The moral state: Deconstructing the phenomenon of civility and urbanization

civil society, and urbanization, and its connection to the political and the secular,
are the subject of our increasing and escalating focus on examining the concepts of the state, its evolution, and the implications of its terminology. This focus stems from several objective reasons, including the nature of our book, which attempts to analyze, critique, and deconstruct the concepts associated with this
phenomenon. Another reason is that many states that prevailed and existed in past eras and successive historical periods were incomplete in their structural foundations, theoretical principles, and philosophical essence. This is not an inherent flaw, but rather an objective one, the cause of which lies in historical and geographical factors. A critique of the phenomenon. The state in its modern sense:
Some political entities are called states in practice, as an administration to organize control and domination and facilitate matters. They are transitional states whose -function- is to pass a period of time according to general perceptions and visions of mixed values ​-;-​-;-and principles that are still developing. The concept of nationalism itself is one of the principles on which the structure of many modern states that prevailed in the first half of the last century was based. It unconsciously mixed the self-identity of the state with the value of specific specialization, and with special uniqueness and superiority. The Nazi German state was based on the idea of ​-;-​-;-racial purity and the purity of the Aryan race, an idea that is neither scientifically correct nor civilizationally sound. The identity of the state was essentially based on the purity of the Aryan race and its non-mixing with other races and its distinction and superiority over others. These are contradictions of facts and realities.
By other measures, the latter and the best are conflated with ideology, such as the assertion of the moral, human, civilizational, and religious superiority of a particular religion over all others, regardless of the historical, civilizational, and intellectual contributions of a group that has agreed to base its intellectual, mental, and cultural ideology on a purely religious foundation. This logic contradicts the relationship between ideology itself and human values ​-;-​-;-as a concept that is dialogical and reciprocal across eras, civilizations, and peoples.
National belonging is an intrinsic matter inherent to a specific political and social entity, and considering that national identity as superior to all others undermines the logic of history and the human narrative. No single nation, homeland,´-or-state should have its citizens monopolize virtues, merits, and goodness while ignoring the civilizations, cultures, and developments of other nations throughout successive historical periods. 1. Some regimes´-or-administrations have considered the suppression of rights and the restriction of freedoms as prerequisites for a fully independent state. An administration that opposes freedom and violates human dignity cannot be considered a fully-fledged state. Here, we are not speaking in terms of designation´-or-bias, but rather analyzing and deconstructing a primarily political and philosophical theory.
The people are a fundamental pillar-;- composed of individual citizens enjoying full rights. They are a cornerstone of the state, and without them, the concept of the people as individuals—that is, as a vital part of the community with its inherent rights and responsibilities—is incomplete. In other words, the people´-or-groups within a state do not constitute a people unless they receive their due natural and constitutional rights. If the social contract, whether customary´-or-traditional, between the people and the state does not include clauses guaranteeing and protecting these rights, it is not a sound contract and consequently undermines the very concept of the people as a fundamental pillar of the state. Authoritarian administrations then become something else entirely, attached to the state, such as occupation, trusteeship,´-or-mandate. These are incomplete, temporary, and transitional forms of government, like those that seize power through a military coup, which fall outside the scope of the concept and its theoretical principles. 2. In reality, modern states are political and social entities whose administration and context are governed by a socio-political contract: the constitution. This written text defines priorities, identity, rights, and duties, along with other important issues such as regulating the relationship between the people and the government and determining the course of economic and educational policies, for example. Consequently, the answer to these questions is inherent in the constitution as a fundamental pillar. The reality is that the constitutions prevalent in contemporary countries recognize the cultural, ethnic, and religious pluralism of all those who meet the definition of a citizen, and this has become an undisputed constitutional norm among nations. From here we can say that the availability of constitutions with regulations to organize the recognition of the existence of all the components that define difference and plurality has become a constitutional matter known by custom and stipulated in text, and its absence is considered a flaw and even a disruption of that basic pillar of the state.
Is it sound and consistent with the theoretical contents and formative principles of the state to reduce the existence of the nation and the homeland, with all its antiquity, history, civilization and heritage, to an ideological partisan political reference , and to make the existence of the nation and the state dependent on its existence? In other words, is the structure of the authentic concept of nation, people and state affected by the exclusivity of a civilizational, political and religious history with the denial of the value´-or-existence of other components, cultures and religions?

Raising generations of people within a cultural and intellectual shell that sees the homeland only through a narrow window that opens only onto a closed space, isolating them within themselves, disconnected from the present and civilization, exclusively bound to the past, far removed from the present, the future, and the human civilization around them. This narrows the meaning, obstructs general implications, and besieges the national concept of the state as a real institution with an integrated intellectual and political entity, not isolated´-or-reduced to a partial entity´-or-a political institution alone. In this scene, the absence of the human being prevails, and the value of the people, whose existence is based on diversity, plurality, and difference, is diminished. This fragmentation makes us view those entities in which isolationist ideas and stifled human horizons are practiced as "states of organizations, factions,´-or-temporary states." -3- Thus, some periods of time between two successive coups, for example,´-or-after a violent military coup, ruled by a rigid, closed,´-or-personal authority, are when states are in a state of confusion, and the term "organizations" for managing a transitional phase´-or-administrative organizations takes over. Bad,´-or-a political entity,´-or-an oppressive authority, and perhaps just a ruling regime, these are fitting labels for what are called states and regimes that seized power and sat on the necks of the people for decades, so the homeland disappeared and the people disappeared and the concepts were mixed with a false and misleading consciousness that removed people from the political and economic equation to turn them into mere tools for supporting and protecting the authority in exchange for obtaining daily living consumption. So the people´-or-“the people” are elements of protection and vital fuel for regimes that have not succeeded in building freedom, nor achieved liberation, nor provided a decent life, and do not look at the well-being of their people and the future of coming generations, exploiting individuals and groups to serve their power and arrogance.
The Syrian people realized that they were not under the protection of a state in the true sense of the word, but were merely numbers who applauded and were consulted and approved by 99%. Here the people fell again. The sons of Daraa, the cradle of the Syrian revolution, embodied the presence of the people and the dys-function- of the state structure when the slogan of eternity and immortality was the inevitable banner of the Assad regime of oppression. They responded to the slogans of eternity and immortality with a decisive and beautiful response: “There is no eternity, there is no eternity. Long live Syria and down with Assad.” We simply ask to what extent can Muammar Gaddafi’s administration of an ancient country like Libya for more than four decades be described as a state? In its essence, it was nothing more than a distorted political entity (captive to simplifications and distortions resulting from -dir-ect political whims and rudimentary academic pre-script-ions).
The current events and the enormous changes in some Arab countries have compelled us to reconsider many common assumptions and even to rethink the capabilities and true value of the people. There can be no orderly and stable existence except with conscious, productive, and cohesive populations working alongside their countries authorities and governing leaders, and with conscious, just, open, and qualified governments—"wise" governments—that understand the value of the people and humanity, respect rights, and appreciate freedoms. This
is no longer acceptable today, in light of the civilizational development and modernization witnessed by the Gulf Arab states. The claim that the collective cultural component of peoples should remain captive to the past and history, closed off from the doors of rationalization and the windows of modernization and renewal emanating from a true authenticity that does not overthrow the roots of identity and belonging, but rather looks at the idea of ​-;-​-;-the possibility of restoring the flourishing civilizational role with modern and contemporary mechanisms and means, for renaissance and progress are made only by peoples and leaders of modern states and rational and just systems.
The highest religious values, such as mercy, justice, and equality, are a primary catalyst for civilizational revival. These are, in themselves, universal human values. The growing tendency in some revolutions—particularly the Syrian one—towards integration within a rigid´-or-even extremist Islamic ideology is merely an anomaly in the process. This tendency stems largely from reactions to the -dir-ect and blatant involvement of the anti-revolutionary axis in sectarian religious projects and the criminal practices attributed to the ruling regime. For some reason, these practices were deliberately linked to a specific sect through the leaking of videos depicting heinous acts committed by individuals and groups speaking in a dialect strongly associated with that particular sect. This reprehensible act of associating evil with a sect, religion,´-or-doctrine has backfired, producing results unintended by its perpetrators.
The era of the religious and sectarian state is over. The phenomena surrounding the Syrian situation are but harbingers of transcending religious and sectarian polarization and moving towards the establishment of a state based on modern, progressive concepts. We are certain that modernity is not merely a historical issue, but rather an intellectual and scientific one. We say this while emphasizing the importance of allowing sufficient time for revolutionary movements to mature and achieve their goals. Time is an existential element and a standard measure of ongoing, continuous existential movement. Since existence is a living, constantly evolving entity, time is present and a conditional element of events, inseparable from them.
We seek to establish this concept in light of the effects of the constant and the changing, desiring to reach a robust and cohesive structure that preserves emerging political and social entities on foundations different from those that prevailed and spread under defunct despotic regimes. These regimes generated an epistemological problem regarding their existence, which was intertwined with destruction and falsification, rendering them incapable of reform and impervious to change.
(The nation-state s participation in undermining the cultural and intellectual foundations upon which it was built a century´-or-more ago goes beyond merely destroying the content of public culture. The concept of the progressive Arab state—indeed, all progressive forces—was based on a kind of security classification of friends and enemies. These states neglected the liberal project that preceded them, even disavowing and attempting to erase it. Therefore, it was not difficult to confront them with a more comprehensive totality that supports the Islamic trend.) - 5 - Dr. Aziz al-Azmeh is referring to the regimes that ruled some Arab countries during the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. As can be understood from the context,
Modern states in various parts of our contemporary world are governed by consultative, democratic, and participatory systems in which freedoms and human rights are given unprecedented priority. As we see it, good governance is one of the most important systems prevailing in the countries of the world. These systems have advantages and disadvantages, and countries have historical and political backgrounds for good governance and fair governance. Therefore, we must strive diligently to establish systems that are intellectually and socially consistent with the cultural backgrounds and social traditions that constitute the most appropriate formula for governance. We are in an era where it is no longer possible to say that a particular political system is the most suitable for all countries throughout all ages, and that replicating the Western experience necessarily and in reality achieves the aspirations of countries, peoples, and societies for what they aspire to in terms of progress, prosperity, justice, and equality.
The automatic´-or-uniform transfer of a system from one society to another does not make it a political norm´-or-a widespread tradition. Rather, it requires ongoing effort to convince both the public and private sectors of the superiority and necessity of the most suitable nature of the political and social contract between the people and the state. The Kuwaiti political experience is perhaps a very important and worthy example of this, one that deserves to be studied and understood.
A question arises regarding the need to justify frequently used terms such as consultation (shura), participation, and democracy, by grounding them in inherited historical references, rational arguments, and empirical evidence. We believe that the evolution of this stance will likely be one of the effects of the enormous changes witnessed in the Arab region and its surroundings. The examination of the chaos, conflict, and instability that have resulted from some of these experiences is still under review and correction.
The state is not merely a political entity that regulates relations according to a declared, written, and codified socio-political contract that has gained popular approval,´-or-an implicit contract prevailing in custom and established through popular customary acceptance without referendum-;- nor is it simply an entity rising on a territory with defined borders. These pillars alone are insufficient for the establishment of a state in the fundamental political, legal, and constitutional sense. A sustainable and enduring reference point is essential, one that remains upright despite changes in rulers and governors. The state, at its core, is a self-contained entity´-or-legal personality based on a shared national and ethical framework. The more its institutions and governance systems achieve stability, growth, prosperity, and equality, the more resilient and capable the state will be of continuing and surviving. This practical pillar is what prevents states from collapsing due to the fall of individuals, changes in leadership,´-or-the transfer of power to new rulers.
When the state became synonymous with Assad s Syria, the very concept of the state was destroyed, its prestige lost, and its historical and constitutional identity and foundations erased. This is why we emphasize the absence of a fully -function-ing state in Syria after the March 1963 coup, and specifically after the so-called Corrective Movement of 1970, when Syria ceased to exist except as an association with one man. The slogan "Assad s Syria" became an unquestionable truth, an indisputable fact. This deception and falsification continued for four decades until the revolution arose to expose the truth and dispel the accumulated misinformation that had been deliberately instilled in a consciousness meant to be swallowed up and digested over time and successive eras.
Many modern and contemporary states are named after their founders, but they do not reduce the nation to a single person´-or-confine the definition of the homeland and the nation to one individual. The state is not merely an organizational structure of institutions with complementary responsibilities and -function-s-;- it is, above all, a rational form of human society whose theoretical and organizational structure has evolved to supersede previous forms of social unity such as tribalism, clanism, and sectarianism. The term “state” has historically been associated with race, form of government, and language, such as the French Republic and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It has taken the form of a -union- in vast parts of the world, such as the United Arab Emirates, the United States of America, and the Russian Federation. Under the umbrella of the state, there are multiple races, languages, and religions, such as in India, where nationalities, languages, and religions abound, but these entities and -union-s are dominated by a major language´-or-a major religion.
Theoretical and academic classifications often fall short of encompassing the ever-changing reality and its emerging developments and events. Normative foundations and rules remain crucial for identifying deviations´-or-distortions in phenomena´-or-events, deviations that take facts and processes out of their original course. In other words, theoretical frameworks are essential for measuring right and wrong,´-or-for discerning truth from falsehood. This is an existential, epistemological, and ontological debate. Therefore, disregarding acquired human and cultural knowledge and ignoring the true history of peoples and nations, rather than its distorted and misleading forms, has been a -dir-ect cause of the collapse of states, the degradation of peoples, and the ruin of homelands, as has happened and continues to happen in Syria and Libya. Reducing the nation to a single individual through military force, authoritarianism, and repression threatens its unity, sovereignty, and the stability of its political, social, and cultural systems. Gaddafi s Libya and Assad s Syria burdened the nation and exhausted its people, making the cost of change extremely high, painful, and protracted. Perhaps this is why it is necessary to examine what was prevalent and try to understand the reasons for the intellectual and human decline and destruction that occurred in many countries. This drove people to seek change, overthrow those regimes, and build new entities. These new entities must inevitably be based on scientific, philosophical, and intellectual foundations that reveal the most suitable and correct constitutional, legal, and political principles for a sound and stable structure, one whose foundations will not need to be dismantled over time. The terms "

civilized state ," " civil
society," " civilized state ," " civilization, " and "citizen state" are used here. Examining the above terms and their translations reveals that the term "civil state" does not exist-;- rather, the terms "city-state" and "civilized state" are used. The concept of citizenship, and upon closer examination, we find that the origin of all these terms, both original and contrived, lies in participation in urban life and the city. Even citizenship itself derives from urban life´-or-civil status. The term "citizenship" originates from the Latin word "civitas," which clearly denotes "the state of residence in a city." "Citizenship" may share a common origin, itself derived from the word "civis," meaning "citizen." This connection to the city dates back to the very inception of the concept of citizenship, perhaps for the first time—though we cannot definitively say—for a specific group of residents in the city-states of ancient Greece and Rome. Citizens were only the free inhabitants eligible to participate in the affairs of the city. Not all inhabitants´-or-residents of ancient Greece and Rome were citizens-;- thus, citizenship was linked to the concept of the city-state, that is, a self-governing community. From city-state to "state": In later eras, the concept of citizenship evolved, no longer simply referring to affiliation with a city, but rather to belonging to a sovereign state with a people and territory. The Latin word "civitas" (related to "civis") forms the basis of the modern English word "citizenship".









The term "citizenship" originally referred to a set of rights and responsibilities of city dwellers, including civic rights such as kingship, participation in government, the right to join the armed forces and abide by its regulations, and the right to hold positions within it. With the development of modern states and systems of government, the concept of citizenship expanded to encompass a broader and more comprehensive form, including belonging to a nation-state and all the rights and responsibilities stipulated in its laws and constitutions.
Today, the term "citizenship" generally refers to the legal status of belonging to a specific, fully-fledged state, meaning that citizens enjoy the rights and duties arising from that membership.
The transition from natural freedom, according to a social contract, to a civil state, whereby individuals relinquish some of their natural freedoms in exchange for a political organization that provides protection and guarantees rights, is the theoretical foundation of civil society, without which the state cannot exist.
With humanity s transition from a natural to a civil society, reason replaces instinct in its relationships with others and with existence itself, and individuals lose the absolute right to do whatever they want and obtain everything they can and desire. The laws established by this social contract, which includes a political contract, regulate rights, duties, and relationships, setting aside the law of the jungle and the laws of survival of the fittest. Individuals have rights and duties, organized and protected by laws issued by the state and approved by the legislative authority representing all segments of the population.
The social contract seeks to provide freedom for all its members and prevents the infringement of rights´-or-the breach of duties. When an individual relinquishes a portion of their natural freedom within the state, they gain civil liberties and are transformed from a naturally free being to a naturally free and rational being. - 6 -
The state is of paramount importance in achieving unity within society based on justice and equality before and by the law. It is the authority empowered to implement its requirements and the consequences of compliance´-or-violation thereof. This is the foundation upon which the concept of the civil state is supposedly based. However, in reality, it is more of an interpretation of the civil state and a distinction from the natural state than a theoretical basis for the term, as we see it. It is a newly coined political term introduced into the corridors of Arab and Islamic political discourse. It did not exist in political science , as a defining term, before the uprisings´-or-revolutions during the period between 2010 and 2025. The Muslim Brotherhood was the first to introduce it in an official document, and it was agreed that it means: a state with a civil reference, separate from religious and military reference. That is, states not ruled by religious figures´-or-the military. In reality, it is an imprecise term and needs further research, but it is a compromise idea between secularists and Islamists. It means: a system of government in a state that is not controlled by the military, is not led by a despotic individual, and is not controlled by religious figures. In fact, this term contains a structural theoretical flaw that cannot be overlooked. The state is an authoritarian concept, one of whose most important elements is coercion and compulsion. It is a socio-political concept based, in a fundamental part of it, on coercion, authority, and power. The term state is equivalent to the authority of coercion and compulsion to implement laws, and even the authority to enact laws that negate a voluntary part of natural freedoms. People, by nature, have the right to possess what they want and can of places, for example. This is also partially the case in the purely civil state, that is, the agreement of a group´-or-individuals to possess a plot of land containing a spring of water and to monopolize it from the rest does not contradict the concept of civility-;- but it contradicts the essence of the state, which has the right to control all of its lands. Therefore, the saying of the civil state is not valid civilly´-or-legally.
The state, as is commonly understood, comprises legislative, judicial, and executive authorities. The military institution is an important part of it-;- indeed, it cannot exist without it. Protecting and controlling borders is part of the essence of the state, and a system of government that does not protect´-or-control its borders becomes an entity with diminished sovereignty. The same applies to the territory itself. The state s duty is to protect the lives, property, and honor of its people. This necessitates the existence of a strong coercive institution capable of combating crime, protecting individuals and society, and ensuring the proper implementation of laws and their non-violation.
Building an army for protection and defense, ready to wage wars to preserve the unity of the homeland, the political entity, and the people, is also at the core of the state s essence and authority. How can a state be considered "civilian" when a coercive military component is essential for its existence? Perhaps the term "civilian governance system" could be adopted to signify the desire to move beyond the rule of religious figures´-or-the military, and to transcend individual dictatorship. Civil society is an integral part of society, and therefore, no individual can monopolize power within a civil society. But in reality, it is a fragile term. Nations and peoples, by virtue of reality and nature, do not live without crises. Natural disasters,´-or-collective and individual rebellions against state authorities,´-or-external aggression—these are not hypothetical scenarios, but rather historically and practically recurring realities—make it necessary to resort to special laws, thus removing the civil system of government from its context. If the state is forced, based on compelling´-or-exceptional circumstances, to impose new, coercive, and violent conditions, and the constitution stipulates only a civil system of government, then the exceptional measures become unconstitutional. Hence, caution is necessary when adopting a de-script-ion and formula for the system of government, and one should not rush to use the word "civil" in conjunction with "political. " As for "civil,


" it denotes a peaceful society that, in its theoretical foundation, has no connection to the authority of coercion, the army,´-or-the police. It is characterized by modern and developed relationships that surpass the primitive relationships of natural human societies. It does not impose laws, nor does it force violators to abide by the law, but rather through custom, traditions, and the prevailing culture. This is in terms of its being civil, not as part of the people and the state. Many researchers believe that civil society is the counterpart to the state in terms of oversight and accountability-;- it is the moral conscience that restrains and prevents the state from overstepping its bounds and encroaching on the interests of individuals, institutions, and civil bodies. The authority of civil society is moral and ethical. Although the term "civil" refers to,´-or-is a sign of, a group of people who have agreed to organize their lives according to law, and they are the ones who grant legitimacy to the state and the constitution, and they are the ones who discuss, criticize, monitor, propose solutions, and identify errors, shortcomings, and deficiencies in the work and methods of state authorities—which means considering it an existential entity within the larger concept of "the state"—its nature changes if it is attached to something like "national defense," which refers to civil forces that are resorted to due to compelling circumstances such as internal wars, disasters, and external aggressions. This connection is exceptional, not fundamental. Even under such exceptional circumstances, the civil state must be defined and preserved.



(The commentary on Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1977 states that anyone who is not a member of an armed force is considered a civilian. Civilians cannot be a party to an armed conflict, and they are entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions and their Protocols. Article 51 describes the protection that must be afforded to the civilian population and individual civilians. Chapter III of Protocol I regulates the targeting of civilian objects. Article 8(2)(b)(i) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 1998 also includes this in the list of war crimes: “Intentionally -dir-ecting attacks against the civilian population´-or-against individual civilians not taking part in hostilities.” Not all states have ratified Protocol I of 1977´-or-the Rome Statute of 1998, but it is generally accepted under international humanitarian law that targeting civilians constitutes a violation of customary laws of war, and this is binding on all belligerents.) Reference: http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/arab/b094.html#:~:text=%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%A9%205-,1.,2 .
Thus, from a legal, political, and social perspective, there is a contradiction between the concept of the state and the concept of civil society. In all cases, the state remains a political entity possessing multiple powers and multifaceted -function-s. It holds a monopoly on the use of force whenever necessary, in accordance with the law. Similarly, in cases of exceptional necessity, it is the sole entity with a monopoly on the use of arms, and its powers include delegating´-or-assigning the use of force and weapons to whomever it deems appropriate.
The state is fundamentally a coercive authority that monopolizes force and violence-;- this is inherent to its -function-s, tasks, and nature. In contrast, the term "civil state" stems from an approach that equates power with society, which is inherently paradoxical. This convergence is illusory due to a confusion of concepts, as civil society is part of the political society that comprises the general population.
Some argue that it represents a middle ground between a theocratic state and a totalitarian state, meaning it is not aligned with right-wing extremism. Others see it as a middle ground between left-wing extremism, meaning an ideological state and a fascist state, remaining neutral towards either extreme.
The question arises: Is it a vaguely defined middle ground—one without clearly defined parameters—between two extremes: B) A secular, atheistic state—the former Soviet -union- being a model that does not recognize religions as legitimate political systems´-or-social bonds? C) Constitutionally secular states such as Canada, India, France, the United States, Turkey, and South Korea? The first model ended with the disintegration of the parent entity into multiple nation-states, the largest and most powerful of which is the Russian Federation. While the second model, in its Iranian form, still suffers from a clear imbalance between national and religious affiliation, and the political system that seeks to establish a national religious empire has not stabilized, the imperial tendency imbued with a religious and sectarian character has created enormous wars and disturbances that the entire region suffers from.
a) A fundamentalist state with a sectarian religious framework, such as Iran,´-or-the current Taliban regime in Afghanistan. These are examples of existing political entities that govern and manage the state and society according to a purely religious framework.



In its Afghan form, the most prominent features to date are rigid radical tendencies, cultural isolation, and the curtailment of freedoms. This fundamentalist project, bordering on extremism, invited foreign invasion in its initial phase, and today it is in a state of stabilization with no clear indications of a reformist path that might present itself after a potentially lengthy period. These two models—the Iranian Shiite theocratic state and the Afghan Taliban state with its extremist Sunni religious system, especially in the post-Soviet era—despite their profound differences, have resulted in the impoverishment of the state and society and the fragmentation of the positive power of the individual and the community in the face of an endless list of enemies. This means that they are not examples to be emulated. Therefore, it was necessary to search for alternatives that fulfill the objective conditions of the state in its modern political and scientific sense. The problem of democratic electoral recognition: We can begin a democratic path by discussing: 1- Legal equality, 2- Political freedom, and 3- The rule of law. In order for such a system to -function- regularly and smoothly and achieve stability and sustainable development, it must adopt these three characteristics. We then turn to an urgent question: Is achieving development and stability linked to the form of the system, its essence,´-or-both? In other words, a political system is successful and in accordance with the will of the people if it can achieve development and stability, and consequently, a prosperous and dignified life. With this formulation, we focus on the essence and address the shortcomings, without dwelling too much on the form. Democracy, a compound word meaning "rule of the people," is a phrase of great simplicity and linguistic precision, yet it is incredibly complex and multifaceted. The idea of ​-;-​-;-rule by the people, as a subject of the people as a subject, begins with the following principle: In a system of government, "all eligible citizens participate equally—either -dir-ectly´-or-through elected representatives—in proposing, developing, and creating laws. These laws encompass the social, economic, and cultural conditions that enable citizens to freely and equally exercise their political self-determination. Among the most important foundations of democracy are the commitment to responsibility, respect for order, and the preference of knowledge over force and violence." We note the contrast with the oligarchic form of government: "Oligarchy,´-or-rule by the few, is a form of government in which liberal political power is concentrated in the hands of a small segment of society characterized by wealth, lineage,´-or-military power."
The biggest pillar of the fundamentalist project of the Iranian state was and still is the spread of the Shiite doctrine and Persian hegemony according to the exclusive Iranian doctrinal and legislative structure, considering the Supreme Leader of the state as the general, supreme and holy leader of all Islamic peoples, as is established in the literature of religion and politics of the ruling regime in Tehran. That wild imagination caused the fabrication of sectarian wars and the emergence of extremist organizations with conflicting references, sharp conflicts that lasted for many years, as was the case in Syria before the fall of the savage sectarian Assad regime.






The proposed participatory model is based on the principle that sovereignty, as a legitimacy and practice, resides at the lowest levels of authority. The lowest level of authority is the ordinary citizen, and the collective of citizens should hold the reins of power by granting legitimacy to those who exercise it. These citizens themselves are essentially representatives of that class. This principle faces extremely complex problems, which is why dozens, even hundreds, of forms of government have emerged throughout ancient and modern history. This means that the search for the most suitable form that fulfills the conditions mentioned above is the crucial point for achieving the equation of what is most appropriate and suitable.
By electoral recognition, we mean the acknowledgment and ratification of the numerical results of the ballot boxes. We will examine whether this mechanical, numerical process fulfills the principle that sovereignty resides at the lowest levels of authority.
It is necessary to verify the validity of this principle through both absolute and relative measures.
Is the electoral recognition of ideological political systems, in all their secular´-or-religious forms, a tactical recognition´-or-a fundamental one? The essence of radical political thought is to define the state according to ideology. The clearest example is Article 8 of the permanent Syrian Constitution issued on March 13, 1973, which stipulates that "the Arab Socialist Ba ath Party is the leading party in society and the state and leads a progressive national front." The legislators used this explicit phrase ("leading party in society and the state") to emphasize the party s exclusive leadership of both-;- it was the sole leader. During that period, general and special elections and referendums were held, followed by electoral approval. This was a profoundly flawed experience, as the primary objective was to establish this leadership based on the party s own authority, which meant the entrenchment of autocratic rule in an extremely rigid manner.
In contrast, in Lebanon and Kuwait, elections were conducted with a closer connection to the popular process. This continued for decades, with electoral approval obtained from all participating parties. However, the phenomenon of unrest and instability was very evident in Lebanon, while in Kuwait, the Emir resorted to suspending democratic mechanisms after the country teetered on the brink of chaos and state collapse. (On Friday, May 10, 2024, an Emiri decree was issued dissolving the National Assembly and suspending certain articles of the Constitution for a period not exceeding four years.
The Emiri decree stated: Emiri Decree.
Based on what the supreme interest of the country requires, we hereby decree the following: Article One: The National Assembly is dissolved.
Article Two: Articles 51, 65 (paragraphs two and three), 71 (paragraph two), 79, 10, 174, and 181 of the Constitution are suspended for a period not exceeding four years, during which time the democratic practice in the country will be studied, and the findings of the study will be presented to us for appropriate action.)
We can cite many examples of the flawed application of the principle that sovereignty resides at the lowest level of authority. Consider, for instance, the democratic experiments in Bangladesh and Iraq , which produced fragile states that failed to achieve stability, sustainable development, and a decent standard of living after decades of democratic practice.
Considering these and other experiences, we must weigh the pros and cons of what is most suitable and what is most ideal. While defining what is most suitable is closer to reality, as it involves extrapolating the system s experience in practice and judging it based on its results, defining what is most ideal is difficult and elusive.
Therefore, we must confront the challenges of political and national action facing intellectual, political, and social forces, both theoretically and practically. We are particularly interested in understanding the true positions and political and legal visions of Islamic, secular, and leftist forces in determining the most suitable system for establishing a strong state. Under such a state, citizens would enjoy justice, equality, and freedom, and their rights would be protected based on the principle of citizenship, avoiding any discrimination´-or-biases that are outside´-or-contradictory to it. This also involves defining how to deal with the civil, political, and religious rights of all national components, safeguarding the right of the majority to participate and be consulted, and restoring the rights that have been usurped for decades under the pretext of holding sham elections and a superficial, empty pluralism devoid of any real meaning´-or-substance of diversity.
The issue at hand concerns the form of the political system and the nature of the desired state. It is insufficient to simply label it an Islamic, civil, secular, democratic,´-or-participatory pluralistic state. The form must align with the essence of the matter, establishing a coherent vision that fulfills the interests of the people and maintains a strong, capable, and just state. This vision must be consistent with the form of government, the separation of powers, and the alignment between constitutional and legal frameworks, on the one hand, and Sharia law, on the other. It must also clarify the sources of Sharia, its constitutional and legal standing, and guarantee public and private freedoms. Only then can we discern the true features of the common and widely circulated concepts of the state and its system of government within the diverse political landscape, encompassing leftist, nationalist, liberal, popular Islamic, and bourgeois factions.
The form of the state and its system can be used, provided their contexts and principles are agreed upon, without posing a problem when we demand alternatives to authoritarianism. This form provides an initial impression of a political system with known parameters and-limit-ations, which is at the heart of the concept of the state.
From a somewhat objective perspective, many attempt to apply the concept of "civil" to the state, given the inherent appeal of linking the state with civil society. However, as we have previously demonstrated, the two concepts are distinct. The use of the suffix "civil" was primarily a way to avoid a secular´-or-religious connotation, and such an artificiality was unnecessary.
Some argue that linking the state to one of its defining characteristics—a socio-political entity that protects and preserves all members of society regardless of ethnicity, religious, national, social,´-or-intellectual identities—justifies this newly coined term. Several principles must be present in a civil state-;- if any one of them is lacking, the conditions for such a state are not met. The most important of these principles is that the state must be founded on peace, tolerance, acceptance of others, and equality in rights and duties, guaranteeing the rights of all citizens. A key principle of a civil state is that no individual within it should be subject to the violation of their rights by another individual´-or-entity. There is always a supreme authority—the state—to which individuals can appeal when their rights are violated´-or-threatened. The state is responsible for enforcing the law and preventing individuals from taking the law into their own hands.
Among the principles of a civil state is trust in various contracting and exchange processes, as well as the principle of citizenship, which means that an individual is not defined by his profession, religion, region, wealth,´-or-power, but rather by a legal and social definition as a citizen, that is, a member of society with rights and duties. He is equal in these respects to all citizens. Also among its most important principles is that it be founded on a civil system of relations (7).
In another view, we quote from the Citizenship website: “Any state whose legal system includes discrimination for any reason (religious, ethnic, partisan, institutional,´-or-otherwise) is not a civil state, regardless of its form of government, the extent of the ‘democracy’ of its political institutions,´-or-its economic system. A civil state is a state of free citizens who are absolutely equal in civil rights by virtue of citizenship itself, that is, membership in the state.”
Moderate Islamic perspective:
According to a moderate Islamic intellectual approach, and based on the principle that the issue of the system of government and its forms stems from “the sovereignty of the nation over itself,” the concept of “sovereignty” is a worldly, societal matter, citing the verse: {And thus We have made you a middle nation, that you may be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger may be over you.} {A witness} Surah Al-Baqarah: Verse 14. The witness is present, which negates absence. All witnesses are present in their time. The Companions and the general Muslim population were witnesses over all people, and the Prophet (peace be upon him) is a present witness through his life, his methodology, his sayings, and his biography after his death. Some see this general approach as contradicting the requirements of establishing governance based on the principles of the tolerant Sharia. This contradiction disappears when we realize that moral and human values ​-;-​-;-and historical jurisprudential interpretations are a fundamental component of a shared and distinct human cognitive and ethical narrative. The initial Prophetic principle, "I was sent only to perfect good character," is the principle that made the moral structure commonly accepted among people the basis of legislation and governance. {And indeed, you are of a great moral character} Surah Al-Qalam (4). It is established in the hadith on the authority of Aisha, the Mother of the Believers (may God be pleased with her), when she was asked about the character of the Messenger of God (peace be upon him), she replied, "His character was The Quran.) Thus, the Holy Quran is combined with the sublime character—a noble, virtuous, just, tolerant, and merciful character that ensures the well-being and strength of people and existence—reflecting the state and the life of the noble Prophet (peace be upon him). This is unlike the theocratic state that prevailed in Europe during the Middle Ages, where clergymen controlled every aspect of the state and society.
The term "ethical state" is close in meaning to the foundations upon which the state was built during the era of the Prophetic and Rashidun caliphates, especially during the reign of Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab. He established a state that divided responsibilities and organized state institutions according to competence, benefiting from the experiences and culture of other previous states in this field. He established the Diwans (administrative departments), drawing on the Persian model, and created the Bayt al-Mal (treasury) and Diwan al-Jund (military bureau), drawing on the Byzantine model. The system of governance in the ethical state is restricted only by what is agreed upon by the members and elements of society. The Messenger of God (peace be upon him) said, "God has protected my nation from uniting on misguidance." The consensus referred to here is circumstantial and customary, which can be transferred to the most likely opinion, as is customary among scholars of jurisprudence. If the majority of scholars agree on a certain issue, then it is a valid issue.
The state, with its civil societies, is a protector, guardian, and organizer of rights, freedoms, and duties, and it is more advanced than the concept of natural freedoms, which are restricted by the social, customary, political, and constitutional contract. It is an entity that is perfectly consistent with Islam s conception of the state in its civil aspect. (The state, as Islam brought it about, and as Muslim history has known it, is a moral state, in which authority is based on allegiance, selection, and consultation, and the ruler is an agent of the nation´-or-its servant, and the nation—represented by its people of authority and influence—has the right to hold him accountable and monitor him.) - 8 - Here we observe a strong link between Islamic history and moral civility.
(The meaning of "civil state" is that it is based on the selection of a strong, trustworthy, and qualified leader who meets all the necessary conditions, chosen freely by the people of authority and influence. It is also based on the general pledge of allegiance from the nation, and on the obligation of consultation (shura) thereafter, and the ruler s´-or-imam s adherence to the opinion of the nation´-or-its consultative council. Furthermore, it is based on the ruler s responsibility to the nation, and the right of every individual subject to advise him, guide him, enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong. Indeed, Islam considers this a collective obligation (fard kifayah) upon the nation, and it may become an individual obligation (fard ayn) upon every Muslim if he is capable of it and others are incapable´-or-negligent in fulfilling it.) - 9 - This de-script-ion is important and precise, encompassing key pillars in the Islamic conception of governance, as we previously explained in the first chapter of our book, *Dialogue Between Democracy and Islam*. To resolve the dilemma of the difference between the nature of the state and the nature of civility, we proposed instead the "moral state."
Secularism between rapprochement and conflict:
In an effort to keep pace with the prevailing political and social developments in Arab countries that have witnessed radical political changes, and in search of systems of governance that reconcile modernity and authenticity, we propose a general concept of secularism that achieves an intellectual approach that settles in a middle ground between extreme secularism and radical Islamism. Salafist jihadism confronts secular jihadism, and both are entrenched in two warring regions, like the abode of peace and the abode of war. Both rely on the method of exclusion and the rejection of the existence of the dissenter´-or-the different. By moving away from the final´-or-absolute conception of truth, the supposed intellectual flexibility within a socio-political conflict requires achieving rapprochement and convergence at a position of moderation that-limit-s the pace of the ideological, social, and political conflict surrounding the societies of the Arab Spring.
Secularism is a Western term that emerged in the realm of Western thought and culture after the Church s control over the state and society in Europe during the Middle Ages. It came as a reaction to get rid of the prevalent religious tyranny, and it meant: separating religion from the state so that the state is not biased towards one religious´-or-intellectual group over another, and achieves justice among all members of society without favoring one group over another because of its religious affiliation. Under a secular state, freedoms are available and protected, and priority is given to freedom of conscience. Secularism has Roman origins from the principle of "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar s, and unto God the things that are God s."
Secularism is derived from two sources: science and the world. Science refers to the experimental sciences and the human sciences that stem from them, such as anthropology. The world refers to the earthly realm, as opposed to the heavenly´-or-metaphysical. (A secular state, supported by a strong and solid campaign of institutions and intellectual currents, is established in a society where there is a high degree of religious faith, supported by strong religious institutions... The issue of secularism is extremely complex and diverse, and it is impossible to talk about it without referring to history and its general universal -dir-ection. Secularism is not a simple pre-script-ion related to alleged foundations of Christianity´-or-religious authority without challenges, as we see in Arabic writings.) -10-
Secularism has degrees and levels, including the strict and extreme, such as those who call for the separation of religion from society and the state, such as French secularism and Bourguiba s Tunisian secularism. There is also the moderate secularism that prevents the control of the religious institution over the state but supports and endorses societal religiosity, such as American secularism.
Furthermore, Arab and Muslim writers and thinkers have sought to utilize secularism to achieve civil coexistence and maintain social peace. They defined secularism as a socio-political culture that prevents the clergy from controlling the state and society. It is based on accepting others and those who are different, recognizing their right to practice their religious rites and their right to believe in the creed they deem correct, within a system of governance that protects religions, preserves people s religious affiliations, and does not favor one group over another. This concept was considered a means of protecting the state and society in countries with diverse sects, backgrounds, and doctrines, such as Syria and Lebanon. According to this understanding, "religious authority is equal in matters of life and thought to other authorities in a society that is internally differentiated and recognizes these differences"—11—and externally. Dr. Burhan Ghalioun, Dr. Aziz al-Azmeh, and the thinker Michel Kilo are considered pioneers of this secularism.
The problem of equating the "religious with the political" reference:
This equality actually contradicts the concept of the state in principle, as the state is a purely secular concept, and the religious reference is a purely textual fundamentalism. As for the participation of a religious reference in the capacity of its members as citizens and influencers in politics and consultation, this is something in which there is no contradiction. The state´-or-politics being subject to the religious reference turns it into a religious dependency and takes it out of the principles of the constitutional political contract. Political authority is based on knowledge, law, experience, and practice, while religious authority is textual and operates only according to religious pronouncements, regardless of their validity´-or-soundness. Religious scholars and clerics cannot fulfill the condition of citizenship for all as the foundation of a nation-state. Belonging, identity, and even levels of human value are linked to religious and even sectarian identity. We observed in Syria after December 8, 2024, how sectarian religious authorities intervened to obstruct the state s progress, monopolizing the representation of their respective communities and the right to lead the regime and society. This severely harmed the state, society, and the community itself, removing them from the context of citizenship and confining them to the framework of sectarian religious authority. This political experience is highly significant and important in the context of political thought, as it demonstrated the inability and lack of experience of sectarian religious authorities to engage with the concept of a comprehensive national political state.
The essential contradiction between the abstract concept of the state and the abstract concept of religious authority makes the leadership of that authority a burden, a weight, and a hindrance to the state and a dismantler of society. It is very difficult, and perhaps impossible, for a state to exist without religious, doctrinal,´-or-sectarian pluralism. We have seen how religious authorities have multiplied within a single sect and how sects and doctrines have multiplied within a single religion.
Some might object, arguing that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) combined both leadership and authority, as did the caliphs and rulers after him. The response is that practical necessity dictated this combination. We have observed closely that this practice was distinct, proceeding along two parallel tracks: the secular political track and the religious textual track. This is evident in the Prophet s (peace be upon him) consultations with his companions, military commanders, and advisors on wars and worldly matters. Similarly, we have observed the caliphs independent reasoning (ijtihad) regarding state and political affairs, sometimes exceeding the bounds of the text, as the matter demanded the greater and more immediate good. For further elaboration on this issue, we recommend reading the chapter, "The Essential Distinction Between State and Religion," from our book, "The Duality of Reason and Revelation: Deconstructing the Conflict." Regarding
consensualism,
we might be justified in proposing the term "consensual secularism," which is one that does not oppose religions, fight against religiosity,´-or-persecute religious people. Rather, it is a consensual and applicable concept that embodies foundations and principles whose vision aligns with the objectives and aims of Islamic law. (God Almighty said: There is no compulsion in religion. Righteousness has become distinct from error. So whoever disbelieves in false deities and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And God is Hearing and Knowing.) Surah Al-Baqarah: Verse 256. And false deities is a broad concept that includes every tyrant, oppressor, conqueror, oppressor, controlling, exploiting, and plundering person who subjects the state and society to the interests of himself and his group. God Almighty also said: (And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a mercy to the worlds) Surah Al-Anbiya, verse 107.
It was reported in the tradition (People are equal like the teeth of a comb, and no Arab has superiority over a non-Arab except through piety). No prophetic hadith with this wording has been proven, and people have transmitted this tradition and cited it to indicate equality among people. Returning to the concept of piety, we find it to be a general concept that is not-limit-ed in its general meanings to performing religious duties.
(Piety in Arabic: It is the noun form of the verb "to be pious," and the verbal noun is "piousness." Both the noun and the verbal noun are derived from the root "to protect." Protection means preserving something from what harms´-or-injures it. Thus, the essence of piety is for a person to place a shield between themselves and what they fear and are wary of. Nizam al-Din al-Nisaburi, explaining the meaning of "the pious one," said: It is the active participle of "to protect," so they are protected. Protection is excessive preservation. This animal protects itself from injury if it is struck by a growth of vegetation from the roughness of the ground and the thinness of the hoof, so it protects its hoof from the slightest harm.) Reference: Interpretation of the Wonders of the Qur an and the Desires of the Criterion, Volumes 1-6, Part 1.
(The word "piety" appears in the Holy Qur an in 258 places. It appears in 182 places in the form of a verb, such as the Almighty s saying: {So beware of the Fire whose fuel is men and stones} (Al-Baqarah: 24). It appears in the form of a noun in 76 places, such as the Almighty s saying: {Indeed, the best provision is piety} (Al-Baqarah: 197).) Reference: Islamweb.
It has been said that it means: the one who encompasses all that is good (And fear Allah, and Allah will teach you. And Allah is Knowing of all things). Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 282.
It has also been said that it means: "Perfect piety, avoiding what harms him in the Hereafter."
It has been said, “The pious one is he who abstains from what is permissible for fear of what is impermissible.”
Among the most beautiful expressions of piety is found in the explanation of the station of piety in the book “The Sublime Stations of the Sufi Masters” by Muhammad Wafa Bahr al-Safa: “Piety is the containment of the soul’s lapses by the constraints of Islamic law. Its essence is the elevation of the practical intellect to the scales of Islamic law to consider deficiency and excess.”
This extends to shared worldly, ethical, and (secular) meanings such as proficiency, trustworthiness, truthfulness, equality, justice, and integrity. It is worth noting that most systems, foundations, and rules that regulate the movement of individuals, societies, and nations are based on secular principles. For example, traffic laws, urban planning laws, international aviation laws, maritime border laws, international navigation laws, and many others, all emerged and crystallized within the general concept of secularism. Within this general framework, we can deny the existence of any profound´-or-fundamental rational´-or-legal justification for opposing a consensual secularism.
The problem of accepting secularism from an Islamic perspective:
The problem between Islam and secularism is that they are not in opposition to each other, contrary to what many supporters of both sides believe. The fact that some young people voted for the Islamic State on social media is actually due to fear for their identity coupled with an emotional fear of disobeying God’s commands, and the consequences of such disobedience in this world and a dark fate in the hereafter. Likewise, there was a fear of the secular state being mistakenly associated with despotism and oppressive, corrupt, and tyrannical regimes, as was the case during the era of the defunct Assad in Syria, who cloaked himself in its mantle for decades and presented himself in its guise to justify his corruption, control, and tyranny. The West and minorities were misled into believing that, in its secular form, it was the protector and guarantor of minorities, while in reality, it is no less secular than the Taliban. The issue is primarily one of justice, governance, participation, oversight, equality, and freedom, not merely a matter of partial personal freedoms in exchange for the oppression, subjugation, humiliation, and enslavement imposed by the Assad family on the Syrian people. This approach and behavior contradict the foundations of secularism and its values, which stem from guaranteeing public and private freedoms, such as the right to express opinions, publish, participate politically, form parties, and ensure that the right person is in the right place, regardless of their religious´-or-ethnic identity, based on citizenship, in accordance with the law and constitutional provisions, and to prevent the tyranny of power over the people´-or-the majority.
Is secularism not in opposition to Islamism, especially since the concept of an Islamic state is, in some of its fundamental aspects, civil and not a point of agreement? Islam encompasses the Saudi, Iranian, Turkish, Taliban, Pakistani, Malaysian, and other models in countries with Muslim majorities, despite their doctrinal, sectarian, and jurisprudential differences.
Therefore, we must emphasize that secularism is not in opposition to religion. In a country like Syria, which is supposed to be a protector and guardian of all religions and a preventer of one group s domination over another, a secular state should maintain impartiality towards all, regardless of their religious affiliation. Likewise, secularism is not inherently against atheism, and according to its fundamental principles, no one has the right to restrict´-or-monopolize matters of belief, which are primarily internal convictions free from coercion´-or-compulsion. Faith, in its essence, is love and spiritual and emotional submission, and it cannot be achieved through force, imposition,´-or-domination. Furthermore, secularism is not synonymous with irreligion, but rather, at its core, represents the state s commitment to justice in the face of ethnic, religious, and intellectual diversity.
The secular nature of the state does not imply the exclusion´-or-suppression of religious culture´-or-religious sciences. Rather, it views religious heritage and culture as a fundamental element in the entirety of human anthropological and civilizational history.
Why do Islamists oppose secularism?
The difference in values ​-;-​-;-between secularism and Islam relates to individual freedom, sexual relations, food, drink, and clothing. Furthermore, the Islamic interpretation of freedom differs from the secular interpretation, particularly in matters of personal status such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and polygamy. There is a vast chasm in the understanding and interpretation of freedoms related to these issues. It appears that secular values ​-;-​-;-clash with Islamic principles, and there is a popular and intellectual fear of the dominance of Western customs, traditions, and lifestyles in Muslim societies, which masks a potential loss of identity.
In the most controversial and contradictory concepts, such as the issue of separating religion from the state, the idea does not mean isolating´-or-excluding religion from life´-or-society. Rather, the core issue is the separation of religion and the state in essence, as they are two different but non-conflicting elements. Religion is a metaphysical reference, an internal belief, a way of life, and an internal doctrine that is primarily attached to the unseen and the revealed text. It is not religious culture´-or-the interpretations accompanying the sacred text. It is a supreme value with supreme purposes. As for the state, it is a secular system and institutions whose basic reference is the constitution and the law agreed upon by the citizens of the nation. It has no sanctity´-or-infallibility, and everything it is based on is made by humans and is subject to criticism, amendment, correction, and addition. This is what cannot be done with the fundamentals of religion, unlike what is the case with religious thought, politics, and religious legislation. Religious culture, jurisprudence of politics and governance, and historical experience are subject to the same scrutiny, examination, criticism, and review that the state is subject to.
Let s look at the model of the strict secular Turkish state. How was it possible for a party whose members are religiously observant Muslims and whose leaders are religiously committed, performing religious duties and whose wives wear the legal headscarf, to reach the seat of power and lead the country according to democratic mechanisms under a secular state? But this cannot happen under a religious rule, as it would be impossible to achieve justice´-or-allow non-religious people,´-or-even those who do not belong to a particular sect, to ascend to the leadership position,´-or-to enjoy an equal opportunity with others to reach high positions´-or-control the prevailing system, since Islamization may mean sectarianism in many places. It is certain that Iran does not allow a Sunni scholar, no matter how capable and wise he is, to reach the seat of leadership.
Some researchers consider secularism a universal culture, and indeed it is prevalent and will remain so in modern civil states. The vast majority of laws regulating and influencing the lives of individuals, societies, and the relationships between them, as well as various systems of government, are secular. For example, traffic laws, judicial procedure laws, industrial licensing laws, laws regulating elections and -union-s, urban planning laws and building permits, and the foundations for constructing temples, churches, and mosques are primarily based on secular engineering and technical laws. These are, in reality, secular civil matters in which religion only intervenes through moral obligation, emotional engagement, and a living conscience—matters common to all humanity and all religions and other beliefs. Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, and even Chinese communists possess the same moral obligation, living conscience, and human compassion as adherents of the Abrahamic religions. Were it not for this human, civilizational, and ethical commitment, not-limit-ed´-or-restricted by religious affiliation, human life would be corrupted, and humanity would be lost in the wilderness of instincts and conflicting interests. Hence, secular civil laws and constitutions have emerged to safeguard human life. It prevents the slide into conflict and warfare motivated by religious, sectarian, ethnic,´-or-partisan ideological affiliations.


Footnotes, References, and Sources:
1- (For the Arab Socialist Ba ath Party, freedom meant first and foremost complete political and economic liberation from all forms of colonial control) Ahmad Dargham - Muhammad Mahfouz: Studies in Political Philosophy: p. 168, Dar al-Ma arif, 1984.
2- The Arab Socialist Ba ath Party s experience in leading the state and society and building popular democracy began in 1963. For more on this experience, see the previous source, p. 99.
3- Dr. Aziz al-Azmeh: Secularism from a Different Perspective: Center for Arab Unity Studies, Beirut: First Edition: December-January 1992, p. 143. The adoption of this term from Dr. Aziz al-Azmeh and its use in this context is a linguistic borrowing that we found to apply wholly´-or-partially to some of the systems that prevailed in the Arab region.
4. Ibid.
, p. 145. 5. Ibid., p. 294.
6. This understanding is taken from the book: The Social Contract: Principles of Political Rights, by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, published by UNESCO, translated by Adel Zuaiter.
7. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
8. Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, official website.
9. Ibid.
10. Secularism from a Different Perspective, by Aziz al-Azmeh, p. 19.
11. Ibid., p. 18.
12. First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, University of Minnesota, Human Rights Library. http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/arab/b094.html#:~:text=%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%A9%205-,1.,2 .
13. A study entitled "Education and Democracy" by Jamil Hamdawi, published by Diwan Al-Arab, Wednesday, March 25, 2009. https://www.diwanalarab.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%A9
14. Babelnet. Dictionary. Rule of the Political Minority. https://web.archive.org/web/20191216005051/https://babelnet.org/synset?word=bn:00058873n

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1