Asad on the Secular

2013 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Auwais Rafudeen

This paper examines a South African debate on legislating Muslim marriages in the light of anthropologist Talal Asad’s critique developed in his Formations of the Secular (2003). It probes aspects of the debate under four Asadian themes: (1) the historicity of the secular, secularism, and secularization; (2) the place of power and the new articulations of discourses it creates; (3) the state as the arm of that power; and (4) the interconnections (or dislocations) among law, ethics, and the organic environment (habitus). I argue that Asad illumines the debate in the following ways: (1) by providing a deeper historical and philosophical appreciation of its terms of reference, given that the proposed legislation will be subject to South Africa’s secular Bill of Rights and constitution; (2) by requiring us to examine and interrogate the genealogies of such particular hegemonic discourses as human rights, which some participants appear to present as ahistorical and privileged; and (3) by showing, through the concept of habitus, why this debate needs to go beyond its present piecemeal legal nature and develop an appreciation of the organic linkages among the Shari‘ah, morality, community, and self. Yet inevitable nuances are produced when applying Asad’s ideas to the South African context.

2013 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Auwais Rafudeen

This paper examines a South African debate on legislating Muslim marriages in the light of anthropologist Talal Asad’s critique developed in his Formations of the Secular (2003). It probes aspects of the debate under four Asadian themes: (1) the historicity of the secular, secularism, and secularization; (2) the place of power and the new articulations of discourses it creates; (3) the state as the arm of that power; and (4) the interconnections (or dislocations) among law, ethics, and the organic environment (habitus). I argue that Asad illumines the debate in the following ways: (1) by providing a deeper historical and philosophical appreciation of its terms of reference, given that the proposed legislation will be subject to South Africa’s secular Bill of Rights and constitution; (2) by requiring us to examine and interrogate the genealogies of such particular hegemonic discourses as human rights, which some participants appear to present as ahistorical and privileged; and (3) by showing, through the concept of habitus, why this debate needs to go beyond its present piecemeal legal nature and develop an appreciation of the organic linkages among the Shari‘ah, morality, community, and self. Yet inevitable nuances are produced when applying Asad’s ideas to the South African context.


2009 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Smit

Boundaries for church and state regarding the regulation of the ministry of the Word: seen from two church polity traditions This article focuses on the boundaries for church and state with regard to the regulation of the ministry of the Word – seen from two independent church polity traditions. Until now the South African courts have not given an indication of how these boun- daries should be understood or how these apply within the South African context. The purpose of this article is not to make a judicial comparison. The purpose is to show that two indepen- dent church polity traditions, namely the German and the reformed, developed general principles for the boundaries of church and state with regard to the regulation of a minister’s position in law. In both traditions church polity is regarded sui generis, and recognises the church’s right to regulate a minister of religion’s position independently from the state. In conclusion it is found that the boundaries between church and state for the ministry of the Word are primarily determined by the principle that church and state should not in any way influence or interfere with one another's separate mandates or duties. The ministry of the Word is the responsibility of the church and not the state. Therefore the state does not have the competency to regulate the ministry of the Word.


Author(s):  
Belinda Bedell ◽  
Nicholas Challis ◽  
Charl Cilliers ◽  
Joy Cole ◽  
Wendy Corry ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andre Mangu

After several decades of apartheid rule, which denied human rights to the majority of the population on the ground of race and came to be regarded as a crime against humanity, South Africa adopted its first democratic Constitution in the early 1990s. The 1996 Constitution, which succeeded the 1993 interim Constitution, is considered one of the most progressive in the world. In its founding provisions, it states that South Africa is a democratic state founded on human dignity, the achievement of equality, the advancement of human rights and freedoms. The Constitution enshrines fundamental human rights in a justiciable Bill of Rights as a cornerstone of democracy. Unfortunately, in the eyes of a number of politicians, officials and lay-persons, the rights in the Bill of Rights accrue to South African citizens only. Xenophobia, which has been rampant since the end of apartheid, seems to support the idea that foreigners should not enjoy these rights. Foreign nationals have often been accused of posing a threat to South African citizens with regard to employment opportunities. In light of the South African legislation and jurisprudence, this article affirms the position of the South African labour law that foreign nationals are indeed protected by the Constitution and entitled to rights in the Bill of Rights, including the rights to work and fair labour practices.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document