Introduction

Why does the presence of religion in the public sphere provoke such intense, polarized, and fragile debates in Muslim societies? Why does the same religious tradition function as a folkloric or cultural legacy in some regions, while becoming the epicenter of political crises, identity conflicts, and ideological polarization in others? Conventional explanations—such as “underdevelopment,” “dogmatism,” or “traditional social structures”—offer only superficial clarity. Rather than explaining the phenomenon, they obscure it by reducing a complex historical and sociological issue to cultural determinism.

The central problem is not what religion is, but what religion represents within Muslim societies. Religion here is not merely a system of metaphysical beliefs; it is deeply embedded in social order, moral reasoning, political legitimacy, and collective identity. Consequently, debates about religion inevitably transcend theology and become debates about power, belonging, and the future direction of society itself.

1. Divergent Modernization Paths and the Limits of Secularization Theory

Classical modernization theory, particularly in the work of Max Weber, interprets Western modernity as a process accompanied by the gradual retreat of religion from the public sphere. Secularization theories often portray religion as an increasingly privatized matter of individual conscience. However, this model is largely derived from Western European historical experience and is frequently presented as a universal trajectory.

In modern Western societies, as Charles Taylor has argued, belief is no longer the default condition. Religion has largely ceased to function as a primary identity marker and instead operates as a cultural memory or historical reference. As a result, public debates about religion tend to be relatively subdued, abstract, and detached, precisely because what is being discussed is no longer a living social structure but a symbolic heritage.

In contrast, modernization in Muslim societies has often been rapid, externally driven, and socially disruptive. Traditional institutions were dismantled or weakened without the parallel construction of stable alternative frameworks. In this context, religion simultaneously became a target of reformist critique and a final refuge of social coherence. This dual positioning inevitably placed religion at the center of social and political conflict, intensifying both its symbolic weight and the emotional charge surrounding debates about it.

2. Religion as a Constitutive Social Framework in Muslim Societies

Historically, religion in Muslim societies has functioned not only as a belief system but as a comprehensive framework regulating law, ethics, time, space, and social relations. Ibn Khaldun’s analysis of asabiyyah demonstrates how religion contributes to social cohesion and political legitimacy, embedding itself within the very foundations of collective life.

As a result, debates about religion in Muslim contexts are never purely intellectual or doctrinal. They directly challenge existing forms of social order. Questioning religion is perceived not as critiquing an idea, but as destabilizing a way of life. This structural centrality explains the intensity and perceived existential threat that often accompany such discussions.

Secularization in Muslim societies has frequently been presented as the promise of a “neutral public sphere.” Yet, as Alasdair MacIntyre persuasively argues, no moral or political order is ever truly neutral. When religion retreats from public life, the resulting vacuum is inevitably filled by alternative values, norms, and symbolic absolutes. The problem arises when these new normative frameworks claim neutrality while simultaneously positioning themselves beyond critique, thereby generating new forms of ideological rigidity.

3. Identity Crisis, Civilizational Anxiety, and Polarization

Another key factor contributing to the harshness of religious debates in Muslim societies is the persistence of identity vacuums. Malik Bennabi conceptualized this condition as a “civilizational crisis,” emphasizing that it is not merely economic or political, but fundamentally existential. It reflects a loss of meaning, direction, and historical continuity.

When traditional reference points weaken without being replaced by inclusive and credible alternatives, individuals and communities gravitate toward extreme ideologies or fragile forms of belonging. In such conditions, religion is transformed into either an impregnable fortress that must be defended at all costs or an absolute obstacle that must be dismantled. Both positions intensify polarization and undermine the possibility of social equilibrium.

Paradoxically, the intensity of these debates also signals religion’s enduring vitality. Truly marginal or obsolete institutions do not provoke sustained ideological struggle. The very ferocity of the discourse indicates that religion continues to possess significant meaning-making power within Muslim societies. In this sense, discursive conflict reflects centrality rather than decline.

Conclusion

The harsh debate over religion in Muslim societies should not be interpreted as an anomaly, but as a symptom of deeper struggles over identity, memory, and social direction. Wherever a society is uncertain about who it is and where it is going, debates over foundational values inevitably become intense.

The critical challenge, therefore, is not to sacralize religion into an untouchable domain, nor to seek its complete exclusion from public life. Rather, it is to cultivate the capacity to discuss religion as an integral component of social reality—critically, calmly, and without existential panic. In many cases, harshness is not a sign of excessive belief, but of communicative failure. Ultimately, the future of religious discourse in Muslim societies depends less on theology than on the broader question of how these societies choose to relate to their own history, identity, and pluralism.