Thanks to all involved for organizing and participating in this session. The contradictions of European secularism are well-known, especially its claim to universalism despite roots in Protestant Christianity. It presents itself as neutral yet can covertly enforce religious discrimination under the guise of impartiality. The speakers at this event applied a similar politics of suspicion to critique secularism. While this lens can be insightful, it also risks reducing all frameworks to power struggles without evaluating their normative assumptions. If all systems instrumentalize power, what makes secularism unique? We then ought to be as suspicious about normative claims regarding ‘true’ Islamic jurisprudence that will preserve minority rights. Moreover, secularism is not the only system where the state determines public behavior and regulates it. Many forms of state governance, contemporary and historic, have done this. The focus on Western secularism models (especially France) was a limiting factor in the discussion. Closer examples like the constitutional ideal of India's secularism-where all religions are meant to be equal in the eyes of the state-or Bangladesh's, which integrates a state religion with a republic model, were ignored. And the biggest elephant in the room went unaccounted for: Pakistan’s constitutionally enshrined Islamic and Muslim supremacy. It is the need to perpetually institutionalize this supremacy that breeds concoctions like our blasphemy laws. This is a constitutional issue requiring a constitutional solution: end religious supremacy and adopt a plural citizenship model. And only then would critiquing secularism’s limits and excesses-its potential majoritarian and patriarchal pitfalls-become relevant.
Thanks to all involved for organizing and participating in this session.
The contradictions of European secularism are well-known, especially its claim to universalism despite roots in Protestant Christianity. It presents itself as neutral yet can covertly enforce religious discrimination under the guise of impartiality. The speakers at this event applied a similar politics of suspicion to critique secularism.
While this lens can be insightful, it also risks reducing all frameworks to power struggles without evaluating their normative assumptions. If all systems instrumentalize power, what makes secularism unique? We then ought to be as suspicious about normative claims regarding ‘true’ Islamic jurisprudence that will preserve minority rights. Moreover, secularism is not the only system where the state determines public behavior and regulates it. Many forms of state governance, contemporary and historic, have done this.
The focus on Western secularism models (especially France) was a limiting factor in the discussion. Closer examples like the constitutional ideal of India's secularism-where all religions are meant to be equal in the eyes of the state-or Bangladesh's, which integrates a state religion with a republic model, were ignored.
And the biggest elephant in the room went unaccounted for: Pakistan’s constitutionally enshrined Islamic and Muslim supremacy. It is the need to perpetually institutionalize this supremacy that breeds concoctions like our blasphemy laws. This is a constitutional issue requiring a constitutional solution: end religious supremacy and adopt a plural citizenship model. And only then would critiquing secularism’s limits and excesses-its potential majoritarian and patriarchal pitfalls-become relevant.