|
ISLAM AND SECULARISM
By Asghar Ali Engineer
Many people feel that Islam is quite incompatible with secularism. Some
even maintain that as long as one is Muslim he cannot be a secularist.
This is further reinforced by the propaganda by some Muslim countries like
Saudi Arabia that secularism is haram and that all secular nations are
enemies of Islam. Maulana Maududi, the founder chief of Jamat-e-Islami
also said while leaving for Pakistan in 1948 that secularism is haram and
all those who participate in secular politics in India will be rebels
against Islam and enemies of the messenger of Allah.
How far is it true? Are Islam and secularism really incompatible? Is Saudi
propaganda against secularism justified? Was Maulana Maududi right? These
are important questions and we must search for answers. We must bear in
mind that in every religion there are different intellectual trends - both
liberal as well as conservative. Both quote scriptures in support of their
respective positions. Since a scripture or religious tradition for that
matter has to deal with complex social situation, one finds differing or
even contradictory statements responding to the differing or contradictory
situations.
In scriptural hermeneutics (interpretations) one has to take situation in
totality and develop certain keys to deal with the evolving situation. The
commentators often deal with the situation as if it is static. Social
situations can never be static. It continually evolves and changes. The
way scriptural statements were understood by early commentators conformed
to their own socio-cultural situation. Their hermeneutics should not be
binding on the subsequent generations as it will not conform to the
changed situation.
For every age there are some keys which help us understand the scripture
in our own age. Also, a commentator should have a vision of society and
this vision evolves from ones own social situation. Allah's creative power
cannot be treated as static in any way. The Qur'an also refers to His
dynamism when it states "....every day He manifests Himself in yet
another (wondrous) way. Which, then, of your Sustainer's powers can you
disavow?" (29:55). This Allah manifests Himself every day in new
state (sha'n). And the word "yaum" literally means day but
figuratively it can also mean a whole epoch, a period. Taking the word
"yaum" in this sense, the verse will mean Allah manifests His
Glories in new ways from period to period, from epoch to epoch.
The early commentators of the Qur'an, on which depends the conservative
view of the 'ulama, were product of their own socio-religious and
socio-cultural situation. In the early days of Islam, particularly in the
period of four caliphs succeeding the Holy Prophet, state was very closely
identified with religion of Islam. In the Arabia of those days there did
not exist even a state before advent of Islam, let alone any laws
associated with the state. But a state came into existence when Islam
united people of Arabia transcending tribal bonds.
The state needed laws to deal with fast evolving situation. First they
took help of the Qur'an and then Sunnah of the Prophet. Even then if they
could not solve the problem they held the assembly of the companions of
the prophet and tried to solve the problem in consultation with them.
Their collective wisdom was often of great help. But it is quite obvious
that they heavily drew from their own experiences in the social milieu
they lived in. This social milieu also heavily influenced their
understanding of the Qur'anic verses. And some Qur'anic verses were
integrally related to the situation obtaining there.
Early Commentators
The problem really arose when the subsequent generations treated the
understanding of the Qur'anic verses by the companions of the Prophet or
the early commentators who drew their own understanding heavily from the
pronouncements of these companions and their followers (tabi'in). The
companions were thought to be - and rightly so - as great authorities as
the Qur'an was revealed during their life time and in their presence and
who could understand it better than these companions.
Most of the subsequent commentators simply referred to these companions
and their followers' pronouncements became the only source of
understanding the Qur'anic verses. Until today the commentators of the
Qur'an are repeating those very ideas and these ideas have become sacred
and any deviation is considered heresy by most of the orthodox
commentators of the Qur'an.
The Islamic state which came into existence after the death of the
Prophet, as pointed out above, also became a model for the subsequent
generation though this model was hardly followed even in early period of
Islamic history. The Umayyad and the Abbasid empires which came into
existence after what is called khilafat-e-rashidah (i.e. the rightly
guided period of khilafat i.e. Islamic state) never followed this
religious model. Both the empires were based on personal and authoritarian
rule and were Islamic only in name. The Umayyad and the Abbasid Caliphs
followed their own personal desires rather than the Qur'anic injunctions
or the Shari'ah rules. They just symbolically made their obeisance to
religion and followed what was in their personal interest. Thus theirs
were what we can call a 'semi-secular' states.
And the states which came into existence after the Abbasid state were even
more secularized except the Fatimid state which was more or less based on
the Isma'ili theology. Even the Fatimid Imams had to face serious problems
as their Isma'ili followers were very few in their domain and the vast
majority belonged to the Sunni faith. Thus they often separated affairs of
the state from Isma'ili theological considerations. A separate department
of Isma'ili theology (Fatimi Da'wah) had to be established.
Though the Khilafat model was never repeated in the history of Islam, in
theory, it remained the objective of all the Islamic theologians to
establish the state on the model of early Khilafat and any state which did
not follow that model came to be condemned as un-Islamic and it was even
more strongly condemned if the state claimed to be secular. Maulana
Maududi opposed Jinnah vehemently because his vision of Pakistani state
was based on secular concept giving all citizens equal rights irrespective
of their religious faith. The Maulana refused to support the Pakistan
movement as Jinnah would not agree to set up an Islamic state.
Now the question is whether Islam as a religion is compatible with
secularism? Does it aim at setting up an Islamic state and nothing less?
Can there be a Muslim country with a secular state? These are some of the
crucial questions one has to answer in order to deal with the subject of
Islam and secularism. Of course, we should remember that there cannot be
uncontested answers. Every answer that we attempt would be, and could be,
contested by those with differing viewpoint. Ours is a liberal and
inclusive approach and we will, of course, attempt answer from this
viewpoint.
Secular Political Philosophy
Before we deal with the question of Islam and secularism, we would like to
throw some light on religion and secularism. Here too there are differing
views. There are rationalists and atheists who consider religion and
secularism quite contrary to each other. For them the two are quite
incompatible. Secularism is a non-religious, if not altogether
anti-religious philosophy. A secular political philosophy should have
nothing to do with any religious tenets or doctrines. A secular state then
would not take any religious beliefs or practices into account while
legislating on any issue and in some extreme cases even citizens would not
be free to have religious faith and declare it and practice it publicly.
Religion, in other words, would be almost a taboo in such a political set
up. The former Soviet and Chinese states came close to this model.
Then there is western liberal secular model where religion is not a taboo
but is not a basic factor as far as state affairs are concerned. State
affairs are conducted quite independently of any religious considerations.
In the U.K. too, where Anglican Christianity continues to be state
religion and the king or queen of England is considered head of the
Anglican Church, religion plays hardly any role in the matters of state.
All state legislations are quite independent of the tenets of the Anglican
Church. The Church cannot oppose any law passed by the House of Commons
and approved by the House of Lords.
In other western countries too positions are more or less similar. The
state remains quite independent of the church. In fact church and state
have totally independent domains and do not interfere in each others
sphere. This western model comes closest to the political philosophy of
secularism.
The Islamic world has its own features and uniqueness. When we deal with
the question of Islam and secularism we have to keep this in mind. It
should, however, be kept in mind that the Islamic world is also not
homogenised one. One comes across fundamental differences in Islamic
countries from Algeria to Indonesia though all of them follow religion of
Islam. Commonality of religion does not necessarily mean commonality of
social or political traditions. These traditions are as different as their
societies and social realities.
Algeria, for example, is a modern westernised state and hence it is
undergoing a great religious turmoil as a section of citizens want it to
be an 'Islamic state' of their vision. Then there are countries like
Malaysia and Indonesia with mixed populations though with Muslim majority
and they too have secular states. The movements for setting up Islamic
states in these countries by the Islamic groups did not succeed. Both
these countries have adopted models of polity suited more to a pluralist
society. So is the case with Malaysia. Though it is a Muslim majority
country it is also pluralist in character and hence has chosen to be
secular in character.
Turkey is overwhelmingly a Muslim country and yet it chose to be a secular
country since Kamal Pasha's revolution in 1924 and it has stayed secular
ever since. Though there have been attempts at religious revival they did
not register much success. Turkey has gone to the extent of abolishing
Islamic personal laws and have replaced them with secular Swiss Code.
Perhaps Turkey is the only country to do so.
Liberal Islamic Character
Among Arab countries besides Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco also have
brought about considerable modern reforms though technically they are not
secular states. Their state religion continues to be Islam. Jordan is
another moderate country with 10 per cent Christian population. Iraq, on
the other hand, is ruled by the Baath Party which is socialistic in
character. Iraq, until the Gulf war in 1990, was quite secular in
character. However, the compulsions of the Gulf war and earlier war with
Iran in the eighties brought about some changes in its character and
Saddam Hussain, in order to win a degree of legitimacy, started mild
measures of Islamisation. Some of the Gulf countries like Bahrain, the
Yemen, are also Islamic in character but with liberal dispensation unlike
the Saudi Arab and Kuwait. In fact the fast process of modernisation is
also affecting hard Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
Thus it will be seen that all Islamic countries are not same in political
and even religious character. There are great deal of differences. We find
the whole range of political shades - from rigid Islamic character of
Saudis to liberal Islamic character of the countries like Iraq to secular
country like the Turkey. There is not, and there cannot be, any
homogeneity. As far as orthodoxy or liberalism or secularism is concerned,
much depends on the proclivities of the ruling classes in a particular
country. It also depends on the interests of the ruling classes and their
political alliances.
Now the important question is can Islam and secularism go together? We
have already said above that religion and secularism can go together or
not depends on the interpretation of both religion as well as secularism.
If religion is interpreted in keeping with very conservative traditions,
it may be difficult for it to go along with secularism which demands more
liberal disposition and not only tolerance but also promotion of
pluralism. On the other hand, if secularism is interpreted too rigidly
i.e. if it is equated with atheism, as many rationalists do, then also the
two (i.e. religion and secularism) will find it difficult to go together.
Islam too, as pointed out above, can be interpreted rigidly, or liberally.
If both Islam and secularism are interpreted liberally there should not be
any problem with Islam in a secular set up. In fact if one studies the
Qur'an holistically one can find strong support for 'liberal or
non-atheistic secularism'. No religion will support atheistic secularism
for that matter. If we talk of liberal secularism what do we mean by it?
We must clearly define it. Liberal secularism does not insist on belief in
atheism. Secondly, it promotes pluralism and respect for all faiths and
thirdly it guarantees full freedom of religion for all citizens. Also,
secularism guarantees equal rights for all citizens irrespective of ones
caste, creed, race, language or faith.
Islam can hardly clash with this liberal secularism. The Qur'an, in fact,
directly encourages pluralism vide its verse 5:48. This verse clearly
states that every people have their own law and a way i.e. every nation is
unique in its way of life, its rules etc. It also says that if Allah had
pleased He would have created all human beings a single people but He did
not do so in order to test them (whether they can live in harmony with
each other despite their differences in laws and way of life). Thus it is
clear assertion of pluralism. One must respect the others faith and live
in harmony with him/her.
Doers of Justice
The Qur'an also asserts that every people have their own way of worshiping
God (see 2:148). One should not quarrel about this. Instead one should try
to excel each other in good deeds. In the verses 60:7-8 we find that Allah
will bring about friendship between Muslims and those whom you hold as
enemies. And Allah does not forbid you from respecting those who fight you
not for religion, nor drive you forth from your homes and deal with them
justly. Allah loves doers of justice.
The above verse is a good example of secular ethos. If others do not fight
you in matters of your faith and allow you to profess, practice and
propagate your faith you should respect them and deal with them justly.
This is precisely what India's secular constitution says and this what
secular constitutions world over emphasize. Also, in 6:109 the Qur'an
prohibits Muslims from abusing people of other faiths or their gods as in
turn they will abuse Allah. This verse also makes much more significant
statement that Allah has made every for every people their deeds
fair-seeming i.e. every community thinks its beliefs and deeds are fair
and good and social harmony lies in accepting this situation rather than
quarreling about each others beliefs and practices.
The Qur'an also states in 22:40 that no religious place should be
demolished as in all religious places be it synagogue, or church or
monastery, name of Allah is remembered and hence all these places should
be protected. This is another tenet of liberal secularism which is upheld
by the Qur'an.
The Islamic tenets, it will be seen, do not disapprove of composite or
pluralistic way of life. Even the Covenant of Madina (called
Mithaq-i-Madina) clearly approves of pluralistic set up. When the Prophet
migrated from Mecca to Madina owing to persecution in Mecca at the hands
of Meccan tribal leaders, he found Madinese society a pluralistic society.
There were Jews, pagans and Muslims and also Jews and pagans were divided
into several tribes, each tribe having its own customs and traditions. The
Prophet drew up a covenant with these tribes guaranteeing them full
freedom of their faith and also creating a common community in the city of
Medina with an obligation to defend it, if attacked from outside.
This was in a way a precursor of modern secular nation, every citizen free
to follow his/her own faith and tribal customs and their own personal laws
but having an obligation towards the city to maintain peace within and
defend it from without. The Prophet clearly set an example that people of
different faith and traditions can live together in peace and harmony
creating a common bond and respecting a common obligation towards the
city/country.
It is interesting to note that the Muslim theologians belonging to the
Jam'at al-'Ulama-i-Hind (i.e. the Association of the 'Ulama of India) drew
the inspiration for creating a composite secular nation in India from the
Prophet's Covenant of Madina. These 'Ulama opposed two nation theory and
maintained that Islam is not against composite secular nationalism.
Different religious communities can exist together in a country. The only
condition for this is that all should be guaranteed to freely profess,
practice and propagate their religion. Since the Indian Constitution
allows this, the 'Ulama happily accepted the liberal secular political
disposition in India and did not find any justification for a separate
state for Muslims of the sub-continent.
No Concept of State
Yet another question which remains to be answered is about equal rights to
all citizens in a country with Muslim majority. It is often argued that
Muslims are reluctant to accord equal citizenship rights to religious
minorities. No doubt there is some truth in this assertion but not the
whole truth. Some Muslim majority countries certainly do not allow
non-Muslims equal rights but many other countries do. We have already
given examples of countries like Indonesia and Malaysia. Both countries,
though have Muslim majorities, do allow all their citizens, including the
non-Muslims, equal political rights. In Pakistan too, until Zia-ul-Haq's
time, enjoyed equal citizenship rights and joint electorate. It was Zia
who created separate electorate for non-Muslims.
In Qur'an, as pointed out elsewhere, there is no concept of state, nor of
territorial nationalism. In fact religious scriptures are hardly supposed
to deal with such questions. It no where states that it is obligatory for
Muslims to set up a religious or a theocratic state. Qur'an does not
refer, not even indirectly, to any concept of state. Its whole emphasis is
on truth, justice, benevolence, compassion, tolerance and wisdom as far as
life in this world is concerned. As long as people conform to these
values, it does not matter what religious faith they belong to. They can
coexist in peace and harmony.
Thus the concept of a purely Islamic state is a historical construct
attempted by Muslim jurists over a period of time. It is these jurists who
laid down detailed rules of Shari'ah and also drew up a configuration of
an Islamic state defining the rights of non-Muslims in such state.
Moreover it was very different historical situation and the Qur'anic
verses were interpreted under the influence of their own social and
religious ethos.
The rights of non-Muslims, in other words, will have to be rethought and
reformulated. The Qur'an nowhere states that religion can be the basis of
political rights of the people. This was the opinion of Muslim jurists of
the medieval period when religion of the ruler determined the status of
the ruled. Such a formulation cannot be considered a necessary part of the
political theory of Islam. The only model for this purpose can be the
Mithaq-i-Madina and this Covenant, as pointed out above, did not make any
distinction between people of one religion and the other in matters of
political rights.
This Covenant, at least in spirit, if not in form, provides a valuable
guidance for according political rights to citizens of modern state
irrespective of ones religion. It is unfortunate that the later political
theorists of Islam almost wholly neglected this significant political
document drawn up by the Prophet of Islam. In fact he was far ahead of his
time in according non-Muslims equal religious and political rights. The
theory of political rights in the modern Islamic state should be based on
this document.
Trancparency in Governance
There is great deal of emphasis on freedom of conscience and human rights
in the modern civil society. It is highly regrettable that most of the
Muslim countries do not have good record in this field. Freedom of
conscience, human rights and democracy are quite integral to each other.
In most of the Muslim majority countries today which have declared
themselves as "Islamic countries" even the democratic discourse
is banished, let alone human rights discourse. It is not right to maintain
that an Islamic society cannot admit of human rights. The lack of
democracy and human rights is not because of Islam or Islamic teachings
but due to authoritarian and corrupt regimes which totally lack
transparency in governance.
Again, if we go by the sunnah of the Prophet and record of governance of
the rightly guided caliphs, we see that the principle of accountability
and transparency in governance was quite fundamental. The people who had
experienced the conduct of the Prophet were so sensitive to the doctrine
of accountability that there was great uprising when the regime of the
third Caliph deviated from this doctrine for various reasons not to be
discussed here. The Prophet of Islam and his companions had sensitized the
Muslims to such an extent in respect of accountability and transparency in
governance that any deviation from it was strongly protested. But when
authoritarian regimes came into existence and khilafat turned into
monarchy beginning with the first Umayyad monarch Yazid, this doctrine
vanished into thin air.
Those who respect the doctrine of accountability would never maintain that
Islam is against democracy and human rights. In fact almost all Islamic
countries - with few exceptions - signed the U.N. Human Rights Declaration
of 1948. Some countries who refused to sign had objection only on one
clause on freedom of conscience and right to convert to any religion of
ones choice. They felt it was against the tenets of Islam and one who
renounces Islam should be punished with death.
This is of course not the place to discuss this controversial question of
the right to convert but suffice it to say that the Muslim jurists had
instituted this punishment more for political than religious reasons. In
the modern nation states the punishment for irtidad (i.e. renouncing
Islam) cannot be death and the individual must be given right to belie
what he/she desires. One cannot be made to follow any religion under the
threat of death. A religion is certainly a serious matter and a matter of
conscience and commitment.
From all this will be seen that Islamic teachings as embodied in the
Qur'an and sunnah of the Prophet (and not opinions of the jurists) are not
against the concept of human rights and individual freedom (freedom of
conscience). It is authoritarian rulers of some Muslim countries who
denounce the concept of human rights as alien to Islam. Islam, in fact, is
the first religion which legally recognised other religions and gave them
dignified status and also accepted the concept of dignity of all children
of Adam (17:70) irrespective of their faith, race, tribe, nationality or
language (49:13)
The verse 2:213 is also quite significant on the unity of all human beings
which is what is the intention of Allah. All differences are human and not
divine and these differences should be resolved in democratic and goodly
manner (29:46). These are the norms laid down by the Qur'an but the rulers
of Muslim countries deviate from these norms to protect their hold on
power and blame it on Islam.
Islam upholds pluralism, freedom of conscience and human and democratic
rights and thus does not clash with the concept of secularism. It is also
interesting to note that in a secular set up like India the 'Ulama
accepted secular principles of governance and never objected to it. In
fact, the 'Ulama in India stress secularism and urge upon Muslim masses to
vote for secular parties. Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani had taken lead in
this respect by legitimising composite nationalism (Muttahida Qaumiyyat)
and rejecting two nation theory. Of late the Jama'at-e-Islami-i-Hind has
also accepted secular democracy and has even set up a secular democratic
front of its own, particularly after demolition of Babri Masjid and the
riots that followed it. Thus it will be seen that the Indian 'Ulama have
shown a way in this respect by accepting secularism. Islam and secularism
can and should go together in the modern world.
Source: http://www.dawoodi-bohras.com
|
