benard of the RAND Corporation, who chaired one of the conference panels, describes a three-pronged approach to defining secularism. The first part of it is humanism, which can be people or positions that are extremely pious and very much given to religion but also very much given to the concept of tolerance - tolerating those of all religions and faiths as well as those of no faith. As for the second part of the definition of secularism, this includes those who may be extremely religious or not religious at all but who, nevertheless, strongly believe that the public realm and religious realm should be separate. The third part of the definition, Benard says, are people or groups that are not religious, who span a wide range from those who are tolerant of religion and see it as having a positive role—just not for themselves, but for others—to those who are extremely anti-religious and feel that religion has a negative role in society.

Being secular and being a Muslim need not be mutually exclusive positions, as Maajid Nawaz articulates in his paper, “Is Shar‘iah a Law?” Nawaz highlights the ongoing debate in Britain over whether to incorporate shar‘iah into the British legal system, an issue at the center of controversy over the compatibility of Islam and secular society. Islamists and Islamist thought emerged out of the need to reconcile, within an Islamic framework, medieval ideas with modern political concepts such as separation of Church and State, sovereignty, and democracy. Nawaz insists, however, that shar‘iah is not a law, but is, instead, a “religious code.” The belief that shar‘iah is something that needs to be incorporated into state law is a modern innovation popularized by the Islamists, he says, and not by Islam as a faith.

Bassam Tibi discusses the Muslim diaspora’s experience in Germany in “The Mosque in Germany between Freedom of Faith and Parallel Societies: The Tensions between Islamization and Integration in Society,” citing what he calls the “failed integration” of Muslims throughout Western Europe. Tibi addresses, at length, the role of the mosque among Muslims in Germany, noting that they serve to segregate Muslims from the rest of German society, indoctrinate them, and, thus, create an independent, “parallel” society. This, Tibi stresses, is all supported by the German government’s position of dealing only with organized religious groups, which would exclude the less organized, more secular Muslim cultural associations. Likewise, their belief in freedom of faith for all precludes any sort of criticism of religion, including more radical elements of Muslim society.

Conversely, in his paper, “The French Republic and Muslim Diversity,” Jean-Pierre Filiu offers a relatively positive analysis of France’s Muslim diaspora while cautioning against interpreting Islam in Europe as a homogenous entity. France, unlike Germany, offers no public money to religious associations; a mosque must be presented as a “cultural institution” to receive funding. Recasting mosques as cultural institutions eligible for state benefits allows for funding of social services and education, which, in turn, promotes multiculturalism and, according to Filiu, aids integration. And, while he acknowledges the significance of the banlieue riots, Filiu insists that France is more comfortable with multiculturalism than neighboring countries and that most French Muslims believe Islam is compatible with secular society.

Afshin Ellian addresses the issues of the diaspora in the Netherlands in his paper, “Emancipation and Integration of Dutch Muslims in Light of a Process Polarization and the Threat of Political Islam.” He stresses that freedom of religion is central to Dutch identity and that recent acts of violence and intolerance by political Islamists are perceived as threatening to undermine the foundations of the Dutch state, as well as being incongruent with how Dutch society operates based on a compromise known as “pillarization.” He explains that it is the constitution and the corresponding notion of citizenship that forms the basis of Dutch identity which holds society together. As such, he advocates a “constitutional patriotism” by all, including political Islamists. He believes that the integration of Muslims into European society is the biggest challenge for post-war Europe. To counter this issue, he cites freedom of speech, tolerance towards dissenting opinions, and critical self-reflection as pre-requisites for change and sustaining the Dutch egalitarian tradition.

Tagged

Related Program

Middle East Program

The Wilson Center’s Middle East Program serves as a crucial resource for the policymaking community and beyond, providing analyses and research that helps inform U.S. foreign policymaking, stimulates public debate, and expands knowledge about issues in the wider Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.  Read more