Secularism and the Relationship between Religion and the State

Rached Ghannouchi
[Transcript of lecture delivered at the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy
Tunisia]

Mr. Rached Ghanouchi, President of the Nahdha Party in Tunisia, gave an important and
historic lecture at CSID-Tunisia last Friday, March 2nd, on Secularism and Relation between
Religion and the State from the Perspective of the Nahdha Party , which was then followed
by a frank and open debate with leading scholars, activists, civil society leaders, and politicians
from accross the full spectrum, as well as representatives of the Moroccan, Algerian, Egyptian,
and American diplomatic missions.
Dr Radwan Masmoudis Introduction:
In the Name of God the Most Merciful, the Most Beneficent
Ladies and Gentlemen, Distinguished Guests
We welcome all of you in the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, we thank you for
coming to this symposium and for accepting our invitation to participate in this meeting,
through which we aspire to deepen the dialogue and strengthen the National Accord for the
success of the democratic transition in Tunisia. As you know, Tunisia is now in front of a
historical test which will determine not only the fate of our country but perhaps even that of
the region and the Arab World as a whole in the coming period. All eyes are fixed on Tunisia,
I just came back from a tour that brought me to Jordan, Egypt and Algeria, and believe me
when I say that all sights, laden with great expectations, are directed towards Tunisia. Since it
was in Tunisia that the Arab Spring was kick-started to reclaim freedom and dignity, Tunisia
has made great strides in this direction over its neighbors and other Arab countries. Everyone
expects a lot of us and wonders whether Tunisia will succeed in building a genuine democracy
that combines dignity, human rights, justice, and Arabo-Islamic values.
The subject of the relationship between religion and state is one of the most difficult and
important issues facing us now at a time when were establishing a new constitution and
governing system, which we hope will be a democratic system that respects human rights. So,
we are delighted to be hosting Professor Rached Ghannouchi, leader of al-Nahdha who in fact
is in no need of introduction. But just as a reminder, he is one of the Islamic Tendency
Movements founders, which became known as al-Nahdha Movement and later al-Nahdha
Party after the revolution, and has been the leader of the party ever since and one of the
movements thinkers and theoreticians. He is also one of the leading thinkers of the Islamist
movement both in the Arab and Islamic worlds as a whole. He has written extensively and in
depth on such subjects as freedom, democracy, human rights and the relationship of these with
Islam.
We are very pleased to host this symposium which we hope will be a dialogue. We could have
held this event in a venue of more breadth, but saw fit to keep it small in order for it to be
genuinely deep. From our perspective, had we held this meeting in a bigger venue the quality
of the debate would have undoubtedly been negatively affected. It is exactly for this purpose
that we invited the finest thinkers of various currents, trends, and parties to engage in a real and
1

deep dialogue, to study the subject at hand, and come up with appropriate solutions to it once
we have listened to Prof Ghannouchis presentation.
Ghannouchi, once again, has militated for democracy and freedom and taken a fierce stand
against tyranny which made him pay dearly for his convictions. He was sentenced to death,
and thank God, here he is now in his country respected and loved, while he who sentenced him
is living in exile. These are some of Ghannouchis works:
Our Way to Civilization, Us and the West, the Right to Differ and the Duty of Unity, the
Palestinian Issue at a Cross Road, Woman Between the Quran and the Reality of Muslims,
From the Islamic Thought in Tunisia, Public Freedoms in the Islamic State, Predestination in
Ibn Taymiyyas Thought, Contemplations on secularism and Civil Society, the Islamist
movements and points of change, From the Experience of the Islamist Movement in Tunisia,
and A Rebellion on Silence.
I will suffice myself with this short introduction, and ask you to join me in welcoming Prof
Rached Ghannouchi. Welcome!
Transcription of Rached Ghannouchis speech:
In the name of God, prayers and peace be upon His Messenger, his household, companions,
and supporters.
Ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters may Gods peace and blessings be upon you.
I thank the Centre for the Study of Islam and Democracy for giving me the opportunity this
evening to speak to this distinguished elite of Tunisian men and women and those coming from
abroad. I am not here to teach you anything, since the subject we are here to discuss has no set
instructions to be delivered but rather only points of view to be deepened and efforts to reach
a common ground that would enable our elite to reach a consensus or at least a quasi-consensus.
Our topic is quite problematic in the sense that it deals with the Islams relationship to
secularism. Is this relationship one of conflict and disaccord or one of harmony and overlap?
Related to this question are issues such as Islams relationship to governance, the relation
between Islam and Law, which are all contentious matters.
It seems that when we speak of secularism and Islam, as if we are talking about evident and
clear concepts. However, a non-negligible amount of ambiguity and multiplicity of
understandings surround these concepts, in that we are not talking about a secularism but
rather a multitude of secularisms as is the case with Islam, by virtue of what is proposed in the
arena, we are faced with various understandings of what it means.
Although secularism seems as if it was a philosophy and the fruit of philosophical reflections
and meditations which came to fight idealist and religious outlooks, it is not so. Secularism
appeared, evolved, and crystallized in the West as procedural solutions, and not as a philosophy
or theory of existence, to problems that had been posed in the European context. Most of these
problems emerged following the Protestant split in the West, which tore apart the consensus
that had been dominant in the Catholic Church, and imposed the religious wars in the 16th and
17th century. It was thus that Secularism and/or secularization began.
This leads us to ask the following question: are we in need of secularism in its procedural
aspect? Perhaps the most important idea in the ensemble of these procedures is the idea of the
states neutrality i.e. towards religions and its abstention from interfering with peoples
consciences. Whereas, the states scope or jurisdiction is limited to the Public Domain,
2

religions scope extends to the Private. In the United States religious interference in the public
domain is evident, despite the differentiation that exists there remains a significant religious
influence. Their leaders speeches are laden with religious content and references, and religion
is debated in all electoral campaigns where it manifests itself in issues such as prayer in schools
and abortion. This in reality is due to the fact that America was founded by evangelical pilgrims
fleeing with their religion from the Catholic Churchs persecution in Europe. It is for this reason
that the U.S. is looked at as the Promised Land, the land of dreams mentioned in the Torah and
Gospels.
As the Franco-American thinker Tocqueville once remarked that the Church is the most
powerful party in the United States. This is by virtue of the huge influence that it enjoys, though
this is not the case in Europe. Whereas the number of those who can lead prayer in the US
exceeds 50%, in Europe it does not reach 5%.
In the European context, also, there are differences in the states relationship with religion
between the French heritage and Anglo-Saxon one, whereby in the UK the Queen combines
the temporal and the religious powers. The complete separation is the one that is associated
with the French experience, which resulted from the clashes that took place in French history
between the revolutionaries state and the Catholic Church. Even in Europe, therefore, we are
not dealing with one experience in secularism, perhaps for our purposes, since our elite is
influenced by the particular French perspective (particular even for Europeans) where religion
is totally excluded from the public sphere and the state considers itself as the sole guardian of
national identity. This exclusion of the religious and its symbols from the public domain is
what lead France to be the only country that refused the covering of heads for Muslim women,
while we dont see such a crisis in any other European country over the issue of headscarves.
This is exclusively due to the particular nature of the relationship between state and religion in
France which was the result of a particular historical experience.
We in turn are not faced with one understanding; perhaps the most important procedure
invented by the secular worldview on this level is the states neutrality. In other words, the state
is the guarantor of all freedoms be them religious, political or otherwise. And the state should
not interfere in favor of this or that party. We pose the following question now: Is Islam in need
of such a procedure? i.e. the states neutrality towards the various religions.
Islam, since its inception, has always combined religion with politics, religion and state. The
Prophet (peace be upon him) was the founder of the religion as well as the state. The first pledge
of allegiance made by the group of Madina who came to Mecca was a religious pledge to
believe in Allah and his Messenger. But the second pledge was to protect the Muslims, even
by sword, should al-Madina be attacked. Al-Madina, and this expression is of the utmost
importance, used to be called Yathrib before becoming Al-Madina (The City) which implies
that Islam is not merely a religion but also carries a civilizational meaning. It is a transferring
of people from Bedouin life to urban/civilizational life. This is why Bedouinization was
considered a great sin once urbanization had been achieved. No wonder then that wherever
Islam went it established cities and our country hosts the oldest city built by Arabs in North
Africa. Therefore, The City founded by the Prophet (pbuh) is a clear indication that Islam is a
religion of civilization, whereby it shifted those warring tribes from a Bedouin level to a
civilized one and united them around a state.
The Prophet (pbuh) was a an imam in the religious sense as he lead prayers in mosques, and at
the same time a political imam that arbitrated peoples disputes, lead armies, and signed various
accords and treaties. Of relevance to us is the fact that upon his arrival to Medina he established
3

a mosque and put in place a constitution that was called Al-Sahifah. You have precedents here
Mustapha! [In reference to Mr Mustapha Ben Ja'afar, President of the Constituent Assembly,
who was present in the audience]. This Sahifah, which is one of the oldest constitutions in the
world, contained a bundle of covenants regulating the relations between Meccan immigrants
and their hosts (these were considered as one nation) and the Jewish tribes of Madina (also
considered a nation). Al-Sahifa considered these two religious nations as comprising one
political nation and entity that is distinct from others. The most important concept offered by
such scholars as Muhammad Salim Al Awwa and Muhammad Umar is the distinction
between the religious and the political as corresponding to the separation between state and
religion.
The distinction between that which is political and that which is religious is clear in the Sahifah
in that Muslims are a religious nation (ummah) and the Jews another, but the combination of
the two plus other polytheists made up a nation in the political sense. This distinction can be
witnessed in the Prophets dealings even if the boundaries were not always clear. Whereas the
religious is the sphere of observance and obligation, the political is the sphere of reason and
Ijtihad. At times when the ambiguity confused the companions, they would ask the Prophet
(pbuh) whether this is divine revelation (wahy) or a mere opinion. In the case of the former
they would obey, and when it is the latter they may differ and offer alternatives. On more than
one occasion did the companions differ with the Prophet (pbuh) in his capacity as the head of
state, and Sheikh Tahar Ben Ashour has dealt in detail with the topic of what he called
Prophetic Statuses.
One day the Prophet (pbuh) passed by a group in Medina cross-pollinating palm trees and said:
I do not see the benefit of doing so. The Medinan people thought that that was divine
revelation and stopped treating their trees which made their harvest of that year of a lesser
quality. They asked him why he ordered them to do so, and he replied: you are best placed to
know what is beneficial for you in your worldly affaires. Therefore, it is not the duty of religion
to teach us agricultural, industrial or even governing techniques, because reason is qualified to
reach these truths through the accumulation of experiences. The role of religion, however, is to
answer the big question for us, those relating to our existence, origins, destiny, and the purpose
for which we were created, and to provide us with a system of values and principles that would
guide our thinking, behaviour, and the regulations of the state to which we aspire.
So, Islam since its inception and throughout its history has not known this separation between
state and religion in the sense of excluding religion from public life. And Muslims, to this day,
have been influenced by Islam and inspired by its teachings and guidance in their civic life,
with the distinction remaining clear. This distinction between the religious and the political is
also clear in the thought of Islamic scholars/jurists. They have distinguished between the
system of transactions/dealings (Muamalat) and that of worship (Ibadat). Whereas the latter
is the domain of constancy and observance i.e. reason cannot reach the truth, the former is the
domain of searching for the general interest, for Islam came to realize peoples interests as
confirmed by such great jurists as Al-Shatibi and Ibn Ashour. These scholars have agreed that
the highest objective of all divine messages is to establish justice and realize peoples interests,
and this is done through the use of reason in light of the guidelines, objectives, values, and
principles provided by religion. Thus, there is a domain of transactions/dealings which is
constantly evolving and represents the sphere of variables, and there is the domain of creed,
values, and virtues which represents the sphere of constants.
Throughout Islamic history, the state has always been influenced by Islam in one way or
another in its practices, and its laws were legislated for in light of the Islamic values as
4

understood at that particular time and place. Despite this, states remained Islamic not in the
sense that their laws and procedures were divinely revealed, but that they were human
endeavours open to challenge and criticism. States have also practiced a degree of neutrality,
and when they tried to interfere and impose one understanding on Muslims, as happened in the
Abbasids state, it sparked revolution. It is mentioned that al-Mansour had become concerned
with the multitude of religious views and interpretations emanating from the same religion and
feared their divisive effect on the state. So he sent for Imam Malik and asked him to
amalgamate all these in one to unify peoples outlooks. Imam Malik produced his famous book
al-Muwatta, with which al-Mansour was greatly pleased and wanted it to become a law that
binds all Muslims. This horrified Imam Malik and asked for it not to be made so, because the
Prophets companions have travelled to different lands and took with them much knowledge,
so allow people to choose what they see fit. This is why we see that one school of thought is
dominant in the Maghreb, while another is so in the Levant, and yet another in Egyptetc
It is due to the absence of a church in Islam that what remains is the freedom of thought and
interpretation. This will naturally lead to a diversity in interpretation, and there is no harm in
that except when we need to legislate, at which time we are in need of a mechanism, and the
best mechanism that mankind has come up with is the electoral and democratic one which
produces representatives of the nation and makes these interpretations a collective as opposed
to an individual effort. Again, in the absence of a church representing the sacred on earth and
a spokesperson of the Quran, the nation is the only manifestation of divine will through its
interactions and not any particular scholar, party, or state.
When al-Mamoun (Abbassid Caliph) wanted to impose one interpretation of the Quran and
one particular understanding of Islamic creed (that of the Mutazili school), Imam Ahmed Ibn
Hanbal revolted and refused the states attempt to dominate religion. This lead to him being
persecuted and tortured, but in the end he managed to turn public opinion against the state and
force al-Mamoun to cede.
While the problematique in the west revolved around ways of liberating the state from religion
and lead to destructive wars, in our context the problem is one of liberating religion from the
state and preventing it from dominating religion, and keeping the latter in the societal realm,
open to all Muslims to read the Quran and understand it in the manner that they deem
appropriate, and that there is no harm in the plurality that is combined with tolerance. But
should Muslims be in need of laws, the democratic mechanism is the best embodiment of the
Shura (consultation) value in Islam.
It is of the utmost importance that our heritage is devoid of a church. Maybe only our Shiah
brothers hold the belief in a religious institution, but in the Sunni world there is no such a thing
save for a council of scholars which are usually in disagreement and hold different views. For
this reason, we are in need of scholars and intellectuals to debate and study our issues in a
climate of freedom and accept that the legislative institution is the ultimate authority by virtue
of being elected.
There is a debate that is currently ongoing in our country between secular currents which may
be described as extremist and Islamist ones which may be described in like manner. One would
like to impose their understanding of Islam from above using state tools and apparatuses and
the other aspires to strip the state, educational curricula, and national culture of all Islamic
influences. At a time when the whole world, including the Islamic world, is witnessing a
religious awakening, and having seen the role played by the Catholic Church in the
development of Eastern Europe, starting with the efforts of Pope John Paul II, and also the role
5

of the Russian Orthodox Church in the success of Putins presidential campaign. At such a
junction in time, it is unreasonable to object to religious influence on the states cultural and
educational policies. In fact, we do not need do impose Islam because it is the peoples religion
and not the elites, and Islam has not endured for so long because of states influence but rather
due to the large acceptance it enjoys among its adherents, in fact the state has often been a
burden on religion.
As I said, many of those who belong to the Islamist current and others fear the religions
emancipation from the state to be left as a societal matter. Why does the state train Imams?
Why does it control mosques?
The issue of the states neutrality involves a great deal of risk and adventure. If what is meant
by the separation between religion and state is that the state is a human product and religion a
divine revelation as the distinction was made clear in the context of the early Muslims between
the realm of revelation (wahy) and what was the realm of the political, then it is ok. But if what
is mean is the separation in the French sense or in accordance with the Marxist experience then
we may engage in a dangerous adventure that may harm both religion and state. The total
stripping of the state from religion would turn the state into a mafia, and the world economic
system into an exercise in plundering, and politics into deception and hypocrisy. And this is
exactly what happened in the Western experience, despite there being some positive aspects.
International politics became the preserve of a few financial brokers owning the biggest share
of capital and by extension the media, through which they ultimately control politicians.
In this context, people are deeply in need of religion and its spiritual and moral guidance which
would enable them to distinguish between right and wrong (halal and haram). And in the
absence of a Church that monopolises the definition of what is halal and haram, this task is left
to be debated by the elite of thinkers, the people and the media.
Should religion be entirely emancipated from the state and politics, this would also carry some
risks whereby things would get out of control and social harmony would be endangered. The
way to do it, therefore, is to find a balance that would guarantee peoples freedom and rights,
because religion is here to do exactly that. To achieve this balance, we need to go back to the
issue of distinguishing between religion and politics and adjust the parameters of what is
constant in religion and that which is variable. We need our legislators to be well acquainted,
educated and versed in religious values, so that when they are legislating they do not require
the tutelage of religious scholars and authorities, and the same goes for politicians. There is no
value to any religious observance that is motivated through coercion. It is of no use to turn
those who are disobedient to God into hypocrites through the states coercive tools. People are
created free and while it is possible to have control over their external aspects, it is impossible
to do so over their inner selves and convictions.
This is exactly why we saw two models in dealing with issue of the headscarf/veil, the first is
a veil that is dictated and imposed by the state and the second is a veil forbidden by it. Once I
was in a Muslim countrys (in reference to Saudi Arabia?) airport where all women were
covered, but as soon as the plane took off the veils flew away with it. This is a clear failure of
that countrys educational system, which was unable to guarantee peoples religiosity except
through coercive tools. In Ben Alis Tunisia, women were forbidden from wearing the veil and
express themselves in whatever appearance they saw fit, also through the states coercive
means. This was also a failure.
The primary orbit for religion is not the states apparatuses, but rather personal/individual
convictions. The states duty, however, is to provide services to people before anything else,
6

to create job opportunities, and to provide good health and education not to control peoples
hearts and minds. For this reason, I have opposed the coercion of people in all its forms and
manifestation and have dealt with such controversial topics such as al-Riddah (apostasy) and
have defended the freedom of people to either adhere to or defect from a religious creed, based
on the Quranic verse that says: there is no compulsion in religion.
There is no meaning in forcing people to become Muslims, the Muslim nation has in no need
for hypocrites who manifest belief and conceal disbelief. Freedom is the primary value through
which a person adheres to Islam, so he who announces his shahadatayn (I declare that there is
no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his final Messenger) does so on the basis of free choice
underpinned by awareness and conviction. In this manner, the state is Islamic insofar that it
assures its actions are in accordance with Islams values without being subjected to the tutelage
of any religious institution for there is no such a thing in Islam. Rather there is a people and a
nation who are the decision makers through their institutions.
When the Meccan people objected to Muhammads religion, he asked them not to interfere
with his preaching activities and to allow him the freedom to communicate his message to the
people. Had the Meccans accorded the Prophet (pbuh) the freedom of expression, he would not
have immigrated and left his homeland. But because his message was so powerful, they could
not offer an alternative to counteract it. This is why Muslims consider Islams proof to be so
powerful that there is no need to coerce people, and when the voice of Islam proclaims Produce
your proof if ye are truthful this challenge is being proposed at the heart of the political and
intellectual conflict.
Thus, the greater part of the debate taking place nowadays in our country is a misunderstanding
of such concept as secularism and Islam. We demonstrated that secularism is not an atheist
philosophy but merely a set of procedural arrangements designed to safeguard the freedom of
belief and thought as Abd al-Wahhab al-Masiri distinguished, in his writings, between partial
and total secularisms. An example of the latter would be the Jacobin model in French history.
In their war on priesthood, the Jacobins raised the following slogan: strangle the last king
with the entrails of the last priest. This is a French specificity and not the absolute definition
of secularism. There is also an ambiguity regarding Islam, for there are those who believe that
Islam can only be victorious by confiscating peoples freedom and imposing prayers, fasting,
and the veil through force. This would be far from being a success, for Allah Almighty had
considered hypocrisy to be the greatest crime, and the hellfire to be the eternal abode of
Hypocrites.
The fact that our revolution has succeeded in toppling a dictator, we ought to accept the
principle of citizenship, and that this country does not belong to one party or another but rather
to all of its citizens regardless of their religion, sex, or any other consideration. Islam has
bestowed on them the right to be citizens enjoying equal rights, and to believe in whatever they
desire within the framework of mutual respect, and observance of the law which is legislated
for by their representatives in parliament.
This is my understanding of things, and my view with regards to Islams relation to secularism.
I hope that I have touched on the main issues, and I thank you profusely for your attention.
Transcripted and translated by: Brahim Rouabah/CSID.
Related Links:
http://www.blog.sami-aldeeb.com/2012/03/09/full-transcript-of-rached-ghannouchis-lectureon-secularism-march-2-2012/
7