Between Sharia and Religion
Our people who advocate for Islamic thought, across all its schools, make a grave confusion between Sharia and religion (deen). Because of this, they fall into contradictions. When they sense these contradictions, they attempt to evade, obscure, or obfuscate the issue, but they achieve nothing meaningful in the end.
We provided an example earlier of how Dr. Hassan Al-Turabi avoided giving a direct answer until he was cornered. Similarly, the National Commission for the Complete Islamic Constitution resorted to flowery rhetoric and inserted an entirely baseless claim: "They are equal to Muslims in other rights and obligations." They then attempted to justify this falsehood by referencing abrogated verses.
The first point that must be emphasized is that Islamic Sharia is not Islam itself but rather the gateway to Islam. It is the aspect of Islam that was revealed to meet the immediate needs and conditions of society fourteen centuries ago. In some of its forms, it carries the characteristic of being time-bound (muwāqāt), making it subject to evolution. This evolution involves transitioning from a secondary text (nass farii) in the Quran, revealed to address the circumstances of the time, to a primary text (nass asli), which had been considered abrogated (mansukh) - that is, deferred until its appropriate time. The secondary text was considered applicable at the time, while the primary text was postponed for future application. Thus, the evolution of Islamic Sharia in some of its forms means transitioning from one verse to another within the Quran itself.
For instance, the "verse of the sword" (āyat al-sayf) and its counterparts are not fundamental (asl) in Islam; they are secondary (farii). The secondary verses were necessitated by circumstances and descended from the primary verses to align more closely with the conditions of the people, gradually guiding them toward the primary verses. The primary verses are those considered abrogated (mansukh), while the secondary verses are the abrogating (nasikh).
If we are to discuss Islamic Sharia, we must refrain from invoking the verse: "There shall be no compulsion in religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong." (2:256) unless we are advocating for the evolution of Sharia from the verses of compulsion to the verses of tolerance.
Another essential point to establish is that the current Sharia is neither democratic nor socialist. Politically, it is based on the concept of consultation (shura), a system akin to governance by a wise individual who serves as a custodian over an immature people. This custodian is tasked with nurturing and guiding them toward becoming fit for democracy. At that point, Sharia will evolve, transitioning from secondary Quranic principles to primary ones - moving from shura to the Quranic injunctions:
"So remind, you are but a reminder. You have no dominion over them" (88:21–22). Thus, with this development, it becomes more aligned with Islam than its previous form . Or you could say, it was more so before it evolved.
Economically, the current Sharia is capitalist, not socialist. However, it was designed to pave the way for a societal progression toward socialism. This eventual transition involves moving from the secondary Quranic principle of minor zakat: "Take, [O Muhammad], from their wealth a charity by which you purify them and cause them increase..." (9:103), to the primary principle of major zakat: "They ask you what they should spend. Say, 'The excess beyond needs.'” (2:219).
In the current Sharia, there is no democracy, and therefore, there is no Islamic constitution. Any discussion about an Islamic constitution by those who do not advocate for the evolution of Islamic Sharia is a reflection of dual ignorance - ignorance of Islam and ignorance of contemporary culture. This is the foundation upon which the efforts of Islamic advocates among us are based.
In concluding this introduction, we would like to say to them: if you fail to grasp the true essence of Islam and the nature of modern cultural challenges, it would be better for you to cease speaking in the name of Islam. Otherwise, you bear the burden of hindering the call to Islam with misconceptions that you attempt to attach to it, though Islam is entirely innocent of them.
The result of your attempts will only be to delay the progress of true advocates for some time. It is enough of a misdeed for a person, through their ignorance, to obstruct a call to goodness, even for a single moment, while being aware of their error.
