What Really is an Islamic State?

The purpose of this submission is to examine the concept of ‘Islamic State’ which is commonly considered synonymous with Theocracy, but to argue that it is neither Theocratic nor Secular, in the commonly understood meaning of the terms. The following are the premises on which the argument is based:

In the Theocratic system, a group of ELITE people are the custodian of ‘Power’ because of their alleged proximity to their respective Deity, and therefore having divine authority within the ambit of religion to rule the masses. The group is thus a State with in the State.

Secularism is the opposite of theocracy; the Church and therefore religion having no part what so ever in the governance, and that the people exercise their right to select the government they wish to rule over them.

However, it is essential to define ‘Religion’ of Muslims and ‘Deen’ of Islam. Deen is variously interpreted as ‘way of life’, a ‘complete system’ to regulate community and individual life. Because ‘life’, not just the heart beats, encompasses the total manifestation of ‘living’, and politics impinges on the living in every way, the operative system is called Deen. The word ‘system’ is therefore preferable to express the all inclusiveness of Deen of Islam compared to ‘Religion’ which is dogmatic and its rituals are formulated by the institution of Church to be administered by its operative the “Clergy”.

In modern history the process of egalitarian reform could be said to have its seminal origin from the Magna Carta, a document of 1215 CE where England’s King John’s absolute Power, the God’s representative on Earth was divested down to a few noble men. The document signed by the thirteen American Colonies declaring their independence in 1776; The French revolution resulting in the country becoming a Republic-1792; the Russian October revolution of 1917 and many more struggles where Government powers were handed down to the people, were the building blocks for the beginning for modern political reforms. The age of so called political enlightenment had dawned and people-power was recognised as a force, hence Democracy. However its custodians, on personal basis, always claim allegiance to some or the other ‘Religion’, and the institution of Church overtly or covertly influences the system of governance of the country. The church thus imposes its values and morals on the State even when the authority is vested broadly in the elected parliament.

But for the puritan Secularist however, for example the National Secular Society of UK, any trace of religious imposition is frowned upon and complete “separation of Church and State’ is touted as highly desirable. But the hold of religion is still very strong even in the best of the Secular States. Many a Kings and Queens and Heads of States in the world are still crowned in ‘Churches’, sitting, standing or holding a holy scripture, symbolic religious icons etc and those inaugurated in authority take their oaths in the name of one or the other Deity.

Thus Religion is never far from the scene! Only recently the Supreme Court of USA, in a lengthy contested case authorised the display of Ten Commandments in public place because they were the basis of making the US Constitution, in spite of --“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”.
Napoleon to add prestige to his coronation persuaded Pope Pius VII to attend and crown him, but then crowned himself Emperor by taking the crown from the Pontiff’s hands, thus creating a win-win situation for Secularism and Theocracy.
In United Kingdom the Queen is the head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith and also head of State. Not many countries in the West have openly declared them selves as Religious States. Spain, to name one has done so .

Islamic State

It is universally accepted that the source of Islam is the book called Qura’n. It is this book ironically, having given the freedom of thought to its adherents 25-73, expels from its fold all those who split the monolithic community it aims to create! Thus the composite and harmonious identity of this community is the crux of the matter in deciding who is ‘of us’ and who is ‘amongst us’ in a country run on Islamic precepts of the Quran, stemming from the verse- As to those who split your Deen and break up in to sects, you(Muhammad), have nothing to do with them in the least…6-159. This injunction of “coherence” of its community, viz a viz acrimony, is repeated at various places in the Book. The freedom of thought is there, but with the proviso that there must not be acrimony in the matters of Deen.

Having given this composite identity to its people, Islam expects that the State rules its citizens within the frame work of that unity. It also maintains that the Rulers are themselves member of this composite community, and not an ELITE separate from the civil society. Elitism of all sorts is a taboo as nobody is better or worse than the other.

Additionally an individual is not considered a pious and a ‘good’ member of the community in his/her isolation and therefore cannot act outside that frame work when in power. Hence temporal morality/immorality of the individual cannot be separated out side the frame. In such a system, Politicians committing crimes for political expediencies, ARE ‘criminals’ and not just Political delinquents who on certain religious days can obtaining God’s absolution for those crimes.
To quote Hasan al Banna (1906--1949):
“When asked what it is for which you call, reply that it is Islam, the message of Muhammad, the Deen that contains within its Government, and has one of obligation of Freedom. If you are told you are political (italic are mine), say that Islam admits no such distinction”.

Minorities in the State (amongst us but not of us)

The definition of an Islamic State hinges upon the answer to the question of rights of minorities with in it. What is the status of minorities in an Islamic state? For answer we must look at the underlying injunction in Qura’n, for Muslim state/society is that humanity as a whole is worthy of Dignity. And that Freedom, Justice, Equality (including gender) and Security etc are essential rights to maintain that dignity. Hence all the citizens of a Muslim country including those ‘not of us’ must be guaranteed these rights by the State and its society.That is the creed of Islam. Needless to say, that as Islam is universal, this argument should apply to all majority government.

But if various groups, maintained their ‘religious dogma’ separate from those values that Islam endorses to maintain unity and harmony, then it must stand to reason that they are ‘amongst us’ but ‘not of us’. Qura’n therefore warns of the danger that lurks there-in of such acrimonious ‘partisanship’ 30-32. Such partisanship could be against the interest of the State and therefore endangering its security, hence those amongst-us can not share the governing Power! Values held in religious frame work, if different from that of the State causes rancour.
Professor Jared Diamond agrees in his book ‘Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (Penguin)’, says “Religious values are especially deeply held and are often the cause of disastrous behaviour”. Hence those ‘not of us’ can work ‘for us’ but not share in the State Power. One assumes that this is what Queen Victoria meant when she proclaimed (1858) in the context of British Raj of India--“ … our subjects, of what ever race or creed, be freely and impartially admitted to office in our service, the duties of which they may be qualified by their education, ability, and integrity duly to discharge”. The corollary being that no Indian would have ever become viceroy of India, let alone the queen or king of British Imperial India during the British Raj.

Similarly the question arises as to where in lies Democracy in an Islamic State? As argued above, equality and justice are rights and preservation of security must be guaranteed in an Islamic State. In Islam, democracy- government by people- and government by consultation are not mutually exclusive. What is argued here is that, democracy as understood in the West, that is majority of ONE or even of the FEW, can not always be compatible with equality and justice, as so often is proved in modern day elections round the world (Tyranny of the Majority or even Capital wealth?). Therefore Sukarno’s “guided democracy” had merit in the evolving maturity of a developing nation today, which almost all of the Muslim countries are today. Surely there is more than one way to get people ‘involved’ in the democratic process!

Mr M A Jinnah, the founding Father of Pakistan, well understood the difference as philosophised by Iqbal and had summarised for the ‘Islamic State’ (August 11,1947 address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan). It is said that he never used the word Secularism for Pakistan. But he is on record of having declared that he was ‘against setting up a theocratic state under mullah rule’, echoing exactly what Diamond expressed above. Obviously Jinnah meant to laicise the government’s administrative process to the ‘lay’ public. Unlike Kamal Ata Turk (who came from Naqshbandi ‘religious’ schooling in Turkey) wanted to set up an European style Secular State as a reaction to his upbringing. Jinnah was not a product of religious upbringing in any sense. Though he had acquired much better understanding of the Deen in latter life as a result of exposure to Sir Sayed, Hali, Iqbal, Parvez etc, and wished for an Islamic State. Therefore, Pakistan was not created as a Religious State.

In his defence one might venture to state that had it not been for Gandhi’s push for his personal Papacy (Mahatma-cum-Bapuji) taking India on the path to Theocracy; Jinnah might have agreed with Nehru to form a political Federation with India! That is, both countries maintaining federal political unity with their respective national identity intact.

The Muslim Majority States

The so called world view of Islam is, that it is a religion same as all others. It has Churches, its rituals, rites of worship, right of passage and Clergy to implement them. Many of the Muslim majority countries are taken as the role model of the religion of Islam. With their practices of the Sharia laws, based on age old traditions which have become divine, have a very negative image in the West and even among the progressive Muslim communities living in the West. With this image, many in the West, particularly its religious conservatives, (that is Fundamentalists), are not prepared to accept Islam as a monotheistic faith, a doctrine percolating down from the Judeo-Christian faith. This being the case, it is therefore a one-way street for the ordinary Muslims to establish religious kinship with them and so it is an uphill battle to integrate in the so called Western society.

Following the arguments above, it is perhaps appropriate to designate the so called present day Islamic States rather as Muslim Majority States, for just that their population is largely Muslim. Similarly all the other governments in the world are majority States and not secular, for they all have some form of ethno-religious bent and are therefore Theocratic States albite under the carpet. None fit the description of Secular State in its pristine form. They are all based on Elitism or ‘religious values’ or both. Communist Russia tried Secularism and failed, for bureaucracy and party-membership elitism, was equally rife there since ‘some were more equal than others’. Not to forget that the Orthodox Church is deeply rooted in the Russian psyche!

The Islamic State is therefore neither Secularist nor Theocratic as explained here, nor is it ‘some thing in the middle’ as alleged by the apologist of the designated Islamic States. Equally to interpret an Islamic State in the time-frame of its ‘past’, or historic ‘traditions’ is also to limit its scope.

The ability of the Government to change policies and adapt to the age by adhering to the universal values, which are the same as to days Universal Human Rights values for example, is an Islamic State. A few of the majority Muslim States however have rejected these Human rights!

In the phraseology of verse13-17 while that which is for the good of mankind remains on the Earth is Islamic State. In the total context of the Book, unfortunately, all Muslim majority States fall short of this teaching.
Rashid