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
It is sad to see how backwards we are going. We all should realize,after the last 8 yrs,how dangerous injecting Religion into policy really is.As a Christian,I do not need my Government to tell me how to act and can live with the fact that not all citizens are Christian. My faith is stronger than that.
I would not take the lack of mention of a state as positively as the post does. It seems more likely that this indicates that there was no perceived difference between mosque and state than that there was thought to be a wall between them. This is particularly true when it is noted that the Qu'ran was written before the modern notion of a state.
This is not meant as a critique of what is good in Islam. But it does weaken the case for the idea that an Islamic state is a contradiction.
Not really, because you've redefined the argument into something it wasn't really about. The argument is that because according to the Quran, individual choice is a requirement for religious practice to be considered valid. In other words, if a person is forced into worship, their worship is not valid and so ANY state, regardless of it being modern or ancient or somewhere inbetween, that forces an individual to adhere to the Islamic faith is actually violating the Quran in doing so, making their efforts contradictory.
I'm sorry, I guess I was wrong to assume that everybody would read the post carefully. I was refering to his argument that
"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
In fact Muhammed lead in the functions that we associate with the state as well as those we associate with religion. So the failure of the Koran to mention the state seems to do more to support the idea that there was no separation, then the idea that there was such a large separation that it never came up.
And in democracies the fact that people are the source of power does not take away the need for laws. So while it might be possible to make a case that Islam is inconsistent with the applcation of Sharia law, this is a pretty weak case.
"States" have existed since well before Islam came into being during the seventh century. Just to name two from Mohammed's time: Spain and France. Prior to that was Rome and Greece and, and, and stretching all the way back to Babylon and Hammurabi.
Islam was never meant to be anything other than a way for Muslims to interact with their God directly and to provide a context in which to do that. The perversion of Islam that we see today is purely a modern construct, though hardly without historical precedence in all religions, Islam & Christianity included.
I absolutely agree. The nation state is a modern concept. If you look at modern European history, there is the concept of "Christendom" with the Pope claiming superiority over all monarchs, the concept of the nation state evolves and one sees rulers requiring their subject to believe what they believe: England - Catholic under Henry VIII, Protestant under Edward VI and Catholic again under Mary, Protestant again under Elizabeth.
The Elizabethan settlement survives and leads dissenters to the original North American colonies each with their own religious settlement. Hardly surprising therefore that the Founding Fathers who drew (in many respects word for word) on the earlier English Bill of Rights - included a "no test for public office" - requirement - an express reference to the English Test Acts then in force which required officeholders to be communicant Anglicans.
In the time of the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him and all the Prophets), there was no concept in Arabia of a nation state - one speaks of the "umma" - the people - and of tribes and clans and those survive and are of importance in Middle East society to this day. There is much advice to leaders, but "Rulers" properly so-called only develop with the expansion of Islam.
With rulers came states which were officially Islamic - but the tolerance of, say, Dar-Al Andaluz, in southern Spain is to be contrasted with the contemporary and subsequent Inquisitions.
Indeed .Islam never encourages individualism and discards it as the dogma of a self seeker . collectivism constitutes the essence of islam as the last prophet of islam . Prophet Muhammad (Pbh) practised and professed the life of the community and the individual emergence was never encouraged . The models of so called islamic states whether it is Iraq , Iran , Saudi Arabia or the African countries is quite misleading as islam is the first religion to evolve the concept of democracy and recommended the decentralization of power . theocracy was the last thing on its agenda and the clerics were supposed to act in accordance with the provisions of Holy Qoran . It is a different matter altogether that politics has been induced into a religion that was only to be a code of conduct as proposed by the holy book . Most of the islamic societies are widely believed to be theocratic in nature and secterian in conduct , it is primarily because the Kingdom continued to flourish and in the guise of kingdom religion was offered as the saving grace to cover up the annexation of political authorities . Religion is not individual and cant be individual though if anybody says that he is accountable to God alone means he/she does not adhere to the basic tenets of faith . A look at history will suggest that all wars fought by the islamic world of yore were just and fair and there was no violation of the human code . Prophet Muhhammad (Pbh) personally took care of the prisoners of war and meted out most humane treatment to those in captivity . Iran calls itself an islamic nation but it only through its policies manages to contradict the image of islam . Shariah" represents a code of conduct and issues guidelines to the determination of day to day policy and programmes . Infact islam is lost in the murky glare of deviated conduct and the clerics are the ones mainly responsible for the misinterpretation of islam . Serving personal goals and seeking pleasures of life according to the suitability of their own convenience cannot be islam . There is a difference between private faith and universal belief . Islam is the religion of the universe though distorted by its own people . State religion exists in islamic world and there are situations which are alarming and offer an impression contrary to the religion . Prostitution is not permissible in islam but in most of the islamic states of course so called find institutions that embrace what is strictly forbidden in islam . The point is that religion is not a matter of individual relationship between man and God rather it is a medium to reach out to the divine forces .
"The models of so called islamic states whether it is Iraq , Iran , Saudi Arabia or the African countries is quite misleading as islam is the first religion to evolve the concept of democracy and recommended the decentralization of power "
Umm...I believe that honor goes to the Indo-Europ
First "religion" not the first society.
Jefferson is my favorite historical figure too.
On one hand, it is very comforting to know that neither the Bible nor the Qur'an speaks to politics or setting up a state government. I am non-religious myself, but I've always viewed them as personal guidebooks for the individual that held no sway with me, unless I made that choice.
It's the "Christian Nation" rhetoric really angers me. Even a passing knowledge of our founding documents makes it obvious that we are a secular (not to be confused or construed with atheism) nation and that all religions (and the non-religous) are equally valued members of our nation. We are also a democracy based on those same documents, which is very far from "majority-rules". These are very simple concepts that provied the cornerstones for our nation.
It's not suprising that Jefferson owned a Qur'an. After meeting with an Ambassador (from what is now Libya) and being told that Islam condones the kidnapping, rape and slavery committed by the Barbary Pirates a wise President would learn about his enemies.
Did you know that Islam does not allow a Muslim to hold a Muslim slave? Christianity does...
Did you know that Christianity allows the selling of a daughter who is over 3 years of age into slavery-including sexual, in payment of the father's debts. I could call that rape...
That just leaves kidnapping. I am not aware of a passage in the Qur'an that allows it, but I have not read the whole thing, like I have read the bible. Still, those who live in glass houses would be well to not throw stones.
Oh, and remember it was Jefferson who said, "It matters not to me if my neighbor believes in no god or twenty gods, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
"Did you know that Christianity allows the selling of a daughter who is over 3 years of age into slavery-including sexual, in payment of the father's debts."
Would you please cite the biblical reference to this? I can't find it in my new testament.
Did you know that Islam's Prophet, Mohammed, married a 7 year old girl and consumated the marriage when she was 9.
Unlike your quote this is an actual fact. The girls name was Aisha by the way.
Unless you give me an actual Bible quote on selling your 3 year old daughter into slavery I'm going to have to call bullshit on your little story.
And of course Chrstains embraced slavery and segregation. The Crusaders slaughtered every woman and child when they took Jeresulum. Yes I can see the differences now! LOL.
The Pope sold the Children Crusaders to pirates.
Christain crusaders never engaged in Rape... Oh Pls... nor pilaged.
The Bible says "Slave , fear thy Master and Obey"
Both are flawed works of man and can be shaped to mean anything. They are the works of men and commitees and then distorted by time and the change that comes with time.
Collections of fiction/myth with some historical references and all based on other's stolen myths.
Or as Jefferson said of the Bible " I see it as no superior to any other book of superstition"
Regards
Regards
It has been my understanding that in Islam there are no priests, there is no one who stands between an individual and GOD. That each individual has his/her own responsibility. And as long as that responsibility is fulfilled it is no ones business but the individual.
In other words, so long as you fulfill the 5 (?) tenants of the faith no one can call you a bad Muslim. They need to worry about their relationship with God.
Which was always an appealing part of the religion.
But it goes farther. Osama Bin Ladin's premise is that he and his crew are in possession the only true Faith. That all of their enemies are unbelievers. And that they have the right to define anyone else's relationship with God by declaring them unbelievers and there for heretics.
Which as I understand it: violates the most basic creed of Islam. And is why the fundamentalist doctrines espoused by Bin Ladin and his type are bound to fail.
I don't know if Osama is the only one with a fundamentalist doctrine. The Saudi's and Iranians both have religious police that enforce their religious beliefs on the masses. As Saudi Arabia is large, wealthy and the birthplace of Mohammed and Islam this is especially troublesome.
Reread the original post, they didn't say that Osama is the only one with a fundamentalist doctrine, the OP said that Osama and his followers believe they are the only ones with a true faith.
"Osama Bin Ladin's premise is that he and his crew are in possession the only true Faith. That all of their enemies are unbelievers. And that they have the right to define anyone else's relationship with God by declaring them unbelievers and there for heretics."
Replace Osama Bin Ladin with the name of most any other religious type leader and it still reads as the same.
The easiest way to lead is to make it seem like those who are with you are superior to those against you. And what can make you more superior then having the diety of your choice on your side? It's how Rome was converted to Christian after all.
It is certainly true that Islam does not have a priesthood. Insofar as we have clerics, they are akin to the Jewish Rabbi or the Protestant Pastor - teachers and guides - but what matters is the direct relationship between the individual and the Creator.
Further, Islam properly interpreted holds that any person who receives the gift of revelation in some form and seeks to submit to the will of the Almighty by complying with that revelation in accordance with his understanding will attain Paradise. Thus the 'People of the Book' (Jews and Christians), are specifically mentioned as persons to be respected because they also worship the Almighty in accordance with their revelation.
As theologians have come into contact with Hinduism, they have concluded that the 'different gods' of that religion are to be interpreted as really manifestations of the attributes of the one Almighty God and reasoning by analogy, an animist who worships in accordance with his revelation is also doing God's will for him.
And yes, the views of the Al-Quaidi adherents are heretical - and to those who knowingly teach such error, a special place in hell is reserved - but, of course, the ignorant man who is indoctrinated by those who ought to know better may not be personally culpable.
Thomas Jefferson ... Virginian .... Owned a Qur'an ... uhmmmm - I think Virginia's Virgil Goode needs to step up here and propose a resolution for Congress to condemn Thomas Jefferson.
There is a logical fallacy in this blogger's argument. If the individual is responsible, regardless of State coercion then the failure to follow Islam is a willful act of evil. The qur'an prescribes his death- doesn't it? The State will implement the qur'an correctly when it executes him. It is my understanding that the Islamic position, taken by considerable numbers of muslims, is that an individual follower of Islam who ceases to follow Islam and takes up, for example, Christianity, is guilty of a sin punishable by death. Its of little solace to be told I am free to practice any religion I choose, but I will be killed if I don't practice Islam.
".....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."
The obligation to observe Sharia in the conduct of "public affairs" when the State is the sole means for implementing the Sharia will result, unavoidably in Sharia in law and coercion by the State.
For perspective though, the Bible says that those who work on the Sabbath are guilty of sin and should be stoned to death by their neighbors. And it's totally forthright about that.
There is no logical fallacy in the blogger's argument because you are reading the Quran wrong. The reference you are making, about apostacy, is a terrible misunderstanding of Qu'ran 2:217, where it says that those who are turned away from their faith (Islam) by others are suffering "persecution worse than death". It never at any point demands an apostate to be killed, nor does it even say that any punishment is deserved at all. Many of the major Sunni leaders have interpreted this passage somehow to mean that apostacy is a sin that should be punished by death, but that is THEIR hypocrisy, not Mr. An-Na'im's. As with stonings and beheadings, these are enforcements of Sha'ria that, condoned by supposed Islamic "leaders" or not, are not synchronous with the teachings of the Qu'ran and are opportunistic perversions of its teachings. The sooner people stop misreading the Qu'ran, the sooner the barbaric acts of Sha'ria will stop.
Jefferson was a genius. He is a reason to be proud of this country. Because of Jefferson America is the first country to NOT have a state religion.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
