Repeatedly I have heard the argument that there is no room for secularism in Islam. But the proof provided has been vague. So, I wanted to start this thread & see what people can come up with in support or against the idea of secularism in Islam.
I define secularism as **“The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs” **
Please be specific, to the point & try to make it short … long essays derail the thread too much.
As you very well know that there are many verses in the Quran that have to do with "secular life". What do you intend to do about those? Short answer: I don't beleive that it is possible to separate civil and religious life under the Quran.
"there is no God other than Allah, and the Prophet Muhammad is his only massanger'
.......how Islam can be secular?
ahmadjee,
if what anand said is forced on the general public, then we have the fundamental problem of religion enforcing a belief system on the populace, in this case being Islam.
For the upcoming elections in pakistan, political candidates have to sign a declaration of their belief in the finality of the last prophet. I mean what if someone didn't even care, but was a good Pakistani... NO.. a corrupt, dishonest and hypocrite Mulla can fight the election only cuz he doesn't care what he signs, or agrees with the religious mafia.
Now why even ask that from a candidate??
anand ji,
[QUOTE]
"there is no God other than Allah, and the Prophet Muhammad is his ** only ** massanger'
[/QUOTE]
where did you get this 'only' from?????
define secularism.
no im not stupid, but what i have noticed on this forum that people carry many definitions . it getting stupid.
At some stage im going to even have to define the word "the"
hope u understand my last sentence :P
I define secularism as an aqeedah, and by aqeedah i mean the belief which answers
"what was before life"
"what is during life" and "what is after life"
Now depending on how u answer the above 3 question depends on whether secularism has a place.
I am hoping this topic will stay focused and not go in 100 different directions.
Maybe I should present my case why I believe Islam has nothing against Secularism, on the contrary supports it and then let others critique it.
I believe the core issue here is justice for all. Those who support secular institutions consider that secularism establish justice & gets away from all different kind of bias. It supports that the citizens of any nation, country or state may not be judged in matters of law by their religion, or any other religion be imposed on them as a state religion.
Well, those who believe in the notion of a so-called Islamic State claim that a TRUE Islamic State would give that justice to its citizens. And I agree with them, because in my opinion a true Islamic state is a secular one in nature.
My proof of the above claim from Quran is as follows.
38: 26/27 * O Dawood ! surely **We have made you a ruler in the land; so judge between men with justice **and do not follow desire, lest it should lead you astray from the path of Allah; (as for) those who go astray from the path of Allah, they shall surely have a severe punishment because they forgot the day of reckoning. *
Allah didn't say with such n' such Torah Law but with Justice. Similarly there are other verses that stress on the need for justice, and steadfastness to justice even if it goes against your very kin.
And a proof of that secular state from Sunnah is AnHazoor (saw) government in Madina.
When he first migrated to Madina, the Jews & the Christians living there took him as their political leader but not a spiritual/religious one. And there is no were in the history that he judged between them according to the Islamic Sharia!
He gave the Jewish people who came to him with problems and dispute the choice of judgment through an Jewish law or an arbitration. When a dispute between a people of two different faiths came, he didn't judge them according to the Islamic law, but according to the common law that they both agreed to before hand or under the confinements of "Mesaq-e-Madina" (covenant of Madina).
So, people say this doesn't constitute a secular state ... because at times he did judge according to the religious laws of the people involved. And therefore, according to the Sunnah we should have a state that has separate laws for each religion!
My response to them is, is it really possible? Not only the that there are hundreds of different religions residing in one country (for example the USA or even some of the African countries where each tribe has his own religion) but even within those religions the sects interpret the law differently. So 73 different laws for Muslims & 73 for Jews and close to that for the Christians, Buddhists and so on is mind boggling.
So, a secular state where with a democratic institution establishes the laws is the only answer! And that's the only way the spirit of Justice so embedded in the Quranic message can be served right!
eemo,
I believe I defined secularism in my very first post! :~)
ahmedjee
the events you noted about how people were offered justice using their religious laws or teh civil laws speaks volumes..I wish more people could understand that.
mera matlab tha define it in the context of my 3 questions please.
hopefully u'll see what i mean when u do
I think the premises that you have defined for secularism are not accurate or are substantail, “Exclusion of Religion” from civil and judicial system and the power to legislate laws, which are not in accordance with religion, are the main issues.
more later….
same point that i was getting to minime .
Secularism states that in life man is the dictator of law
Islam clearly does not permit this.
It is not the choice of man as to whether he prays or not. it is obligation upon him as ordained by allah.
obligatory,recommended, permissible and prohibiting laws for a muslim are defined by the quran and sunnah, not by man as with secularism.
B]Ahmedjee ** yes, the fact that the islamic state was tolerant of other religions is correct but this is not as a result of secularism. this is because allah has permitted this.
The islamic system emanates from the aqeedah of islam not from the aqeedah of secularism.
democracy or the capitalist ideology is what emanates from the secular aqeedah.
[QUOTE]
So, a secular state where with a democratic institution establishes the laws is the only answer! And that's the only way the spirit of Justice so embedded in the Quranic message can be served right!
[/QUOTE]
"know that they can not have iman until they judge by what allah has revealed. surah 5:44 [quran]
are u suggesting that we dictate our own laws based on democracy instead of islam ?
and when u say the word justice in whose eyes do u mean justice?
allahs eyes or mans eyes ?
Re: Secularism & Islam
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ahmadjee: *
Repeatedly I have heard the argument that there is no room for secularism in Islam. But the proof provided has been vague. So, I wanted to start this thread & see what people can come up with in support or against the idea of secularism in Islam.
I define secularism as *"The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs" *
Please be specific, to the point & try to make it short ... long essays derail the thread too much.
[/QUOTE]
Dude, Secularisim is a Christianity concept, not Islamic
Rejection!
ahamedjee:
India has different civil laws for Muslims and Hindus. Again think whether it is possible for muslims to accept laws other than those that are clearly and unambiguously laid out in the Quran. Let us take a simple and real example: Should employees of a commercial enterprise be given time off during the day to say their prayers? Should they get time off to go to their mosques on Friday? If your answer is yes, then we are starting to bend secularism a little. How about inheritance laws? How about the laws of Qisas and Hudud?
Again, not possible!! Problematic? Sure.
eemo,
First, I don't understand secularism as a spiritual doctrine and so it does not answer your question about life. Civil matters & matters of law are different from one's soul's health. In other words, its not an aqeeda.
Secondly, a secular state does not mandate a capitalist economical structure. Many secular states are not capitalists, some are welfare states, some are even communists.
The verse your quoted (5:44) is a stretch. If you can point out that AnHazoor (saw) used this verse to mandate people in following the Islamic Law, then please show your proof. A Hadiths or a matter of history where the Holy Prophet (saw) used this verse & constitute law & order in his life time. If its your own opinion or an opinion of a group of people, then its just that .. an opinion.
*>>>It is not the choice of man as to whether he prays or not. it is obligation upon him as ordained by allah. *
I strongly disagree with that also. State has no right to make people come to mosque. There is no mention in the history where AnHazoor (saw) appointed people to bring people to mosque. They came with their own hearts! If you have a proof that in Madina, people were forced to say Namaz then please put it forward.
Praying is mandated for Muslim for his spiritual health but a person not obeying that commandment is held responsible in front of Allah, not any state/local government or clergy. Its between him & his Allah!
[QUOTE]
First, I don't understand secularism as a spiritual doctrine and so it does not answer your question about life. Civil matters & matters of law are different from one's soul's health. In other words, its not an aqeeda.
[/QUOTE]
cant really present my argument then, cos we have a differnet definition.
[QUOTE]
It is not the choice of man as to whether he prays or not. it is obligation upon him as ordained by allah.
I strongly disagree with that also. State has no right to make people come to mosque. There is no mention in the history where AnHazoor (saw) appointed people to bring people to mosque. They came with their own hearts! If you have a proof that in Madina, people were forced to say Namaz then please put it forward.
Praying is mandated for Muslim for his spiritual health but a person not obeying that commandment is held responsible in front of Allah, not any state/local government or clergy. Its between him & his Allah!
[/QUOTE]
hmm its very difficult to discuss on the net, cos u've misinterpreted what i actually meant. i'll put it down to my inability to express my self clearly. am not very good at it.
But what i am/was trying to say is not that the state imposes salah as obligation on man, but allah. so am in agreement with u there.
But ive already said before ur view on secularism is very diff.
OldLahori,
Again think whether it is possible for Muslims to accept laws other than those that are clearly and unambiguously laid out in the Quran
Yes! You are living in the West are doing it right now! Does that mean you are not a Muslim anymore? I don't think so.
As I said before, the laws by which AnHazoor (saw) governed Medina were not all from Quran. For example, do you have any example where the Holy Prophet (saw) gave a non-Muslim a punishment prescribed in Quran?
Secondly, majority of the countries around the world today are pluralistic. AnHazoor (saw) only had to deal with his Muslims, a few Jewish & Christian tribes of his time when making the laws and judgments. Even in a country like Pakistan where there are 98% Muslims, they don’t agree on one single interpretation of the Islamic Law. So which one to follow?
Let us take a simple and real example: Should employees of a commercial enterprise be given time off during the day to say their prayers? Should they get time off to go to their mosques on Friday?
This simple matter should be resolved with Justice as you see it. Personally, I think not letting him go will be unjust, but letting him go and make others pick up his work is also unjust (unless they offer). So, whatever the employee & employer can arbitrate & come up with an answer.
Similar is the case with inheritance Qasas, Hadood etc. AnHazoor (saw) sunnah was that he would tell the parties in dispute the penalties/favors before hand and get them to an agreement before hearing their cases.
then we are starting to bend secularism a little!
Yes, I am. Actually bend a lot.
And let me make it abundantly clear that I do not consider any nation today the ideal model of a secular state or the sate of justice that AnHazoor (saw) established.
Ahmadjee, I am already way out of my league! I do not believe that I can contribute anything really meaningful. Hopefully some scholar in Islamic Law might show some concern and step in. I think it is well established that many of the laws for muslims when they are living in non-muslim lands are different than when they are living in Islamic lands.
The arguments you are offering are not for a separation of religious and civil matters as in secularism, but in a compassionate and intelligent interpretation of Islamic laws and a different "muslim state" than what you feel you see. I have no problems with that. However, please recogonise that what you are offering is an Islamic state as interpreted by you.
To make the matter clear: Would you go against a clear Quranic injunction (that you accept) in favor of a secular state?
would a muslim live in a non-secular non-muslim country where official
religen is non-islamic? how would they react if there are many restricions
on non-official religen. let say it is saudi version of goverment but
with a different religen. if saudis can have thier own laws in thier own country why not it is good for othere?
Exactly right rvikz. I believe that we should treat non-Muslims in Muslim countries, the same way we want Muslims to be treated in non-Muslim countries.
If their was an American law that aid only a Christian could become President, I would not have a problem with because it doesn't affect me. But if their was a law that allowed the word of a Christian to have greater weight then the words of a non-Christian in a court of law, I would have a problem with it. Or if their was a law that any Christian can accuse a non-Christian of blasphemy and the court would simply take his word over mine, I would have a problem with that too.
It's common sense that if Muslims do not wanted to be treated this way in Christian majority countries, they should not treat non-Muslims this way in their own countries. You can all debate Quran, hadith, sunnah till the cows come home, but it won't change the fact that Muslims today are practicing hypocrisy. Muslims are the greatest advocates of secularism in every damn country in the world but their own.
If their was even one possibly discriminatory law in US against Muslims, you would hear CAIR screaming on the top of their lungs for the rest of eternity. But this same CAIR would want discriminatory Sharia in every Muslim country.