at least over the past 30 years, i have been calling for the application of the principles of secularism in the state to escape from the bondage of extremism and sectarianism.
at the height of the racial conflict in his country, the south african cleric (and theologian known for his work as an anti-apartheid and human rights activist) desmond mpilo tutu said: “the rule of the white minority will end sooner or later, so why not end the conflict as soon as possible to save the lives of thousands of victims and billions of dollars in losses.”
in the same spirit, ‘why do we not apply secularism, so we can shorten the distance that separates us from other developed and tolerant peoples, instead of getting involved in all this backwardness, getting lost in all this whirlpool of ignorance, knowing secularism will sooner than later will be here to stay, irrespective whether the backward people want it or not.
when we meet a person, many people are keen to know something about his religious background, origin, and sect before opening any conversation with, for the simple reason they don’t want to touch the sensitive or rather ‘forbidden’ topics and this is what you don’t find in western countries. i can say this with confidence based on long personal experience.
the purpose of asking the origin and race comes with the belief of determining the standing of that person or stranger in society, for example, without paying attention to the truth of what has been accomplished or what that person has done for his community.
in the same context, we do not care much about knowing the religion and doctrine of the people who have given us everything -- a civilization that kept abreast with the age, medicines, serums, and made other cultural and scientific contributions to our society to help us keep pace with the world.
secularism at best may be incompatible with a particular religion, but it is definitely for the good of all religions in one society, and there is no society today whose family religion is limited to one belief, so everyone needs ‘all’, and therefore be secular, no matter how much his secular extremism remains, is not ready to kill the other due to the difference in doctrine, because in secularism respect for all religions is the same irrespective of how much a person believes his religion in the best.
the proponents of democracy have long waited to hear ‘ahmad al-ghamdi’, one of the senior saudi clerics, who says secularism is not related to religion, or that it does address religion, meaning it does not urge or intimidate, and it is a path to people’s policy and preserving their rights.
it is a kind of mechanism for dealing with the rights of the citizen and the country, preserving the rights of any religion, and whatever the doctrine is within that religion, without prejudice to religion, and that there are agreed-upon aspects among the followers of all religions, such as the prohibition of killing and theft, and it gives space for the followers of religions in their choices, provided the state does not interfere except to protect the adherents of any religion or sect.
consequently, i do not find any justification in attacking secularism or its origin, as secularism is an organization or mechanism to protect the rights of the citizen and the ruler, which is not something worth entering into a dispute, although it is distorted to a large extent.
nb: for those who want to listen to it, open the following link: https://www.instagram.com/tv/b8s_ fx8fnk4/?igshid=1cluah6teshtf