Introduction
The church and the state have always enjoyed a close relationship, but the treaty of Westphalia was signed in 1648 to separate the two following claims that the separation would spur social development, particularly in regards to enlightenment. Before then, the state implemented some of the rules and regulations that the church leaders formulated mainly because it has coercive power.
Scholars and political leaders demanded the separation of the state from the church in Europe because people were forced to obey some the rules formulated without questioning their authenticity and legality. The divide generated claims that there needs to be a separate set of laws on religious morality, which are different from secular laws.
Through secularization, it was the view of many individuals that the society would achieve democratic ideals, which is a precondition for modernization. Based on this, the development of universal human rights was possible. In the modern world, western scholars and leaders believe that the Muslim world can perhaps achieve modernity through secularization of politics, economic issues, and social life.
Following the 9/11 attack on the American twin towers, many western leaders demanded for secular democracy in various Islamic counties in order to encourage reforms.
Even though reforming the politics and economic systems is a necessity in the Islamic world, there is no concrete evidence suggesting that secularization is the only way. This paper evaluates the statement that separation of religion and the state is a necessary precondition for modernization.
Separation of the State and Religion
In the western world, the church and the state have been in constant conflicts since religious leaders influence political and economic activities. This aspect is absent in the Islamic world since Islamic laws guide the behavior of each faithful. Based on this, it is fictional to claim that the state ought to be separated from Islam if the society is to develop and modernize in the Islamic states.
In the west, the church is separate from the state meaning that they simply enjoy close relationships, but they do not consult each other when it comes to making important decisions that influence the lives of the majority.
In the Islamic world, Islamic law, popularly referred to as Sharia law, is used in resolving various conflicts, ranging from bequest, matrimonial issues, divorce, and contracts to punishing those against the established societal rules and regulations. In the 1950s and 1960s, several Islamic countries tried separating the state from religion, but the results were unpleasant since conflicts were widespread.
A number of such countries embarked on efforts aimed at injecting religion into government. In the modern society, many countries in the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Europe are inserting sharia clauses into their constitutions, which make Islam the state religion (Whitman 86). In this regard, any establishment that goes against the provisions of the sharia law is always declared unconstitutional.
This trend started in 1979 in Pakistan when Hudood Ordnance Act was passed. In 1980, the Egyptian government started the process of amending the constitution to include the provisions of sharia law in the country’s charter.
The bill provided that the principles of sharia were the only recognized source of legislation in the country. In Iraq, the new constitution that was ratified after the 2003 attack provides that no law is supreme to the undisputed laws of Islam.
Several political parties allied to the Islamic religion are gaining momentum in other countries perceived to exercise secularism, such as Turkey, Jordan, and Morocco. In 2002, the Islamist Justice and Development Party won elections in Turkey and it has been ruling the country up to date. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood won elections democratic, even though it has been removed forcefully through a coup.
The new trend whereby Islamic parties are gaining popularity in the Islamic states presents a challenge to the western policy makers. Western leaders and governments tend to claim that the participation of religion parties in the running of the government is dangerous and backwards since they suggest that the implementation of the sharia law is troublesome, as it interferes with liberation efforts and adoption of the universal human rights.
The governments of Saudi Arabia and Iran endorsed authoritarianism is a valid system of government, which is seen as a denial of fundamental rights and freedom to the populace.
It is agreed that reforms are needed in the Islamic world, but they cannot be achieved through introduction of secularization. Western leaders and Islamic regimes should try to reinterpret the sharia law since it is not inflexible and unchallengeable, but instead is hugely elastic and dynamic jurisprudence that can be applied to realize the objectives of the modern human rights structures.
Western policy makers should stop supporting a traditionally and ethnically extraneous model of material governance and instead focus on encouraging aboriginal efforts that would lead to restructuring in the Islamic world and rejuvenate the sharia law.
Therefore, the sharia law should be adjusted to reflect wishes and the desires of the majority meaning that tolerant and contemporary laws ought to be formulated in order to support respect for human rights.
If western leaders and human rights activists continue with the current programs aimed at bringing about political and economic reforms, the populace will be unwilling to cooperate since such attempts go against the provisions of the sharia laws. Such policies would be considered illegitimate and many people would be reluctant to incorporate them into their own programs.
It is factual that the modern Muslim world is a crisis since reforms are yet to be introduced six-hundred years after the Golden Age that was characterized by modernism, multi-ethnic lenience, and financial success.
Citizens in the Arabic countries rarely enjoy their rights and there is no country in the Islamic world that boosts of true democracy. However, Islam cannot be attributed to the many problems that countries in the Middle East are facing. In fact, the type of Islam practiced in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Malaysia vary in a number of ways
Conclusion
The conflicts and lack of development in the Middle East are caused by majestic legacies, repressive regimes, prevalent poverty, illnesses, hostilities, and fight over natural resources. For any modernization efforts to e successful in the Middle East, western policy makers and leaders from the region must resolve the conflicts that are related to oil.
The sharia law should also be developed to reflect the changes that are taking place in the modern society. However, the state should not be separated from religion since Islam is the unifying factor in the region.
In the western countries, religious leaders have enormous powers that are used in influencing the government to implement certain policies. Therefore, the relationship between the state and religion is productive and there should be no attempt to revert the situation.
Works Cited
Whitman, James. “Separating Church and State: The Atlantic Divide”. Historical Reflections, 34.3 (2008): 86–104.