Thomas Jefferson, Islam and the State
When Congressman Keith Ellison took his oath of office in January 2007 he placed his hand on a Qur'an once owned by Thomas Jefferson. As Congressman Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress explained, he borrowed Jefferson's Qur'an from the Rare Book Section of the Library of Congress because it showed that "a visionary like Jefferson" learned from many sources. Is it at all surprising that the founders of the American republic would have studied the foundational text of Islam as a major world religion of their time? Americans leaders should do the same today.
What could our third president have learned about the state and religion from Islamic sources?
Today it is hard for us to imagine a Muslim world where political and religious leaders do not justify the state and their power based on Divine will. In the Iranian elections last week, the conservative Guardian Council actually decided who could run, arguing they needed to ensure greater obedience to true Muslim values.
This type of authoritarian censorship exposes the true nature of the clerics of Guardian Council as a totalitarian clique intent on falsifying Islam and negating the free will of all Iranians. The fundamental principle of individual personal responsibility that can never be abdicated or delegated is one of the recurring themes of the Qur'an.
This contradiction is inherent to the claim that Iran is an Islamic republic. How can it be either Islamic or a republic at all when this Council of fallible human beings pretend to ensure "the Islamicity of the State" against the free choice of its own citizens?
As Jefferson wrote in 1802, "religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
Jefferson could have been paraphrasing chapter and verse of the Qur'an, like 6:94 and 164, 7:39, 17:15, 18:35, 19:95, 35:18, and many others which all emphatically confirm the individual personal responsibility of every Muslim for what she or he does or fail to do. All founding scholars of Islam agree that no act has any religious value unless done freely and without any coercion.
Just as Jefferson believed that the newly formed United States should not be a Christian state, for Muslims the notion that the state can be Islamic is false from a religious point of view, and has no support in 15 centuries of Islamic history. It is true that Muslims everywhere, whether minorities or majorities, are bound to observe Shari'a as a matter of religious obligation. Some practices are collective in form, but always individual in substance. Any observance of Shari'a can be best achieved when the state is neutral regarding all religious doctrines. Enforcing a Shari'a through coercive power of the state negates its religious nature, because Muslims would be observing the law of the state and not freely performing their religious obligation as Muslims.
The notion of an Islamic state is in fact a post-colonial innovation based on a European model of the state and a totalitarian view of law and public policy. There is no mention whatsoever of the state in the Qur'an, and Islam does not prescribe a form of government. Instead, the emphasis has always been on the community of Muslims and their responsibility for conducting their own public affairs. A true and valid return to Islamic values anywhere must allow individuals to practice religion unfettered by religious leaders who claim to speak in the name of the Divine. This is the clear demand of Muslims everywhere, like all other human beings and their societies.
Jefferson's oft quoted comment regarding refreshing the tree of liberty from time to time (he suggested every twenty years) is also fully consistent with the imperative of renewal and rejuvenation of the faith and its relevance to daily life which is a recurrent theme throughout Islamic history. To have any religious value, this renewal must happen within individual Muslims and their communities, freely and without coercion, and not through violence at home or abroad.
Every generation of citizens, whether religious or not, should renew and reaffirm their commitment to democracy and the rule of law as essential for human dignity and social justice everywhere. These values cannot be inherited from preceding generations, and must be personally accepted with true conviction if they are to be effective in practice.
I would not doubt President Jefferson's word that he was not a Muslim (and appreciate that he did not have to deny it in his day). I am not suggesting that he was actually influenced by the teachings of the Qur'an. What is significant for me is the fact that his conclusions about the relationship between religion and state are fully consistent with mine as a Muslim and as a scholar of the Qur'an. Jefferson speaks for me and the clear majority of Muslims around the world (as shown by the global Gallup poll published in Feb. 2008) that the only true relationship to the Divine must be of the individual believer, unfettered by religious or political leaders who claim to speak in the name of the Divine.
Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im is professor of law, Emory University, and author of Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari'a (Harvard University Press, 2008)
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Here is good news about the Iraq war: An extraordinary outcome resulting from our Mideast policies is that the radical Sunni feeling of inevitability has been broken. Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia were promoting Wahabism and on a roll. Muslims have a simplistic faith. When things went well, like 9/11 for the bad guys, Allah was happy with them. This gave them momentum on the “Arab Street” since Allah was with them, obviously. Now, not so much. By empowering the historically more peace loving Iraqi Shiites we did more to stabilize the Muslim world than is generally given credit for. Saddam was the biggest enemy of the Shiites and a barrier for the Saudis, who flourished and could support hate without opposition. Now Saddam is gone, Obama hides in a cave, and the Sunnis and Shiites can concentrate on their longstanding historical enmity with more even odds, leaving us alone. Another massive plus is that the theologically more traditional and numerous Iraqi Shiites have risen in power to counterbalance the Shiite loonies in Iran as well. Any way you look at it, it is a beautiful strategic win for the US and the entire West!
"Now Saddam is gone, Obama hides in a cave," ????
Your spelling is about as good as your theory.
That's not the only imagined accomplishment of President Pan's bone headed policies.
There are many fewer poor black people living in New Orleans after Katrina.. And thus Pan has reduced poverty in that city.
Next great accomplishment the economy ...
Boobale posted: One aspect of the Quoran and Islam that I have always respected is that it stresses there are no humans, no mediaries...stands between God and the believer."
The inherent contradiction of that is that this book (Koran) is a literary narrative. The notion of the 'word of God" is a contradiction without a solution. In fact this Book, these words, written by men, IS the intermediary between God and man in Islam. You don't think so?
Then try to dismiss Koran as a holy book to a religious Muslim. Try it with your grand father.
So the question is who does the interpreting.Always.
This problem is hardwired into the whole idea of a narrative as a ultimate religious authority.
Myself I like the Eastern approach:" The spoken Tao is not the eternal Tao" and "Those who know don't speak, those who speak don't know."
Every one (White's) who forgot what happen to the Tuskegee men by the Gov't, please go to this link.
The United States government did something that was wrong—deeply, profoundly, morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to integrity and equality for all our citizens... clearly racist."
—President Clinton's apology for the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment to the eight remaining survivors, May 16, 1997
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmtuskegee1.html
This is why many Blacks do not think it's far fetch to think that the HIV/AIDs virus could have been concocted by the (Big Brother) Government.
How does this relate to the thread?! Monitors?! Anyone...
"No law respecting the establishment of religion". That didn't mean that religion should not be involved with government. On the contrary, it was meant to keep government off of religions back. The biggest reason we left Briton was because of this point of view.(See the Mayflower Pact).
Jefferson was a good man. In fact a great man. But he had his weaknesses. He was a skirt chaser, he had a black mistress and he drank too much. I do not put too much stock into his remark.
As far as having a Quran goes, I have a Quran and I've read it cover to cover. No where in my Quran does it say we should treat our women like cattle, Cut the clitorises out of our girls, Oppress the population and keep them illiterate and hungry, Teach young boys how to use an AK 47 by the time they are 7 years old, Terrorism, Suicide bombings, Chop off heads and other body parts, Mass murder graves, IED's, Shall I continue?
In fact, I don't care what Islam did in the past. I only care about what I see going on around me now. And frankly I'm not real impressed.
You minority member Christian bashers who have posted on this site. It's plain to see by even a blind man that you know nothing about the religion. In fact I'm willing to bet large amounts of money none of you ever even read the Bible yet you pass judgement based on your ignorant and irrational whims. It's much easier to blame those around you than to look deep inside, isn't it?
Did I say minority? I sure did, didn't I. Over 80% of the people in this country claim to be Christian of some sort. Therefore you are a minority. It's ironic that Christians do 90% of all the charity work in this country and indeed around the world while you dead beats sit around on your butts all day and do nothing but complain how rotten Christians are!
You people make me want to puke!!
So if you've read the Qur'an and didn't find current practices you find objectionable in it, wouldn't a reasonable conclusion be that much of what is called Islamic is in fact not?
I see various so-called Christians engaging in rather vile behavior and having read the New Testament (except for the odd bits not attributed to Jesus) conclude that what is being practiced is not Christianity.
The sad fact is that humans are not perfect and that true religion gets distorted.
Sometimes by those who have another motive than religion.
Sometimes by people with severe personality and psychological problems.
Sometimes by people who conflate prevailing societal customs with the religion.
The results are that atrocities in war or violence in civil society are not the product of only those who claim to be adherents of a single religion.
Another thought.
What precisely is the moral difference between
(1) a terrorist who sets off a bomb and kills 100 innocent people and a bomber pilot who drops a bomb on a city and 100 innocent people are killed? The point here: are recognized states held to a lower standard than unrecognized entities?
(2) the Japanese soldier who waterboards captives during the Second World War and the American soldier who waterboards VietCong during the Vietnam war? The point here: does one's ethnicity, politics or religion affect morality. Is it OK, if we do it? (Whoever that "we" may be). And bad when our adversaries do it?
Tommy:
Be careful! Your bigotry and fear are showing.
Before you dismiss what I say, if you were so tolerant, to turn the other cheek, as Christ himself said it, Islam or any other religion wouldn't provoke the comments you made. By the way, Christ never, ever wished for his teachings to be codified and for their to be Christian states. Remember "What is to Caesar, let it be rendered unto Caesar; what is God's, let it be unto God".
Yes, Christians may have started the United States but the Christians who came over, as you rightfully stated, came so that NO GOVERNMENT could dictate, devalue, diminish, nor intimidate anyone's religious beliefs. There never was nor do I hope there will ever be a Christian American state. That would make us no different from Iran. Do you see yourself as a Christian zealot, equal to the ones in Iran?
This is the point that Mr. An-na'im makes. The monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), related as they are, do not call for institutionalizing religious beliefs into a nation-state.
No matter how Christian you are, Tommy, that's great! Let us be who we are without your verbal attacks and intimidation. What have you to fear from someone different than you? That's right: it's the difference that scares you.
Sadly the ones who need to read this probably won't they are either illiterate or their reading material is supressed or censored.
Oh, JScott, despite of my illiteracy and the so-called suppression and censorship, I have read it. That shows how ignorant you have become due to the media in your country.
Abdullahi,
Your effort to reconcile Islam and Jeffersonian democrcay is comended; however your piece is incoherent and at times inconsistent with obvious factual and conceptual errors. You opened a pandora box because the subject you tackled is complex and needs a lengthy essay as a response-I will come back later to briefly responed. Thanks.
Interesting. It is an article by a Western Muslim trying to interpret global Islam in light of Western political and religious philosophy. He is right, of course, to point out Jefferson was not a Muslim. That’s pretty much a non-argument. He is also right to point out that Jefferson wasn’t basing his views on Islamic history. Jefferson, like all Deists of the time, owed his views to European Enlightenment and Western Christian philosophies. That he was aware of Islam is no different than most thinkers of the day (Deist or Christian). But the idea that Islam has never held the state and religion together is a bit deceiving. Islam is a different, an other. It is not simply Western values in Arabic dress. Islam always has - since its foundation - had an entirely different approach to church/state relations than that of Christianity. Ask a Christian or Jew who lived in the Islamic world during Islam’s height, and the notion that Islam and the state were distinct from one another would seem strange indeed. Sure, it wasn’t like the relationship in Europe. Islam is not Christianity, it is not Western Enlightenment, and it is not European Secularism. The gallop polls indicate that 100 million Muslims support the war on terror, but say nothing more about the 90% of Muslims who don’t. It says they don’t think Islam should be a theocracy as the Western Gallop organization understands it, but the poll, as all polls have done since 9/11, failed to ask them to define just what they do believe the world and its states should be like. And that is scant comfort for a non-Muslim in a world where Islam is becoming increasingly influential in light of a collapsing and impotent West.
Mr. An-Na'im,
You appear to be suggesting the same thing that Ellison did when he became a congressman, that is, that Jefferson owned a Koran in order to get spiritual fulfillment from it, or that Jefferson saw the book as sacred. Nothing could be further from the truth. I suggest you read the article by Christopher Hitchens entitled, “Jefferson's Quran: What the founder really thought about Islam.”http://www.slate.com/id/2157314/fr/flyouthttp://www.slate.com/id/2157314/fr/flyout.
Jefferson was indeed at war with Islam itself. America at that time was a new a nation that had no ill will toward the Islamic territories, but nonetheless found itself the victim of Islamic inspired terror and piracy. America merely got a taste of what Europe had endured for hundreds of years. Europe had experienced hundreds of years of piracy from Moslem corsairs who robbed ports and vessels at sea using the Koranic justification (of the rightful taking of property by a believing Moslem who may demand a poll-tax from a non-believer) and who also captured hundreds of thousands of men and women for enslavement. The women were sold naked like cattle in the markets of the Barbary states (whose de facto leader was the Sultan in Islanbul) whereas the men horrible conditions such as having to row up to 20 hours a day.
For some introductory discussion of Barbary piracy, see Hitchen’s “Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates, America’s first confrontation with the Islamic world helped forge a new nation’s character.” http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_urbanities-thomas_jefferson.html.
Most strikingly, in 1786, in London, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with and Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain. Both acted in their capacities as American ambassadors to France and Britain respectively, and met with Ambassador Adja to negotiate a peace treaty and protect the United States from the threat of Barbary piracy.
Joshua London notes in “America’s Earliest Terrorists, Lessons from America’s first war against Islamic terror:”
These future United States presidents questioned the ambassador as to why his government was so hostile to the new American republic even though America had done nothing to provoke any such animosity. Ambassador Adja answered them, as they reported to the Continental Congress, “that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.” Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/london200512160955.asp
Some argue that while the West is too powerful to be used a source of jizya (poll tax) and slaves; the modern day “Barbary” states seek both – especially slaves-- from Sub-Saharan Africa. Is this the bridge building that is being offered to mankind employing the use of the Koran as a guide?
The Belgiums committed the most horrible atrocities in the Congo in the name of civilization and of spreading Christianity.
Sometimes a pirate is just a pirate.
Or an avaricious monarch is just an avaricious monarch.
Whether or not they cloak their actions under another banner.
For example, were the pirates of the Caribbean, "Christian" pirates?
Or perhaps secret Muslims?
HuffPost's Pick
Some very good points, and well documented. The problem with turning to Hitchens, or Dawkins, or any of the modern atheists/secularists, is that they tend to paint the 18th century Deists as little more than atheists with nice singing voices for the occasional hymn. Nothing is further from the truth. Deism was, as Dr. Tim Webber once put it, Christianity for the 18th century intellectual. It kept the parts of Christian tradition that appealed to it, while rejecting the supernatural elements. Yet it was still a religious belief system. Deists believed in an absolute God that made the universe with absolute laws, including absolute moral laws (such noteworthy laws as ‘all men are created equal.’). They would have passed out at the thought that they believed in no God, or a God with no concern about our lives or actions. Hence their frequent admonition to pray. Included in this was a healthy study of other religions at the time, including Islam. Not that any founders were Muslim, or had much influence from Islam. But Hitchen’s treatment is unfortunately so skewed that it ends up killing the good points he could have made.
Excellent article.
One aspect of the Quoran and Islam that I have always respected is that it stresses there are no humans, no mediaries, no priests or rabbis and no authority that stands between God and the believer. That all people are equal in the eyes of God and therefore no person is permitted to harvest power or claim to speak for or on behalf of God. This equality and egalitarianism is enshrined in Islam.
Snake oil salesmen, wolves in sheeps clothing and common sociopaths have hijacked this religion and are commandeering some of it's followers to commit murder,hate,intolerance and oppression of women. It's a complete and offensive bastardization of Islam.
This hijacking of the Abrahamic traditions is too common among Islam,Judaism and Christianity in this climate of using religion to control people,politics and foreign policy.
Jefferson had to deal with the Barbary pirates who, indeed, had the same view of religion being superior to government as the terrorists do today. The religious leaders were supreme until the Ottoman empire which was the genises of the modern religious islam state not the colonial powers as you asseert. The fact is that the current radicals want to go back to the seventh century where might made right and whole populations were forced to convert.
How did you know I am rereading "Thomas Jefferson" by Christopher Hitchens? This book works well with Joseph Ellis' "Founding Brothers" and Ron Chenrow's "Alexander Hamilton". It is interesting to read how Jefferson felt about the revolt's in Haiti compared to the coup within the last few years.
It is also fascinating to read about how Jefferson felt about "race". Perhaps this is the origin of the "so-called problem" of "race"?
The past isn't dead and it keeps on hitting us over head some things we as country and a nation need to examine.
HuffPost's Pick
What a valuable piece!
Mr. An-Na'im,
With all due respect, your statement that "for Muslims the notion that the state can be Islamic is false from a religious point of view, and has no support in 15 centuries of Islamic history" is partially false.
Muslims in several countries have rallied around, advocated for, and supported Islamic governments, and the outcry or protestation, particularly in a post-Shah Iran, was minimal and usually by the upper class that found themselves estranged in an Ayatollah-run government.
Western Muslims have a much different worldview it seems than those in the East. While Western Muslims decried 9/11, many in the East cheered it, as they have cheered suicide bombers and other acts of violence against their perceived spiritual enemies.
Having read much on the subject from Western Muslims, I can't help but wish more of them had influence in the East.
this is an unfair and simply untrue position on Muslims from the "East." such lanuage implies that the "enlightened" ones in the west are somehow more advanced and and less evil than those in the Muslim world? what is that all about?
it's NOT true that many in the East celebrated 9/11. there was massive support from the Islamic world, including many vigils for the victims. as far as i know, there was one widely circulated video of literally a few people in the occupied territories celebrating something. i'm not even sure if it was 9/11 related, but it was presented as such.
rbile,Rog49Thomas : You are exactly right.
There were a couple videos, and yes, they were celebrating the 9/11 attacks - mostly in and around Palestine. Most Muslims, however, condemend the attacks, as did their leaders. But some celebrated. And never forget, when we are told only 10% of Muslims support terrorism, that is - in math terms - the same as saying 110 million Muslims support the tactics, and that in itself should be food for thought for everyone involved.
I think you've missed the point - it's political not spiritual opponents/enemies.
AlQaeda's stated motive for its actions on 911 are political: get foreign troops out of the Middle East, stop interfering in the area, and stop supporting Israel.
The insurgents in Iraq want to forcibly expell what they see as foreign invaders.
Far as I can see, no one is attacking the USA to force us to give up booze, stop eating pork or pray five times a day towards Mecca.
As to Muslims rallying around religious political parties, I think if you look closely you will again see this has less to do with religion than with (a) corruption in existing secular political parties, (b) one party states which quash free political expression but have more time quashing religious expression and (c) the legacy of our foreign policy. There was a time when the political wave in the area was decidedly secular, nationalistic and somewhat socialist. We didn't like that and so undermined these tendencies (with some unwitting help of course from these parties themselves).
Unfortunately, views such as Mr. An-Na'im's seem to be almost non-existant among Muslims, because Islamic fundamentists, including the rabid Wahhabi, all believe that their twisted interpretation of Islam must dominate all aspects of civil and political life. They invoke the name of Allah, but who knows what they are following??
I was reading your blog with interest, I disagree with your comments on Iran, the argument is on sementics, people define themselves in different ways and are also defined oftentimes by others
Iran views itself as an islamic state does not really have tolerance for other religions and practices it's views of Sahria law ... werent some of the rulers in the early muslim world dynasties claiming familial relation to mohamad ?
We may not call the U.S a cristian state but when a canidate to presidency is being "blamed" to be a muslim and his reaction is I am a christian, i am strong in my faith ; I am a christian, i am strong in my faith; I am a christian, i am strong in my faith and is not followed by " and even if i was ... we have a seperation of religion and state and there is not a reason that a muslim could not run to be president
when this is lacking from the discourse, when people lack courage, that seperation does not hold very well and it is more about political expediency and popularity... organized religions are also an excersice of power not only a phylosophical question
Did the same god make christianity and islam?
Religions, by their very nature, are authoritarian. Governments run by men who believe in religion MUST be authoritarian - god is all-powerful, and tells the men what to do. If these men don't follow, they suffer for all eternity. That, my friends, is authoritarian.
If you have to keep saying that your religion is one of peace, it probably isn't. It's not me you're trying to convince.
You people are all really bad at making up fairy tales.
A clear case of *Cognitive Dissonance* that pervades the psyche of all those who try to make sense of the irrational concepts within religion .
Agreed, Dap.
So according to this bollgers interpretation it's not a "state" it's simply a community of Muslims agreeing to behave in a certain way. Nice.
Of course, ignoring a few basic facts: as people of the "Book," Muslims have people study, interpret, proclaim and enforce the laws of behavior. In another words, people who claim to understands god's words. Consequently, people who don't obey their particular interpretation of the Quaran are persecuted, jailed and sometimes killed... Hey, Presto: A State, an Islamic State.
At least the poster who thinks he is "Master of the Game" can be relied upon to remind us that a little learning is a dangerous thing.
"People of the Book" ("umm' al kitab") is a term of art in Islamic theology and it refers to Jews and Christians who Muslims believe received divine revelation through their prophets (upon whom be peace) who are also regarded as prophets in Islam - ever noticed that Ibrahim is Abraham, Daoud is David etc ?
In all religions, there are scholars and teachers who seek to interpret scripture and help the faithful towards greater understanding. If one visits the Department of Oriental Books and Manuscripts in the British Museum one will find Christian, Jewish and Muslim theologians hard at work together - especially since a great deal of our knowledge of classical Greek philosophy only survives by way of Arabic scholarly sources many from Muslim Andalusia.
And yes, because scholars are human as are earthly rulers, there has been much injustice handed down in the name of religion. One only has to think of the burning of heretics by Christian rulers of various persuasions, the judicial murder of Sir Thomas More by hanging, drawing and quartering, the Spanish Inquisition, etc, to realise that we all live in glass houses and should not throw stones.
In the course of the last few weeks, it has been seen that religious intolerance is alive and well in the US of A - and is still being misused for political ends: cf the McCain endorsing pastor on the subject of Islam.
Loading comments…
Posted March 20, 2008 | 10:38 AM (EST)