Secularism and democracy: A means to an ideal?

Ever since the rebirth of Muslim political thought from the beginning of the last century, no issue has been so much on the forefront than defining an "Islamic" system of governance. At that time, most Muslim countries were gaining independence and the need of the time was a proper set of rules, whereby muslims could govern themselves.

With in such parameters, an ideal came forth: an Islamic State consisting of all Muslim countries and governed in accordance with Shariah law. Ok, fair enough. But this led to severe schisms with in the muslim society, where brutal dictators suppressed any such movement from coming at the forefront. Hence, those adhering to these principles, were imprisoned, tortured and eventually killed off. But, just as violence never kills of anything, the movement thus didnt die.

And today its biggest adherent is the man we know as Osama bin laden.


Thus, finding a true "islamic" form of governance is at the very core of all Muslim ailments at the moment. During this time, the other types prevalent in the world; Secularism and Democracy, were shot down by a lot of people as being evil and an inherent "western" concept. On the other hand, Western powers, who selectively "imposed" these hampered the understanding of these principles amongst Muslim masses. That is why today, people have a hard time differentiating between Secular and Liberal. "Liberals" like Pervaiz Musharraf, are called secular instead.

So lets now see what exactly secularism is:

In political terms, secularism is a movement towards the separation of religion and government (often termed the separation of church and state). This can refer to reducing ties between a government and a state religion, replacing laws based on scripture (such as the Torah and Sharia law) with civil laws, and eliminating discrimination on the basis of religion. This is said to add to democracy by protecting the rights of religious minorities. (wikipedia)


Simply put: one removes religion from the affairs of the state, ie the irrelevance...not complete absence of religion in state governance. What, this means is that although religion will be irrelevant, no one will have the right to impede religious practices. As for civil laws replacing divine law....well lets see how different Shariah Law is from Secular Law:


1) Secular Law ensures that all persons, irrespective of caste or creed have an equal opportunity to become head of state.

2) Freedom of entering and leaving all religions, without any reprimand.

3) Freedom of preaching all religions, without any reprimand.



As for point no. 1, since at present there is no Islamic state, only states with Muslim majority, hence being a muslim isnot a precussor to showing "allegiance" to the state ( not to say that it is definite that in an Islamic state, the non muslims will be traitors ). If the fear is that a Muslim country headed by non muslims will lead to "UnIslamic" injunctions added to the constitution of the state... that too isnot a valid since A) There are conservative non muslims too and B) a muslim majority in the country will mean a muslim majority in the parliament and hence any thing "unislamic" will not be passed by the government of the time.


As for point 2; there are different versions regarding this. Some people claim that apostasy is a crime punishable by death and others claim that there is no such thing. Regardless, Muslims have never left Islam enmasse...so this too wont really be that big of an issue.


Point 3 is somewhat related to point 2 as well. As muslims have not historically left there religion enmasse, allowing non muslims to preache, wont be counter productive but instead should lead to Islam "winning". Why? because:

"Truth stands out clear from error" Surah 2 Baqarah Ayah 256

If Islam is the truth, and truth shall succeede no matter what ever impedes it


The biggest fear of secularism, on the other hand is that it leads to "fahashi" which loosely translates into free booze, validated prostitution and so on. Okay, but there is a slight twist. Any country which has a conservative outlook can muster up a 2/3rds majority in parliament and thereby ban Alcohol and other social evils deemed impermissible. India, for example, has some states which are "dry"..ie the prohibition of alcohol is enforced.


Now with this diversion over..lets us look at how Islam and Muslims are faring in Secular countries. Europe and its "secular" countries are facing a wave of xenophobia and panic because the "muslims are taking over". There are already calls for stricter clamping down on immigration and "checking" of Mushlim dominated areas. Whereas partly, such talk is legitimate, but by and large most of it is based on Xenophobia. Moving over to America we see people being flabergasted at Keith ellison, the first muslim to be elected to congress:

On November 14, 2006, Glenn Beck of CNN Headline News[103] asked Ellison to, "prove to me that you are not working with our enemies," saying, "And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.( wikipedia)

Barack obama drew a lot of ire because his middle name was hussein. Some circles even claimed he was Osama Bin Ladens candidate for the white house.


All in all, the underlying tone is that Muslims are taking over: "America is doomed. Muslims have begun to infiltrate the government. It’s only a matter of time before America is Islamicized and it’s citizens slaves to the peacful religion called islam" writes one blogger.

But one must ask, why do they think Muslims are taking over?. Is it because the secular nature of laws in these countries is allowing Muslims to rise up and become "active" in these countries. Yes, thats it precisely. So by all means.....a secular enviroment and democracy is conducive to Islam.

On the other hand. Lets briefly look at the state of affairs in Muslim countries. KSA and its banning of non muslim places of worship is used by Islamophobes to demand closing down of mosques in western countries. Bhai persecution in Iran is deemed an example of how much Muslims hate others. Consistent xenophobia against hindus in Pakistan and other countries like Malaysia leads Hinduvta organisations to further cement there organisations. Attacks on christians in Indonesia, give christian fundamentalists the impetus to malign Islam as an evil religion. Add that, to the general disregard of Law and basic human rights in muslim lands that cause people to wonder that is Islam really peacefull. Thus, whatever is happening in the Muslim world is actually undermining Islam.


So now coming to the crux of the argument: Should we accept, something less than Ideal (ie democracy and secularism) to achieve an Ideal condition ( an Islamic state)?. My answer: Heck Yeah!!