Month: November 2006

The Dhimmi Syndrome: The Psychological Degradation of the Oppressed

The Dhimmi Syndrome
Twelve centuries of humiliation impressed upon the individual and collective psychologies of the oppressed groups a common form of alienation – the dhimmi syndrome. On the individual level it was characterized by a profound dehumanization. The individual, resigned to a passive existence, developed a feeling of helplessness and vulnerability, the consequence of a condition of permanent insecurity, servility, and ignorance.

The Dhimmi Syndrome: The Psychological Degradation of the Oppressed

I was psychologically traumatized recently. Don’t get me wrong. I am not talking about being hit by a mid-life crisis. Instead the reason for my distress came from UMNO politicians asserting that Malaysia should be ruled by a pivotal race (Malays). It is apparent that such sentiments are gaining ascendancy among Muslim/Malay activists, given how statements about Ketuanan Melayu dan Islam (Supremacy of Malays and Islam) are increasingly being declared publicly and unapologetically in the media.

However, the modern world no longer finds acceptable any talk of racial and religious supremacy – not after the appalling consequences of supremacist ideologies in recent history. Continue reading “The Dhimmi Syndrome: The Psychological Degradation of the Oppressed”

Separation between Religious and State Institutions (Part 2)

“One prominent model of separation is that of the secular state, sometimes called “strict separation�? between church and state. In this model, the public sphere is strictly secular in nature: laws are based on secular premises, government programs and activities are strictly secular in nature, and religion is deemed to be irrelevant to determination of the citizens’ civil obligations.

This approach tends to be animated by fear of religious divisiveness, religious warfare, sectarianism, and intolerance. The hope is to domesticate religion by privatizing it.

Separation between Religious and State Institutions (Part 2)

I begin with some observations by Nancy Rosenblum:

“One prominent model of separation is that of the secular state, sometimes called “strict separation” between church and state. In this model, the public sphere is strictly secular in nature: laws are based on secular premises, government programs and activities are strictly secular in nature, and religion is deemed to be irrelevant to determination of the citizens’ civil obligations.

This approach tends to be animated by fear of religious divisiveness, religious warfare, sectarianism, and intolerance. The hope is to domesticate religion by privatizing it. For some, disestablishmentarianism and privatization are the first steps toward reducing attachments to sectarian religion and fostering assimilation and secularization. If religion is understood as largely superstitious, propped up by the force of the state, then disestablishment of religion and the spread of enlightened reason should cause religion to wither away, without the need for coercion. Continue reading “Separation between Religious and State Institutions (Part 2)”

Separation between Religious and State Institutions (Part 1)

It is granted that religion (this includes all religions and not just Islam) is an integrated worldview and way of life. As such, practicing religion entails engagement with social life. It is futile, if not wrong to dichotomize these two spheres of human activities.

When we talk about separation between Church/Mosque and State, we are not suggesting a dichotomy between religion and society as spheres of human activity. We are suggesting the need to separate religious institutions from state institutions. We are calling for institutional separation. The separation is necessary both to protect state authorities from exploiting religion for their own political agenda and to prevent religious authorities from exploiting the state apparatus for their own (sectarian) religious agenda.

Separation between Religious and State Institutions (Part 1)

The qualified-secular status of the Malaysian Federal Constitution is been challenged in current debates on religion and society. Some Muslim activists reject the provision for the separation between state and religion since it does not grant due recognition to Islam as the religion of the majority.

It is granted that religion (this includes all religions and not just Islam) is an integrated worldview and way of life. As such, practicing religion entails engagement with social life. It is futile, if not wrong to dichotomize these two spheres of human activities.

When we talk about separation between Church/Mosque and State, we are not suggesting a dichotomy between religion and society as spheres of human activity. We are suggesting the need to separate religious institutions from state institutions. We are calling for institutional separation. The separation is necessary both to protect state authorities from exploiting religion for their own political agenda and to prevent religious authorities from exploiting the state apparatus for their own (sectarian) religious agenda.

Muslim activists who reject the call for separation argue that it is the duty of the government to enjoin virtue and prevent vice. I refer to the excellent study by Prof. Lamin Sanneh from Yale University on Shariah in Nigeria, Note the caution regarding the hazards to democratic justice that flow from the attempt to bring together (confuse) religious and state institutions. Continue reading “Separation between Religious and State Institutions (Part 1)”