Some Arabs and Muslims speak western. I know there isn't a language called western, like arabic, english e.t.c. Let me explain. On twitter, I came across the following tweet: "What secularism means to us" by @algergawi http://is.gd/Hdq7pJ. Interesting title. Clinking on the hyperlink takes you to a Gulf News article by Mishaal Al Gergawi described at the bottom of the article as ‘an Emirati current affairs commentator'. Referring to secularism, the strapline of the article says ‘It isn't a foreign idea and need not carry anti-religious connotations, let alone atheistic ones. It is an earthly complement to religion'. Interesting. Like anyone who has studied the development of secularism in Europe, you wonder if this is the case of Arabs and Muslims speaking ‘Western' i.e. describing the events and aspirations of people in the Arab and Muslim world using the predominant words commonly used in the western media, whilst actually meaning something somewhat different. So when people who bravely rose against Western backed tyrants like Ben Ali or Mubarak were interviewed in Tahrir Square or Tunis, it is common to hear them say that they want "freedom" and "democracy". When they say "freedom", they want freedom from the tyrannical rule of Ben Ali, Mubarak, Gadaffi and others. They want to be able to breathe instead of living in a stifling police state where you can disappear for criticizing the ruler. However, they are not demanding the freedoms as understood in the West. The freedom to "insult" the Prophet (saw) as the Danish cartoonist and some in West demand, nor the ‘freedom' to have same-sex marriage, or the freedom to promote lewd behaviour and sex before marriage as a norm. People in the Arab and Muslim world find these ‘freedoms' abhorrent since they contradicts their Islamic values and heritage. Likewise, when they say they want ‘democracy', they mean they want the right to elect their government and being able to hold that government to account - something the Islamic shariah obliges. They are not demanding the right for parliamentarians or Senators to legislate laws which contradict Islam - -as happens in the West where Parliament\senate is sovereign. They believe that Allah (swt) has legislated laws in several aspects of life beyond just praying and fasting but including taxation and other economic matters, what is socially acceptable, how the ruler (Khalifah) should be appointed and so on.
Secularism, which contends that religious affairs must be separate from the rest of life's affairs, evolved in Europe where the religious leaders in collusion with the Kings, tried imposing a religion - Christianity - over societal matters. Since Christianity, unlike Islanm, is not a comprehensive socio-political ideology this caused oppression which finally lead to the resolution that the Church should have no say in how life's affairs are managed. On the other hand, the Islamic world had a totly different historical development. Even non-Muslim academics and historians who study the Prophet's life acknowledge that He (saw) came with a complete social, economic and political system which he implemented as a ruler in Madinah when he established the first Islamic state and that after him the Muslims appointed rulers, Khalifah's, because the Prophet (saw) who said "after me, there will be Khalifahs" and he ordered us to obey them. This is basic stuff which is well known by non-Muslims who study Islam and most Muslims from an early age, yet here was an article implying otherwise!
In his article, Gergawi says "after all, Europeans were able to reconcile secularism with Christianity citing "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (Mark 12:13-17)" and then goes on to quote the hadith from the Musnad of imam Ahmad "If a question relates to your worldly matters, you would know better about it, but if it relates to your religion, then to me it belong" drawing a similarity and justification to prove that secularism is inherently compatible with Islam. Then he concludes that "secularism isn't a foreign idea and need not carry anti-religious connotations, let alone atheistic ones. If anything, it is an earthly complement to divine religion. It is merely an understanding and appreciation of the capacity of the human mind, God's greatest gift to man, to be wise on earth and find answers to earthly questions that arise". So it is clear that this is not someone who has misunderstood a foreign term i.e. secularism, rather someone who understands it and is attempting to convince a Muslim audience of it - hence his reference to the hadith of the Prophlet (saw) in the Musnad of Ahmad- in order to justify secularism which effectively contends that Allah (swt) should not be the reference in every matter or that Islam is not a comprehensive way of life, but merely a religion akin to Christianity - something most non-Muslims who study Islam woud not say. A deeper study would have clarified that matters of science and technology (e.g. polination of plants mentioned in the hadith of Imam Ahmad that he quotes) are universal matters which are neutral and do not belong to any specific ideology be it Islam, capitalism, communism e.t.c. hence Muslims are allowed to adopt these from wherever they are produced using the best human Endeavour. That is why Muslims always developed or adopted the best technology and science from wherever it came, but the idea that Muslims adopt values, systems of life (ruling, socisl, economic) from other ideologies such as secular liberal capitalism is going to be a hard sell to Muslims. Comments at the bottom of the article reveal how hard. Especially since the mindset of the masses has changed over the last few decades. As a result of global events and shocks - occupation, Gulf wars... - a thinking process has evolved and a new set of Islamic concepts and values now exist in the popular discourse. The concept of Islamic politics, Jihad, Ummah, unity, Shari'ah and a Khilafah "Caliphate" (a single ruler for the Arab and Muslim world) are now so prevalent that it is common to see these terms included as part of West's lexicon to interpret the events in the Muslim world. Those trying to argue for secularism might as well be arguing for halal pork. A contradiction in terms.
Taji Mustafa
Media Representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Britain