A lot of Muslim people say that secular governments are incompatible with Islam but certain countries such as Turkey and Indonesia still uphold secular governments. Typical causes of religiosity don’t seem to hold up, considering that Turkey and Saudi Arabia have similar levels of income inequality and high literacy rates. I hypothesized that the difference could be how the spread of Islam occurred, with more peaceful transitions promoting less strict conformity to Islam but that doesn’t seem to fully make sense either. So what are some valid explanations for the difference in secularity?
Comments
Thanks for your question to /r/AskSocialScience. All posters, please remember that this subreddit requires peer-reviewed, cited sources (Please see Rule 1 and 3). All posts that do not have citations will be removed by AutoMod. Circumvention by posting unrelated link text is grounds for a ban. Well sourced comprehensive answers take time. If you’re interested in the subject, and you don’t see a reasonable answer, please consider [clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=AskSocialScience Reminder).
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
One part of the answer is that Christianity and Judaism both have had their reformations. This means a legitimate middle ground and semi secular space exists for the religion to exist. Islam, being relatively new, hasn’t had its reformation. Therefore, the choice is often between secularism or dogmatic religiosity. Reza Aslan’s “No God but God” lays this argument rather well.
https://www.academia.edu/44533127/No_god_but_God_The_Origins_Evolution_and_Future_of_Islam_PDFDrive_
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
I am vaguely familiar with Indonesia’s case, having been born there. Indonesia is indeed nominally secular due to its constitution, although how it translates on the ground is different.
Moreover, Indonesia’s national motto is: “Bhinneka Tunggal Ika,” which can roughly be translated to “Unity in Diversity,” which was set by its founders in 1945 in recognition of the diversity from which this country was created (Hartanti & Ardhana, 2022, pp. 153-155).
Accompanying this motto is five principles:
>1.Belief in the one and only God (Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa).
> 2.Just and civilized humanity (Kemanusiaan Yang Adil dan Beradab).
> 3.The unity of Indonesia (Persatuan Indonesia).
> 4.Democracy is guided by the wisdom of deliberations among representatives (Kerakyatan Yang Dipimpin oleh Hikmat Kebijaksanaan Dalam Permusyawaratan dan Perwakilan).
> 5.Social justice for all the people in Indonesia (Keadilan Sosial bagi seluruh Rakyat Indonesia)
, which according to Fauzi and Asy’ari (2024, p.151), was utilised as a secularising tool to disallow any religion to dominate during the New Order Regime. This lasted from the late 1960s to 1998, when Suharto was forced to resign (Aspinall & Fealy, 2010).
Nevertheless, subsequent regimes has followed the foundational principles although there is no longer a restricting of religion with political Islamic parties now active (Fauzi & Asy’ari, 2024, p.152). Recent trends seem to indicate an upswing in religiosity among the majority Muslims (ibid., p.153).
Notes:
Returning once again to the five principles, due to their nature, some scholars proposed that Indonesia is neither a religious nor secular state (Ropi, 2019; Seo, 2012).
Seo (2012) noted that the nature of Islam practiced in Indonesia is different from other Muslim societies, as it contains pre-Islamic influences like animism and Buddhism. However, whether or not this correlates to political views, according to the paper I found, is uncertain (Fossati, 2019).
References:
Aspinall, Edward, and Greg Fealy. Introduction: Soeharto’s New Order and Its Legacy. ANU Press, 2010.
Fauzi, Muhammad Fahmi Basyhah , and Muh. Asy’ari. “Secularism and Democracy: A Comparative Study of Turkey and Indonesia.” Journal of International and Local Studies, 2 July 2024, journal.unibos.ac.id/jils/article/view/4756/2317. Accessed 2 May 2025.
Fossati, Diego. “The Resurgence of Ideology in Indonesia: Political Islam, Aliran and Political Behaviour.” Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, vol. 38, no. 2, Aug. 2019, pp. 119–148, https://doi.org/10.1177/1868103419868400.
Hartanti, Priskila Shendy, and Dwi Ardhana. “Bhinneka Tunggal Ika: Indonesia Circumscribed Norm Multiculturalism.” Global: Jurnal Politik Internasional, vol. 24, no. 1, 30 July 2022, https://doi.org/10.7454/global.v24i1.699.
Ropi, Ismatu. “Whither Religious Moderation? The State and Management of Religious Affairs in Contemporary Indonesia.” Studia Islamika, vol. 26, no. 3, 2019, pp. 597–601, journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/studia-islamika/article/view/14055/7203, https://doi.org/10.36712/sdi.v26i3.14055. Accessed 2 May 2025.
Seo, Myengkyo. “Defining “Religious” in Indonesia: Toward Neither an Islamic nor a Secular State.” Citizenship Studies, vol. 16, no. 8, Dec. 2012, pp. 1045–1058, https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2012.735028.
Even the “secular” muslim countries are only nominally so. What muslim-majority country is truly secular?
In the context of nation states religion is a political tool. Having most citizens be a certain religion doesn’t make that country a religious state.
In the context of predominantly Muslim nations it’s a case by case study on how they came to their current states.
If we look at secular Turkey we see the modern founders of that nation and their political movement made secularization a pillar of that countries culture and political system. [1] the party of Ataturk fought against jihadist movements politically within the legal framework of the Democratic system.
Modern Saudi Arabia was founded by an autocratic monarchy using Islamic rule to justify staying in power. The foundation of modern Saudi Arabia is Wahhabism [2]. Saudi Arabia is a religious state because the government wants it to be. Turkey is a secular state because the government wants it to be.
Iran was an autocratic secular country before the Islamic revolution that turned it into an autocratic religious state. In both cases it was the government that decided to empower or denounce religious groups seeking a government adherence to Islamic law.
A lot of the more religious Islamic nations have a history of being more secular at a point in recent history but seeing political changes shift cultural attitudes of religions rule in a States government. Libya comes to mind, significantly more secular during the dictatorship of Gaddafi but post civil war it has become an extremely religious society as religious law and culture replaced the previous government power structures.
Also important to note that there’s a spectrum. There’s a lot of distance between a complete religious state and a complete secular state. No country on earth regardless of religion is on either end completely.
Sources:
[1] https://youtu.be/tuChcpF7ioU?si=uEdkA3TxOc7qtQB_
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism
The US and the cold War. When I first read up about this, I was stunned at how simple the answer is.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/07/16/want-to-understand-islamic-extremism-the-answer-isnt-in-islam-its-in-the-cold-war/
[removed]