William andrew kopwe the open university of tanzania

4.4.5 States Interventions on Religious Space

Constitutional secularism in a Tanzania context is not a guarantee that religious ideologies are not found in the Government and the Government is not interfering in religious activities in the Country. The Government has been intervening in several religious issues in the Country. Dissolving of the East African Muslim Welfare Society (EMWS) can be cited as a good example for this. The Government, though secular as is stipulated in the Constitution, had to interfere with Muslim activities by deposing their strong umbrella body, and replacing it with BAKWATA, which has proved to have been facing a lot of opposition from Muslim activist in the Country.
On the other hand, the nationalization of church properties in the Country, such as schools, and other social services for the sake of extending the services to other religious groups, was another example where the Government intervened in the religious arena. This has been so because, though in Tanzania religion is not one of political entities, it is a very important part of the political process in the Country.
Banning of public preaching, commonly known as Mihadhara in Kiswahili, whereby Muslims preached, mainly using the Bible and Qur’ān to refute certain aspects of the Christian faith, can also be cited as an example of Government’s intervention on the religious sphere of the Country. On similar logic, the Government banned the same preaching style from the Christian groups as well. Several small Christian apologetic groups adopted the above Muslim-mihadhara philosophy of preaching. The most famous group was the Biblia ni Jibu (The Bible is the answer). Personal conversations with the leader of the group, Mr. Cecil Simbaulanga, revealed that he founded the group as a counter measure to the Muslim Mihadhara.¹⁵⁸
The Government of Tanzania, like any other Government in the world, has a responsibility of preserving peace in the Country. Hanging on that argument, the Government has intervened on the above polemical preaching from both religions. It did so because the preaching incites people to a situation which may cause discord in the Country. However, the groups were not beyond their Constitutional religious freedom of believing and propagating what they believe. For instance, Muslims believe that Jesus is not Son of God, and God does not exist in the Trinity, to mention a few examples. Public preaching of such doctrines by Muslims was not to be taken as derogatory to Christians. Muslims have the right to preach what they believe according to their religion. On the other hand, the Bible teaches that any religion which denies that Jesus is not God, that religion is not from God. Rather it is it is the spirit of the anti-Christ. Hence Christians were not supposed to be banned from preaching what they believe.
Because of the political culture of the Country, the Government intervened with preaching in the name of preservation of peace and tranquility. This is viewed as good governance. But the most important thing to note here is the whole issue of the Government’s intervention on what to preach and what not which was to focus on and be developed from one’s religious scriptures. This is to show that though the Government is secular, it has not completely distanced itself from regulating religious activities in the Country, either openly or silently through its security systems.

4.4.6 Conflicting Ideologies

Sharī’a and secularism are two ideologies which are conflicting in Tanzania. On one hand, proponents of secularism like Asad (2003) insist that though secularism came out of specific Western-Christian context, it is suitable for every society which practices democracy. This is to say, secularism is universally appropriate. On the other hand Sharī’a claims to be perfect, given by God and therefore fit for the whole humanity. These two ideologies represent the two religions in the Country. Secularism identifies more with Christianity than Islam.
On contrary, separation of religion and state is not Islamic. Muslims believe that Islam is the religion which emphasizes on the totality of life. Islam is a blue print of a social order. It has rules for everything in the life of a human being on earth. Sharī’a regulates every department of a human society, religious and civil. Islam is the religion which has most completely confounded and inter-mixed the two powers, so that the act of civil and political life is regulated more or less by religious laws (Gellner, 1981).
From the beginning of Islam, religion and politics was intermingled. Muhammad, the founder of Islam was both the religious and political leader. “In the course of time, Muhammad became not only the religious preacher but also the political leader. He had to provide for the security of his Ummah. He formed a standing army and became the first military general of the Muslim armed force” (Safari, 1994:15). This comment justifies the idea that Muhammad himself founded the mixture of religion and politics in Islam.
Muslim then perpetuated this policy even after the death of Muhammad. Abu Bakr, the first Caliph was elected on the basis of him being an Imam elected by the Prophet Muhammad himself. Hence he was both spiritual and political leader of the Muslim community (Norlene, 2001). This practice remains and prominent in the Islamic countries, the state leader must prepare and lead his people in worship (Nazil-Ali, 1984; Quraish, 1987). For the Muslims any non-Muslim Government is infidel and it is unlawful for Muslim to be under the rule of infidel. Therefore they have to struggle for the Muslim to come to the throne. The main philosophy here is that for the Muslim the theocratic Government is the one which is governed by the Islamic Sharī’a (Abdul, 1976).
Quoting Ibn Khaldum, Abdul (1976) outlines clear three kinds of Government: The ‘Siyasah Diniyyah’ which is Government based on human reason; ‘Siyasah Aqliyyah’ which is Government based on the human reason; ‘Siyasah Madiniyyah’ which is Government based on the ideal state of philosophers. According to Ibn Khaldum the best Government is Siyasah Diniyyah which is under the Sharī’a. The above arguments show that the Islamic notion of religion and politics being one is a worldwide idea from generation to generation. Also, according to Islam, Muhammad has set an example by being both a religious leader and statesman.
The major interest in this issue is the conflicting understanding of the position of religion in the state among Islam and secularism. This calls us to rethink the current political structure of the Country. The major question is, ‘does the current structure cater for all mentioned big religions in the Country?’ The answer is plain that secularism does not identify with Islam and therefore secularism can rightly be argued as leaving out the Muslim block in the Country. This does not say that the Country is biased to Christians or Christianity. Rather it tells that Muslims in the Country do not feel at home because the Constitution does not allow them a full stretched Sharī’a application.