Dear Sohail, 

Thank you for the  delightful discussions and  delectable dinners  that were always so hospitably added to the itinerary, every time I came to see you at Whitby.

Your letter seeks answers to questions like who is a Secular Muslim, and why do people of apparently  non-religious leanings  continue to call  themselves “Secular Muslims”,  as opposed to taking a more clear and formal position as a non-believer, atheist or agnostic.

I  am no scholar of theology, and can only attempt to explain these issues according to how I have come to view and understand them.   Personally I think the term Secular Muslim is  an inherently contradictory  expression and is used only as a marriage of convenience,  to keep one’s feet in two boats. You will appreciate that  being secular would mean that one does not subscribe to religious doctrines on issues of morality, education, art, science, music,  laws, or  functioning of state.  A secular view would be to address these issues from the platform of reason and logic.  A Muslim on the other hand is required to submit to the will of God, including  the doctrines enshrined in Koran, and the practices and sayings of the Prophet.   You will appreciate that these two concepts - reason and blind faith, are not just incompatible but also diagonally opposite.

This brings us to the other question as to why do then many intellectuals, thinkers, liberals, leftist, atheists, and ideologically non-religious people continue to use this expression to describe their position.   I think in your letter,  you have yourself  given some very good reasons to explain this phenomenon. There are a few other aspects that I would like to add.  Islam as a religion has been  hijacked by the illiterate clergy who  act as if they were the subcontractors of religion on behalf of divinity.  There has not been a rational discourse on this subject for past many centuries, and it has more and more been relegated to the exclusive domain of the least educated and   the least enlightened community.   It has also become a tool for political exploitation  and state  power, with countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran championing their respective brands with  necessary dozes of  muscle, money and militancy.  The governments in most Muslim countries are unpopular and non-representative in nature, and hence find it   prudent  to support the  clerics who are well organised  at the grass roots and enjoy some influence over the masses.  This acts as a double-edged  and  a convenient political  bed-sharing  between the clerks and the clerics.  It is a political bribe to appease the cleric, while simultaneously providing  an  (un)holy tranquilizer to masses to keep them engaged in issues that have little  relevance to the contemporary times.  The  Muslim population including  intellectuals and liberals have thus grown up in near fascist environments, with no tradition of dialogue or debate.  Questioning religion not just a taboo, but akin  to blasphemy.  You would recall how Akhter Hamid Khan, Pakistan’s greatest  community developer and reformer  was charged for blasphemy  for writing a children’s poem which had some  harmless references to God, Caliph Ali and a lion. You would  equally remember the recent incident in which Hashem Aghajari, a leading  Iranian scholar was awarded death penalty for stating that every one had the right to read Koran and  develop his own understanding.  He further argued that this understanding can not be decreed  or forced upon other individuals.  The governments in Muslim countries instead of focusing on improving the lot of their people,  have chosen the  easier path of appeasing the clerics.  This is manifested  by a  steady increase in the list of “holy” laws, and harsher punishments that are legislated every now and then.  In Pakistan today,  one can receive nothing else but a death sentence when charged  even  with a fake allegation of blasphemy.  The award of death penalty to Dr. Younas Shaikh who told his class that the prophet’s parents were non-Muslims  is a case in point.

 It would thus  not be brave  but  foolhardy  for enlightened people in Muslim countries to  formally declare themselves as non-believers of the traditional doctrines, even if they privately felt so inclined.  It should thus explain  the  articulation of a “Secular Muslim” facade instead of a pure Secular confession.

This brings us to another aspect that stems from this discussion. Just because a person is enlightened, liberal, leftist, anti-tradition and anti-cleric,  he does not have to be a non-believer.  Beliefs can not be exclusive to certain traditionally accepted  doctrines of faith.  There are  a million shades of beliefs and understanding between  the most orthodox and the most enlightened spectrums of  Muslim faith.  In absence of an open dialouge, and in  the presence of a most irrational religious-  criminal code, it is often not possible to share views even with close friends. It is thus  simply  prudent and functional  not to  take a position between these two extremes.  Getting on with the plethora of urgent real life issues and keeping away  from the  controversy  that at best will only clarify one’s intellectual position,  has thus been widely accepted as a compromise between conscience and convenience. That explains for the lack of confessions of faith with in Muslim scholars.   However, beyond the Muslim political  boundaries you will find individuals like Tariq Ali,  Anwar Shaikh  and many others  who  made no bones  and  completely avoided the Secular Muslim label.

Personally I am  comfortable with people regardless of their  belief levels, as long as they routinely interact on a humane and rational level.  However I am uncomfortable with faith ridden ritualistic expressions in dress, behaviour and practices, as  I consider them to be unnecessary and  demeaning  to the  basic concept of  faith and divinity.

Finally your question as to where do I stand on this spectrum.   I  tend to be an   agnostic, and believe that  the pursuit of humanism and rationalism must over-ride  our individual  beliefs in traditional  faiths.  I  consider all  knowledge and  science  to be inherently secular, subject to change as we get to know more.   Religions on the other hand  profess ultimate and final  injunctions.  Thus if we are to live together as human beings, our only common denominators  would be humanism, secularism and rationalism.  Religions  provide little benefit to humanity when they cease to be humane and rational. Alternately a humane and rational society would have little  need for religions.   Needless to say that our search for truth  carries on.

Sincerely,

Naeem Sadiq