The Future of Shari'a

The main objective of this book is to promote the future of Shari`a among believers and their communities, but not through the enforcement of its principles by coercive powers of the state. By its nature and purpose, Shari`a can only be observed freely by believers, and its principles lose their religious authority and value when enforced by the state. From this fundamental religious perspective, the state must not be allowed to claim the authority of Islam. It is true that the state has its proper functions, as explained below, which may include adjudication among competing claims of religious and secular institutions, but that should be seen as performing secular functions of a political institution, without allowing the state to claim religious authority as such. It is also true that the religious beliefs of Muslims, whether as officials of the state or private citizens, always influence their actions and political behavior. However, these are good reasons to keep a clear distinction between Islam and the state, as well as between the state and politics.

My purpose is to affirm and support the institutional separation of Islam and the state as necessary for Shari`a to have its proper positive and enlightening role in the lives of Muslims and Islamic societies. This view can also be called ‘the religious neutrality of the state’, whereby state institutions neither favor nor disfavor any religious doctrine or principle. The object of such neutrality, however, is precisely the freedom of individuals in their communities to favor, dispute, or modify any view of religious doctrine or principles. This does not mean that Islam and politics should be completely separated, as this is neither necessary nor desirable. The separation of Islam and the state while maintaining the connection between Islam and politics allows the implementation of Islamic principles in official policy and legislation, but subject to safeguards. This view is premised on a difficult distinction between the state and politics, despite their obvious and permanent connection.

The distinction between the state and politics therefore assumes constant interaction among the organs and institutions of the state, on the one hand, and organized political and social actors and their competing visions of the public good, on the other. This distinction is also premised on an acute awareness of the risks of abuse or corruption of the necessary coercive powers of the state. It is necessary to ensure that the state is not simply a complete reflection of daily politics because it must be able to mediate and adjudicate among the competing visions and policy proposals, which require it to remain relatively independent from different political forces in society. Since complete independence is not possible either, it is sometimes important to recall the political nature of the state because it cannot be totally autonomous from those political actors who control the apparatus of the state. Paradoxically, this reality of connectedness makes it necessary to strive for separating the state from politics, so that those excluded by the political processes of the day can still resort to state organs and institutions for protection against the excesses and abuse of power by state officials.