A poll of 600 US Muslims does not a representative sample of five hundred million make. And because Sharia is practised in plenty of non-theocratic places. Ever come across Muslims that prays 5 times a day? That's Sharia.

Legally you can agree to any form of law or contract with someone as long as it itself doesn't break the law. The Jews also already have special courts.

What does one figure it means to have sharia law, and courts? That they can behead infidels in the streets now?

According to a site called WikiIslam:

It is a generally accepted fact among Muslims, that there is no concept of "separation of 'Church' and State" in the Islam faith. We have already touched upon why Shari'ah is inseparable from the public and the personal aspects of practising Islam, so once again, we need to look to the example set forth by Muhammad. Islam, unlike many other faiths, was a theocracy from its very beginning. As the founder and Head of the first Islamic state, Muhammad most certainly did not believe in the concept of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and this is reflected in Muslim thought. The results of a survey[9] released in November of 2009 found a massive 67 percent of Turks said 'they would continue acting in accordance with their religious beliefs if the Parliament passed a law that contradicted religious laws.' and only 'Twenty-six percent said they would obey the country’s law in this case'. As is evident; even in 'moderate' 'secular' nations like Turkey, we find that the majority of its population (in accordance with Sahih Bukhari 9:89:258) refuse to accept the authority of its government when they deem its man-made laws contrary to that which is prescribed in the Shari'ah.

So how are Muslims to approach the modern trend of separation of religion and state? The basic belief in Islam is that the Qur'an is one hundred percent the word of Allah, and the Sunna was also as a result of the guidance of Allah to the Prophet sallallahu allayhe wasalam. Islam cannot be separated from the state because it guides us through every detail of running the state and our lives. Muslims have no choice but to reject secularism for it excludes the law of Allah.....

Secularists....will point out that under Islamic law, people are not all equal. No non-Muslim, for example, could become the president. Well, in response to that fact, in turn, secularism is no different. No Muslim could become president in a secular regime, for in order to pledge loyalty to the constitution, a Muslim would have to abandon part of his belief and embrace the belief of secularism — which is practically another religion. For Muslims, the word 'religion' does not only refer to a collection of beliefs and rituals, it refers to a way of life which includes all values, behaviours, and details of living.

Secularism cannot be a solution for countries with a Muslim majority or even a sizeable minority, for it requires people to replace their God-given beliefs with an entirely different set of man-made beliefs. Separation of religion and state is not an option for Muslims because is requires us to abandon Allah's decree for that of a man.

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islamic_Law#Separation_of_.27Church.27_and_State

Doubtlessly, one will find dissenting opinions, but I had understood that this was the mainstream view. If I'm shown to be incorrect about that then I will certainly stand corrected

I don't really have a stake in this, but I just want to note some fallacies SX has committed:

First, 'there are multiple Muslim cultures' does not imply 'there is no Muslim culture.'

Second, a generic claim can't be refuted by insisting on the negation of a universal.

I never said there is no Muslim culture, which I think is the phrase Andrew used. I said it'd be 'more correct' - by which I mean more analytically useful - to think about Muslim cultures in the plural. In this case, Islam in Indonesia has very particular political and social modulations, and that the Ahok case cannot be understood or exemplified outside of understanding what they are.

Whether it's more useful to think of distinct Islamic cultures or Islamic culture as a whole depends on which one is asking questions about. The topic seems to be asking questions about the latter. Insisting on switching to the former seems to be a way of insisting that a claim can't be made for the general case because there are (potentially) exceptions to it.

It seems to me clearly wrong either to deny that there is an Islamic culture (however loosely it would have to be defined), or that it's analytically useful to ask questions about it.

But this topic is a about a pretty damn specific legal case in Indonesia. If one wants to move from that to a discussion of Islamic culture more generally, then some work will have to be done, certaintly more than what is provided in the OP.

How do you imagine it being useful to ask questions about it, and what questions would you like to ask?

The questions asked to date have been things like 'does Islamic culture say such and such', which is about as useful as 'Does American culture like Milli Vanilli?'

Again, the idea that nothing can be said about Islamic culture is simply not compelling.

@StreetlightX It's a good point that we have to pay attention to politics and particular social and economic conditions. This still doesn't imply that "Islamic culture" is a bad concept. It depends what you're saying about it.

Otherwise, I had already made three points that have been made by others since: that there are several Islamic cultures, that this does not imply that there is no Islamic culture (singular), and that which Islamic cultures we talk about--and when we should use the singular "Islamic culture"--depends on what we're interested in.

Generally, those in this discussion who deny the usefulness of "Islamic culture" are being quite irrational.

The first thing to note about this passage is that, at the level of the lived reality of millions of Muslims around the world, it is simply wrong. That is, Muslims live, daily and all over the world, in spaces in which the relation between faith and the state looks nothing like what the passage describes. This alone ought to radically put into question just how 'generally accepted' a 'fact' it is that 'there is no concept of "separation of 'Church' and State" in the Islamic faith'. At the level of 'actually existing Islam', the opposite is everywhere in evidence.

The second thing to note is just how anachronistic the terms of the passage are. The very idea of a specifically 'Islamic state' (not 'the' Islamic State, but a state-form organized according to Islamic principles) doesn't even date until some time in the early 1900s, and the political impetus to organize such state-forms don't even begin until the 1940s or so, in the context of de-colonialization: "The notion of an Islamic state is in fact a postcolonial innovation based on a European model of the state and a totalitarian view of law and public policy as instruments of social engineering by the ruling elites. Although the states that historically ruled over Muslims did seek Islamic legitimacy in a variety of ways, they were not claimed to be “Islamic states.” The proponents of a so-called Islamic state in the modern context seek to use the institutions and powers of the state, as constituted by European colonialism and continued after independence, to regulate individual behavior and social relations in ways selected by the ruling elites." (An-Na'im, Islam and the Secular State).

Moreover, serious organizational efforts to think of Islam in a state-centered context began in response to very concrete and very particular socio-historical pressures: "The Islamist movement has developed over half a century, beginning more or less in 1940... Indeed, as much from a sociological as from an intellectual point of view, these movements are products of the modern world. The militants are rarely mullahs; they are young products of the modern educational system, and those who are university educated tend to be more scientific than literary; they come from recently urbanized families or from the impoverished middle classes. Islamists consider Islam to be as much a religion as an "ideology," a neologism which they introduced and which remains anathema to the ulamas (the clerical scholars). They received their political education not in religious schools but on college and university campuses, where they rubbed shoulders with militant Marxists, whose concepts they often borrowed (in particular the idea of revolution) and injected with Quranic terminology (da'wa, designating preaching/propaganda).

... For them, taking control of the state will allow for the spread of Islam in a society corrupted by Western values and for a simultaneous appropriation of science and technology. They do not advocate a return to what existed before, as do fundamentalists in the strict sense of the word, but a reappropriation of society and modern technology based on politics." (Roy, The Failure of Political Islam).

In any case, there is simply no way to take seriously any source which would claim that "separation of religion and state is not an option for Muslims" - not only because it really, actually, in real life *is* an option, one exercised all the time - but also because there the practice of Islam is constantly being renegotiated in a way that no strict closure can ever be so pronounced.

Yeah fair enough.

The first thing to note about this passage is that, at the level of the lived reality of millions of Muslims around the world, it is simply wrong. — StreetlightX

Well, it's a Wiki site, so feel free to update it. Let us know how you get on.

With respect to the Ahok case, here is an analysis of the Ahok case, (prior to the conviction), by Sidney Jones of the Lowy Institute.

The Indonesian Ulama Council held a meeting and determined that Ahok had indeed committed blasphemy and should be prosecuted. In a statement to the media, the MUI said:

* Surah al-Maidah explicitly forbids non-Muslims from becoming leaders.
* Based on this surah, ulama are obliged to convey to all Muslims that it is obligatory to choose a Muslim leader.
* Every Muslim must understand the truth of this surah as a guideline for choosing leaders.
* To say that the prohibition against making non-Muslims leaders is a lie constitutes an insult to the Qur’an.
* To say that ulama who use Surah al-Maidah as their evidence for forbidding non-Muslims from becoming leaders are liars constitutes blasphemy toward ulama and the Muslim community.

The Indonesian Ulama Council is the peak body of Islamic leaders in Indonesia. So this can't be said not to represent Islamic views or culture, as this is the charter of the organisation. In terms of the issues under discussion, it is unequivocal.

Sharia isn't merely a set of religious practices, it's a legal code that specifies offenses and punishments.

A poll of 600 US Muslims does not a representative sample of five hundred million make. — StreetlightX

It's not only Muslims, a large percentage of religious people favor some form of theocracy -

In only a few countries did a majority say that Sharia should have no role in society; yet in most countries, only a minority want Sharia as "the only source" of law. In Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, majorities want Sharia as the "only source" of legislation.
Most surprising is the absence of systemic differences in many countries between males and females in their support for Sharia as the only source of legislation. For example, in Jordan, 54% of men and 55% of women want Sharia as the only source of legislation. In Egypt, the percentages are 70% of men and 62% of women; in Iran, 12% of men and 14% of women; and in Indonesia, 14% of men and 14% of women.
Ironically, we don't have to look far from home to find a significant number of people who want religion as a source of law. In the United States, a 2006 Gallup Poll indicates that a majority of Americans want the Bible as a source of legislation.

Forty-six percent of Americans say that the Bible should be "a" source, and 9% believe it should be the "only" source of legislation.
Perhaps even more surprising, 42% of Americans want religious leaders to have a direct role in writing a constitution, while 55% want them to play no role at all. These numbers are almost identical to those in Iran. — Do Muslims Want Democracy and Theocracy?

A Public Policy Polling (PPP) national survey conducted between February 20th and February 22nd of Republican voters, found that an astonishing 57 percent of Republicans want to dismantle the Constitution, and establish Christianity as the official national religion. Only 30 percent oppose making Christianity the national religion. — 57% Of Republicans Say Dismantle Constitution And Make Christianity National Religion

Sure, it's 'unequivocal' is that a bunch of highly regarded Muslims found what Ahok said to be blasphemy. At some point I assume you want to make an argument - nowhere yet found - to do with Islam's 'intrinsic inability' to separate Church and State.

Sharia isn't merely a set of religious practices, it's a legal code that specifies offenses and punishments. — Sivad

M.Q. Zaman says it's mostly a set of customs. This has posed a challenge to the dream of some Pakastanis to fully institute Sharia: Pakastani judges are used to operating with codified law. It's part of their British heritage. Some suppose that in time Sharia could be codified, but it would be a massive undertaking.

I would expect that the vast majority of Muslims in the world would not earnestly wish to live without any law but Sharia because of its limitations. Slavery, for instance, can't be outlawed by Sharia.

But there is disagreement among Muslim scholars. This video is pretty long, but it's an interesting conversation.

Okay, but at stake here is this conceptually muddled idea of what is and is not 'intrinsic' to any religion - Islam or otherwise. My point, which is not empirical, is that it makes no sense to talk about the 'nature' of religion outside of it's social, historical and economic dimensions. That is literally all religion is, after all. The idea that there is some kind of eternal, Platonic 'essence' of any religion - in this case some kind of 'theocratic nature' - is simply analytically dubious in the extreme. Religion is made, enforced and lived by humans who do with it what they will, even if at the expense, and to the chagrin, of other humans.

At some point I assume you want to make an argument - nowhere yet found - to do with Islam's 'intrinsic inability' to separate Church and State. — StreetlightX

I honestly think there is a fact here that you haven't understood. I am not making up the non-separation of religion and state in Islam; it is an often discussed fact about the nature of Islamic culture and society.

Now, as you have pointed out, it is quite true that in practice, not all Islamic societies are theocratic - if that is, in fact, what you're trying to argue. But the principle of the 'separation of powers' has generally never been accepted in Islam. This is not a matter of opinion, nor is it anti-Islamic propoganda.

In Christian cultures, the separation of Church and state was hard won, and occurred as a consequence of many centuries of conflict and bloody religious wars, including the Wars of Religion and the Thirty Years War. But Christianity also had a precedent for the idea, in the saying 'thou shalt render unto Cesar those things that are Cesar's, and unto God those things that are Gods'. This at least laid down a warrant for the idea that there could be a secular authority in matters of state.

It's simply a fact that this 'division of powers' has no warrant in Islamic scripture. I'm sure you will find any number of passages that purport to show that this really isn't the case, and that 'in the real world', there are examples of Islamic states where there was some recognition of the separation of civic and religious powers. But they're exceptions rather than the rule, which are generally as unequivocal as that expressed in the Ahok case.

This has nothing to do with 'Platonic essences', or any other things of that kind. And your constant refrain that religion is 'made, enforced and lived by humans', is obviously the viewpoint of secular liberalism. Now, you're welcome to that view, and it has many things going for it. But the fact that you're brandishing it, in defence of a religious tradition which frequently eschews liberal principles, and which in any case would never agree that religion is 'a human invention', should at least be recognized as being ironic, if nothing else.

it makes no sense to talk about the 'nature' of religion outside of it's social, historical and economic dimensions — StreetlightX

It's sensible to talk about religion in terms of human evolution and psychology. I don't think it's possible to really understand religion without considering what all religions have in common whether they be secular political religions, or doomsday cults, or major world faiths. I wouldn't say there's an essence of religion necessarily but there do seem to be elements that are near universal.

The results of a survey[9] released in November of 2009 found a massive 67 percent of Turks said 'they would continue acting in accordance with their religious beliefs if the Parliament passed a law that contradicted religious laws.' and only 'Twenty-six percent said they would obey the country’s law in this case'. As is evident; even in 'moderate' 'secular' nations like Turkey, we find that the majority of its population (in accordance with Sahih Bukhari 9:89:258) refuse to accept the authority of its government when they deem its man-made laws contrary to that which is prescribed in the Shari'ah.

I would hope most Christians (and members of any other religions) would emulate or improve upon these results. (Yeah, fat chance). To disobey the government when the government passes a law contradicting religious laws is the duty (of conscience) of any believer.

Separation of Church and State does not, in its original theory, mean handing all power to the State, even though the actual practice of it for the last few centuries certainly points in that direction. It meant that the State would not meddle in religious affairs (whether by favoring some groups by the use of its power or by actively interfering in dogmatic disputes), and the religious groups would not try to meddle with the State (by using the power of the State to impose their religious laws upon non-believers).

Perhaps Separation of Church and State is another of those good ideas which simply cannot take hold upon human groups for long enough.

This is not about a 'secular' vs. a 'religious' viewpoint, this is about doing religious sociology in a way that isn't half-baked and pays no attention to history or politics. If there's any irony here it's in your utterly-backward claim that the Ahok case demonstrates the rule rather than the exception, when in fact, the biggest reason the case has gotten so much worldwide attention is due precisely to it's exceptional character - the fact that these kinds of religious issues have not, up to now, loomed so large in the public sphere of Indonesian politics.

The one thing you are right about is that Islam does not really have a principle regarding the religious separation of power, but this is because the very idea of the state has simply been radically alien to Islamic discourse. Like I said, it wasn't even until the early 1900s that Islam even had to confront the apparatuses of state power, let alone have within it a set of principles to deal with it in either a positive or negative way. Literally, one could not talk about the very idea of an Islamic state up till about a hundred years ago, let alone consider it as some integral part of Islamic practice.

Further, if you've any historical sense at all, you'd know that the Islamic 'turn to the state' was brought about, ironically enough, by a raft of failures in Muslim majority secular states in the 70s, most prominently Iran, Egypt and Pakistan, egged on as well by the aftermath of the Six Day war in '67, which had the unfortunate effect of channelling what was Arab post-colonial nationalism into full blown religious revanchism. To spell this put as clear as I can for you: Islam was politicized due to multiple secular state failures that left Muslim societies economically and culturally disempowered, before which the very idea of 'political Islam' would have been a complete anachronism (check out Karen Armstrong's magisterial The Battle For God for a fantastic history of all this).

Long story short, you can quote scripture all you like, continue to ignore the complex political and historical factors which factor into the ever changing relation of Islam with the State and it's power (which, again, is an entirely modern issue), or you can continue to insist that the reality of Islam is somehow entirely divorced from it's, uh, reality, because somehow, the real world is not a good enough metric by which to understand the very phenomenon which you're talking about. As if the failure of Islam to measure up - or rather down - to the abysmally low bar you've set for it means that it's not the 'real thing'. Roy has some choice words for this kind of asininity as well:

"To show the modernity, and thus the deep historicity, of Islamist movements is interesting in terms of political sociology, but goes against the Islamists' own arguments. For them, there is only one Islam, that of the age of the Prophet, which has since lost its way, for modernity is loss. But this vision of Islam as possessing a single essence is not unique to the Islamists, since we find it both among traditionalist ulamas and among many Western Orientalists, who are in turn adopting Max Weber's reading of Islam: a culture, a civilization, a closed system. Islamist and Orientalist thinkers are in disagreement, of course, as to what constitutes the essence of Islam, but all speak in terms of a global, timeless system-a mirror effect that no doubt explains both the violence and the sterility of the polemics.".

Long story short, you can quote scripture all you like... — StreetlightX

You don't even get that much; only the assertion that this is the case. Meanwhile Muslims disagree on what the Qur'an has to say about this all but luckily we already have an expert that decided on the correct interpretation:

they're exceptions rather than the rule, which are generally as unequivocal as that expressed in the Ahok case. — Wayfarer

The one thing you are right about is that Islam does not really have a principle regarding the religious separation of power, but this is because the very idea of the state has simply been radically alien to Islamic discourse. — StreetlightX

That is the point at issue.

The idea that secular laws and powers are intrinsically corrupt is not unique to Islam.

In describing the relationship between the Kingdom of God and the earthly city, the noted German theologian Karl Barth stressed the fact that, from a Protestant conception, the world, all of its structures and institutions, had been given over to the reign of the devil. Human nature, political society, and all things human were not only damaged as a result of the Fall but had become ontologically corrupt as well. Viewed from this perspective, even the Incarnation, wherein all that is human is elevated by the supernatural light of grace, seems to have done little more than demonstrate that God will simply save us by overtaking us. Grace does not build upon nature, since nature is simply a nominalist description of a reality that does not actually exist or refers to something so destroyed that no transformation can take place, only a “covering over.”

On Giving Too Much to the Human.

Generally, those in this discussion who deny the usefulness of "Islamic culture" are being quite irrational. — jamalrob

It seems pretty obvious that the idea of Islamic Culture is useful enough, even indispensable, to distinguish from others, for example, Christian culture. If the notion is hypostatized as a purportedly monolithic culture, which it patently is not, then it becomes not merely useless, but positively inimical to any rational discussion.

Except it isn't. Let me put it otherwise: there is no inherent articulation between Islam and the State, either positively or negatively. There neither is nor is not an inherent stance on state power in Islam, because the very discourse of the state is an entirely modern notion that is radically alien to classical Islamic tenents. You're comitting a category error.

The same could be said of Christianity, no ?

You're comitting a category error. — StreetlightX

Bollocks. There needs to be an accomodation between Islam and the modern secular state. The fact that Islam finds it almost impossible to come to that accomodation is what is at issue.

@Benkei asserted that there are secular Islamic states with no laws about blasphemy and apostasy, but he couldn't say what they were. So I googled the 'list of secular Islamic states'. To be blunt, it is not an impressive list. Until now, the highlight was - Indonesia! But now we have seen that there, Islamic radicalists have had a successful and popular non-Islamic governor of a very large city, booted from office and put in jail for blasphemy. This is a highly ominous development; Indonesia is the world's most populous Islamic nation.

What, exactly, are you defending?

Slippery slope fallacies abound.

What, exactly, are you defending? — Wayfarer

What, exactly, are you advocating?

Bollocks. There needs to be an accomodation between Islam and the modern secular state. The fact that Islam finds it almost impossible to come to that accomodation is what is at issue. — Wayfarer

Haha, wow, yeah sure 'almost impossible'. Don't let the actually exisiting fact of hundreds of millions of Muslims living in relatively secular states get in the way of a good bit of fantasy hey? It's against this sort of unnuanced bullshit that i'm 'defending' against. I ought not to have bothered. With your shitty two line replies, its clear that you're entirely uninterested in any substantial debate. At this point, given your inability to offer up anything but assertion and the occasional rhetorical question, I think it is fair to call you out for the prejudiced shmuck that it turns out you are.