The Tunisian and Egyptian as well as the Syrian experiences which are still in its middle stage, shows that the civil state is not yet settled.
There are differences of concept over it between the Islamists and the seculars, which threatens the future sustainability of the common ground between them which seems guaranteed for the time being.
However it is likely that it would not remain steadfast in reality, unless a deep intellectual and political changes of its implementation are undertaken, especially by the Islamists.
The Islamists promise with a civil state based on the Sharia law, and the seculars also promise with a civil state that varies from one of their stream to another whose reference is the human being as a free entity.
The two parties agree on the name of the civil democratic state and differ over all other things. In the Islamic promise it has a reference that is outside man, who is considered to be its pivotal essence if it is meant to be a real civil state.
This reference is not human and divine, whereas the civil state of the secular promise has a worldly reference incorporated in man, who is the axis of the world, the thought and spirit. He is identified by his freedom and not by anything outside it, contrary to the human being of the Islamic reference, who is identified by his belief . He is a Muslim whose all human, spiritual and objective identifications are determined by his being a believer.
In this point of significant importance from which all the other points subdivide regarding the human being. It is also related to the political entity and the public affair at large where the two concepts differ to the extent of conflict.
The two civil states differ. The differ in the drafts that promise with a civil state. It is certain that it won't be a civil state in the first case, which changes into a religious state that actually denies the equality concept between man kind, because the believer is better to God and therefore he should be better to his human beings than non believers.
The one who doesn't carry and apply God's word in his life and relations is an inferior person to the believer , the superior creature who carries a divine mission.
This is said while in conformity with principles, the member of the civil state should not be determined according to his religion, wealth, status, class or any other quality.
He should only be identified on basis of his freedom which distinguishes him as a human being.
What increases the importance of identifying him through his freedom is that it doesn't deny him to belong to any religion, and doesn't prevent him from being entitled to any social position that he possess the elements of achieving it, while he is denied all that when he is identified through faith, which is based on belonging to a certain religion or to a social position. It entails an inevitable distinction between human beings and consequently cancels the equality, the justice that stems from it and the activities resulting from the consciousness through which the human being determines his fate willingly.
If the human being is identified by belief, changing from human being into a believer, the civil state, which the human being is its axis should unavoidably change into a state of faith or a state of believers that organizes the general life so as to meet the needs of its citizens in practicing their belief and to impose its character on the public affairs.
Because the believer is not equal with the un believer and the civil state is made up of believers, it will no longer be the state that the Arab societies demand, as a state of justice, equality and freedom, while it cannot be a democratic state, though it may acquire the support of most of its citizens because the democratic state is not only a state of believers , but it is particularly a state of free citizens, where the majority and minority is determined by them.
They are a minority and majority that are inconstant. Their objective is not the belief, the desire and the metaphysics. Their objectives are the politics, the economy and the earthly and only earthly issues in which the citizens' view changes from time to time according to their interests.
The civil state within the Islamic concept won't be able to guarantee the equality of citizens before the law, in fact it won't be a state of citizenship to all.
It will be difficult or even impossible to consider it a civil state because it is based only on the equality of the believers before the law, due to its differentiation in rights and duties between the believers and the citizens who are not equal. It is notable that this law will not be a secular law and will inevitably be a religious law. Sharia law is not a secular law. It is a God's law whose source is not human, and its application should not be linked to human decision.
On the other hand the legal situation of a human being in a civil state depends on his desire as a free citizen, because he has made the law so as to serve him and when he finds that it doesn't suit his situation, he can change it and formulate a new one to replace it.
This event highlights a major difference between the types of the two states. The worldly state on which a religious state is based is a par excellent and God is its true founder.
While the founder of the civil state is the citizen. The human being as a citizen is the founder and it expresses his participation in the public affairs. This difference in the two basis has serious consequences. As the relation between the believer and his God is based on obedience and compliance, the relation of the citizen in the civil state and its institutions is based on difference and diversity. This could amount to rebellion and disobedience which is permitted and protected by the law and in certain cases it makes it binding.
It is clear from the above that the civil state cannot be of one nature, unless there is a consensus on its concepts, its founder, nature, structure and the results that it leads to in real life.
Without this we will be engaged into differences and dispute in the future, and the common that seems to unify us today changes into disparity and split, and we will find ourselves at cross roads where one leads to a revolution against tyranny in a state that calls itself a civil state, when it is not less tyrant than the state that is overthrown by a public desire which is toppled by rebellion against its model so as to replace it by a civil, democratic and free one.
It is not logical to fall victim to an alternative that is not less retarded and hostile towards the human being as a citizen. The ruler in a civil state of the religious stile will not stop to say, and work on behalf of the inspirational and the sacred.
He will consider the objection to his decisions, thoughts and actions as rebellion against a symbolic divine. He will not consider his selection for governance or power as a secular affair, and he will soon be idolized in the same way of the practices of the tyrants. At such time the law should be put under his desire and the people under his shoes.
The political literature links the civil law to the democratic one. It circulates that the first is a consequence of the second as it is the case in mathematical equations.
It is true that the democratic and civil states have the same foundation where the human being is identified through his freedom, however they are not identical in any other system, especially if the identification of a human being through freedom comes next in comparison to his identification through belief.
For this reason democracy will not emerge from the present Islamic draft, because it is founded on a base that has nothing to do with the draft. Its contradiction comes from the contradiction between the free human being and the believer, which no religious thinking has succeeded in overcoming it up to now. It has a major role in the divergence between the modern world from the traditional one, although their formal and verbal values match.
It is important to reconcile the believer with the free human being, by placing the first in a secondary position to the second and to build a system based on the free human being.
It should be noted that Islam has made man the successor in earth, after his mission is completed, and didn't make the believers the successors. He entrusted to him the responsibility of reconstruction. He made corruption the greatest of crimes and evils. This occurred after the completion of the message of Islam, does this happen by chance, or was it deliberately orchestrated by a Knowing Wise God?