Crisis of Modern Secularism: Why Societies Need a Moral Religious Law?
There is no doubt that countless
Muslims passionately desire a sociopolitical development on Islamic lines; but
there is also no doubt that in the mental climate of the modern world it has
become almost axiomatic among many educated people that religion ought not to interfere with political life. And, while the principle
of “secularism” is automatically identified with “progress,” every suggestion
to consider practical politics and socioeconomic planning under the aspect of
religion is dismissed out of hand as reactionary or, at best, as “impractical
idealism.” Apparently, many educated Muslims share this view today; and in
this, as in so many other phases of our contemporary life, the influence of
Western thought is unmistakable.
How the West Lost Trust in Religion
For reasons of their own, the
people of the West have
become disappointed with religion (their religion), and this disappointment is
reflected in the ethical, social, and political chaos now pervading a large
part of the world. Instead of submitting their decisions and actions to the
criterion of a moral law-which is the ultimate aim of every higher
religion-these people have come to regard expediency (in the short-term,
practical connotation of the word) as the only obligation to which public
affairs should be subjected; and because the ideas as to what is expedient
naturally differ in every group, nation, and community, the most bewildering
conflicts of interest have come to the fore in the political field, both
national and international.
For, obviously, what appears to
be expedient from a purely practical point of view to one group or nation need
not be expedient to another group or nation. Thus, unless men submit their
endeavors to the guidance of an objective, moral consideration, their
respective interests must clash at some point or other; and the more they
struggle against one another, the wider their interests diverge and the more
antagonistic become their ideas as to what is right and what is wrong in the
dealings of men.
Why Secular States Cannot Define Right and Wrong
Briefly, in a modern “secular”
state there is no stable norm by which to judge between good and evil, and
between right and wrong. The only possible criterion is the “nation's interest.”
But in the absence of an objective scale of moral values, different groups of
people even within one nation may have, and usually do have, widely divergent
views as to what constitutes the nation's best interests.
While a capitalist may quite
sincerely believe that civilization will perish if economic liberalism is
superseded by socialism, a socialist is as sincerely of the opinion that the
very maintenance of civilization depends on the abolition of capitalism and its
supersession by socialism. Both make their ethical views-that is to say, the
views as to what should and what should not be done to and with human
beings-dependent solely on their economic views, with the resultant chaos in
their mutual relations.
It has become evident that none
of the contemporary Western political systems-economic liberalism, communism, national
socialism, social democracy, and so forth-is able to transform that chaos into
something resembling order: simply because none of them has ever made a serious
attempt to consider political and social problems in the light of absolute
moral principles.
The Failure of Modern Ideologies to Produce Moral Order
Instead, each of these systems
bases its conception of right and wrong on nothing but the supposed interests
of this or that class or group or nation-in other words, on people's changeable
(and, indeed, continuously changing) material preferences. If we were to admit
that this is a natural and therefore desirable state of man's affairs, we would
admit, by implication, that the terms “right” and “wrong” have no real validity
of their own but are merely convenient fictions, fashioned exclusively by time
and socioeconomic circumstances.
In logical pursuance of this
thought, one would have no choice but to deny the existence of any moral
obligation in human life: for the very concept of moral obligation becomes
meaningless if it is not conceived as something absolute. As soon as we become
convinced that our views about right and wrong or good and evil are only
man-made, changeable products of social convention and environment, we cannot
possibly use them as reliable guides in our affairs; and so, in planning those
affairs, we gradually learn to dispense with all moral guidance and to rely on
expediency alone-which, in turn, leads to ever-growing dissensions within and
between human groups and to a progressive decrease in the amount of happiness
vouchsafed to man. This is, perhaps, the ultimate explanation of the deep
disquiet which is apparent throughout the modern world.
Societies Cannot Unite Without a Shared Moral Law
No nation or community can know
happiness unless and until it is truly united from
within; and no nation or community can be truly united from within unless it
achieves a large degree of unanimity as to what is right and what is wrong in
the affairs of men; and no such unanimity is possible unless the nation or
community agrees on a moral obligation arising from a permanent, absolute moral
law. Obviously, it is religion alone that can provide such a law and, with it,
the basis for an agreement, within any one group, on a moral obligation binding
on all members of that group.
For Further Reading:
- The Evolution of Islamic Sharia Politics
- Islamic Approach to Political Reform
- Book Review: “Islam and the West” by Abu al-Hasan al-Nadwi
-------------------------------------------------------------
Taken from: “The Principles of State and Government in Islam” book by Muhammad Asad
