Secular Islam: The Antidote to Islamist Terrorism

What you are reading is an article by Akbar Ganji published in the Huffington Post on January 27, 2015. Issue Statement: Groups such as Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra, Al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, etc., have turned the Quran into a manifesto for war and terrorism (refer to the article "The Peaceful Quran and the Warlike Quran"). The corrupt, oppressive, wealthy Gulf states have also transformed the anti-dictatorship movement of the "Arab Spring" into a Sunni-Shia war to divert the danger from themselves (refer to the article "Transforming the Democracy-Dictatorship Conflict into a Sunni-Shia War"). The horrific crimes of these groups and their global expansion are indeed concerning. These groups use the most modern military weapons for slaughter and destruction to delusionally return the world to a pre-modern era through so-called Islamic governments. Simultaneously, the "Islamophobia industry" and "anti-Islamism" in the West not only turn the Quran into a manifesto for warlike fundamentalists but also imply that forming an Islamic government is a necessary condition for being a Muslim and that Islam means legal rulings or Sharia. Reducing Islam to legal rulings has been a significant part of the work of Orientalists. The main claim of this article—contrary to what Muslim terrorists and the Islamophobia industry say—is that secularism is compatible with Islam, and an Islamic government is unjustifiable and, in a more radical sense, impossible. Secular Islam is the most important antidote to Islamist terrorist groups, and we will present strategies to combat these groups at the end. Definition of Concepts According to Wittgenstein in Philosophical Investigations, words have no meaning other than "use." Thus, we must clarify what the main concepts in this writing mean (I have explained the meaning of these concepts and the relationship between Islam, democracy, and secularism in detail in another article, pp. 156-127). First - State: The state is an organized, impersonal institution with defined borders, a specific population, etc., that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. For example, Paul in Alijika's works states: "The government is an entity that has the monopoly on the legal use of coercive powers or claims such a right within a specific geographical area and over a specific political unit and possesses internal and external authority. Recognition by other governments and thus the ability to enter into international treaties is often considered its natural requirement" (p. 491). Second - Secularism: In social sciences, secularism is used in three different meanings: a) Atheism and non-religiosity: Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber argued that the world is moving towards non-religiosity and atheism through functional differentiation, the dominance of scientific knowledge, and demystification. The incorrectness of the predictions of the fathers of sociology became clear to everyone in the last quarter of the twentieth century. b) Driving religion from the public sphere to the private sphere: Many people use secularism to mean limiting religion to the private sphere. However, this action is impossible because religion is not a piece of clothing that can be taken off as soon as one leaves the house. Sociologists like Robert Bellah, Charles Taylor, Jürgen Habermas, José Casanova, etc., consider the presence of religion in the public sphere possible and desirable. However, justifying all claims in the public sphere—and turning them into law—will occur through rational dialogue, not by referring to sacred religious texts or sacred persons. Islam, in the sense of text (Quran) and tradition (sayings and actions of the Prophet and, broadly, the infallible Imam in Shia tradition), is sensitive to justice, oppression, and other issues in the public sphere but has no plan or prescription for forming an Islamic government and is fundamentally secular. From the text - Separation of the institution of religion from the institution of the state: In this sense, these two institutions are distinguished from each other and belong to different domains. Religion will not be the basis for the political legitimacy of the state and public legislation, nor will the state interfere in religion. Third - Islam: Islam means text (Quran) and tradition (sayings and actions of the Prophet and, broadly, the infallible Imam in Shia tradition). Although Islam is sensitive to justice and oppression and other issues in the public sphere, it has no plan or prescription for forming an Islamic government and is fundamentally secular. Thus: a) Secular Islam: means Islam as a set of beliefs, ethics, and jurisprudence that did not come to form a state and government. Therefore, expecting the formation of an Islamic state from the Quran and tradition is incorrect since Islam lacks a theory about the state and government and its essential needs. b) Secular Muslim: A secular Muslim is an individual who believes in the separation of the institution of religion (Islam) from the institution of the state and considers this belief compatible with Islam. In this article, I will show, with detailed and necessary references to the Quran and tradition, that the combination of Islam and being a Muslim with secularism, in the sense of separating the institution of religion from the institution of the state, is possible, desirable, and justified. Therefore, the fundamentalist and jihadist groups' interpretation of the Quran and tradition for forming a religious state and government is invalid. The Modern and Pre-Modern Era and an important point about these two periods that is usually overlooked: First - In the ancient world, especially in the seventh century AD, and particularly in the Arabian Peninsula, the state/government, in the sense we know, did not exist. Those tribal societies were very small, simple, with personal relationships and power, and lacked the state/government institution in the sense we understand—with all its functions. In the tribe, authority exists, but their paternal and personal authority derives from the status and position they have in the tribe. The simple tribal society has not yet been divided into rulers and the ruled. The emergence of the state is directly related to the increase in the division of labor. The processes of social division of labor and bureaucratization create an organized, impersonal institution with defined borders, a specific population, etc., known as the state. According to Charles Tilly, until the tenth century AD: "Nowhere in Europe was there anything resembling a centralized national state" (p. 40). David Held and many sociologists also confirm this claim. However, Andrew Wendt in state theories states: "The main argument of this book is that the state is a relatively recent phenomenon whose origins date back to the sixteenth century." Perry Anderson also considers the state a phenomenon belonging to the sixteenth century. When until the tenth or sixteenth century Europe lacked a state, how could the city of Medina, with a very small population, have had a state? The Arabian Peninsula lacked a state for the same reason it lacked human rights, representative democracy, and feminism. That is, humans had not yet constructed these institutions. Second - In the seventh century AD, there was no such thing as society; what existed was "Ummah." According to Ferdinand Tönnies, pre-modern communities should be considered Gemeinschaft, which is distinct from modern societies known as Gesellschaft. The audience of the commands of the Prophet of Islam and the Quran were believers who formed the "Ummah." The legal rulings and Sharia were for the Ummah, not for modern societies and eras. What does the Quran say about forming a state? Prophet Muhammad, within the very simple and tribal frameworks of the seventh century AD, received prophethood and took leadership of the people. However, there is no directive in the Quran for forming an Islamic government after the death of the Prophet of Islam. Even if there were verses in this regard, all were interpretable and subject to interpretation. The Quran did not explicitly designate a successor for the Prophet. For this reason, Muslims have no obligation in this regard. Al-Jahiz—from the Mu'tazila—said: "We examined the Quran from beginning to end, and we found not only a verse that has a text for the Imamate but even a verse that could, through careful consideration, indicate the Imamate, nor even if it could not be found with precision and thought, and the apparent words do not support your claim [Shia]" (Al-Jahiz, Al-Othmaniya, pp. 273 and 277-276). The Quran even commanded the Prophet to resolve the problems and collective issues of his time by consulting with them: "And consult with them in the matter" (Al-Imran, 159). Al-Zamakhshari, a Mu'tazili, wrote in the interpretation of Kashaf regarding this verse that consultation includes all non-revelation matters. Imam Fakhr al-Razi, an Ash'ari, also wrote in the interpretation of Mafatih al-Ghayb that although the Prophet's intellect was greater than all people, worldly matters were many, and perhaps in these areas, people might know better. He then refers to the Prophet's own words, who told the people: "You are more familiar with your worldly affairs, and I am more familiar with your religious matters." Al-Zamakhshari also narrates this saying from the Prophet: "Whenever a people consult with others, they find the correct way." The Quran states elsewhere: "And their affairs are [determined by] consultation among themselves" (Shura, 38). What does tradition say? After the death of the Prophet of Islam, his companions were chosen by the elites (ahl al-hall wa al-aqd) to lead them. For this reason, according to Sunni scholars, the choice of the Muslim leader is with the elites. Qadi Abdul Jabbar, a Mu'tazili, said: "The people of resolution, as the contract holders of the Imamate, consult with other Muslims" (Al-Mughni, vol. 20, part 1, p. 68) and "ensure the consent of the general public" (same, part 2, p. 5). Twelver Shia believe that God, through Muhammad, chose Ali ibn Abi Talib—the first Imam of the Shia—as the successor of the Prophet, and that his right to govern and that of his eleven subsequent sons, who are all endowed with divine knowledge and infallibility, is God's proof on earth. These claims have been rejected by the majority of Muslims throughout history. Among them, the Mu'tazila presented strong rational and textual critiques of the claims of the Shia. The Quran explicitly states that God sent prophets so that humans would have no argument against God. In other words, prophets are the proof, and humans, in addition to them, do not need another proof—except for reason, which is the main proof: "Messengers as bringers of good tidings and warners, so that people will have no argument against Allah after the messengers" (Nisa, 165). If with the sending of prophets, people still needed another proof and could still argue with God, the Quran would have emphasized that we sent prophets and Shia Imams so that people would have no argument against God, but the Quran only mentions prophets. This same theme is repeated in two other surahs: "And if We had destroyed them with a punishment before [the clear signs], they would surely have said, 'Our Lord, why did You not send us a messenger so we could follow Your signs before we were humiliated?'" (Ta-Ha, 134). "And We do not bring punishment except that We have sent a messenger before" (Isra, 15). What does authentic Shia say? Oppressive governments in the Middle East have fueled sectarian conflict between Shia and Sunni to expand their power and escape the wave of democracy-seeking. However, the conflict between Shia and Sunni was later constructed and is not related to the companions of the Prophet of Islam. As we will show, Ali ibn Abi Talib—the first Imam of the Shia—praised the three caliphs before him and had close relationships with them. Ali ibn Abi Talib refers his caliphate and that of the three previous caliphs to the choice of the people, not God or the Prophet of Islam. Therefore, governance and political leadership are entirely popular and earthly, not heavenly. Oppressive governments in the Middle East have fueled sectarian conflict between Shia and Sunni to expand their power and escape the wave of democracy-seeking. However, the conflict between Shia and Sunni was later constructed and is not related to the companions of the Prophet of Islam. As we will show, Ali ibn Abi Talib—the first Imam of the Shia—praised the three caliphs before him and had close relationships with them. From the text, Shia have also cited the narration of Ghadir Khumm ("Whoever I am his master, Ali is his master [Shia translation of the narration]. Whoever I am his friend and beloved, Ali is his friend and beloved [Sunni translation of the narration]") to prove Ali's Imamate. However, in authentic history and early texts, there is no evidence that Ali ibn Abi Talib argued about Ghadir Khumm and his appointment by the Prophet. In Nahj al-Balagha, Ali legitimizes the leadership of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and himself through the pledge of allegiance of the Muhajirun and Ansar. In other words, he endorses the Sunni understanding of the Quran. He says: "The people who pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr and Umar and Uthman accepted my allegiance in the same way. Therefore, one who is present cannot take another as a caliph, and one who is absent cannot reject the actions of those present. The council belongs to the Muhajirun and Ansar, so if a group gathers around a man and names him their Imam, they have purchased God's pleasure" (Nahj al-Balagha Shahidi, Letter 6, p. 274). A person appointed by God to political leadership cannot say: "By God, I had no desire for the caliphate, nor did I need the government, but you compelled me to it and placed that duty upon me" (Nahj al-Balagha Shahidi, Sermon 205, p. 239). If God had placed this duty upon him, there would have been no reluctance and no reference to the choice of the people. Did the Prophet Muhammad ever say that you have chosen me for prophethood? If God and His Messenger had chosen him, there would be no room for rejection.