,Mira albitar , Ruba Mansour:
In the political literature of the Mashriq (the Levant), there is a scarcity of thought and analysis regarding the separation of religion and state—with the notable exception of the Social Nationalist Movement, and particularly its founder, Antun Saadeh. Saadeh established the separation of religion and state as the foremost principle of reform, The movement’s literature is remarkably rich concerning this principle of separation; indeed, it analyzed and examined the issue with a depth that is rarely paralleled, The greatest obstacle to achieving social unity lies in the conflation of religious authority with temporal authority—specifically, the designation of religious authorities as the ultimate arbiters of sovereignty within the state, followed by religious institutions seizing the reins of power, or at the very least, controlling significant aspects of that power,
The great battles for human liberation have historically been waged between the interests of the people—or of societies at large—and the interests of religious institutions, which were armed with the doctrine of Divine Right and Divine Law as the basis for governing nations, Religious institutions were not alone in their utilization of the principles of Divine Right and Divine Will; these concepts were also employed by “sacralized monarchies,” which claimed to derive their authority from the Will of God—and from the endorsement of religious institutions—rather than from the people, In a quasi-state where no separation exists between the political order and religion, governance is exercised on behalf of God, rather than on behalf of the people. Religious entities styled as “states”—such as the Caliphate, for instance—stand in conflict with Social Nationalism,This is because they assert the absolute dominion of a religious institution over the entire body of believers—claims akin to those historically advanced by the Papacy and the Caliphate. In this paradigm, the Pope acts as a “Prince of the Believers” wherever they may be found, just as the Caliph does. Yet, religion, by its very nature, does not serve the specific interests of a particular people or a society defined by a distinct geographical territory; rather, the essence of the religious is universalist—unbounded by any specific society or geography, A mere congregation of believers does not, in itself, constitute a “state-society” in the modern, contemporary sense of the term, Religion was—and remains—a viable framework for human organization during the stages of barbarism, or periods proximate to it—specifically, the pre-state era characterized by tribal structures. However, in our current cultural epoch, it no longer retains that same functional validity.
Such is the philosophical stance of Syrian Social Nationalism regarding the relationship between religion and the state; this constitutes its official position, It does not, however, adopt a partisan stance concerning philosophical or theological religious concepts—matters pertaining to the mysteries of the soul, immortality, the Creator, or the metaphysical realm. Indeed, adopting a definitive stance on such matters is ill-suited for a socio-political system—whether a political party or a state, Rather, such matters fall within the private domain of individuals acting as autonomous persons within a society, not within the purview of the society as a collective entity or its institutions, The very concept of a politico-religious commonwealth stands in direct opposition to the principles of nationalism in general, and to Syrian Social Nationalism in particular, When certain religious factions cling to the ideals of religious theocracy or a politico-religious commonwealth, they effectively transform themselves into interest groups whose objectives clash with those of other religious factions within the same nation, Consequently, the nation faces a stark choice: either succumb to fragmentation, or endure the forced subsumption of one group’s interests by another—a process that inevitably gives birth to the concept of “hegemony.” This hegemony represents a state of latent—or “cold”—warfare; a conflict that lies dormant until conditions become ripe for its eruption—an eruption that, sooner or later, is all but inevitable, Religious solidarity leads to the dismantling of national solidarity within the framework of the nation-state—whether defined by a single nation, a people, or multiple peoples. Nationalism is not founded upon religion—a phenomenon inherently universal in nature, transcending geographical borders—nor is the nation-state founded upon religion, Consequently, we observe that the world’s two largest religious communities—Christianity and Islam—have not succeeded in the capacity of civil-political entities as successfully as they have in the capacity of spiritual-cultural entities, There is no inherent danger posed by spiritual religious solidarity, nor does it face any threat from the separation of religion and state, However, political religious solidarity poses a grave threat to the state, to social cohesion, and to the interests of the people. This reality is starkly demonstrated—day after day—by the political conduct of the “Ikhwan” (the Muslim Brotherhood) and other politicized religious movements.
It is impossible to achieve national social cohesion within the framework of a religious state—whether that state is religious in its entirety or merely in part. A religious state is fundamentally predicated upon inequality among various social groups—specifically, those groups deemed not to constitute the core foundation of the state. For the state is, by definition, a state of citizens—not a state of believers, The interests of a select group of believers cannot be reconciled with the interests of all citizens, which are firmly grounded in the principle of equality, It is not in the national interest to prioritize the specific interests of a select few—regardless of their numerical proportion within the population, Furthermore, it is impermissible to conflate sectarian demographics with the political calculus of majority and minority rule; for the dynamics of sectarianism are distinct from the dynamics of politics, and the national interest is, fundamentally, a political interest predicated upon equality in both rights and duties. A unity of rights and duties—founded upon equality—is the very entity that guarantees progress, stability, and steadfastness for a state of citizens, This unity of rights and duties serves as a concrete expression of a unity of will and purpose. Consequently, the Second Reform Principle called for barring the clergy from interfering in national politics and the judiciary; the Third Principle emphasized the necessity of dismantling barriers between various religious sects and denominations; the Fourth Principle mandated the abolition of feudalism and the organization of the national economy on the basis of production, equitable labor practices, and the safeguarding of state interests; and the Fifth Principle called for the establishment of an army dedicated to the effective defense of the homeland—rather than the defense of individuals—recognizing that the very concept of an army is distinct from that of a militia