Thoughts on Islam and Secular Humanism

Islam is surely not a theocracy. In the Islamic paradigm, individuality is different from both Christianity and secular humanism. In Islam, life is the abode of taklif (formally: the imposition of obligations on adults in full possession of their mental faculties). Every individual is required to (1) have 'iman (faith and conviction in and about God), and (2) to do `amal (have the faith reflected in one's works). The test is not without consequences---everyone will be held responsible for his/her deeds and moral choices. Islamic individual responsibility is predicated, for example, on the declaration of faith "there is no god but God" and the Prophetic principles: "no obedience is owed to a created if it entails disobeying the Creator," "obedience is due only in what is just and right," and "defer to your heart, even if others advise you, even of others advise you, even if others advise you." 

In this sense, a theocracy is not acceptable, and is actually theologically problematic. Because a group of people would decide what is Islamically correct and impose their particular interpretation on everyone, regardless of the dictates of their own religious consciences. The state here, therefore, lays an exclusive claim over the Divine truth and, for all practical purposes, acts as God---something that clashes directly with "there is no god but God."

We are agreeing here on the result of investigation. I just liked to root the idea in Islamic grounds, and to emphasize the issue of individual responsibility for those who choose to espouse Islam.

In order to be realistic, one must keep in mind that modern states need to coordinate and regulate the actions of millions upon millions of people. There are things that, by way of necessity, have to be imposed on everyone. The question is: what are these? What are justifiable criteria for the state to impose a uniform policy, while at the same time give the citizens the greatest possible freedom to defer to their moral consciences?

Finally, some points about "Islamic State," caliphate and democracy that touch on the history of the political system in Islam and its relation with the religious order

1-There is nothing called an "Islamic State" in the sense that the Islamic textual sources do not contain any full-fledged conception of a polity. There are principles, there are precedents, but it appears that the political organization of Muslims and the conduct of their affairs are
largely left to their discretion.

2-This means that it is Muslims who actually come up with ideas concerning their political systems. Hence, the product is very human, and very fallible.

3-Historically, the Caliphate system was led by the likes of Abu Bakr (ra) who in his "inauguration speech" explicitly mentioned his fallibility and asked fellow Muslims to help him stay on the Straight Path and to rectify any wrongdoing on his part. The Caliphate system was also led by the likes of Abu Ja`far al-Mansour, the second Abassid Caliph, who allegedly said that he was the Sultan of God on Earth.

4-Granted what Abu Ja`far said and despite the counterintuitive historical development of the Caliphs' gaining more prestige at the same time they were growing more impotent, the Caliphal institution, generally speaking, was not responsible for the making of the law. That, and the Islamic sciences in general, was the undertaking of a semi-autonomous jurisitc culture.

5-The law, at times, was developed, as Dr. Sherman Jackson puts it, in
conscious opposition to the state. The law was the product of private
individuals who gained recognition by virtue of their knowledge,
competence, sincerity and piety. The power they had over people was, in some sense, soft power---the power of persuasion that flows from
demonstrating to fellow Muslims the fidelity of their positions and determinations to the letter and spirit of the Quran and the Sunnah.

6-The way the system evolved made it inherently pluralistic and tolerant.

7-The relationship between the political order and religious order of
course was much more complicated. One finds collaboration, confrontation, the jurists acting as a buffer between political order and the masses, and so forth.

8-The validation of usurpation as a means of acquiring power and the
withstanding of corrupt unjust regimes were not a reflection of the
jurists being in bed with the corrupt governments. Tyranny was considered a necessary evil. Simply put, the jurists did a balance-of-evils analysis. On the one hand, there are rebellions and the associated lawlessness, chaos, instability, pillaging, bloodshed, and the slaughter of good Muslims. On the other hand, there is tyranny and despotism. Jurists considered the latter as the lesser evil. One reason for that is the many failed rebellions in Islamic history. Another is that the very separation of the religious order and political order, which saved the integrity of Islam and preserved its inherent diversity, lured jurists into believing that they are the true leaders of the society and that they are the ones in real charge. The quality of the political order was thus not considered that crucial from the point of view of the majority of jurists.

9-That is, the jurists, in making their decisions, were responding to (a)
the historical imperative (what actually took place since the early days
after the demise of the Prophet pbuh), (b) the religious/moral imperative (which calls for enjoining the good and forbidding the evil, for establishing justice and combating oppression and injustice), and (c) the legal imperative (which demands order and stability as prerequisites for the implemenation of any moral/legal order).

10-Muslims who have the dream of an Islamic state are generally of two types. One has not the foggiest idea about the instrumentalities of the state. The deeply felt myth is that you open the Quran and the Sunnah and full-blown political, economical, and social systems would pop into your face. You just need to implement. The 2nd type (think Hizb al-Tahrir) does claim having plans. Their proposed system, however, entails a Caliph who for all practical purposes is a mini-god. The state determines everything and forces its interpretation on everyone. Diversity is not celebrated. And even the principle of shura is considered just as recommendation, and not binding. Though it is true that many classical jurists adopted the same position, their historical context made it clear why they gravitated toward something like that. Also, their semi-independence is quite different from a system where the religious order is fully subordinate to the political order.

11-Bottomline is there is nothing in an "Islamic State" that inevitably
makes it a dictatorship. Some Muslims may and do have this model in their minds. But the system can be constructed otherwise. The dictatorial tendencies by these Muslims, even if they rest on a heritage that admittedly failed miserably in tackling political questions, are also informed immensely by the European notion of nation state, and the totalitarianism that Europe rid herself of only after two World Wars.

2-This means that it is Muslims who actually come up with ideas concerning their political systems. Hence, the product is very human, and very fallible. Salatino wrote.

How true! One only needs to examine how the shia v the sunna conceive of ascendence to power in the muslim community. Shiasm has relied on ascription, Sunnism has relied on achievement as the criterion. the sunni community appears to be a world apart from the shia community, each is at each other's throat; each claiming to be the 'authentic' product. Yet, we all know (should know) the product is human and it is fallible.

Salainto, can a tradition which is so diverse and even diffuse come together to produce a single model to emulate, or even a small set of models? If not, then of what use is it beyond intellectual curiosity?

- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.

i think the number of schools of law in the formative period was more than 4.

most opinions run between 7 and 11

even today there are at least 5

with the wahhabi/salafi methodology a potential 6th