(The following is a section reproduced with minor edits from an article originally published in the academic journal Political Theology 11.6 (2010) 826-845)
“Muslim secularists” – or the subset within them of “Caliphate deniers”, being those who profess a Muslim belief but consider that Islam has nothing to say about the State, that any conception of an Islamic State or a Caliphate is a non-religious construction and that to believe in such a form of government is to believe in an authoritarian, unaccountable sovereign figure. The genealogy of such views within Islamic scholarship can be traced back to Ali Abdul Raziq, an al-Azhar graduate from a political family in Egypt who founded the Liberal Constitutionalist party. Raziq wrote a book called “al-Islaam wa usool al-hukm”[1] (Islam and the fundamentals of ruling) published in 1925 in the wake of the formal abolition of the position of the Ottoman Caliph by Mustafa Kemal. All of the central contentions raised by the “Muslim Secularists” were raised by Raziq in this initial work; according to Mohammad ‘Amara up until that point secularism had been seen as a purely European solution to a European problem which had no promoters in the Middle East except for a small section of the community known to blindly imitate the Western culture. On the other hand Raziq appeared as a critic dressed in “Islamic clothing”, who compared the rule of the Caliphate to the rule of the Church, and so for him secularism became “an Islamic solution to an Islamic problem”[2].
Raziq’s book flew in the face of Islamic orthodoxy which had generally considered the Caliphate to be a religious obligation, whereas to Raziq it had “nothing to do with the deen (religion)”, but beyond that even the judiciary and other governmental positions were secular and “purely political issues”, since the deen “neither knows it nor denies it, and has no commandments regarding it nor any prohibitions” but rather “it has only left it for us, to return back to rules of rationality “[3]. According to Raziq, the classical views of leadership were that the Caliph either took his authority from God directly, or from the Umma (Muslim nation), and he compared this to the two European schools of thought of Hobbes and Locke[4], with Raziq claiming that the mainstream view held that the Caliph took his authority from God.
Raziq conceded that his views were unorthodox at the time, but claimed that he had simply created “a new school of thought in the issue”
In discussing some of the numerous Prophetic narrations relating to laws, the Caliphate and the bay‘a (pledge of allegiance between the ruler and those he ruled),he referred to the Bible and the words attributed to Jesus to “render to God what belongs to God, and render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar”, explaining that “everything which came in these narrations of the Prophet mentioning the leadership and the Caliphate and the bay‘a do not indicate anything more than what Jesus was indicating when he mentioned some rules of legislation about Caesar’s government”. He rejected several of the other proofs generally used to validate the orthodox position stating the obligation of the Caliphate in a similar manner. While Raziq was forced to admit that the leadership of the Prophet Mohammad “had some aspects that are similar to the apparent characteristics of a political government”, including collecting and distributing taxes which as he stated are “amongst the most important pillars of government”, he linked those and similar actions to the role of the Prophet Mohammad as a Prophet of God, that meant “he was only one who has that position and no one else can share in it” [5]. This is echoed by el-Affendi who criticizes the orthodox formulations of the Caliphate which “attempted to assign the rule of the Prophet to ordinary men”[6].
Historically, the State at the time of the Prophet “was an Islamic unity and not a political unity” with “the leadership of the Messenger between them a religious leadership” and “their subservience to him was one of belief, not subservience to government and authority”[7]. The rule of those who came after the death of the Prophet, including the first generation of Muslims, “was not connected to the Message and was not established upon the deen“, and rather than being an Islamic state it was in fact an imperial Arab entity[8]. The Caliphate according to Raziq “was only ever, and still remains, a calamity upon Islam and Muslims”[9]. He finished by urging that “nothing in the deen prohibits the Muslims from competing with other nations” and to “destroy that obsolete system which they debase and submit themselves to” while building “the fundamentals of their leadership, and the system of government, upon the most modern of what has been produced by human minds”[10].
The publication of his book caused a stir within religious circles in particular, and Raziq was summoned in front of the Council of Grand Scholars in order for his work to be evaluated by twenty four of his peers. On November 12th, 1925, a ruling was published with the unanimous decision to censure Raziq and to remove his qualification as an Islamic scholar. His claims such as that Islam was a purely spiritual religion, that the system of ruling in Islam was unclear and that the rule applied by the early generations of Muslim leaders were not based upon the deen were considered heretical, and the council ruled that “it is enough that his innovation puts him in the ranks of the khawarij[11] and not in the ranks of the masses of the Muslims”.[12]
The views of Raziq were largely rejected at the time and remain outside of Islamic orthodoxy. The “Muslim Secularist” arguments which promote a secular form of government from within Islamic tradition while dismissing the basis for those who claim the necessity for Islamic government are largely in line with the contentions and proposals initially raised in his book.
Raziq conceded that his views were unorthodox at the time, but claimed that he had simply created “a new school of thought in the issue”[13]. His family and supporters from the Liberal Constitutionalists and party newspapers rallied around him and against the ruling, claiming that the issue at stake was one of freedom of speech. Other major Egyptian politicians had very different opinions, such as Egyptian nationalist and head of the Wafd party Saad Zaghloul who said in private that he was “amazed first of all by how could a scholar of Islam write in this manner on this issue”, and even though he had “read a lot from Orientalists and those similar to them” he had “never came across anyone from them who attacked Islam with such an anger”. In the end Zaghloul felt that Raziq was “ignorant of the fundamentals of the deen” since “if not, then how could he claim that Islam is not a civilisation, and that it does not have a system suitable for rule?”[14]
The views of Raziq were largely rejected at the time and
remain outside of Islamic orthodoxy. The “Muslim Secularist” arguments which promote
a secular form of government from within Islamic tradition while dismissing the
basis for those who claim the necessity for Islamic government are largely in
line with the contentions and proposals initially raised in his book. In
particular, his claim that the position and system of Caliphate as an
un-Islamic construct with the ruler being considered an unaccountable sovereign
in their own right with a mandate directly from God is directly identifiable in
their work, though the level of open support for Raziq may sometimes be
understandably muted due to the reputation that precedes him up until today.
[1] Ali Abdul-Raziq, “Al-Islaam Wa Usool Al-Hukm,” in Al-Islaam Wa Usool Al-Hukm – Darasa Wa Watha’iq, ed. Mohammad ‘Amara (Beirut: Al-Mua’sasa al-Arabiyya li al-darasat wa al-nashr, 1972).
[2] Mohammad ‘Amara, Ma’raka Al-Islam Wa Usool Al-Hukm (Cairo: Dar al-Sharook, 1997), pp.171.
[3] Abdul-Raziq, “Usool Al-Hukm,” pp.182.
[4] Ibid., pp.117.20.
[5] Ibid., pp.145, 46, 48, 57.
[6] El-Affendi, Islamic State, pp.66.
[7] Abdul-Raziq, “Usool Al-Hukm,” pp.163.
[8] Ibid., pp.174-5.
[9] Ibid., pp.136.
[10] Ibid., pp.182.
[11] The Khawarij were an early sect of Islam which emerged during the conflict between Ali and Mu‘awiyya who held several beliefs contrary to the orthodox position such as anyone who commits a major sin is destined for eternal hellfire
[12] The Council of Senior Scholars, “The Ruling of the Council of Senior Scholars Regarding the Book “Islam and the Fundamentals of Ruling” – 12/8/1925,” in Ma’raka Al-Islam Wa Usool Al-Hukm, ed. Mohammad ‘Amara (Cairo: Dar al-Sharook, 1997), pp.126.
[13] Ali Abdul-Raziq, “Opinion Regarding the Ruling of the Council of Senior Scholars 3/9/1925,” in Ma’raka Al-Islam Wa Usool Al-Hukm, ed. Mohammad ‘Amara (Cairo: Dar al-Sharook, 1997).
[14] ‘Amara, Ma’raka, pp.150.