The state commands and forbids, but it does not declare things forbidden
Source note: This page summarizes explanatory audiovisual material. References to books provide closely related context and are not literal evidence; for precise citation, consult the original episode and book.
Formulation of the claim
Shahrur maintains that the state has the power to command, forbid, and prevent, but it does not possess the authority to declare things forbidden as a religious power.
Explanation
Shahrur distinguishes between the function of religion and that of the state: religion declares things forbidden, commands, and forbids, whereas the state regulates, prevents, and legislates. He does not regard the state as having the right to declare things forbidden in an absolute and eternal sense, because this belongs to God with respect to what is forbidden. In his view, the state operates within the legal regulation of what is lawful, not in creating absolute prohibitions. This is what makes it a civil rather than a religious state.
Its place in the episode’s argument
This atom defines the limits of political authority and prevents its transformation into religious authority.
Limits of the claim
It does not say that the state lacks regulatory authority, but that regulatory authority differs from the authority to declare things forbidden.
Brief quotation
“The state commands, forbids, and prevents, but it does not declare things forbidden.”
Related links
- Shahrur - sovereignty
- Shahrur - fiqh
- Book: Islam and the Human Being