Is separation of the "Church and state" a good idea ?

I am afraid it is not a black and white issue and when not thought through, the results can be very chaotic either way. It all depends on what are your umbrella premises, if you believe there is no God then obviously that is exactly what you want, separation of "Church'' and the "State". Now comes the tricky part, is the belief that there is no God qualify as a religion (that is a belief system). Once again, no brownie point for guessing who will think it is a religion and who will dispute this conclusion. I will call this problem number one to be resolved.

If you are a believer in God irrespective of your particular brand of faith (For the sake of discussion we are assuming homogeneous beliefs within each faith/religion and discounting the various sects within each religion for now), the minimum expectation will be freedom to exercise your faith without interference from the government and/or members of other faiths. The obvious question to ask; is it even possible without each faith watering down their respective religious practices to accommodate the other competing faiths in a given state. This is problem number two to be resolved.

The third obvious problem to resolve is the question of sanction, yes, this time old issue remains unresolved per se within all major religions. In other words, who is authorized to speak on behalf of a particular religion? Is it the clergy, is it a particular cast or is it the leader of the day of a particular religion and lastly is it a collective voice of all the members of each faith or ideology. It is this third problem that needs resolution first before a solution can be proposed.

Before we go further, I would like to add; crucial fallout from the separation of the Church and State is the removal of the most important element that motivates the poor and the oppressed, faith. By neutralizing faith-based movements whether, by design or default, the fact remains that the elites have effectively taken out the most potent threat to their position.

A related element of most contemporary systems is that no minimum standard of compulsory participation is defined. Most commentators fail to notice this glaring flaw of the system and those who notice fails to assign it appropriate weightage. Especially, when other aspects of community participation are in total contrast to this omission. Jury duty, taxes, identification papers, and the draft come to mind. It does not take a genius to figure out the rationale behind restricting the participation (by design) in the actual election of the representatives. Since the voting day appears to be the only time, the "public servants" are not bulletproof, it does not suit them to encourage maximum participation from the public.

Due to time and space constraint, I will propose the solution from an Islamic perspective. Similar models can be built under other ideologies. Obviously, the following is a basic framework and the complete model can be built around it. The actual details of the Quranic law are beyond the scope of this paper. However, the most important thing to keep in mind is that God's injunction is the whole package. If you are going to implement them in patches then the benefits are also in patches as was evident from the banking crises. The Islamic banks came out of it largely intact. Similarly, there are other fields where the Quranic guidelines are eventually adopted but not before an unacceptable cost to humanity is charged. The anonymous adoption practice of the past decades is another case in point. The single witness prosecution is another, which still has to be addressed. The emphasis on forgiveness and tolerance and punishment as a last resort are all guidelines that set God's laws apart from man's laws.

I am well aware that being a Muslim exposes me to the obvious bias taunt but in my defense, the fear of being labeled one way or another should not prevent one from propagating the truth. In my case verified and validated.

Before we start to tackle our three stated problems, let us first put into perspective the other more famous three in Islam, namely Sharia, Fiqh, and Quranic law. The popular notion of Sharia law generally passed as Islamic law and which is supposed to incorporate the Quranic law and the Sunnah is a bit misleading. Sharia is man-made law based on various schools of jurisprudence referred to as Fiqh and the resulting "individual rulings" often are in contradiction to the Quranic law.

The repeated attempts by various sects to claim "consensus" is a non-starter for several reasons. (A separate discussion) Hence assigning it any notion of a perpetual body of "one size fits all" law is meaningless because the applicable law would lack not only the sanction of the people it is supposed to govern, a Quranic prerequisite but perpetuate any innovations that may have crept into it. Hence, any Sharia will have to go through the normal process of legislation for each community before it can gain legitimacy. The exception to this rule is the all-inclusive Divine law as detailed in the Quran which deals with limits above all and must be incorporated as it is.

Getting back to the three problems, from a theological perceptive, God-given sanction in Islam is the sole domain of the Ummah (the people), no buts and ifs. Is it possible to practice God's injunctions fully while living side by side with people of other faiths and at the same time let them practice their religion/ideology, the answer is an emphatic Yes. All my premises stems from Islam's primary document the Quran, so all the supposedly contentious issues of killing the infidels, forcing the non-Muslims to pay up or the punishment for leaving Islam being a bullet in the back of the head etc don't apply. In fact, Islam protects the religious laws (other religions) applicable to the members of a particular faith within an Islamic state and allows the choice of the members, of application of the same on the respective members. the Atheist will be treated as just like any other belief system. Once all the elements are in place whereby a community of Muslims decides to implement the formation of a state, it would be up to members of other faiths to decide if they would want to be part of the proposed state.

Once again, the Quran is clear on its Universality and timelessness. We are the ignorant ones who repeatedly fail to differentiate between the fixed laws for unchanging needs and freedom to formulate laws based on changing needs. The latter by its very nature is amendable and/or can be deleted from the books but the former is fixed in the book of God. The most important factor that frames both is the environment where both can be justly obeyed and enforced.

So how will this all work? Well God in His infinite wisdom has already drafted the constitution for us (we, as Muslims, firmly believe the Quran is for the whole of humanity). The Quran can act as the constitution so to speak and the role of the judiciary must be restricted to carrying out the process of law and not engaged in the making of it. Once again, the only sanctioned authority is the Ummah and this responsibility cannot and must not be passed on to any individual or body, which is not directly controlled by it.

The kicker is that the interpretations must be firmly in the hands of the Ummah through a duly appointed representative in an all-inclusive direct rule as opposed to leaving this important task to the clergy and/or judiciary, in which case it will become a theocracy hence un-Islamic. This is a major deviation from the present day democracies and in my opinion, the Achilles' heel of democracy in most cases. The second deviation is the certainty of the constitution, you see what you get, and no amendments ensure stability and reduce the role of special interest to a manageable level. The ever-changing nature of secular constitutions (core values) is the main source of polarization of nations with no hope of reconciliations once positions harden.

The advantage of such a system is that the representatives can be removed at any given time. The individual who will represent the people must do so with the condition that the community can remove him or her instantly, without having to jump through hoops or the unpractical practice of leaving this task to the body of representatives through impeachment etc. In short, there should be no provision for any procedure where the Ummah and the respective representative is one step removed from the Ummah who put them there.

Hence restricting the damage whenever the need arises as opposed to leaving the culprit in a position to keep on doing damage until his/her term is completed. Similarly, the interpretation should not be left to "sect-centric think tanks" or similar individuals where historically the results have been catastrophic. Our assumption of leaving out different sect from the discussion fits perfectly; there is no provision of sects in the primary document hence irrelevant.

Throughout history, where it all went wrong was and is when the clergy gets in bed with the corrupt rulers and distort the revealed injunctions of God to favor a subjugating religious cabal. Hence giving religion a bad name in general. The backlash, which resulted in the very idea of separating the “Church from the State”, was a direct result of the excesses of the religious Cabal. Primarily the "Christian" faith. Islam is the latest chapter in the Abrahamic religions. It has removed the falsehoods that led to the backlash and confirmed the absence of a "central religious authority "and it is hoped that once Muslim and others look into the teachings of true Islam, preserved firmly in the constitution of Islam (Quran), the issue of the separation will become a non-issue.

All attempts to find an alternative primarily secular system with stamina has failed comprehensively in the last couple of centuries. The latest financial meltdown and its "rescue" exposed the true colors of the system and confirmed the power and resilience of those who control it. Once again, it is the same old spectacle where the powerful elite continues to subjugate the masses, presently through modern tools of control. If we were to follow the original logic of the separation of the Church and the State, it would not be at all unreasonable to demand the separation of "Democracy" and the State.

The failure of the existing system (s) is clearly visible at both on a political level and the other mainstay of communities, economic level. It is perhaps illogical to expect an acceptable and stable system to emerge from a divided community, irrespective of the number of tradeoffs it can manage or a voting system that can be deployed to extract decisions from opposing preferences, held and furiously defended by different sections of a community.

If the premise was the good of the people then the only logical way to go about it would be to announce the system first with ample time, read years, in order for individuals to decide on the issue of accepting or rejecting it and then invite people to join and participate in the real sense of the word. The implementation must be gradual as well, read decades.

One final thought; there will be those who will think it is too idealistic and will question the implementation of the above-outlined system. The above system was implemented once before in history albeit in a relatively small community. The one reason why it is possible to extend it to a much larger group with millions of members is better communication. Much better communication. With today's tools, it is possible to create the same kind of dynamics normally associated with much smaller groups. The speed, smarts and widespread reach of communication channels are building a truly global village. It is but logical to look for truly global solutions that will satisfy the needs of the villagers.