Balancing mosque and state

Democracy can correct Muslim extremism

By Sid Radhakrishnan
From the October 2006 Print Edition

We live in a country where the right to believe or disbelieve is strongly guarded in the core of our Constitution. There exists no religious test to hold office and the free exercise clause of the First Amendment allows minorities to freely believe in God or absence thereof without being influenced by the actions of the government. The right to practice, however, is very much regulated by the government.

With both religious and political freedoms enjoyed by inhabitants of the United States, we are one of the freest countries in the world. However, the freedoms we have come to take for granted are not recognized universally by all governments. Is the freedom to believe in any religion and have religion and politics separated a function of Christianity, or is this separation inherent in the framework of a constitutional democracy? Furthermore, why has there not been a functional separation of religion and state in predominantly Muslim countries?

Through careful analysis of the origins of the division, a look into the relationship of politics in Islamic countries, and a comparison between freedoms enjoyed in India and Pakistan, we can tease out answers to these age-old questions. In addition, we will examine the feasibility of an Islamic state based on secularism and civil law. Now without further ado please open up your King James version of the Bible to Mark 12:17.

Prior to Jesus Christ, there was no separation of church and state. Kings were divine and many were persecuted for aberrant beliefs. Jesus revolutionized the relationship between politics and religion forever. Early Christian disciples were often closely monitored by state governments and were considered pariahs of the state. In Mark 12:11, the Bible states, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s." In the earliest of Christian theology, the idea of a separation between religion and governance was preached. However, few countries pursued this separation and many countries had varying degrees of fusion between the two. It was not until the ratification of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States that a modern country pursued a more evenhanded balance between religion and politics.

Thomas Jefferson popularized the phrase "separation of church and state" in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, who were a religious minority concerned that the free-exercise clause was not an unalienable God-given right but an alienable gift from the government who could legislate religious expression at its whim. Jefferson, too, shared these concerns and sought to appease his constituents by advocating for a wall of separation between church and state. This "wall of separation" did not advance a complete secularization of the U.S. government but measures designed to prevent Congress from establishing a national religious denomination where minority religions would be marginalized. Thus the wall would help secure minority rights by allowing freedom to practice and preventing the government from excessively favoring one religion over another.

In the 1947 Supreme Court decision of Everson v. Board of Education, the establishment clause of the First Amendment was incorporated to apply to the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. It is here the justices took the phrase from Jefferson’s letter out of context and interpreted it to be an impenetrable wall between church and state where no interaction would occur.

Notice that the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution and created case law that would serve as the standard against which all future decisions would be based. This Montesquieuesque division of powers helped shape the interaction between church and state strike an effective balance where minority dissident voices could be heard. Although liberal and evangelical Protestants have dominated America in the past 50 years in politics the voices of other denominations have also been heard. With no one division of government growing too drunk on power, the divisions within the government have helped create a counterbalance where people of different faiths can coexist. The same cannot be said for countries of the Islamic faith.

Most Islamic countries fall at the extremes of the spectrum from strong secularists to powerful theocracies. There is either no interaction between church and state or too much. The minority Alawites with an ironclad hold of the population rule Syria. Minorities are heavily persecuted. Jehovah’s Witnesses and people of Jewish descent are barred from securing employment in the state. The people of Syria are not free to practice their religion because the ruling Alawites fear freedom of religious expression not influenced by the sphere of the government would lead to a revolution.

Saudi Arabia is a theocratic monarchy ruled by the royal Saudi family. The state religion is Islam and in order to be a citizen one must be Muslim. As in Syria, there is little freedom to practice religion. Turkey, by contrast may be the only predominantly Muslim country to have freedoms resembling those enjoyed in the western world.

Turkey is an interesting example of what can be possible in a predominantly Islamic society given the proper incentives, geography, and a democratic republic. Turkey is often considered the gateway between Europe and the Middle East. As a result, Western trade and democratic influences have permeated across the border into the heart of Istanbul. With almost 99.8 percent of the population Muslim there is general tolerance of other religious practices. Although far from being free of persecution, the minorities experience much better treatment than those in most Islamic states.

The two institutions within the Turkish government, the Diyanet and the Vakiflar Genel Mudurlugu, regulate the activities of Muslim and non-Muslim activities respectively. The rights of the minority are protected under the constitution but the state has a long history of censoring the Muslim community and significantly reigning in fundamentalists. As the admittance of Turkey into the European Union is considered, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has tried to legislate tolerance and create a more moderate Turkey. The legislation to make adultery a crime was scrapped after much outrage from the modernists in Turkey and Europe. Although Turkey is heading down a road toward a balanced interaction between church and state, it is far from reaching its final destination.

Turkey is the only religiously free state, relative to other Islamic countries, but it still remains very much restrictive. Its system of governance, however, bodes well for the prospects of religious freedom and a safe interaction between religion and state. The fates of India and Pakistan illustrate how two countries both gaining independence from their colonial master can go down strikingly different paths.

The decision to create Pakistan was in response to the growing violent tensions between Hindus and Muslims in the years before independence. Pakistan was to be created for the predominantly Muslim population while India would be home to mostly Hindus. Although Pakistan would be a home to Muslims like Israel is for Jews, the founders would not have expected Pakistan to become an Islamic Republic where Islam was the state religion. General Pervez Musharraf took rule of Pakistan during the military coup of 1999 and his power is maintained by keeping the Sunni Mullahs and fundamentalists content. Although their constitution grants freedom of religious expression, it is rarely enforced. The Muslim minority Ahmadiyya, Christians, and Hindus face much persecution. In a span of 18 years more than 600 people were charged with blasphemy. Restrictions on freedom are permitted as long as they are aligned with the glorification of Islam and the prophet Muhammad.

Yet India, with a sizeable Muslim population of 134 million, chose the governance form of a federal republic and has achieved relative success. Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, and Buddhists all exercise their right to freedom of religious expression and have experienced little persecution from the government. Although there have been tensions between the religions, India serves as the model of a country where different religions can coexist and live in harmony.

The enforcement of constitutional freedoms is executed by a federalist structure granting states the responsibility to enforce religious freedoms. India’s congress has created the National Commission for Minorities and the National Human Rights Commission to protect the minorities. The supreme court also plays a vital role in tending to grievances and acts of religious violence.

The significant difference between India and Pakistan is the form of governance and the avenues provided for defense of the religious minority. If a citizen cannot find redress for grievances and the government cannot be moved to mediate the dispute, then either violence or censorship of rights will ensue. A democratic republic enables dissidents to voice their opinions and provides for constitutional safeguards allowing alleged violations to be addressed with prompt and judicial efficiency.

Such functions of governance are absent in Islamic states that are extremely secular or theocratic. As a result, power is not evenly divided, allowing no balance between religion and government to form. Politicians are not concerned with the improvement of citizens’ rights but the maintenance of the status quo. Whether it be the ruling Alawites in Syria or the Crown Prince in Saudi Arabia, absolute power, unless checked, will corrupt.

Still, there is much hope for the Muslim people. Most moderates believe in individual rights, civil law, and a secular Islamic society. Pockets of resistance like the International Coalition Against Political Islam and the Institute of Secularization of Islamic Society advocate for a secular Islamic society where women are better treated, man-made law trumps Shari’ah law, and universal human rights are observed. These pockets of resistance carry forth with their work in hopes that their children will one day see a viable and healthy democracy in the Middle East.

The twin democratic projects in Afghanistan and Iraq may be the answer toward the spread of democracy in the Middle East through a domino effect. Only time will tell whether Islam can coexist peacefully with democracy and if Sunnis, Shiites, and other religious minorities can peaceably coexist with one another, practicing their religion free from government intervention. Only in democracy can religion and government strike the healthy balance beneficial to society. Within the next half century it will be known if the ideals of democracy and religious freedoms can peaceably coexist in an Islamic state.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot