I am pleased that my two-part article has generated such vigorous debate, and I deeply appreciate the thoughtful engagement—especially from respected voices like Brother Rasheed Sahib. In response to the key critiques raised, I will address and clarify my terminology, methodology, and philosophical stance. While I stand by the core arguments of my piece, I do concur with many of Brother Rasheed’s observations, particularly regarding how Islamophobia is exacerbated by Western hegemony.
- Why did I use the term Islamist instead of Islamic?
My Response: The term Islamic is a broad, neutral adjective that refers to anything related to Islam—its religion, culture, civilization, and traditions. It applies to concepts like Islamic art (art influenced by Islamic culture) and Islamic law (Sharia, the ethical and legal framework derived from Islamic principles). This term does not carry any inherent political meaning.
Islamist, on the other hand, is a more specific term with political connotations. It refers to individuals, movements, or ideologies that seek to implement Islamic principles in governance and society, often advocating for a political order based on their interpretation of Islam. While some Islamists pursue their goals through democratic means, others adopt more radical or militant approaches. Importantly, Islamist does not equate to Islamic—not all Muslims are Islamists, and Islamism represents a distinct political ideology rather than the religion itself.
The choice of Islamist in my article was deliberate. It accurately reflects the political dimension of the subject being discussed, distinguishing it from the broader religious or cultural aspects of Islam. Precision in terminology is essential, especially when addressing political ideologies or movements within the Islamic world.
- Another criticism levelled at my work is that it merely presents others’ viewpoints without a clear, cohesive argument.
My Response: This critique misinterprets the article’s purpose. Far from lacking direction, my work deliberately highlights the diversity of perspectives on secularism and Islam—concepts that are inherently contested and open to multiple interpretations. The absence of a rigid, singular definition is not a flaw but a reflection of the discourse itself.
Contrary to the claim that my argument is unclear, I explicitly advocate for secularism as religious neutrality and Sarva Dharma Samabhava—equal respect for all religions. This framework stands in direct opposition to theocratic visions promoted by Islamist groups, which reject pluralism in favour of a monolithic religious order.
Rather than weakening my case, the inclusion of diverse perspectives strengthens it. By engaging with a spectrum of viewpoints, I demonstrate the complexity of the debate while reinforcing secularism as the most viable model for a pluralistic society like India. My article is not a passive compilation of opinions but a structured, purposeful defence of secularism—one that gains depth, not dilution, from the multiplicity of voices it engages.
- What we now call secular values—human rights, equality, compassion, and justice—are deeply rooted in religious morality. Modern secular societies did not emerge in isolation; rather, they evolved from centuries of religious teachings that laid the groundwork for these principles. Paradoxical as it may seem, secular values originate from religion itself, making secularism an inherent part of religious traditions rather than a departure from them.
My Response: I do agree. Secularism is not inherently anti-religious but can align with religious values by promoting neutrality, freedom, and equality. It ensures the state doesn’t favour any religion, protecting religious diversity and allowing all faiths to coexist peacefully. This aligns with religious principles like freedom of conscience (e.g., “no compulsion in religion” in Islam) and treating others with respect (e.g., “love thy neighbour” in Christianity). Secularism also fosters collaboration on shared goals like social justice, reflecting religious values of compassion and service. By separating religion from state power, it prevents extremism and respects moral autonomy, allowing individuals to practice their faith freely. In essence, secularism supports religious values by creating a fair, inclusive society where diverse beliefs thrive.
- The term “Islamism” originated in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Initially, it was used in European languages as a neutral synonym for Islam, much like “Christianism” for Christianity. Early Western writers, including Voltaire and Encyclopædia Britannica (first edition, 1771), used “Islamism” simply to refer to the religion of Islam.
My Response: Islamism and Islam are used interchangeably. Most Islamophobes adopts this method. This approach is wrong. This is equal to equating of Hindutva with Hinduism and Zionism with Judaism.
- Islam itself is however already an “-ism” – given this, why did European languages create “Islamism” instead of just using “Islam”?
My Response: The term “Islamism” was indeed coined in European languages to create a clear distinction between Islam as a religion and the political movements or ideologies that seek to implement Islamic principles in governance and society. While “Islam” refers to the faith, spirituality, and practices of Muslims, “Islamism” specifically denotes political ideologies that advocate for the implementation of Islamic law (Sharia) and the establishment of Islamic-based political systems. This distinction emerged in the late 20th century as a way to analyse the political dimensions of Islam separately from its spiritual and theological aspects, providing clarity in discussions about religion versus ideology.
However, the distinction between Islam and Islamism is not always clear-cut, and the term “Islamism” itself has been subject to debate. It can oversimplify the diversity of political movements within the Muslim world and may be used to stigmatize legitimate political expressions of Islamic identity.
The interpretation of Islamic values is a topic of ongoing debate, particularly between Islamists and those who prioritize Quranic values. Islamists often focus on implementing Sharia law, emphasizing legalistic interpretations over broader ethical values. In contrast, the Quran highlights values such as justice, mercy, compassion, and human dignity. One of the fundamental principles of the Quran is freedom of religion, as stated in verse 2:256, “There is no compulsion in religion.” However, some Islamist movements have been accused of imposing religious practices, undermining this principle.
The Quran also promotes fraternity and equality, envisioning the ummah (global Muslim community) as a brotherhood of equals. Nevertheless, some Islamist regimes have faced criticism for fostering sectarianism and discrimination. Individual self-determinism is another key value in the Quran, emphasizing personal responsibility and individual accountability. In contrast, Islamist ideologies often prioritize collective identity over individual freedoms. The Quran is clear in its advocacy for justice, fairness, and human rights, including those of women and minorities. However, some Islamist policies have been criticized for being discriminatory or unjust, particularly toward women and religious minorities. In addition, the Quran encourages coexistence and dialogue among diverse groups, promoting pluralism and diversity. Unfortunately, some Islamist movements reject pluralism, seeking to establish homogeneous Islamic states. The Quran promotes peace and reconciliation, yet some Islamist groups have been linked to violent extremism, contradicting these principles.
Finally, the Quran advocates for economic justice, prohibiting usury and mandating charity (zakat). While Islamist attempts to implement Islamic economic systems have had mixed success in achieving justice, the importance of economic fairness remains a core Islamic value.
- The term “Islamist” has developed a pejorative connotation, especially in modern political discourse. While Islamic governance has existed for centuries—without the need for a distinct label—”Islamism” emerged in Western discourse to specifically refer to political movements advocating for governance based on Islamic principles, with an implicit tone of disapproval.
My Response: You are right. The term “Islamist” has become a focal point in the broader issue of Islamophobia, reflecting and reinforcing deeply ingrained biases in Western discourse. Historically, the West’s engagement with the Islamic world—from colonialism to the Cold War and the post-9/11 era—has shaped a narrative that associates Islam with backwardness, violence, and authoritarianism. This narrative has been perpetuated through the pejorative use of “Islamist,” which is often applied indiscriminately to a wide range of Islamic political movements, from moderate reformers to extremist groups. By conflating these diverse movements under a single, stigmatized label, the term contributes to a perception that Islam itself is inherently incompatible with democracy or modernity. This framing not only delegitimizes legitimate political expressions of Islam but also fuels Islamophobia by portraying Muslims as a monolithic group prone to extremism. The lack of equivalent terms for religiously motivated movements in other faiths, such as “Christian democracy” or “Hindu nationalism,” underscores the double standard at play, further entrenching stereotypes and fostering fear and mistrust of Muslim communities.
- Your article is about “Why Quranic Principles Advocate Secular Democracy Over Theocracy” is not about “making a compelling case for secularism as the best model for a pluralistic society like India.” India is not even mentioned in the article and rightly so because what has India to do with Why Quranic Principles Advocate Secular Democracy Over Theocracy? You seem to have lost track of what the article is about.
My Response: My critique presents a theoretical and theological challenge to the imposition of Sharia within political Islam, examining its far-reaching implications for societal structures, governance frameworks, and individual liberties. At its core, my argument questions whether enforcing Sharia as state law aligns with fundamental principles of legal pluralism, human rights, and the separation of religion and state.
A critical analysis reveals that such enforcement poses significant risks, including marginalizing non-Muslim communities and silencing dissenting voices within Muslim societies. It also risks clashing with universal human rights standards, particularly in areas such as gender equality, freedom of religion, and freedom of expression.
From a theological perspective, my critique emphasizes that Sharia is not a monolithic entity, but rather a complex and dynamic system subject to diverse interpretations shaped by historical, cultural, and contextual factors. Rigid enforcement of Sharia within modern political systems disregards its inherent adaptability, distorting its original principles and fostering authoritarianism—where religious elites consolidate power, stifling intellectual and social progress.
Politically, my critique contests the exploitation of Sharia as a means of consolidating power and exerting control over populations, thereby exacerbating societal fractures and eroding social cohesion. A comprehensive review of historical precedents and comparative analyses demonstrates that imposing religious law often leads to the suppression of dissenting voices and the erosion of individual liberties.
Ultimately, my critique calls for a critical reassessment of Sharia’s role in modern governance. It advocates a framework that safeguards legal pluralism, human rights, and the separation of religion and state—fostering a more inclusive, tolerant, and equitable society.
- The (Iranian) regime is not corrupt; it is principled. It has prioritized principles over political compromises. It faces sanctions because it supports Palestine—ironically, as a Shia state, it is the only one backing Sunni Palestine. The suffering of its citizens is primarily due to sanctions and military spending for national defence. Iran remains the only Muslim state capable of standing up to the U.S. in conventional warfare, making it the last bastion that the U.S. and Israel seek to bring down.
My Response: While Iran adheres to a distinct ideological framework, its governance is driven by both principled and pragmatic considerations, with internal power struggles and instances of corruption undermining the system’s integrity. The significant economic influence wielded by the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) and political elites has raised allegations of nepotism and financial malfeasance. Moreover, prioritizing principles over pragmatic political compromises is not inherently virtuous if it results in widespread hardship for citizens.
A balanced approach is essential—one that upholds fundamental principles while carefully considering their impact on human welfare. Iran’s troubling human rights record, as seen in the case of Mahsa Amini, highlights the urgent need for such scrutiny.
While sanctions and military expenditures contribute significantly to economic difficulties, internal economic mismanagement and political repression also play substantial roles. Many Iranians hold their government accountable for economic struggles, citing corruption, lack of transparency, and crackdowns on dissent. The government’s resource allocation, such as funding regional militias versus domestic welfare initiatives, is a contentious issue debated among Iranians themselves. Rather than being merely a victim of external pressures, the Iranian regime actively shapes its domestic and regional realities, with consequences both positive and negative.
- “The notion that Islam requires the integration of religion and state is a historical development, not a Quranic mandate.” “Fight until there is no more oppression and injustice and the Law of Allah prevails.” (Q.8:39)
My Response: This verse can be interpreted in another way. A humanistic interpretation of Q.8:39 would focus on the broader ethical and moral principles it conveys, emphasizing themes of justice, freedom, and the pursuit of a harmonious society. From this perspective, the verse could be understood as a call to resist oppression and work toward a world where human dignity, equality, and fairness are upheld. The “Law of Allah” could be interpreted symbolically as a universal moral order that aligns with humanistic values such as compassion, justice, and the common good. The emphasis on ceasing hostilities if the opposition stops (“if they desist”) could be seen as a call for reconciliation and peace, highlighting the importance of resolving conflicts through dialogue and mutual understanding rather than violence. This aligns with humanistic ideals of nonviolence and the belief in the potential for positive change in human behaviour. The reading would focus on the underlying message of striving for a just and equitable world, where all individuals are free from oppression and can live in dignity and peace. It would encourage reflection on how these principles can be applied in contemporary contexts to promote social justice and human flourishing.
- Q. 5:44 clearly affirms that governance must align with divine law.
My Response: Q.5:44 emphasizes the importance of divine guidance in governance and justice, reflecting the principle that laws should align with moral and ethical values rooted in faith. From a Quranic perspective, this verse can be understood as a call for governance that upholds justice, compassion, and the dignity of all human beings. Divine law, in this context, is not merely a rigid set of rules but a framework that seeks to promote the well-being of individuals and society. It emphasizes accountability, fairness, and the protection of human rights, which are universal values shared across cultures and faiths. I interpret divine law as a means to foster a just and equitable society where the welfare of people is prioritized. It encourages leaders to govern with wisdom, mercy, and a deep sense of responsibility toward all members of society, regardless of their faith or background. This aligns with the broader Islamic principle of Rahmah (mercy) and the concept of Maqasid al-Shariah (the higher objectives of Islamic law), which include the preservation of life, intellect, faith, lineage, and property. In essence, governance aligned with divine law, from an Islamic humanistic viewpoint, is one that serves humanity, promotes justice, and ensures the dignity and rights of all individuals are respected and protected. It is a call to integrate spiritual and ethical principles into leadership, ensuring that power is exercised with humility and a commitment to the common good.
- Islamic governance, in both theory and practice, incorporated consultation, judicial impartiality, and legal pluralism—values that align with modern democratic ideals.
My Response: My critique of contemporary political Islamists centres on their deviation from the historical and ethical principles of Islamic governance, rather than an attack on Islam itself. Many modern political Islamist movements have distorted these principles, centralizing power, side-lining diverse voices, and imposing rigid, exclusionary interpretations of Sharia. These movements often prioritize ideological purity over practical governance, using religion as a tool for political control rather than a means to promote justice and welfare. For example, the concept of hakimiyyah (sovereignty of God) has been weaponized to justify authoritarian rule, while the dynamic and adaptive spirit of early Islamic law, exemplified by ijtihad (independent reasoning), is often ignored. This rigidity leads to the suppression of dissent, the marginalization of women and minorities, and a failure to address pressing socio-economic challenges. Moreover, the politicization of religion by these groups undermines the spiritual and ethical dimensions of Islam, reducing it to a mechanism for power consolidation. By rejecting democratic principles as “Western impositions,” many political Islamists alienate broader populations, particularly the youth, who seek inclusive and pragmatic solutions to modern problems. My critique targets the authoritarian, exclusionary, and rigid practices of contemporary political Islamists, which diverge sharply from the pluralistic, consultative, and justice-oriented spirit of early Islamic governance. By reclaiming these historical principles, it is possible to envision a form of governance that is both authentically Islamic and aligned with the aspirations of modern societies for fairness, inclusivity, and good governance.
(V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism. With a deep commitment to advancing Quranic hermeneutics that prioritize human well-being, peace, and progress, his work aims to foster a just society, encourage critical thinking, and promote inclusive discourse and peaceful coexistence. He is dedicated to creating pathways for meaningful social change and intellectual growth through his scholarship. He can be reached at vamashrof@gmail.com)
Courtesy: New Age Islam