DWC writer Faisal Gazi argues that secularism, far from being anti-Islamic, was a key part of the debate integral to the development of Islamic philosophy which continued throughout its classical period between the 10th and 15th century up to colonial times. The tension between secularism and theology is a false dichotomy fomented by political extremists and religious fundamentalists on both sides of the divide. In spite of these abuses, secularism is a standalone normative ideal that needs to be upheld if we value religious freedom and pluralism.
The claim that Islam and the Khilafah, or religion and state, are inseparable is a debunked fallacy but this has not stopped Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood or Jamaat-e-Islami elevating it to the level of a dogmatic axiom. However the struggle to separate religion from politics is not alien to Islamic history, rather it is a fundamental part of its historical narrative which began some two hundred years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad.
In the eighth century a school of thought, founded by the philosopher al-Kindi, emerged in the Arab world known as the Mutazilites, or the Rationalists. This was a group of scientists, philosophers, and poets who stood against a legalistic dogma based solely on the Shari’a which was encroaching into Muslim societies.
The most well-known Mutazilites were Ibn Sina and al-Farabi who had come to be known as the Islamic Hellenistic philosophers because they had incorporated Aristotelian metaphysics and cosmology into their philosophy. The Mutazilites argued that it was possible to act morally with the use of rational thought alone. By corollary, they refuted the need to combine religion with the state.
The Mutazilites were opposed by another school of thought called the Asharites which was founded by the tenth century theologian, Ashari. The Asharites rejected rationalism, and argued that the human mind was not capable of understanding the nature and attributes of God. By extension, they maintained that the discernment of morality was beyond rational thought. The Asharites rejected this Hellenistic philosophy because they regarded it as alien and dangerous.
The Asharites also argued that the state was representative of God’s power on Earth as well as the sole adjudicator of the morality of its citizens. The Asharites represented the intellectual force which pulled the institutions of the Caliphate towards the institutions of religion. It boasted such giants as the polymath al-Ghazali, the mathematician Faqr-al-din Razi, and the formidable figure of the fourteenth century historian and sociologist, Ibn Khaldun.
For the next four hundred years the intellectual battle that waged between the Mutazilites and Asharites could be likened to a conceptual football match: the Scientists vs. the Theologians. The intellectual and philosophical history of this period was dominated by this contest: to find the exact point where the sovereignty of God (huquq Allah) ended and where the sovereignty of man (huquq ibaad) began. The greatest minds of the time were drafted into either one or the other side.
Secularism is, in fact the foundation of Islam, as a crucial Sura (verse) says: “..lakum deen ukum wal ya deen..”, meaning let each person peacefully practice his OWN religion.
The fundamental ORIGIN of Islam was to preach “equality for all”, and was borne in Arab regions where most people were oppressed by class, caste, creed & color. Judaism had (still has) classes of jews, sefardi, ashkenazi (coloured) etc, who were treated differently in society, much like the caste system in hinduism. But in Islam there was no such division, and THAT fundamental “equality for all people” is the basis of secularism.
When this NEW concept (of equality and secularism) arrived in M.East and Asia, people started joining Islam in millions, in their escape from caste, class, & color divisions. That mass exodus (conversion), of previously oppressed people, to equal & secular islam, was creating chaos in those oppressed communities – people were “escaping” from bondage to islam !!
This had ANGERED hindu christian & jewish leaders so much, that a huge anti-islamic propaganda war (crusade) had been launched. And THAT crusade which today continues as the “war against islam” had actually origined as the WAR AGAINST (islamic) SECULARISM.
Today, many in S.Asia attach hinduism with secularism, and islam with anti-secularism. But with NO CASTE SYSTEM, and no division of religion, Islam is closer to secularism than is wrongly publicised.
[Reply]
“To you be ypur path, To me be my Path” (Sura- Kafirun) is not secularism, it is ISLAM.
ALLAH (SWT) said, He has completed the deen of Islam, so it does not require any new terminology, concept after that.
“There is no compulsion in the religion(deen)”- This is not secularism, This is ISLAM.
So, what is secularism ??
* Separation of state from religion,
* morality and ethics ( these are strictly non-Islamic terms from english language and ethical philosophies)
* subjugation of religion in public life and confining it to the private sphere of life.
AND THESE ARE NOT ISLAM.
ISLAM is submitting your mind, your action, your thoughts, your soul, your body, your privte life, your public life, your whole life, your wealth, your existence to the will of ALLAH, to His command, to his pleasure.
Does ISLAM need secularism ( the irreligious religion of secularism) Ans-NO?
Can Secularism survive? Ans-NO!!
[Reply]
Secularism may be accepted in a Christian society but it can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society. Christianity is devoid of a shari`ah or a comprehensive system of life to which its adherents should be committed. The New Testament itself divides life into two parts: one for God, or religion, the other for Caesar, or the state: “Render unto Caesar things which belong to Caesar, and render unto God things which belong to God” (Matthew 22:21). As such, a Christian could accept secularism without any qualms of conscience. Furthermore, Westerners, especially Christians, have good reasons to prefer a secular regime to a religious one. Their experience with “religious regimes” – as they knew them – meant the rule of the clergy, the despotic authority of the Church, and the resulting decrees of excommunication and the deeds of forgiveness, i.e. letters of indulgence.
For Muslim societies, the acceptance of secularism means something totally different; i.e. as Islam is a comprehensive system of worship (`ibadah) and legislation (Shari`ah), the acceptance of secularism means abandonment of Shari`ah, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions; It is indeed a false claim that Shariah is not proper to the requirements of the present age. The acceptance of a legislation formulated by humans means a preference of the humans’ limited knowledge and experiences to the divine guidance: “Say! Do you know better than Allah?” (2:140).
For this reason, the call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shari`ah is downright riddah. The silence of the masses in the Muslim world about this deviation has been a major transgression and a clear-cut instance of disobedience which have produces a sense of guilt, remorse, and inward resentment, all of which have generated discontent, insecurity, and hatred among committed Muslims because such deviation lacks legality. Secularism is compatible with the Western concept of God which maintains that after God had created the world, He left it to look after itself. In this sense, God’s relationship with the world is like that of a watchmaker with a watch: he makes it then leaves it to function without any need for him. This concept is inherited from Greek philosophy, especially that of Aristotle who argued that God neither controls nor knows anything about this world. This is a helpless God as described by Will Durant. There is no wonder that such a God leaves people to look after their own affairs. How can He legislate for them when He is ignorant of their affairs? This concept is totally different from that of Muslims. We Muslims believe that Allah (SWT) is the sole Creator and Sustainer of the Worlds. One Who “…takes account of every single thing) (72:28); that He is omnipotent and omniscient; that His mercy and bounties encompasses everyone and suffice for all. In that capacity, Allah (SWT) revealed His divine guidance to humanity, made certain things permissible and others prohibited, commanded people observe His injunctions and to judge according to them. If they do not do so, then they commit kufr, aggression, and transgression.”
( Collected)
[Reply]
@Kgazi
Yes I should believe your hypothesis and not my lying eyes that see every Islamic majority nation state doing its level best to wipe out the kuffar. Jizya is so secular. Submit or die is so secular.
Again my lying eyes must somehow be preventing me from seeing all these shining secular minority rich Islamic societies or it might be that Hindu Christian Zionist propaganda that preventing me.
[Reply]
Shafayat, shariah is not in the Quran, and was NOT originally intended in islam, its a legal system created by scholars hundreds of years after Quran origined.
Taz, same with ‘kuffar, jizya’ etc that you refer. These are NOT in the Quran, but were customs created by various later socities for their own cultures, eg persian Sassanid empire in 7th century.
Now if a nation like Bangladesh decides to run its govt by democracy (not shariya), then its perfectly OK by islam and the Quran, to establish secularism, while it’s society are majority muslim.
[Reply]
Wow, I’ve never come across this blog before! It looks VERY informative and interesting. I’ll add this to my blogroll! EMMA in DC
I started this group to meet more people of Bangladeshi heritage (whether they grew up in US, Canada, UK, etc. ). You don’t have to be an expert on Bangladesh/Bengali language to join- just be willing to get out there and make new friends!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DCbangla/
[Reply]
Jamati Liberation War Veterans Association.
[Reply]