Debate: Should Muslim countries have a state sanctioned version of Islam?

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Peace be upon the ones who follow true guidance,

Most active members are either Punjabi, Pathan, Talukdar, Jewish, Pashtun or Tajik.

Most of these ethnicities live in Predominantly "Muslim" societies. Therefore, most belong to either one or the other religious denomination.

Do you believe the state should choose one particular version of Islam and adopt it as the state sanctioned religion? If yes, which one?


For those who believe religion shouldn't be mixed with politics at all, please share your views in another thread where you can argue in favor of secularism.

[Brown Skinned Savage]

I'm not sure what you mean by state-sanctioned, you mean as in what they have or are trying to have in Egypt?

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

I'm not sure what you mean by state-sanctioned, you mean as in what they have or are trying to have in Egypt?

What I mean is what they have in Morocco. The Moroccan government has chosen the Maliki madhab in fiqh, the ash'ari aqeedah and Junaids sufi Tariqa as the official state sanctioned version of Islam.

Similarly, Saudi Arabia is a Hanbali country where the jusicial system used Hanbali fiqh, the creed thought at the schools is Athari.

Iran is a 12-er Shiite country with Ja'fari school of jurisprudence.

[Brown Skinned Savage]

Well, in all those cases the state sanctioning reflects the tendencies of the majority of the population; I don't see why that would be a problem in and of itself

but perhaps you have a convincing argument to the contrary?

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Well, in all those cases the state sanctioning reflects the tendencies of the majority of the population; I don't see why that would be a problem in and of itself

but perhaps you have a convincing argument to the contrary?

If a country like Saudi Arabia would have had competing institutions of higher learning where different schools of jurisprudence are thought, then, the law of the land might have been less rigid and more pragmatic.

Similarly, if countries like Jordan and Syria would have allowed Salafi scholars to have their own institutions of higher learning, then there wouldn't have been a "ghetto-Islam" or a "jailhouse salafism" where extremist types would gain a following.

I believe there should be more pluralism within Islamic countries so that competing schools of though can coexist and exchange their views as academics.

In most countries, governments choose certain schools and sects and clamp down on others. This only increases conflicts. Look at Iran and the Sunni opposition there.

These tensions are at its height. I think a less sectarian government would be able so give different groups some breathing space. This may even remove tensions and stabilize relationships between different groups.

[Shapur]

No, as pointed out by yourself. In the hands of tyrants, it is a dangerous thing. They can choose a version which suits their interests.
Less state control and less centralization is needed, where there is centralization, there is corruption as power corrupts people, so less state sanctioned religion and everything else.

No need to declare state madhabs, all madhabs are accepted and some madhabs might be more popular than others.

[PakZameen]

If a country like Saudi Arabia would have had competing institutions of higher learning where different schools of jurisprudence are thought, then, the law of the land might have been less rigid and more pragmatic.

Similarly, if countries like Jordan and Syria would have allowed Salafi scholars to have their own institutions of higher learning, then there wouldn't have been a "ghetto-Islam" or a "jailhouse salafism" where extremist types would gain a following.

I believe there should be more pluralism within Islamic countries so that competing schools of though can coexist and exchange their views as academics.

In most countries, governments choose certain schools and sects and clamp down on others. This only increases conflicts. Look at Iran and the Sunni opposition there.

These tensions are at its height. I think a less sectarian government would be able so give different groups some breathing space. This may even remove tensions and stabilize relationships between different groups.

I actually agree with your view. Giving hardliners their own institutions to vent can potentially cause less conflict.

[Khostai]

If a country like Saudi Arabia would have had competing institutions of higher learning where different schools of jurisprudence are thought, then, the law of the land might have been less rigid and more pragmatic.

Similarly, if countries like Jordan and Syria would have allowed Salafi scholars to have their own institutions of higher learning, then there wouldn't have been a "ghetto-Islam" or a "jailhouse salafism" where extremist types would gain a following.

I believe there should be more pluralism within Islamic countries so that competing schools of though can coexist and exchange their views as academics.

In most countries, governments choose certain schools and sects and clamp down on others. This only increases conflicts. Look at Iran and the Sunni opposition there.

These tensions are at its height. I think a less sectarian government would be able so give different groups some breathing space. This may even remove tensions and stabilize relationships between different groups.

This is possible in a secular society. Where the state is abscent from interfiring in relligion and the minorities would not feel opressed and would do their thing.

You basicaly wish fro secularism. But that quite strange, hearing this from you.

[Khostai]

I actually agree with your view. Giving hardliners their own institutions to vent can potentially cause less conflict.

That can be true, but the thing with hardliners is, is that they use that freedom to indoctrinate and spread more hate among the population. The so called sharia4Belgium were not only preaching for shariat in a secular kafir country, what is quite rediculous, they also preached hate against other minorities. What are you going to do about that?

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

This is possible in a secular society. Where the state is abscent from interfiring in relligion and the minorities would not feel opressed and would do their thing.

You basicaly wish fro secularism. But that quite strange, hearing this from you.

So are you saying in the past, When there were many competing schools of thought in Baghdad, eventhough it was a Khilafah, in essence it was secular?

Marvelous.

[Khostai]

So are you saying in the past, When there were many competing schools of thought in Baghdad, eventhough it was a Khilafah, in essence it was secular?

Marvelous.

In essence they were.

[Brown Skinned Savage]

So are you saying in the past, When there were many competing schools of thought in Baghdad, eventhough it was a Khilafah, in essence it was secular?

Marvelous.

Also as I was alluding to early Current secular Egypt is NOT pluralistic whatsoever; the Junta is trying to manufacture their own "brand" of Islam

[Brown Skinned Savage]

If Khilafah Al Abbasiyah was in "essence" secular then the United States is in "essence" a theocracy.

[Brown Skinned Savage]

Hadn't had a chance to give my full thoughts on this but I will try to now.

It's very pertinent that Shamlawar had made reference to the Plurality of Baghdad during the Abbasid era.

One of the reasons I had adopted the Mu'tazili was because that at least in Principle, the Mu'tazili were an unbiased party when it came to the ideological rife between sects. Individual Mu'tazili or Mutazili Institutions were not guilty of their own shortcomings when it comes to zealotry and bias, but rather that the Mu'tazilah Framework stressed on principles of Rationality & Reason which provide a more effective tool to make sound conclusions and a platform for refined intellectual discourse.

But what is "Reason"? What does it mean to be "Rational"? In essence, Rationality is the ability to use information to model situations and from there draw conclusions. Mu'tazili made conclusions made on the information they had available, the information and conclusions that they made were not always correct; but as we are able to acquire more information; through greater observation and experimentation, we acquire a greater degree of accuracy.

It's not the creed of Mu'tazilah that needs to be focused here, because if Mu'tazilah were defined by their pirnciples the Modern Mu'tazilli would have a dramatically different set of assessments than their predecessors; but rather the essence behind their approach. Even the word "Mu'tazilah" is not important; it's just a term related to a concept.

It's the concept which allows different ideas to be examined to compare information and model conclusions which is the driving force. This is what any political authority must endorse, not doctrine or ideology.

The problem with Secularism is that it is ideological, and this problem mires current Muslim-"states" as well. But A State, political authority or governing body should only do what it can to facilitate evidence and model hypothesis based on evidence. Everything else should be left to the merit of reason.

[randolph85]

I do agree with liberalism in respects to the acceptance of the practice of the generally accepted schools of thought but then thorny issues arise regarding extremist theology, both conservative and liberal. When it gets to the point where a conservative extremist on one end starts insulting the prophets or a liberal extremist on the other starts doing the same thing, when does the state step in and put an end to it and on what basis of fiqh do they do it?

I don't know much about this golden age of Islam when differing opinions were allowed to flourish but I assume, and correct me if I am wrong, that there was not as much a tendency to stray from the book like this is today with all these movements and breakaway groups.