Freedom of thought needs an atmosphere of tolerance where people can speak their mind and no one is forced to accept the beliefs of others. In the Middle East, though, tolerance is in short supply and ideas that don't fit the expectations of society and governments are viewed as a threat.

Where religion is concerned, the "threat" can come from almost anyone with unorthodox ideas but especially from those who reject religion entirely.

Increasingly, atheists in Arab countries are characterised as dangerous extremists – to be feared no less than violent jihadists.

Persecuting atheists is the inevitable result of governments setting themselves up as guardians of faith. Among the 22 Arab League countries, Islam is "the religion of the state" in 16 of them: Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, the UAE and Yemen. 

For most of them, this is more than just a token gesture; it also serves political purposes. Embracing religion and posing as guardians of morality is one way for regimes to acquire some legitimacy, and claiming a mandate from God can be useful if they don't have a mandate from the public.

State religions, in their most innocuous form, signal an official preference for one particular kind of faith and, by implication, a lesser status for others. But the effects become far more obtrusive when governments rely on state religion as an aid to legitimacy – in which case the state religion has to be actively supported and policed. That, in turn, de-legitimises other belief systems and legitimises intolerance and discrimination directed against them. 

The policing of religion in Arab countries takes many forms, from governments appointing clerics and setting the theme for weekly sermons to the enforcement of fasting during Ramadan. 

To shield the government-approved version of religion from criticism, a variety of mechanisms can be deployed. These include laws against "defaming" religion and proselytising by non-Muslims but general laws regarding public order, telecommunications and the media may also apply.

In Algeria, for instance, the law forbids making, storing, or distributing printed or audiovisual materials with the intention of "shaking the faith" of a Muslim. In Oman, using the internet in ways that "might prejudice public order or religious values" is an imprisonable offence.

For Muslims who publicly abandon Islam the problem is even worse. In Mauritania, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen anyone convicted of apostasy faces the threat – at least in theory – of execution.

Using a state religion as an aid to legitimacy turns the personal beliefs of individuals into a political issue, because disagreeing with the state's theological position also implies disloyalty to the state. Those who happen to disagree must either conform or risk becoming not only a religious dissident but a political one too.

Equating religious conformity with loyalty to the state allows Arab governments to label non-conformists not merely as dissidents but extremists. This in turn provides an excuse for suppressing them, as has been seen in Egypt with the Sisi regime's campaign against atheism and in Saudi Arabia where "promotion of atheist thought" became officially classified as terrorism.

Although Saudi Arabia's war on atheists stems from fundamentalist theology, in Egypt it's the opposite: the Sisi regime presents itself as a beacon of religious moderation. To describe the Sisi brand of Islam as moderate, though, is rather misleading. "Militantly mainstream" might be a better term. Theologically speaking it is middle-of the-road and relatively bland but also illiberal and authoritarian in character.

The result in Egypt is a kind of enforced centrism. While allowing some scope for tolerance – of other monotheistic religions, for example – the regime sets limits on discourse about religion in order to confine it to the middle ground. The main intention, obviously, was to place Islamist theology beyond the bounds of acceptability but at the other end of the spectrum it also means that atheism, scepticism and liberal interpretations of Islam have become forms of extremism.

Defining 'extremism'

Absurd as it might seem to place atheists in the same category as extremists such as terrorists and jihadists, the issue hinges on how "extremism" is defined: extreme in relation to what? Violent and intolerant extremism is a global phenomenon but confusion arises when governments try to define it by reference to national or culture-specific values.

Arab states are not the only offenders in this respect, though. They have been assisted by western governments defining "extremism" in a similar way – as rejection of a specific national culture rather than rejection of universal rights and international norms.

In its effort to prevent radicalisation of students, for example, the British government defined extremism as "vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values". Also in the context of eradicating extremism, the education minister talked about actively promoting "British values" in schools.

Approaching the problem in this way invites other countries to do likewise – even if their own national and cultural values would be considered extreme in relation to universal rights and international norms. Thus, Saudis can justifiably claim that atheism is contrary to fundamental Saudi values. Furthermore, the British minister's idea of instilling British values into British schoolchildren is not very different in principle from "instilling the Islamic faith" in young Saudis – which the kingdom's Basic Law stipulates as one of the main goals of education.

This article was first published on al-Bab.
 

The post Arab world: Where atheism is equated with extremism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
The attitude of Indian Islamist organisations and scholars towards secularism is ridden with hypocrisy and double standards

It is sad but true that there is a large degree of hypocrisy and double standards on the part of Indian Islamist organizations and scholars when in their attitude and approach towards secular democratic India. 

Over the course of the last five-odd years, ever since the crisis that has erupted all across the Muslim world, in Muslim-majority and Muslim minority contexts, I have been troubled by a simple question. Do Indian Islamists accept the Indian secular state and the values and ethos of secularism only because Muslims are in a minority? If Indian Muslims were in a majority, would India have had a secular or an Islamic state? My assessment is that the latter would be true and without doubt we would have been reduced to another Pakistan. 

The Islamists start by saying since I am asking a hypothetical question, it requires no answer. I then request them to give me a hypothetical reply. I request a simple yes or no which they try and avoid. But the honest ones do say ‘yes’, if India were a Muslim majority country, it would have been an Islamic state, as they claim that essentially secularism is shirk, a sin. 

A few of the moderate elements go on to state that Indian secularism does find the right balance between religion and modernity and is therefore acceptable as the way ahead. 

But with the rising tide of political Islam, symbolised by the crisis raging all the way from West Asia to North Africa, with the crisis gripping certain nations of South Asia, an Islamic Caliphate is very much a subject of conversation.

The saving grace here is that the Indian Muslims masses are committed to the idea and the ethos of a ‘living secularism’. The very Idea of India for them is a unique experiment in the annals of human history, unparalleled at many levels.

Indian secularism is founded on the idea, an ethos of “mutual acceptance and respect” and not mere “tolerance”, which a very weak expression indeed. All those who still tom-tom the idea of a theocratic state – Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Jewish – need to understand that modern democracies and nations have no place for any theocracy. This is so because theocracies are inherently against equal citizenship rights, against equal rights for people of all religions, against the very concept of ‘sarva dharma samabhava’, that is, mutual respect and acceptance of all faiths, religions and cultures. It’s as simple as that.

In an Islamic state only Muslims have the right and freedom to practise, preach and proselytize, convert, whilst all other religions only have only the right to practice, that too with restrictions. Forget the right to preach and convert; Dhimmis are simply not allowed to do so. Islamists who hold such notions are the very same ones who demand equal rights in India or in the western countries wherein they dwell

Theocracies cannot lay the foundation for modern nations and democracies, or even regional unions and confederations. Nations need to be built around a vision where each citizen is equal, where every religious, gender, cultural, ethnic, sect, linguistic, class, tribal diversity and identity finds itself mirrored in the Constitution in equalitarian and legal terms, and not only that of the majority faith or sect. This has and will only create a weak society, a divided nation, regions, leading to hatreds, divisions and chaos which ruling elites and foreign imperial powers will take advantage of. Thus every individual, every section of society needs to be made an equal stake-holder without any exception.

This principle also applies at the regional and global levels, even as humanity integrates and evolves. In these nations and societies, all religions are accorded due respect and constitutional space, protecting and safeguarding the rights of diverse groups and communities.

I am opposed to the idea of a theocratic state just as I am opposed to a Communist state, as the latter too has proved to be as intolerant of other ideologies and religions, as well as multi-party democracies. 

In an Islamic state as propagated by the Islamists –

1) Muslims have more rights than the Dhimmis (non-Muslims), who are ‘protected citizens’ but not equal citizens.

2) In an Islamic state only Muslims have the right and freedom to practise, preach and proselytize, convert, whilst all other religions only have only the right to practice, that too with restrictions. Forget the right to preach and convert; Dhimmis are simply not allowed to do so. Islamists who hold such notions are the very same ones who demand equal rights in India or in the western countries wherein they dwell.

3) Islamists are also committed to the concept of ‘murtad’ (apostate) that a Muslim who leaves the fold of Islam and converts to another faith deserves to be killed. Where then is the concept of ‘freedom of conscience’, which they demand for themselves in secular lands? 

4) Only a Muslim can become a prime minister or president in an Islamic state. Others cannot even think of rising to the highest office in the land, as that is prohibited by the Constitution of such countries. Thus out of the window goes the concept of equal rights. This is very different from the Indian ethos where we have had a Sikh as our PM for 10 years, four Muslims have been elevated to the President’s post and a Muslim may even dream of some day sitting in the PM’s chair.

In short, in a modern, secular democratic State, all citizens are equal whereas in a ‘theocraZy’, those from the majority are more equal than others. 

(The writer is an activist and an expert on West Asian Affairs).
 

The post Why the idea of an Islamic state is full of holes appeared first on SabrangIndia.