The Middle East will only be convinced by Islamic arguments for a secular state
On the first page of his book, Islam and the Secular State, Abdullahi an-Na'im writes: "In order to be a Muslim by conviction and free choice, which is the only way one can be a Muslim, I need a secular state."
He explains that he is not advocating a secular society but a state which is neutral with regard to religion – a state whose institutions "neither favour nor disfavour any religious doctrine or principle", a state that has no enforcing role in religious matters.
The object of state neutrality, an-Na'im says, is to facilitate "the possibility of religious piety out of honest conviction" and allow individuals in their communities the freedom "to accept, object to, or modify any view of religious doctrine or principle". States that take sides in such matters become an obstacle to religious freedom.
To some readers, this may be little more than a statement of the obvious. But to many Muslims, especially in countries where the state poses as a "defender of Islam" and an enforcer of "Islamic values", it is not only an unfamiliar argument but one that sounds dangerously mad, even heretical.
Last week, in an article for Cif, I discussed the shutting-down of debate about Islamic secularism in most of the Arab countries and posed the question: how can it be re-opened? I'd now like to suggest an answer.
The idea of states enforcing correct "Islamic" behaviour is based on a presumption that such behaviour can be clearly and indisputably defined. But we have only to look at an issue such as female circumcision, where scholarly opinions range from saying it is obligatory to forbidden, to see that this is anything but the case.
In practice, the "Islam" they are seeking to enforce is nothing more than the prevailing local orthodoxy – modified, where necessary, to suit the political needs of the regime. Conveniently, this allows them to invoke religion to justify all manner of abuses that cannot be defended by rational argument...
Read more @ The Guardian's CIF
Yuck!
How presumptuous. It might be true, but it's still presumptuous.
But I agree with what it seems the author of the book is arguing.
How does that fit in with the first generations of Islam, under the Rightly Guided Khalifs, though?
Don't just do something! Stand there.
From another Guardian CIF article which I linked to before, it is suggested that it has been argued in the past that at the start an Islamic state was not created out of obligation, but out of necessity.
As for the writer being presumptious, if he's right, so what? It is damning though that a non Muslim would have to fight against Muslims for Muslims.
A major problem with having a theocratic state IMO is incompetence. It may just be me, but I seem to assume that the majority of scholars if placed in a judicial setting would be incompetent.
Of course the scholar who wrote that book was stripped of his title for writing it, so maybe he was wrong?
(Shall I merge the two threads? which will more or less mean I will move that post into this topic as a new post...)
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Good question.
I suppose you would have to consider that:
1 - Muslims are no longer ruled by the caliphate,
2 - Muslim states are so heterogeneous and
3 - Muslim state authorities have very little religious legitimacy
Given the above there is a need to rethink things and see how we can overcome this (century-long?) glitch in religious authority.
This guy is good! He's brilliant! I loved the way he refuted that other scholar.
“Before death takes away what you are given, give away whatever there is to give.”
Mawlana Jalal ud Din Rumi