Jane Lampman has an article on the Christian Science titled: Muslim reformer’s ‘heresy’: The Islamic state is a dead end. It begins:
Abdullahi Ahmed an-Naim has seen what can happen to an Islamic reformer: His mentor was executed in 1985 in Sudan; he himself had to flee the country. Still, the self-described “Muslim heretic” has no trouble traveling the Islamic world spreading his controversial message:
There is no such thing as an Islamic state.
A secular state and human rights are essential for all societies so that Muslims and others can practice their faith freely, he tells his co-religionists.
“My motivation is in fact about being an honest, true-to-myself Muslim, rather than someone complying with state dictates,” says Mr. Naim, a professor of law at Emory University in Atlanta since 1999. “I need the state to be neutral about religious doctrine so that I can be the Muslim I choose to be.” . . .
So what does Islamic mean? To call a state Islamic is to attempt to silence political or theological dissent, he says.
“Most Muslims have an intuitive feeling about this but can’t articulate it, so when confronted by Islamists who say this is the will of God, they are defenseless,” Naim says. “My hope is that with this book, we give people confidence to respond that “this is not Islam, it is your view of Islam.”
. . . One huge challenge is the negative connotation in the Muslim world of “secularism,” often seen as being antireligion . . .
It is obvious to most Western observers and lovers of religious freedom that the Islamic state, in whatever form, poses a grave threat since a common denominator of such states is the required suppression of non-Muslims.
Meanwhile, as is the case above, the “secular state” is praised as the savior of religious freedom. Yet, history demonstrates that a “secular state” also comes in many forms and has often been a virulent oppressor of religious freedom.
It seems we must look elsewhere to identify the recipe that truly yields a virtuous and free state.
