The assumption behind this question is that the social upheavals in Muslim countries are caused by a lack of secularism. In reality, however, most social problems are caused by extreme secular regimes. Apart from this paradox, two observations cause people to ask this question. The first is the call of some Muslims for an "Islamic state" and the implementation of Islamic law in certain majority Muslim countries such as Afghanistan, Sudan and Nigeria, giving the impression that Islam has a tendency to govern a country by a theocratic regime. This is usually associated in these countries with a lack of democracy, rule of law and basic human rights. The second observation is the inevitable visibility of Islam in a society while other religions seem to be more or less invisible.

The Western experience of religious freedom has been a long and a painful one. Forced conversions, the influence of the church on the State and the resulting eras of violence led the French Revolution (1789) to separate state (politics) and religion. While this total separation has ended the domination of the whole society by one interpretation of religion, it has also removed religion and spirituality from the social scene. This has led to the spiritual deprivation of the masses and associated moral decline and perhaps to a greater level of killing (about 80 million people) in the 20th century.

"Philosopher John Gray calls secularism 'the absurd myth because it replaces one God with hordes of cults and pseudo-religions. Secularism, he says, is the unthinking creed of conformists who repress religion as a natural human impulse just as the Victorians repressed sex'. The religious desire is hard-wired into the species like sexual desire, says Gray George Orwell, a dedicated secularist, wrote in 1944, ' The problem of our time is to establish the absolute sense of right and wrong when the belief that it used to rest on – that is, personal immortality – has been destroyed'. This problem remains."^[27] The benefits and perils of present forms of secularism call for a critical examination.

I have shown that Islam aligns well with the principles of democracy. Further, Islam enjoins the rule of law, the protection of basic human rights, a government system that is based on a consultative decision-making and the restraining of rulers by the people. Nevertheless, some Muslims and non-Muslims argue that since the Prophet Muhammad was both a prophet and a political leader, Islam can never be secular. How did Muhammad and his early followers really govern the young polity that he established in Medina?

Since people swore allegiance to Muhammad when they converted to Islam, in effect they also chose him as their leader. He appointed governors to cities and regions under Muslim control and empowered them with extraordinary freedom in their rule. The only stipulation to governors was they adhere to the Qur'an and the Sunnah in dealing with matters relating to the people. This stipulation fostered the rule of law, in that the governor could not make arbitrary decisions and rules. People were allowed to dissent from the rulings of a governor by direct recourse to the Prophet himself. In some instances governors were replaced as a result of complaints. The Prophet appointed officials on the basis of performance and competence rather than kinship. He purposely did not appoint his kin to state office to avoid the slightest suspicion of nepotism.

A city charter for Medina was put together which became the constitution of the new polity. In return for shared responsibilities, the charter guaranteed the rights of its citizens, irrespective of their religious beliefs. The Prophet, and therefore the State, was legally impartial to all faiths. When Jews brought cases before him to judge (they did not have to do this, by the way), he judged according to Jewish law and not according to Islamic law. Having basic human rights and not being restricted by a religious law (if one is not a believer) are the cornerstones of modern day secularism that Islam fulfilled fourteen centuries ago.

It seems almost too good to be true, but no-one, including the Prophet himself, was paid for the tasks of state. All work, including the managing of state expenses, was done on a voluntary basis and by donations. There was no standing army or bureaucracy. The first caliph after the Prophet hesitated to accept the offer of a small salary, as he knew the Prophet took no salary.^[28]

The Prophet always involved people in decision-making. He had an advisory council made up of tribal elders or individuals respected by the people. All decisions were discussed in the mosque (which acted like a parliament house, since there were no other suitable buildings in the city) and were transparent to the whole community. Anyone could join and take part in the discussions. Women were involved in the consultation process. By and large the Prophet always followed the consensus of the people. When discussing the defence strategy to follow in the wake of an attack on Muslims in Medina, for example, he went ahead with the majority view of defending the city out in the open even though his personal view was to defend it within the walls of the city. When in the subsequent battle of Uhud, Muslims were almost defeated, he neither blamed nor punished anyone for the misfortune.

Although the Prophet Muhammad had religious and state leadership, he made clear what was revelation and what were his own thoughts so as to empower people to challenge his views. This is the key demarcation point that separated the religious domain and the worldly domain, although the principles of Islam informed the whole. In the defensive battle mentioned above, when the Prophet positioned the army, one of his companions approached him and asked whether he positioned the army because of a revelation or by his own judgment. When the Prophet said that it was his personal judgment, the companion suggested a better positioning for the army, which the Prophet accepted. He often said, "I am a human being too. Do as required when I ask you to do a matter pertaining to religion. However, when I give you my opinion (over worldly matters) know that I am a human being too." [BUKHARI, SALAT 31; MUSLIM, AKDIYA 5]

In summary, the rule of the Prophet was not a theocratic regime but was a balanced rule that delivered the benefits of both religion and secularism. Therefore, a call for Western style secularism is not really relevant or necessary in the case of a Muslim society.

The second aspect of the question of secularism has to do with the visibility of religion in a society. The total removal of religion from society is not possible in a Muslim society because Islam is a public religion. The practice of Islam is so intermeshed within life that its visibility is inevitable. Muslims need to pray five times a day. When the time for prayer comes, a Muslim will look for a place to pray in the workplace, at school or in a park. How can you hide the fact that you are fasting for a whole month? When your friends ask you to go for lunch you are going to say that you can't because you are fasting. Muslim women wearing the veil are also clearly visible.

For these reasons a Muslim society cannot be like a Western society, where religion is almost totally invisible in daily life.

As with everything else, the position of Islam on this question is therefore somewhere in the middle ground. It does not allow for a theocratic regime while at the same time it does not accept the other extreme of complete removal of religion from law and society. The increased presence of Muslims in Western countries will slightly shift the secular equilibrium point that currently exists between religion and society. This should not alarm people into thinking they are losing secular ideals. It is simply that Muslims are practising their religion.

[27] Brennan P., A Wish and a Prayer for the Godless Society, The Australian, 15 October 2003.

[28] In fact, when Abu Bakr died he left a pouch-full of coins and a note. The note said, "these are the leftovers of my salary after my essential expenses to be returned to the state treasury". This note made the second Caliph Omar shed tears.