Al-Khaldi1
Mansoor Al-Khaldi
Pearson Bolt
ENC1102
17 September 17
Can Secularism save Middle East?
In ancient times empires fall just because they relied on religions in the matter of politics.
Before Nation-State system, religion was the bonding force in most of the areas. But, we aren’t
living in ancient era. This is 21st century and there are no empires left in any part of the world.
Nation-State system was established in 17th century and this system separates political
institutions from religious institutions and enable them to make their own decisions away from
the shadow of religions. Although this seems like a wise step but this act creates a new issue for
the world. Asia, South America, North America, Australia, Africa, and Europe mostly adopted
democracy. Political and religious institutions are separated but there is one region in which a
confusion prevails and that is Middle East. Middle Eastern states are mostly the followers of
Islam and it is the region where various conflicts are going on. Arab Spring was the time when
almost every state was in chaotic state. Some states are disturbed by external factors and some
can’t seem to handle internal problems. Some of those internal and external factors claim that the
problems of Middle East can only be solved through secularism. The root of Middle Eastern
problems is the old monarchy system where one ruler has the power and religion has authority
over all other institutions. Over this issue, there is a division formed. There are governments like
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia who totally supports the idea of Middle East without secularism. Their
stake is the preservation of customs and their own rule. Then there are voices like non-Muslim
Arabs, democratic political parties, and modernist Muslim thinkers who oppose the idea of
inseparability of politics from religion. These two stakeholders have their own goals, but they
both hold goodwill for the people of Middle East. Their ways are different, ideas are different but
goals are common. It seems that due to clash of ideas both stakeholders will not come together in
near future until there’s a workable solution to the issues of Middle East. Secularism can save
Middle East or not? It is the basic question. Many parts of Middle East are war torn e.g. Syria.
To resolve this issue in Middle East a political change is must. Like some democratic
Al-Khaldi1
monarchies, powers must remain with first stakeholders i.e. government but with some amend,
institutions must be separated. There are several examples of such states. In England, their
customs are alive but there is democracy. A similar structure can resolve Middle Eastern
problems. People will get what they want and rulers will stay in power with some amendments.
That’s how both stakeholders will get what they want.
The matter of religion is always a sensitive issue for Middle East. For example, Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia is an Islamic state but world criticize them for their strict policies. This isn’t an
easy task to take rulers of these Islamic countries and revolutionary parties at one platform.
That’s why first we have to understand what are the goals and beliefs of both stakeholders and
what will be the circumstances that lead them to a common ground to resolve the debate on the
issue of secularism in Middle East. Additionally, Muslim people can never be separated from the
spirit of Islam that’s why if the common ground suggest a secular way for Middle East, it must
not violate the basic rules and regulations of Islam otherwise the common people will never
except such secularism in Middle East (Wu 17).
John L. Esposito, modernization and development theory had for decades maintained
unequivocally that “the development of modern states and societies required Westernization and
secularization. Religion would then become restricted to private life. And if some spoke of the
privatization of religion, others predicted the marginalization and ultimate disappearance of
traditional belief.”. (19). This is what happening in Saudi Arabia. Saudi rulers are ruling in their
country from 1932 (Fawcett, 2005). Almost a century is about to past, they have the ultimate
power. Power is the first stake that these rulers have. Even if it is monarchy, presidency or any
other system. Middle Eastern countries seem to follow their leaders without any questions.
Sharia law is implemented in whole Saudi Arabia. Women aren’t allowed to drive cars.
Prisoner’s punishment is different from the rest of the world. Rulers have their own will. On the
other hand, these rulers have a rivalry with Iran, another Islamic state whose sect is different
from the sect of Saudi Arabia. The purpose is simple, rulers want people to follow them blindly
and people are doing the same. Middle Eastern states are in a fixed condition of a long time and
they simply don’t want change (Hamid, 2011).
Arab monarchies were long thought to be more favorable to democratization than
republics. Monarchs who enjoyed popular legitimacy and political security are on balance more
Al-Khaldi1
willing to take risks, the argument went, gradually letting go of power and embarking on
potentially destabilizing reforms. Since kings do not depend on elections to maintain power, they
have less to fear from holding them (Wu, 22). In short, the goal of these Middle Eastern
governments is to hold their offices and maintain the already existing system in Middle East.
Opposite to these governments, there are parties with more democratic agendas, parties
who want to separate political institutions from religion. During the protests of Arab Spring,
protestors from different parties and groups demand more freedom and they protested for
secularism. In the results, Egypt and Tunisia, both led by unpopular presidents, were the first to
go. The other likely candidates for revolutions Libya, Yemen, and possibly Algeria are all
republics. But there is a difference between removing presidents and removing monarchs.
Muhammad ʿAbduh, a prominent Muslim modernist thinker, claimed in his book “Al-Idtihad fi
Al-Nasraniyya wa Al-Islam” that no one had exclusive religious authority in the Islamic world.
He argued that the Caliph did not represent religious authority, because he was not infallible nor
was the Caliph the person whom the revelation was given to; therefore, according to Abduh, the
Caliph and other Muslims are equal. ʿAbduh argued that the Caliph should have the respect of
the umma but not rule it; the unity of the umma is a moral unity which does not prevent its
division into national state (Abduh, 1993).
The argument of Muhammad Abduh was based on the ideas of Islam. Modernist thinkers
thought secular Islam as the base of a developed Muslim society. That’s why their goal was to
change conventional system with a secular system. According to the scholar, Eliezer Tauber:
He was of the opinion that according to Islam 'the rule over the nation is in its own hands
and its government is a sort of a republic. The caliph has no superiority in law over the
lowest of the congregation; he only executes the religious law and the will of the nation.'
And he added: 'For the Muslims, the caliph is not infallible and not the source of
revelation.' And therefore, 'the nation has the right to depose the imam-caliph, if it finds a
reason for doing so (Tauber, n.d.).
Now that the goals and ambitions of both governments in Middle East and modernist
thinkers are clear. Let’s get towards a workable solution that can resolve the debate on the issue
of either secularism is good or not for Middle East. Most powerful example is of Turkey. Turkey
is a living example for other Middle Eastern states. Mustafa Kamal Pasha introduced a system
Al-Khaldi1
where Muslims are living under the rules and regulations of their religion but their political
institutions are separated from religion (Challenges to Secular Movements in the Middle East,
n.d.). People have more freedom and opinion. A society like Turkey must be the role model for
Middle Eastern states who always fight with each other on small affairs. Only problem that exist
is the will of rulers to save their rules in case of a changing system. The solution to this problem
is the democratic monarchy like Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, and Bahrain. These monarchies are
constitutional monarchies. Some of these states save themselves by adopting constitution after
Arab Spring protests in their states. These two examples have proven to be workable, so the
middle way for Middle East by which both stakeholders will be satisfied is the adoption of a
system that will be the amalgamation of Turk and constitutional monarchy systems. That’s how
people of Middle East will get their rights in proper sense.
Al-Khaldi1
Work Cited
Abduh, Muhammad. al-Idtihad fi al-Nasraniyya wa al-Islam. In al-A'mal al-Kamila li al-Imam
Muhammad ʿAbduh. edited by Muhammad ʿAmara. 1993. Cairo: Dar al-Shuruk. Print.
Challenges to Secular Movements in the Middle East: A Comparison of Islamic and Secular
Actors in Turkey and Tunisia. IDRC. n,d. Web. 8 September, 2017.
https://www.idrc.ca/en/project/challenges-secular-movements-middle-east-comparisonislamic-and-secular-actors-turkey-and.
Fawcett, L. International Relations in the Middle East. 2007. Oxford University Press. p 123.
Print.
Hamid, Shadi. Why Middle East Monarchies Might Hold On. The Atlantic. 8 March 2011. Web.
8 September 9, 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/03/whymiddle-east-monarchies-might-hold-on/72170/.
Tauber, Eliezer. Three Approaches, One Idea: Religion and State in the Thought of 'Abd alRahman al-Kawakibi, Najib 'Azuri and Rashid Rida. In British Journal of Middle Eastern
Studies Vol.21. 2010. Print.
Wu, Bingbing. Secularism and Secularization in the Arab World. n.p, n.d. PDF.
PEER-REVIEW WORKSHEET:
Reviewed By:
Instructions:
Read through your peer’s essay, making notes in the margins, highlighting, circling, etc. Then
answer the questions below in 2-3 sentences.
Introduction:
What is the writer’s thesis?
How does the writer prepare the reader for the essay?
After reading the introduction, what do you expect this essay to be about?
Body Paragraphs:
What do you think of the paper’s overall organization? Do the paragraphs make sense where they
are? Should anything be rearranged?
What’s the strongest paragraph? Why does it work so well?
Which paragraph needs the most work? What advice/insight can you provide to help?
Conclusion:
Does the conclusion just repeat the same info as the intro? If so, how can the writer adjust the
conclusion to look ahead instead of reflecting on what’s already been written?
Why was this essay worth reading? What did the writer teach you that you didn’t already know?
Closing Remarks:
What was the best part of this essay?
What should the writer make sure to pay attention to as he/she revises this draft?
Alexis 1
Shawenda Alexis
Professor Bolt
ENC 1102
7 September 2017
Abortion: Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice
To commence with, a question may be what exactly is abortion. Any individual may have their
different perception of what abortion means. According to Meriam-Webster, it states abortion “is
the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death
of the embryo or fetus: such as a spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks
of gestation, compare miscarriage or induced expulsion of a human fetus.” (Meriam-Webster,
1828) Across the United States, the issue of abortion is a concerning problem in our society. As
reported by Health Care for Women International “Abortion is one of the most common surgical
procedures performed on women in the United States, with at least three in 10 women experiencing
at least one abortion by age 45. Nearly half of all pregnancies are unintended, and about four in 10
of these are terminated by abortion. Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies end in abortion.”
(Medoff, 2016) Abortion even influenced the U.S election process between the democrats and the
republicans. Individuals protest, movements and rallies about abortion. There are two sides in this
debate, pro-life and pro-choice. These two sides contradict each other immensely. As stated in an
article on Collins “Someone who is pro-life thinks that women do not have a right to choose
whether to continue their pregnancy and give birth to a child and that abortion is wrong in most or
all circumstances.” (Collins, 2017) As for pro-choice, according to an article on Feminist Women’s
Health Center it states “To be pro-choice is to support self-determination to make decisions free
Alexis 2
from judgment. Pro-Choice is the responsibility to yourself and the freedom to decide to take
control of your own life process. Pro-Choice is not just about reproduction but the freedom to
decide your life course with the support and respect of others. It represents power and pride in
self.” (FWHC, 2002) Both pro-choice and pro-life individuals have surfaced decisions about
having a common ground about the topic of abortion.
Furthermore, pro-choice, and pro-life women and induvial have different perspectives and
views about abortion. There are different organizations and groups that pronounce each of their
perspectives publicly. As for the pro-choice side, they had a movement of organization and
activisms in the abortion conflict. According to a book reference from Staggaenborg, it referred
to the emergence which legalized abortions in the states. “In the 1960s a movement led by family
planning activists and feminists emerged to challenge state anti-abortion laws, resulting in the
landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion throughout the U.S.
Using interviews with the past and present activists and historical records of movement
organizations, this book traces the development of the "pro-choice" movement from its origins
through the 1980s” (Staggenborg, 2000) More on individuals who believe abortion should be a
choice for women. There may be women who experience rape or incest that may not want to keep
their child. As stated in an article on Heroic Media there are numerous reasons such as “Reason
number one: Too Young or Immature. Not ready for responsibility (32% of total). Reason number
two: Economic (30% of total) Reason number three: To avoid adjusting life (16% of total). Reason
number four: poor relationship with the father (12% of total). Reason number five: Enough
Children already (8% of total) So those five reasons accounted for 98%. The remaining 2% of the
reasons included rape, incest, physical health of a mother, and fetal health.” (Heroic Media, 2015)
An organization for the pro-choice side would be NARAL Pro-Choice America, which they believe
Alexis 3
in “Each day, we organize and mobilize to protect that freedom by fighting for access to abortion
care, birth control paid parental leave and protections from pregnancy discrimination. We believe
abortion must remain legal and accessible. We are the foot soldiers who work to ensure that
abortion access is not only protected but expanded for every American.” ( Naral, 2017) I believe
that choosing to keep or abort the unborn child, is an immense and important decision that should
be taken wisely.
To continue, to the perspective of the pro-life individuals, they believe that abortion is murder
and is like taking away an innocent human life. Also, abortion could lead to medical complications
for pregnancy later in their adulthood life. My mother’s best friend since childhood had a couple
abortions throughout her life. As she entered her adulthood and middle life, she regrets all those
abortions because now she can’t have children anymore. The abortion created a complication in
her can give birth to children. There is a reason why some people believe that every child should
have the right to live. According to TFP Student Action, it states the reasons why they support the
pro-life side of abortion: "Abortion Offends God, Procedure abortion is never a mere personal
choice but a grave offense against God and His creation. Life starts conception, living beings come
into existence all at once and gradually unfold their world of innate potential. Mankind must
protect innocent life,” Pregnancy termination" stops the beating heart of an innocent human being
and is in direct contradiction to this most basic premise of human nature. Lastly, abortion is unsafe,
the abortion industry is largely unregulated; LifeDynamics.com compiled a list of 249 women
killed by legal abortions.” (TFP, 2009) From these two perspectives, I believe it’s a matter of a
person’s opinion on what they particularly believe in. There are some pro-life movements that go
as strict as leading women to legal actions to a person who completes abortion. As stated in an
article about the United States pro-life movement “Pro-life supporters believe that any
Alexis 4
endangerment to the unborn fetus should be a criminal offense. They believe that abortion, which
many deem to be a fetal homicide, is a criminal act and that prosecuting abortion providers is an
opportunity to protect unborn children and their mothers. Opponents of fetal homicide laws argue
that such legislation is contrary to individual freedoms as they could lead to more infringement on
women’s rights and access to health care. In some countries with strict abortion laws, women have
been arrested and investigated after having an unintended miscarriage. If US pro-life initiatives
are successful, abortion providers could face prison time for performing the procedure and mothers
who are deemed to have endangered their fetus could also face criminal penalties.” (Daniels, 2016)
An organization that also supports the pro-life movement side would be National Right to Life
organization, their goal is “Working to restore legal protection to the most defenseless members
of our society who are threatened by abortion, infanticide, assisted suicide and euthanasia. The
mission of National Right to Life is to protect and defend the most fundamental right of
humankind, the right to life of every innocent human being from the beginning of life to natural
death” (Nrlc, 1968) Assuredly human life is precious and valuable, individuals should be
accounted for a life.
Concludingly, certainly both stakeholders oppose each other and seems to be at odds. The
reason why is one is anti-abortion and the other is pro-abortion, or pro-life and pro-choice. There’s
been a rise of concern if both pro-life and pro-choice abortion will ever come to a compromise.
This may come to a surprise, but pro-life and pro-choice individuals do agree on certain things.
For example, favor paid leave, favor sick leave, and favor $15 minimum wage. There have been
rallies and discussions for these two opposing stakeholders to reach a compromise. As I’m thinking
about the stakeholders, I believe there is one thing that they also have in common. They both have
in the type of way care for the child’s well-being. For example, for the pro-choice women, she
Alexis 5
may want to abort her child because she doesn’t want that child to enter a world of poverty
depending on her financial stability. As for the pro-life women, she may want to give birth to the
child but not keep it, and put the child up for adoption so they can be with a more well-suited
family. Both stakeholders, I believe need to reach a specific compromise to achieve their purpose.
In other words, both sides will be happy with the agreement. These discussions could be held at
state meeting specifically about abortion. Also, another way could be for each side discussing their
views in a peaceful manner, maybe through protest to achieve their purpose. Reaching a
compromise for both pro-choice and pro-life individual is difficult since both their opinions are
equally valuable in their point of views. The first compromise could be for the new generation and
present should refuse to take part of the abortion wars and listen to both views on both sides of the
topic. There are certain things that need to be in place for the compromise to be accomplished. For
example, individuals shouldn’t have a short-sighted mindset view. Being open to listening to other
individual’s views, like the pro-choice and pro-life women. The second compromise I believe
would work, is to let each side do as they please. Meaning if one person wants to keep their child
they can. If the other wants to abort their child that’s their choice. At the end of the day, I believe
each person has a conscience and will certainly do the right thing if they desire to.
Alexis 6
Works Citied
“Abortion.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/abortion. Accessed 11 Sept. 2017.
Attebery, Brett . “The Top 5 Reasons Why Women Choose to Abort Their Babies.” Heroic
Media, 23 Feb. 2017, heroicmedia.org/the-top-5-reasons-why-women-choose-to-abort-theirbabies/. Accessed 11 Sept. 2017.
Daniels, Nila, MPH. "United States Pro-Life Movement." Salem Press Encyclopedia, January.
EBSCOhost.
“Definition of 'pro-Life'.” Pro-Life definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary,
www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/pro-life. Accessed 11 Sept. 2017.
Medoff, Marshall. "Pro-Choice Versus Pro-Life: The Relationship between State Abortion
Policy and Child Well-Being in the United States." Health Care for Women International, vol.
37, no. 2, Feb. 2016, pp. 158-169.
Staggenborg, Suzanne. Pro-Choice Movement : Organization and Activism in the Abortion
Conflict. Cary :Oxford University Press, 2000., 2000. EBSCOhost,
ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.
What does Pro-Choice mean to you?, 4 Oct. 2002, www.fwhc.org/take-action/pro-choice.htm.
Accessed 11 Sept. 2017.
“10 Reasons Why Abortion is Evil & Not a Pro-Choice.” TFP Student Action, 15 May 2009,
www.tfpstudentaction.org/blog/10-reasons-why-abortion-is-evil-not-a-pro-choice. Accessed 11
Sept. 2017.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment