The Compatibility Dialectic: Mediating the Legitimate Coexistence of Islamic Law and State Law

  1. Home
  2. Docs
  3. LSE
  4. LSE Law School
  5. The Compatibility Dialectic: Mediating the Legitimate Coexistence of Islamic Law and State Law

The Compatibility Dialectic: Mediating the Legitimate Coexistence of Islamic Law and State Law


An-Naim, A. A. (2010). The Compatibility Dialectic: Mediating the Legitimate Coexistence of Islamic Law and State Law. The Modern Law Review, 73(1), 1-29.


  1. Context and Motivation:
    Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim’s paper addresses the complex relationship between Islamic law (Sharia) and state law, arguing for a model that allows for their coexistence without one overshadowing the other. The motivation stems from historical and contemporary issues faced by Muslim-majority countries, such as Sudan’s experience with enforcing Islamic law as state law, and the challenges faced by Muslims living in secular states. An-Naim aims to present a framework that respects both Islamic principles and the human rights obligations of modern states.
  2. Key Concepts and Definitions:
    • Islamic Law (Sharia): A religious normative system guiding Muslims’ lives, which An-Naim argues should remain separate from state law.
    • State Law: Secular laws enacted by the state, which An-Naim views as inherently secular even if they incorporate principles from religious laws.
    • Civic Reason: A concept introduced by An-Naim, referring to the rationale for public policy and legislation that can be debated and accepted by the generality of citizens, as opposed to religious mandates.
  3. Main Findings:
    An-Naim argues that Islamic law and state law are fundamentally different normative systems, and their enforcement and legitimacy must be understood separately. He posits that while Islamic principles can inform public discourse and state laws through civic reason, they should not be coercively enforced as state law. This separation is essential to preserve the religious nature of Islamic law and to uphold human rights within a state framework. The paper emphasizes the importance of constitutional safeguards and inclusive public debate in this process.
  4. Data Sources:
    The paper is primarily theoretical and draws on An-Naim’s personal experiences as a Muslim human rights advocate from Sudan, historical instances such as Sudan’s enforcement of Sharia law, and comparative analyses of legal systems in Muslim-majority and secular states. An-Naim references other scholarly works, including his own previous publications, to support his arguments.
  5. Methodological Approach:
    An-Naim employs a comparative and analytical approach, examining the historical and contemporary relationships between Islamic law and state law. He discusses the theoretical underpinnings of both systems and explores practical examples of their interaction. His methodology includes a critique of past and present attempts to enforce Islamic law as state law and proposes a model for their coexistence based on civic reason and respect for human rights.

Evaluation of Strengths and Weaknesses:


  1. Theoretical Rigor:
    An-Naim’s argument is deeply rooted in a nuanced understanding of both Islamic law and state law. He effectively differentiates the normative foundations and functions of these systems, providing a robust theoretical framework that underscores the importance of their separation while allowing for constructive interaction.
  2. Contextual Relevance:
    The paper is highly relevant to contemporary debates about the role of religion in public life, especially in Muslim-majority countries. An-Naim’s insights into Sudan’s experience and the broader implications for other countries provide valuable context and highlight the practical significance of his proposals.
  3. Innovative Concepts:
    The introduction of the concept of “civic reason” is a notable contribution to the discourse. This concept provides a practical mechanism for integrating religious principles into public policy in a way that is inclusive and respects the pluralistic nature of modern states.
  4. Balanced Perspective:
    An-Naim balances his critique of both secularism and theocratic tendencies. He acknowledges the limitations and potential biases of state institutions while advocating for a model that respects religious beliefs without compromising human rights. This balanced approach strengthens the credibility of his argument.
  5. Personal Engagement:
    An-Naim’s personal experiences as a Muslim human rights advocate add depth to his analysis. His engagement with the subject is both academic and personal, enhancing the authenticity and passion behind his arguments.


  1. Abstract Nature:
    While the theoretical framework is strong, the paper sometimes lacks specific, concrete examples of how civic reason can be practically implemented in diverse socio-political contexts. More case studies or empirical data could have provided additional support for his theoretical claims.
  2. Potential Overgeneralization:
    An-Naim’s argument is primarily based on his interpretation of Islamic law and its relationship with state law. However, the diversity within Islamic jurisprudence and the varying historical and cultural contexts of Muslim-majority countries might limit the applicability of his model. A more detailed exploration of different Islamic legal traditions could have addressed this potential overgeneralization.
  3. Insufficient Exploration of Counterarguments:
    The paper could benefit from a more thorough examination of counterarguments. While An-Naim acknowledges potential criticisms, a more detailed engagement with opposing views would strengthen his position by demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the debate.

Discussion on Potential Biases and Overall Impact:

Potential Biases:

  1. Personal Bias:
    An-Naim’s position as a Muslim human rights advocate from Sudan gives him a unique perspective that enriches his analysis but also risks introducing personal biases. His experiences shape his views on the need for a clear separation between religious and state law to protect human rights. While this perspective is valuable, it may lead him to emphasize certain arguments over others, potentially underrepresenting viewpoints that advocate for a closer integration of Islamic principles into state law.
  2. Selective References:
    The references and examples used in the paper predominantly support An-Naim’s argument for the separation of Islamic law from state law. This selective referencing can introduce bias by not adequately addressing counterarguments or alternative perspectives. Including a wider range of sources, particularly those that argue for the feasibility and benefits of integrating Islamic law into state law, would provide a more balanced discussion.

Overall Impact:

  1. Academic Contribution:
    An-Naim’s work is a significant academic contribution to the fields of legal studies, Islamic jurisprudence, and human rights. By providing a thorough analysis of the theoretical and practical aspects of the relationship between Islamic law and state law, he advances scholarly understanding of these complex issues. His concept of “civic reason” is particularly innovative and offers a new lens through which to view the interaction between religious and state law.
  2. Policy Implications:
    The model proposed by An-Naim has profound implications for policymakers in both Muslim-majority and secular states. By advocating for a framework based on civic reason, An-Naim provides a practical approach for incorporating Islamic principles into public policy in a way that respects pluralism and human rights. Policymakers can use this model to navigate the challenges of governing diverse societies where religious and secular legal systems coexist.
  3. Influence on Public Discourse:
    Published in a reputable journal, An-Naim’s paper reaches a broad audience of academics, policymakers, and practitioners. This visibility ensures that his arguments contribute to public discourse on the role of religion in public life. His balanced approach, acknowledging both the value of religious principles and the necessity of secular governance frameworks, promotes a more nuanced and informed debate on these critical issues.


Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim’s paper, “The Compatibility Dialectic: Mediating the Legitimate Coexistence of Islamic Law and State Law,” offers a compelling argument for the separation of Islamic law from state law while promoting their constructive interaction through civic reason. The strengths of the paper lie in its theoretical rigor, contextual relevance, innovative concepts, balanced perspective, and personal engagement. However, the paper also has some weaknesses, including its abstract nature, potential overgeneralization, and insufficient exploration of counterarguments.

Despite these weaknesses, the overall impact of An-Naim’s work is significant. His contributions to academic discourse, policy implications, and influence on public debate make this paper a valuable resource for those interested in the relationship between religion and state law. An-Naim’s balanced approach and innovative concepts provide a roadmap for integrating religious principles into public policy in a way that respects both religious beliefs and human rights, offering a path forward for diverse societies navigating these complex issues.

In summary, An-Naim’s paper is a crucial piece of scholarship that addresses the contemporary challenges of reconciling Islamic law with state law. His advocacy for a model based on civic reason provides a thoughtful and practical framework for ensuring that religious principles can inform public policy without compromising the principles of a secular state.

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *