Dr. Nader Hashemi speaks at CFI: Ontario

On Friday, December 23, 2007, CFI:Ontario hosted Dr Nader Hashemi who gave a talk entitled "Reflections on Religion and Politics in the Islamic World: Why Muslim Skepticism of Secularism is Warranted" .

I found the topic to be unclear as the event was being advertised and I had never heard of the speaker, so naturally I was unsure what to expect as the talk began. However, I found it to be far more informative than I had expected and was glad I had attended.

Dr Hashemi has a PhD in political science from the University of Toronto and has spent the last few years researching comparative politics of the Middle East. His talk focussed on why we can't expect Muslim societies to embrace secularism in the same way as western societies define them. His main point was that because secularism in the Middle East has always accompanied brutal dictatorships, it is entirely rational that Muslim societies will continue to oppose reforms.

Cultural problems seem to be apparent since there is no translation for the word 'secularism' in Muslim societies. Therefore it is difficult to convince the average citizen of its advantages. Like in Canada, people in the Middle East incorrectly define secularism as atheism even though every secular activist on the planet defines it as a simple separation of religion and government, so any attempts at reforms anywhere are met with hostility by the people who are afraid they will lose the ability to practice their religion. However, Dr Hashemi argues that the problems surrounding secularism in Muslim societies is not a question of definition, but rather of the actual experiences of the average citizen living under previous secular regimes.

While I do find it annoying when my opponents point to brutal dictatorships as a consequence of atheism, I can understand this justification in the context of the Middle East. The history of secularism in the Middle East includes colonialism, imperialism, and an elite class of rulers who lived a separate life away from its citizens. Thus, secularism was a product of the state and not of the individual choices of the people and the brutal secular regimes (like Iraq under Saddam Hussein, for example) are how people interpret secularism today.

Dr Hashemi concludes that secular liberal democracies cannot be imposed by force or extortion but must be created the citizens themselves who live under the oppression of religious totalitarianism. Secular democracies of the West were only created by the victims of centuries of religious oppression so we shouldn't expect Muslims to secularize until they have had the opportunity to live under tyranical rule. I have always advocated that the best way to teach someone something was to let them figure it out for themselves and I prefer not to interfere in other people's learning process so I was surprised to finally hear a speaker at CFI who had similar thoughts. Dr Hashemi was saying that we should leave the Muslim societies alone at let themselves be ruled by oppressive and brutal religions as this is the only way they can learn to appreciate the merits of a secular democracy. This is counter to the socialist/humanist philosophy of most of the audience who generally favour intervention on the basis of human rights and it was nice to have a speaker who was actually promoting less government involvement instead of more.

Overall, Dr Hashemi was a clear speaker and projected confidence and knowledge throughout the presentation. I found that he relied too heavily on historical facts, so the average listener who wasn't very well read on Middle Eastern history would have had a hard time following the topics being discussed and I noted his frustration during the QandA when he was trying to explain certain historical events to people who don't understand the complexities of the Middle East. Although he may have only been playing to the crowd, he did make a few jabs at Bush and Harper that were trivial and out of place given the broader context of the presentation and his direct praise for Dalton McGuinty and his endorsement of Barack Obama highlighted his political bias towards partisan liberals that soured an otherwise objective lecture. However, he promotes realistic solutions (as opposed to the perfection and idealism supported by some of the more vocal secular activists) so he has my support and I hope that, someday, his message will be understood by everyone. I look forward to his book to be released next year.