June
02 , 2006
What Makes
an Islamic State?
What is an
Islamic state? What makes a state “Islamic”?
How should Muslims answer this complex question
in the modern context? I will put forth my views
on this issue, but first I will delve into the
historical context of where we find ourselves,
and why this issue is currently so important.
In 1789 the French Revolution began, as did the
Presidency of George Washington. In hindsight,
one can see that the birth of the modern world
was occurring. From 1800 to 2100, we are in the
midst of the modernization of Eurasia and its
offspring, which includes North America. This
three-hundred year process involves two distinct
phases. The first was the modernization of the
European civilization, which lasted from 1800
into the end of the 20th century. The second phase
began rather slowly after World War II and de-colonization,
but is now switching into high gear, namely the
modernization of Asia and the Middle East. This
will take another 100 years to fully play out.
European modernization was associated with enormous
stresses and conflicts: political conflicts, class
conflicts, social conflicts, religious conflicts,
and economic and resource conflicts. These struggles
led to the rise of three great historical political
trends that were the consequence of European modernization.
These trends being imperialism, right wing extremism
that manifested as fascist ethnic nationalism,
and left-wing extremism that gave birth to communism.
The death toll of these trends literally ran over
200 million people. It is to the credit of the
United States that although not always consistently,
it did take the leading role in defeating and
undoing all three of these manifestations of Europe’s
modernization. It was the defining central task
of American foreign policy in the 20th century,
even up to the Dayton Accords and the Kosovo War.
We are now faced with the second phase of Eurasia’s
modernization, that of Asia and the Middle East.
This too is a complex challenge. The challenge,
in fact, comprises three distinct challenges.
This region of the world is dominated by three
groups: China, India, and the Muslim-majority
countries. Peacefully integrating the rise of
China and India into the international commercial
and political system represents obvious American
priorities. But the third group, the Muslims also
should be seen as an American priority. In total
population, geographic extent, and economic significance,
the Muslim world equals or exceeds the significance
of India or China. In population terms it is not
only larger, but faster growing, and it is highly
probable that a plurality of the world’s
children are Muslims.
There are some obvious differences between the
Muslims and China and India. China and India are
both unified single nation-states, with populations
over 1 billion each, while there are over 50 Muslim
countries, and only three have populations of
over 100 million. Both China and India are accepted
nuclear powers, while only Pakistan has a grudgingly
tolerated nuclear capability among the Muslim
countries. Finally, neither China nor India appears
to offer an ideological challenge to the US at
par with European challenges of the last century.
But the Muslim world may be offering an ideological
challenge.
The ideological challenge is in fact quite broad,
and is rooted in a conservative, but modern, interpretation
of Islam. Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are just an extreme
manifestation of this ideology, and are not its
core. Other manifestations include Wahhabism,
the Muslim Brotherhood, the Iranian clerical state,
the FIS in Algeria, the Taliban, and the religious
parties in Pakistan and Southeast Asia. The movement
has both strong local and trans-national characteristics.
It is being fueled by two sources. The first is
internal, as a reaction to modernization, and
the second is external, related to the weakness
of the Muslims in international affairs.
The internal forces that are tearing at societies
throughout the Muslim world are the forces of
modernization. These are the obvious things like
urbanization, mass literacy and higher education,
industrialization, women’s empowerment,
and the creation of very powerful centralized
governments. These changes are forcing Islam to
adapt. Traditional Islam was well-suited to pre-modern
rural illiterate societies. But with tremendous
social change, the practice of Islam is also changing.
In country after country there is a full-throated
conflict between new interpretations of Islam,
some liberal and some conservative or reactionary.
Both Khomeinism and Wahhabism are modern views
of Islam, and do not represent traditional Islam.
There is no precedence in Muslim history for the
religious Ulema to have supreme political power;
this is a startling innovation of Khomeini. Likewise,
there is no historical Muslim precedent for the
religious police system that is used in Saudi
Arabia, and was copied by the Taliban. What then
is the correct interpretation? What does Islam
really say about gender equality, free speech,
democracy, minority rights, and a whole host of
modern issues?
Let me illustrate the situation by looking at
the status of women in Pakistan. Can we say Pakistan
is a liberal or conservative society at present?
For women in rural Pakistan life can be very oppressive.
There is still significant resistance to education
in some areas, there is honor killing, there is
widespread domestic violence, and women furnish
much worse health and education statistics than
men. The legal code in Pakistan states that a
woman bringing an accusation of rape must be simultaneously
humiliated with a charge of adultery until the
court can resolve the claims. But on the flip
side, Pakistan was the first Muslim country, in
1988, to elect a woman as Prime Minister. One
in six seats in the Parliament are reserved for
women. The current governor of the central bank
and the ambassador to Britain are both women.
The Air Force just graduated its first class of
women fighter pilots, and the majority of doctors
in Pakistan are female. And the government allowed
the first mixed-gender public marathon last September
and deployed a heavy police and army presence
to protect the runners. So should we say Pakistan’s
women are liberated or are they shackled?
This struggle between liberals and conservatives
must be won on the grounds of Islamic interpretation.
The notion that Muslim societies, as they modernize,
will follow the European path of secularism does
not appear to be happening. Instead, for a liberal
view of how Muslim states should be organized
to take hold, it must be rooted in an authentic
Islamic foundation that is accepted by the public.
We must go to the sources of Islam, particularly
to the Qur’an and the life of the Prophet,
and also to the juristic tradition, and forge
strong arguments on these questions.
It is incorrect to assume that Islam does not
separate religion and politics. After the Prophet,
there was always separation between the temporal
rulers, who were usually dynastic monarchies,
and the religious thinkers and jurists. What was
Islamic about the system is that the law was sourced
in jurisprudence that was developed over time,
in a manner similar to English common law, but
on the basis of Islamic religious principles and
precedents. This gave the legal schools of thought
that evolved a sense of being “God’s
law”.
This same framework can still be utilized by Muslim
societies. The ultimate expression of a polity’s
values is in its constitution. And it is in the
constitution that an Islamic state is created
by a Muslim society. They should write a constitution,
through a democratic process, that expresses fundamental
Islamic values that will shape the state. They
should then develop democratic institutions that
function under that constitution to write laws,
interpret them, and enforce them. There is no
need for a privileged group of Muslims to do that.
The system is Islamic because the constitution
is consistent with how the polity interprets Islam.
Therefore there is no need for a group of “experts”
to decide whether individual laws are consistent
with Islam, they just need to be constitutionally
permitted. As society’s interpretation of
Islam changes, it can amend the constitution to
reflect that. Liberals and conservatives can argue
for their specific interpretations of what are
core Islamic values to be enshrined in the constitution.
I would do exactly that. I would make the argument
for why free speech, democracy, basic principles
of justice, freedom of religion, gender equality,
economic freedom, and a whole host of other human
rights are core Islamic values that should be
in the constitution. A state with such a constitution
is an Islamic state, regardless of the particular
religious beliefs of its officers.
There is in fact strong historical precedence
for a written constitution that enshrines the
state’s powers and obligation. When the
Prophet came to Medina at the invitation of its
residents, who were involved in prolonged civil
conflict, he drew up a constitution, known historically
as the Compact of Medina, which bound the polity
of Muslims, Jews, and pagans, together on an equal
basis. The Compact gave the Prophet temporal leadership
and judicial power, but did not recognize him
as having religious authority over anyone.
The entire Ummah is in turmoil precisely over
these issues. What does Islam say? Who has authority
to rule, and how is that authority limited? What
is the role of democracy? How Muslims answer these
questions will have a decisive impact on the history
of this century.
