The relationship between religion and politics

Secularism history

To explain reasons and factors of the phenomenon of historical separation of religion from politics in the west, it is necessary to address some theories in this regard:
Some believe that the phenomenon of separation of religion from politics in the west took place as a result of collapse of logical and scientific bases especially in church’s beliefs which became the origin of unreliability of the religion and holy categories of the church slowly and eventually resulted in rejecting religion from social arena and politics. Based on this belief, church which had a responsibility to defend religion itself failed to take a true and firm step to explain rational, philosophical and scientific fundamentals of religion and didn’t take seriously the relationship between religion and science on one hand and the relationship between religion and wisdom on the other or perhaps denied it.
The effort of those religious philosophers like James Ross and Richard Swinburne who defended the rationality of religious beliefs didn’t come to conclusion in contrast to atheist philosophers who insisted on irrationality and unscientific nature of religion.
The church emphasized faith in God, but didn’t say anything in accordance with science and wisdom; in fact, it exposed its theology to the attack of rationalists and science supporters. Meanwhile, atheist philosophers attacked the church's principles and fundamentals instead of addressing the branches. Actually, those who attribute the cause of religiousness and non-religiousness of politics to religiousness and non-religiousness of society follow this theory.
Although this viewpoint, in itself, is against traditional belief which exists about الناس علی دین” ملوکهم”.
The assumption of those who considered the mechanism of separation of religion from politics as an effort to save religion and church in the west (although in this belief another factor for secularism is mentioned too) is eventually fed by this theory.
The relationship of separation of religion and politics is further complicated by pretenders of religious reforms campaign in the west who to try to prevent the sacrifice of holy religion in the political slaughterhouse. This, in itself, is an unwanted claim for the incongruity of religion with mundane logic and language, and since religion couldn’t make politics holy and away from impurity and filth, the argument has left the scene.
If separation of religion from politics was based on the inconsistency of religion and politics, then religious reforms campaigns would have to achieve as much success in reconciling religion with science and reason in a way that would harmonize it with politics.
Although this theory can be examined historically, it can't be a strong reason for western secularism. If it was true, atheism and non-religiousness should have arisen first and religion from politics would have emerged gradually and as a result of western unbelief.
While what has happened is the opposite. Even now that secularism has become a fixed and accepted principle in western democracy, western world is not reliant on atheism as is on secularism and the number of those who live with religious beliefs is not still low.
Despite development of philosophical schools of atheism and their continuation in the west, none could separate religion from beliefs of those who believed in church and Christianity like the way religion did from politics. Although the influence of advertisements based on the philosophical, scientific viewpoints of atheism is not deniable in reducing religious tendencies in the west especially on church, it has not been so able to separate western societies from religious beliefs.
What has been the main factor for separation of religion from politics world in the west then?
2- Paradoxical inconsistency, church teachings and democracy are other things which have been the main factor of irreconcilable division of religion and politics in the western history. If this inconsistency took place as a result of inconsistency of religion and science as some said, this is then a return to the first factor and theory. But as some have written if this objective inconsistency is considered as a dictatorial nature of church teachings and democracy components, we should look for the type of speech and behavior church and religion had followed which was inconsistent with democracy in western medieval west so that religion left the politics scene eventually as a result of democratic development process.
Did church talk of absolute power of God which was inconsistent with democracy voice and devolving power to the hands of people as now tens of millions of Christian believers believe in eternal power of God to determine the fate of human?
Did church’s religion under the indisputable divine power dictate rules to kings and people and it was inconsistent with democracy principles ?if so, this process shouldn’t have led to separation of politics from God and God’s orders and should have necessarily resulted in denying interference of church masters in people’s affairs.
On the other hand, religious beliefs even in religions like Confucius , Buddhism and Hinduism, let alone heavenly religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam, have many essential commonalities with democracy components : principles like faithfulness to contracts, human freedom magnanimity and adherence to values can be referred to which are considered as effective factors to overthrow oppression’s bases , avoid imposing hegemonic powers and violating other people’s rights and bring peace , equality and security to human’s society.
It shouldn’t be forgotten that political thought, democracy and its public acceptance in the west as a legal base for political system and government are a new phenomenon which has developed since the late 18 century and before that democracy thought was considered as disorder, moral corruption and tendency to frivolity.
Furthermore, democracy is an open and flexible concept about which everyone has a special imagination and pattern in the mind and there is still no clear pattern considered as an agreed and accepted democracy throughout the west. The relationship of democracy and science, philosophy and religion categories, which talk of constants, is not truly clear. It’s not still obvious whether democracy with its all-out dynamism and quick developments is consistent with fixed principles originating from science, philosophy and religion or if it conflicts all kinds of constants .if it does conflict, there should be other secularisms a head: separation of politics from science and that of politics from philosophy and wisdom and finally the anthem of separation from human who can not be parted from constants.
3. Modernism is another factor which has brought one- sided or two-sided effects of religion and politics. This theory should be explained in this way: since religion is backward to politics in terms of the process of modernization, which politics has kept up with, is inevitably separated from politics.
Although sometimes modernism thought has entered religion (in western concept) it is so much slow that it couldn’t align and accompany them compared to modernism procedure in politics.
This argument holds that the church’s direction against modernism in terms of science – which means the latest in scientific rules and modernism meaning using science and technology products- resulted in the separation of religion from politics. This theory should be listened to hesitantly and doubtfully, as modernism in scientific data must be separated from modernism as a culture of triteness and vanity. There is no doubt that the west has pioneered in accepting modernism as a new rationality and the foundation of development. The greatest issue in the world is modernism and the conflict of this quick western movement with any opposing factor.
But the discussion is whether modernism has caused religion and politics categories to separate or these haven’t been two opposing categories and the formation of modernism and secularism weren’t too much synchronized to make a cause- effect relationship between them.
If the discussion is on incongruity and inconsistence of religion and modernism in current situations, not only Christianity and church but Islam and Muslims can be examined and reviewed in this regard. But it is on the cause and effect relationship of two categories of modernism and secularism on the path of separation of religion from politics but modernism didn’t exist then with today’s meaning or wasn’t in a way to play such a historical role.
4. Religion’s inability to play an essential role in politics arena in the west, which meant the rituals and beliefs of Christianity, was the main factor of religious failure in politics arena. Inability means lack of necessary principles and fundamentals to function in the political arena and influence government and its institutions and the absence of essential flexibility in responding to political developments .The church’s ritual traditions lacked these two characteristics, which are considered as the main factors for religion’s stability.
When a set of thoughts called religion can’t play its role to manage society and meet permanently developing needs essentially, it should then yield to the rival.
It seems that among different factors which are arose in separation of religion from politics in the west, the strongest and the most logical are inherent failure of church which has resulted in religion’s failure in politics arena.
This theory, in itself, is an answer to another question which is “did religion’s enemies and politics supporters cause this catastrophic separation of religion from politics or is the real director of this arena religion supporters and politics opponents who submitted politics to the deserved to save religion and church rituals?
Although the two sides of the story are involved in the western political history, the main factor which caused the two groups to come to this conclusion was in fact inherent failure of traditional teachings of church which were offered as the only acceptable concept of religion.
Finally, in this intensive discussion it should be added that the priority of this last theory can’t be ignored. What is important in this discussion is whether these factors can sing the song of separation and partition in Islam too?
Nowadays there are opinions about the relationship of” Islam and secularism”, “Islam and science and technology”, “Islam and democracy” and “Islam and modernism”. But what separates Islam from the fate of Christianity and church rituals is the fact that Islam has powerful essentials and fundamentals which, as they remain constant, cover rational and scientific development in political, economic and social arena. They will never stop moving and developing. According to Professor 'Allamah Tabatabai, Islam will always remain alive and immortal over time having the characteristic of” constant but changeable from within”.

Viewpoints on the relationship of religion and politics

The relationship of religion and politics can be examined through some theoretical patterns:
1. Religion concepts and teachings pertain to the hereafter and the fate of human being after death and politics domain deals with human’s worldly life and the way of living in this world.
Based on this theory and impression, discussion and rule of “religion and politics “are completely separated and regarded as two distinctive categories.
Although this theory is true about politics it is absolutely wrong on religion. Since religion is a set of teachings pertaining to human in two worldly and hereafter life’s domains.
2. Religion and its related essentials and components are holy, heavenly, stable, non- immutable, and unquestionable. In contrast, politic is mixed with human issues and probably immoral, corruptive and contaminated and is never constant. It can be changed and questioned permanently and may develop quickly depending on the existing situations.
It is concluded that these two domains can’t be put together.
This theory is not only inadmissible in terms of religion but it is also untrue about politics. Not all religious components and domains are constant nor all political components are far from holiness and heavenliness and are contaminated and corrupt.
Being non- holy, non- heavenly, immoral, corrupt and developing over time are true of politics when it is away from religious and divine values and serves mischief, wickedness and destruction.
But politics relying on holy and divine essentials and values will never contain these undesirable characteristics and manners.
3.
Although part of religious teachings pertains to solving problems, adjusting affairs and explaining worldly life issues, its purpose is inconsistent with political goals.
Religion’s purpose is to train pious, smart and wise people, who move on the path of spiritual evolution, transcend life’s material issues towards the top of spirituality and pass their current material conditions towards desirable spiritual and moral conditions.
The goal of a religious person is to evaluate himself and others spiritually and morally and he has the least attention to material situations in his orientation .But the goal of a politician is to win for himself and beat others and reach definite political and material destinations for himself or others.
These two lines will never meet since their goals are distinctive. The slogan o f Young Turk party in the time of Ottoman Empire was based on this thought and its leader, Ataturk, said:
‘Islam’s prophet came so that we, his nation, invite the world to God, goodness and prosperity. He didn’t come to give our hands a fresh sword to pass nations through blades”. The outcome of this slogan was the collapse of Ottoman Empire, the destruction of national culture, separation of religion from politics and the rise of extremist nationalists who possessed western culture.
This doctrine, which was more like a suppressive political slogan against Ottoman governance, was in fact regarded as a distortion of the goals of religion and politics domains. Supporters of this thesis removed a great part of religion teachings from life’s arena spiritualizing religion’s goal and imposed anti-values, corruption and destruction on the surviving country of Ottoman Empire in the name of achieving political goal. However, religion and politics have common goals and they both rely on good essentials, values and criteria.
4.
Quran, which is the first and most reliable source for recognizing Islam’s nature and orders, hasn’t addressed politics, government and governance or talked of them. Dr Ali Abdorazagh wrote his book titled “الاسلام و اصول الحکم”.
In 1925 and based on this theory he claimed that there is not even a quasi- argument on the obligation of government establishment and politics tenure in Quran. He believed that the only thing which is obligatory and constant in Islamic Sharia is that God’s orders have to be implemented but once the nation agrees over implementing divine orders, there is no need to appoint imam or Calif or anyone who takes responsibility for political and governance affairs.
He argued that speakers were divided on imamat and caliphate issue and the rationality or legality of the necessity of appointing imam and caliph but that they sufficed to consensus in reasoning the necessity of appointing imam and caliph to show flexibility of religious pillars of government and politics.

He documented 3 things to justify this theory:

1. Ayahs and narratives which have been documented to prove the necessity of appointing imam and caliph and through which the relationship between religion and politics is considered legal can be discussed.
Each of the foresaid is justifiable and some are weak in terms of reasoning and some don’t have acceptable documents.
2.
Terms like imamat, caliphate , allegiance of those in authority, Ummah and congregation which have been used in ayahs and narratives don’t mean what is interpreted as today’s concept of politics and government.
Political meanings and interpretations which are offered for these legal categories – imamat and caliphate meaning government’s chief , those in authority meaning leaders and rulers, allegiance meaning elections, Ummah and congregation meaning Islamic nation , government and country- are all new meanings and concepts . Using them for these concepts depends on the fact that the same meanings are used and understood at the time of descent of ayahs and issuance of narratives. However this can’t be proved.
All legal texts on government and governance issues are like the words of Jesus, God’s prophet, who said:’ "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's”. Undoubtedly he didn’t mean that Caesar was cruel and bloodthirsty over truth and his rule was legal and divine. Traditions related to imamat, caliphate or allegiance which imply promise of the unbelievers kept are from this category which means none implies the legitimacy of the rule of the unfaithful.
4.
How could the order to obey leaders and rulers in ayah«اطيعوا الله و اطيعوا الرسول واولي الأمر منکم» state legitimacy of cruel caliphs and bloodthirsty rulers?
Ali Abdorazagh who was busy in two professorships in PhD law in Egypt’s Alazhar University and judgment in Sharia courts in Cairo, finally lost them and was deserted and excommunicated in his society as a result of wounding public opinion and the opposition of jurists and Alazhar University professors who considered his viewpoint as a slander and destructive defamation to Islam.
His goal was to support the theory of separation of religion from politics in the format of a course which resulted in the abolition of Ottomon caliphate. He attributed the theory of denying politics and religious government to one of the famous pious of the third century named Hatamolasam , who followed the Mutazila religion and regarded Khawarij on this belief, and tried to reject well-founded and reasonable book of the famous Egyptian writer entitled نام الخلافة أو الامامة العظمي .
In his 120-page book. He, in fact, has followed negligence opposed to extremist trend of Rashid Reza, who fully supported caliphs and rulers and cited hundreds of ayahs and traditions, and denied the relationship between religion and politics completely. He rejected quranic and narrative documentations on politics and government.
Undoubtedly, his article on the illegitimacy of caliphs and rulers ‘ governments in Islamic political history is acceptable and perhaps he didn’t address governments whose commands weren’t in accordance with Sharia and whose performance didn’t accord with the prophet’s custom. But in terms of theory, it is not worthy of a researcher to deny tens of ayahs and hundreds of reliable narratives and more importantly, reject Muslim culture, custom and the political manner of the prophet, who established a government and political institutions and even held relations with ethnic groups, nations and governments, directed and commanded over 27 Ghazva, mobilized over 40 Sariya, and sent tens of delegations on political, economic or even combat missions.
In upcoming discussions the close relationship between religion and politics will be examined through satisfactory reasons from Quran and traditions.

Here it’s enough to mention two points:

A.
Most of the critics of the book ‘الاسلام و اصول الحکم” have accused the author of having political motives and being in line with the west and extremist nationalists to overthrow Ottoman caliphate.
But what is obvious is that there has been a special concept of politics and government in Ali Abdorazagh’s thought that was common then and had definite elements, bases and characteristics which belonged to the world‘s politics then. And since he didn’t find these features in Quran, Sunnah and Islam’s prophet action and saw features and characteristics in religion’s mission which weren’t found in that day’s politics, he has therefore denied their relationship.
This point is viewed in different parts of his book.
B
The belief of some of Sunnah scientists regarding exoneration of caliphs, rulers and kings and necessitating the belief of the necessity of caliphate and accepting and obeying governance pretenders’ rule caused him to deny the principle instead of addressing branches (secondary principles).
5.
Khawarij opinion on denying human governance is based on the fact that no one’s will can rule people under any authority but God's.
People only obey God and his matchless ruling and follow God who created the world. Islam hasn’t allowed anyone to rule people.
The famous slogan of this group who conflicted Imam Ali and said:”orders belongs to God only” has originated from this belief.
Some of the Islamic speakers denied the agreement of all the Khawarij on this ideological principle and attributed the following opinions to them:
A
In critical situations when the Islamic society suffers from sedition, it is obligatory to establish government and governance and people should rise to protect the religious base, order and people’s expediency.
B
When peace and security are made it is obligatory for the public to establish a government.
C
In Sharia it is never obligatory to establish a government.
6.
At the age of occultation any movement to establish a government is forbidden.