Some members of the "ummah" are bordering on frank shirk (invoking beings and things other than God). Those obsessed with authenticity also seem to suffer from epistemological polytheism, admitting and insisting on a lot more than God's word in discerning zher will). To me, taslīm (considering everyone a believer) looks equally undesirable as takfīr (calling others disbelievers). What kind of a setting would make the question of whether someone is a believer, disbeliever, or unbeliever irrelevant? A secular state – of the kind that ensures freedom of religion for all, not the kind that restricts religion.
Salam Faisal,
ReplyDeleteAn interesting and very pertinent question for all Muslims. Personally, I very much support the idea of a secular state. Because, that is the only context in which I can be a practicing,thinking and responsible Muslim.
I have experienced life in both situations (secular and not) and to my own surprise at the time, I found that I was "loosing my closeness to Allah" in a non-secular environment; at times I was not observing Islam because an intrinsic need for it, but because "it was rule" or "everyone else was doing it" and "what would others say if i wasn't". I felt frustrated and infantilized every time I was told what "I should" or "shouldn't do" and what's "the rule". Because, I am an intelligent adult and I can make decisions on my own (for which only I will be held responsible).
On the other hand, in a secular environment I am guided by an "inner pull" (I don't know how else to call it) to Islam and ibadah, sometimes more and sometimes less. But, it is "my connection" to Allah swt and there is no one else in between; be it a state, a party or some imam. And surprisingly, in a secular and free environment, I interact with many and very diverse people, which has led me to constantly re-evaluate and re-establish my own principles and beliefs and I am more in sync with and more proud of my Muslim identity (without devaluing anyone else's).
I believe that religious states (be they Jewish, Muslim, Christian or any other) breed hypocrisy in their "citizens" and discriminate against groups who don't belong to that particular religion. And most importantly, a religious state is an antithesis to the Qur'anic principle of "no compulsion in Religion" (or anything else). Because, how is anyone of us going to be held responsible for their actions (or beliefs) unless they were done by free-will, without coercion (implicit or explicit)?
I would also like to recommend an amazing book that deals with this particular question by Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, one of my favorite contemporary legal scholars, "Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari'a". Perhaps you've read it already.
ReplyDeleteHere is a quote from the first chapter, which kind of summarizes in a much nicer way, what I already said.
"In order to be Muslim by conviction and free choice, which is the only way one can be a Muslim, I need a secular state. By a secular state I mean one that is neutral regarding religious doctrine, one that does not claim or pretend to enforce Shari'a - the religious law of Islam - simply because compliance with Shari'a cannot be coerced by fear of state institutions or faked to appease their officials. This is what I mean by secularism in this book, namely, a secular state that facilitates the possibility of religious piety out of honest conviction. My call for the state, and not society, to be secular is intended to enhance and promote genuine religious observance, to affirm, nurture, and regulate the role of Islam in the public life of the community. Conversely, I will argue that the claim of a so-called Islamic state to coercively enforce Shari'a repudiates the foundational role of Islam in the socialization of children and the sanctification of social institutions and relationships. When observed voluntarily, Shari'a plays a fundamental role in shaping and developing ethical norms and values that can be reflected in general legislation and public policy through the democratic political process. But I will argue in this book that Shari'a principles cannot be enacted and enforced by the state as public law and public policy solely on the grounds that they are believed to be part of Shari'a. If such enactment and enforcement is attempted, the outcome will necessarily be the political will of the state and not the religious law of Islam. The fact that ruling elites sometimes make such claims to legitimize their control of the state in the name of Islam does not mean that such claims are true.
... " (Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, 2009, Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari'a, Harvard University Press)"