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)
Loading comments…
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
Jefferson was reading the Qur'an because he was about to attack the Barbary pirates
Jefferson bought a copy of the Qur'an as a law student at William and Mary. That was decades before the conflict with the Barbary Pirates. He was interested in studying systems of laws from as many societies as he could.
Thats right Vox1. There's evidence to support your claim. Lucky for us the Founders stuck with Ancient Greece, and Indian governing models (with a dash of Imperial Rome and Britain.
Those pesky facts. They get in the way of so many jingoists.
Thomas Jefferson's ideas were also shared by Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, as I am sure many other of our Founding Father's. While I am a Christian, and some would say "born again," I completely agree with the idea of separation of church and state. The very notion of a relationship with God is almost in complete disagreement with religion. Religion gives us man-made rules, while individual faith gives us a point of contact to God that is unique to each and every person. It is through this personal relationship, whether shared or not, that we become the people God intended us to be. I think Sting summed it up in singing--"go crazy in congregation, we only get better one-by-one."
Summun, Bukmun, Umyun. (Deaf, dumb and blind)
Yes, nommo
The three middle names of Ayatollah Khomeini. Thanks for sharing, habibi.
Always good to see such rational, intelligent discourse.
10 verses earlier is a bit more apt.
Religious & anti-religious ideologies that claim absolute authority over a state tend to lead to oppression and persecution, including various forms of Christianity, Islam and Atheism. Apologists always point out that the negative consequences didn't result from the particular ideology per se, but from corrupt elements that made use of the ideology for their own ends. But then they don't accept the same defense when it's used by an ideology they disagree with.
The lesson of history seems to be that large scale human societies do best when they separate the mechanisms of government from intolerant, exclusivist belief systems and encourage a fair marketplace of competing ideas. The truth can stand to be challenged.
The great Christian theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer (who was executed for his outspoken criticism by the Nazis), rejected outright the idea of a "Christian nation," pointing out that God had never ordained such a thing, and that only an individual could actually behave like a Christian (e.g. no nation can exist without sovereignty, but since sovereignty involves a kind of material selfishness that one must be willing to aggressively defend, it would be unchristian in an individual). Therefore, speaking of the United States as a "Christian nation" is not only un-American (given a) that our country owes its existence and culture to people of many different religions and beliefs, and b) separation of church & state is one of our most sacred principles), it's also unchristian.
I'm no expert on Islam, but given the cultural heights it has sometimes achieved, I'm willing to believe that its message has been as twisted by deluded extremists and opportunistic demagogues as has Christianity's. That's the problem with any belief system that is substantial enough to engage people's hopes, fears, intellects and imaginations: its influence can be misused.
Hillary '08
Well kiss my grits, is that a fact? Just as this country has no use for right wing evangelical political hacks who base their actions on the bible, so do we have completely no use for islamic fanatics who use every chance to opress women and non believers based on some dusty old book of fairy tales.
The sooner the peoples of the world can throw off religious nonsense and begin to work on issues of fariness, the environement and individual freedom, the sooner we can all sleep a little easier.
Hillary '08
Ah, I get it. Religion's the problem and all that. Because Stalin and Mao were such religious people...
And I forget, how many times did Stalin and Mao bring us to the brink of our destruction? Cause the closest I remember would have been Hitler, who WAS a christian!
Mr. Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im,
Thank you. You are the first person involved in the media that I have seen to have correctly interpreted Thomas Jefferson's words regarding the separation of church and state and his studies of the Qur'an. This is a breath of fresh air and something sorely needed in popular dialogue.
Your article is coherent and thought-out, and the latter part is also suggestive of something I've wondered often before: is Americanism perhaps a supplemental belief system in and of itself, in much the same fashion as Buddhism? I'll have to develop that thought more before debating it, but it's worthy of note.
Anyway, I appreciate your article. I believe I'll print out a copy to remind myself why I take offense to current events as being religious wars.
Sincerely,
Sneaky
The role of the state in Islam is to protect religion, not to represent it, as in a theocracy. Islam is an individualist religion with communal acts of worship at times, but it is not collectivist or authoritarian. It does not have a church or centralized authority which dictates a person's interpretation of religious texts or conscience. This created a rich, diverse tradition of religious legal debate in Islamic history. However, in the wake of colonialism, the traditional Islamic scholars became marginalized and displaced by totalitarian state structures and secular collectivist ideologies such as Arab nationalism. A lucid account of this phenomenon can be found in Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl's book The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists or in his many articles at www.scholarofthehouse.org. It is important to set aside the sectarian variants in Iran (Shiism) and Saudi Arabia (Wahhabism) in any analysis to conclude that authoritarianism is not endemic to Islam.
Interesting and inforomative post, mynx.
Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl' id s respected law professor, he was pointed out to me at UCLA once. Small problem: he has zero history training and his analysis is often strained. Still, an excellent perspective on the liberal side of Muslim intellectuals. Thankfully Dr. Khaled displays none of the usual preoccupations inherent in much of Muslim world scholarship.
There is no such thing as a law professor who does not have knowledge of history - or if there is, he is probably a Bush appointment to the Office of Legal Counsel or the Federal Bench.
This is an excellent post! Thank you!
Islam is a way of life for peace and harmonious living. The way Islam is practiced in these so-called "Muslim' countries is a shame. No true Muslim would commit suicide, and kill innocent people.
I believe the USA is the closest thing to a Islamic way of life more than any other nation around the globe. Are we perfect? No. But like Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) has been documented as saying "Whatever a Muslim endeavors to do he seeks to perfect it." Our country does seek perfection as much as possible.
Muslims commit suicide and kill, in the name of their religion almost every day.
And, they do so with the full financial and emotional support of the greater Muslim community.
This is not an opinion, it is a fact.
Their actions and the supportive actions of millions of Muslims around the world, belie your statements.
Terrorism is committed by people of ALL backgrounds for political purposes. That is a fact.
Religion is the pretext of choice in the Middle East because it holds incredible symbolic power for a people who feel otherwise powerless at having been colonized and westernized against their will. The Muslim extremists employ terrorist tactics in spite of Islamic teaching, not because of it, for purposes of power and political expediency.
I agree and add that his points are furthered belied by the testimony and experiences of the great Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
NO! True Muslims DO NOT support suicide and the killing of innocent people! That is a FACT! There are people that call themselves Muslim but have never opened the Qur'an to read. Many can't even read. Unfortunately, there's a lot of illiteracy in so called Muslim countries, and in many of those countries the government controls and manipulates what their citizens learn about Islam.
Please DO NOT SPREAD LIES about millions of people because of the terrible actions of a handful!
Yes. After Obama's wonderful speech I was a bit confused at why it offended some. There are times I am afraid that Americans are too lazy to change. Jefferson would turn in his grave. Many don't seem to want to challenge themselves by considering new or bold ideas. I found that many Americans seem to prefer the bad they know to the bad they fear. I guess on that account Bush, Cheney and their ilk have had some success. Well, at least their good at something: if you can't effectively run a country, destroy it.
Abdullahi says,
"""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."""
As a student of History as well as a Social Studies Teacher, I completely agree.
Abdullahi goes on to say,
"""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."""
Absolutely necessary as witnessed by the erosion of our own Democracy over the last 7 years under the leadership of Bush and the Right-Wing Ideologues.
Abdullahi adds this comment,
"""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.""""
I agree completely. A persons religious beliefs or non-belief is a personal matter. All Governments and Laws should be secular and those who administer and enforce these laws of the land should do so equally and justly with out regard to a persons religion.
All US politicians should swear on THE CONSTITUTION; not a religious text that does not belong in such a context.
Faith is private, government is public. This is fair for all believers of different faiths, and non-believers.
Actually, when they officially swear in (the POTUS may be different, I don't know) they are simply raising their right hand, and their left hand is not on anything. Later they do a special ceremony for just friends and family where they can swear on a bible, or anything else!
"What is education? I should suppose that education was the curriculum one had to run through in order to catch up with oneself, and he who will not pass through this curriculum is helped very little by the fact that he was born in the most enlightened age."
~Søren Aabye Kierkegaard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
~Albert Einstein
All the 'Christian nation' people should do some reasearch. they could start with 'The Treaty of Tripoli'
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
When a weak country signs a treaty, I wouldn't place too much stock in the language in the treaty.
And at the time of the Treaty of Tripoli, which nation would you define as the weaker?
Why do the people that need to know this information, try so hard to refute its wisdom.
I guess when we select our leaders from a somewhat polluted pool, we look past an obvious candidate that speaks wisdom . We tend to not listen to the words but to judge the person by the method of delivery.
We also tend to really and truly avoid the change that we all know is long overdue. So when a wise man speaks these strange words we shudder , we revert back to the things we no longer fear and shunt change to ground. Obama's message seems to scare quite a few, at the top of the short list are the party "loyalists"
that see their control fading under an administration based on the people it serves.
Jefferson was light years ahead of his time. Maybe a majority of Muslims say the practicing Islam is a matter of choice, but we see around the world that action does not follow words. It is not just governmental action. In much of the Muslim world it is taught by religious leader that non Muslims are second class citizens or worse. Conversion is punishable or not allowed. Over 850,000 Jews were expeled from Islamic countries in the past 50 years and most of the Christians have left because of persecution. If the relgious leaders felt these actions were wrong and the continuing persecution should cease they could have preached differently and issued Fatwas. The vast majority have not protested at all.
It all boils down to interpetation and being human ones interpetation is very limited. We tend to try and put things into terms we understand. If these are truely 'God's' words then the only way we could truely understand them is if God explains them to us, any other explaination is just someone else's idea of what it should mean.
Never take anything at face value. Ask questions and if you do not get an acceptable answer, ask again.
I will forego a long diatribe, quoting Quran and Hadith and explaining the concept of abrogation as it is applied by Islamic clerics to their holy texts, because I have grown tired of shouting into the wind.
I appreciate and respect the intent of this post, and the authors credentials, which are formidable both as a Muslim and a scholar. But I would ask him, if what you say is indeed true, then how have most of the Muslim states and population centers spread around the world got it so completely wrong?
He wrote:
"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."
But what happens when such observance of Shari'a contradicts the law of the State? Which is to take precedence? The UK, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, Canada, etc, are as we speak, trying to find their way through this very precarious issue, and I'm sure that eventually here in the States, we will have to as well.
I'm sorry but the case made by the author just doesn't hold water, as much as I wish it did.
"But I would ask him, if what you say is indeed true, then how have most of the Muslim states and population centers spread around the world got it so completely wrong?"
Too easy to answer. People always get these things wrong. History is littered with examples. The Bible was used to justify slavery in the U.S. for years. You can twist words to your suiting if you know what you are doing. The catholic church did it for years by keeping the bible from being written in anything other than Latin, so only priests could read it. (That's one of the things Martin Luther objected to) Words are just words, it is the human mind that gives them meaning. THat's what has happend to Islam. Certain words in the Qur'an have been interpreted by human minds to mean one thing, and people have clung to that belief. The author of this post issues a challange to that belief from his interpretation of the same words. But what is important to remember is that it is not the words but the minds using those words that must be countered, by arguing different interpretations. This author and his posts are very valuable to that effort. But his efforts are hampered by people like you who can't see past a blind fear or hatred of those who's minds he seeks to change, and you're anger towards those he seeks to lead will hamper that cause as much as our invasion of Iraq does.
Me, "blind fear" "anger" and "hatred"? Blind not, I have objectively studied and come to my own conclusions, when you've digested the Quran, Hadith and the range of Islamic scholars that I have, get back to me. Until then, keep repeating the soundbites you have been programmed to receive as truth.
His post here, while commendable and a progressive interpretation which I both applaud and support, does nothing to address the actuality of affecting the intellectual paradigm that is held by the pre-eminent schools of Islamic thought. If submitted for examination and review to Al Hazar University in Egypt, perhaps the most respected group of scholars in the Islamic world, it would likely be rejected as heretical and it's author branded an apostate and blasphemer worthy of death, much like Martin Luther.
I disagree that "words are just words". Words are the second most powerful force on the planet. The most powerful are the combined processes and history by which words are defined. This is the one area about which the author says nothing and is the one area that must be addressed before any other can bear hope of change. If the processes are frozen in time and unable to be challenged from without or within, then hope for re-definition or "reformation" if you will is lost. For the majority of Islamic scholars (and they would heartily agree with this statement, for it is they themselves who have stated it) "the gates of ijtihad are closed", meaning those processes are a static quantity and must not be questioned.
And what of my question regarding the author's acknowledgement that Muslims are bound to observe Shari'a, and it's place in societies and states that are not Islamic in foundation and where it is in contradiction with the laws of such? There is no hatred or anger. It's a very good question and poignant, posed to someone who has both the legal acumen and religious background neccessary to formulate a very good answer.
Merely disagreeing with someone is not hatred, it's discourse. Would it be better if we all just nodded in agreement and exclaimed "Oh, thank you for clearing that up. Back to the mall!"? That's what got us in the situation we're in.
1will: shhh, ixnay on the encerspay, you'll rile up the PC Thought Police.
I doubt if most will get your post. As a reader of Bernard Lewis and Robert Spencer I understand where you're coming from about abrogation.
The later written sections of the Koran are considered the most relevant. This is abrogation and it is accepted among many Muslims. As there are many conflicting parts of the Koran those written last are considered the most binding. Unfortunately the latter sections are the most hateful and warlike. So if you are a Wahabi or a Bin Laden type it is easier to justify the kill all the infidel type statements at the end of the Koran vs. the love your neighbor type verses in the earlier parts of the book.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
