The Necessity of a Realistic Ethical Approach:
The fundamental concept in the relationship between authority and society is freedom from human sanctification, while adhering to the balance of truth and justice. From an ethical perspective, the relationship between the citizen and the state is not one of blind dependence, but rather a contract based on mutual responsibility. The legitimacy of government is measured by its commitment to the goals of justice, not its symbolic status or revolutionary slogans. An individual’s patriotism is measured by their commitment to the values of truth and justice as a method for fulfilling their duties and exercising their rights toward their society and state.
In this context, Quranic values such as equity, consultation, and honesty become normative tools for holding authority accountable. Allah the Almighty says: “O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives” (An-Nisa’: 135). This confirms that the standard of justice in the Qur’an is not what the state or people deem right, but rather what conforms to the divine right. The Qur’an warns against concealing political and moral testimony, even from the closest of people, let alone from employees authorized to serve. This is confirmed in other places: “And do not conceal testimony. And whoever conceals it, his heart is sinful” (Al-Baqarah: 283). Remaining silent about deviations is not neutrality, but rather hidden participation in an injustice upon which reform cannot be built. As for Shura (consultation), it is not merely a formal constitutional principle. Rather, it is a Quranic spirit based on testimony, accountability, and the rejection of tyranny of opinion: “And their affairs are decided by consultation among themselves.” (Ash-Shura: 38)
From a realistic political perspective, the absence of these ethics from the public sphere renders the state a closed structure based on fear, not conviction. Citizenship becomes a mere collective silence, patriotism a tool for expelling dissent, and religion itself is used to numb the public conscience. Therefore, reviving the Quranic moral dimension in this way in politics does not mean Islamizing the state, but rather restoring the free individual, as honored by God, as the center of responsibility, and restoring the state as a means of justice, not an end in itself.
No to Bush’s political narrative:
The political narrative is based on the principle of “whoever is not with me is against me.” Between enemies of the state, who are described as lurkers with vile agendas threatening the nation, and loyalists who identify with the state to the point of appeasement, this constitutes a dangerous reduction of collective consciousness and reduces the space for participation to mere approval or hostility.
This binary mode of thinking excludes all other areas of opinion, which are colored across the spectrum, and which in reality represent the most important space for reform, correction, civilizational development, and the establishment of construction, construction, and beauty in society. No room is left for the critical citizen, the independent intellectual, or the one with a different opinion, because they do not belong to either pole. Critical awareness becomes an accusation, neutrality becomes a cowardly position, and anyone who seeks to construct a third narrative based on truth and the public interest is criminalized.
From a philosophical perspective, this situation represents what Habermas calls a “crisis of public communication,” where the public sphere is stifled and discourse monopolized by those with power, not those with arguments. From a Quranic perspective, it contradicts the Almighty’s statement: “And let not the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness.” (Al-Ma’idah: 8) because the binary narrative is based on hatred, not justice.
Building a modern state requires something broader than two opposing camps; it requires a third space where those who disagree can come together for justice, not division. Note that this division certainly serves the camp of the nation’s enemies, who are truly lurking and have infiltrated society itself through their hammers of demolition, not criticism. They wield criticism, not through the opinions expressed by those who wield constructive criticism, which support reform and help the government rebuild on sound foundations and adhere to a progressive path of improvement that ensures sustainability. This is achieved by pushing the government into self-isolation and withdrawing into its own opinions, immune to criticism from its supporters, on the one hand. On the other hand, it gives the nation’s enemies the pretext to exploit this division to their advantage by misleadingly marketing every critical opinion as an opposition calling for the overthrow of the regime and the destruction of the state, within the framework of the standards of the state’s own supporters, unfortunately.
Finally, it is striking that many of these defenders of the new state within a framework of sanctity are themselves victims of the old state, which raises a bitter question: Are we reproducing tyranny under the guise of revolution? This paradox means that the revolution has not yet succeeded in establishing a collective critical mind, and that political and cultural elites are now required to construct a new discourse that consolidates the principle that criticizing the state is not treason, but rather the essence of citizenship.
The essence of the modern state is not based on obedience, but on a balance between authority and accountability. Any state that is elevated above criticism transforms into an updated version of tyranny. In the new Syria, we need to revolutionize consciousness, not just institutions, and build a state that is not afraid of criticism, but rather thrives on it sustainably.
The most dangerous thing revolutions face is not only their enemies, but also their supporters, who turn into guardians of blind silence, rather than builders of a conscious collective conscience.
Ayman Qasim Al-Rifai – Zaman Al-Wasl