The Civil Nature of the State in Islam

Amid the re-formulation of social contracts in the countries of the Arab Spring, there has been a call for a civil and democratic state—even from currents and parties of political Islam. Yet the question remains open regarding the possibility of applying Sharia in a civil state, the position of such a state on freedom of expression and belief, and the compatibility of this kind of state with the Islamic religion.

From the outset, I will assert that there is no religious state in Islam: fundamentally, the first concern in Islam is the building of the human being through da‘wa (the call), and the continuation of its influence in souls so they pass through this world smoothly and enter the hereafter without hardship. That is for those who believe in Islam’s theory of building the human being.

As for the state: it is an existential understanding—that is, the concern of shared living for any group wherever they reside, and on whatever religion or creed they are based. The construction of the state is founded on positive neutrality toward all its members. The state must not discriminate among its citizens on the basis of their beliefs, gender, or affiliations. It must protect faith by protecting individuals from the danger of being compelled into religiosity. The state must not force anyone into a particular religion, and it must prevent society from imposing the religion of one group on others.

A rightly guided state is therefore built on the neutrality of the state… the tolerance of society… and the acceptance of plurality and difference.

It is a political entity, and everything that issues from it does so within the framework of political interest. The interest of the state lies in protecting all of its individuals and protecting their beliefs. The name of the state is political and should not be attributed to a particular religion, such as the Syrian state, the French state, or the Egyptian state. It is a mistake to speak of an Islamic Republic or a Jewish state, as that implies imposing the religion of one group—however large or small—on others who share with them the same land and communal life. This contradicts the concept of citizenship.

In Saudi Arabia, for example, the Shia are compelled to live according to Wahhabism. In Iran, Sunnis are obligated to live according to the Twelver Shiite doctrine, though they oppose it. In all cases, this is imposition and coercion in religion.

Sharia must not be enforced by the power of the state, for “There is no compulsion in religion.”

“Judgment belongs to God alone” (Surah Yusuf). No state can stand in the place of God, and worship is for God alone. Sharia is a means to strengthen faith and reinforce it in souls and to solidify social interaction and interconnection. Therefore, Sharia must not be imposed through the power of the state, but through persuasion and conviction. The state’s coercion in enforcing specific rituals is a form of compulsion; and “There is no compulsion in religion” (Surah al-Baqarah).

Here we pause at the term “Sharia.” It is a concept that entails following and guidance. This occurs according to human capacities and abilities and according to the development of society within a historical stage. Thus Sharia evolves as humans evolve, and its rigidity is stagnation and backwardness. For example, there has been development in the position on women’s rights, which must be reconsidered as a need that does not contradict the essence of Sharia, such as allowing women to assume any position in the state, including the “supreme authority.”

Another example is the position on non-Muslims, and the transition of the term “ahl al-dhimma” to the concept of citizenship—an evolution in jurisprudence that does not contradict the essence of Sharia. Another example as well is the position on freedom of belief and its expression, and the freedom to choose religion not on the basis of inheritance but on the basis of rational choice. This necessitates reconsidering the concept of “apostasy” and people’s convictions in their social existence.

All of this can be examined and reconsidered within the framework of Islam itself. When righteousness becomes distinct from error, every mature individual has the right to express their stance on the human society in which they live, and they may affirm loyalty to it or detach from it without coercion, because that is the foundation of freedoms in Islam. For that reason, the first Islamic state was called the Rightly Guided State, because it was based on freedom of choice, on consultation in decision-making, and on the absence of monopoly, coercion, despotism, and compulsion.

When coercion crept in, and freedoms were confiscated, and jurists of the sultan tied religion to the interests of politicians, it became a biting monarchy and contradicted the spirit of the Charter established by the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) as the first contractual constitution. It contained fifty-two constitutional articles revolving around citizenship rights and human rights that emerged in Medina and were based on the criterion of competence, not allegiance.

The state in Islam is therefore a civil state, because it is based on the principle of interests among people and does not rely on a theological reference—that is, it does not listen to the voice of clerics as representatives of God, but rather sees them as men offering counsel, and the public listens. Piety is the measure of proximity to or distance from God.

Shura (consultation) was made a principle in this to mean that acknowledging the other is a fundamental tenet of religion. Consultation indicates the multiplicity of opinions, and in plurality lies a safeguard against the isolation that breeds tyranny. Through the exchange of opinions according to the principle of shura, a conclusion is reached whose basis is the majority—this is the spirit of democracy in Islam.

In Islam, freedom of expression is a fundamental objective; even the highest authority in the state was debated. The disputant is a woman who argued with the Prophet (peace be upon him) in a matter over which Qur’an was revealed: “God has indeed heard the statement of the woman who disputes with you regarding her husband and complains to God. God hears your dialogue” (Surah al-Mujadila). So it is dialogue, give and take, without suppression or oppression. And this is a woman debating Umar on the matter of dowries until Umar was forced to say, “A woman is right, and Umar is wrong.”

In any case, those who demand the establishment of a religious state are the fearful—those who do not trust themselves or the power of their religion. True religion does not require fear. The scourge of true religion is a tyrannical ruler. God supports the just state even if it disbelieves, and forsakes the oppressor even if he prays, fasts, and builds many mosques. This leads to the conclusion: when drafting constitutions in a state whose population majority is Muslim, there is no need to state that the religion of the state is Islam, nor is there a need to include in the constitution that Sharia is the primary source of legislation.

More than that, it is sufficient to state that every citizen has the right to faith, and every believer has the right to resort to the rulings of faith in the partial common domain, while the law governs citizens in the shared collective domain.

In doing so, we realize faith and rid ourselves of hypocrisy and hypocrites, and contribute to making the sons and daughters of one homeland participate in developing their country not on the basis of sect or denomination but on the basis of their shared interests; not on the basis of their allegiances or affiliations but on the basis of competence and integrity.

Islam is the creed of some, but the civilization of all

Everything founded on a social contract that affirms freedom and acknowledges political, social, economic, and cultural democratic rights for all citizens regardless of their religion or ethnicity. Islam is the creed of some, but the civilization of all. And the state is a state of rights and law—a national democratic state that represents the entire social whole, whose authority comes through free and fair elections, and guarantees freedom of belief, opinion, assembly, and expression, and guarantees access to information for all.

A state that relies on civil society institutions to participate in construction in all areas of life and in achieving social justice, distributing wealth fairly, and suppressing attempts at exploitation. A state… in which dialogue is a principle for resolving problems and disputes. It is based on eliminating exclusion from political and social life.

In such an atmosphere, the social contract will be based on:
• Democracy and human rights in the face of tyranny and in confrontation with it
• Equal citizenship in rights and duties in the face of sectarian and ethnic fragmentation
• Unity in the face of division
• Social justice in the face of exploitation and the misdistribution of wealth
• Independence in the face of dependency projects
• Independent and sustainable development in the face of distortion and dependency
• Civilizational authenticity in the face of Westernization and civilizational erasure.

At that point, it will no longer matter whether we describe such a state as Islamic or secular. What matters is that it serves its people—of any gender, color, creed, or affiliation—equally.

• This paper is the text of a lecture delivered at a symposium on the horizons of the transitional phase in Syria, organized by the Houran Forum for Citizenship in Cairo, 14–15 July 2012.