• Islam FAQ • What is Islam? • Who was Muhammad? • Muslim Scriptures • Muslim Beliefs • Islam & Jihad • Sects of Islam • Extremists in Islam • Islamic Countries • Glossary of Islam

• Site Resources • Main Site Index • What is Atheism? • Religion & Theism • Skepticism & Logic • Arguments for / against Gods • Evolution vs. Creationism • Religious Timelines • Hate Mail • Glossary • Book Reviews

For Christians, there has always been a distinction between church and state. True, they have not always remained separate - very often they have supported each other, usually to the detriment of both. Nevertheless, going all the way back to Jesus' admonition to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's," it has always been a basic part of Christian doctrine that the church and the state represent very different spheres of life.

In addition, Christianity also had about 300 years to develop its theology before it joined in a union with state power. Once the Christian Roman Empire became an institution, many Christian doctrines were already established, meaning that those doctrines were developed in an environment of powerlessness.

But this is not the case in Islam. Muhammad was his own Constantine. This history of mosque/state relationships has always been complex, but for most Muslims, mosque and state have ideally always been pretty much the same thing. Muhammad did not simply found a religious movement - what he founded was a community, the ummah of believers. He was arbiter, judge, military commander, political leader, and so much more.

Because Muahmmad reported revelations from God, he was also fundamentally a legislator for the community. Initially his pronouncements involved mostly warnings for nonbelievers and explanations about how people should best revere God. But later on, they also included more and more about social issues and rules about how to run community life. Muhammad was replacing tribal loyalty with a new loyalty, and it had to be all-encompassing.

This, at least, was always the ideal - and it is this ideal of a totally united ummah, where religion and politics know no distinction, which animates Muslim fundamentalists of all types. Unfortunately, the ideal was not held to for very long, and according to those extremists this is the source of all the woes which have befallen Muslims over the centuries.

So where did things start going wrong? When Muhammad died, that was the end of the revelations from God. The community needed to find a successor, but anyone following in Muhammad's footsteps would necessarily be inferior. Some, like the Karhijites, refused to accept any successor who was not appointed directly by God.

Some insisted that only someone from Muhammad's family would be acceptable, and argued that Muhammad had indicated that 'Ali should lead; but because 'Ali was not immediately appointed successor, his supporters became disaffected from the rest of the community and even today represent the largest minority sect in Islam, the Shi'ites.

Most Muslims, however, accepted having someone else lead the community - but in doing so, a practical separation between political and religious power was created. Because this successor was not appointed by God and provided no further revelations, he was not necessarily a truly religious leader. Others in the community took on that job; and because the political leader was ideally supposed to follow what the religious leaders dictated, there was also supposed to be a unity of politics and religion.

But in practice, such a unity has always been relatively rare. Political leaders have had to make decisions based upon political necessity, and that sometimes requires ignoring religious demands. Indeed, many of the reform and revolutionary movements through the history of Islam have been inspired by the complaint that the political leaders have paid insufficient attention to the laws of God.

Another fact which has contributed to a practical separation of politics and religion is the idea that no human can truly judge another as being a "sinner." Such a judgement is up to God, because only God knows what lies in a person's heart. But if the community cannot judge a person like that, this means that they also cannot judge a political leader like that, thus leading to the principle that the community of believers should accept the authority of any leader, even if he appears unjust.

This, then, is the duality which the majority of Muslims have had to live with. Their ideal has always been that politics and religion should be inseparable because all of the laws the community needs have already been delivered to us either through the revelation of God, or through the practice of God's Prophet Muhammad. Anything which attempts to replace these laws is little more than apostasy.

But, in practice, such ideals have been difficult to maintain and most political leaders have pursued goals even when they have conflicted with religion. They have always had, and have often used, the ability to sway public opinion by engaging in reforms which ostensibly further the interests of religion. Thus, the "separation" has always been one of convenience for the political rulers - they diverge from religious demands when they find it appropriate, and follow it when appropriate. But rarely has there ever been a genuine theocratic government in which Islam has been instituted completely.