Can We Distinguish Between Political and Religious Islam?

For years, I have researched and explored the positions of those Muslims who believe that political and religious Islam can be separated. For many reasons, that premise is difficult to prove. One of the most ardent supporters of religious Islam and the American Constitution is M. Zuhdi Jasser, Founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD). He was a proud officer in the U.S. Navy and has stood up against the forces of radical Islam:

The American Islamic Forum for Democracy’s (AIFD) mission is to advocate for the preservation of the founding principles of the United States Constitution, liberty and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state. AIFD is the most prominent American Muslim organization directly confronting the ideology of political Islam and openly countering the common belief that the Muslim faith is inextricably rooted to the concept of the Islamic State (Islamism). We stand firmly for universal human rights – including gender equality, freedom of conscience, and freedom of speech and expression. Founded by Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, AIFD envisions a future wherein Muslims never feel a conflict between their personal faith and their commitment to individual liberty and freedom. Rather, we work to empower Muslims to be primary advocates for liberty and freedom.

Despite Jasser’s effort, however, Islam in its most violent form appears to have made inroads all over the world. As admirable as his positions are, the question must be asked: Can a legitimate distinction be made between political and religious Islam?

We can turn to Islam itself to learn whether a distinction can be identified. Although Jasser has his supporters, there is a powerful movement explaining that the religion and its politics cannot be separated. From its inception in the 7^th century, Mohammed was both the political and religious leader:

Consequently, there is no separation between religion and politics in Islam. The close connection between the two was established in the earliest days of the faith, when the Prophet Muhammad was considered to be both a religious guide and a political leader. When he migrated from Mecca to Medina in 622 to serve as a judge for the people there, Muhammad insisted that the local population acknowledge him as both a mediator who would settle their disputes and a prophet who had been chosen by God. Similarly, members of his own community considered him to be a model of piety who was the supreme authority in matters of faith, as well as a statesman whose political leadership played a key role in shaping the nascent Muslim ummah.

To have a better understanding of the meaning of political Islam, we can turn to a scholar who has taken a scientific approach to analyzing Islam. He provides five principles that describe the nature of political Islam. He explains that 51% of the doctrinal texts are about politics:

• All of Islam is based upon the Trilogy—the Koran, the Sira (Mohammed’s biography) and the Hadith (His Traditions).
• Most of the Islamic doctrine is political, not religious.
• Islam divides the world into Muslims and Kafirs (non-Muslims).
• Political Islam always has two different ways to treat Kafirs—dualistic ethics. Kafirs can be abused in the worst ways or they can be treated like a good neighbor.
• Kafirs must submit to Islam in all politics and public life. Every aspect of Kafir civilization must submit to Political Islam.

Keep in mind that he came to these conclusions by studying the doctrinal texts, making sure that his ideas were as objective as possible.

Several Islamic sources confirm that political Islam is an inherent part of the practice:

The common person in the Western world would describe religion as a set of beliefs or values that deal with the spiritual or moral aspects of life. In Islam the word religion means 'way of life.’ Way of life includes all aspects of life, spiritual, moral, social, economic, or political which are all a part of the Muslim understanding of religion.’

The author of this article states that the Islamic system of governance is mandatory:

There is numerous evidence showing this. In the Quran (3:154) ‘Indeed, this affair is wholly Allah’s.’ In the Quran (7:54) ‘Is it not His to create and to govern?’ Again, as we explained in the previous question, some people’s problem is that they stop at the creation but when it comes to God’s right as the Creator to govern and tell us what to do is separate. This beautiful and very concise verse put them both together that if one admits that God is the creator, then one has to admit that 'He is the one who should govern.’ Govern here doesn’t simply mean that he should govern the universe in terms of physical phenomena but also moral laws, social laws, political laws, economic laws. 'These are all ultimately the authority and domain of God.’

Yet there are those practitioners who state that there are different representations of Islam in the modern world. A difficulty arises when it is nearly impossible to determine which approach is being practiced by any individual or group. And it’s important to emphasize that traditional Islam does not permit adaptations of the religion. These different approaches would likely be considered apostasy by the traditionalists:

Some maintain that Islamic law, or shariah, must be fully implemented as the law of the land so that all can come under the authority of God and fully submit themselves to the divine will. Others prefer a modified version of this that would reserve Islamic law for only certain areas of life like marriage, divorce, and inheritance. Still others believe it is only necessary that the state and its representatives not hold views or engage in activities that go against the teachings and spirit of Islam.

There are no formally established sects that reflect these adaptations. Also, a practice called taqqiya is permitted. It allows the practitioner to lie in order to protect Islam. And finally, a serious practitioner would be required to favor sharia law over the Constitution in the event of a conflict between them.

The primary conclusion we can draw from these descriptions of political Islam: We have no way of knowing, or being certain, whether a person accepts political Islam or not. The implications of this fact are troubling.

Can we continue to allow Muslims into our country? If we allow them in, how can we be certain they accept our laws (given the rule of taqqiya)? Are we risking the possibility that Islam and sharia law will make inroads into U.S. governance?

I appreciate the work that M. Zuhdi Jasser is pursuing to reform Islam, but it appears he is fighting an uphill battle. Can we afford to wait to see if and when changes are made?