Some feedback on questions raised by Rafi Aamer and Javed Chaudry.

Questions bold and underlined.

 

1)      Does Islam require its adherents to constitute an Islamic state?

 

There are no explicit injunctions in the Quran requiring Muslims to form an Islamic state. However, traditionalists argue that several verses of the Quran hint at such a requirement. For example, the notion that sovereignty belongs only to Allah forms the basis of the belief in the establishment of a theocracy regulated by sharia law.

 

2) Mr. Fatah thinks not which leaves me wondering how in the name of Zeus the laws stated in Quran can be implemented. You know, the laws like killing the dude who kills other dudes and chopping the paws of the thieves etc.?

 

Obviously such a question would not arise if there was a clear-cut provision for Muslims to establish an Islamic state. The problem occurs when an assertion to the contrary is made, that an Islamic state is not religiously mandated.

However, there is another way of looking at these Quranic regulations and its various legislations on punishing certain criminal offences like theft and murder. They can be seen as dispensations of justice appropriate only for a particular time and milieu. In other words, they can be viewed as contextual, with application only in a specific time and era. Temporal law can be separated from the doctrinal aspects of the faith based on the belief that societies evolve. This leaves Muslims with the freedom to enact laws according to the needs of changing societies and do not require Muslims to implement Quranic punishments in a literal sense. There is therefore, no need for an Islamic state. This is precisely the controversy between modernists and traditionalists. While traditionalists view them as binding for all times in a very literal sense, modernists see Quranic injunctions as having applicability in a specific time and era.  It is the contextualization of Quranic verses that makes this latter view possible, hence the premise that there is no requirement for an Islamic state is valid and intellectually tenable.

 

3)  According to Mr. Fatah, Iqbal was not in favor of an Islamic state. Couple of small problems with that:

Juda ho deen siyasat se to reh jaati hai changezi

Iqbal in this verse is clearly referring to the inhumanity of Changez Khan. There is no recommendation here for Muslims to establish an Islamic state. Iqbal appeals to the more humane side of religion that would control man’s baser urges. The “deen” part mentioned here has more to do with the ethical rather than political aspects of the faith.   A ruler according to Islamic belief must be generous and compassionate. That is all that is implied in the cited verse from Iqbal. It is not an exposition of a political doctrine.

This is not to deny that Iqbal posited the concept of khudi, momin and millat but even here he did not stress the need for an Islamic state based on sharia law. Iqbal’s concept of millat was more of an appeal for Muslim unity, not necessarily in a political sense but more in the sense of a collective identity as a religious community distinct from others. He was the greatest advocate of ijtihad and a modernisation of Islamic communities as expounded in his book “The reconstruction of religious thought in Islam”.

 

The foundational and conceptual error that Mr. Fatah has made right from the outset is that he has mistakenly assumed that an Islamic state can only be set up by incorporating Sharia. Furthermore, he is also assuming that an Islamic state cannot be a secular states or a secular state cannot be an Islamic state.  

The above is an oxymoronic statement An Islamic state is an Islamic state not a secular one. Let us not kid ourselves into believing that when Islamists call for a global caliphate, they are hoping to establish secular governance. Not many people would have an objection to their calls if that indeed was their demand. The calls for a global caliphate are inspired by the principles of sharia, nothing else. In short they wish to take human civilization back to the norms of the seventh century.