Islam vs.

Secularism
Secularism is defined in the Webster dictionary as: "A system of doctrines and practices that
rejects any form of religious faith and worship" or "The belief that religion and ecclesiastical affairs
should not enter into the function of the state especially into public education."

There is no doubt that secularism contradicts Islam in every aspect. They are two different paths
that never meet; choosing one means rejecting the other. Hence, whoever chooses Islam has to
reject secularism. In the following, we go in the details of explaining why.

1- First, secularism makes lawful what Allah has made unlawful.

The Rule of Allah (Shari`ah) is compulsory and has basic laws and regulations that cannot be
changed. Some of these laws are concerned with the acts of worship, the relations between men
and women, etc.

What is the position with regard to these laws?

Secularism makes adultery lawful if the male and the female are consenting adults.

As for Riba (interest on money), it is the basis of all financial transactions in secular economies.
On the contrary, Allah says (s.2 A. 278): "O you who believe, fear Allah and leave what comes
from Riba if you are believers. If you do not do so, then wait for a war from Allah and His
Messenger."

As for alcohol, all secular systems allow the consumption of alcohol and make selling it a lawful
business.

2- Second, secularism is clear unbelief (Kufr).

Secularism is based on separating religion from all the affairs of this life and hence, it rules by law
and regulations other than Allah's laws. Hence, secularism rejects Allah's rules with no exception
and prefers regulations other than Allah's and His Messenger's. In fact, many secularists claim
that Allah's laws might have been suitable for the time they were revealed but are now outdated.

As a result, most of the laws governing the daily affairs of life in the countries ruled by secular
systems contradict Islam. Allah says (S.5 A.50): "Do they seek a judgment of Ignorance? But,
who, for a people whose faith is assured, can give better judgment than Allah?"

Ibn Katheer said in the Tafseer of this verse that Allah is denouncing those who reject His ruling
and accept other rulings that are not based on the Shari`ah of Allah. Whoever does so is indeed a
non-believer. Indeed, belief in Allah can never go with the acceptance of other than His rulings in
one's heart. Allah says (S.5 A.44): "If any do fail to judge by what Allah has revealed, they are
non-believers."

From the above, the status of secularism and its relation to Islam are clear. But the ignorance
about the Islamic truth is still dominating the Muslim's mind. Most secular systems repeat slogans
like "no religion in politics and no politics in religion" or "religion is for Allah, and the state is for the
people." Such sayings portray their view of Islam as a religion to be practiced in the mosque only,
and that it should not be allowed to rule life outside the mosque. Furthermore, they try to deceive
people with democratic slogans like "personal freedom" and "people governing people." That
means that people come first and no place is made for the ruling of Allah.
This is why secularism is clear Kufr, this is why secular systems have no legality and authority
and should be rejected by Muslims.

Secularism Vs. Islam

By Dr. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi
From 'Al-Hulul al Mustawradah wa Kayfa Jaat `alaa Ummatina'
("How the Imported Solutions Disastrously Affected Our Ummah"), pp 113-4

Secularism may be accepted in a Christian society but it can never enjoy a general acceptance in
an Islamic society. Christianity is devoid of a shari`ah or a comprehensive system of life to which
its adherents should be committed. The New Testament itself divides life into two parts: one for
God, or religion, the other for Caesar, or the state: "Render unto Caesar things which belong to
Caesar, and render unto God things which belong to God" (Matthew 22:21). As such, a Christian
could accept secularism without any qualms of conscience. Furthermore, Westerners, especially
Christians, have good reasons to prefer a secular regime to a religious one. Their experience with
"religious regimes" - as they knew them - meant the rule of the clergy, the despotic authority of
the Church, and the resulting decrees of excommunication and the deeds of forgiveness, i.e.
letters of indulgence.

For Muslim societies, the acceptance of secularism means something totally different; i.e. as
Islam is a comprehensive system of worship (`ibadah) and legislation (Shari`ah), the acceptance
of secularism means abandonment of Shari`ah, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of
Allah’s injunctions; It is indeed a false claim that Shariah is not proper to the requirements of the
present age. The acceptance of a legislation formulated by humans means a preference of the
humans’ limited knowledge and experiences to the divine guidance: "Say! Do you know better
than Allah?" (2:140).

For this reason, the call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its
acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shari`ah is downright riddah. The silence of the masses
in the Muslim world about this deviation has been a major transgression and a clear-cut instance
of disobedience which have produces a sense of guilt, remorse, and inward resentment, all of
which have generated discontent, insecurity, and hatred among committed Muslims because
such deviation lacks legality. Secularism is compatible with the Western concept of God which
maintains that after God had created the world, He left it to look after itself. In this sense, God’s
relationship with the world is like that of a watchmaker with a watch: he makes it then leaves it to
function without any need for him. This concept is inherited from Greek philosophy, especially
that of Aristotle who argued that God neither controls nor knows anything about this world. This is
a helpless God as described by Will Durant. There is no wonder that such a God leaves people to
look after their own affairs. How can He legislate for them when He is ignorant of their affairs?
This concept is totally different from that of Muslims. We Muslims believe that Allah (SWT) is the
sole Creator and Sustainer of the Worlds. One Who "…takes account of every single thing)
(72:28); that He is omnipotent and omniscient; that His mercy and bounties encompasses
everyone and suffice for all. In that capacity, Allah (SWT) revealed His divine guidance to
humanity, made certain things permissible and others prohibited, commanded people observe
His injunctions and to judge according to them. If they do not do so, then they commit kufr,
aggression, and transgression."
Islam vs. Secular
Moral Values Or Secular Opinion What Does Islam Say?
MORAL values, such as honesty, trustworthiness, justice, and chastity, are
originally innate values which Allah planted in the hearts of mankind; then
He sent His messengers with a system of life in accord with this innate
disposition to affirm it.
"So set your face toward the religion, as one by nature upright; the
instinctive (religion) which Allah has created in mankind. There is no
altering (the laws) of Allah's creation. That is the right religion but most
people do not know."
[Surat Ar-Rum:30].
A believer adheres to these moral values because his nature, fortified by
faith, induces him to do so, and because the religion he believes in
commands him with them and promises him a reward for them in the
Hereafter. Secularism, on the other hand, even in its less virulent form that
satisfies itself with removing religion from political life, rejecting it and the
innate values as a basis for legislation, undermines the two foundations for
moral values in the hearts of mankind.

As for secularism in its extreme atheistic form, it completely demolishes

these two foundations and replaces them with human whims, either the
whims of a few rulers in dictatorial systems or the whims of the majority in
democratic systems.
"Have you seen the one who has taken his own desire as his god? Would
you then be a guardian over him?"
[Al-Furqan:43].

Since whims and desires are by their nature constantly changing, the
values and behaviors based on them are also mutable. What is considered
today to be a crime, punishable by law with the severest of penalties, and
causes its practitioners to be deprived of certain rights granted to others,
becomes permissible tomorrow, or even praiseworthy, and the one who
objects to it becomes "politically incorrect."

This shift from one point of view to its opposite, as a result of society's
estrangement from innate religious values, is a frequent occurrence.
However ignorant a traditional society may be, it, or many of its members,
will maintain some innate values; but the further a society penetrates into
secularism, the fewer such individuals will become, and the more marginal
their influence will be, until the society collectively rebels against those
same innate religious values it used to uphold. There may be another
reason for some traditional Jahili cultures to maintain innate religious
values: they might appeal to their desires, or they represent their heritage
and do not conflict with their desires.
"And when they are called to Allah and His Messenger to judge between
them, Lo! a party of them refuse and turn away. But if the right is with them
they come to Him willingly."
[Al-Nur: 48-49].
Their relationship with truth is similar to Satan's, as described by the
Prophet (sallallahu alayhe wa sallam) to Abu Hurairah, whom Satan had
advised to recite Ayat al-Kursi when going to bed: "He told you the truth,
even though he is an inveterate liar."
Contemporary Western, secular societies are the clearest examples of the
shifting, self-contradictory nature of jahili civilization. From one angle it
views culture and the values it rests upon as a relative, variable
phenomenon. However, from another angle it characterizes some values as
human values, views their violation as shocking, and punishes their
violators severely.

The sources of this problem are two fundamental principles which

democratic secular societies rely upon. The first is majority rule as a
standard for right and wrong in speech and behavior; the second is the
principle of individual freedom. These two principles will necessarily
conflict with each other if they are not subordinated to another principle
that will judge between them. Secularism, by its very nature, rejects
religion, and in its Western form it does not consider fitrah (innate values) a
criterion for what is beneficial or harmful for humanity.

It has no alternative but to make these two principles an absolute standard

for what behavior is permissible and appropriate, and what isn't. The
contradiction and conflict between these two principles is showing itself
plainly in some of the current hot issues in these societies. Those who
advocate the acceptance of homosexuality and the granting to avowed
homosexuals equal rights and opportunities in every aspect of life,
including military service, base their argument on the principle of
individual rights. They see no one as having the right to concern
themselves with what they call their "sexual orientation."
The same argument is made by supporters of abortion. You frequently hear
them say incredulously, "How can I be prohibited from freedom of choice in
my own affairs and over my own body? What right do legal authorities have
to involve themselves in such personal matters?"
The only argument their opponents can muster is that this behavior
contradicts the values held by the majority of the population. Even though
the basis for many people's opposition to abortion is moral or religious,
they can't come out and say so openly, nor can they employ religious or
moral arguments, since secular society finds neither of them acceptable.

If we accept that there is no basis for values except individual or majority

opinion, and that it is therefore possible for all values to change from one
era to another, and from one society to another, this means there is no
connection between values and what will benefit or harm people in their
material and spiritual lives, which in turn means that all values are equality
valid and it doesn't matter which values a given society accepts or rejects.
However, this means that all behavior considered abhorrent by secular
societies today, such as sexual molestation of children and rape of women
for which it has serious penalties, are considered repulsive only because of
current inclination, which might change tomorrow, so certain serious
crimes may become acceptable, based on the principle of individual
freedom.
The reason a secularist is confused when posed with certain questions is
that his repugnance toward such crimes is not really based on these two
principles, which have become the only accepted bases for argument in
societies dominated by secularism; the real reason for it is the remnants of
the moral feelings he still possesses from the original nature with which
Allah endowed him, and which linger on in spite of his secularism.

Perhaps the confusion of the secularist would increase if he were asked for
what reason he had given such precedence to these democratic values,
until he made them the standard by which all other values and behaviors
are judged. If he says his reverence for them is based merely on current
personal preference and inclination, or on cultural chauvinism, he will have
no reply to one who opposes him on the basis of his contradictory
personal preferences, or because the norms of his society differ from those
of the other.
The flimsy foundation of values in secular societies makes them liable to
turn at any time against all the values they currently hold dear. It also
paves the way for them to descend to their practices of the occupation and
colonization of weaker nations. There is nothing to make them refrain from
doing so, once one of them stands up and announces that there is a
nationalist benefit to be gained by it and a large number of fellow citizens
believe him. His policy proposal becomes official policy, based on the
standard of majority approval. It is, however, as you can see, an approval
based on nothing more than greed. This has been the justification for every
transgression in history. In fact it is the basis on which any animal attacks
another.
Personal freedom and majority rule are not, then, the fundamental values
on which secular culture is based. That is because freedom entails choice,
but it is not the criterion for that choice. I mean that whoever is given the
freedom to choose needs a standard that he can use as the criterion for his
choice.

Likewise, majority opinion is not itself the standard; it is merely the result
of many individual choices made on the basis of some standard. So what is
the basis for the choices of a free individual and a free society in the
secular system? It is, without the slightest doubt, those whims and desires
which have taken the place of the real Deity.
Source: http://www.islamnewsroom.com
Shoora and Democracy: A Conceptual Analysis
Dr. Ja`far Sheikh Idris
What is shoora?
Shoora comes from an Arabic word shara whose original meaning, according to classical Arabic
dictionaries was to extract honey from hives. The word then acquired secondary meanings all of
which are related to that original one. One of these secondary meanings is consultation and
deliberation. The way consultation and deliberation bring forth ideas and opinions from peoples'
minds must have been seen to be analogous to the extracting of honey from hives. It might also
have been thought that good ideas and opinions were as sweet and precious as honey.

According to this purely linguistic meaning, shoora is no more than a procedure of making
decisions. It can thus be defined as the procedure of making decisions by consultation and
deliberation among those who have an interest in the matter on which a decision is to be taken,
or others who can help them to reach such a decision.

The important matter on which shoora is made can be either a matter which concerns an
individual, or a matter which concerns a group of individuals, or a matter that is of interest to the
whole public. Let us call the first individual shoora, the second group shoora, and the thirdpublic
shoora.

Thus formally understood, shoora has nothing to do with the kind of matter to be decided upon, or
the basis on which those consulted make their decisions, or the decision reached, because it is a
mere procedure, a tool you might say, that can be used by any group of people - a gang of
robbers, a military junta, an American Senate or a council of Muslim representatives.

There is thus nothing in the concept which makes it intrinsically Islamic. And as a matter of fact
shoora in one form or the other was practiced even before Islam. An Arab Bedouin is reported to
have said, "Never do I suffer a misfortune that is not suffered by my people." When asked how
come, he said, "Because I never do anything until I consult them, astasheerahum.. “ It is also said
that Arab noblemen used to be greatly distressed if a matter was decided without their shoora.
Non Arabs also practiced it. The Queen of Sheba was, according to the Qur'an, in the habit of
never making a decision without consulting her chieftains..

What is democracy?
What is democracy? The usual definition is rule, kratos, by the people, demos. On the face of it,
then, democracy has nothing to do with shoora. But once we ask: "How do the people rule?" we
begin to see the connection.

'Ruling' implies ruling over someone or some group, and if all the people rule, over whom is it that they rule? (Barry, 208)

The answer on which almost all democracy theorists are agreed is that what is meant by rule
here is that they make basic decisions on matters of public policy. How do they make those
decisions? Ideally by discussion and deliberation in face-to-face meetings of the people, as was
the case in Athens.

Similarities
Democracy, then, has also to do with decisions taken after deliberation. But this is what an Arab
would have described as shoora. It might be thought that there still seem to be some differences
between shoora and democracy, because the latter seems to be confined to political matters. But
the concept of democracy can easily be extended to other aspects of life, because a people who
choose to give the power of decision-making on political matters to the whole population, should
not hesitate to give similar power to individuals who form a smaller organization, if the matter is of
interest to each one of them. The concept of democracy can be and is, therefore, extended to
include such groups as political parties, charitable organizations and trade unions. Thus broadly
understood, democracy is almost identical with shoora. There is thus nothing in the primary or
extended meaning of democracy which makes it intrinsically Western or secular. If shoora can
take a secular form, so can democracy take an Islamic form.

Islam and secular democracy

Basic differences
What is it that characterizes shoora when it takes an Islamic form, what is it that characterizes
democracy when it takes a secular form, and what are the differences between these forms, and
the similarities, if any? What would each of them take, if put in the framework of the other? I
cannot go into all the details of this here. Let me concentrate therefore on some of the vital issues
which separate Islam and secularism as world outlooks, and therefore give democracy and
shoora those special forms when placed within their frameworks.

Let us understand by secularism the belief that religion should not have anything to do with public
policy, and should at most be tolerated only as a private matter. The first point to realize here is
that there is no logical connection between secularism and democracy. Secularism is as
compatible with despotism and tyranny as it is compatible with democracy. A people who believe
in secularism can therefore without any violation of it choose to be ruled tyrannically.

Suppose they choose to have a democratic system. Here they have two choices:

a. They can choose to make the people absolutely supreme, in the sense that they or their
representatives are absolutely free to decide with majority vote on any issue, or pass or repeal
any laws. This form of democracy is the antithesis of Islam because it puts what it calls the
people in the place of God; in Islam only God has this absolute power of legislation. Anyone who
claims such a right is claiming to be God, and any one who gives him that right is thereby
accepting him as God. But then the same thing would happen if such a secular community
accepted the principle of shoora, because they would not then exclude any matter from its
domain, and there is nothing in the concept of shoora which makes that a violation of it.

b. Alternatively those secular people can choose a form of democracy in which the right of the
people to legislate is limited by what is believed by society to be a higher law to which human law
is subordinate and should not therefore violate. Whether such a democracy is compatible with
Islam or not depends on the nature and scope of the limits, and on what is believed to be a higher
law.

In liberal democracy not even the majority of the whole population has the right to deprive a
minority, even if it be one individual, of what is believed to be their inalienable human rights.
Belief in such rights has nothing to do with secularism, which is perfectly compatible, as we saw,
with a democracy without limits. There is a basic difference between Islam and this form of
democracy, and there are minor differences, but there are also similarities.

The basic difference is that in Islam it is God's law as expressed in the Qur'an and the Sunna that
is the supreme law within the limits of which people have the right to legislate. No one can be a
Muslim who makes, or freely accepts, or believes that anyone has the right to make or accept,
legislation that is contrary to that Divine law. Examples of such violations include the legalization
of alcoholic drinks, gambling, homosexuality, usury or interest, and even adoption.

When some Muslims object to democracy and describe it as un-Islamic, it is these kinds of
legislation that they have in mind. A shoora without restriction or a liberal shoora would, however,
be as un-Islamic as a liberal or an unconstrained democracy. The problem is with secularism or
liberalism, not with democracy, and will not therefore disappear by adoption of shoora instead of
democracy.

Another basic difference, which is a corollary of this, is that unlike liberal democracy, Islamic
shoora is not a political system, because most of the principles and values according to which
society is to be organized, and by which it should abide, are stated in that higher law. The proper
description of a political system that is based on those principles is that it is Islamic and not
shooraic, because shoora is only one component of it.

This characteristic of Islam made society immune to absolute tyranny and dictatorship. There
have been Muslim rulers who were despotic, but they were so only in that they were not chosen
by the true representatives of the Muslim people, or that they were not strict in abiding by some of
the Islamic teachings; but none of those who called themselves Muslim rulers dared, or perhaps
even wanted, to abolish the Islamic law.

This emphasis on the law stood in the way of absolute tyranny in another way. It gave the ulama
so much legislative power that it was their word, and not that of the ruler that was final on many
matters. An interesting section of one of al Bukhari's chapters reads: If the ruler makes a decision
that is contrary to that of people of knowledge, his decision is to be rejected.

Walter Lippman considers it a weakness of democracy that it laid more emphasis on the origin of
government rather than on what it should do. He says (Rossiter, 1982, p. 21) :

The democratic fallacy has been its preoccupation with the origin of government rather than the processes and results. The
democrat has always assumed that if political power could be derived in the right way, it would be beneficent. His whole attention
has been on the source of power, since he is hypnotized by the belief that the great thing is to express the will of the people, first
because expression is the highest interest of man, and second because the will is instinctively good. But no amount of regulation
at the source of a river will completely control its behavior, and while democrats have been absorbed in trying to find a good
mechanism of originating social power, that is to say, a good mechanism of voting and representation, they neglected almost
every other interest of men.

Similarities
So much for the basic differences, we now come to the similarities, and some of the less basic or
minor differences.

Islam and liberalism share certain values, basically those which the concepts of democracy and
shoora entail.

In liberal democracy there are rights which individuals have as individuals, even if they are in a
minority. These rights are said to be inalienable and cannot, therefore, theoretically speaking, be
violated, even by the overwhelming majority of the population. Such violation, even if embodied in
a constitution, makes the government undemocratic, even tyrannical. One might think that
the idea of inalienable rights is not compatible with the basic concept of democracy as rule of the
people, because if the people choose, by majority vote, to deny some section of the population
some of what the liberals call their human rights, then that is the rule of the people, and it would
thus be undemocratic to not to let it pass. But on close inspection one can see that this is not so.
It is not so because the concept of democracy entails that of equality. It is because the people are
equal in having the right to express their opinion as to how they should be ruled that democracy is
the rule of the people. But surely individuals have rights that are more basic than participating in
decision making whether directly or indirectly. To participate they must be alive, they must be
able to express themselves, and so on. There is thus no contradiction between the concept of
democracy or shoora and the idea of inalienable rights that sets limits on majority rule, because
the former is more basic to democracy than the latter.

If I am right in saying that these values are entailed by democracy and shoora, it follows that
absolute democracy, democracy that is not constrained by those values, is a contradiction in
terms.

Islamic shoora agrees with liberal democracy that among the important issues to be decided by
the people is that of choosing their rulers. This was understood from the fact that the Prophet
chose not to appoint his successor, but left it to the Muslims to do so, and this was what they did
in a general meeting in his town al-Madina. When it was reported to Umar, the second Caliph,
that someone said that if Umar died he would give allegiance to so and so as Caliph, he got very
angry and said that he would warn the Muslims "against those who want to forcibly deny them
(their right)". He later made a public speech in which he said,

If a person give allegiance to a man, as ruler, without a consultative approval of the Muslims, ala ghayri mashoorati-n min al
muslimeen, then neither he nor the man to whom he gave allegiance should be followed (Bukhari, al Muharibeen)

As far as my knowledge goes the manner in which this public right is to be exercised, is not
specified in any authoritative statements or practice. The first four, The exemplary Caliphs were
chosen in different ways.

Is the Islamic state democratic?

Can a country that abides by the principle of shoora constrained by Islamic values be described
as democratic? Yes, if democracy is broadly defined in terms of decision-making by the people.
No, if it is arbitrarily defined in a way that identifies it with the contemporary Western brands of it.
Such definitions commit what Holden (1988, p. 4) calls the definitional fallacy.

In essence it is the fallacy of believing that the meaning of 'democracy' is to be found simply by examining the systems usually
called democracies. A common example of this is the idea that if you want to know what democracy is, you simply have a look at
the political systems of Britain and America. There are some deep-rooted misconceptions involved here. Apart from anything else,
though, such an idea involves the absurdity of being unable to ask whether Britain and America are democracies: if
'democracy'means , say, 'like the British political system' we cannot ask if Britain is a democracy.

An example of a definition which commits this fallacy is that of Fukuyama (1992, p. 43)

In judging which countries are democratic, we will use a strictly formal definition of democracy. A country is democratic if it grants
its people the right to choose their own government through periodic secret-ballot, multi-party elections on the basis of universal
and equal adult suffrage.

There was no universal suffrage in Athens where women, slaves, and aliens were excluded; no
universal suffrage in America until 1920, in Britain until 1918 or 1928, and in Switzerland until
1971. Fukuyama's definition would exclude all these, and would apply only to contemporary
Western democracies or ones that are copies of them.

I called such a definition arbitrary because it selected, without any rational criterion, only those
features which are common to the Western democracies, but not those on which they differ, and
made them necessary conditions for a country being democratic. Otherwise instead of
government, it could have said 'their own president', but that would have excluded Britain and
some other European democracies. It could also have been specific on the periods of time
between elections, but that would again have excluded some Western democracies.
Why should the right to form political parties be a condition for democracy? Suppose that a
country gave its people, as individuals, and not as party members, the right to freely choose their
government, why should that exclude it from being a democracy?

Why should government elections be periodic? Can't a country be democratic and set no limit to
the term of its ruler so long as he was doing his job in a satisfactory manner, but gave the elected
body that chose him the power to remove him if and whenever they thought that he was no longer
fit for the job?

Having said all this, I must add that I do not set any great store on the epithet 'democratic'. What
is important to me is the extent to which a country is Islamic, the extent to which it abides by
Islamic principles, of which decision making by the people is only one component and, though
important, is not the most important.

Separation Of Church And State

Dr. Ja`far Sheikh Idris

Explaining the practice of this theory - and what it means to Muslims.

AlJumuah Magazine Volume 13 Issue 3

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 behaviours 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 behaviour, 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? The basic
belief in Islam is that the Qur'an is one hundred percent the word of Allah, and the Sunna was
also as a result of the guidance of Allah to the Prophet sallallahu allayhe wasalam. Islam cannot
be separated from the state because it guides us through every detail of running the state and our
lives. Muslims have no choice but to reject secularism for it excludes the law of Allah.

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 favour 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, behaviours, and details of living.

Secularism cannot be a solution for countries with a Muslim majority or even a sizeable minority,
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 Allah's decree for that of a man.

Modernism in Islam
Jamaal al-Din Zarabozo

Based on "Modernism in Islam" lecture series by Sh. Zarabozo

WHAT IS MODERNISM AND WHERE DID IT COME FROM?

We can relate, ideologically, the modernist movement spreading these days to one sect in the
past. This sect is called the Muta'zila, which is dated back to the third Islamic century. Although
those people accepted the Qur'an and Sunna they made ta'weel (their own interpretation of the
Qur'an) and said 'aql (intelligence) takes precedence over naql (guidance of the Prophet).
However, this school died out. The modernist movement did not evolve from them, but they are
very similar to them. The modernist movement actually originated in Europe (middle-ages). At the
time when the scientific method came about in Spain, it was seen that what the church was
teaching was not true. This led to a slow revolt. The basic view of modernism (in all religions)is
that: the religion should change according to the circumstances, and that it is not fixed. There is
no such thing as absolute truth. The Jewish and Christian modernist responce in Europe tried to
explain how the religion was still relevant for the people. They made innovations to keep people
interested in the religion (such as singing in church, introduced only in the 1900's). They tried to
say the divine and the human is mixed in the Bible and that the parts that are true must be the
ones that are not out of date. Also, the religion is improving over time and there is no absolute
truth in the Bible. This is the time in history when many Muslims were looking to Europe. This led
to three choices for those Muslims: accept the West; reject the West; or mix the two (reform
Islam). Those who followed the third (the modernist) developed in, and focused on: Turkey -
because it was under British influence; and Egypt - because Al-Azhar was the seat of Islamic
knowledge. The people of this modernist movement judge Islam according to their 'aql. Some of
their faults in regards to it are:

1) use it for things which it can't comprehend;

2) refer everything to it: accept what agrees with it, reject what does not;

3) judge the revelation by it. However, Ahl As-Sunna Wal Jamaa' believes that using the sound
'aql should lead one to the conclusion that the Qur'an and the Prophet are true and that their
teachings should take precedence over pure 'aql.

THE INFLUENCE OF MODERNISM IN AMERICA

Modernist are saying that the West and the world has changed, and that Islam must become
"civilized". Modernism has spread the most in the U.S. because:

1) there are no scholars available to refute them, or they won't refute them because people don't
want to criticize them;

2) it allows Muslims from overseas to become part of American society and they do not have to
be recognized as Muslim. Also, new American Muslims will not have to change their old lifestyle;

3) much of the literature, scholars, and institutions in the U.S. reflect the modernist thinking.

In tafseer, Yusuf Ali is the most popular translator of the meaning of the Qur'an, even though he
denies what the 'aql can't see (of the unseen). In seerah, one book is saying the Prophet is like
anyone else. Another tries to say the sunna is not for the shariah and that sometimes we have to
throw away the hadith because Allah did not correct the Prophet's mistakes when he made
ijtihaad. In Fiqh, modernists say interest is permissible, menstruation women can pray, and
Muslim women can marry kaafir men. They say the face of women was not covered until 150
years after the time of the Prophet, even though it existed in his time, and that women should
always pray in the mosque, even though hadith only show women in the mosque at Ishaa and
Fajr because they could not be recognized in the dark. They also say the hadith that a people
with a woman ruler will not succeed is not true today and polygamy is forbidden except under
certain conditions (which do not exist). Finally, it should be mentioned that this movement is
organized and has resources such as magazines, television, conventions, and literature.
SOME OF THEIR VIEWS

Modernists influence the thinking of people, and that person spreads their views on unknowingly.
Their way of thinking is the most dangerous thing about them. None discuss aqeedah (belief)
because it is not important to them ('aql judges naqal). They are also trying to remove the sunna
and say that the system of the old muhadditheen is insufficient. Most say (as do critics of the
Bible) that we need a "higher criticism" of hadith and the earlier conclusions (ijmaa) of scholars
are not sufficient, yet they give no new way to judge hadith. However, we as Muslims understand
that the Prophet was guided by Allah and that we may not be able to understand everything in the
hadith with our 'aql. It is common for the modernists to question the role of the sunna in the
shariah. One said all of the sunna is of this world and not deen, even in the Prophet's time,
therefore it is all a matter of shoora (consultation) and ijtihaad (therefore changeable). Another
says we need to make ijtihaad for what is to be followed, and changes of time and place make
sunna difficult to use. All of this is mentioned to weaken the view of the sunna. The Jews and
Christians tried to differ the human from the divine. Modernists try to point out the differences
between the Messenger as a human and as a Prophet. They also avoid following the sunna by
dividing his life into parts (imam, judge, military leader, prophet, etc.), saying some are not divine
teachings and not law. Some say everyone is free to make ijtihaad, and later restrictions on it
were imposed by the people. Another said a ruling may change even if it is from the Qur'an and
Sunna.

HOW DO MODERNISTS GO ASTRAY?

The observer can easily point out the following points as the driving force for this trend:

1) Their premises and assumptions are wrong Modernists look to the West and try to reinterpret
the "old religion" with modern science and modern times. They assume that:

a) the present situation is advanced or different (i.e. "this is not the Prophet's time!"). However,
the idea of progress and that things are better now is Marxian and Hegelian. It is against the
hadith, as the Prophet said each generation is getting worse. They must prove that there has
been progression (no definition of it given). Islamically the advanced society is the one that
comes closer to Allah, and understands and applies Islam better (such as the sahaaba). In fact,
the current societies have the things of the old societies (such as homosexuality, etc.) as
mentioned in the Qur'an;

b) religion is relative to time and place (i.e. "therefore we need to judge Islam in light of modern
science"). Modernists are "people of science" and judge Islam according to modern science. They
think that the West is based on science, but they fail to notice that not all science is based on fact.
In reality, much of science is only hypothesis (not a fact). Also, every science has its own
philosophy, which will lead to its own conclusions;

c) the way of thinking of a society is based on (is a product of) its enviroment. Modernists say
most of religion is from the people and their environment and it can be judged by later times, and
hadith are related to that time only. However, there is no proof for the modernist hypothesis that
religious truth is relative. Allah says the Qur'an is Haq (truth). Modernists are saying (by
inference) that if the Qur'an is not true now, then it was never true.

2) The methodology they use is wrong. The methodology of the modernists is the way they
mislead people to the wrong conclusions. They claim to be scientific, but they are usually
inconsistent or have no proof or foundation for their beliefs. Some of the means and principles
they use include:
a) Sunna and Hadith. They claim the Qur'an is authentic and they only follow "authentic" hadith.
This implies that they have a way to judge hadith (different from that of the traditional scholars),
yet most give no new way to judge hadith, and are using their 'aql (intelligence) to determine this
(like the female ruler hadith). Modernists especially dislike hadith which have specific meanings
and prefer ones which only have general principles.

b) Use of weak hadith to help their points and arguments (while they are calling for the use of
authentic hadith). For example, in the area of women in Islam (the two areas the modernists try to
change the most are the sunna and women) they like to quote two stories from the time of Umar:
1) when Umar was giving a Khutbah he tried to restrict the amount of dowry, a woman opposed,
and Umar corrected himself and thanked the woman, and 2) Umar appointed Umma Shifaa as a
market-regulator (used by modernist to say women can work in the government). However, both
of these stories are not authentic.

c) Use vague terms without defining them. Modernists use terms like democracy, freedom, and
equality, but they do not define what they mean by them. The danger in using vague terms is that
a knowledgeable person will pass over the word or concept, thinking they meant the Islamic or
acceptable definition while in fact they did not, while others may believe what they are saying is
true.

d) Do not present all of the relevant information that is available on the subject. That is, from
Qur'an, sunna, etc. They only present that which will support their views. This tactic is used to
avoid unliked beliefs, so they just do not mention them.

e) Force their interpretation onto the text. This is what the Muta'zilla did, when they said 'aql takes
precedence over what is from the Prophet. Many modernists say Islam is the "rational" religion.
This is true if you mean everything is from Allah and there is no contradiction, but to say that we
can study everything in Islam by judging it with only our intellect is unacceptable and there is also
no proof for this. To avoid implementing what the Qur'an and sunna says, the modernists say we
need to follow the "spirit" of Islam and not worry about the laws specifically. But it is clear from the
Qur'an and Sunna that we are to take both. They will argue that the text of the Qur'an only says
for women to dress modestly and they do not like to talk about the specific details of hijaab and
say we only need to follow the "spirit" of the law.

f) They tend to oppose scholars by saying they meant something else. They say that the door to
ijtihaad is open, which is something accepted by the Ahl As-Sunna Wal Jamaa'. However, it is not
open to everybody on any subject. Modernists claim that anyone would make ijtihaad until Imam
Shaffie narrowed the qualifications (not true), and today anyone can do it. In one magazine, on
the question of polygamy and divorce, some said that these two can be restricted by ijtihaad.
They often misquote scholars and give their own meanings for what they said.

g) Often follow strange and rejected opinions. They try to revive some of the old opinions
because they like it and say that this writer said it in the past. Modernists try to open the door to
these opinions and choose what is the most suitable and easy to follow. However, we are
supposed to look for the fiqh opinions that are the closest to the truth. They usually bring bad
hadith such as "The differences in my Ummah is a mercy" or reject authentic hadith such as the
one about the breakup of the Ummah into 73 sects.

h) Follow their desires. They often make rulings and fatawa without permissible daleel (evidence).
One said music is permissible because he did not see something wrong with it, so it is halal. But
he did not check what the Qur'an and the sunna say about this subject.
ISLAM AND MODERNISM

Ahl As-Sunna Wal Jamaa' believes that there is only one true Islam. This is proven in Qur'an and
Hadith. One hadith shows the straight line as leading to Allah, and branching paths leading off it
with a devil at each one calling to it. Also, the umma will break into 73 sects, and the true way is
the one who follows Muhammad and his companions. Modernists are differing from Ahl As-Sunna
Wal-Jamaa' in:

1) everything in accordance with Qur'an and Sunna is Haq (truth) and what disagrees with it is
false (some modernists disagree with this). Also, statements consistent with the Qur'an and
Sunna are accepted;

2) Ijmaa (consensus) of the sahaaba (and early generations) is a hujja (proof) for all Muslims.
Modernists say sahaaba are men and we are men, and even matters agreed on by them are
open to ijtihaad;

3) anything in the Qur'an and Sunna cannot be opposed by 'aql, rational thought, opinion, or
qiysas. This is supported in the Qur'an and is not open to discussion or vote. One modernists said
the cutting of the hand of the theif is a "Khomeni Islam" and is unethical;

4) there are constants in Islam related to belief, worship, etc. and these are good, sound, proper,
and correct for all places and times. This view is accepted by the Ahl Sunna, but not by many of
the modernists, saying that all truth is relative and there is no constants. However, these constant
principles are basic aspects of the Ahl Sunna and are traced to the Qur'an and Sunna and
Sahaaba. They are not questionable or changeable things. In many of these things, modernists
say we need ijtihaad and tajdeed.

DANGERS

1) Many are influenced by it and do not know it. Also, their views are unacceptable and should be
refuted.

2) Many people do not recognize it as a movement of munkar or bida' and do not evaluate its
writings and speeches, so they try to defend it. Many of their writings are from rationalization
(which has no end or conclusion), and the effects of this are seen in the Christian church (that is,
they now have no relationship to their religion, and it has no practical value or purpose).

3) This group is also playing into the hands of the kuffar. They are happy with is because their
effort is to bring the Muslim women out of the home to change them. The last 200 years has been
a colonialist and orientalist attack on the position of the woman in Islam (to destroy her and the
society).

CONCLUSIONS

1) The modernists movement as a whole (what it is based on) is from Bida' (innovation). They
have their own principles and ways, which contradicts that of Ahl-Sunna. They say we want
ijtihaad in the basic principles of the deen (religion) which are constant.
2) They are very willing to reject and contradict the ijmaa of the sahaaba on clear points (such as
stoning of the adulterer and the apostate is to be killed) and hadith are dealt with as if they are not
important (women ruler hadith is common).

3) One of the main points of modernism is to change the role of women. They say it is permissible
to mix men and women and to not wear hijaab. The modernists are impressed by the West and
their conclusions always seem to agree with the views of the West.

****

Most of the information used for this article is from a seven part cassette series which is available
from: Dar Makkah: 2040 S. Oneida #2A. Denver, CO 80224. The speaker frequently pointed out
that his purpose was to warn about the dangers and mistakes of this movement and not to
defame individual Muslims. Also, his information came from their writings, speeches, and
discussions with these individuals, and not from what he heard from other people.