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
Can't Christians learn from the Musliums??
After 150 years they are still fighting each other because religious beliefs prevents them from communicating.
Why is it still such a mystery that the problem with Islam and what we call democracy involves the tenets of "The Enlightenment?" The writers our founding leaders read and admired were: Voltaire, John Locke, Thomas Paine - free-thinkers one and all. The problem with raising the issues of "The Enlightenment" is that the lunatic fringe of our own fundamentalists do not subscribe to those ideals. When the world of Islam wakes up to the idea of LIBERAL DEMOCRACY as we Americans and Europeans do (liberal and conservative, both, but excluding the fascists among us) then and only then will we be satisfied with what comes forth from their version of democracy.
Mannycongo, exactly.
What Muslims posting here seem not to realize that unless they throw off the chains of religion and superstition and stop being brainwashed by their Mullahs, Imams, Ayatollahs etc, there will be NO prosperity in Islamic world.
No amount of complaining and petro dollars will help.
It's ironic, those educated Muslims are fully capable of waxing idealistic about Islam in the comfort of their cushy tenured armchair.
Few, if any to want to actually go back and face persecution and danger to bring these liberal ideas to the Muslims in their own countries. This is one of the problems with the possibility of Islamic Enlightenment. But I believe that one day, a courageous Arab progressive will emerge...a
Moslems have been fighting each other much the same as Christians do. Last time I looked I cannot recall Evangelicals blowing up Catholic Churches or Mormons killing Baptist Ministers.
Islam has a problem not just within itself but a problem with every other major religion in the world. I think someone referred to it as "Islam's bloody borders".
This notion that if Israel ceased to exist there would be peace is a fallacy. If it wasn't about Israel, it would be about Kashmir. If it wasn't about Kashmir, it would be about Nigeria, or Sudan, or Ethiopia, or UK or Denmark or Holland. The list is endless.
Islam would always take issue with people, goverments, or societies that oppose their point of view
Christians don't fight like Muslims, huh? Northern Ireland ring a bell to you?
pbarba1969,
All religious fanatics look,sound and act exactly the same.
Christian fanatics have been blowing up clinics, murdering doctors and planting bombs for decades in America (Atlanta).
"Islam would always take issue with people,gov'ts,or societies that oppose their point of view"
What exactly do you think America is doing in Iraq,Afghanistan, N.Korea, Kosovo, Israel, Palestine, Venezuela etc.?
Finally, America, with the backing and support of Christian groups have murdered over 650 000 Iraqis, several thousands Afghans and are currently war mongering against Iran; we've killed more innocent people then all Muslim fanatics combined.
I always find it endlessly frustrating when someone who is ignorant and intolerant, like yourself, sits on a pedestal and meets out judgements and accusations best resevered for themselves and the people/gov
"Can't Christians learn from the Muslums? After 150 years they are still fighting each other because religious beliefs prevents them from communicating?
Um...where have you been for the last 5 years or so? Should Christians learn from the Muslims that are torturing and killing each other in Iraq. I'm talking about real torture. Body parts cut off, eyes gouged out, branding irons, etc instead of someone getting a bit of water up their nose or having to listen to loud music. Lets go back a bit further than the current mass killings that Muslims are doing against each other in Iraq. There was the brutal invasion of Kuwait in which many were killed and the Iraqi Army raped every woman they could find. Of course we all know about Sadamm gasing the Kurds and who could forget the millions that were killed during the Iran-Iraq War. On a smaller scale there is of course the brutality in Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon and Syria. Then there are the nations that are currently at peace such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. There's nothing like a good stoning, lashing or amputation to make you think, "If only we could communicate like the Muslims."
Just another brick in the wall. Religion ruins everthing it touches. All of this delving into "religeous good books"
failed to teach Jefferson that he shouldn't own and rape other human beings so maybe we need to look elsewhere for moral guidance?
I think that's an unfair comment about Jefferson. He was an imperfect creature (like we all are) and was shaped by the time in which he lived. But thank goodness he was around to influence the creation of our Republic and it's precious Constitution. He helped to create a govermental system that delivers more justice than any previously conceived. I just hope we can keep our present POTUS from shredding it.
Historian Joseph Ellis and the geneticist Eric Lander write in a joint commentary on the DNA testing report confirming Jefferson's offspring through Sally Hemings, "Jefferson reappears to remind us of a truth that should be self-evident. Our heroes -- and especially presidents -- are not gods or saints, but flesh-and-blood humans."
how many angels dance on the head of a pin?
get over the religion thing,,,its just another discretionary entertainment source.
unfortunately tax-exempt!
d
:
I wonder if any critic has heard an Entire Wright Sermon yet?
I, for one, have been in countless White Evangelical (Moral Majority) congregations over the past twenty years. . .in many states. Bigger churches than Chicago's Trinity.
I have heard the Same Fire & Brimstone. I have heard the US Supreme Court damned and Justices called "instruments of the Devil." The Lord was invoked in Hatred.
I have heard Congress called "Satan's Lair" and a "Godless Criminal" bunch of cowards.
I have heard America cursed for Her Sins. Her fall predicted.
Why is it OK for white pastors to Preach such Fire, but not Rev. Wright?
~~~~ 61 year Old White Guy
:
Maybe they were also wrong.
That does not answer the legitimate question, nor does it address the hypocricy.
Seeing religious texts as documents which give insight into human nature and history , which as a deist, is more or less what Jefferson was doing (not, as is sometimes implied; seeking divine assistance or guidance) is a good thing. It's a step in the direction of understanding that a belief in a supernatural being who is involved in how we live our lives is a sign of human immaturity and we are destined to grow out of it or take it to our collective graves as a result of not seeing he world objectively. I sure wish that message could be projected and accepted and becasue I'm an optimist, I think it one day shall, but we'll have a lot of monkey insecurities and insticts which crave control over our fellows for all sorts of reasons that are selfish and stupid. But, as a I said...a step in the right direction. Why should a culture as young as ours be expected to do other than take baby steps?
As I understand it, the constitution prohibited the federal government from any test of religion or the establishment of an official government religion. The adoption of the 14th Amendment made that binding on the states. The Declaration of independence does refer to a creator. The founders left that language out intentionally in the Constitution.
It seems clear that the United States was not intended to be a religious state of any kind whatsoever. Beyond that, it would not serve any purpose for the United States to move in that direction.
By allowing the free exercise and the establishment of religion, all religions are promoted.
I would point to the example of Mustafa Kemal Attaturk, who founded modern Turkey on the principle of strict separation of state and religion.
Founded yes, but who is in charge now?
Good question. There has been some political gain by the islamic parties, but the Turkish military still considers itself to be the guardian of the secular state. The military may very well step in, as it has in the past, if they view the government as becoming islamist.
You mean the same guy who butchered the Christian Armenians because well, they were Christians? The same guy who killed Priests, burned Churches and even crucified Bishops?
Your going to tell me that the genocide against the Armenians had nothing to do with the fact they were Christians and most Turks were Moslem???
He created a seperation of Church and State but I think he also put an Islamic Crescent Moon on his new flag????
I seem to recall that Mustafa Kemal was leading the defense of Gallipoli in 1915 and wasn't anywhere near Armenia.
Among other things he abolished the Caliphate, gave considerable rights to women, switched the language to the latin alphabet and based the government on the Swiss civil code.
Ataturk was certainly the father on the modern secular Turkish state and is rightly revered by Turks as a great man. But the flaws in the state he created, in particular the special position of the Army and its propensity to interfere in politics, have retarded the development of Turkey into a fully fledged democracy, led to very significant human rights abuses and are a major obstacle to Turkey's entry into the European Community.
The secular state in Turkey was certainly a great advance - but the elevation of Kemalism into a quasi religion (not unlike a right-wing version of Maoism in China) has created problems of its own which, thankfully the present government is addressing.
Attaturk, the pediphile, is worse than Hitler-his was not a secular democracy European style but a cruel secular despotism run by the military establishment; A real secular democracy sperates church and state and protects freedom of religion; attaturk and his junta has beein for 80 years and still are violently against freedom of religion.
AK is excercising genuine democracy and is trying and succeeding in providing equality to all Turks, secular and religious.
I think that when one invokes Jefferson in such a manner, it is important to remember that he was also an advocate of non-interventionism in regards to any sovereign nation.
So, while it is fair to point out Thomas Jefferson’s views on religion and human rights, I believe when doing so in such a volatile context as the current state of the Iranian government, fairness requires that his views on non-interventionism be outlined as well, to avoid the implication that Jefferson would have supported the imposing those views on a sovereign nation that does not share them.
One must remember the distinctions between supporting human rights and the concept of supporting non-interv
It is undeniable that gross human rights violations occurring in countries that seem alien to us strike us as an abomination, and invoke a sense of urgency to provide relief and, in some instances, liberation from oppressive governments. But our efforts should be restrained to that of providing support in any reasonable means possible, and to hold up an example of self-realized Humanitarianism, and by contrast, the superior judgment of a powerful nation that respects the right of self-definition by weaker sovereign nations—pa
Iran is a sovereign nation; the road to re-inspiring respect for America abroad—especially in the Middle East—establishes a renewed policy of non-interv
BUT, he wasn't advocating that we invade Iran to force them to obey democratic forms of gov't, he was simply pointing out that Islamic state is a minomer!
correction: not MINOMER, MISNOMER!
Oh, I do understand the author's point and position; I was simply stating my own, as it relates to Jeffersonian concepts. It seems to me that rightwing/
My statement is simply cautionary in regards to the fine lines that exists and can be easily crossed by those wishing to preserve human rights; as we've seen in Iraq, nefarious political figureheads did not hesitate to co-op "democracy promotion" for the benefit of the Iraqi people, once their original motivations were proven to be false and deceptively applied.
Did you ever hear of the Jeffersonian Bible?
http://www
"The White House, Washington, D.C. 1804.
Thomas Jefferson was frustrated. It was not the burdens of office that bothered him. It was his Bible.
Jefferson was convinced that the authentic words of Jesus written in the New Testament had been contaminated. Early Christians, overly eager to make their religion appealing to the pagans, had obscured the words of Jesus with the philosophy of the ancient Greeks and the teachings of Plato. These "Platonists" had thoroughly muddled Jesus' original message. Jefferson assured his friend and rival, John Adams, that the authentic words of Jesus were still there. The task, as he put it, was one of
abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separate from that as the diamond from the dung hill.
With the confidence and optimistic energy characteristic of the Enlightenment, Jefferson proceeded to dig out the diamonds. Candles burning late at night, his quill pen scratching "too hastily" as he later admitted, Jefferson composed a short monograph titled The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth. The subtitle explains that the work is "extracted from the account of his life and the doctrines as given by Matthew, Mark, Luke & John." In it, Jefferson presented what he understood was the true message of Jesus."
The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth
Extracted Textually from the Gospels
Compiled by Thomas Jefferson
http://www
Then Jefferson is much closer to the Muslim position regarding Jesus: It is integral to Islam to believe inn Jesu as it is to the Prophet Muahmmad: but Mulsims believe that the authentic gospels of JEsus were corrupted and doctored as JEsus never claimed to be a son of God-a concept seeped to xtianity from Greek mythology which believed in a multiplicity of gods. A whole chapter in the Quran is dicated to Meriam and Jesus.
Muslim and Jews reject the idea of the trinity and think it balsphemy-instead the two belive in one God-except that JEws made God a clanish God,the God of israel, whereas Muslims believe in one universal God that of Abraham, Moses, JEsus and Muhammad and that one God is the God of all mankind-those who belive in him and thsoe who don't-He created all.
The problem with this essay is that it attempts to make a distinction between the beliefs and advice as stated in the Qu'ran and the beliefs/advice of the followers of Islam.
Blogger is essentially arguing that because all those who run states where Islam is forefront are heretics, it is incorrect to refer to them as "Islamist States" and judge Islamic society on them.
But what is truly the religion as we should regard it...our understanding of its sacred texts, or the actions of its followers?
The Qu'ran never suicide-bombed anyone.
I think you've missed the point of the article completely - the point was to draw a distinction between Islam as the Quran teaches it and Islam as many so-called "Islamic states" enforce it. Are you arguing that there is no distinction? Clearly as Mr. An-Na'im states in the end, the majority of Muslims in the world adhere to his interpretation (even if their nations do not). Can you judge all of them by the actions of the minority?
No, Professor An-Na'im argues from his interpretation which is of great interest, but far from being universally held. I would venture to say that at present it is a minority view in the Muslim world.
It is not inconsistent with the view of some other teachers such as the Grand Mufti of Marseilles (France) Dr Soheib Bencheikh, who supports the French concept of "laicité" on the footing that without administrative neutrality ("hiyâdatul idârah") the minority of Muslims in France would be overwhelmed.
As a UK citizen who happens to be a Muslim, I would argue that it is not the formal establishment of a particular religion which matters but the absence of discrimination. In the UK there is a state religion - the Anglican Church - yet by a process of evolution we have arrived at a situation where there is an absence of state discrimination in religion and, indeed, positive encouragement for all confessions.
By way of example, the state funds CofE, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim and other schools for parents who wish to send their children to confessional schools and in all schools there must be classes to inform children of the tenets of all the major religions - emphasising what they have in common.
A simple contrast: in France or Turkey, a person working in a state capacity may not wear a headscarf which many Muslim women wish to do. In England, the Metropolitan Police designs adaptations of the uniform - turbans for Sikhs - headscarves for Muslim females which they may wear if they wish.
I think most of my co-religionists would say that the situation in England is preferable to that of Turkey or France and I have found similar tolerance in some states where Islam is the official religion but minorities protected. Not all - but there is progress.
Jesus never dropped an atomic bomb on Japan, either, but many Americans consider this a Christian country. With more than a billion Muslims worldwide, the actions of a few fanatics shouldn't cause us to label them all terrorists. Just like the actions of our terrorist government over the last century shouldn't label all Americans as war mongers and beholden to the Military Industrial Complex that runs this country.
A point that shouldn't be lost on any extremist [and Jesus was considered an extremist] is that Jesus was crucified at the behest of the religious leaders of the day. It was Pilate, a roman, and secular government head, who said he found no guilt in Jesus. The Bible says there will be many people who will claim to be christians and hold themselves out to be virtuous but few will be chosen.
Even Hitler's Nazi Brownshirts were considered too out of control and were killed by the SS after Hitler took power.
Extremism, of any stripe, tends to attract nihilists and others who do not believe in anything and are willing to die for nothing. Therein is the fatal weakness of any extremist organization. They will inevitably destroy themselves from within.
Mr. An-Nai'Im, while I applaud your attempt to add some perspective on the demonized version of Islam that has become so prevalent in the MSM, I think this column, like most of the writings about modern Islam, lacked a recent historical perspective. You say "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." True enough. But you neglect to mention that 40-50 years ago it would not have been difficult at all to imagine such states. In fact not only could such states be imagined but they existed. Egypt under Nasser and Iran under Mosaddeq were liberal democracies of the kind we can only dream about today. In both cases these rulers and democracies were destroyed by proxy forces controlled by the US and Britian. What is worse throughout the middle east starting in the 1950s the US helped fund the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic fundamentalist organizations in the name of fighting communism. Of course those very groups are now the bad guy "islamo-Facists" that we are fighting. I encourage you and all Huffpo readers to look at the book "Devil's Game: How the US Unleash Fundamentalist Islam" by Robert Dreyfus.
I think your point is well made, but since Mr. An-Na'im was talking about the Middle East as it is today and not how it was 50 or 60 years ago, that would be an argument of little relevance to the argument at hand. It would best be served in a different article I think.
Not to nit pick but while our support of Islamic fundamentalists started apx. 50 years ago it goes up through 2001 at least. The Clinton administration supported the terrorist Islamic fundamentalist Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) which had direct ties to Al Queda (real ties not like the imagined Iraq Prague connection) and the Bush administration was supporting them at least up to 9/11 (source: Road to 9/11 Peter Dale Scott and Noam Chomsky Failed States). However, in looking back at the article I do agree with you. My criticism was a bit off the topic of this particular article.
Also, thanks to PhillyQuaker for the pointer to the Jefferson Bible, very interesting.
"Egypt under Nasser...w
WOW! Someone needs to read a bit more modern Egyptian history.
Nasser's Egypt was for all intents and purposes a single party state, (yes there was a constitution that supposedly allowed for fair elections but it was ignored.)
Power was concentrated in the Revolutionary Counsel. Copts, who are maybe 20% of the population (the indigenous Non Arab Egyptians) because they were not Arab, were not allowed in the Revolutionary Counsel, were fired from the judicary and many important posts in the civil and foreign service. Because make no mistake Nasser was an Arab Nationalist who promoted Arab interests over equality of the Egyptian People.
Establishment of an oppressive Police force that suppressed dissent.
None of those endearing qualities Nasser brought to Egypt remotely resemble a liberal democracy.
The tree of libery letter extract is from
http://www
Trying to tell some Muslims that is like trying to tell American Christains
It was the rise of secularism
A world that is man and fact centered and not superstition based.
We became a Democracy not because of Christianity but in spite of...
But arguning with a person who is faith/belief based is like arguing with a wall, but less productive. So the myth has become fact and we thus teach the myth instead of truth.
Regards
Twenty years seemed extreme, so I looked it up - it's there, but either they are very small rebellions, or his idea of a "few lives per century or two" is out of whack with mine.
As to the content of the aricle, couldn't agree more.
-----
The "Tree of Liberty" letter
From Thomas Jefferson to William Smith
...
Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.
.
I appreciate this post. The distinctions drawn here about what is required of Muslims in regard to "the state" are not often framed so powerfully. I remain confused howver about one point surrounding Sharia. While "enforcing a Shari'a through coercive power of the state negates its religious nature", the author seems to be saying the state should remain neutral towards all religious practices including Sharia. However, when Sharia results in "honor killings" and other violent acts towards persons, how is the state to respond? I understand that in some European countries, there is sharp conflict between civil and Muslim authorities about this issue and would appreciate further clarification.
There is no connection between the Sharia and so-called "honour killings". "Honour killings" are anachronistic survivals from the 13th-15th centuries in less developed societies and, for example, we have several examples in the UK involving immigrant communities. We had one recently involving Kurdish immigrants where a family disapproved of the desire of their daughter to marry outside the clan and to marry a man from a different sect (Shia rather than Sunni). Her male relatives came from Kurdistan, killed her, dismembered her body and disposed of it. I am pleased to say that they were caught and sentenced to life imprisonment with a very long minimum term. Other cases involve forced marriages which go wrong involving Indian, Pakistani and other communities.
As was the case in France and Italy, and remains the case in Turkey, there is still the concept of the crime of passion - the woman caught flagrante delicto in adultery and the husband makes an "irresistible impulse" argument to the court. This is gender discrimination rather than religious and it is slowly becoming less of a problem as society evolves.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
