The ongoing debate on whether we should have an Islamic or a secular state is a gross waste of time. Besides, most of the debate is based on pre-conceived ideas and misplaced notions. Those who stand for an Islamic state want to bank on widely held sentiments to catapult themselves to power. And those who propose a secular state, mostly the Copts and liberals, do so because they fear a situation in which the majority would oppress the minority. One reason for the acrimony of this debate is that the nature of the Islamic state is unclear. For many people, an Islamic state is a culmination of Sharia, and Sharia is all about corporal punishment. This is untrue. Sharia is not about stoning and flagellation and the severing of limbs, but about preserving life and enforcing justice. Islamic Sharia is about obligations as much as it is about rights. So the writers of Sharia saw fit to halt the punishment for theft in time of famine, for they knew that hunger could push people to extremes. Sharia is also about equality. The Prophet Mohamed admonished Muslims against punishing the poor and letting the rich get away. He said, "societies before you failed because they let the thieves go if they were rich and punished them if they were poor." Sharia envisions a clear set of conditions and circumstances under which wrongdoers can be punished. Some of these conditions are lacking today. Sharia is not static. Laws have to mirror the circumstances of the time. Even Quranic verses have been put on hold when the situation changed, in a practice known as " naskh ", where a new verse supersedes an old one. The Caliph Omar, to give you another example, stopped paying up war dividends to people sympathising with Muslims ( al-muallafatu qulubuhom ), although the arrangement was prescribed in the Quran. He did so because the circumstances had changed and Muslims no longer needed to pay people to remain sympathetic to them. Now, with 40 per cent of Egyptians living under the poverty line, we need to start doing things differently. We also need to keep in mind that Sharia believes that the poor are entitled to a portion of the wealth of the rich in their society. In this country we have a big gap between the rich and the poor, and we are yet to do something about it. We are yet to stamp out bribery, racketeering, and the many other forms of financial crimes rampant in our midst. Sharia gives people the right to speak up. Sharia writers have often stated that the ultimate good deed is to speak the truth in front of an unjust ruler. Sharia protects people against oppression and poverty, the two main reasons for revolutions. Sharia writers often say that the main source of law is the "common interests of the public". "What is acceptable to Muslim society is acceptable to God," goes the saying. Now let's turn to the much-debated Article 2 of the constitution, which says that Islam is the religion of the state. Now a state cannot have a religion, nor can state institutions have a religion. People do. People can be Muslims or Christians or followers of other religions. As for the state, it must be based on complete equality among all citizens regardless of religion, race, language, or culture. True, a majority of Egyptians is Muslim and a minority is Copt. But we shouldn't spend time looking at the ratio of Muslims to Christians. What we should worry about is the ratio of rich to poor, of educated to uneducated, of the poorly housed to the properly housed, etc. Religion is between God and man, whereas citizenry is between people and their government. In front of the law, people should answer to what they've done, not what they are. Writing in the 12th century, the eminent Muslim scholar Imam Al-Shatbi said that Sharia has five objectives. The first objective of Sharia is to defend life against disease, illness, exposure, and other causes of death. For him, attacks on Copts, their property, and their places of worship, is a grave breach of Sharia. When Caliph Omar visited Jerusalem, he stepped out of the church to pray, for fear that if he prayed inside Muslims would be tempted to do the same in the future, which may endanger the sanctity of this Christian house of worship. The second objective of Sharia, according to Al-Shatbi, is to defend reason against ignorance and lies. In Sharia, the right to knowledge is universal, like the right to water and air. The third objective is to defend religious principles that are common to all creeds: freedom, justice, honesty, truth, brotherhood, loyalty, amity, humility and sacrifice. This view applies both to Muslims studying their faith as well as to Christians studying their own. The fourth objective of Sharia is to preserve the honour and dignity of the community, which goes for Muslims and non-Muslims, regardless of their wealth and power. The fifth objective is to protect the community's resources, or national wealth. This too applies to the assets owned by both Muslims and non-Muslims. Islam doesn't believe in authority by the mosque. The church may have had political ambitions in Europe, but in Al-Azhar, the grand imam is just a learned scholar, running his own institution and not society at large. Religious opinion, which is the basis of Sharia, is offered by any learned scholar. But above all, it is about what the heart believes is true. The Prophet Mohamed once said, "Listen to their edicts, but follow what your heart tells you." The controversy over whether to have a secular or religious state has become burdensome, divisive and futile. Often it inspires fanaticism rather than good sense. The Copts are here to stay. They are part of the fabric of this country, and they will remain so in the future, equal and proud. They are citizens and their identity is connected to the country, not to their religion. So could the media please quit encouraging this useless debate?
