This article analyses the relation between Islam, politics and citizenship. It analyses three currents within Islam: Salafism, Islamism, and modernism. The central argument is that most modern Islamic currents do not have a concept of politics as an independent ‘field’ where compromises can be made concerning societal problems. The only current that provide the space for a pluriform, open political debate is Islamic modernism. Through its humanism and the centrality of the common good and not the text, modernism embraces not only the concept of politics as free space but also the concept of active citizenship.

This article investigates the role of ‘implicit religion’ in extremism, including those forms that do not explicitly call upon formal religion. Extremist quasi-religious narratives expose an exclusionary logic, which is mirrored by radical ways of thinking about counter-extremism. This unfailingly leads to more polarization. Extremism can only be countered by radical openness. Resilient democracy requires that citizens, politicians and professionals are willing and able to maintain open hearts and minds. Implicit religion can support this. Spiritual counselors and scientists of religion need to support the creation of spiritual narratives and rituals that strengthen democratic resilience.

How can the debate on the place of religion in society in relation to the state, that has reached a deadlock in unbridgeable opposites, be drawn afloat again? In this contribution a lance will be broken for a philosophical approach to this issue. In view of an analysis of the main religious- and legal-philosophical work of two philosophical giants, the 19th Century German Idealist G.W.F. Hegel, and the contemporary Discourse theorist Jürgen Habermas, a double perspective will be cast on the central question of this debate. It will show surprising deep structures and sorely needed prospects.