“The common understanding among Muslims, no doubt indoctrinated by Western notions, is that a secular state is a state that is not governed by the 'ulama', or whose legal system is not established upon the revealed law. In other words it is not a theocratic state. But this setting in contrast the secular state with the theocratic state is not really an Islamic way of understanding the matter, for since Islam does not involve itself in the dichotomy between the sacred and the profane, how then can it set in contrast the theocratic state with the secular state?”
Quote Analysis:
In this quote by Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas, the author challenges the common understanding of a secular state in the context of Islamic principles. He argues that Islam does not distinguish between the sacred and the profane, and therefore the dichotomy between theocratic and secular states is not applicable in an Islamic framework.
By stating that Islam does not involve itself in the dichotomy between the sacred and the profane, al-Attas is highlighting the unique perspective of Islamic teachings on governance and law. This challenges the common notion that a secular state is simply one that is not governed by religious authorities or established upon religious laws. Instead, al-Attas suggests that Islam offers a different perspective on the relationship between religion and the state that transcends these traditional categories.
Modern Relevance:
In this quote by Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas, he challenges the common understanding among Muslims regarding the concept of a secular state. He questions the dichotomy between the sacred and the profane that is inherent in Western notions of secularism, and argues that Islam does not conform to this separation. This challenges Muslims to reconsider their understanding of secularism and how it relates to Islamic principles in the modern world.
Quote by Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas
"The common understanding among Muslims, no doubt indoctrinated by Western notions, is that a secular state is a state that is not governed by the 'ulama', or whose legal system is not established upon the revealed law. In other words it is not a theocratic state. But this setting in contrast the secular state with the theocratic state is not really an Islamic way of understanding the matter, for since Islam does not involve itself in the dichotomy between the sacred and the profane, how then can it set in contrast the theocratic state with the secular state?" - Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas
Reflection Questions
This quote by Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas challenges the common understanding of a secular state among Muslims. It raises questions about the Islamic perspective on the dichotomy between the sacred and the profane, and how it relates to the concept of a theocratic state versus a secular state. Consider the following reflection questions: 1. How does the Islamic perspective on the sacred and profane influence the idea of a theocratic state? 2. In what ways can a secular state be compatible with Islamic principles, despite not being governed by the 'ulama' or the revealed law? 3. How can Muslims reconcile their understanding of governance with Western notions of secularism, while staying true to their religious beliefs?
Similar quotes
“If I were a dictator, religion and state would be separate. I swear by my religion. I will die for it. But it is my personal affair. The state has nothing to do with it. The state would look after your secular welfare, health, communications, foreign relations, currency and so on, but not your or my religion. That is everybody's personal concern!”
“The supreme law of the State is self-preservation at any cost. And since all States, ever since they came to exist upon the earth, have been condemned to perpetual struggle — a struggle against their own populations, whom they oppress and ruin, a struggle against all foreign States, every one of which can be strong only if the others are weak — and since the States cannot hold their own in this struggle unless they constantly keep on augmenting their power against their own subjects as well as against the neighborhood States — it follows that the supreme law of the State is the augmentation of its power to the detriment of internal liberty and external justice.”
“The ‘Islamic State’, that strange miscegenation of Medina with Westphalia, is always in mortal danger of linking the moral austerity of monotheism with the repressive and supervisor powers of the modern nation state.”
“How could the Christian Church, apparently quite willingly, accommodate this weird megalomaniac [Constantine] in it's theocratic system? Was there a conscious bargain? Which side benefited most form this unseemly marriage between church and state? Or, to put it another way, did the empire surrender to Christianity, or did Christianity prostitute itself to the empire? It is characteristic of the complexities of early Christian history that we cannot give a definite answer to this question.”
“We're stuck. We're stuck between the East and the West. Between the past and the future. On the one hand there are the secular modernists, so proud of the regime they constructed, you cannot breathe a critical word. They've got the army and half of the state on their side. On the other hand there are the conventional traditionalist, so infatuated with the Ottoman past, you cannot breathe a critical word. They've got the general public and the remaining half of the state on their side.”