 |
The
"Islamic State": A Continuing Controversy
Farzana
Hassan
*
No
longer an elusive goal, the face of Islamic
moderation has recently sprung into limelight with
the publication of two popular, though controversial
books demanding a clear repudiation of political
Islam as a philosophy advocating a global Islamic
state. Historically, the controversy over the two
streams of Muslim political thought, one demanding
a "state of Islam" whereas the other proposing an
Islamic state has been resolved in favour of the
latter view. Chasing
a Mirage by well-known journalist Tarek
Fatah and Islam and the Secular State by
Emory University professor, Dr. Abudllahi an-Naim, |
however, both
build a compelling case for the ascendancy of the spiritual
side of Islam, advocating secular rather than theocratic
governance as the preferred political order in Muslim
countries.
Catalyzed by the
events of 9/11, the debate over a religious requirement for
the creation of an Islamic state may very well turn into the
debate of the century, as both political Islam and its
antidote in the more benign interpretations of liberal and
progressive Muslims appear to be gaining a steady momentum.
It may determine how our future will unfold, what sort of a
world order our children and grand-children will inherit and
who the chief players in the ever-changing arena of
geopolitics will be.
The entrenched
view among traditional Muslims is that Islam will eventually
prevail over all other worldviews. For this to materialize,
a mechanism--a political system, a form of governance with
legislation rooted in divine dicta must be put in place,
assert the Islamists. The view, formalized in the medieval
Muslim philosopher Al-Mavardi’s writings, emphasizes the
need for such a state because the faith must be safeguarded
at all costs. Needless to say, modern Islamists, be they
militants or Islamist-lites, draw inspiration from such
religious constructs. They find further support for their
opinion in historical precedent, stating that the prophet
was not only a religious leader, he was also a statesman who
ruled the nascent Islamic city-state of Medina. As an
expositor of the Quran, the prophet’s example must be
followed and therefore, Muslims of all subsequent
generations must establish a state that replicates the first
“Islamic state”. Also at the root of this viewpoint is the
belief that sovereignty belongs to God alone, therefore
God’s rule and God's laws must be established on earth.
Fatah questions
this view based on his analysis both of history and
contemporary Islamic societies. He contends that the absence
of explicit injunctions in the Quran for Muslims to
establish such a state absolves them of any obligation to
revive a global caliphate or to create a theocratic state.
He further builds his case by stating that the prophet
Mohammed did not name a successor or devise a comprehensive
system of Islamic governance. Fatah regards these as
indications for the absence of a requirement for Muslims to
establish an Islamic state.
Though the
conclusions above may be reasonable on all accounts, the
issues, namely: The religious validity of an Islamic state
and the form of governance it might assume have been
somewhat conflated in the discourse. They need to be
addressed separately. While many might concede that Islam
does not specify a form of government, the establishment of
an Islamic state is still imperative based on the arguments
that Al-Mavardi propounds. It is up to Islamic communities
to develop mechanisms for good governance, but the state
must still be based on shariah law as an acknowledgment of
God’s sovereignty on earth.
Fatah’s position
like that of An-Naim’s is a rational position demanding the
abandonment of an archaic political worldview, however his
claim that the absence of a stipulated system of governance
indicating the redundancy of an Islamic state needs
fortification through a stronger theological base. It will
take more than the odd comment to constitute a solid
theological challenge to the entrenched belief in a global
caliphate.
An-Naim cites
history to support the thesis that an Islamic state never
did exist, nor was it ever a religious requirement. But this
view can be easily challenged from an Islamist standpoint
who will argue that the so-called unislamic states were in
fact deviations from the norm, the ideal still being the
establishment of an Islamic state. An-Naim highlights the
incidence of human rights violations wherever such states
have come to approximate the Islamist ideal. Additionally,
he concludes that Islam is diverse, accommodating several
opinions, interpretations and schools of thought therefore,
it would be wrong to impose one interpretation on all
citizens of an Islamic state, hence the need for a secular
state. While these sensible arguments may be embraced by
rational Muslims readily, the die-hard Islamists will demand
more than a common-sense approach to eschew the idea of an
Islamic theocracy. Their counter-arguments will have to be
addressed effectively through better religious discourse.
Fatah who
describes the idea of an Islamic state as a “tragic
illusion”, and An-Naim who views it as a “dangerous
illusion”, both present cogent reasons for the establishment
of secular Muslim states but fall short of providing hard
theological evidence to support their opinions. Their books
are important contributions to the cause of promoting
secular, liberal and progressive values among Muslims.
However, the debate as it currently stands, remains
unresolved at least from a theological perspective—a
necessary ingredient in any religious controversy.
Traditionalists will argue that the “sunnah” or practice of
the prophet as an exemplar of the Quran must be followed to
the letter. Perhaps it needs to be asserted with equal if
not greater force that it is as much the sunnah of the
prophet to be a stateless advocate of faith and righteous
conduct during the Meccan period of Islamic history. And
though a rudimentary Islamic polity came into existence in
response to the peculiar circumstances faced by the prophet
in Medina, similar circumstances do not exist in our
contemporary world, hence negating the need for an Islamic
state based on sharia law.
Farzana Hassan is President of
the Muslim Canadian Congress, freelance writer, public
speaker and author of "Prophecy and the Fundamentalist
Quest". |
