The State’s Secularism regardless of the Founding Charter!

The State’s Secularism, from my humble point of view is one of the most important fundamental ideas for a peaceful and stable Sudan. Its a unifying and renaissance necessity. This is what I detailed in long articles prior to the secession of South Sudan.

One of the biggest strategic mistakes made by the major parties, especially the Umma and Democratic Unionist parties (parliamentary majority parties in democratic eras); is their lack of vision clarity in regards to this issue since the sixties, until now.

In a country with multiple religions and cultures, any rule on religious basis means dividing the country and nothing more.

The modern patriotic State is a secular entity by virtue of its structural nature and its impossible for it to be otherwise!

The secularism of the State doesn’t deprive the citizen of the freedom of being religious, nor does it deprive him of his right to make religion his moral reference and the philosophical basis on which he forms his view of himself and the world around him. However, all of this remains within the limits of the individual, his conscience and his mind. When it comes to organizing the public space that we all share, the reference for politics, economics, international relations, development and public service, both civil and military, is -solely- the “public mentality” and it cannot be anything else.

What is the opposite of the secular State? Is it the Islamic State? Well, what is the Islamic State? What is the Islamic State’s detailed program for managing a Sudanese State according to the conditions of the historical moment in time, and what is the final word of Islam in the details regarding this State? Additionally, what exactly do those who demand the application of Islamic Law mean?

In the context of research assistance to Professor Abdullah Al-Naeem, I took the aforementioned questions -verbatim- and used them to explore the ideas of the most important Islamic intellectual symbols who oppose the secularism of the State in Sudan. Among those with whom I discussed these questions, and during interviews that lasted hours were; Al-Sadiq Al-Mahdi, Dr. Hassan Abdullah Al-Turabi, Professor Al-Tayeb Zain Al-‘Abideen (mercy be upon their souls), and Dr. Hassan Makki. In addition to Sheikh Abu Zaid Mohammed Hamza, to whom i sent the questions in writing and he answered them in kind. I also met with Professor Mohammed Abu Zaid (from the Ansar Al-Sunnah Al-Muhammadiyah group). I also went to Sheikh Abdul-Hayy Youssef in his office at the University of Khartoum to discuss the same questions with him, however, he apologized and said that he couldn’t cooperate with an infidel man like Abdullah Al-Naeem and advised me not to cooperate with him because he does nothing but to insult Islam.

Some had detailed answers in regards to the formation of the State they wanted, eventhough, it is literally a State utterly outside the realm of history; the traditional Ansar Al-Sunnah (Sheikh Abu Zaid Mohammed Hamza).

Sheikh Al-Turabi, for two hours and forty-five minutes, spoke to me about how politics, economics, art, and all aspects of life are separated from religion in Western civilization, and that the Muslim who demands secularism is an infidel because he believes in certain parts of the book and refuses to believe in others, as the Muslims unify all aspects of life under the banner of worshipping God!

I naturally posed the question; how can the Muslim achieve that? What are the specifications of the State that we can term “Islamic” ? And what unifies all aspects of life in worship of God? What about that State’s political and economic program? How would that be formed!

His answer was that we can achieve that end -only- if we succeed in renewing the principles of jurisprudence!

Imam Al-Sadiq Al-Mahdi, may God have mercy on his soul, was more open and flexible in discussing secularism, as he didn’t brandish accusations of blasphemy, but rather established its positive aspects, such as guaranteeing people’s rights regardless of their religious beliefs. He said that the positive content of secularism is guaranteed in the objectives of Islam, provided that there is an enlightened authentication and institutional ijtihad that goes beyond what the majority of jurists have agreed upon in certain issues, including women’s issues and the status of non-Muslims.

Professor Al-Tayeb Zain Al-‘Abideen and Professor Hassan Makki adopted the same direction of thought, highlighting the need for renewal and review of the jurisprudential heritage, and they agreed on the absence of an agreed-upon form and content for the so-called “Islamic State.”

The conclusion of the research, which included personal interviews and summaries of books, articles, and lectures by the most important symbols of “Islamization and consolidation,” was as follows: The conservative Salafi current is confident in the possibility of turning back the clock and applying Sharia Law according to the vision of the jurists of the Sunnis and the Brotherhood, reviving the Islamic Caliphate, as well as opposing democracy and human rights.

As for the enlightened current, it explicitly acknowledges that there is no such thing as an Islamic State, even at the level of theory! Theorizing about such a State in our lived reality requires “renewing the principles of jurisprudence according to Dr. Hassan al-Turabi,” and requires “enlightened consolidation” as well as “institutional ijtihad” according to Imam al-Sadiq al-Mahdi.

When the summary of the research was placed before me in (2004), I wondered with heavy dose of sadness, since the idea of the Islamic State, Islamic Law, and the Islamic Constitution is so vague and lacks theoretical coherence even in the minds of its advocates, and since they all acknowledge the inadequacy of applying Sharia in its traditional form in our contemporary reality, why did we waste all this time and political energy in debates about the Islamic Constitution in the sixties ? Why did we undermine the October democratic experience by expelling the Communist Party from parliament on the basis of religious conflicts ? Why were we unable to abolish the September laws and make them synonymous with Islam as such ? Why did we allow the Muslim Brotherhood, with all its formations, to practice all this blackmail and religious terrorism, to corrupt our religion and our world as well through bullying, political impudence and leveraging a fictitious State, an imaginary Islamic system of government, even at the level of imagination, its features aren’t clear, meaning that it is a system “limited to the imagination phase” ? Why did the National Umma Party (NUP) call its electoral program in the eighties “The Islamic awakening approach” when objectively the country didn’t need such a thing, but rather was in desperate need of peace and development necessary to defeat the terrorism of the Islamic Front ? Why did the criminal Islamic Movement push thousands of its youth to die in South Sudan under the banners of jihad, and in the end they lost their lives without achieving an Islamic conquest for South Sudan, which became independent as a secular State ? Did the youth of the National Congress Party (NCP) struggle for a secular State in South Sudan ? Or is it as we said before and will continue to repeat, a struggle for power and wealth in favor of criminals and big fraudsters domestically and abroad ? While the general public, including the “lower class of the impoverished Kizan, misled by religious sentiment”, are just firewood for the fire of the homeland’s destructive wars, the fruits of which are reaped by liars ?!

The most important question of all is why we have yet to learn the right lesson and are still subject to Islamist blackmail! Why do we still tremble at the word “Secularism” while Erdogan, the Muslim brother, boasts about Türkiye’s Secularism! And travels to Egypt to advise the Muslim Brotherhood there to adhere to the Secularism of the State! Throughout the twenty-year rule of this Muslim brother Erdogan, Türkiye has remained a Secular State with a Secular Constitution, and has normalized relations with Israel through diplomatic relations and economic interests. It has also remained a member of (NATO), and has knocked on the doors of entry into the European Union with all its might to no avail.

However, Türkiye is the icon of the Sudanese Islamists and the beloved destination of their souls, including Abdul-Hayy Youssef, and they raise Erdogan above their heads as an Islamic symbol, at the same time, they curse those who demand a Secular State in Sudan, calling them infidels. Is Erdogan a hypocrite in his Secularism? Or are the Islamists hypocrites in their Islamism ? Or is it a matter of “bullying” the Sudanese politicians because they have put themselves in a state of vulnerability due to the lack of vision clarity on strategic issues and due to the absence of courage and decisive confrontation of the blackmail of this criminal Islamist gang, clipping its claws early in victory for the unity and cohesion of the country.