Shariʿa subordinated secular institutions while the modern state subordinates religious ones

Evidence

As a representation of a higher value, one seen to stand above the arbitrariness of ever-changing human predilections, the Shariʿa regulated the entire range of the human order, either directly (through its jurists) or by means of a well-defined and limited delegation (through the executive). Whereas the modern state rules over and regulates its religious institutions, rendering them subservient to its legal will, the Shariʿa ruled over and regulated “secular” institutions. Accordingly, any political form or political (or social or economic) institution was ultimately subordinate to the Shariʿa and a derivative thereof, including the executive and judicial powers. The Shariʿa itself, on the other hand, was the “legislative power” par excellence, and legislation was both a cumulative and a collective process, which is to say that “law,” in the moral and technical legal senses, was the result of a corporate-like entity, a collectivity of juristic voices over time and space, and not subject to the will or whim of any single jurist, any single ruler, or even any contemporaneous group of jurists. — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 163 (#expands, via linked claim)

Secular sources of authority are a continuation of prosocial religions by other means. This raises the idea that they serve interchangeable functions. If true, this would help us understand how societies come to secularize: one way they do so is by outsourcing religion’s functions to new forms of government. Does religion thrive when government is weak? Does belief in God wither when societies invest in policing duties and in efficient governments? — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 564 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Within a century of Mohammad’s death, Muslim armies went on to conquer vast areas and to establish a powerful empire. It was in this context that a de facto separation of religious and political power began to take shape. While the heirs to the Prophet, or the caliphs, held religious authority, it was the monarchs, sultans, and emirs who wielded political power. Ayoob and Lussier trace the continuity of this practice over many centuries and note that “the distinction between temporal and religious affairs and the temporal authority’s de facto primacy over the religious establishment continued throughout the reign of the three great Sunni dynasties—the Umayyad, the Abbasid, and the Ottoman.” — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 318 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Codification expresses the nation-state’s top-down will to power, unlike Shariʿa’s bottom-up structure; Egyptian state secularism regulates religious practice into state-endorsed forms — Saba Mahmood, Politics of Piety: The Islamic Revival…, 533; The Shariʿa institutionalized distrust of rulers and favored commoners — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism: A Critique of…, 164 (+7 more)

Broader Connections

• The Shariʿa subordinated all political power to itself, unlike the modern state #expands (0.95) — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 163
• Secular government functions as a continuation of religious authority by other means #complicates (0.82) — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 564
• Political and religious authority separated de facto within the early Muslim empires #complicates (0.73) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 318
• The Shariʿa institutionalized distrust of rulers and favored commoners #complicates (0.72) — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 164