Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari

Abdullahi Ahmed An-NaÀim Islam and the Secular State Negotiating the Future of ShariÀa HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England 2008 Copyright © 2008 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data NaÀim, ÀAbd Allah Ahmad, 1946– Islam and the secular state : negotiating the future of ShariÀa / Abdullahi Ahmed An-NaÀim. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-0-674-02776-3 (alk. paper) 1. Islam and secularism. 2. Islam and state. 3. Islamic law. 4. Religious pluralism—Islam. I. Title. BP190.5.S35N35 2005 297.2′72—dc22 2007034057 Contents Preface vii 1 Introduction: Why Muslims Need a Secular State 1 2 Islam, the State, and Politics in Historical Perspective 45 3 Constitutionalism, Human Rights, and Citizenship 84 4 India: State Secularism and Communal Violence 140 5 Turkey: Contradictions of Authoritarian Secularism 182 6 Indonesia: Realities of Diversity and Prospects of Pluralism 223 7 Conclusion: Negotiating the Future of ShariÀa 267 References 295 Index 311 Preface This book is the culmination of my life’s work, the final statement I wish to make on issues I have been struggling with since I was a student at the Uni- versity of Khartoum, Sudan, in the late 1960s. I speak as a Muslim in this book because I am accountable for these ideas as part of my own religion and not simply as a hypothetical academic argument. But the focus of my proposal is the public role of ShariÀa, not matters of religious doctrine and ritual practice in the private, personal domain. While Muslims are my pri- mary audience, non-Muslims should also participate in debating the public role of ShariÀa, because what Muslims think and do about these issues af- fects all human beings everywhere. However, the ethics and rationale of cross-cultural and interreligious dialogue require all sides to strive to learn and understand one another’s positions and to be respectful of and sensitive to their apprehensions and concerns. This ethos applies among Muslims as well as between Muslims and non-Muslims. Otherwise, the debate will de- generate into a futile and counterproductive confrontation. The Islamic argument for a secular state that I am making is in terms of a paradigm or framework for thinking about the issues, and not a hermeneutical or exegetical analysis of Islamic sources which needs to be based on an agreed interpretative framework to be persuasive. A hermeneutical argument without an agreed interpretative framework can simply be coun- tered by an opposing interpretation based on another framework. As I emphasize at various stages of this book, we always understand Islamic sources (or any other text, for that matter) as who we are, in our specific location and context. This book is about issues of self-perception, location, and context in present Islamic societies, which must first be clarified for an agreement on an interpretative framework to evolve. In addition to being prema- vii viii Preface ture at this stage, a hermeneutical argument would also be too technical and narrowly focused for the general audience of Muslims and non-Muslims I am seeking to engage in this debate. This broader audience is necessary for facilitating and sustaining agreement on an interpretative framework. If the proposed paradigm is accepted, it can then be further substantiated and developed through hermeneutical or exegetical arguments in support of its ba- sic propositions or specific implications for those who wish to engage in that sort of analysis. I should also emphasize that the general statement of the framework I am calling for in this book cannot include all the theoretical or practical aspects of the proposed theory. Starting from the premise that ShariÀa will indeed have a role in public life where Muslims are the majority or a significant mi- nority of the population, I am primarily concerned here with clarifying and promoting the most conducive conditions for the negotiation of the future of ShariÀa in the public domain. Since that domain is shared by Muslims and non-Muslims at the local and global levels, the negotiation of the future of ShariÀa must include all human beings who are affected by it. I realize that all aspects of my proposal require further clarification and development, but it is neither possible nor desirable to attempt an exhaustive discussion of all conceivable issues. Debates will continue about the nature of the secular state, the role of religion in public life, the meaning and application of constitutionalism and human rights, the evolving and dynamic understand- ing of citizenship, and many other issues and concerns. The framework I am proposing is intended to facilitate and clarify the relationship of Islam, the state, and society in the hope of helping to bring about a more positive en- gagement of Muslims in these debates. Many elements of what I am proposing have been presented by other Muslim scholars, which I find to be encouraging, because it indicates that my proposal can draw on that accumulation of insights and arguments. Since I am concerned about being persuasive and not about claiming exclu- sive original authorship, I find it helpful and reassuring that I am not alone in saying this. As I will argue in various parts of this book, the state was never Islamic, though it was not fully secular in the sense I am proposing here. In this light, I am trying to contribute to the clarification of what has been the reality of Islamic societies from the very beginning by seeing how that historical reality can evolve into a viable framework for the future. What I hope to contribute is to bring various elements together, particularly the dimensions of constitutionalism, human rights, and citizenship, in ways Preface ix that facilitate the practical implementation of the proposed framework for mediating the relationship of Islam, the state, and society. To that end, I have conceived and conducted the study presented in this book in a way that gives particular priority to presenting my tentative ideas for debate among Muslim scholars and community leaders. In this way, I have sought to address the need for persuasion in the conception and development of the theory itself, rather than simply attempting to do so only after publication. The public debate dimension of the study was therefore integral to the original plan for both its theoretical premise and its desired outcomes. On the one hand, I sought to develop my thesis and its implications out of the insights and reflections of the most current and future-oriented thinking on the subject, which may not be available in a published form. I also planned from the start to relate my analysis to public policy and actual prac- tices as early in this process as possible. On the other hand, I sought ways of contributing to the current thinking while testing the viability and prospects of my own ideas, in addition to improving and refining my ability to communicate them effectively. In other words, I tried to emphasize the actual advocacy for change according to the proposed theory in the process of re- search and writing, by deliberately seeking to identify possible objections and developing appropriate responses to them, instead of attempting to pro- duce a final statement composed in academic isolation. I am as concerned with my ability to be persuasive as I am with the theoretical integrity and co- hesion of the outcome of this study. Accordingly, I began this process by drafting an initial “concept paper,” which was distributed among and discussed with many scholars and opinion leaders during my visits to Istanbul (Turkey), Cairo (Egypt), Khartoum (Su- dan), Tashkent and Samarqand (Uzbekistan), New Delhi, Aligarh, Mumbai, and Cochin (India), Jakarta and Yogjakarta (Indonesia), and Abuja, Jos, Kano, and Zaria (Nigeria) between January 2004 and September 2006. With the assistance of local researchers, I was able to conduct individual inter- views, roundtable discussions, and seminars. I also presented public lectures to Muslim audiences during visits to all those locations, and in various places in Europe and the United States. At several stages during this process, I re- vised and expanded the initial concept paper in response to the critical com- ments and suggestions received and developed out of those activities. Another important aspect of this advocacy-oriented process is that a draft of the English manuscript was translated into Arabic, Bahasa Indonesia, Bengali, French, Persian, Russian, Turkish, and Urdu. All these manuscripts x Preface were gradually uploaded on a website (www.law.emory.edu/fs) launched from Emory Law School in July 2006 for the purpose of generating debate among Muslims in their own languages about the ideas presented in this study. Readers are able to access the manuscript in their own language and communicate whatever responses they may have in that language through a designated e-mail address managed by the translator, who is a native speaker of that language. This emphasis on rendering this manuscript and interaction concerning its findings and conclusions in the native languages of Islamic societies has obvious practical and symbolic significance for the objectives of the study as a whole. However, this emphasis on native languages should not be taken to diminish the value of making this manuscript available in English, which is probably read by more Muslims around the world than any other language. It is true that those who read English tend to be middle-class and professional, but those are a powerful force for change in all societies. Throughout this process, I have been privileged to have had the assistance and collaboration of too many people and institutions to acknowledge here, but the following deserve special mention.

Load more