Religion and Politics

[Sahar]

The topic was a part of a discussion in the Islam forum. I'd like to tackle it here.
For many Muslims, their values can't be confined to a certain field of life and adopt others in other fields but they carry their values in whatever field of life they encounter. As their submission to God can't be divided. You can't be a Muslim in your mosque and home but someone else in politics and economics.

I know that no-one outside the Muslim rank would agree with the Muslim approach to politics and other fields of public life but I am asking anyway; isn't this the natural approach if you are a believer in God dedicating your life to Him?

 

[Skwim]

The topic was a part of a discussion in the Islam forum. I'd like to tackle it here.
For many Muslims, their values can't be confined to a certain field of life and adopt others in other fields but they carry their values in whatever field of life they encounter. As their submission to God can't be divided. You can't be a Muslim in your mosque and home but someone else in politics and economics.

I know that no-one outside the Muslim rank would agree with the Muslim approach to politics and other fields of public life but I am asking anyway; isn't this the natural approach if you are a believer in God dedicating your life to Him?

So who else are you evidently required to be in politics and economics?

 

[Onkara]

Thank you Sahar for starting this thread!
My perspective until now, as you are probably aware, is that politics causes problems for religion. I see religion as being divine. I would say lightly, that it would be beneficial to separate politics from religion as much as cognitively and emotionally possible. I am fully aware that in reality nothing can really be so easily separated. None the less I would like to explore this with you also

I will repost the thread associated with some additions, please consider this to help us begin.



Islam is a way of life, completely. I do not doubt it. But what of politics?

Politics are wants and the balancing of what people want. To quote an American Political Scientist, Harold Lasswell: “Politics is who gets what, when, and how.”

What Allah wants from us, we can only hope to achieve. Our submission to Allah's will over-rides any of our wants and will. 31:26 Submission to Allah is essential. Quran 2:208, 3:19, 3:55, 16:87, 21:108

I cannot want for another what Allah wants for me, as in doing so I attribute equal or more value to my will than that of Allah's, and that is wrong. Quran 33.36,

It is not correct to say "Allah's will is mine". Quran 27:31 It is wrong to think that I know Allah's will well enough to exercise my will or wants on other people. 31:18 I can only follow the Quran and submit to Allah. Quran 17:109, 29:46 I submit my will completely to Allah. There is no need of "wants" of my own. What ever Allah wills is sufficient. Quran 3:60

So how can I exercise my political wants in Allah's name? If I do I will contradict myself in righteousness and self-pride. 2,87, 2:177, I create an ideal in His name assuming I am chosen or permitted to do so. 11:10, 37:35 Allah knows already what is needed, there is no need of doubt. Quran 7:70, 3:29, 16:101, 22:70, 39:57,

Now that does not mean there cannot be self-respect (if Allah wills that).

And Allah knows best.

 

[Sahar]

Of course, I thank you for the reply. Before anything else, I find it a little confusing and surprising that you referred to the Qur'an in your post. I didn't expect that. May I ask why you felt the need to refer to the Qur'an?

 

[Onkara]

Of course, I thank you for the reply. Before anything else, I find it a little confusing and surprising that you referred to the Qur'an in your post. I didn't expect that. May I ask why you felt the need to refer to the Qur'an?

As a personal exercise (to ensure I am not attributing ideas to Islam as I feel inclined) and to help me be guided, should the opportunity arise

Please don't feel any obligation to look the references up or to argue those points if you feel there are other pressing topics. As I said, it was something I choose to do to help me.

 

[A-ManESL]

Onkara, here are my views...

Let me first try to elaborate what I feel is the requirement of Islam. By the Islamic concept of surrender, it is not simply meant that there is divine deity (Allah) and we must bow ourselves to its wishes. That is an over simplification and in fact a flawed understanding of Islam, according to me.

According to the Quran, everything has a natural attitude which is primordial to it. The Absolute ("...(God is), the Absolute -112:2 ") or the really real behind everything is what Muslims mean by God ("Whersover you may look there is the face of God"-2:115). To say Allah is to use a symbol, what really matters is the Reality behind the name. ("It is all the same whether you call Him God or the Beneficent. All the good names belong to Him." - 17:110) Everything in the universe is the state of harmony with this Reality. It follows the path chartered out for it, and hence reflects this Reality back. The Quran calls this speaking of God's glory by the universe "The seven heavens and the earth, and all beings in there, speak His Glory: There is not a thing which does not celebrates His Praise; And yet you do not understand how they declare His Glory! -17:44". The primary message of the Prophet was simply to make people recognize this natural urge in them, and to pursue it. The urge takes them on the path of righteousness. It makes them just and true, kind and humble, and receptive to the real Reality of God. Thus Islam is call for harmony with that primordial state. You can translate Islam as "peace" which in the above sense, is the state when everything is in harmony (or in a state of surrender) to this primordial state.

And now my (controversial ) view on implementing this Islam in daily life.

In my view any particular system of government, as long as it is based on just and true ideals, is as perfectly a part of Islam as any other.

I do not agree that the shariat as given by Muhammad (pbuh) of today is what is the only Islamic way of life.("And they say, "None but Jews or Christians shall enter Paradise" ; This is their wish. Say : Give your proofs if ye speak the truth. But they who set their face with resignation God-ward, and do what is right, -their reward is with their Lord ; no fear shall come on them, neither shall they grieve" 2: 111-2)

In my view the Quran never asks people to give up their former religions, and in fact never brought about a new religion at all.
("Verily, they who believe (Muslims) and they who follow the Jewish religion, and the Christians, and the Sabaeana - whosoever believeth in God and the last day, and doeth that which is right, shall have their reward with their Lord : fear shall not come upon them, neither shall they grieve.2:62".

Throughout the Quran the message is always to ask people to discard wrong doings and turn towards God. According to it, if they did so and returned to the original teachings of whatever religion they were following they would have found that it was the same Islam to which Muhammad (pbuh) was calling them too. Din or the real religion of God is devotion to God and righteous living. Whatever be the race or community or country one belonged to, if only he believed in God and did righteous deeds, he was a follower of the Din of God, and salvation was his reward.The Quran condemns the Jews and Christians of Prophet Muhammad's time who had divided themselves into groups on the basis of religion and had devised codes of conduct exclusive to themselves. Such people had relegated the concept of faith and righteousness in the background by devising and splitting up into "religions". This defeated the purpose itself in a sense. For example a person who was good and an ardent devotee of God, if he was not a Christian was thus considered outside the circle of the ones being saved by th Christians, and on the other hand even if he was wicked though professed to be a Christian could still hope for salvation in the end. This groupism was rejected by the Quran which had a message for all humanity: Be good and turn towards God and you will be rewarded.

"Others of the people of the Book say : "And believe in those only who follow your religion." (But you) Say: "True guidance is guidance from God'- that to others may be
imparted the like of what hath been imparted to you. Will they wrangle then with you in the presence of their Lord ? Say : "Plenteous gifts are in the hands of God. He imparteth
them unto whom He will, and God is bounteous, wise."-3:73-4

"Moreover the Jews say, "The Christians lean on nought". "On nought lean the Jews", say the Christians. Yet both read the Scripture. So with like words say they who have no
knowledge (of the Scripture). But on the day of requital, God shall judge between them as to that in which they differ."-2-113

So, in effect the Islamic way of life is not unique externally, internally however, since it is just the way of recognizing the metaphysical Reality and coming in tune with It, it is unique.

With this understanding, I feel that any nitty gritty of a particular system of governance as long as it is based on principles which our conscience proclaims to be righteous is as much part of Islam as is the Political Shariat shown by Prophet Muhammad(pbuh).

Finally, note that the above view is not originally mine, but has been developed by Sufi Saints (Hazrat Nizamuddin Awliya, Mazhar Jan-i-Janan, Shah Waliullah) and scholars such as Mawlana Abul Kalam Azad. It is known in the literature as wahdat-e-deen (Unity of Religions)

Regards

 

[Sahar]

As a personal exercise (to ensure I am not attributing ideas to Islam as I feel inclined) and to help me be guided, should the opportunity arise

Please don't feel any obligation to look the references up or to argue those points if you feel there are other pressing topics. As I said, it was something I choose to do to help me.

Actually it's too late, thank God I managed to decode these Qur'anic references (most of them to be accurate ).

I want to understand your view more.
Are you saying that there is no actually free will? And we don't have to worry about Allah's will and want because it's already in action? Thus disbelieving or believing is not something to decide and returns completely to God?
Also, aren't we able to know Allah's will through the revelation? As you referred to the Qur'an, doesn't the Qur'an have it stances that are political in nature?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I would agree with a Muslim, that you can not divide your very nature.

I see that in terms of Liberalism.
My philosophy is Liberal.
This conditions both my religious beliefs and my politics.
It is a set of life values, morals... call them what you will.

For me these values are derived from the teachings of Jesus.

These are fundamentally different to those a Muslim can derive from the Koran.

 

[Onkara]

A-ManESL
You offer a well researched and good to read post. Thanks! I hope we can return to it after address an important point.

I cannot agree that their is fault with simplicity of submission (surrender to Allah). In fact I would say that to add anything to the act of submission is simply to make way for our own will and desire. To say "I submit but..." is just to lie (4:50), in the Islamic sense. (I in no way suggest anyone here is a lier, that is for Allah to judge)

I cannot see any lack of clarity in the following examples:

2:208 (Asad) O you who have attained to faith! surrender yourselves wholly unto God, [191] and follow not Satan's footsteps, for, verily, he is your open foe.

3:20 (Asad) Thus, [O Prophet,] if they argue with thee, say, "I have surrendered my whole being unto God, and [so have] all who follow me!" - and ask those who have been vouchsafed revelation aforetime, as well as all unlettered people, [14] "Have you [too] surrendered yourselves unto Him?" And if they surrender themselves unto Him, they are on the right path; but if they turn away - behold, thy duty is no more than to deliver the message: for God sees all that is in [the hearts of] His creatures.

It is beyond doubt that submission is key and it is asked of all of Allah's creation.

I have no doubt of the goodness and peace of Islam. I see political wants to be the cause of straying and those who stray to be damned to hell.

4:115 (Asad) But as for him who, after guidance has been vouchsafed to him, cuts himself off from the Apostle and follows a path other than that of the believers - him shall We leave unto that which he himself has chosen, [139] and shall cause him to endure hell: and how evil a journey’s end!


FYI I am using IslamiCity: Quran Search

 

[Starsoul]

Thank you Sahar for starting this thread!
My perspective until now, as you are probably aware, is that politics causes problems for religion. I see religion as being divine. I would say lightly, that it would be beneficial to separate politics from religion as much as cognitively and emotionally possible. I am fully aware that in reality nothing can really be so easily separated. None the less I would like to explore this with you also


Islam is a way of life, completely. I do not doubt it. But what of politics?

Politics are wants and the balancing of what people want.

And Allah knows best.

MashAllah, that is a very good question, and has been put really well, islam's ruling system is Shariah, and The State formed on the Rules of Shariah is called the Khilafat, and the Ameer(head) of that State is the Khalifa. I'm not sure if this is what you're asking, but This is the system of Rulers which is preferred in Islam,and none of the Islamic states are under it at the moment. ( reasons, another debate)

Now, How does the process for appointment of a head of the state go about? It is all true democracy to the core. I may not be able to give a comprehensive idea to you since I'm not a scholar, I'll just try to explain as much as I know.

The Caliphate( Ameer, khalifa, head of the state) is chosen by the people themselves, people are not to sell or present themselves as candidates to grab favorable voters. Its like a group of people, will show their likeness for a person that they have known to be a thorough practising Muslim all their lives with a broad knowledge base of Islamic jurisprudence, along with leadership qualities. They will go upto him and ask him to be their khalifa.

Many practising muslims have even refused to be the Khalifa since they find the task of magnanamous responsibility and the one with absolute accountability and transparency.

Now, Since being a Khalifa is a huge responsibility in Islam and is not something so hunky dory and all glory, that people would give their arms to be appointed one. An islamic Caliphate head of the state is supposed to have a very mediocre life style, so its not something that people dream about for pursuits of power , control and pleasure. But If a large majority of people put their trust in one man and ask him to be the khalifa, he has to accept the challenge.

I shall post more, if this is about what you wanted to know.

 

[Caladan]

The topic was a part of a discussion in the Islam forum. I'd like to tackle it here.
For many Muslims, their values can't be confined to a certain field of life and adopt others in other fields but they carry their values in whatever field of life they encounter. As their submission to God can't be divided. You can't be a Muslim in your mosque and home but someone else in politics and economics.

I know that no-one outside the Muslim rank would agree with the Muslim approach to politics and other fields of public life but I am asking anyway; isn't this the natural approach if you are a believer in God dedicating your life to Him?

Islam has been political since its inception. a very short time after the death of the prophet his family members and companions waged war against each other in the first major split within Islam: to Sunnis and Shiites. over a billion and a half Muslims around the world hold different cultural and social norms and national political interests. before we can even project about the 'Islamic values and duties' of Muslims when it comes to political ideologies, it would be clever to look at the entire span of Islam from the 7th century up to the present century. during this time span, major Islamic dynasties have waged war against each other over political and geographic interests, in the previous centuries Arabs fought Turks, if you look at the middle east and Africa in the modern age, we can number millions of casualties and refugees in inter-Muslim conflicts which spring out of different political ideologies and interests, Persians, Arabs, Kurds, Turks and others have fought each other and between themselves for their political ideologies.
so between all these cultures and Islamic organizations, who has the correct Islamic political ideology?

 

[Onkara]

Actually it's too late, thank God I managed to decode these Qur'anic references (most of them to be accurate ).

I want to understand your view more.
Are you saying that there is no actually free will? And we don't have to worry about Allah's will and want because it's already in action? Thus disbelieving or believing is not something to decide and returns completely to God?
Also, aren't we able to know Allah's will through the revelation? As you referred to the Qur'an, doesn't the Qur'an have it stances that are political in nature?

Well to share an exercise is always more fun

Regarding your questions.
I am of the personal opinion that free will exists as long as you hold it to. I do not believe "free will" is a word used in the Quran (or 6th Century AD Arabic) and I doubt its is correct to use it in Islam as we do in English today.

I am saying that through complete submission/surrender to Allah we will act correctly. The revelations are correct and we must submit to them to obey them, we must not use them to shape our desires or wants. We must overcome our desires and wants by submission to Allah alone.

I am saying that political wants can be the cause of going against Allah's will. Allah's will can be mistaken as political when we use it to enforce our personal/cultural/national wants. Allah's will is Allah's will, there is no need to consider it to be political (see my proposed definition of politics above). So the Quran is not political in nature, it is not about their wants or Muslims wants,it is by its source higher than that, more than any human "want" or a human desire.

The first difficulty here is what we mean by law and politics. In the UK, USA, Spain etc, the mechanism for politics and laws is the same i.e. The politician make the laws for the voters. It is the Governement/Constitution/Senate who define laws based on wants, not scripture today. However living by the Quran is religious in nature, spiritual, and not political (down to personal wants) in my opinion, it is similar words but not the same at heart. This is where we must begin.

That's my position to explore, with others help

 

[Onkara]

over a billion and a half Muslims around the world hold different cultural and social norms and national political interests. before we can even project about the 'Islamic values and duties' of Muslims when it comes to political ideologies, it would be clever to look at the entire span of Islam from the 7th century up to the present century. during this time span, major Islamic dynasties have waged war against each other over political and geographic interests, in the previous centuries Arabs fought Turks, if you look at the middle east and Africa in the modern age, we can number millions of casualties and refugees in inter-Muslim conflicts which spring out of different political ideologies and interests, Persians, Arabs, Kurds, Turks and others have fought each other and between themselves for their political ideologies.
so between all these cultures and Islamic organizations, who has the correct Islamic political ideology?

This is along the lines I am trying to highlight (if I understand clearly), but through theology/philosophy within Islam itself. There is a difference between politics and Islam and I hold complete submission to Allah to be the real answer for Muslims.

I might be wrong...

 

[Onkara]

MashAllah, that is a very good question, and has been put really well, islam's ruling system is Shariah, and The State formed on the Rules of Shariah is called the Khilafat, and the Ameer(head) of that State is the Khalifa. I'm not sure if this is what you're asking, but This is the system of Rulers which is preferred in Islam,and none of the Islamic states are under it at the moment. ( reasons, another debate)

Now, How does the process for appointment of a head of the state go about? It is all true democracy to the core. I may not be able to give a comprehensive idea to you since I'm not a scholar, I'll just try to explain as much as I know.

The Caliphate( Ameer, khalifa, head of the state) is chosen by the people themselves, people are not to sell or present themselves as candidates to grab favorable voters. Its like a group of people, will show their likeness for a person that they have known to be a thorough practising Muslim all their lives with a broad knowledge base of Islamic jurisprudence, along with leadership qualities. They will go upto him and ask him to be their khalifa.

Many practising muslims have even refused to be the Khalifa since they find the task of magnanamous responsibility and the one with absolute accountability and transparency.

Now, Since being a Khalifa is a huge responsibility in Islam and is not something so hunky dory and all glory, that people would give their arms to be appointed one. An islamic Caliphate head of the state is supposed to have a very mediocre life style, so its not something that people dream about for pursuits of power , control and pleasure. But If a large majority of people put their trust in one man and ask him to be the khalifa, he has to accept the challenge.

I shall post more, if this is about what you wanted to know.

Thank you Starsoul
I hope my intentions will be clear from other posts also, but yes, this is most helpful as I think ultimately we will need to cover this.

The political system should, in my opinion, operate differently to Islam. Politics can 'safe harbour' Islam, but Islam is misunderstood if it used politically. Rather submission to Allah is the highest goal.

I fear we are entering a debate over secularism. My initial interest was purely theological/philosophical.

 

[Caladan]

This is along the lines I am trying to highlight (if I understand clearly), but through theology/philosophy within Islam itself. There is a difference between politics and Islam and I hold complete submission to Allah to be the real answer for Muslims.

I might be wrong...

Many Muslims and Non-Muslims will say that Islam is also a political way of life. perhaps most Muslims and Non-Muslims would say that.
Maybe we should start here and raise a debate about a few of the points in the article:

Political aspects of Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Starsoul]

Islam has been political since its inception. a very short time after the death of the prophet his family members and companions waged war against each other in the first major split within Islam: to Sunnis and Shiites. over a billion and a half Muslims around the world hold different cultural and social norms and national political interests. before we can even project about the 'Islamic values and duties' of Muslims when it comes to political ideologies, it would be clever to look at the entire span of Islam from the 7th century up to the present century. during this time span, major Islamic dynasties have waged war against each other over political and geographic interests, in the previous centuries Arabs fought Turks, if you look at the middle east and Africa in the modern age, we can number millions of casualties and refugees in inter-Muslim conflicts which spring out of different political ideologies and interests, Persians, Arabs, Kurds, Turks and others have fought each other and between themselves for their political ideologies.
so between all these cultures and Islamic organizations, who has the correct Islamic political ideology?

This is a very minisformed view, I'm afraid. Might I ask , where'd you get that from, that After the death Of the Porphet (pbuh), his Companions waged war against each other? Which war was this and when did it happen?

The Sunni Shia History developed much later, and it has no roots around the time of several decades after his death. It started around the time of Hazrat Ali (RA) the fourth Caliph, who was the married to the daughter of the Prophet, and When he had heard of it, he strongly opposed to the Idea of sects based on Glorification of either of the companions of the Prophet, as if each practised Islam in a different version, which is strongly discouraged in Islam, and is called Bidah"(meaning astrayed, far away from the real deen)

And it is said to have all started (according to historians) when a Jew convert to Islam, moved away from the Caliphate and proselytized Islam with additions and distortions of his own, incorporating his own touch, which surprisingly is evident all over the Shia textual references (the books of their Imams,) impregnated with Jewish symbolism and traditions.

Hence, people who were influenced by the good teachings of Islam, accepted the message entirely while not knowing the actual truth. As soon as their version of Islam was heard by the Right Guided 4th Caliph, it was totally refuted, and there were missions sent to identify such people, but they were said to have fled away into self imposed exile, hence you will find the Shia sect further from the centre of Islam, The Arab.

The 4 Caliphs of Islam after the Prophet (pbuh SAWW )were the Right guided ones and Inspite of differences of opinion among them (only 'on the modus operandi) to carry out certain things, (rather than the Ideology of Islam,) they always stood united upon ONE version of Islam, i.e The one taught by the Prophet(pbuh) Himself.

There is lot of history to the groups, but the main point being that there were no groupings of sects at the time of and Right AFTER the Prophet, It is discouraged for Muslims to be divided into groups, as has been said in the Quran and the Hadith, I myself don't associate myself with groupings, The Law of Allah and the practice of the Prophet is what a Muslim is defined by.

So, the political struggles that took place decades after the death of the Prophet, were not motivated by sects but by Huge conspiracies to PREVENT the Imams of the Muslim world to gain any control over the Muslim affairs and make it look like a solely political effort, which it was not.

As for the political struggles of Modern Muslim world, and the commotion that there was/is between some of the muslim nations, Arabs, turks, kurds, is not out of an ISLAMIC perspective which makes those efforts entirely 'imperialist, dictatorial, capitalist, political etc'.

An islamic system is FORMED out of a great Credence given to the Caliph by the muslim population themselves so there is no chance of being divided on the sides by either sect or conspiracy, unless ofcorse certain elements design a fierce conspiracy to topple such a system.

In a modern democratic state, politicians first sell themselves with all the gloss to their un-suspecting voters and when once in power, they do what their agenda is, the wishes of the voters are conveniently ignored. In Islamic system , a person is CHOSEN on the basis of his character and he doesn't go around beggging for votes, People go to him themselves assigining him their trust. The Islamic ideology which is the correct one is the one based on The Quran and authentic hadees, sans any personal touch or vendetta entwined with it under cover.

 

[Meow Mix]

The topic was a part of a discussion in the Islam forum. I'd like to tackle it here.
For many Muslims, their values can't be confined to a certain field of life and adopt others in other fields but they carry their values in whatever field of life they encounter. As their submission to God can't be divided. You can't be a Muslim in your mosque and home but someone else in politics and economics.

I know that no-one outside the Muslim rank would agree with the Muslim approach to politics and other fields of public life but I am asking anyway; isn't this the natural approach if you are a believer in God dedicating your life to Him?

Nobody disputes a Muslim's right to sovereignty to rule themselves as they like, the problem arises when Muslims think that their sovereignty supercedes other people. For instance, if Muslims are a majority in country X and so decide to outlaw things based on religious taboos that ONLY have a basis for being outlawed in religious taboo (like homosexuality, safe consumption of alochol, etc.) Or if Muslims commit crimes against humanity like murdering people only for changing religion, etc.

If being Muslim is incompatible with granting people civil liberties -- well, then there's an extreme problem there. Fortunately, most Muslims that I speak to feel that Muslim law only applies to Muslims and that therefore people who decide not to subject themselves to Muslim taboos aren't bound by them. Hopefully that isn't just lip service (and I doubt it is, given the quality of these friends ), and that if the choice is ever given to Muslims to rule a place they will remember that not everyone is Muslim and not everyone believes in their taboos.

 

[Revoltingest]

What does Islam require of Muslims politically?

 

[A-ManESL]

A-ManESL

I cannot agree that their is fault with simplicity of submission (surrender to Allah). In fact I would say that to add anything to the act of submission is simply to make way for our own will and desire. To say "I submit but..." is just to lie (4:50), in the Islamic sense.

Often there are many levels of thought in the same idea and what is revealed at one stage is hidden at the other.

You start with the implicit assumption of duality of existence, man's reality is different then God's reality and one is required to submit to the other. If one truly understands wahdat (or Unity) this duality vanishes and so does the need of one entity submitting to the other. To formally realize the vanishing of duality, man must be harmoniously woven with God's plan: this harmony is what is required and the concept of surrender was developed towards that end. Our own wills and desires exist if there is duality, in reality He(God) is the only Reality, and this concept of duality is superfluous and so is surrendering in that sense.

Regards

 

[Onkara]

Often there are many levels of thought in the same idea and what is revealed at one stage is hidden at the other.

You start with the implicit assumption of duality of existence, man's reality is different then God's reality and one is required to submit to the other. If one truly understands wahdat (or Unity) this duality vanishes and so does the need of one entity submitting to the other. To formally realize the vanishing of duality, man must be harmoniously woven with God's plan: this harmony is what is required and the concept of surrender was developed towards that end. Our own wills and desires exist if there is duality, in reality He(God) is the only Reality, and this concept of duality is superfluous and so is surrendering in that sense.

Regards

Hello A-ManESL
I totally agree that in reality there is no duality.
I felt obliged to start with the premise that Creator and creation are two and that there is an implicit duality in Islamic theology.

How do Sufi explain the problem of evil acts my mankind?