The state commands and forbids, but it does not prohibit
Editorial verification status: This atom is extracted from a explanatory audiovisual source, and has now been linked to the closest books within Shahrur’s project at the book level. For precise academic citation, consult the original book and the original episode together.
Formulation of the claim
Shahrur affirms that the state has the power to command, forbid, and prevent, but it does not have the power of prohibition as a religious authority.
Explanation
Shahrur distinguishes between the function of religion and the function of the state: religion prohibits, commands, and forbids, whereas the state regulates, prevents, and legislates. But he does not see the state as having the right to prohibit in the absolute and eternal sense, because that belongs to God in matters of prohibitions. In his view, the state operates in the domain of legal regulation of what is lawful, not in producing absolute prohibitions. This is what makes it a civil state, not a religious one.
Its place in the episode’s argument
This atom sets the boundaries of political authority and prevents its transformation into religious authority.
Scope of the claim
It does not say that the state lacks regulatory power, but rather that regulatory power differs from the power of prohibition.
Brief evidence
“The state commands and forbids and prevents, but it does not prohibit”
Related links
- Shahrur - sovereignty
- Shahrur - fiqh
- Book: Islam and the Human Being