Arguing for a secular state
By DR AHMAD FAROUK MUSA
Cited from : http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2012/9/9/nation/11944536&sec=nation
Taking into consideration the significant non-Muslim community in our country, a secular state that embraces democracy is the most logical option.
TO many Muslims and especially the Islamists, the term secular is very repugnant. This abhorrence to anything secular stems mainly from the previously bitter experience of secularism in Turkey that had led to the dissolution of the Ottoman Caliphate, the last caliphate in the Muslim world.
The fall of the Ottoman Caliphate in the early 20th century led some Muslim scholars to push for a new entity known as an Islamic state to stem the onslaught of Western imperialism. Before that, the concept of an Islamic state was not known in the Islamic world.
History has shown that while secularism was born in the West, its values spread across the world in many different continents and societies.
According to Louay Safi, a scholar at the International Institute of Islamic Thought, secularism denotes a set of notions and values whose aim is to ensure that the state neither engages in promoting specific religious beliefs and values nor uses its powers and offices to persecute religion.
The Islamic state conundrum
Going by the current discourse in Malaysia, one gets the impression that the priority of an Islamic state is to impose a set of rules known as hudud. This obsession with hudud stems from the understanding that it is divine law in the Quran that is imposed upon believers.
Many people believe that hudud is a set of codified laws that can be imposed without resorting to human agency at all. This is an obvious fallacy since the Quran only lays down some basic texts that require human agency to interpret them.
The formulation, adoption and implementation of legislation are always matters of human judgment and reasoning. Therefore, their intended implementation is subject to human error and fallibility and can always be challenged and questioned. The problem will arise when such laws are deemed sacred and of God's divine will and any sort of criticism will be deemed as heresy.
On this matter, Prof Hashim Kamali has argued that hudud in the Quran is a broad concept that is neither confined to punishments nor to a legal framework. It provides a comprehensive set of guidelines on moral, legal and religious themes. Whenever the Quran specified punishments for the offences, it also made provisions for repentance and reformation. Whereas juristic doctrine has either left this totally out or reduced it to a mechanical formality that can hardly be said to be reflective of the original teachings of the Quran.
On another note, not only is hudud in direct conflict with the Federal Constitution but in the context of a multiracial and multi-religious society, such a proposition also raises the issue of whether the nation should be governed by two sets of laws: one for Muslims and the other for non-Muslims.
The real problem of having laws such as hudud is that it is presented as mandated by the divine will of God.
But Sharia must neither be privileged nor enforced as a source of state law and policy simply because they are believed to be the will of God.
Prof Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim argued in “Islam and the Secular State” that the belief of even the vast majority of citizens that these principles are binding as a matter of Islamic religious obligation should remain the basis of individual and collective observance among believers. But that cannot be accepted as sufficient reason for the enforcement by the state because they would then apply to citizens who may not share that belief.
Why a secular state
Secularism does not mean the exclusion of religion from the public life of a society. The misconception that it does is one of the reasons many Muslims tend to be hostile towards the concept.
A state should be secular in the sense that it is neutral to all the differing religious doctrines. As Abdullahi An-Naim argued, the state neutrality is necessary for true conviction to be the driving force of religious and social practice, without fear of those who control the state.
A secular state must embrace democracy. And democracy cannot be based on Sharia law, as that on the contrary would denote a theocracy. A secular state would allow every living Muslim a true freedom. Freedom to pray and fast as he or she ought to, freedom to follow the footsteps of the Prophet as he or she sees fit and freedom to submit to the will of God as he or she understands it.
Mustafa Akyol in his book, Islam Without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty, wrote a chapter on “Freedom to Sin”. In it, he argued that Muslims should rethink the meaning of the phrase “amarma'rufnahimunkar” or simply “commanding the good, forbidding the wrong”. They need to make a clear distinction between “crime” and “sin”. While combating crime can be made via legal means, sins should only be through civil means like preaching.
The argument does not arise from an antagonistic attitude against piety but from a true appreciation of what piety is all about: a sincere belief free from coercion. Any regime that imposes piety because of the belief that it is part of the doctrine “commanding the good and preventing the wrong” is basically creating a community of hypocrites than genuine piety.
Genuine piety only arises through personal choice. And that choice only becomes possible when there is freedom. In other words, freedom to sin is a necessary medium to be sincerely pious.
The erudite Muhammad Asad made it very clear when making his commentary in his magnum opus, The Message of the Quran, regarding verse 25 of al-A'raf or Faculty of Discernment, where he commented on the story about Adam and Eve's temptation. He said: “The growth of his consciousness symbolised by the wilful act of disobedience to God's command changed all this. It transformed him from a purely instinctive being into a full-fledged human entity as we know it a human being capable of discerning between right and wrong and thus of choosing his way of life. In this deeper sense, the allegory of the Fall does not describe a retrogressive happening but rather, a new stage of human development: an opening of doors to moral consideration. By forbidding him to approach the tree', God made it possible for man to act wrongly, and therefore, to act rightly as well. And so, man became endowed with that moral free will which will distinguish him from all other sentinel beings.”
The way forward
The arguments regarding this topic could go ad infinitum. However, one thing is very clear and that is we have to work on the best form of government that will be tenable to all the different races and religions in our country. With that in mind, we have to work on the best form of government that will be tenable to all the different races and religions in our country.
If we still want to continue fighting for an Islamic state, we have to agree on one basic fact. Not a single particular Muslim, whether the Grand Syeikh of al-Azhar or Saudi Mufti, could claim to have a theocratic authority.
Considering that Muslims have been divided into different sects, ideas and views, the only system that would be fair for all would be the one that would include all of them in the political process.
Taking also into consideration the significant non-Muslim community in our country who should never be considered as second-class citizens, then a secular state that embraces democracy is the most logical option. Secularism needs religion to provide a moral guidance for the community and, in turn, religion needs secularism to mediate the relations between the different communities that share the same political space and space of civic reason. Secularism is able to unite diverse communities of belief and practice into one political community simply because the moral claims it makes are minimal. And secularism is able to tolerate differing views in a religiously diverse community while maintaining its political stability.
Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa, is chairman and director of the Islamic Renaissance Front.
