The relation between religion and state

Certainly, many obstacles stand in the way of making unity an attractive choice as stated by the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), signed between the North and the South of Sudan, one of which is the stance concerning the relation between religion and state and the application of Sharia law in the country.

It is not clear yet which of the political parties (particularly the major ones) will publicly and directly support the idea of the breakaway of Southern Sudan.

However, the behaviour of many of these parties increases the possibility of separation, and places all types of obstacles and barricades in front of unity.

Unity has many requirements, the most important one of which according to the brothers in the South is to adopt the choice of the civil state that separates religion and state, without engaging in all sorts of meaningless disputes about the concept of civil and secular states.

Can two forms of government rule one state?

The Naivasha Agreement came up with temporary solutions to a number of complicated problems that were hard to address after each party clung to its position in a number of issues, such as religion-state relations. The settlement reached was a Muslim North and a secular South, but the remaining question is whether this temporary arrangement will be maintained indefinitely; can two forms of government rule one state?

The divarication between the Naivasha sides seems wide over this issue, so what will the National Congress Party (NCP) do if it is forced to choose between dividing the country into two states, and maintaining Islamic laws. It should be noted that these Islamic laws are subject to dispute even within the ranks of political-Islamic movements in the country. Many leaders in the National Congress Party (NCP) and other political parties with Islamic orientation seem indifferent concerning the breakaway of Southern Sudan, particularly if the price for unity is giving up Sharia law.

For example, Dr. Al-Tayeb Mustafa and his group call for separation out of mere religious justifications and this is evident in many of his argumentations: He writes: \"the supreme authority, the superior logic and the irrefutable evidence that all Muslims refer to before referring to any other authority must be Islam, even if that authority is a country, tribe or blood. The vast majority of Sudanese in the North are Muslims and that is why they were distinguished from the people of the South when the South was excluded from the application of Sharia law\".

On the other hand, some Salafi groups openly call for sacrificing part of the country in return for maintaining Sharia law, while the stand taken by other major political parties with Islamic orientation such as Al-Omma and Al-Ittihad remains unclear since they clearly call for making unity an attractive choice to the Southerners and take tangible steps in that direction on many occasions. However, it is not known whether or not these parties can loudly speak about the separation of religion and state and under what name.

The position of Imam Sadiq Al-Mahdi concerning this issue is hard to pin down since he, on the one hand calls to adopt human rights and civil government principles and on the other hand calls for adopting Sharia as a form of government after putting it through a sieve to remove all distorted texts and twisted practices.

\"I warn against the calls to establish a secular state [...].\"
Imam Sadiq Al-Mahdi

A media source quoted Al-Mahdi as saying in a speech at Al-Ahram Centre in Cairo: \"There is a third course that can be followed to salvage Sudan and it is based on a civil rule that derives its authority from Islam, provided that Sharia law is applied only on Muslims. I warn against the calls to establish a secular state because this will prompt a religious reaction that is more extreme and more violent. Sudanese do not want a religious or Sunni state and at the same time they do not want to exclude religion from politics\".

So Sadiq Al-Mahdi does not want a religious state and at the same does not want to exclude religion from politics and this position is in line with the stand taken by an allied party, the Popular Movement.

The Secretary General of the Popular Movement Baqam Amom said that unity became an unattractive choice for the people in Southern Sudan and the majority of them will vote ‘no’ to unity given the failure of the Government in the North. He explained that another reason pushing the South Sudanese for separation is the vivid reality based on pan-Arabism and Islam, while they do not identify with such precepts, and simply do not want to live in an Islamic State.

Dr. Haidar Ibraim believes that sacrificing part of Sudan under large excuses is in the heart of the Islamic Movements’ ideology, which deems that its affiliation to an Islamic nation tops its affiliation to a country called Sudan. He added that he once heard an Islamic leader saying that on Day of Resurrection God will ask all humans about their faith not their country.

Many National Movement leaders link unity to secularism, and division to Sharia law. Some do elaborate by underlining that they have no problem with Islam as a religion but they are against using religion to achieve political gains.

Earlier, Edward Lino, a prominent Popular Movement leader, said in an interview with Al-Hakika Newspaper that Islam is older than National Congress Party leaders, and they are not entitled to come in our time to tailor this religion according to their own sizes. He added that the Islam of the National Congress Party is the biggest weapon that will divide Sudan and people should know that very well.

From another angle, some believe that the issue of unity and separation are bigger than religion-state dynamics and that the war in the South was not for religious reasons, hence the Islamic Movement does not solely bear the burden of that war.

Popular Congress Party leader Abdullah Deng Nial says: \"We do not believe in the so-called religious war and are not familiar with that term in the first place. The war we are engaged in was already raging when we came. The Islamic Movement did not create the war in the South. When the Salvation Front came to power in 1989 the war was also already there so we are not responsible for this war.”

\"The National Congress Party seems to have made up its mind about sacrificing the South if the price for unity is the revocation of Sharia law\", as put by Dr. Hasan Makki, political science professor and close associate of the National Congress Party. He added that in theory, the concept of a secular state may be acceptable but practically the purpose is to form an alliance between the forces of Southern Sudan and the forces of the political left in the North, in order for Sudan to be ruled by secular powers following the example of Uganda or Ethiopia.