Is it time to separate religion from politics?

[Ms DD]

Salaam to all

 

I have come accross more and more muslims advocating the separation of religion from politics. I think it is poor attempt in reforming Islam.

 

I honestly disagree with this. If you asked someone “what is religion?” in the secular world, people may say that it is the set of beliefs and values which deal with the spiritual and moral aspects of life. In Islam, the word “religion” means way of life, a way of living that includes all aspects of life, be they spiritual, moral, social, economic, and political.

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 Scripture. It repeatedly asserts these values.

 

The previous 'Ulama were afraid that if religion and politics were separated there would be absolutely no check on the conduct of the rulers. Any rule of law which is contrary to Islam will go unchecked if religion was to seperate from politics.

 

Islam is a complete code of life and its implications are expanded to all walks of life. It is a belief, a tradition, acts of worship, as well as a code of socio-economic and political activities to ensure peace and socio-economic justice for the Muslims.

 

EDIT:

I realise that i am not making much of an argument here. I just like to pick your brains. For many years the argument to separate church and state has been hotly debated.

In the recent years, I’ve come across more and more examples of religion inter-mingled heavily with some of the world's current political situations.

On the other hand, if America or the UK were not secular, Would we be able to practice our faith freely? It is bit of a conundrum for me. I think i wanna have my cake and eat it too. In Islamic countries, I am all for incorporating religion into politics. I would welcome it as i dont believe that Islam will be easily changed as other faiths. Where i worry is when our leaders in the muslim countries devaite from the scriptures and oppress the dhimis if Islamic state is ever to be established. However in non-Islamic countries, incorporating religion with politics would be detrimental for muslims or any other faithfull where their faith isnt the dominant one as other faiths are prone to change.

[Khayr]

Salams,

 

I realise that i am not making much of an argument here. I just like to pick your brains. For many years the argument to separate church and state has been hotly debated.

In the recent years, I’ve come across more and more examples of religion inter-mingled heavily with some of the world's current political situations.

On the other hand, if America or the UK were not secular, Would we be able to practice our faith freely? It is bit of a conundrum for me. I think i wanna have my cake and eat it too. In Islamic countries, I am all for incorporating religion into politics. I would welcome it as i dont believe that Islam will be easily changed as other faiths. Where i worry is when our leaders in the muslim countries devaite from the scriptures and oppress the dhimis if Islamic state is ever to be established. However in non-Islamic countries, incorporating religion with politics would be detrimental for muslims or any other faithfull where their faith isnt the dominant one as other faiths are prone to change.

 

The statement that 'we should thank secularism, for allowing us to practice Religion only in our homes and mosques as a RITUALISTIC RELIGION and not as a WAY OF LIFE' is insulting. This is what secularism preaches-take world religions out and you will have Utopia on Earth. Why if it wasn't for Roussou and the French Revolution, we would have never attained this 'Utopia' on earth, wherein religion has become a Ritual and not a Way of Life.

Its like telling an Doctor that he can only practice medicine at home but that outside, he can only drive a Taxi and never practice medicine in public i.e. serve the public.

 

Sis,

 

what you are preaching is secularism. If religion is about living peacefully and affluently and attaining heaven on earth, then secularism is that religion that makes that promise, provided all other religions are practiced in a RITUALISTIC manner.

 

 

Fi Amanillah

[Cara.]

Khayr,

Originally posted by Khayr:

The statement that

'we should thank secularism, for allowing us to practice Religion only in our homes and mosques as a RITUALISTIC RELIGION and not as a WAY OF LIFE'

is insulting.

You're the only one making that statement.

 

You can live your religion as a way of life for YOU. You just can't force it on others as a way of life for THEM. Some religious people have the sense to see that this makes sense. Others can't reason their way out of a paper bag.

 

Its like telling an Doctor that he can only practice medicine at home but that outside, he can only drive a Taxi and never practice medicine in public i.e. serve the public.

LOL. It's not at all like that actually. Doctors obtain the consent of their patients before any medical procedure. Any doctor who tried to force his or her unwanted and unneeded services on to people SHOULD be driving a cab instead--but not if he intends to force people to ride in his taxi

 

Cambarro,

 

Is your concern about religion in politics really based on the fact that religions other than Islam are liable to change? So you'd be all for living under a Hindu theocracy if the Hindus promised that they'd never change how you would be forced to worship Krishna? And are you in full support of the Saudi interpretation of Shariah laws provided they never change?

[Khayr]

 

Is your concern about religion in politics really based on the fact that religions other than Islam are liable to change? So you'd be all for living under a Hindu theocracy if the Hindus promised that they'd never change how you would be forced to worship Krishna? And are you in full support of the Saudi interpretation of Shariah laws provided they never change?

 

How do you think that a few centuries ago, the Amir in India ruled there? Surely, you don't think that the Hindus were all killed or forced into conversions?

 

The argument and threat of persecution by other religious states is tired and worn out. This is what secularism argues and tries to entice people with. What secularity can't fathom is that GOD and MAN are interlinked and that MAN can't be MAN when GOD is taken out of the picture.

 

Therefore, secularism puts a real cholk hold on all religions and the idea of God Consciousness/TAQWA , because it seeks to propagate the exact opposite-Self Worship i.e. that MAN is his own GOD which makes it Shirk.

When you state that Revelation can't set proper laws for MAN, you are de facto proclaiming that GOD can't get it right but that MAN can get it right and set things straight through the idea of Progressive society.

[Abu-Salman]

...

[Abu-Salman]

What is politics? Politics come from Polis, which means city in Greek as the city-State was the norm in classical Greece; hence politics is the State or public affairs management by its citizens.

 

Could religion be separated from politics?

 

In other words, could religion be dissociated from the laws which regulate the way a State is run, its rapports with its citizens and other States?

 

But does this amount to saying: could there be any legal system derived purely through "secular means", whatever that may signify?

 

Clearly, no human legal system hasn't been fundamently influenced by religions, as Christian values and old Pagan Roman traditions, for instance, were the main sources of Western legal systems...

[A.J. Timacadeh]

i dont think this can be the case in somali. at the moment the only thing that unites us is religion and i feel if you were to remove that from politics all hope would be lost for our people if it hasnt already

[xiinfaniin]

In its most basic meaning, Islam represents a set of legal codes revealed by Allah to properly worship Him. It instructs its followers how to live their life. Of course that includes how to manage, collectively, their affairs and govern them-selves.

 

So to answer your question, yaa Cambarro, it’s ever a time to separate politics from religion! From Islamic perspective that is.

[Centurion]

it’s ever a time to separate politics from religion!

lol, if you mean never a time, i agree with you there xiin.

 

In an nutshell..

 

For a real Islamic nation, Islam should be the political system, and the more we adhere to the rules and regulations set in the Quran, the more succesful the political atmosphere in a country; they are directly proportional.

 

The Quran contains (if properly understood) what Western philosophers and political scientists have been looking for all their lives: Utopia.

 

If administered to the best of our knowledge, Islam's guidelines will guarantee us that.

 

But of course as humans we are inherently erronous, so we will never quite reach a state of Utopia (ironically we cannot even reach the level of 'State') however we can come close to it.

 

 

Secularism is a western tool designed to initially prevent the political and social alienation of different sections of European populations (be they Christinian denominations, or whole different religions) and it is increasingly appearing as an alternative for naturally Islamic nations who bow down to Western political and economical pressure.

 

 

Secularism is a faulty political ideology which will never suit any major Islamic nation, let alone a totally Islamic nation such as ours.

[098]

Religion and politics are very important. However, I believe that politicians should not mess up with religion. It is religion first & politics second. We all understand we can change our policy but not our religion.It must always have the prioriy whether you join them or seperate them.

[NGONGE]

In answer to the question posed in the title of this thread I would say ABSALOUTLY!

 

I can almost sense you shaking your head and losing interest in what I’m about to write next. Come on, be a sport and suffer me a little longer.

 

Personally and in theory, I am not opposed to an Islamic State. It’s a great idea and, as a Muslim, it would be absurd for me to reject it. Having said that, it really is not concepts that we’re talking about here but actual, perceptible and practicable systems of government. Here, is where I fear that the Islamic model is failing (today at least)!

 

Were I to ask anyone on here how a secular western democracy works I am sure that I would receive a satisfactory and (almost) correct reply (once I’ve sifted through the venom or praise of course). The principles of it are clear. The practice is understandable. The majority of the members of a democratic community know (most of) their rights and understand their obligations. An average member of a democratic society is confidant that he will be treated fairly and that this system of government is the finest model available.

 

Still, the system itself might be imperfect, rickety and needing various amendments in the laws to constantly correct earlier oversights (see the abortion arguments, civil rights laws and the various other laws that are continually revised and queried). However, since the citizens believe in the suitability of the system they are happy to turn a blind eye to all these revisions and adjustments. In their eyes, the system is perfect, as long as it does not interfere with their rights. And, when it does, they know they can question it and demand that it to be reviewed (see the poll tax riots in the late 80s early 90s in the UK). In short, the citizen understands his role in this system and (mostly) knows what to expect.

 

 

An Islamic model on the other hand, is an actual mystery! Almost all people you ask would tell you that there is no such model in practice today. They will point to Iran and Saudi Arabia as being the nearest things to an Islamic system of government. They’ll hark back to the Taliban and various Islamic movements that managed to temporarily rule Islamic lands and apply a so-called Islamic model. But, when pressed, all will virtually agree that these systems were (are) not applied perfectly and could not (really) be true Islamic models of government! The harsher critics will even volunteer to point out the shortfalls of these systems and list all the main errors within!

 

I’ve already agreed with the Islamic model (in theory), so why am I questioning the practice itself, I hear you ask. Well, the theory is always good because one never needs to go into details when discussing it. It is like a business that decides to sell computer games to an affluent society. The business believes that its product is an ethical product that will benefit this society and cannot envisage any problems arising from the sale of such a product! Yet, as soon as it begins mass production and the product becomes popular, the management starts receiving irate letters from customers complaining about the side effects of those wretched games! Where the company believed those games were beneficial in that they’ll help youngsters concentrate, learn to solve complex puzzles and expand their mind (or even their eye-hand coordination)! They discover that parents are complaining about the effects these games are having on the children’s concentration, appreciation of time and health (since they’ll be sitting in front of those games for hours on end)! Such issues and outcomes could never really be anticipated if the company had not had previous experience in the gaming world! Being a business of course, it will attempt to find way to appease the customers without losing its profit. If it can’t, it will just (usually) concentrate on making profit. Luckily, if the problem is a serious one, the customers can seek government help in making the company see sense and improve its products to meet the customer demands and needs!

 

The problem with an Islamic system of government is similar to the story above. In theory it is great but, since there has not been any proper Islamic governments in the recent past, in practice it is awful! If we compare the Islamic government to the company above, one can say that it is trying to sell a product that it believes will be very popular (and it is). The customers will be falling over themselves to buy into that product and, initially, will treat the faults they see as simple teething problems. However, when the faults are major ones (such as the Taliban’s banning of the education of girls, etc), the customers will fire the irate letters to the ‘company’ and ask for these errors to be corrected. Here, is where my example above and Islamic government part ways. Where a business can be challenged and taken to court if it refuses to listen to its customer’s genuine complaints/demands, an Islamic government IS the law! The most people can do is curse it and hope that god would replace this bad government with a better one! Not much of a great system, is it?

 

Still, the system itself is not that bad. The real problem is with those applying it and those affected by it. When I wrote earlier about a citizen in a democratic system, I spoke about how such a citizen knows his rights and understands his obligations. In an Islamic system, most citizens don’t really know their rights or understand their obligations. For the most part, it is all (sadly) about: If Mullah says we should do this then we should do it and if Mullah says we should not then we wont!

 

An Islamic system does not fail because those in charge are corrupt (they are human and are prone to sin). An Islamic system really fails because there are no sufficient checks and balances that would prevent a potential corrupt/self-righteous government from abusing its powers. The biggest of these (checks and balances) is the UNDERSTANDING of the general population of how such a system should work. Only when people understand their own rights and responsibilities in an Islamic society, and when they also KNOW the privileges and duties of an Islamic government could such a system work. Alas, not many do and the Mullahs are, simply, always right.

 

I think it is time to separate religion from politics. Because, in all honesty, unless we all understand what we’re wishing for, all we will keep having are political animals masquerading as Islamic governments. Might as well ditch the duplicity and root for secular democracy instead. With any luck, the freedoms, responsibilities and rights it confers on individuals will pave the way for an eventual and viable Islamic government.

[N.O.R.F]

I spoke about how such a citizen knows his rights and understands his obligations. In an Islamic system, most citizens don’t really know their rights or understand their obligations. For the most part, it is all (sadly) about: If Mullah says we should do this then we should do it and if Mullah says we should not then we wont!

Ignorance of Islam = Ignorance of how one should be governed. Coupled with abuses of power it will only lead to a type of thinking where wrong decisions are taken as being in accordance with Islam/Shariica. Sadly there are current leaders who are steadfast.

 

I think it is time to separate religion from politics. Because, in all honesty, unless we all understand what we’re wishing for, all we will keep having are political animals masquerading as Islamic governments. Might as well ditch the duplicity and root for secular democracy instead. With any luck, the freedoms, responsibilities and rights it confers on individuals will pave the way for an eventual and viable Islamic government.

I think your going to have expand on this scouser.

[Abu-Salman]

Honestly, as already mentioned, Islamic ignorance or Jahiliya is the root cause confusing the masses on this topic of Islamic governance.

 

How could one be ignorant of his raison-d'etre, oblivious of his very obligations as a creature designed to worship Allah?

 

In that light, what kind of Muslim could reasonably plead ignorance when it comes to its rights and duties according to the Qur'aan and Sunnah, ie Shariah, and the implied system of governance as practised by the early companions and their successors for the benefit of the whole humankind (eg Islamic Spain influence as the unique, European centre of advanced learning, its pioneering of social services, public libraries ect)?

 

How could, instead, a Muslim be proficient with confused, secular laws whose philosophy is founded around the satisfaction of one's lust, more often than not in detriment of his own health, mental and spiritual well-being?

 

Doesn't then "democracy" a la Western or the supremacy of popular, frivolous and inevitably arbitrary preferences represent the very antithesis of Islam as total submission to Allah's will with its personal, social and political implications?

[Biixi]

Politics without ethics/morals is a dirty game. All means justify the end. How many promises made by politicians were never met.

 

But policies based on higher moral/ethics source bournes THRUTH, and then and only then do people do good things.

[Khayr]

Still, the system itself is not that bad. The real problem is with those applying it and those affected by it. When I wrote earlier about a citizen in a democratic system, I spoke about how such a citizen knows his rights and understands his obligations. In an Islamic system, most citizens don’t really know their rights or understand their obligations. For the most part, it is all (sadly) about: If Mullah says we should do this then we should do it and if Mullah says we should not then we wont!

 

 

An Islamic system does not fail because those in charge are corrupt (they are human and are prone to sin). An Islamic system really fails because there are no sufficient checks and balances that would prevent a potential corrupt/self-righteous government from abusing its powers. The biggest of these (checks and balances) is the UNDERSTANDING of the general population of how such a system should work. Only when people understand their own rights and responsibilities in an Islamic society, and when they also KNOW the privileges and duties of an Islamic government could such a system work. Alas, not many do and the Mullahs are, simply, always right.

There are 'Checks and Balances' in the deen.

 

Why the Rasul (salallahu cailyhe wasilm) was corrected on many occassions by Allah in the Quran. 13 times Hadrat Omar gave Advice to the Rasul (salallahu cailyhe wasilm)cand Allah corrected the Rasul (salallahu cailyhe wasilm) and took Omar's side.

 

In fact, Hadrat Omar was even corrected by a female citizen of the state during Jummah Khutbah and in the deen, if the khateeb is outline regarding the Shariah they can be questioned about their khutbah at the Jummah.

 

The Ulama have a responsibility and according to the quran, they are the most fearful of God and according to the quran, the most honored in the eyes of God are those that are Muttaqun (God Fearing/God Conscious) and being Just is a quality of taqwa.

 

Problem is in human error. The corruption of the best is the worst and what gets highlighted in the media is exactly that. You don't hear stories about Ulama who have donated their entire belongings to others to help them out, our how the Taliban cleaned up their country from tribalism and 11yrs of civil war, or how the Imam of Iran use to sleep on the floor and lived very humbly.

 

The biggest of these (checks and balances) is the UNDERSTANDING of the general population of how such a system should work. Only when people understand their own rights and responsibilities in an Islamic society, and when they also KNOW the privileges and duties of an Islamic government could such a system work. Alas, not many do and the Mullahs are, simply, always right.

Its not just question of confusion but rather of Iman. The majority of the current muslim populace don't really care about their Akhira. Its not a priority. Just go to the avg. muslim home and see how many people will pray with you in the home, during salat time.

 

The confusion lays in comparing two diametrically opposing worldviews and scoring them on the same score card.

 

Accountability goes both ways; unfortunately the secular worldview seperates the individual's accountability from government accountability.

 

Society is never a reflection of you and I and our actions never affect others, as long as they don't 'physically harm others.-The Liberal Democratic Motto....