Contributing Authors

In Islamic constitutions, the declaration of Islam as the "state religion" not only turns the declaration of "equality of all citizens" contradictory, but also leads to state-sanctioned practical discrimination and inequities against members of non-Islamic faiths.

In a previous article, I showed that there is a clear contradiction in a state constitution that adopts Islam as the religion of the state, and simultaneously adopts the premise of equality of all its citizens. I have shown that such a constitution establishes state-institutionalized affirmative discrimination against all citizens, who do not believe in or belong to the “official” and “constitutional” form of Islam, adopted by that state.

If a state wants to treat all of its citizens equally and adopts Islam as the religion of the state, then that state has to adopt all the religions and belief systems of each and every citizen as the “state religion” as well. When a state adopts only one religion as the state religion, it automatically declares inequality of its citizens, belonging to a different religion or belief system. Islamic constitutions dignify Islam as the state religion, ignoring others. Inequities lie in this fact itself, whereby the state violates premise of “equal citizenry” to all its subjects.

In this article, I try to show how adopting Islam as the state religions leads to practical discrimination, inequity and violation of the rights of citizens belonging to other faiths. At the end of this article, I try to offer a commonsense approach to eliminate such a contradiction in any “Islamic” constitution.

The Logical Form of the Argument

Constitutions of Islamic countries adopt the following two premises (axioms):

1-      Islam is the religion of the state

2-      All citizens of the state are equal under the law

Please note that premise (1) excludes all other religions (Baha’i, Ahmadi, Christian, Hindu, etc.) from the privilege of being the “state religion”, from having a “constitutional” status as Islam does.

Thus, premise (1) by itself establishes affirmative discrimination against other religions, different from Islam. This amounts to apriori Constitutional Discrimination. This form of discrimination is easily translated into practical discrimination against citizens of other persuasions of the state. Many examples can be cited. In such a state, apostates of Islam will be hunted down by the state or the mob for punishing with death, because they left the “state religion” Islam, and Islam demands so. Followers of other religions are free to choose any religion of their liking, especially Islam, without fearing the threat of being killed. But the state’s Muslim citizens are deprived of the same right. Sharia, the divine laws of Islam the “state religion”, prohibits non-Muslims from holding public offices. There are many discriminatory practices in Islamic countries, solely because they are Islamic countries. These discriminations are institutionalized by its constitution.

Now let turn to premise (2): “All citizens of the state are equal under the law”. My above analysis shows how premise (1) establishes a contradiction to premise (2). That is to say, premise (1) renders the practice of premise (2) impossible. Hence, premises (1) and (2) establish a contradiction that exists in almost all constitutions of Islamic countries. Implementation of premise (1) turns the implementation of premise (2) null and void.

What is the solution to the contradiction?

Premises (1) and (2) of Islamic constitutions as cited above establish a logical as well as practical contradiction. One cannot believe in a geometric form that is a Circle and a Square at the same time.

When faced with a contradiction in her/his belief system, one has to reconcile this difficulty by eliminating at least one of the factors that causes this contradiction. In our case, we have an easy way out by rejecting one of the two premises mentioned above. In a modern civil state, one cannot but affirm equality of all subjects of the state under a common law. This obviates that fact that constitution’s declaration that “Islam is the religion of the state” is the culprit. It is an assumption (axiom) that has to be rejected in any constitutional civil society (State). In other words, expunging premise (1) from the constitutions of Muslim countries is the only way to out of this farcical contradiction.

-----

In a comment left by one of the readers of my previous article, the commenter wrote about my analysis of certain points in the Jordanian constitution, which is an example of a contradictory constitution that affirms and adopts axioms (1) and (2) above,

Text of the comment below:

[The article (writer is speaking about my previous article on the subject) stopped at the Jordanian second and sixth clauses of the so-called constitution. A couple of years ago, I read the newly approved civil status law in Jordan (in Arabic) as published by local newspapers. Examples of the (sigh) equality given to non-Muslims follow:

• A married Christian woman who converts to Islam is automatically divorced from her Christian husband (because of the higher status of the Islamic religion over Christianity).
• A Christian man who converts to Islam automatically converts ALL of his CHILDREN to Islam regardless of their wishes. The wife may remain as Christian because Muslims are allowed to married people of the book (Christians and Jews).
• There are other laws that prohibit (or restrict) the marriage into women from non people of the book. E.g., Hindus, etc. However, in Islamic sharia these women may be part of sexual unions under the owned-female clauses of Quran.

In Jordan, there are other laws that make it an offence to criticize any aspect of Islam just like the ones you hear about in Pakistan. You would not dare talk to anyone about Islamic religion (especially the ones claiming they want to become Christians) for fear of being agents of salafi or the government.

The latest constitutional changes which were rushed to attempt to placate the restless Jordanians are simply hogwash and cosmetic changes which produce no real changes to add more equality of freedoms. For example, freedom of the press is guaranteed (great you say), but as long as they do not conflict with the norms of society or common decency (uh oh, there goes the guarantee, I say).]

The above comment shows that indeed a constitution of an Islamic country does reject the assumption of equality of its citizens in favor of Islam, thus affirming the fact that a constitution of an Islamic country is no more than a discriminatory belief system that is bigoted in nature.