Politicizing religion harms both religion and politics

How nice were our dreams when we were entering the "information age." All totalitarian regimes, left and right, had fallen. The correctness of democracy and the market economy were certainly proven. 

The "Arab Spring" had elevated this optimism all together; "Muslim democracy" concepts started being debated. 

However, this optimism did not last long. The only democracy the Arab Spring generated has been the Tunisian democracy. Except for Tunisia, bloody sectarianism, identity-based massacres and military regimes like the one in Egypt came out of the Arab Spring.  

The underlying feature in Tunisia's success is a huge virtue that even we don't have here at an adequate dose. Both the Islamists and the seculars were able to sit down and compromise. This is a philosophical advancement beyond the narrow meaning of "writing a constitution." 

Islamists did not acclaim the "Sovereignty belongs to Allah" slogan of radical political Islamists, they accepted the "sovereignty belongs to the people" slogan, which has secular features. Seculars, on the other hand, did not acclaim the "laicization" slogan of the radicals; they accepted freedom of religion and conscience in the liberal meaning. They also added a clause to their constitution: "The mosques should not be instrumentalized, they should be impartial."

The underlying philosophy is to avoid radicalism, and encourage the mentality of sharing power and the culture of conciliation.  

Because the wise leader of Islamists in Tunisia, Rached Ghannouchi, and secular parties both held this virtue, they reconciled and wrote a constitution hand in hand and approved it. So much so that because it was approved in the Constituent Assembly with 200 votes against 12 votes, there was no...

Continue reading on: