Summary
This study provides a roadmap for the future of our bleak East (the Arab world) specifically related to the concept of religiosity. It critiques Islamist ideas that have been presented in our societies for nearly a century and then reviews them critically. The study presents its vision for contemporary religiosity and what it should be. It also offers ideas for the growing enlightenment movement in our bleak East, which has been facilitated by social media allowing our youth to connect and engage intellectually despite geographical distance and authoritarian borders.
Introduction
In the midst of this Islamist confusion and the disastrous failure of the political Islam project during the Arab Spring—socially, politically, and in the media—the Arab Spring turned into a harsh autumn for several reasons. The following question arises:
What comes after Islamism, and what is to be done?
The ideological Islamist conflict between Sunnis and Shiites since the victory of the Iranian revolution, which has a Persian nationalist agenda disguised in Shiism, along with the Salafi Jihadist project, and the militarization of the Syrian uprising, pushed the majority of the Arab society in general and the Syrian society in particular to disbelieve in political Islam. This political Islam had hijacked their revolutionary spring and diverted its path from a peaceful state that impressed the whole world into militarization, turning Syria into a devastated country with displaced people around the world. However, they remained believers in Islam.
What is Meant by Post-Islamism?
Post-Islamism is one of the new terms coined in political science. Its definition and applicability have led to an intellectual debate between two thinkers: the Iranian “Asef Bayat” and the French political scientist “Olivier Roy,” who is interested in the study of political Islam. They are the main architects of the term and the idea.
The term was first used by “Asef Bayat” in his book “Post-Islamism: The Changing Faces of Political Islam” to refer to the enlightenment trend that aims to secularize Islam after the political Islam has “exhausted” all its means. The term was also used by “Olivier Roy” in his book “The Failure of Political Islam” to refer to the modern state where political, military, and religious fields are separated.
“Olivier Roy” argued that after repeated efforts and failures by Islamists to provide a “concrete and feasible blueprint for society,” there emerged what “Mustafa Akyol” described as a backlash against Islamism—political Islam in all its forms—which failed miserably in the Arab Spring.
“Post-Islamism” as defined by “Asef Bayat” is a stage where the allure, energy, symbols, and sources of legitimacy of Islamism are exhausted after a period of experimentation, even among its previously enthusiastic supporters. Thus, the concept of post-Islamism is not anti-Islam, but reflects a tendency to secularize religion.
“Asef Bayat” initially proposed it as a solution for the Iranian situation alone, where “post-Islamism is expressed in the idea of integrating Islam (as a personal creed) with individual freedom and choice; and post-Islamism is associated with the values of democracy and aspects of modernity.” In this context, the prefix “post” does not carry a historical implication but indicates a critical departure from the Islamic discourse. Later, in 2007, “Asef Bayat” noted that post-Islamism is both a “condition” and a “project.”
Critique of Islamist Ideas
To achieve the stage of post-Islamism, it must be preceded by a rational critical phase of the Islamist ideas that have been presented over nearly a century, which have led our bleak East into miserable and failed military and political adventures, reflecting negatively on the situation of the citizen and the nation.
This Islamist failure calls for a careful critical pause on the political Islam project, hoping that its advocates conduct serious reviews and rid their minds of dreams that are impossible to achieve in our era, and demagogic slogans that appeal to populist religiosity dreams. Neither the divine governance as they propose it is correct, nor is the caliphate an essential part of religion; it is merely a historical form of the state that has been surpassed by the modern age and the evolution of the state form.
Moreover, the theory of dividing the world into two camps—believer and jihadist, and another infidel that must be fought and opposed—was not stated in the Quran, nor did our Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) call for it. It is rather exclusionary interpretations of Hadith texts, many of which have been proven incorrect, or have been abrogated by the actions of the Prophet, foremost among them the Hadith that established the culture of slaughter, such as “I have been commanded to fight the people until they say, ‘There is no god but Allah,'” which contradicts the general Quranic text.
Added to this is the Hadith: “I have come to you with slaughter.” This Hadith has a flaw in its chain of transmission, yet some contemporary Hadith scholars authenticated it. Even if these Hadiths were authentic, the Prophet (PBUH) abrogated them with his actions when he entered Mecca as a conqueror, establishing a culture of forgiveness and tolerance when victorious, abrogating the Hadith of slaughter—if authentic—when he said: “Go, for you are free.” He did not take revenge on anyone, nor did he force the great figures of Quraysh and the enemies of yesterday to convert to Islam.
The madness of Salafi jihadism and sectarian Shiite retaliation operations must stop, and no one should think that fighting the culture of slaughter and combating it will eliminate it, for violence only begets violence. Eliminating it requires conscious thought, an open human mind, and real reform of the religious thinking system, freeing Islam from the burden of a jurisprudential heritage written with an imperialist mindset that excludes others, from which Islam is innocent, so that Islamic thinking returns to its humanity, which was usurped not long ago by authority scholars and takfirist imams who monopolized the right to religious knowledge, establishing the culture of slaughter in their books, margins, and commentaries, and giving tyranny religious legitimacy.
The time has come to return to the Islam of the Quran, away from the imagined verse of the sword, and leave the Islam of Hadith through genuine reviews, telling the other that religion came to serve humanity, not the other way around, and that the earth will be inherited by God’s righteous servants, not the killers or the bloodthirsty, but everyone who offers good to humanity regardless of their religion, color, or ethnicity.
Invitation for Islamists to Review the Meaning of Good Governance!
The enlightenment movement of the post-Islamism phase also calls on Islamists to review the concepts of the state and its systems of governance that they presented during the Islamist phase, crying out in a “demagogic” manner for the return of the caliphate!
Those who seek power under a religious guise, thinking they have divine authority over a society they consider immature, must remember that the legitimacy of any system of governance does not stem from the ideology it carries, nor from the slogans it raises. Instead, it comes from two fundamental conditions mentioned in the Quran, which Muslims everywhere are familiar with:
“He who has fed them, [saving them] from hunger and made them safe, [saving them] from fear.” (Surah Quraysh: 4)
Any society wants from the authorities governing it to provide sustenance, meaning sufficient livelihood, and security, meaning to live safely and securely in their country. If any authority achieves sufficiency and security for its society, it gains legitimacy in the collective conscience of the society. Competitors for power should therefore strive through their programs to achieve the best possible outcomes for society based on these two fundamental conditions. This way, society will be able to enter the global civilizational system creatively, achieving development and ascending the ladder of human civilization.
If awareness is achieved, which is our first battle, the mind that has been dormant for centuries will start to work, and the spirit of humanity will grow within us. Then we will emerge from the rigid culture, and those who have become rigid will know what kind of fuel they were. They will realize how much they have harmed their religion
The Failure of the Culture of Coercing Others into Religiosity
We must understand that forcing others to adopt our viewpoint is a theory that has proven to fail and is rejected by the Quran. Politics involves exploring possible options within the balance of power on the ground and the long-term probabilities of loss or gain. Religion should remain purified from the manipulations of politics and its authoritarian desires. A civilized, humane, and ethical state in a society with diverse components should be neutral, serving all its citizens without ethnic, religious, or sectarian discrimination, thereby achieving growth and prosperity.
If Islamists continue to rely on outdated traditions, the inevitable result will be models like ISIS and the Wilayat al-Faqih, leading to a grinding conflict that prolongs the era of slaughter. Leaders of political Islam should know that their legitimacy and the correctness of their approach are not achieved by their accession to power. Legitimacy belongs to the will of the people, who grant it to those who provide them with security and development and advance them culturally to the ranks of advanced societies, not to those who drive them to pray under the threat of slaughter or force them into specific attire and forms belonging to a bygone era or claim to monopolize divine right.
Even the vague concept they call for to implement Sharia is not the essence of Islam. Sharia was implemented when Umar, Uthman, and Ali (may Allah be pleased with them) were assassinated, and there were devastating wars during the era of the rightly guided caliphs, resulting in thousands of casualties. What benefit is there in implementing Sharia when social justice is absent, and there are oppressed individuals due to their beliefs, and there are no principles for fair governance consistent with the spirit of Islam?
Islam is a humanitarian, cultural, and intellectual message before being an act of worship, evidenced by the first revealed word (Read), and that God introduces Himself in the first verse of His holy book as the Lord of all worlds, not just Muslims.
The real obstacle preventing us from entering modernity is primarily an invented cultural and traditional one, framed by despotism and its scholars. This has led to a deficiency in realistic awareness, resulting in a behavioral crisis that sanctifies the culture of death and does not value the culture of life and human coexistence.
Other factions, besides Islamists, must also engage in serious reviews. Even if the theory that others are plotting to destroy us through the conspiracy theory is correct, it would be shameful and insane to contribute to implementing their plans under the pretext of achieving a legitimate dream. Our first and foremost battle is awareness, first, second, and third.
Between Islamism and Post-Islamism
In his book Post-Islamism, the scholar and researcher “Asef Bayat” explains that political Islam has undergone many transformations over the past twenty years. One of these transformations is the shift from Islamism (political Islam) to post-Islamism. While some readings suggest that this transition occurred earlier—such as “Abdelwahab El-Afandi” who claims that Sudanese post-Islamism was born over a century ago, or others who argue that the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood was post-Islamist before reverting to Islamism—Bayat’s perspective remains significant.
Islamism was initially a mobilization of religious activists into fundamentalist political movements aimed at achieving power, focusing on citizens’ needs. In contrast, post-Islamism aims to establish a citizenship-based state with a non-religious and democratic governance system, without abandoning the faith-based project of Muslims. In a sense, it is a secularization of Islam through a sharp delineation between religion and state.
This means that Islamism aimed to create an Islamic state that contradicts or cannot fully embrace democratic principles, even if it claimed otherwise. Its focus was on “citizens’ needs” and the Islamization of the state, rather than on rights. The goal was to establish an Islamic state with a doctrinally homogeneous community, where concepts of social justice, human rights, and democracy were secondary and subordinated to the primary goal.
For example, movements like the Salafi groups and the Muslim Brotherhood have often emphasized citizens’ needs over their rights, with an excessive focus on gaining power as a means to control the state and, by extension, the people’s choices. Iran and Saudi Arabia—before their recent transformations—and the regime of Omar al-Bashir before its overthrow are live examples of this approach, where the focus was on meeting people’s needs rather than respecting their rights.
Reviving the Humanistic Approach Religiously
The post-Islamism phase, from an enlightenment perspective, is based on two fundamental principles: the humanistic approach to religiosity and the principle of freedom first, even before faith!
The humanistic approach is genuinely lacking in Islamist discourse, despite their denial of its absence. This humanism appeared in Islamic civilization through the Mu’tazilites from the 2nd to the 5th centuries AH, after the integration with Greek philosophy when the Syrians translated Greek philosophy for al-Ma’mun. It was evident in religious thought with the Mu’tazilites, in philosophical theory with Ibn Rushd, in literary expression with al-Tawhidi and al-Jahiz, and in empirical science with al-Razi, Ibn Sina, Ibn al-Nafis, and Ibn Khaldun. After that, humanism faded with the onset of an era of repetition and the death of philosophy.
Humanism was further advanced by the philosopher “Ibn Miskawayh,” who was the first Muslim scholar to write on ethics with scientific and philosophical concepts and was even referred to as the “Third Teacher.” It was also clearly reflected in Ibn Rushd’s famous book Fasl al-Maqal.
However, humanism waned with the decline of Islamic philosophy due to the dominance of sectarian and doctrinal culture and authoritarian conflicts. After the 8th century AH, humanism disappeared in the Islamic world, while it reemerged in the West with the Enlightenment and its philosophers.
Despite Western claims of having invented humanism, philosopher Muhammad Arkoun challenged Western philosophers for nearly half a century. He scientifically demonstrated the originality of Islamic humanism, gaining recognition as a prominent professor at the Sorbonne and surpassing contemporary European philosophers. In his book Humanism in Arab Thought, Arkoun scientifically proved that the concept of reason in the Quran is empirical and rational.
Arkoun’s humanism surpassed classical philosophical concepts that dominated Islamic thought by establishing a humanistic approach based on scientific methods, valuing philosophical and ethical principles rooted in truth and goodness, and emphasizing high principles such as compassion, empathy, love, and the refinement of human impulses while respecting others despite differences. He concluded his life with his seminal work in this field titled Humanism in Islam.
Freedom First! Even Before Belief
Post-Islamism requires the second principle: freedom, which is denied to non-Muslims and even to Muslims who dissent from the ruling Islamist authority or oppose it politically.
The result of the civilizational defeat our society has faced against others, and the severe scientific backwardness left by various unjust rulers, has led to the importation of foreign ideas. These ideas, brought by those who studied abroad or were exposed to foreign cultures and experiences, offered solutions to persistent problems. However, the proponents of these ideas erred by not considering the deeply religious nature of our society. They presented their ideas in a radical manner, bypassing the gradual approach, which startled both the authoritarian regime, which felt its power being undermined, and the religious institution allied with the regime, entrenched in outdated texts. This gave rise to a fear of freedom.
The question is: why are they afraid of freedom? Why do they scare us with it? What is their aim?
They fear freedom by claiming that it leads to moral decay, sexual promiscuity, and a breakdown of societal ethics, which is not true. Freedom is about responsibility and, intellectually, it is about objective criticism without insulting others’ symbols and sanctities.
Under the guise of “fear of freedom,” voices have risen to suppress any differing opinions or creative works that challenge their ideas and methods of solving crises. We have supported every decision made by the authoritarian regime and collaborated with the religious institution in prohibiting various works, under the pretense of preserving societal identity—a phrase used to mask their ulterior motives.
Suppressing differing opinions is not an Islamic principle but rather a McCarthyism-like approach justified by fear for Islam, arising from failure to confront modernity with the excuse of preserving the purity of religious texts from potential misinterpretation. The Quran rejects this notion, as Islam has never feared freedom; instead, it has always encouraged it and called for the expression of ideas without fear. It demands that each opinion be backed by scientific and analytical proof:
“Say, ‘Produce your proof if you should be among the truthful.'” (Quran 2:111).
The Quran promotes discussing all ideas in a free environment, where what is true will endure, and what is false will vanish. It confirmed this principle by saying:
“As for the foam, it vanishes as scum, but what benefits the people remains on the earth.” (Quran 13:17).
The phrase “what benefits the people” indicates a universal benefit, not just for Muslims. Islam seeks global benefit, not narrow interests.
We should have fortified society scientifically and intellectually, planting cultural antibodies to make it resistant to any deviant thoughts, rather than practicing paternalism and a Pharaoh-like attitude of “I show you only what I see.”
We must acknowledge that those who fear freedom are really afraid of exposing their incomplete knowledge, being unmasked for their cultural and intellectual shortcomings, and being defeated by truth and reason. Islam does not fear truth or freedom because it was the first to promote and advocate for them. It has no secrets to hide.
The Quran addressed this issue when dissenting views were presented, responding peacefully:
“And indeed, whether we or you are upon guidance or in clear error, say, ‘You will not be asked about what we were criminals for, and we will not be asked about what you do.'” (Quran 34:24-25).
Freedom was a demand of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. When the Quraysh elites rejected his message and prevented him from expressing his ideas, he did not coerce them but called for freedom. He challenged them to let people judge his proposals, insisting: “Let me and the people be.” That is, grant me the freedom to present my ideas to the people.
Suppressing others’ opinions is an infringement on freedom of expression, which Islam guarantees for everyone. We should counter arguments with arguments and evidence with evidence, not by preventing others from expressing their views. Practicing authoritarianism undermines everything we once advocated against when we were subjected to it.
Those who fear freedom are afraid that their incomplete knowledge will be exposed by rationality, creativity, and dissenting opinions. This society is no longer immature or mute; it knows how to express its will. If you want creativity, development, and progress, grant society freedom. It will rationalize it, rising anew, breaking free from the chains of tradition and the shackles of backwardness, like a phoenix emerging from the ashes.
Post-Islamism and the Necessity of Enlightenment
Our societies today struggle with the challenge of adapting to modernity, understanding the requirements of contemporary citizenship, and embracing the culture of a civic state. As our societies are theologically driven, relying on religious texts as a motivator and guide for action and change, and since the understanding of these texts remains constrained by traditional knowledge, a clarion call for an enlightenment movement is essential. Such a movement would ignite creativity and drive a civilizational renaissance that our nations deserve after centuries of stagnation.
Enlightenment serves as a bridge connecting Muslims and societies to contemporary intellectual and civilizational values, allowing us to leverage our rich heritage to remain relevant and thrive amid modern challenges and developments.
The enlightenment we seek should be akin to transformative industry for the mind and society, moving them from stagnation to motion, from backwardness to progress, and from marginalization to effectiveness. This involves interpreting religious texts in a contemporary manner that revives their humanistic objectives, distances them from exclusionary attitudes, and fosters a culture of collaboration among all members of society.
When human interpretations of religious beliefs become a source of decline and conflict with science and the laws of causation, an enlightenment shock is needed to seek an exit from the darkness of stagnation and move towards a contemporary civilizational renaissance that respects our identity and individuality.
This means that the enlightenment we advocate should strip away the illusory sanctity of human interpretations appended to the original texts. These traditional interpretations were once progressive in their time, but their validity is limited to their era. They end when they cease to address the contemporary needs of society.
Therefore, the enlightenment movement we are advocating relies on the Quran as an inspiration, scientific and intellectual progress as a path, and modernity and contemporary relevance as a foundation. It aims to reactivate the dormant intellect to foster innovation in economics, politics, society, and relationships with others. This means that the renewal and reform we call for in understanding Islam should produce a movement of reform and civilizational advancement in all areas of life.
Amidst our tumultuous struggles, we have lost sight of the Quranic culture that we were honored to carry forward behaviorally. This has led us away from wisdom, transitioning from a phase of civilizational presence to one of intellectual frivolity and ineffectiveness, plagued by sectarian and doctrinal conflict. Consequently, society has lost its direction and faltered in using supportive technological means, leading to a state of weakness where the nation becomes easy prey for opportunists.
True enlightenment that leads to genuine civilizational advancement can only be achieved if we allow ourselves to engage in constructive criticism. This type of criticism is the cornerstone of enlightenment, pushing society towards the first step on the ladder of global civilization. As our Prophet ﷺ emphasized that a society that does not innovate is without merit through his saying, “There is no good in one who does not add,” we must understand why we have ceased to innovate, examine the reasons, and continue to strive for renewal and progress.
The desired enlightenment for the reform movement requires the religious mind to address two fundamental issues: freedom and social justice for all members of society, regardless of their ideological affiliations. These two issues are the root of every revolution or reform movement throughout history. If we review historical reforms and revolutions, we find that social justice or freedom was the driving force behind them.
We need to identify where the flaws lie to make decisive revisions. Islam was the first scientific methodology to advocate constructive criticism, considering it an act of worship through the concept of “commanding good and forbidding evil,” which Islam established as a pillar of successful reform.
Revisions are the first step in the arduous journey of enlightenment. Through them, we can pinpoint the ailments and prescribe the remedy, identify our faults and mistakes, and understand the causes that led us to our current state. They are akin to the daily act of repentance practiced by believers, carried out with unwavering diligence.
Conclusion
We are living in the era of post-Islamism due to the severe and catastrophic failure of political Islam movements during the Arab Spring. While these Islamist movements were not the sole reason for this failure, they were among the most significant contributors. Therefore, we can say that we have entered the post-Islamist era, as the youth in our troubled East are no longer convinced by the behavior, goals, or programs of these Islamist movements.
The post-Islamist phase is strategically as critical as the Arab Spring phase. The youth will not wait long; they are earnestly searching for someone who can fulfill their dreams of a dignified life, enabling them to focus on development, creativity, and civilizational advancement. Consequently, Enlightenment figures must unite their efforts through a clear and self-critical methodology, offering a rational approach to the concept of faith. This could become a supportive factor in development and renaissance. Otherwise, we face a daunting and uncertain future.
All publishing rights and copyrights reserved to MENA Research Center.
