Aydin Ali-zade. The attitude of Islam to secular forms of state power

As you know, the idea of ​​a secular model of government originated in Europe as an alternative to Christian theocracy and dogmatic worldview, and was the logical conclusion of the process of secularization in European society [1, p. 15-24]. All these European secular tendencies began to gradually move to the Islamic world, in many regions of which there was also a desire for secularization and borrowing European experience in replacing the theocratic model of power with a secular one, a dogmatic worldview with a dialectical one. In particular, such tendencies were strong in those regions of the Islamic world that were in direct contact with European countries, or, due to certain circumstances, fell under colonial dependence on them. Thus, secular and secular tendencies swept the Ottoman Empire, some regions of North Africa, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. And later, secular tendencies to one degree or another spread to almost the entire Islamic world.

The secular model of government and the secular worldview (laicism) became official in Turkey, where these concepts were applied at the doctrinal and theoretical level to the state where the predominant religion is Islam. That is, Turkish laicism became the first fundamental secular and secular doctrine in the Muslim world. In addition to Turkey, secular ideology officially operates in some Arab countries, as well as in the Muslim republics of the former USSR - Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, where they were formed under the communist regime, which is an extreme manifestation of secular and secular ideas.

The secular worldview does not recognize any of the religious denominations as official. For him, all religions are equal. State and religious institutions operate separately and do not interfere in each other's affairs. But, at the same time, existing in the state, religion cannot become completely independent of it. Therefore, in reality, it has an autonomous status. A secular state recognizes complete freedom of religion, the implementation of all religious holidays and rites. Believers have the right to receive religious education and to propagate their faith within the limits of the law. The state also ensures the protection of religious institutions and the rights of believers. [2, c. 97, 167].

There are different opinions regarding the acceptability of the ideas of secularism and the separation of the state from religion to the provisions of the Islamic religion. Most Islamic theorists are confident that these ideas are alien to Islam and contrary to its principles. For example, the modern Muslim researcher Ahmet Merdzhan classifies both democratic and secular methods of government as pagan. He writes that the European society, which sought to free itself from the dictates of Christian religious leaders and monarchs, saw in them a means to gain freedom. However, in his opinion, all these principles turned out to be good only in theory, since the dictatorship of various financial circles was established in the new world order, which used the possibilities of the new order to assert their interests. In Muslim countries, the principles of democracy do not correspond to the Islamic worldview, since Islam is a universal and comprehensive Divine religion that seeks to establish the ideal principles of society, in contrast to the evolving ideas of democracy contrived by people in Europe.

The secular ideas of Western democracy, according to a significant part of Muslim analysts, are not acceptable because the foundations of their legislation are laws that come from the passions and whims of man. When making them, people rely only on the arguments of their mind and their knowledge, while neither one nor the other is absolute. On the contrary, they are imperfect and prone to error and error. In accordance with their understanding, people change and introduce more and more new laws. But in fact, all this leads to lawlessness. Such a system of values, which is focused only on the material needs of a person and his momentary whims, deprives individuals and societies of the spirit, the true meaning of life. [3, c. 25-29]

However, in the Muslim world there are also supporters of the ideas of laicism, who, in particular, justify secular methods and principles of separating religion from the state with the following verses of the Koran: "And I do not worship what you worship, and you will not worship what I will worship! you have your faith, and I have mine" (109:4-6). In this regard, Ahmet Merjan, mentioned earlier, is subjecting religious and public figures of the Muslim world, who support the idea of ​​separating the state from religion, to fierce criticism. He writes that in order to substantiate the ideas of a secular state, they create religious ministries and other structures controlled by the godless authorities, in which they propagate the idea that secularism (laicism) is not atheism. He calls all the people who work in these structures, the priests of the state cult, who receive wages from the godless state for their activities. [3, p. 28].

There are also assertions that the ideas of a secular state system are more acceptable to the Christian worldview than to the Muslim one due to the fact that in its doctrine there are certain hints at the separation of the functions of state and religious power (the principle: Caesar's to Caesar, and God's to God;) . However, in fact, this is not true, since the Christian church compromised with the authorities only in the very early period of its history, when its followers were a minority in the Roman Empire. She simply had no other choice. But, after the victory of Christianity, the religious worldview and orders covered almost all spheres of the social and political life of Europe. Theocratic regimes were established everywhere. European sovereigns and clerics ruled the people in the name of God. All these processes gave rise to the desire for secularization and freedom from religious dogmatism. In the fight against the progressive ideas that spread in Europe after the Renaissance, the Christian Church took severe repressive measures to maintain its influence and prevent the process of deepening secularization.

According to the supporters of laicism, in the Muslim world after the period of the righteous caliphs, processes of theocratization of states and the establishment of monarchical regimes, completely similar to those in the Christian world, took place. In many cases, the socio-political life in these states was regulated not so much by the provisions of Sharia, but by traditional, folk methods. The decisive role in lawmaking was played by such aspects as political or economic realities or the whim of monarchs, who adapted the orders they liked to the requirements of religious law.

All these processes of departure from the classical foundations of Islam led to the dogmatization of state and public institutions, the establishment of theocratic regimes in the Muslim world, which were more reminiscent of the political models of Byzantium and other Christian states than the Caliphate during the reign of the Righteous Caliphs. It is quite natural that over time such orders came into conflict with social progress and laid the foundation for the processes of secularization (laicism). "The transition of the Caliphate of the Righteous Caliphs to a monarchy under the Umayyads entailed a process of adapting religious law to new realities. That is, from that moment on, it was no longer the state that obeyed God's Law, but, on the contrary, God's laws were made dependent on the ruling dynasty. Things got to the point that such the greatest authoritative religious theorists, thinkers, jurists as Abu Hanifa or Malik ibn Anas did not recognize such a state as Sharia and refused to hold public positions in its structures.The Shiite dynasties - Fatimids and Buwayhids - pursued a policy completely similar to the Umayyads and Abbasids.[4, 323].

Already in the Middle Ages, Muslim thinkers and jurists openly wrote about all this. For example, Ibn Khaldun in his famous work "Mukaddimah" wrote that there are two types of government. The first is truly Sharia. It corresponded to all the provisions of the Divine Law and existed for only about 30 years during the reign of the Righteous Caliphs. The second type of government is based on the wishes and whims of various monarchs or other rulers who can rule based on reasons of reason, historical or political expediency [5, p. 603, 740].

In this regard, adherents of laicism believe that the processes that later led to secular and secular tendencies arose simultaneously with the establishment of the power of Muawiyah and the Umayyad dynasty. Indeed, after that, the ruling monarchs led an idle lifestyle, their orders and instructions often contradicted the provisions of Shariah, and therefore their regimes cannot be called fully in line with Divine principles. The rulers who tried to adhere to the provisions of the Sharia, constituted an insignificant minority in the subsequent history of Muslim states.

All these processes were reflected in the provisions of Muslim law, which was not fully applied. For example, such types of offenses as adultery or theft in most cases were not punishable by death by stoning (rejm) or cutting off limbs, as prescribed by Shariah.

All this led to a gradual decrease in the role and place of religious values ​​in society, their substitution by the will of earthly rulers. Over time, this process moved into a phase of secularization, which became not so much an uprising of the progressive Muslim society against Divine laws, but a protest against the theocratic-monarchist methods of government, which began to hamper the natural development of societies. Therefore, the advanced part of the intelligentsia of Muslim countries expressed their desire to borrow their experience from Europeans. They applied the principles of secularism and secularism to their societies.

Thus, we can conclude that since the period of the early history of Islam, the true Divine government of the state has been replaced to one degree or another by monarchical methods of government. Therefore, religion, since then, has become the property of the individual faith of citizens, which has never been fully manifested at the state level. In this sense, the secular authorities did not restrict the beliefs of the people. "As Academician V.V. Bartold showed, elements of secular government, and sometimes even their predominance, took place both in the initial period of the spread of Islam and later, in particular, in the first centuries of the existence of the Ottoman state" [6, p. 77].

Thus, secular power and securialization can be considered as a natural consequence of the crisis of monarchical-theocratic models of statehood, which did not correspond to the original principles of classical Islamic statehood during the reign of the Righteous Caliphs. Secular tendencies also dealt a blow not to the foundations of classical Islamic dogma, but to various numerous currents and sects that had a great influence in various areas of the Islamic world, including Turkey. They opposed the progress of these countries and turned into a destructive and reactionary force. Noting this important point, the first president of Turkey, Kemal Ataturk, wrote: "The Turkish Republic should not be a country of sheikhs, dervishes, murids, a country of religious sects" (Ataturkden dusunceller. Ankara, 1974, p. 48) [6, p. 87].

Conclusions:

1. Secular power and secularization can be viewed as a natural consequence of the crisis of monarchical-theocratic statehood models that did not correspond to the original principles of classical Islamic statehood during the Caliphate period of the Righteous Caliphs.

2. Secularism in the Islamic world was a natural consequence of the oblivion of the original Islamic values, as well as the crisis of the dogmatic-religious worldview. It was a response of the progressive figures of the Islamic world to backwardness, sectarianism, perverted mysticism, tyranny, which for many centuries were inherent in various Muslim societies.

3. Despite the criticism of the principles of secularism by some Muslim figures, it should be noted that the secular principle of building a state is no more contrary to the principles of classical Islam than tyranny, dictatorship, absolutism, which accompany the centuries-old history of the Muslim world.

4. The penetration of European secular tendencies into the worldview of the Muslim world was a natural process, since the foundations and essence of the state structure of Christian absolutist regimes in Europe and the Muslim world were the same. Therefore, the methods of counteracting this absolutism also had to coincide.

Literature:

1. Sezen Y. Turkish society's understanding of secularism. Istanbul, 1993.

2. Bashgil AF Religion and Secularism. Istanbul, 1962.

3. Mercan A. State Consciousness. Istanbul, 1996.

4. Our Problems with Turkish-Islamic Synthesis as we Enter a New Era. S. 1. Istanbul, 1988.

5. Ibn Khaldun. To the introduction. Istanbul, 1982.

6. Islam in the Near and Middle East. Digest of articles. M., "Science", 1982.