Debate On Islamic State

Islamic state debate, revisited and revised
by Dr Mujahid Yusof Rawa
MP for Parit Buntar and PAS National Unity Committee chairman.

There is no doubt the issue of an Islamic State was used by certain quarters to pursue their political interest, the debate circled not only in Malaysia but also at the international level.
I do not see why such debate on the issue has become a world interest, but what I do see is the misperception entangled in the world of ignorance and biased understanding of the whole issue.
In Malaysia, many quarters have taken a keen interest in this topic but unfortunately most of them cannot afford to let go of the secular framework of thinking and they try very hard to elucidate the Islamic state debate but only to find themselves winding up with the same secularist perception and mantra , “Give what to God is to God and give to Caesar what is to Caesar”.
If you ask me, what is the biggest hurdle to the debate of Islamic State? I would believe it is in the fundamentals and the thinking deep-rooted in the mind of those who have lived in the world of dichotomy between state and religion.
I do not blame them since this is the biggest success of the “Enlightenment” which brought Europe and rest of the Western World to the height of their civilization.
Imagine all the discoveries, inventions and the modern world; to think that the credit goes to the wisdom of separating faith and worldly pursuance, how can one be wrong?
Even Muslims who were whitewashed with the secularist brand of thinking believed in it, I cannot imagine why non-Muslims should not believe in this dichotomy. But my contention to the belief of separating state and religion is, is it worth an experience, “civilisationally” speaking?
Does the experience bring harmony to mankind when the effect of secularism gives birth to materialism, moral decay and political anarchy? Is it not time to shift the archaic perception of a state in the secularist view to a new view?
Even the father of secularism (the Western World) is trying to find harmony now with the faith they abandoned hundreds of years ago!
I call on the antagonists to the Islamic State to take a deep breath and embrace yourselves in the new thinking of a state. After all, these are the reformist who call for change in every political statement they made.
I made it a clear earlier that I do not see a fuss in the issue, because the Islamic State as a concept in the Islamic Political Jurisprudence is crystal clear on this.
Basically it is wise for the antagonists to know the fundamentals of Islam, which state that faith is a way of life to a Muslim; it is not a faith per-say but it is called Ad Deen which simply means enveloping all aspects of life with the guidance of the faith, including Statehood and Nationhood.
This fundamental is supported by infrastructure laid by the Prophet Muhammad pbuh in his teachings and great examples, which all Muslims must abide by to follow the path.
I do not wish to lecture here but it is sufficient to usher anti-Islamic State quarters to their fundamental misperceptions about Islam, where they equate my faith with that defined by the secularist notion. Faith for the secularist is personal and private as long, as it does not “interfere” with the state then faith is fine.
As a Muslim, I’m taught by my faith to detest oppressors, tyranny and injustice done to my fellow humans and non-humans alike.
When one Muslim reacts upon injustice — usually by those in power — his action is considered a deed to be rewarded in the Hereafter, is this not a political phenomena?
For those in power, Islam reminds them to act justly towards everyone regardless of their faith and tribes and the rulers will be dealt first in the Hereafter before their subjects are called in the Court of God.
Does such a teaching not have concepts of accountable political leadership? The same concept applied to social contract was introduced in the 16th century to control the power of the rulers and gave the subjects a role in check and balance of power.
My faith has taught me long ago, before the concept of social contract surfaced, and to think that it was my Prophet who taught me and not intellectuals, gave me more reason to believe a state cannot be separated from my faith.
So when the whole process of check and balance which we lack today are already laid down by Islam to ensure the state is smoothly run, how can I defy such a clear relation between faith and the state?
My moral obligation to the state is guided by guidelines laid down by my faith, as much as my leader who runs the state must also abide by the principles of leadership which rests on fundamentals such as Competency, Accountability and Transparency (ask Lim Guan Eng, he will tell you).
These political behaviours on the relationship between those ruling and their subjects are all provided for by Islam through the manifestation made by the Prophet Muhammad and followed by the Guided Caliphs.
As time passed, the process of Statehood became complicated by the expansion of the Islamic Civilisation, the fundamentals remain intact although the form may vary from one epoch to another.
Even today, the duties of Islamic politicians all over the world, including PAS, must be fulfilled on a philosophy and political pursuance based on these fundamentals of political behaviour.
If the politicians of secularist upbringings perceive this stand as incompatible then they are questioning my right of faith. My right of faith should not be under scrutiny and if my faith acknowledges that political behaviour is essential, then let no one speak louder than my faith!
But the debate on an Islamic State is not about political behaviour envisaged in the Islamic principles, it is the notion of Theocracy as the Islamic State replaced the notion that rulers were manifestations of gods on earth, a notion which during brought darkness to Europe the Medieval Age.
Renaissance came to illuminate the darkness and thus theocracy was replaced with Liberalism. An Islamic State will only bring us back to darkness and so they argue.
I do not know from which intellectual argument justifies equateing an Islamic State to that of Theocracy practised by the Church during the Medieval Age?
An Islamic State is not and can never be theocratic in the sense that the power of god has been handed down to religious individual and institution to govern the earth.
The notion of an Islamic State is about executing the principles laid down by God and that He never handed down to anyone under His name.
The ruler must follow these principles, the subject must ensure the principles are followed while the scholars must come in between them, to help the rulers execute and help to educate the subjects on the need to implement these principles.
What are the principles? Just like the reformist use in their slogan “Justice, Equal Rights, Democracy and Accountability. In Arabic, the principles are Al Adl, Huquq, Shyura and Hurriyah.
The notion is even better as there would be no room for exploitation and thus everyone including the ruler, the subject and the scholars are held responsible if these principles are not practice.
There is no one in between to mediate these principles. It comes straight from Heaven (sorry to use the word, the secularist do not like the word “Heaven” in political argument) as to what constitute Justice, Equal Rights, etc.
The rulers are guided by the jurisprudence of what has been defined and what has been left to the rulers to decide.
As long asthe rulers’ action is not defined as wrong by Islam, the ruler may decide any cause of action for the state with the underlying objective of Public Interest.
Does this have anything to do with god’s representative on earth? A representative may at his own whims and wants do anything by the name of god but in Islam we are just executioners without having any power to alter and change, so the right word to use to express this is God’s Vicegerency or the Arabic word for it, Khalifutulllah.
There are no priest, no holy man, in the Islamic State. We all are Khalifah. That is why the name given to ruler in Islam is The Caliph.
I know the antagonists are beginning to accept the concept of Vicegerency as there is in no way the concept comes close to that of theocracy which they insist and justify as the prime reason for them to reject the Islamic State.
But lately, there has been more reasons added to their contention to the Islamic State such as questioning what right Islam has to impose Moral Standard on the public.
Do we want another Taliban style of ruling? Can we afford to have Islamic moral police hunting evil doers?
I take it these questions are not of fundamentals; they are imaginary worries imposed to incite public fear, in Muslims and non Muslim alike.
I choose to argue this point on my next premise of debate which rest on the operative part of the concept and how all the points I have made earlier are reflected operationally in the present situation.
The important question where most people like to debate is whether “Is there an Islamic State today?” “If there was, where?” and the bonus question: “Malaysia, an Islamic State?”
As a start to answer these questions, I must first quote an antagonist remark when they try to answer this question such as “over my dead body!” and “PAS Islamic State is incompatible to Democracy!”
You know who said that, and how persistent they have been, sometime people are hard to change!


Malaysian Insider, 12/9/2009