President Sarkozy’s proposal to ban the ‘Burka’ may certainly be a populist measure playing to the latent racism and Islamophobia of the French public. However, the real origins of this policy, as with the previous headscarf ban, is not secular fundamentalism but a flawed philosophical conception of liberty.
No matter how much we protest against the apparent flaws of secularism, or the ignorance and intolerance of Sarkozy – without understanding their philosophical background, the reality is we are talking to people who speak a totally different language.
What we, in the English speaking world, understand as freedom or liberty is the absence of constraints or limits, in our ability to do whatever we want, or might want to do. Sir Isiah Berlin in his famous essay ‘Two concepts of liberty’, defined this as ‘negative liberty’. I say English speaking world, because this tradition is present in all former British colonies, hence President Obama’s statement supporting the right of women to dress as they wish.
In this understanding of freedom, also known as liberalism, the less the state interferes with individuals – the more free that individual is. This is why we find ‘liberal’ political parties calling for ’small government’, doing only the bare essential functions on behalf of its citizens.
The opposite understanding of liberty - ’positive liberty’, is best understood as being in control as individuals. To be really free, we must be self-determined – that is the ability to control our own destiny, in our own interests. One of the best illustrations of this concept is that by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose writing influenced the French Revolution, the beginning of the modern French state.
In Rousseau’s vision of liberty, individual freedom is achieved through participation in the political process to exercise collective control of one’s own society or country – in accordance with the ‘general will’. Crucially he gives the ‘lawgiver’ (government, monarch etc) the task of determining what this ‘general will’ is. In modern terminology, ‘general will’ can be equated to the concept of ‘public interest’. It is the role of government to determine what is ‘in the public interest’ – even though the public may not be interested in it.
This is all fine and good theoretically. However as Sir Isiah Berlin pointed out in 1958, the pursuit of ‘positive liberty’ paradoxically carries the real danger of totalitarianism and political oppression. He argued the danger was the state could force upon people a certain way of life, because it judged that it was in the people’s best interest. And consequently what a person should desire, even though they may not actually desire it.
So as we can see, the Burka ban is not just some form of enforced secularism, but the implementation of a social and political philosophy. Sarkozy is not ignorant – he and the French public really do believe that the Burka is an impediment to their liberty. Even if women are not forced to wear it, they are succumbing to their irrational desire to wear it, and it is the role of the state to make them free!
Another proponent of positive liberty Karl Marx, similarly called religion an opium of the masses, preventing them from realising their exploitation. A total ban of religion as enacted by communists was thus to create a society of free people.
All these thinkers however did believe in creating a free and equal society. The only problem as illustrated by George Orwell, was that in their conception of liberty, and political organisation in realising it – everyone was equal, but some more equal than others. So while we get a Burka ban, we won’t see a ban on nuns wearing their habits.
Such is life with paradoxes and contradictions – Sir Isiah Berlin, a famous proponent of liberalism was a staunch supporter of Israel. Being forced to be free is an oxymoron, but President Sarkozy is also just a plain moron.
“without understanding their philosophical background, the reality is we are talking to people who speak a totally different language.”
I could not agree more with this statement; it troubles me greatly, however, that the author goes on to show scant understanding of the putative “philosophical background” of the actors concerned. Further, one might suggest a considerable confusion of politics with philosophy has not made the author’s work any clearer.
This starts with an incredibly confused grasp of both Berlin’s notions of positive and negative liberty and a consequent failure to fully understand the political concept of liberalism.
To give one glaring example – if liberalism means the restriction of “big” government, then one might wonder as to the policies of exactly the parties that accord themselves the title “liberal” that precisely stress the obligations of the state for the care of its people. Liberalism has a plethora of senses (some of them not directly or specifically political) that are being overlooked here. The confusion of classical liberalism with “laisse faire” policy is to confuse ideology with policy (and to simultaneously and rather anachronistically confuse liberalism in general with a specific policy of a specific period in the development of political ideas in Western Europe).
I am also rather taken aback to learn that Marx advocated that a “total ban of religion as enacted by communists was thus to create a society of free people.” He made no such demand, nor claim – and no such demand follows from either his famous (or infamous) statement about religion as the opium of the masses, nor was it ever implemented in any state that purported to be Marxist in ideology. This is not only a foolish assertion to make by the author, it is factually false.
“So while we get a Burka ban, we won’t see a ban on nuns wearing their habits.”
This statement is equally as silly – actually such a ban already exists. Nuns, if they work in the state sector in France, are already barred from wearing overtly religious garb to work (yes, nuns *do* work) – and have been since 1904.
I think this article is ill-informed and poorly presented. How about this amazing contradiction:
“Sarkozy is not ignorant – he and the French public really do believe that the Burka is an impediment to their liberty.”
To be latterly followed with the article’s money-shot:
“President Sarkozy is also just a plain moron.”
D’oh!
I am deeply opposed to the proposals being made by Sarkozy and others in France. I am also deeply troubled by the Muslim community’s persistent ability to so regularly present such poor counter-arguments and descend into such trivial abuse in the light of such a very real threat to the liberty, equality and fraternity of people across the world.
@Abu Faris My learned friend, you might have overlooked the fact this is a blog, and not an academic masterpiece! Thus a simple or simplified exposition was the whole idea. As such one can hardly be expected to include the nuances and caveats which, as you correctly point out, exist.
You claim that I’m confusing politics with philosophy, I was merely trying to point out the role of politics in implementation of a philosophy.
You then say I’ve a confused grasp of Berlin’s concept of negative and positive liberty, but don’t point out how that is the case?
You say I’ve failed to ‘fully understand’ liberalism, but then go on to state “Liberalism has a plethora of senses (some of them not directly or specifically political)”.
This point is spot on: If there is a plethora of meanings, how could I be accused of not fully understanding it? What you mean is that I haven’t covered every single angle and meaning of every issue or concept! But that was the whole point, I only mentioned whatever was relevant to my case, duh!
On Marx, before you accuse others of lack of clarity and confusion, it would help if you didn’t mix up quotes and amalgamate sentences by missing out key parts. I did not claim that Marx advocated “a total on religion” as you imply. Please read!
I said “A total ban of religion as enacted by communists was…”. OK there wasn’t a ‘total ban’, but the severe restrictions on religion and religious practice is a historical fact. China still has state sanctioned religion only, Albanian Muslims are still recovering from the communist period, former Soviet (Muslim) republics are coming to terms with free practise of Islam… Where other than from Marx, did communists come to detest religion and try to restrict it?
I hadn’t realised I was submitting an essay for you to mark and grade “this article is ill-informed and poorly presented”. By all means, point out any factual errors or even alternative perspectives – BUT please don’t patronise “(yes, nuns *do* work)” and quit the condescending attitude. I and everyone here would know that nuns work.
On the nuns issue, the new proposed Burka ban is general. It is not in place! The proposal by Sarkozy does not mention nuns, nuns are not banned from wearing their habits in public! So again please make sure you read properly and get the facts right, or least stick to the same topic and not confuse issues and go on to make irrelevant points.
As for you finding contradictions with my attempted humour. I’d suggest you lighten up a bit.
Amin,
Thanks for the response.
In no particular order:
You wrote that Marx advocated:
“a total ban of religion as enacted by communists was thus to create a society of free people.”
This is a complete misreading of Marx. Firstly, Marx never made such a comment. Secondly, Marx’s view was – as you seem to grasp – that religion was what later sociologists were to describe a “false consciousness”, that impeded the class struggle. This was actually expanded upon much more by Marx’s colleague, Engels, as Marx had somewhat bigger fish to fry. I am not going to be detained by the collation of endless quotes for you – your position is evidently wrong to anybody who has ever inspected Marx on religion. I am grateful, however, that you concede that you were wrong about the so-called communist states attempting a full ban on religion.
My comments on nuns and their attire was pertinent and not patronising. Nuns are already banned from wearing their religious clothes to work in the state sector in France. Your comment was therefore both inaccurate and foolish. Incidentally, you may not have noticed but France has had laws on the book separating religion and state for over a century.
Sarkozy is not stupid, nor is he a moron. A self-serving, nasty bit of work determined to opportunistically grasp at the ideas of the lowest common denominator in order to bolster flagging support amongst the French electorate he may be – a politician’s politician he may well be; but stupid? Definitely not. Calling someone a moron is meant to be humour, Amin? No – it is abuse. It is an ad hominem attack, playing the person and not his argument that detracts from the seriousness of the issue and suggests that, in point of fact, you have very little to support your claim.
“former Soviet (Muslim) republics are coming to terms with free practise of Islam”.
Don’t teach your grandmother to suck eggs – however, you would not know that I used to live in a former Soviet Republic where the majority of the people are Muslims. In fact, most former Soviet Central Asian republics are immensely hostile to any religious revival and retain most of the Soviet era policies on their books. Try to deal in facts, Amin, not useful fictions. As for Albania, given that the vast majority of Albanians belong to a Sufi order that has been treated appallingly by mainstream Sunni authorities in the region and beyond, the fault does not entirely rest with Hoxha’s ancien regime.
“As for you finding contradictions with my attempted humour. I’d suggest you lighten up a bit.”
And I would suggest that if you are going to blog about something as vital to the human rights agenda in France and across Europe that you invest some time doing some basic research, else stand to be corrected.
Just some further comments…
Amin, if you cannot detect any real difference between politics and philosophy, then I would suggest you mention neither. You appear to be trading on the idea of philosophy meaning underlying point of view, or opinion – a better choice of words would have been ideology – as philosophy has absolutely nothing to do with that of which you write.
Amin, the very complexity of meaning inherent in terms like “liberalism” requires that you are precise and cogent in your discussion of the sense you want – and not slip, seemingly unconsciously, across the range of its senses as you do. Trying to claim that my raising of the point of the complexity of meaning supports your position is frankly rather ridiculous.
Incidentally, informing you that this was a poorly written and self-contradictory piece is not meant to be a “mark” – but a remark on the quality of your blog. If you can’t stand the heat, chum, I suggest you stop standing in the kitchen.
@Abu Faris Please learn the basic rules of citation. I find it difficult to understand how an educated guy like you can keep on misquoting what is obvious for all to see in the original post.
The actual text was “Another proponent of positive liberty Karl Marx, similarly called religion an opium of the masses, preventing them from realising their exploitation. A total ban of religion as enacted by communists was thus to create a society of free people.
At no time did I claim that “Marx advocated ‘a total ban of religion as enacted by communists was thus to create a society of free people’.”
This does you no credit – trust me!
On nuns, again you keep on talking about the ‘ban of religious symbols’. I am talking about the new porposed general ‘public’ ban on Burka. Keep up. Nuns are not banned from wearing their habits on French streets!
On former Soviet Republics – it may have paseed you by that virtually all of them are authoritarian dictatorships. The ruling elite are not only secular but very hostile to Islam and religion. The masses don’t really get a say. These are the facts.
As for my (good or bad)humour – obviously you’re not amused! I have no problem with your seriousness – but do try to read what people actually write, not what you think is written! That just makes you look stupid, and for a guy who wants to look educated, that’s not good.
@Abu Faris For the final time , this is a blog and not an academic journal. Generalisations were deliberate, duh!
On the meaning of liberalism, I’ve already answered your point in my previous reply. No need to repeat – people can make up their own minds.
On your final point – au contraire! I’m loving this. Unlike my previous exchnages with ‘Sid’ you at least seem educated. BUT like him you keep on repeating the same thing again and again, even after they’ve been proven wrong (like your misquote of my statement about Marx).
So now confused – but gotta ask you directly: Are you ‘Sid’?
Amin
Here are your words:
“Another proponent of positive liberty Karl Marx, similarly called religion an opium of the masses, preventing them from realising their exploitation. A total ban of religion as enacted by communists was thus to create a society of free people.”
I have not misquoted you.
Now, kindly address the substantive points of my comments and stop the deflections. It is tedious.
I am not “Sid” (whoever that person is – I suspect that he may be an ex-blogger from the Guardian’s Comment is Free, where I once blogged as well, under a different name).
Actually, Sarkozy is *not* proposing a ban on the wearing of the burkha on public streets. Perhaps if you read French you would realise this. Sarkozy would *like* to see such a ban – and has said so, he also acknowledges that this would require a rewrite of the French Constitution (such that there would be a dissolution of the 5th Republic and a formation of a new 6th Republic…. but he is not going to go there as the main thrust of constitutional reformers in France is limitation of the powers of the very executive presidency there).
You write:
“On former Soviet Republics – it may have paseed you by that virtually all of them are authoritarian dictatorships. The ruling elite are not only secular but very hostile to Islam and religion. The masses don’t really get a say. These are the facts.”
Erm, Amin – that is almost exactly what I wrote, in contradiction to your rosy-tinted earlier view. You wrote:
“former Soviet (Muslim) republics are coming to terms with free practise of Islam…”
I responded:
“most former Soviet Central Asian republics are immensely hostile to any religious revival and retain most of the Soviet era policies on their books.”
Did you read what I wrote, or comprehended it? It is almost exactly the same as you latterly commented. Where is the disagreement you want here, Amin?
@Abu Faris You are Sid aren’t you? Please answer this direct question!
Why else would keep going on without spotting obvious errors!
You’re back to your old stupidity Sid. You claimed, in quotes, that I said ‘Marx advocated: “a total ban of religion as enacted by communists was thus to create a society of free people”.’
How can that be the same as my original words: “Another proponent of positive liberty Karl Marx, similarly called religion an opium of the masses, preventing them from realising their exploitation. A total ban of religion as enacted by communists was thus to create a society of free people.“
Only Sid can be this stupid whilst pretending to be clever! How are you mi olde friend Sid?
I am frankly bemused by your attempts at trolling, Amin. Given your frank incomprehension of my statement about Islam in the former Soviet Central Asian space, I was tickled by the tu quoque character of your comment:
“do try to read what people actually write, not what you think is written! That just makes you look stupid, and for a guy who wants to look educated, that’s not good.”
No, that’s rich coming from you, actually, Amin.
Oh, and by “rules of citation” I take it you mean that someone misunderstood your meaning. Meaning is not citation. I cited you accurately enough – whether I understood your point is another question. I think I did, you disagree. Fine; but don’t hide behind a word you clearly do not fully understand. Now, that makes you look rather dim – if we are going to trade insults in the fashion you are clearly encouraging.
That, in a way, is deeply discouraging and remarkable evidence that, actually, you really don’t have much to say on this issue other than a series of increasingly desperate attempts to flame or engage in rather petty ad homina.
So you finally admit you know Sid? At least that’s one step from eventually admitting you are!
Go on just admit it. You have the same style of argument as my friend Sid. There can only be one Sid.
No, I wrote:
“I suspect that he may be an ex-blogger from the Guardian’s Comment is Free, where I once blogged as well, under a different name.”
That is not an admission of anything, Amin. Now, stop trolling and try to make some semblance of a response to my comments.
Enough of the insults, Amin. Not everyone who disagrees with you is “stupid”, or a “moron”. Come on, admit it – you wrote your original blog without apprising yourself of anything other than the usual half-baked nonsense that does the rounds on the Muslim Street. You have been caught out writing utter twaddle and now you resort to name-calling and distraction in order to escape the consequences of your poor work.
Yawn.
Amin,
You have taken considerable umbrage at my disagreements with you. failing at every step to note that your basic premise that banning burkha is a bad thing happens to be my position too. You have even chosen to pick fights on side issues where there was no dispute between us at all. You have consistently ignored the substance of my disagreements with you, choosing instead to describe me as “stupid” – presumably because you think this will rile me in some fashion.
I am rather shocked that you would choose to conduct yourself in this manner – especially as this is presumably supposed to be a Muslim blog. If you would like to know what I find the most depressing (and not irritating, as you would like, Amin), it is the general malaise of too many UK-based Muslim websites, where rational debate is too often reduced to sneering, goading and ad homina with regard to perceived opponents. I suppose I should count myself lucky that I have yet to be accused of being a Zionist or one of the other deeply tiresome and childish insults at large.
It is a real shame that you cannot grasp that I am trying to sharpen up your position, Amin. Instead you choose to regard any criticism as a personal attack. I see no further point in discussing any matters with you if you are simply going to continue in this deeply childish manner.
@Abu Faris Sid, if it makes you happy: you’re a cuddly guy who isn’t patronising. I don’t think you’re a Zionist, although you are a self declared secularist – both of which aren’t crimes. Though I do have issues with some many Zionists and secularists. But that’s within legitimate debate.
My original case is clear for all. The only oversight was the claim that communists enacted a ‘total ban’ – I should’ve said they severely restricted religion and its practise. Thanks for pointing that out.
BUT you seem to get shocked quite often, and now plead the victim – and you seem to be giving as good as you’re getting….
You don’t have a God-given right to be condescending and patronising, but take offence when you get it back…
Anyway Sid – good luck with you.
(1) I am not Sid.
(2) I commend you mind-reading skills. You do not know if I am an secularist – incidentally, one can be both a secularist *and* religious – an issue I raise elsewhere on this site. I happen to be both. I don’t think you (or your colleagues, to judge from the blogs about secularism) fully understand what secularism actually means – but that is for elsewhere.
(3) You should perhaps apprise yourself of a well known Egyptian proverb: He strikes, he is struck back, he [the first] runs away crying and blames the other. One of my wife’s favourites – well it would be, she being an Arab (are you beginning to see a little more clearly now, Amin?)
(4) I would check my IP address if I were you, just so that you may be certain that I am not this Sid character with whom you appear worryingly obsessed.
(5) Living in a country that is governed by religious hypocrites and amongst a people (including my in-laws) who are fairly devout Muslims too – I think I can safely say that the present attitude of the Arab Street after 25 odd years of theocratic idiocies from one corner or another of the political spectrum hereabouts is that we would all rather have a secular state which left our religion alone, frankly.
Don’t worry, I don’t expect an apology.
@Abu Faris OK, I accept your word that you’re not Sid. I don’t need to check the IP, it’s not a witch-hunt, even if you were Sid – I’d defend your right to make your case (within reason and the law).
(2) You say: “I commend you mind-reading skills. You do not know if I am an secularist BUT then in the same sentence confirm that you are! “incidentally, one can be both a secularist *and* religious – an issue I raise elsewhere on this site. I happen to be both.
I am blessed with some skills – mind reading isn’t one of them. I just stated the obvious from your comments… Don’t worry, being a secularist isn’t a crime here.
(3) I don’t care who you are or what your wife is – what is more important is what you have to say. I believe in the Islamic tradition of merits of the point or argument, rather than who it comes from! On a side note, I’d guess you’re wife is Egyptian (you allude to that) and you’re Sudanese…? Not that it matters one iota.
I’m not be a mind-reader but I’ve always been able to ‘read’ clearly.
Now that this mundane tit-for-tat is over (hopefully), I do agree that almost every self-declared religious regime in Muslim-majority countries is led by a hypocritical elite. And I’d add, the rest by authoritarian secularists. What we need is genuine democracy.
As for flawed understanding of secularism by other bloggers here – take it up with them. You may be right. Bloggers’ opnions are their own.
Thank you, Amin.
Actually, my wife is Sudanese, I am from elsewhere. Many Egyptian proverbs are common in Sudan (despite the fact that the main Sudanese Arabic dialect has more in common with Hijazi Arabic than Egyptian)… it has to do with being ruled from Egypt for a very long time.
I was actually complimenting you on your mind-reading skills!
I am a secularist when it comes to forms of government. I do not think that religion and state should ever mix – I think that there are plenty of examples to show that this is not a good idea. I do think that religion is, in modern conditions, primarily a private matter – that this should be so.
I would agree entirely with your comment about democracy. It is exactly what is missing here in the Arab world. A dear friend of mine, an Algerian, once commented that the Arab world’s elite had put on many different masks since independence (roughly the late ’40s) – they had variously been pan-Arabists, Arab socialists, Marxists, Islamists… thew list goes on. However, what they all had never done was actually ask the Arab Street what it wanted.
Sudan’s whole crisis and tragedy is bound up with a transparent lack of democracy. There has only been one democratically elected regime in Sudan since independence (1957) – and it was overthrown by the present (one time military) regime in the coup d’etat of 1989. However, no government of Sudan, military or civilian, has ever been led by anyone other than a person drawn from one of the three, dominant northern tribes – despite the fact that the largest country in Africa is comprised of a bewildering number of different peoples and their tribes. Many of the problems in Sudan stem from the manifest discrimination of the vast majority by a small minority on the basis of tribal identity.
I also hope that the tit-for-tat is over.
Thank you for your patience. I do take some getting used to, I am aware of that.