Current debate about religion and politics in this country often seems to focus on whether religion should be a public or a private matter. One side of the debate will contend that the solution to problems of religious extremism lies in taking religion out of the public picture. AC Grayling has suggested that, "It is time to demand of believers that they take their personal choices and preferences in these non-rational and too often dangerous matters into the private sphere... Everyone is free to believe what they want, providing they do not bother (or coerce, or kill) others."
A popular counter-argument to this debate (which today is often framed in the context of Islamic extremism) is to insist that we do need the divine in the public debate but it would be best for all concerned if the divine doesn’t speak too loudly and wherever possible reflects the 'moderate' (read uncontroversial, un-extreme and possibly a bit feeble) interpretation. This opposition to the call for private religion is equally unsatisfactory. Whilst acknowledging that in today’s multi-cultural globalised 21st century state, we might be returning to a religious and secular public square, it implies that this can only work as long as the religious people are not too religious in their public commitment to faith.
Neither of these opposing positions is particularly satisfactory. Civil society is neither suited to a purely secular public sphere where religious traditions can only thrive behind closed doors, nor is it satisfied by a vague and superficial acknowledgement of a woolly liberalism that sort of allows religion in to public spaces but keeps a pretty tight rein on what it is allowed to say or think. What we really need is a complex coexistence of the religious and the secular in the public sphere that does full justice to the passionately religious and the passionately secular amongst us. This is because real life presents us with a messy and complicated picture of what society actually is and this includes people of extreme religious faith who must rub alongside those of none. God’s presence in the public square is particularly important and it’s not just the God of the polite and amenable 'moderate'. The challenge for civil society is to find the appropriate ways of drawing on the intensities of religious commitment to contribute to the flourishing of a peaceful society.
The Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme recently invited religious and political leaders from over 30 countries to take part in a conference entitled 'Islam and Muslims in the World Today'. The same old themes were presented; human rights, gender, citizenship, faith and the state, but the emphasis of this conference was different. In his keynote speech, then Prime Minister Tony Blair said that, "religious faith has much to contribute to the public sphere... and is an essential way of helping to make society work".
The purpose of the conference was to listen to Muslims from this country and abroad. It was an opportunity to learn what the Muslim tradition has to offer to civil society. It sought alternatives to a Western secular discourse that squeezes out God and attempts to fit Muslim communities living in the West into a static secular settlement. Might there instead, the conference asked, be a case for suggesting that the West include religious commitment in the debate? Rather than stamping a western secular understanding of gender equality or universal human rights onto these groups (and letting them do the 'religious bit' at home), is it perhaps time for the West to explore how such groups might draw on the resources of their tradition to answer the questions that the West puts to them? Sheikh Ali Goma, Grand Mufti of Al Azhar University, referred to history's ninety schools of Islamic law and spoke of the flexibility and adaptability of that law as "perhaps its greatest asset", which provides "people with practical and relevant guidance while at the same time staying true to its foundational principles".
It was encouraging for those committed to a theological debate of socio-political issues to note that this approach was welcomed by the vast majority of delegates. Muslim participants expressed their delight at being asked to consider what their religious teachings could contribute to the public debate, and policy makers appeared ready to listen. Delegates spoke of the need for a human rights discourse that can be addressed through a religious lens. Questions of human rights are really questions about human flourishing, and debate at the conference revealed that the Islamic tradition has a rich store of thought to contribute. Similarly with the relationship between faith and the state or gender issues. The former is an important debate in Muslim scholarship and the role of women continues to exercise Muslim scholars both in countries where Muslims are majority, as well as where they are minority. Religion has much to contribute to the public square.
Isn't it time that the divine is brought fully back into the public space? And in so doing, we mustn't simply welcome debate for the compromising middle ground or the quiet voice of moderation - since when did anyone want people who are moderately just, moderately loyal or moderately honest? We must find ways of bringing the orthodox, the conservative, the liberal and the secular to the table. This is a call to people who are serious about their religion, about good religion in its many guises, people who are passionately faithful, just, loyal and honest, to come into the public realm. It is through a renewed and stronger engagement between the deeply religious and the secular that a good society will be built.
Catriona Laing is Project Manager of the Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme
