Daily Times

“The popular belief that religion is the cause of the world’s bloodiest conflicts is central to our modern conviction that faith and politics should never mix. But the messy history of their separation suggests it was never so simple,” said Karen Armstrong, the greatest authority on religion today.

Our history is replete with the ferocious cruelty of the extremists of religion as they behead their hapless victims, which raises a grave concern on the connection between religion and violence. The atrocities of Isis in the modern age would seem to prove that.

The defenders of religion have always pleaded that such cruelties are never sanctioned by the founders of religions, and that all barbarity committed in the name of religions is against the essential spirit of the religion as preached by their founders. When the terrorism was at its peak, leaders like Barack Obama and David Cameron insisted that the lawless violence of Isis has nothing to do with Islam, but our bitter experience have always shown that the fanatical bigotry which these extremists seem to unleash can only be contained by the creation of a liberal state that separates politics and religion. Faith is something intensely personal, and each individual has his or her own version and understanding of his or her faith. Any clash of faith with another’s faith is likely to make the individuals intolerant. We believe that these intolerant passions intrude on political life when religion and politics are allowed to work together in the same domain. Their separation is the only solution for a smooth political life. But the fundamental question is why have Muslims found it impossible to arrive at this logical solution to their current problems? Why do they cling with perverse obstinacy to the obviously bad idea of theocracy? Why, in short, have they been unable to enter the modern world?

Warfare and violence have always been a feature of political life, and after years of practice the western world drew the conclusion that separating the church from the state was a prerequisite for peace. Through many years of bloody wars, the concept of secularism has emerged organically, as a necessary condition of any society’s progress into modernity.

Many regard the west’s devotion to the separation of religion and politics as incompatible with admired western ideals such as democracy and freedom

All the Prophets of Israel had strongly condemned those who assiduously observed the temple rituals but neglected the plight of the poor and oppressed. Jesus’s famous maxim to “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” was also a plea, as I understand, for the separation of religion and politics. The bedrock message of the Qur’an is that it is wrong to build a private fortune but good to share your wealth in order to create a just, egalitarian and decent society.

Before the modern period, religion was not a separate activity; rather, it permeated all human undertakings, including economics, state-building, politics and warfare. Before 1700, it would have been impossible for people to say where, for example, “politics” ended and “religion” began. The Crusades were certainly inspired by religious passion but they were also deeply political. Similarly, the European wars of religion and the thirty years war were certainly exacerbated by the sectarian quarrels of Protestants and Catholics, but their violence reflected the birth pangs of the modern nation-state.

The term “secularism” was coined by the British writer George Jacob Holyoake in 1851. He invented the term secularism to describe his views of promoting a social order separate from religion, without actively dismissing or criticizing religious belief. According to him, “Secularism is not an argument against religion, it is one independent of it. It does not question the pretensions of religions. Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere, but it is manifestly based on the knowledge of this life only and acts forever.”

During the European wars of 16th and 17th centuries, Protestants and Catholics were so inflamed by the theological passions of the Reformation that they butchered one another in senseless battles that killed 35% of the population of central Europe.

These developments required a new understanding of religion. It was provided by Martin Luther, who was the first European to propose the separation of church and state. For Luther, the state’s prime duty was to restrain its wicked subjects by force, “in the same way as a savage wild beast is bound with chains and ropes”. The sovereign, independent state reflected this vision of the independent and sovereign individual. Luther’s view of religion is essentially subjective and private over which the state had no jurisdiction, and which became the foundation of the modern secular ideal.

By the late 17th century, philosophers had devised a more urbane version of the secular ideal. For John Locke it had become self-evident that “the church itself is a thing absolutely separate and distinct from the commonwealth. He insisted that the segregation of “religion” from government was “above all things necessary” for the creation of a peaceful society.

With the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, modern communications enabled governments to create and propagate a national ethos, and allowed states to intrude into the lives of their citizens more than had ever been possible. John Stuart Mill regarded this integration as progress.

The Enlightenment philosophers had tried to counter the intolerance and bigotry that they associated with “religion” by promoting the equality of all human beings, together with democracy, human rights, and intellectual and political liberty, modern secular versions of ideals which had been promoted in a religious idiom in the past. Innovation was essential to progress, so people had to be allowed to think freely, unconstrained by the constraints of their class, guild or church. Governments needed to exploit all their human resources, so that the outsiders, such as Jews in Europe and Catholics in England and America, were also brought into the mainstream.

When secularization was implemented in the developing world, it was experienced as a profound disruption because it usually came with colonial rule; it was seen as a foreign import and rejected as profoundly unnatural. In almost every region of the world where secular governments have been established with a goal of separating religion and politics, a counter-cultural movement has developed in response, determined to bring religion back into public life. What we call “fundamentalism” has always existed alongside secularism. The Fundamentalists suffer from a profound fear of annihilation of their way of life. This has been tragically apparent in the Middle East.

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who founded the secular republic of Turkey in 1918, is often admired in the west as an enlightened Muslim leader, but for many in the Middle East he epitomized the cruelty of secular nationalism. He outlawed the Sufi orders and seized their properties, closed down the madrasas and appropriated their income. He also abolished the beloved institution of the caliphate, which had long been a dead-letter politically but which symbolized a link with the Prophet. For groups such as al-Qaida and Isis, reversing this decision has become their paramount goal.

Many regard the west’s devotion to the separation of religion and politics as incompatible with admired western ideals such as democracy and freedom.

In 1992, a military coup in Algeria ousted a president who had promised democratic reforms, and imprisoned his supporters.

In rather the same way, the West heaved a sigh of relief when the Muslim Brotherhood was ousted from power in Egypt some years ago. But there has been less attention to the violence of the secular military dictatorship that has replaced it, which has exceeded the abuses of the Mubarak regime. Many secular thinkers now regard “religion” as inherently belligerent and intolerant. When secularization has been applied by force, it has provoked a fundamentalist reaction – and history shows that fundamentalist movements which come under attack invariably grow even more extreme. The fruits of this error are on display across the Middle East. When we look with horror upon the travesty of Isis, we would be wise to acknowledge that its barbaric violence may be, at least in part, due to the policies guided by our disdain for religion and its supporters.

The writer is a former member of the Provincial Civil Service, and an author of Moments in Silence