Dialogues on Sharia by Farag Foda

Dialogues on Sharia by Farag Foda

A Critical Analysis of Political Islam

About the Author and Historical Context

Farag Foda (1945–1992) was an Egyptian intellectual and economist who earned a PhD in agricultural economics from Ain Shams University. He moved from academia to public debate in the 1970s, a period marked by the rise of political Islam following President Sadat’s assassination and the success of the Iranian Revolution.

Foda became known for his outspoken opposition to Islamist movements and their attempts to impose a religious framework on state and society. His activism ultimately led to his assassination by members of the militant Islamist group al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya on June 8, 1992, in front of his Cairo office.

Dialogues on Sharia is part of his broader intellectual project—alongside works such as The Absent Truth, Before the Fall, and To Be or Not to Be—which sought to deconstruct religious-political discourse and demonstrate why Islamic law (sharia) is unsuited as a system of governance in the modern age.

Central Thesis: Dismantling the Religion–State Binary

Foda argues that calls to “apply sharia” are vague slogans masking political ambitions. For him, Islam is a spiritual faith, not a political system.

Through historical analysis, he shows that Islamic rule across history—from the Rashidun Caliphate to the Umayyads and Abbasids—was far from uniform, undermining the idea of a single “Islamic state.”

He rejects the oft-repeated claim that “Islam is both religion and state,” promoted by groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, calling it a modern invention serving power interests. As Foda bluntly puts it: “The state was a burden on Islam and a diminution of it, not an addition to it.”

Four Core Problems in Applying Sharia

The Historical Problem
Foda revisits the early caliphates to show they were not paragons of justice. He notes that even under Caliph Uthman ibn Affan—when sharia was supposedly in force—the community was torn apart, leading to his assassination by fellow Muslims. Disputes among companions of the Prophet, such as Aisha and Ali’s opposition to Uthman, illustrate that fidelity to sharia did not guarantee unity or stability.
The Practical Problem
Foda asks: how can sharia address modern issues like wages, housing, or foreign debt? Islamists, he argues, evade specifics, offering only slogans like “Islam is the solution.” Their fixation on superficial markers of religiosity—beards and mustaches, for instance—distracts from the urgent challenges of the 21st century.
The Textual Problem
Foda criticizes the selective use of scripture. For example, the requirement that rulers must be Qurayshi (from the Prophet’s tribe) was historically used to justify Umayyad and Abbasid rule, yet this directly contradicted figures like Sa’d ibn Ubadah, who put himself forward as a leader despite not being Qurayshi. Such inconsistencies reveal that Islam lacks a fixed political model. He rejects reliance on hadith such as “The leadership is in Quraysh” to legitimize hereditary monarchy.
The Problem of Violence
Foda links extremist rhetoric to militant violence, arguing that such violence is not merely a reaction to Nasser’s repression but has ideological roots in the Muslim Brotherhood’s clandestine armed wing of the 1940s.

Secularism as an Alternative: Separation of State, Not of Faith

Foda defends secularism as a safeguard for freedoms, not as hostility toward religion. He distinguishes between three realms:

Religion: a personal, spiritual, and ethical domain.
Society: a space for cultural and religious pluralism.
The State: the realm of civil laws applying equally to all.

He stresses that democracy does not conflict with Islam, citing reformist thinkers like Khalid Muhammad Khalid and Imam al-Ghazali. What he opposes is the Islamist rejection of democracy on the grounds that it may permit laws “contrary to religion.” In Dialogue on Secularism, he rejects branding secularism as “unbelief,” presenting it instead as a framework for managing pluralistic societies in a spirit of tolerance.

Two Models of Governance in Foda’s Vision

Religious State	Civil State
Merges religion and politics	Separates faith from political authority
Relies on vague slogans (“apply sharia”)	Offers concrete political and economic programs
Fuels sectarianism and division	Guarantees equality regardless of religion
Selectively interprets scripture	Bases governance on constitutions and amendable civil law
Produces violence and excommunication of opponents	Protects freedoms and encourages dialogue

A Debate on Apostasy and Freedom of Thought

Foda emphasized that his critique targeted political discourse, not religion itself. In his famous debate at the Cairo International Book Fair in 1992, he clarified that opposing a “religious state” did not mean hostility to Islam. Yet he was accused of apostasy by clerics such as Sheikh Muhammad al-Ghazali, who later testified in court that Foda’s writings stripped him of Islam.

Foda condemned the use of “apostasy” as a weapon against dissent, insisting that intellectual differences should be resolved through dialogue, not violence.

Relevance Today

More than three decades after his assassination, Farag Foda’s ideas remain central to debates on the future of state and society in the Arab world.

His writings are bold re-examinations of tradition, exposing how religion is manipulated for political gain.

His project of enlightenment underscores that salvation does not lie in retreating to the past, but in building a civil state that respects pluralism and delivers justice. As he wrote in Before the Fall:
“I speak to people of reason, not seekers of power… to those who love wisdom, not those who love rule.”

Today, as Islamist movements regain momentum in parts of the Arab world and calls for implementing sharia resurface, Foda’s voice endures as both a warning against merging religion and politics and a call to restore reason and reality in interpreting sacred texts.

For the original summary in Arabic