On the Sacred and Secular
By Dr Ghulam M. Haniff
St Cloud , Minnesota
Now that Islamic parties have triumphed in two countries, Tunisia and Egypt, the question of the sacred and the secular will be raised once again after a hiatus of four or five centuries. The debate on this issue probably came to a close with the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.
There is no separation between the church and the state in political Islam. In the Western world however each one has a domain of its own. Despite that widely believed myth the two constantly intrude upon one another. This point is repeatedly made clear as we watch the Republican Presidential Debate and listen to the likes of Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.
Neither Santorum nor Gingrich want the Muslims around. In their speeches, each one has said nasty things about the Muslims. Romney had to tread softly on the issue given that his own faith, Mormonism, has been under attack several times. However, it is said that in America, because of its secularism, religion is kept separate and apart from politics.
In the months and years to follow the issue of religion in politics is going to be thoroughly examined now that Muslims have put the issue on the global stage. Many media pundits have already started raising the issue, though in a very cautious and oblique manner given that it has not caught on. Also, the Republicans have touched the issue though it is considered uncouth to do so.
For the past several centuries the only model on the world’s stage was the Western one and the injection of the sacred was not considered to be legitimate. The model for the world to see, imitate and practice was the Western one where secularism reigned supreme.
The other issue that Muslims have muddied for the rest of the world is that they have conducted open, free and transparent elections. Muslims are not supposed to do that; they are basically terrorists and primitive savages. For the West this is an amazing phenomenon. They were able to defy the real rulers, the royalty, the feudalists and the military and performed a world-class act.
In Turkey not only the Islamic parties won, but they were able to do so in an open and fair election. In Iran, too, an Islamic party won but there are lingering doubts whether the elections were transparent.
For countless years the West has relentlessly badgered the Muslims for the lack of openness in their elections. They argued that Muslims don’t have the character to hold open elections. However, the current developments have shocked them and have proven them wrong. It is quite likely that the West would be proven wrong again in many other areas of achievement.
The elections were hardly over when the media pundits began to express their concerns that free elections, or democracy, will make the Muslims embrace Shari’a as the law of the land. It ought to be said Muslims have just as much rights to choose Shari’a for their governance as the West has in choosing “racist” ignoramuses for leadership.
Of course, their idea is to deny Muslims the right to practice democracy and to be governed by the laws of their heritage. The Qur’anic term for democracy is “mutual consultation” (or Shura) which Muslims should have applied throughout their history, though they failed to do so.
However, at this point in the 21 st century, it is not too late to practice democratic governance given that it has not been tried in many countries where Jesus is worshipped. Such countries are Russia, Poland, Ukraine, Rumania and countless small ones. The history of democracy in Germany, France and Italy is also quite dismal given that their democratic traditions are hardly two centuries old. Their rhetoric today sounds as though they invented the idea though the concept goes back to ancient Mesopotamia. Even in America the history of democracy is short, given its institution of slavery (blacks did not have the right to vote until 1964), the denial of right to the Indians (they were not considered full human beings until 1870), and women did not have the right to vote until 1920. America was declared an independent nation in 1776 and the constitution was not adopted until 1789.
For Islamic political reckoning sacred refers to the policies made in “accord with religious beliefs of a people” and secular to those ideas in which “rules are based on rational thought.” In the history of the Western world, which goes back only four or five hundred years, most policies were based on secular thinking. Before that time the West followed the sacred model. It was only in 1648 that the sacred was dropped in favor of the secular. Prior to that time there was no West, just Christendom.
As for Islam its mode of governance embraced a mix of the sacred and the secular. In the long Islamic history, Caliphs Usman, Muawiya, Harun al-Rashid and Suleyman Pasha, all followed both the traditions. The sacred and the secular were never much of an issue for the Muslims. However, given the nature of the contemporary world the concepts of the sacred and secular are likely to be extensively debated, both by the Muslims as well as by the global media.
The regular talking heads, the self-styled experts who appear on the television routinely, have already taken up the gauntlet for the debate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
