Islam and Secularism
IN his article ‘Islam and secularism’, Dr S. Saeed Ahmed has tried to prove that the Holy Prophet (PBUH) was only the spiritual head of the Muslims and not a ruler (April 14), thereby making the Islamic state a secular one.
He says that there is no evidence in the Quran or Sunnah to show that the Prophet ever made any conscious effort to acquire political power. It should have been obvious that his rulership was automatic: if not he, who else was the head of state during his time?
The writer has also made some other misleading claims. For example, with reference to the four righteous Caliphs he says that they were only the head of the faithful (‘Amirul Momineen’) rather than being rulers. Such semantic nitpicking won’t change the reality; if they weren’t the rulers, could he please tell us who held that responsibility?
It may be noted that by the end of the third Caliph’s reign (AD 656), the Islamic empire had included not just the Arabian peninsula but territories beyond, such as the Byzantine and Persian empires and the Islamic North Africa. It would be absurd to say that this empire had no ruler.
He has also asserted that those Companions of the Prophet, like Hazrat Bilal, Hazrat Abuzar and thousands of others, who remained aloof from administration commanded universal respect.
This is incorrect. To this day, the four Caliphs are revered most, after Prophet Muhammad himself, more than the other ‘sahaba’.
Furthermore, Dr Ahmed has talked of the Sufis and should know that apart from the Naqshbandis, who trace their origin to the first Caliph Hazrat Abu Bakr through Hazrat Bahauddin Naqshband, all the other major Sufi Orders similarly consider the fourth one, Hazrat Ali, as the progenitor of their respective ways via the particular exponents of their own Orders.
Ultimately, they all are said to be headed by the Prophet himself.
http://www.dawn.com/2007/04/25/letted.htm#2