Separation Of Church And State
Translated by Jumuah Magazine
Dr. Jaafar Sheikh Idris
Separation of church and state is widely accepted in the West and thus has
become a globally political thought. Historically, the idea emerged as a
practical strategy for dealing with issues related to the Christians and other
people in the Western culture.
Gradually, however, separation of church and state has become a popular
premise for all modern states. It is now seen that citizenship rather than
religion should be the basis for belonging to a state, since different citizens
may have different religions. If the state commits to one religion, members of
other faiths would feel alienated since a foreign religion would be imposed upon
them. They may be prohibited from practicing the rituals of their religion and
they may be deprived of their right to hold certain positions in the state, such
as president, or other key positions. This would create disturbances and
conflicts that would present obstacles for the progress of the state.
For these reasons, advocates of this policy of separation find that it is
best if a state takes a secular approach, neither supporting nor denying any
religion. It is up to the citizens to follow whatever faith and values they
choose and practice what rituals they please.
This is the ideal side of a neutral secular state that Western politicians
wish to project. However, the theory of separation of state and religion makes
several underlying assumptions that are hard to come by in the real world. Let
us consider some of them.
It is assumed that it is possible for a secular state to take a neutral stand
toward all religions, based on the implication that religion interferes with,
and possibly upsets, matters of state. This could be the case if there was in
fact no relationship between state affairs and religion, and the two were
separate entities. However, religions do not only deal with collections of
beliefs, rituals and individual behaviors that do not affect the society. Most
of the well known religions -Judaism, Christianity and Islam- have laws that
regulate relationships between people; whether on an individual basis, among the
family, or with the society at large, in addition to other laws observed
regarding food and drink, and many other daily details that cannot be separated
from the business of the state.
To accommodate for this, Western politicians had to make a compromise. They
decided to include some of the values of their religion -Christianity- in the
making of the rules of the state. And Christian values are certainly vivid in
Western foreign policy, particularly in its dealings with the Islamic world. At
the same time, some important aspects of the Christian religion were left out.
Recent liberal movements have come to attack The Sacred Book of Christianity,
claiming that what was always believed to be the word of God is no more than the
writings of people who were deeply influenced by the culture in which they
lived. This view was supported by the existence of many different versions of
the Bible with discrepancies between them. Thus, certain restrictions made in
the scriptures, such as homosexual behavior, should be seen as mere laws of the
society at a certain time so that there would be no reason to abide by such
dated laws today. This movement has gained support from politicians, leaders and
even scholars of religion. The result is that secularism has taken a life of its
own and is no longer a neutral or unbiased point of view. It might be seen as a
religion in itself, which, in the West, has its own fervent followers who attack
and fight Christianity.
So how are Muslims to approach the modern trend of separation of religion and
state in their countries? The basic belief in Islam is that the Qur'an is one
hundred percent the word of God, and the Sunna was also as a result of
the guidance of God to the Prophet peace be upon him. Islam cannot be separated
from the state because it guides Muslims through every detail of running the
state and their lives. Muslims have no choice but to reject secularism for it
excludes the laws of God.
Supporters of the secular state argue that the values of one religion cannot
be imposed on members of different religions that are present in our countries.
However, whether the non-Muslims in a state are few or many, secularism is not
the answer. The non-Muslims in Muslim states will either be secularists
themselves, in favor of abandoning the laws of Islam in the state, or will be
devoted followers of their own religion, who wish that the state follow the
rules of that religion. So in either case, a compromise cannot be made in
accordance with the Islamic point of view. What needs to be pointed out is that
under the law of Islam, other religions are not prohibited. At the same time,
people are provided with doctrines for legislation and running of state that
will protect people of all faiths living in the state.
Secularists in the West will agree with this, then they will point out that
under Islamic law, people are not all equal. No non-Muslim, for example, could
become the president. Well, in response to that fact, in turn, secularism is no
different. No Muslim could become president in a secular regime, for in order to
pledge loyalty to the constitution, a Muslim would have to abandon part of his
belief and embrace the belief of secularism — which is practically another
religion. For Muslims, the word 'religion' does not only refer to a collection
of beliefs and rituals, it refers to a way of life which includes all values,
behaviors, and details of living.
Secularism cannot be a solution for countries with a Muslim majority, for it
requires people to replace their God-given beliefs with an entirely different
set of man-made beliefs. Separation of religion and state is not an option for
Muslims because is requires us to abandon God's decree for that of a man.
|
