ISLAM AND SECULARISM

Asghar Ali Engineer

Is Islam compatible with secularism? This question is quite important in
the present context, particularly in 21st century. Both non-Muslims and
orthodox Muslims feel that Islam is not compatible with secularism.
Fundamentalist Muslims totally reject secularism as anti-Islamic and
haram. Maulana Maududi, founder of Jamat-e-Islami-e-Hind had said, while
leaving for Pakistan in 1948, that those who participated in secular
politics were raising flag of revolt against Allah and His Messenger.
The Saudi `Ulama, too, denounce secularism as strictly prohibited in
Islamic tradition.

The fundamentalist Hindus, on the other hand, say that Muslims support
secularism while in minority in any country and oppose it while in
majority. But this is not wholly true. Some Muslim countries like Saudi
Arabia and others do reject secularism but all Muslim majority countries
do not. For example, Indonesia does not reject secularism though its 85%
population comprises of Muslims. However, by and large, it is true that
many Muslim majority countries opt for Islamic state or at least make
Islam as state religion.

It is important to note that there is some difference between an Islamic
state and Islam being a state religion. In Islamic state all laws must
strictly conform to Islamic Shari`ah but if a country declares 'Islam as
its religion', it means that Islam is preferred to all other religions
and it enjoys itself more privilege than other religions in the country.
In 1948 Islam was declared as state religion in Pakistan, but Pakistan
did not become an Islamic state until Zia-ul-Haq declared it to be an
Islamic state in late seventies. He then began to enforce Shari`ah laws
in Pakistan.

Islam is declared to be incompatible with secularism because in a
secular state there is no place for divine laws, and secular laws are
unacceptable to Islam. Also it is believed that in Islam religion and
politics cannot be separated. On these grounds secularism is totally
rejected by orthodox Muslims. They also think that secularism is
atheistic, and atheism has no place whatsoever in Islam. Islam strongly
emphasises faith in Allah. These are some of the grounds which make
orthodox Muslims uneasy with the very word secularism. Islam emphasises
life hereafter and secularism means only those matters which pertain to
this world. There is no place for the world hereafter as far as secular
philosophy is concerned.

We would examine here whether these assertions are true and whether
Islam is really incompatible with secularism. Firstly, we should make a
distinction between what is theological and what is historical. The
concept that religion and politics cannot be separated is more
historical than theological. In fact the Holy Qur'an, as we have pointed
out elsewhere too, does not give any concept of the State; it only gives
the concept of the society. The Qur'an is concerned with morality rather
than polity. An upright conduct, justice, truth, benevolence, compassion
and human dignity are very basic to the Holy Scripture. It repeatedly
asserts these values. Thus it clearly means that these values are very
fundamental to an Islamic society rather than to a State.

The view that religion cannot be separated from politics in Islam is due
this primary concern with these Islamic values. It was thought by early
Islamic `Ulama and jurists that if religion was separated from politics,
the rulers would totally neglect these fundamental Islamic values and
would behave in a manner which would only satisfy their greed for power.
In fact in those days there was no concept of secularism as a philosophy
of humanism. The `Ulama were afraid that if religion and politics were
separated there would be absolutely no check on the conduct of the
rulers. In fact, one does not find clear articulation to this effect
(that religion cannot be separated from politics in Islam) in any early
Islamic source. This formulation itself is of nineteenth century origin
when colonial powers began to impose secular laws in Islamic countries
i.e. the laws which were not basically derived from Shari`ah.

In the early Islamic period there were no other laws than the Shari`ah
laws. And since there was no such concept of the State in Qur'an, the
Islamic State itself is a historical construct. The structure of Islamic
State evolved over a period of time. The Qur'an and Hadith were the
primary sources for the new State. It is important to note that before
Islam there was no State in Mecca or Medina. There was only a senate of
tribal chiefs who took collective decisions and it was tribal chiefs who
enforced those decisions in their respective tribal jurisdiction. There
were obviously no written laws but only tribal customs and traditions.
Any decision had to be taken within the framework of these customs.
There was no other source of law.

However after Islam appeared on the social horizon of Mecca, the
scenario began to change. In Medina the Prophet (PBUH) laid the
framework of governance through what is known as Mithaq-e-Madina
(Covenant of Medina). This Covenant also basically respects tribal
customs to which adherents of Judaism, Islam and pre-Islamic idol
worshippers belonged. Each tribe, along with the religious tradition it
belonged to, was treated as an autonomous unit in the Covenant, which
has been described in full details by Ibn Ishaque, the first biographer
of the Holy Prophet. Thus the Covenant of Medina respected both the
tribal as well as religious autonomy of the inhabitants of the town. It
can also be said to be the first constitution of the state in making.
The Covenant laid down certain principles which are valid even today in
a secular state. When the covenant was drawn up by the Prophet of Islam,
Shari`ah as a body of law had not evolved. In this important Medinan
document what is most important is that the Prophet (PBUH) did not
compel the different tribes of Jews and idol worshippers to follow the
Islamic law.

A state structure began to evolve only after the death of the Holy
Prophet when vast areas of other territories were conquered and new
problems began to arise. During the Prophet's time the governance was
limited to almost a city. He did not live long after the conquest of
Mecca. But after his death the jurisdiction of the state expanded much
beyond the frontiers of Arabia. During the Prophet's time people were
more concerned with day today problems of marriage, divorce, inheritance
etc. on one hand, and those of problems like theft, robbery, murder and
some similar problems for which the Qur'an and the Prophet were inerrant
source of guidance. The people asked the Prophet for guidance and
followed his pronouncements or the Qur'anic injunctions voluntarily.
There was no state machinery to enforce it. There was neither any police
force nor any regular military. There was no separate judiciary either.
As far as the Prophet was concerned he was legislator, an enforcer of
laws (executive) and also a judge (representing judiciary). He combined
all three functions.

Thus it will be seen that there was no regular state structure during
the Prophet's own time as he was a unique personality who could combine
all these functions for judicious governance, in addition to being a
source of law. However, the death of the Prophet (PBUH) created a vacuum
and no other person could fill it. Also, as pointed out above, the
conquest of other territories created more complex problems. Now there
was need for enforcement of laws as people in far off places with no
commitment to Islam would not follow the laws voluntarily as they did in
Medina in the Prophet's time. Thus a police force was needed to enforce
the laws. Also, during the Prophet's time people volunteered for
fighting against enemies of Islam and there was no need for a paid
regular army. Now after his death need was felt for paid regular army.
The border areas had to be guarded constantly. There were no such
borders before.

The corpus of Shari`ah was being evolved and for new situations guidance
could no more be had from the Prophet. One either had to look for verses
in the Qur'an or in Hadith which Prophet's companions remembered or one
had to resort to analogy keeping analogous situations in mind. That was
how the corpus of the Shari`ah law evolved slowly. The primitive Islamic
state was democratic in spirit and the Caliphs often consulted their
colleagues and companions of the Prophet while making any decision so as
to conform to the Qur'anic values. Thus Qur'an and Hadith then were the
main sources of law. But in secular matters like building up
institutions like army or police or bureaucracy, they did not hesitate
to borrow concepts from other sources like Roman or Persian. Thus Hazrat
Umar borrowed the concept of Diwan (i.e. maintaining records of salaries
to a paid army and bureaucracy). Similarly the Caliphs were called upon
to legislate on matters like land ownership, suspension of certain
punishments during times of emergency like famine etc.

The conquests, internal strife among the Muslims, struggle for power
among different tribes, groups and personalities and many other factors
created strong pressures so much so that the institution of Caliphate
itself did not survive. It was ultimately replaced by monarchy and
dynastic rule. This was totally against the spirit of the Qur'an. These
changes became inevitable under the fast developing situation. The
Islamic jurists had to come to terms with these new developments and to
legitimise them somehow. Once the institution of Caliphate was replaced
by dynastic rule, it could never be restored throughout Islamic history.
The monarchy and dynastic rule persisted until the Western colonial rule
took over.

It was under colonial rule that Muslims began to discover the virtues of
democracy and saw in the Caliphate a 'golden period of Islamic
democracy.' It is true that during the dynastic rule Shari`ah law could
not be ignored and the rulers had to keep the `Ulama in good humour.
However, they often found ways to go around and violate the spirit of
the Shari`ah law. But they never ceased to pay obeisance to it. But the
situation changed drastically with the onset of colonial rule during the
nineteenth century in the Islamic world. Many laws were enforced by the
colonial rulers which were secular in origin. The Western countries
themselves were once governed by the Church and it was the Church law
which was supreme. But the reformation changed all that and the struggle
against the Church gave rise to the concept of secularism. Thus there
was intense fight between the Church and the ruling princes who desired
independence from the hegemony of the Church. The emerging bourgeois
class too wanted to be free of the sacred rule and saw immense benefits
in secularisation of politics and society. Thus it took more than three
centuries in the West for secularisation of society and marginalisation
of religion and religious institution. When the colonial rule was
established in Asian and African countries many of which happened to be
Islamic countries, the process of secularisation had traversed a great
distance in the metropolitan countries.

Thus the colonial countries posed a great challenge to Islam in the
colonised countries through their technological supremacy. The religious
leaders and intellectuals in these countries found refuge in the 'glory
of the past' and some were overwhelmed by the supremacy of the West and
began to advocate secular modernisation. Many reform movements thus were
born in Islamic countries. Jamaluddin Afghani and Muhammad Abduh of
Egypt were among them. Some others, however, totally rejected secularism
of the West and launched intense efforts to revive the past. Revivalist
and reformist movements jostled with each other for social and political
space. Among those who faced the Western challenge there were those who
rejected religion altogether and adopted secular humanism of the West.
However, they remained in small minority.

Islamic societies, however, found it more challenging to adopt change
and adjust to it smoothly. Many sociologists ascribe this resistance to
change inherent to the teachings of Islam. This, however, is not true.
No religion including Islam is prone or opposed to change. The causes of
resistance to change lie in the society, not in religion. In fact most
of the Muslim societies were led by feudal lords and failed to produce
modern bourgeois class. In these societies there was no well-entrenched
mercantile or industrial class. It is as much truer of Indian Muslims as
of other Muslim countries. The Hindus, on the other hand, had centuries
old merchant class, which smoothly adjusted itself to modern industrial
capitalism. Thus those who took to modern industrial capitalism felt
need for secularisation and social change. The pressures for change were
result of the changing ground reality for them.

The Muslims, on the other hand, felt no such need for change, as there
was no well-entrenched mercantile class to feel the need for effecting
smooth change over to modernity. Also, in most of the Muslim countries,
including India, Islam was embraced by weaker and poorer sections of
society, for it appealed to those sections due to its emphasis on
equality and justice. Those sections had no felt need for modernisation
and they remained under the tight grip of traditional `Ulama who were
anyway opposed to the process of secularisation.

Also, unlike other religions, Muslims had well-developed Shari`ah law
which was unanimously accepted as divine in origin. Most of the
religious leaders thus rejected the very concept of secular law as
unacceptable. The `Ulama, as pointed out above, had strong grip over the
hearts and minds of the poor and illiterate masses and used the social
base to oppose any change. The feudal lords, too, had not much use for
secularism and readily struck an alliance with the `Ulama giving them
full support. Thus the `Ulama strongly resisted any change in the
Shari`ah laws. Not only that, they would not even admit of any reform.
Those like Muhammad Abduh and others who advocated ijtihad (creative
interpretation of Shari`ah laws in view of modernisation and change)
were marginalised. Those important socio-economic factors cannot be
ignored while discussing Islam and secularism.

Before we proceed further I would like to throw some light on some
inherent limitations of secularism also. In nineteenth century
rationalism became a dogma. The rationalists and secularists almost
began to worship reason and dismissed religion with contempt. In fact
the rationalists have been as contemptuous of religion as the faithfuls
have been of secularism. Both have refused to admit limitations of their
respective positions. One can say that as there are religious
fundamentalists there are rational or secular fundamentalists also.
These secular fundamentalists have no respect for believers whom they
consider as nothing less than 'superstitious'. Even certain cultural
practices are considered as such. Some of them even refuse to admit the
emotional richness of life.

There has to be a balance between reason and faith. Faith is as
important to human existence as reason is. Reason, in fact, is a tool
humans use to achieve their goal. Reason can never become absolute
though its usefulness as a tool cannot be minimised. Faith, on the other
hand, is not tool but belief in higher values. These values are
fundamental to a meaningful life on this earth. Reason at best ensures
'successful' life but not meaningful one. It is faith in values like
compassion, justice, equality, non-violence etc. which make human life
meaningful. Thus a creative synthesis between reason and faith is
absolutely necessary for successful and meaningful life on this earth.
Sacral and secular should not be treated as two poles or antagonistic
contradiction. They are rather complimentary to each other.

The faithfuls should also bear in mind that faith should not mean blind
imitation of the past traditions. Faith has to be in values, not in past
traditions. As absolute secularism could lead to a life devoid of
meaning and responsibility towards fellow human beings absolute faith
also could lead to blind surrender to an authority which leads to highly
exploitative practices. One has to guard against such possibility by
employing ones rational faculty. In other words while reason would not
become arrogant, faith should not become blind.

If understood in this sense one will not find any contradiction between
reason and faith and between religion and secularism. Islam is also
compatible with secularism, seen from this perspective. If secularism is
interpreted as an atheistic philosophy, no believer in religion would
accept it, let alone a believer in Islam. Islam, as pointed out above,
lays strong emphasis on belief in God and unity of God. Muslims believe
in divine revelation of Qur'an and in Muhammad being Messenger of Allah.
One need not challenge these beliefs in the name of secularism.
Secularism should be taken in political rather than philosophical sense.
Secularism in political sense creates social and political space for all
religious communities.

The nineteenth century rationalism and modernism is itself under
challenge today. Our period is characterised as post-modernist period in
which religious pluralism rather than rejection of religion is accepted.
Post-modernism recognises limitations of reason and accepts validity of
religious ethos. We are now in a world which is far removed from
struggle between the Church and lay people. Church has also accepted the
inevitability of secularisation of society. It no longer enjoys the
hegemonic position it enjoyed before reformation. It has also apologised
for persecution of scientists for discovering new scientific truths. It
has also accepted the concepts of democracy and human rights. There is,
thus, no serious contradiction between Church and secularism.

Islam, it must be noted, has no concept of organised church. No single
religious authority is considered absolute. There has been, on the other
hand, the concept of consensus (ijma`) among the `Ulama (the learned men
of Islam) which is quite democratic. In fact consensus has been
considered as one of the sources of Islamic law in the Sunni Islam.
Also, there is concept of ijtihad which infuses the spirit of dynamism
and movement, though, of late, the 'Ulama have refrained from using it
for change. However, pressures are building up in Islamic societies for
using the concept of ijtihad. All Islamic societies are in throes of
change and modernisation. Islamic laws are no more a stagnant pool of
old traditions. Changes are being effected.

As there is no organised church in Islam the 'Ulama are divided on the
issues of modernisation and change. In Iran too intense struggle is on
between the conservatives and the reformists. In Saudi Arabia too the
process of change is for anyone to see though the monarchy is quite
cautious and wants to carry the orthodox `Ulama along. But social
pressures are building up in the Saudi society in favour of change and
modernisation. Even in Afghanistan the Taliban rule is more coercive
than consensual. The Taliban enjoy political and not social hegemony.

Islam admits of freedom of conscience and democratic rights and there
are no two opinions about it. Islam also officially accepts religious
pluralism in as much as it is Qur'anic doctrine to hold other prophets
in equal esteem. The Holy Prophet provided equal social and religious
space to all religions present in Medina, as pointed out above, through
the Covenant of Medina. The leaders of Jami`at al-`Ulama in India
rejected the concept of two nations and supported the composite
nationalism on the basis of this Covenant. Religious pluralism and
composite nationalism, which is the very spirit of secularism today in
India, is not incompatible to Islam at all. All Islamic leaders of India
have accepted Indian secularism. Even the Jama`at-e-Islami-e-Hind has
not only accepted Indian democracy and secularism but has set up a
democratic and secular front.

The other characteristic of secular democracy is a respect for human
dignity and human rights. The Qur'an expressly upholds both. It is true
some rulers in the Islamic world reject the concept of human rights as
Western in origin and not fit for their society. But it is to preserve
their own absolute and unchallenged rule rather than upholding Islamic
doctrinal position. It is cultural and political rather than religious
problem. There are different political systems in different Islamic
countries from monarchy to military dictatorship to limited democracy to
democracy. But it will be naïve to blame Islam for this. One has to look
into the political history of the country rather than search for its
causes in to Islamic doctrines. Islamic doctrines do not nurture any
concept of absolutism as perhaps no other religion does. In fact the
Qur'an's emphasis is on consultation (shura), and even the Prophet used
to consult his companions in secular matters.

It will thus be seen that Islam is not incompatible to secularism if it
does not mean rejection of religious faith. Throughout the world today
there is increasing emphasis on harmonious coexistence of different
religious faiths and Islam had inculcated this spirit from the very
beginning of revelation of the Qur'an. The doctrine that religion and
politics cannot be separated in Islam is a later historical construct
rather than the Qur'anic doctrine. It is human construct rather than a
divine revelation. One of the important aspects of modern secularism is
of course separation of religion from the state. While the state should
not interfere in religious autonomy, religious authorities should not
poke their nose in affairs of the state. The Indian `Ulama had accepted
this position with good conscience throughout freedom struggle and it
was on this basis that they became allies of the Indian National Congress.

In Muslim majority countries there is problem of autonomy of state.
Again, one should not look for causes into religious teachings but in
the socio-political history of those countries. These countries have
hardly emerged from their feudal past. There is no history in these
countries of democratic struggles of the people. Also, most of these
countries have very small religious minorities and these minorities too
have historically accepted religious hegemony of Islam. It will take
quite sometime for this position to change as feudal past has strong
presence in these countries. But there is strong pressures building up
and human rights movements are emerging in all these countries.
Globalisation may not be desirable for many other reasons but it is
creating conditions for close interaction among various cultures and
political systems. Information revolution also is a tide which cannot be
stopped and this revolution is creating deep impact on every aspect of
life. Muslim countries cannot remain aloof from this and has to open
themselves to new ideas and forces.

courtesy: Secular Perspective,  October-1-15, 2000.