SEPT 20 — I started in an earlier article "Islamic State: Revisited and Revised" that the whole substance of the article was meant to make readers understand the underpinning of what constitutes the notion of an Islamic State.
To summarise the notion, one can conclude that an Islamic State is part of the manifestation of faith since the word Ad Deen is significantly referred to "as a way of life" for a Muslim. Secondly, the political behaviour of a Muslim is guided by the teachings of the Prophets (pbuh) and is considered a faithful act fulfilling the necessities of reward from God. Thirdly, the structure of an Islamic State does not rest its premise on the foundation of God’s representative on earth, rather, it is the premise of vicegerency where the ruler and the subject are accountable.
Finally, one cannot for sure confine the thinking of an Islamic state base on the secularist worldview because the Islamic experience of statehood has proven that religion played an effective role in erecting the nation and Islamic civilisation; on the contrary religion in the Middle Ages of Europe has been considered as a source of backwardness and darkness .
In any intellectual discussion, concept alone does not justify the truth of what is operationally accepted and practised. That is why in any intellectual work, you have two different definitions of a phenomenon, one being nominal and the other operational. The real value of an intellectual work is to find the gap between the two and why such a gap exists, and so as a researcher start questioning in a structured manner until he finds a satisfactory answer based on his objective of research. Based on this principle, an Islamic State concept must be fitted into what is operationally accepted as an Islamic State; in other words the fuss about an Islamic State must be seen in the light of what is the present situation we have; does the operating state fulfil the criteria? If it doesn’t, then there is the justified gap and the most important thing to question is: why does such a gap exist? before one can conclude his/her recommendation to the problem.
After a researcher proposes that there is a gap based on his findings, it is up to interested parties to benefit from the findings, proposals and recommendations made. As far as the intellectual realm is concerned, there are a lot of studies done on the issue of an Islamic State, conceptually and operationally. One only need to spend some time in the library to explore and understand what an Islamic State is and how the concept is reflected in the operational sense.
Our thinking in the Islamic State issue must be in an organised manner. This is to avoid any misperception and bias, to be neutral and independent in coming to a conclusion.
One is free to choose the aspect to approach the Islamic State problem, whether conceptual and theoretical; there is the operational, there is the comparison approach, there is the political approach and there is also the historical approach.
This article is definitely not intellectual in nature nor is it noteworthy; it tries to make readers understand a complicated subject which has been under tremendous attack by certain quarters as a result of misunderstanding for which I do not blame them. But what worries me most is when the attacks are purposely done to depict a wrong picture and thus create confusion to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
Having said all that, I shall now proceed to the very foundation of differences between what it was in the past and what we have now as far as the erection of an Islamic State is concerned.
The very first line drawn between the two eras is the fall of the last Ottoman Caliphate in the year 1924. Why is the event so significant?
The word "state" itself in Islamic terminologies of the past does not exist because the term used to connote a form of political and spiritual leadership during the Islamic era is the caliphate or khilafah.
It is an institution that unites the Muslim nation or ummah under one umbrella where the Caliph is the source of such unity and that he must lead righteously and implement administrative policies based on the principal of “the act of the Imam (Caliph) is bound to the interest of his subjects”. Since the Caliph is significantly the figure of unity and his duties significantly have strong implications to the interest of the subjects, the Islamic political system also provided the means to strip the Caliph of his position if he did not abide to the rule of leadership in Islam.
After the end of the era of the four Caliphs who took over the political leadership of the Prophet (pbuh) after his death, the Ummayad laid down a precedent where family succession filled the position of the Caliphs.
The family succession continued until the end of the Ottoman era. But what is important here is that during the tenure of all the empires in the Islamic era, clear guidelines of political and administrative principles were forming and evolving until the documentation of these principles later on become one of the most important references of "good governance", thanks to the Islamic faith which provided the administrative necessities, to a large extent, on the principle that “allowable (to do anything for the public interest) until state otherwise (prohibits)”. One must cherish this provision in the Islamic faith as it extensively widened the room to innovate, explore and create the best mechanism for the purpose of preserving "good governance".
That was why during the Islamic era, worldly knowledge was not encountered in a hostile manner. The Islamic courts and palaces were the centres of knowledge where the Caliphs themselves supervised and extended grants to scholars.
Never was there an instance where a scientist was tortured or books burnt to ashes. The Prophet taught them that “knowledge and wisdom is that of matter left unattended; any Muslim who encounters them deserves to have it”. And so the substance of development, i.e knowledge, became the beacon of Islamic civilisation. Islamic leadership set a very high standard of innovation and discoveries to the extent that until the 18th century when Europe was just waking up, universities there were still adapting the syllabuses of the Islamic universities of Andalusia and Baghdad in medicine and the sciences. One needs to ponder deeply the role of administration and the Caliphate that provided all these necessities to worldly development, contrary to the perception of "backwardness" that is deep-rooted in the mind of the secularist.
I do not know what they mean by "backwardness" when they use the word "Taliban", a made-up term conceived in America. It is sad to learn that given the glittering aspects of civilisation Islam has provided to this world, some people are still too ignorant to accept the role of Islam in governance and administration, which successfully provided not just the necessities to preserve the faith of Islam but also the material needs for everyone.
So readers who simply conclude by saying let’s look at Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Afghanistan and happily pinpoint an Islamic State as the Talibans, etc are doing injustice to their own intellectual capacity. So please wake up and use your brains before you say anything.
If the reference to backwardness and Talibans applies to the issue of justice and freedom, I call upon the antagonists of the Islamic State to stop demonising the public with such irresponsible labelling because if they have to argue, they should argue on a sound basis supported by concepts and theories of justice and freedom in Islam and see what is being done operationally and whether it coincides or not with the underlying concept. If there is a gap then why do we insist that it is Islamic?
So they argue about hudud, apostasy, moral police and civil society. They say an Islamic State will only enforce hudud and kill apostates, station moral police everywhere and kill civil society as it is a theocratic state; and they go on to economic issues such as an Islamic State will scare investors away and so forth.
Before I answer, I need to highlight my earlier point about the emergence of the word "state" in Islamic terminology as it is a new term altogether compared to the word "Caliphate", which ended in 1924.
The crippling of the Islamic Empire began during the early 17th-18th centuries, and it finally crumbled in the early 20th century with the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The word "state" was introduced in this new political awakening where affiliation was based on racial and geographical boundaries; this affiliation called the "state" has given birth to the term "nation state" where the formation of nation states was substantively inspired by the rise of nationalism.
It is important to note the distinctive features of the Caliphate with that of “state" because the latter affiliation is racial while the former is based on faith. That was why during the Caliphate period, unity was bound by the Islamic faith and supersedes racial interest. The people were called the one ummah and that was why the provisions of Islamic teachings fitted in this vast infrastructure where bottomline is diversity in one faith, others are treated equal based on unity of the human race.
Today in the nation state, unity is bound by national geographical boundaries and by affiliation of citizenship named after a particular state. In the Caliphate system, faith is functional in governance and administration whereby in the state structure, faith is only functional to the personal needs of the citizen and shall not interfere in governance and administration.
The distinction between the logic of "state" and the Caliphate in their worldview of governance and administration resulted in a big gap in understanding. The crux was the role of faith in governance.
And finally there is the issue of Muslims today who, by the virtue of their faith, are called to live in what is known today as an Islamic State.
There are a few schools of thought in dealing with the Islamic State issue:
The intellectual school which tries to convince us as to the relevancy or irrelevancy of the competing ideas. This category comes in the form of intellectual discussions, dialogues, writings and public discussions. The intellectual category argues and debates, given our right to dissent today, in the hope of using the power of persuasion to convince us of the merit of the dissenting ideas.
Here, intellectual ideas and eloquence decide the winner; emotion does not run high here, thinking does!
Idealism and reality perpetuate the conflict and confusion among Muslims and non-Muslims here.
In the pursuit of civil rights and political rights, Muslims participated in their belief that state and faith cannot be separated.
This gave birth to organisations with Islamic ideologies, which subsequently identified themselves as Islamic movements. These Islamic movements also gave rise to modern political parties who called themselves Islamic parties.
Of late terms like "radical Islamic groups" have been labelled on those unlawful parties which do not believe in the political and democratic process. In whichever group the Islamist belongs to, there is the desire and enthusiasm to bring back Islam to play its role in the modern world.
In this school, emotions could take over logic, sensitivity becomes the priority and the rule of the day determines how the Islamist should behave in pursuing this ideology. Political reading and deliberation forms the strategy of the Islamist, including forming blocs and alliances even with secular political parties.
I confine my conclusion to these schools because from these sprout the issue of the Islamic State. I strongly believe, given the background of the corrupted materialism, the economic downfall and the low moral standing of political leadership in the West, Islam has the best chance to fill the vacuum left by the neo-colonialist. The world has witnessed the fall of Communism and how the system failed to function when the ideology preached "religion as an opium to society".
The neo-colonialist today still exists with a slight change from Republicans to Democrats. In spite of all this, Islamic groups which work within the framework of constitutional rights have gained ground and trust of the public, Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
In spite of the demonisation of Islam and the 9/11 saga, Islamic-based political parties become wised in their actions. In spite of instigating Talibanism in the minds of non-Muslims and Muslims through the media, Islam is still the fastest growing religion in America and Europe.
Republicans had to pay a high price when world perception of America fell to its worst-ever level after the Vietnam War. Here we are still debating whether an Islamic state is compatible or not in a modern democracy. Here today we hear some quarters likened an Islamic State to the Talibans. They are so engrossed in the whitewashed literature that they cannot think independently. Are they slaves of the neo-colonialist masters?
I leave you with all these questions as my next article will focus on the Malaysian context of state and faith; does it exist?
Selamat Hari Raya!
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
http://www.facebook.com/note.p...636053719
who wrote the book: Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State
As a non-muslim, I denounce islamophobia and am all for understanding each other and bridging divides. However, until the so called religious leaders can speak up and act against injustices done by their own community, it would be difficult for muslims to reduce islamophobia, no matter how much is written about it.