The Origins of Secularism
‘Dharma-nirapekshatabad’ is the Bengali translation of the English word ‘secularism.’ For the past two and a half centuries, it has gained the status of an ideal throughout the world. Among Muslim-majority countries, Kamal Pasha was the first to establish this ideology in Turkey. No precedent can be found of Muslims previously embracing secularism after propagating it so shamelessly throughout the world. Even in Pakistan, which was established as a state based on religion, a class of influential people bearing Muslim names are open supporters of secularism. The history of Pakistan is a shameful history of the despicable conspiracies of the secularists. Therefore, an evidence- and reason-based discussion of this ideology’s origins, true nature, and consequences is necessary.
An Introduction to Secularism
Secularism is the policy of confining religious inclination to people’s personal lives while keeping every aspect and sphere of social life free from the influence of Allah and the Messenger. Its objective is to abandon religion in the social, political, economic, and international spheres. In that sense, it is more appropriate to call this ideology irreligion. But since it has no particular objection to observing religious injunctions in one’s personal life, it was named secularism as recognition of this great “generosity.”
This ideology does not directly deny the existence of Allah, but it has its own conception of Allah’s attributes. Regardless of how many attributes Allah ascribes to Himself, the secularist is willing to acknowledge only a few of them. According to them, Allah merely created this universe; at most, He is the author of the laws of the material world (the laws of nature). He may even have created human beings. Worshipping Him may perhaps be of some use after death. But Allah or the Messenger is not needed for progress, peace, and development in worldly life. This is the purely secularist conception of Allah.
Thus, secularists regard it as an ideal to keep all of social life free from the unnecessary interference of Allah and religion. In their view, religion is purely a personal matter. Religion must not be allowed to intrude upon the determination of any kind of relationship between two or more people. For the influence of religion in social life is entirely opposed to progress and indicative of reactionism.
The History of Modern Secularism
Although secularism is not a modern invention, it is currently being propagated as an ideal. It is esteemed by some as an ideology precisely because it is considered modern and progressive. This modern version of secularism was first established in Europe about two and a half centuries ago. It originated in the fifteenth century and, after two hundred and fifty years of struggle, was established as a victorious ideology in the first half of the eighteenth century.
The Condition of Europe at That Time
It is impossible to understand the history of secularism without a proper understanding of the conditions prevailing at that time in Europe, its birthplace. In the fifteenth century, the pursuit of knowledge and science had only just begun in Europe. In those days, Muslims held the leadership in every field of knowledge and science. Just as we nowadays turn to Europe and America to acquire advanced knowledge, until the fourteenth century Europeans likewise had to throng to Alhambra, Córdoba, and Granada in search of knowledge.
Greek civilization had led the field of knowledge and science in the pre-Christian era. From the seventh century onward, Muslims established their dominance in every branch and sub-branch of knowledge and science. Many fields of modern science were creations of Muslim civilization. Until before the fifteenth century, Europe remained in the darkness of ignorance. Europeans received their first lessons in knowledge and science from the Muslims. But after the twelfth century, Muslims abandoned the pursuit of knowledge and science and gave themselves over to luxury. For several centuries, their lives continued along conventional lines, relying on the store of knowledge acquired through the efforts of their forefathers. Europe, on the other hand, continued advancing in the pursuit of new knowledge on the basis of the light of knowledge it had received from the Muslims.
At that time, Europe was ruled by Christian priests. In the name of religion, the priests reigned as absolute masters over every sphere of human life. Yet the Qur’an had declared as early as the sixth century that they did not possess Allah’s pure revelation. The priests introduced their own views in the name of God. They demanded unconditional obedience from people in the name of religion, and because political power was in their hands, they enforced obedience by sheer force. In seeking to influence every aspect of life, they forcibly imposed their own opinions on every matter.
The Struggle Between Religion and Science
When the pursuit of new knowledge emerged in Europe, the priests’ fabricated, unresearched opinions were proven false to researchers. As the mysteries of creation continued to be unveiled, the disagreement between the priests and seekers of knowledge became increasingly pronounced. Every new view of the scientists continued to prove the errors of the ruling priests. The priests, finding themselves helpless, began invoking religion and, by wielding their governing power, began subduing researchers through inhuman punishments ranging from flogging to execution. Hundreds of knowledge-seekers, like Galileo, suffered severe punishment for the alleged sin of denying the priests’ deity.
The natural reaction was inevitable. Rebellion began to take shape among the learned and thoughtful against this oppression of seekers of knowledge based on thought and research. The more the errors of the priests’ fabricated opinions were demonstrated, the stronger this rebellious force became. The priests’ irreligious conduct in the name of religion created intense hostility toward religion in the minds of the rebels. They reached the extreme conclusion that religion was opposed to every kind of welfare for humanity.
The Church versus the State
With tremendous self-confidence and complete recklessness, the rebels openly declared a struggle against the priests. The priests (the Church), invoking religion and relying on the fanatical masses, mounted a firm resistance with the power of the state. The rebels, meanwhile, advanced with the resolve to expel the priests from every sphere of life. This historic, bloody struggle continued for two long centuries (the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries). To students of history, it is known as the struggle of ‘the Church versus the State.’
The continuous struggle of two hundred years proved that religious belief cannot be destroyed by force. Just as belief cannot be forcibly created in the hearts of those who do not believe in Allah, believers cannot be turned into unbelievers through the use of force. Both sides became embarrassed. Thereafter, under the leadership of the reformers, efforts at compromise between the two sides gained momentum.
The Compromise Proposal
The movement led by Martin Luther became known as the ‘Compromise Movement.’ Its proposal was that “religion should remain confined to people’s personal lives, and the power to direct and control people’s religious affairs should remain in the hands of the Church. But authority and leadership over every aspect of the worldly life of society should be vested in the state, and the Church should have no precedence in any worldly matter. Of course, the leaders of the state would have to swear before the Church to undertake the responsibility of governing the state.”
After considering every aspect, both sides agreed to accept this proposal. The priests were aware of their own situation. They understood that leadership could not continue with the support of fanatical masses alone, without the backing of thoughtful members of society. In particular, after waging a two-hundred-year struggle, they completely abandoned hope of victory. Since the proposal that state rulers swear an oath in the Church provided some means of preserving the priests’ honor, they agreed to relinquish power honorably. The rebels, on the other hand, had been advancing toward victory with the vow of overthrowing religion, yet they agreed to this compromise on the reasoning that if religion and the Church had no precedence in any sphere of worldly life, there was no reason to fear this snake without fangs. Therefore, they were prepared to grant the Church precedence in religious matters. The enemies of religion also had no objection to state rulers swearing before the Church. They did not hesitate to offer this otherworldly and worthless bribe to the deposed priests in their helpless condition.
A Matter for Consideration
In this way, the ‘noble plan’ to exile religion from social life achieved complete success after a prolonged struggle. The following points concerning this successful movement of secularism must be considered with particular importance:
(1) In the country where the secular movement began, Christian clergymen held precedence in every sphere of life. The teachings of Islam had not entered there. It is a historical fact that, for worldly needs, Europe acquired considerable knowledge from Muslims about material and physical life, but it did not accept the teachings of Islam or the Islamic way of life at all. That was the age of the Muslims’ decline. The reason for that decline was that they failed to uphold Islam in the world as a complete way of life. Although Islam’s influence, inherited from the past, remained considerable in various aspects of the personal and social lives of Muslims in that era, it no longer remained such a vibrant and attractive force as could draw Europeans to it. If Muslim scholars had presented Islam to their European students as a sound way of life, Europe’s renaissance might have flowed in a different direction. Instead of the priests’ fabricated religion disappearing and secularism being established there, it might not have been impossible for the Islamic way of life itself to be implemented.
(2) The Christian priests did not possess Allah’s revelation. What they propagated in the name of religion was not the religion chosen by Allah. They had based their religious doctrines on Greek philosophy and science. When the progressive development of modern knowledge and science began to prove the premises of their doctrines false and doubtful, they concluded that the original religion itself had been rejected.
Thus, quite naturally, they began opposing the new learning and movement, and in this matter they abandoned reason and resorted to force. In reality, this struggle of science was not against religion; it was science’s rebellion against the priests. But because the new seekers of knowledge were ignorant of true religion, they declared jihad against religion itself. Thus, it was conclusively proved that this did not create any conflict between modern knowledge and science and Islam.
(3) None of the conclusions that modern science has reached so far on the basis of reason and evidence has been able to prove any decision of Allah and the Messenger false. The few matters in which scientific research appears contrary to Islamic principles remain only at the theoretical stage. None has been conclusively established by factual evidence.
Secularism in the Muslim World
No one has the ability to prove the three observations above false. Yet how did secularism spread throughout the Muslim world? A class of Muslims educated in modern learning considers Islam everywhere to be opposed to progress and development, just like the priests’ religion. An analysis of the causes yields the following facts:
1. Many of those who pursued knowledge in the Muslim world know less about Islam than many non-Muslim thinkers. They have memorized many large books, but perhaps did not have—or did not feel the need for—the opportunity to study the Qur’an and Hadith. On the other hand, most of those among Muslims who conducted research into the Qur’an and Hadith became incapable of providing competent leadership to the entire Muslim society because they did not study modern knowledge and science and lacked the opportunity to assess worldly life in every respect from an Islamic perspective. As a result of prolonged un-Islamic rule, it was natural that the leadership of people possessing an Islamic mind and character would be removed from every sphere of life. Consequently, leadership was established by Muslims rich in modern knowledge and science but empty of an Islamic mind. It is not at all surprising that such leadership would oppose establishing an Islamic social system and attempt by every means to clear the way for establishing secularism.
2. The history of human civilization proves that the engine of the pursuit of knowledge, the search for information, and thought and research is what pulls along this vast vehicle of the world. The thinkers and seekers are the drivers of that engine. All the passengers of the entire vehicle must move according to their will. As long as the Muslim nation led in the realm of thought, Islamic thought influenced humanity. The Islamic standards of truth and falsehood, beauty and ugliness, good and evil were then the only accepted standards. As a result of the secular movement, it is natural for Muslims deprived of Islamic knowledge to be swept away by the current of the present Godless thought. Therefore, it is not surprising that Muslims bearing Muslim names, and even many Muslims known as religious, should be influenced by the engine of modern knowledge, led by the West, which is pulling humanity forward at an irresistible speed.
Complete intellectual subservience has crippled Muslim leadership. By selling their moral and mental souls to Europe’s masters, they continue blindly following the West like loyal disciples. They do not seem to possess independent minds or eyes. They determine beauty and ugliness through the West’s eyes; calculate progress and decline with Europe’s brain; and judge good and evil with their masters’ minds.
If these mental offspring of Europe do not abandon mental servitude, then one day political servitude will descend upon the independent Muslim countries as its natural consequence. Despite being rich in natural resources, the Muslim countries are today, for this reason, on the way to becoming the economic and cultural slaves of various nations.
Secularism on the Standard of Reason
After reading the history of secularism, no one should assume that this ideology had never been prevalent anywhere in the world before the fifteenth century. In reality, the struggle between complete religion and secularism is eternal. Whenever the prophets and messengers raised their voices with the aim of establishing in human society the complete way of life received from Allah, the ruling class strongly opposed them on various pretexts. Nimrod in the time of Ibrahim (peace be upon him) and Pharaoh in the time of Musa (peace be upon him) fiercely opposed the complete religion. Yet they acknowledged Allah as the Creator. They never denied religion altogether. The chief priest in Nimrod’s court was Ibrahim’s (peace be upon him) father, Azar. They were utterly unwilling to accept Allah and religion as the directing force in every sphere of life. Thus, in modern terminology, they too must be called secularists. In the era of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), Abu Lahab and Abu Jahl were also secularists.
Secularism in the Light of Reason and Conscience
Neither ancient nor modern secularists have been able to make their ideology impregnable through sound reasoning from any angle. Instead of evidence and proof, they have always been compelled to take refuge in blind force. By applying governmental and financial power, they try to maintain secularism through sheer coercion. When tested on the touchstone of reason, no ideology appears as unscientific as secularism. Yet, remarkably, it is the secularists who appeal most to intelligence and knowledge. Therefore, secularism must be analyzed from the perspective of reason and conscience.
(1) If this world has a Creator, and if the natural laws given by Him are recognized as operative throughout the material universe, then what reason can there be for objecting to accepting this all-powerful Creator as an effective force in human life? Human beings have no power to alter even the smallest law in the natural world. They cannot even change their own physical laws as they wish and remain healthy. In these circumstances, how can the decision not to accept any system of laws from the Creator of the universe for establishing harmony and order in human life be regarded as reason-based? Why object to recognizing as the Lawgiver for humanity the One who has ordained laws of peace and stability in the living world, the plant world, and the solar system?
True secularists resort here to hypocrisy. Believing that the audacity to declare “There is no Allah” would not be wise, they adopt a crooked path of cunning. By acknowledging Allah in practice as a powerless, ineffectual being like a constitutional head, they have devised a remarkable strategy for deceiving believers in the Creator. In this way, a class of timid people, satisfied with a religion consisting solely of outward rites and rituals, believes that Allah can be pleased even while accepting secularism. The secularists who wield governmental power, meanwhile, try to survive through the support of these timid religious people. It is for this support alone that secular rulers verbally acknowledge Allah even though they disbelieve in Him.
(2) Secularists acknowledge Allah as entitled to obedience in personal life and declare that there is no need to obey Allah and religion in social life. The question here is: on what evidence do they confine Allah’s authority to the personal sphere? Has Allah given any indication anywhere concerning this? Has revelation come to any prophet stating that Allah will be satisfied if a person performs some worship, festivals, prayers, and fasts for Allah in personal life, while in other aspects of life Allah has no objection to everyone living as they please according to their own judgment? If Allah Himself has not confined His demand for obedience to people’s personal lives, then would it be sensible to disobey Allah in social life merely on the instructions of the secularists?
If Allah has not prescribed any code of conduct for human beings in their family, social, political, economic, and other spheres of life, then why is there any need to worship such a power even in one’s personal life? How will the impulse to pray to the One who cannot show the right path for conducting one’s life arise? In a problem-ridden worldly life, it is utterly meaningless to hope that the One who does not show us the path to peace will grant us peace in the Hereafter. Why should one think that, after creating the entire universe, He is unable to exercise authority over it? The whole created world operates under the rule of strict laws. Why have the audacity to confine obedience to the One who created these laws within the limits of temples, churches, and mosques? Can there be any justification for not recognizing Him as an active force in human life?
(3) It is utterly impossible that the One who governs all the visible and invisible creations, small and great, of this vast universe should have any deficiency in knowledge. Unless He were the All-Wise, Hakim, and All-Knowing, Alim, it would have been impossible for Him to maintain order in the firmament studded with countless planets and satellites. The One who created all the laws of science governing the complex human body is the only One capable of guiding humanity toward peace. Just as one must seek Allah’s natural laws for physical well-being, there is likewise no alternative to turning to Him for the proper ordering of personal and social life. What conclusion could be more unreasonable than saying that Allah exists but is not All-Knowing or is not present everywhere? Either Allah does not exist, or He is everywhere. To say that He is present in temples and mosques, but does not exist in courts and police offices, legislatures, or political and commercial affairs, is something only fools could be prepared to accept. Therefore, if one acknowledges Allah, one must accept Him as the Lawgiver in every sphere of life.
(4) The doctrine of observing religious injunctions in personal life while keeping social life free from the influence of religion is extremely sinister. Those who propagate this doctrine are unwilling to acknowledge the bonds of religion even in their personal lives. “If you accept that religion is a personal matter, why do you not follow religion even in your personal life?” When a secularist is asked this question, he invokes liberalism and says that asking such a question is also a social matter. Just as you have no right to ask how closely I follow religion in my personal life, you should not concern yourself with my personal life either. Thus, this strange doctrine of secularism is propagated as a very clever stratagem for denying religion. Therefore, there is essentially no difference between secularism and opposition to religion.
(5) The distinction that secularists draw between personal and social life is, from the perspective of social science, an utterly unscientific conclusion. Driven purely by ulterior motives, they deliberately uphold this anti-scientific doctrine. Where is the boundary between a person’s individual and social life? How can a human being, as a social creature, separate personal life from society? A person who is truthful for religious reasons will apply that truthfulness in social life. But if he is proved to be a liar while living socially with others, how can he be personally truthful? There is no way for someone to be of good or bad character only in personal life. Can someone be a thug in his personal life and yet be honest in political life? Can a person who is a bribe-taker and corrupt in social life be recognized as religious in his personal life? Every human being is connected, in every matter from birth to death, with one or more other people. There can be no aspect of his life that has no connection with another human being. Even when a person sits in solitude and thinks, he is not thereby separated from society. Whatever he does will certainly have some social consequence.
Society is the name for the mutual relationships among people. Those who are willing to follow religious injunctions personally—how can they deny religion in their mutual relationships? And if they do deny it, where is their acknowledgment of religion? Individuals will follow religion separately, but can it be accepted as reasonable to say that they will no longer acknowledge the influence of religion in their relationships with one another?
Secularism is completely contrary to reason in every respect. No one has the authority to allow Allah control over some sphere of life and exclude Him from others. This attempt to impose Section 144 on Allah across the vast field of human life outside places of worship is the product of a materialistic outlook on life.
Because the bonds of morality that religion instructs people to observe cannot be followed by secularist pleasure-seekers, they have found this clandestine route. To free life from the nuisance of morality and enjoy the cheap convenience of living an unrestricted life, they have no alternative but to turn religion into a personal matter. Thus, it goes without saying that this doctrine is not the product of human good will.
Consequences of Secularism
A study of the history of secularism makes it clear that it is not a positive ideology, but merely a negative outlook. This doctrine, which in the name of confining religion to people’s personal lives seeks to free human life from the influence of religion and Allah, should properly be called the absence of ideology. After freeing people from the bonds of religion and servitude to the Creator, this doctrine offers no indication of guiding them along any definite ideal. Deviating from the ideal of accepting the influence of religion in every sphere of life, this doctrine casts people into a state devoid of ideals. Therefore, secularism is not an ideal in itself; rather, it is nothing but the extreme absence of ideology.
1. Ideological Consequences
Human beings are such distinctive creatures that they must bear the burden of choosing what is good and bad for themselves in every matter. Unlike other living beings, they cannot develop fully of their own accord. Therefore, people have no alternative but to seek an ideal. When secularism leaves people without an ideal on an uncertain path, it creates a great void in their lives. Yet it is practically impossible for them to live without an ideal. As a result, many diverse and opposing ideals appear before them to fill this void. People are then compelled to seek ideals in political, economic, social, moral, and other spheres.
When people begin seeking ideals out of necessity, various thoughtful individuals separately devise diverse kinds of ideals. Since it is impossible for a single person to create a harmonious, comprehensive ideal suited to every aspect and sphere of human life, people are compelled to adopt ideals created by different people for different areas of life. In such circumstances, a harmonious life can never be possible. This ideological incompatibility is the most poisonous consequence of secularism.
2. Moral Consequences
Human beings are moral creatures. Moral values have given humanity a higher status than other living beings. Although law and governance create a certain degree of outward morality among people, morality cannot become strong in personal life unless a sense of morality is created within. To create this morality, it is necessary to believe in a Creator who is aware of human thoughts and actions in every circumstance and who will reward and punish people by dispensing justice in the Hereafter. Law only partially regulates people’s working lives. Religion alone can exert power over human will and instinct. Therefore, only religion is capable of fully regulating people’s conduct. A person devoid of moral character may rightly be called an animal in human form. Indeed, when a rational human being lacks character, he can be more harmful than an animal. Thus, secularism can cast humanity down to the lowest level of bestiality. This doctrine is merely a brutal ideal that unleashes the latent animality in the human body and severs the bonds of morality.
The civilization produced by secularism cannot, from a moral perspective, be suitable for humanity. The only support for awakening a sense of humanity is religious consciousness. Driven by animal impulses, people do try to use religion as an aid to evil inclinations, but humanity’s innate conception of good and evil is solely a contribution of religion. Moral injunctions are exclusively the commands of religion. If moral injunctions are to be made effective in human life, it is certainly not a wise decision to keep social life free from the influence of religion.
3. Consequences for Standards of Value
Values make human life truthful and cultured. If the responsibility for reaching correct judgments about civilized and uncivilized, good and bad, right, beautiful, and ugly matters is placed on the reason of every individual, then the people of the world will never find any eternal and everlasting standards of value. Only the Creator of humanity can determine eternal values. Two contradictory things cannot both be true at the same time. Yet people determine mutually contradictory values on the basis of knowledge founded solely on their own intellect. Drinking alcohol is either good or bad. Yet some people consider it good, while many others consider it bad. Unless people rely on the judgment of the One who knows the beginning and end of every object and action, they cannot determine the correct standards of value through their own intellect. Consequently, they may decide at one time that something is right and reject it at another time as wrong. Yet something cannot be right once and wrong later.
In January 1919, the American legislature passed a law declaring alcohol illegal through the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution. But in December 1933, the previous law was repealed and alcohol was declared legal through the Twenty-First Amendment. The purpose of both decisions was the welfare of the nation. Yet the value of alcohol remained the same under both contradictory decisions. Thus, people can make mistakes in determining values. Values never change. If arrangements are made to abandon religion in almost every sphere of life, where will these eternal values be found? The condition that human life faces when it is unable to determine the correct values can be understood from the level of humanity displayed by modern secular nations.
As a result of secularism, people are bound to become slaves of their instincts. Moreover, the personal interests, partisan opportunism, tribal gains and losses, and racial, national, and regional narrowness that are plunging world humanity into a complex disease can be perceived by thoughtful people through real experience. Modern science is being used to provide people with tremendous power. Therefore, the decision to abandon the influence of religion continues to pave the way for the destruction of humanity.
4. Consequences of Secular Rule
Governing power is a tool through which the public may be given the opportunity to live peacefully, or may be subjected to extreme oppression. In every system of government, rulers control the production and distribution of all the state’s wealth and resources. By making laws, they can exert tremendous influence over the entirety of citizens’ lives. The honor and dignity of the general public depend completely on the judicial system they administer. The key to shaping the future minds and intellects of the nation through the education system is also entrusted to them. Especially in the modern age, the happiness and sorrow, honor and humiliation, progress and decline of citizens’ entire lives depend to a great extent on the wishes, inclinations, and outlooks of state administrators and rulers.
In such circumstances, if the ruling class is free from servitude to Allah and the bonds of religion, if it has no sense of accountability before the Creator of the world, and if it disbelieves in reward and punishment in the Hereafter, then it will undoubtedly follow opportunistic policies. Its character will be utterly unreliable. It will make decisions on every matter on the basis of its worldly gains and losses. It will be prepared to take any step to retain power. For self-aggrandizement and to serve its own interests, it will use the machinery of government arbitrarily. Its entire character will be devoted not to serving people, but to serving itself. It will serve the people merely to avoid a popular revolution and out of fear of losing public support. Here too, the ultimate purpose is self-interest.
The great difference between the rule of those whose lives are governed by belief in Allah and the Hereafter and the rule of secularists is both logical and historically true. The rule of those who have accepted religion in practical life will naturally differ from the rule of the irreligious. Even in the long history of Muslim rule, a wide difference in people’s lives was evident during the eras of religious and irreligious rulers. The ruling person is society’s broadest and strongest force. This immense power can be controlled only by fear of Allah and the Hereafter, the law of Allah and the Messenger, and religious injunctions. Public opinion also partly controls governing power. But the conduct of secular rulers is controlled solely by public opinion. Consequently, with the help of the propaganda machinery and the magic of power, they can corrupt public opinion and often pass off injustice as justice. Thus, secular rule seeks only to remain in power by deceiving the people.
5. Religious Consequences
An entity that is dispossessed from every sphere of human society and imprisoned in places of worship cannot even maintain its own existence. People’s neglect of such a weak entity is entirely natural. When people, tormented by countless problems of life, remain constantly restless in search of deliverance, what good is it to show them only fear of the Hereafter without offering any practical solution? If the god who does not show me a way out of the problem-ridden conditions of daily life merely sits in a temple and demands worship from me, why should I love him? If the God who leaves me helpless in a problem-ridden world throughout the week and peacefully enjoys his sleep then claims my obedience only on Sunday in church, by what right does he do so? If someone denies the existence of such an idle, selfish, and unnecessary entity, by what reasoning can he be declared guilty?
Those who call people to believe in such a god themselves take the place of god in practice and, as a religious service on behalf of a helpless and voiceless god, issue rules themselves. Since human beings lack the ability to formulate a harmonious code suitable for every sphere of life, the injunctions composed by those religious leaders cannot do justice to humanity. Consequently, god is used as a means of oppressing the wider human society by providing religious support for politically entrenched interests. At that point, people have no choice but to deny such an oppressive god.
When Karl Marx raised his voice against the vile capitalism in Europe that, with the support of Christian religious leaders, had bound the masses in the shackles of economic slavery to a certain class, it was resisted by invoking that church’s man-made religion. Seeing the oppressed masses being used in the name of religion against their own liberation, Karl Marx declared that religion was a kind of opium that deprived people of their capacity to distinguish right from wrong. The religious leaders then invoked their weak god as the sole support of religion. Marx then declared that god was humanity’s greatest enemy.
Karl Marx’s doctrine is not harmonious because it does not provide a comprehensive code for human life, and because he studied human problems solely from an economic perspective, the solutions he formulated could not liberate humanity. In the name of economic freedom, he showed people the genuine path to becoming completely enslaved to other people. But his revolt against religion and god was a reaction to the artificial religion of Christian priests. After banishing god from every sphere of life and confining him to the church, what need could there be for god in life other than to present him as a supporter of political and economic oppression? Thus, in practice, secularism drives people toward atheism. Atheism is, in fact, the natural consequence of secularism. Secularism is god’s initial retreat, while atheism is his ultimate defeat. Therefore, secularism is the path of extreme irreligion and the greatest enemy of religion.
Islam versus Secularism
The god of secularism is a creation of human interests. But the conception of Allah that Islam presents is not a human fabrication. The Allah of the Quran does not sit in a place of worship demanding worship from people. Nor does He possess the weak attitude of compromising with anyone merely to preserve His own existence. He commands people to accept Him as their Creator and Sustainer. Along with being Merciful and Compassionate, He also claims to be All-Powerful and All-Knowing. He is not in need of people’s worship and praise. Likewise, even if everyone were madly in love with Him, He would gain no benefit from it.
Through His final Prophet, Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him), the Allah of Islam established in practice for all humanity such a complete and flawless way of life that no avenue remains for denying its historical truth. The harmonious way of life that Islam has presented, beginning with personal life and extending to the family, social, economic, political, and international spheres, remains preserved in the Quran and Sunnah even today. In fourteen hundred years, no fabrication has been able to enter the Quran. It declares that this Quran is capable of guiding people in every age and every land. The Quran has repeatedly challenged that it is never possible to formulate a way of life superior to the code given by Allah.
If it were possible to distort the Quran sent in the Arabic language, Islam might perhaps have been transformed into a secular doctrine. If translating the Quran into other languages could sever people’s relationship with the original Quran, the way toward establishing secularism might perhaps have been made easier. But no successful translation can replace the Quran. Muslims believe only the Quran sent in the Arabic language to be the Quran. No attempt to uproot this belief has succeeded anywhere. However much people may try to drive others toward secularism through erroneous translations of the Quran, as long as the original Quran remains intact, its correct translation will continue to be produced and those errors will continue to be resisted. The more secularism tries to confine religion to a personal matter, the more firmly the Quran will continue to call people to a complete way of life. Therefore, this doctrine has no capacity to wage a battle with Islam.
The system established by Kamal Pasha to confine Islam to personal life and free social life from the influence of the Quran has failed. Kamal Pasha adopted the path of secularism as a reaction to the wrongdoing that had been carried out in the name of Islam. But instead of establishing true Islam in place of distorted Islam, he blindly imitated Europe, waged a campaign against the Arabic language and script, and planned to remove Islam from practical life like Christianity. The new stream of Arabic and Islamic education that developed in Turkey twenty-five or thirty years later proclaimed the failure of Kamal’s plan. That is why Islam stands as an insurmountable obstacle in the path of secularism’s victory. Since it is impossible to destroy the Quran, it is likewise impossible to transform Islam into a secular doctrine. The Quran has given such clear injunctions for every sphere of human life that, while the original Quran remains intact, no one has the power to drive Islam out of social life through force of argument. It can, of course, be temporarily suppressed by military force.
Muslims and Secularism
After the foregoing discussion about the secularist doctrine, there is no alternative but to acknowledge that it is unnatural for anyone who believes in Islam to hold a secular outlook. Just as the expression “Muslim atheist” is ridiculous, so too is the expression “secular Muslim” amusing. Nevertheless, although a nominal Muslim may be as secular as a non-Muslim, he is recognized as a Muslim solely by virtue of his name. In Muslim society, there are even Muslims—simply because they are children of Muslim parents—who are not only secular but also have no concern for Allah, the Messenger, or the Hereafter. Far from observing Islam’s injunctions in their personal lives, they believe that the Qur’an is medieval and entirely unsuitable for observance in the modern world. If such people can become leaders in Muslim society, then it is certainly not difficult for so-called secular Muslims to attain leadership and authority in society.
But can any secularist scholar produce even one piece of evidence from the Qur’an and the life of the Messenger in support of his doctrine? People of this kind should choose one of two paths. The Qur’an has clearly instructed: “Enter into Islam completely.” For those who wish to remain Muslims, the only honorable and truthful course is to follow the command and sincerely accept the Islamic way of life in every sphere of life. But if someone dislikes Islam, the Qur’an neither forces him to become a Muslim nor grants him the right to refuse to accept Islam in practice while calling himself a Muslim. No aspect of the life of a person capable of such mistreatment of the Qur’an can be expected to contain honesty.
Types of Secularists
Secularists can be broadly divided into two classes. One class may be called cunning and clever, while, to give the other class an appropriate description, it is best to call them “fools.” The identity of the cunning secularists is very clear. They do proclaim that religion is a personal matter, but many of them show no trace of religion in their personal lives. In reality, they regard religion as utterly unnecessary, but, driven by the demands of social status, political advantage, and other worldly needs, they give religion verbal recognition.
Foolish secularists are truly objects of pity. They perform the prayer, fasting, Qur’an recitation, tasbih, dhikr, and other practices with great devotion, but feel no urge whatsoever to follow Islamic injunctions in social, political, economic, and other spheres.
The stern warning that the Qur’an has issued to those who are content with only some Islamic practices instead of accepting Allah’s Book in its entirety is sufficient to make the heart of any true Muslim tremble. Allah, the Exalted, says: “Do you believe in some parts of the Book and disbelieve in other parts? What recompense can there be for those who do this, other than disgrace and humiliation in this worldly life? Then, in the Hereafter, they will be driven toward a terrible punishment.”
— End —