Login to post comments | No account yet? Register here
Adverts
Please click on our sponsors to show your support
| Asim Siddique Says We Do Not Need An Islamic State - Do You Agree? |
|
|
| Wednesday, 27 February 2008 | |
|
The new edition provides a fascinating stock-take on the last two decades of political Islam. The goal of every Islamist group - known as "Islamic movements" in Muslim circles - is to create an "Islamic state". Affendi's book, first published in 1991, explored Islamic movements and their authoritarian ideas of how an Islamic state should function; essentially being built around "scholars of knowledge" who would be above the law and hence little more than dictators in reality. While the ideas in the book were considered by some heretical when first published, the performance of Islamic movements since then appears to have confirmed the book's basic thesis. Affendi looks at states where Islamic movements had come to power, such as Iran and Sudan, and how far removed from the Islamic ideals of justice and mercy they were. His disillusionment for Islamist rule crystallised after he witnessed firsthand the disastrous and bloody consequences of Islamists coming to power in Sudan, having been close to Hassan al-Turabi, who became Sudan's leader after the 1989 coup. The irony of an Islamic state becomes apparent in view of an edict issued in 1988 by Ayatollah Khomeini, then supreme leader of Iran, to the effect that the leader can unilaterally suspend any aspect of Islam, even its basic pillars, if the interest of the "Islamic government" is best met by pursuing (secular) policies in contradiction to Islamic law. It more-than-slightly questions the whole point of all the effort and spilt blood of creating an "Islamic state" if the caliph can end up "suspending" Islam on his own judgment. Though the ayatollah was Shia, the same principle would exist in Sunni Islamist thinking too. "Why is it that Muslims can only be 'good Muslims' under a dictatorship?" Affendi asked me when we spoke earlier this week. "Surely submission to Islam must be voluntary and come from the heart, not [be] imposed by political force." In his book, he also looks at Islamic movements where they are currently in opposition, such as Egypt, and how their failure to prioritise democracy allowed countless despots to present themselves as bulwarks against anti-democratic Islamists and hence slowed down the democratisation of societies. The only notable exception is Turkey, where 2001 saw a move by Islamists away from their colleagues, to create a moderate pro-democracy party, the AK party, which subsequently swept to power the following year. The ruling AK party is committed to joining the EU; Turkey remains a member of Nato and maintains strong relations with Israel - hardly the typical characteristics of an Islamist government! Muslim countries and peoples, Affendi feels, have become more materialistic and consumerist in the last two decades than any western industrial country, only without contributing much to the production of what they consume. While Muslims should always strive to be better people, he says: "We [Muslims] sound a lot sillier today when we claim that the Muslims should be a light unto mankind, and show exemplary conduct and moral leadership. Now it would be more realistic to just say we wish that Muslims would stop blowing themselves up and get innocent people killed in the process".
"I believe it may be necessary to work towards a more modest objective: the creation of a leading Muslim state. The function of such a state would be to play a role similar to that being played by the United States as a leader of the west. This is much less ambitious than a caliphate and falls well short of the building an EU-type union of Muslim states, but could lead to it eventually."
Source: Comment Is Free Readers have left 14 comments.
Mohamed E15:
Quote
"Surely submission to Islam must be voluntary and come from the heart, not [be] imposed by political force."
SALAMU ALIEKUM. well this authors comments are heretical in more ways than one. hence his analytical findings are comical to say the least. With friends like these Who needs an enemy. Mr Affendi if your using exemplary on how Islamic caliphate works why not look at patriarchal caliphs of Islam.(not Ayatollah Khomeini or hassan al turabi) the golden age of Islamic government when a true Islamic polity was in existence; UMAR BIN AL-KHATTAB did not required that non-Muslim populations convert to Islam nor did he try to centralize government.Instead, he allowed subject populations to retain their religion, language, customs. Salamu Aliekum
(1)
2008-02-28 01:46:09
Yunus Yakoub Islam:
Quote
I fear what is being suggested, just as what is going on in Turkey, is an Islam marginalised by the life-demands of a consumer capitalist economy. A West Mark II. That may bring power, but I think it carries with it a great deal of poison.
(2)
2008-02-28 06:26:53
abumaryam:
Quote
Its quite easy to highlight the problems of Muslims and the Muslim world today but if we look at our history its quite easy to see we prospered best under the authority of Islam and when Islam was implemented. We have to rememeber that there is also a theological discussion that needs to be had about whether it is an obligation or not to rule with Islam comprehensively.
(3)
2008-02-28 10:25:09
Reality in the Mirror:
Quote
This is an excellent piece; I think I should get the book.
In particular, I was struck by the example of Ayatollah Khomeini's suspension of all aspects of Islam, even the basic 5 pillars. That clearly illustrates the danger of not giving the Quraan absolute supremacy. It is precisely becasue people such as Khomeini (who were and still are being called 'ulema')have interpreted, and with their wanton reading, abrogated, clear Quraanic statements, that the Islamic world is now saddled with backwardness. Thus Quraan-deniers are now actively supporting paedophile marriages, citing a Hadith that the Prophet married Ayesha when she was just 6, and consummated the marriage when she was 9. How do we know that this odious insult to our Prophet isn't derived from a 'Khomeini-like' person in the Muslim historical past? Or indeed that it is utterly false? And take, also, some ignorant Quraan-denier's assertion that it is 'good', yes GOOD, to dunk a cholera-carrying fly into your tea, becasue one of its wings carries the cure! For cholera? Muslim State? Rather, 'State of the Muslims': that's what we should be concerned about first. However, the real signal of readiness of Muslims for an Islamic State will only come when women are accorded equal rights/opportunities with men. As long as Muslims whip a woman who has been raped (for goodness sake!), they have no right to self-determination. For Muslim men 'equal rights/opportunities for women' has to be a rite of passage. The world should never allow an 'Islamic' State unless women ahve equal rights in it (and one that forbids paedophile marriages). And were such a State to accept the absolute supremacy of the Quraan, in defiance of 'Khomeini-like' figures , past, present or future (who consider their 'fatwa' to be 'Sunnah'), then there would indeed be true Islamic justice. Justice in its truest sense.
(4)
2008-02-28 10:45:26
Haseeb:
Quote
I disagree with the article.Not only do we need an Islamic state, we also have to understand that its re-establishment , in the Muslim lands, is an obligation.
If we take a brief look at history from the period of the early Caliphs down to that of the Ottoman State, in general, we can see that when Islam was implemented comprehensively, the Muslims prospered and were secure under a strong leadership. There have indeed been failed attempts in the last 50 years to establish 'Islamic' governments (Sudan) these have been primarily due to the flawed methodologies and compromises that certain Islamic groups undertook to achieve power. The correct model for Islamic governance is indeed the Caliphate, this will not be, as the article seems to infer, a dicatorship , but rather an accountable system of rule where checks and balances would be built in, for example the Majlis Shura (Consultative assembly),Courts of Judicial redress etc Therefore we do not need to look outside of the Islamic paradigm, for example secularism or liberal democracy, to solve the problems of the Ummah,rather we need to focus on the correct methodology need to achieve that goal.
(5)
2008-02-28 10:51:44
shan:
Quote
The enemies of muslims and their paid stooges will come out with all the excuses of not having a unified muslim nation.
it is ok to have a christian club called the E.U, it is ok to have one big hindu nation,it is ok to have one buddhist-taoist china. but when muslims talk about unity all the negativity comes to the surface, is it the case that enemies of muslims know that if muslims unite they will not be able to murder and pillage with impunity. muslim or no muslim unity is strength.
(6)
2008-02-28 12:17:56
Manzoor Ali:
Quote
Haseeb:
You make some cogent points. However, before an 'Islamic State' can be established in 'Muslim' lands, you have to establish Islam in a 'Muslim' land. There isn't a SINGLE so-called 'Muslim' land where Islam is established. Sure, individual Muslims practice their beliefs to their intellectual/spiritual level, but otherwise everywhere you see violence, abuse of women/girls, educational (scientific etc) backwardness, and generally a rule by a ill-educated, boorish, all-male, ruling class. There is no reason why there cannot be a 'democracy' (universal suffrage) with an Islamic Constitution -- just as there is an American Constitution but people vote leaders to enact/uphold the constitution. A 'Majlis Shura' really belongs to the age of deference. With the wider availability/access to Islamic knowledge, there is less need now for forelock-tugging obeisance towards the great and the good. Let the ordinary Muslims (men and women) decide for themselves. The Caliphate did not have to deal with globalisation (and 24/7 media coverage). Times have changed. Unlike the time of the Caliphate, Muslim women now KNOW that they can equal or even exceed men in any field that they choose. Will you accept an 'All-Woman' Majlis Shura, to rule on all matters within an Islamic State? If your answer is 'NO', then it isn't Islam you want. Rather you would have erred towards some, misogynistic, fatwa-driven facism.
(7)
2008-02-28 12:33:38
Noddy's Vazier - Abdullah Bin B:
Quote
Shaykh Abdullah Bin Bayyah stated that the state after the prophet is not a religious state (laisat dawlat deeniya) but rather a civil state though may well be diffferent in specifics fro a western model though would in essence be the same. It also explains that some modern and classical jurists do not believe that the state and Islam have any relation. He also says, may Allah bless him, that the state should not rule on the name of God and quotes a hadith from Sahih Muslim supporting his case.
There is a good summary available but it is too large to post here. In summary he says, the ideas of ruling in his mind are not part of the fixed part of Islamic rules but subject to evolution through time and therefore could take any form, democratic or otherwise - whatever achieves justice, but not a religious state, run by religious people, but a human state run by it's citizens. al-Nabhani the HT founder also makes two points - shariah law doesn't have to be implemented by the ruler especially if it causes hardship though it is allowed but not an Islamic idea/duty. Secondly the term caliphate, ruler, leader, prince, president, aren't religious terms and Islam didn't use one, we can use any. So how can it be problematic to disagree with an "Islamic State" - especially if it isn't a religious term - i.e. state etc. So I do not see any heresy in what was being said by Asim at all.
(8)
2008-02-28 16:53:01
Sultan (Oxford):
Quote
Assalaam walaikum and Greetings
Allah(SWT) tells us "Hold to the rope of Allah in unity, and be not divided among yourselves” (3:103)" In other words, there is strength in large numbers. All Muslims would prefer to live within the confines of an Islamic Caliphate, where the rights and dignity of Muslims (not forgetting the non-Muslims as well) are preserved. Where true justice is handed out. Where there is no greed. Where everything is done for the good of fellow human beings (whether they are believers or non-believers) Where evil and wrong doings are punished. Where wealth is evenly distributed. Where the poor are helped. Where women are protected. and so much other things. Unfortunately, there is a major difference in desiring to have an (ideal) Islamic Caliphate, and whether this is practically possible. You see, while most Muslims will desire an Islamic State and quote how well this was handled in years gone by, we Muslims of today are not like the Muslims of yesterday that resulted in such a successful Caliphate. We Muslims of today cannot agree on simple issues relating to interpretation of Quran/Hadiths that it will be virtually impossible to get to an Islamic Caliphate that we desire. When Scholars are disagreeing with each other over issues, when one Mosque preaches one interpretation of Islam from another to the extent that some Muslims have a preferred Mosque, when Muslim family members are arguing with each otehr over petty issues and drag them on for decades, when one (wealthy) Muslim state does not help another (poorer) Muslim state, do Muslims actually think we will agree to 'unite'. In order to unite, you need the Muslim population to agree, which means putting aside their differences in all matters especially religious issues. You need leaders to agree, which means putting aside their 'royalty' status. You need to install a leader who can manage the entire caliphate...and how exactly does one appoint such a leader when no-one agrees ? Given this state of affairs with the Muslim nation, I agree with the post that the realisation of the Islamic Caliphate is more of a dream than something which is possible in the current situation. Hence, why the author 'downgraded' the ambition of the Islamic Caliphate. In this respect, I agree with him. We have ourselves to blame for this. Of course, the Islamic Caliphate will be a reality in the future, Inshallah, when a just leader like Prophet Jesus (AS) will take control. Unfortunately, no-one here today will be around to see this. Until then 1) Work to put aside our differences. This means, stop calling other Muslims 'heretic' and have the attitude that "we" are correct. All Muslims are accountable for what they have personnally done, and not what School of thought they belong to. 2) If you disagree with their interpretation, let them be. Allah(SWT) will judge. Not us. Unless of course they violate the santity of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) being the last Prophet. 3) Make moves to unite Mosques 1st. This will then unite the Muslims communities. This will put aside differences such as 'bangaldeshi, sudanese, Arab, Pakistani, etc" Muslims. We are all "Muslims". 4) Once this is achieved, make moves to unite Muslim nations. A sort of a Muslim-UN. Then, and only then, our dreams can be fulfilled. Wasalaams and Regards
(9)
2008-02-29 09:43:27
Haseeb:
Quote
Haseeb: — Manzoor AliYou make some cogent points. However, before an 'Islamic State' can be established in 'Muslim' lands, you have to establish Islam in a 'Muslim' land. There isn't a SINGLE so-called 'Muslim' land where Islam is established. Sure, individual Muslims practice their beliefs to their intellectual/spiritual level, but otherwise everywhere you see violence, abuse of women/girls, educational (scientific etc) backwardness, and generally a rule by a ill-educated, boorish, all-male, ruling class. There is no reason why there cannot be a 'democracy' (universal suffrage) with an Islamic Constitution -- just as there is an American Constitution but people vote leaders to enact/uphold the constitution. A 'Majlis Shura' really belongs to the age of deference. With the wider availability/access to Islamic knowledge, there is less need now for forelock-tugging obeisance towards the great and the good. Let the ordinary Muslims (men and women) decide for themselves. The Caliphate did not have to deal with globalisation (and 24/7 media coverage). Times have changed. Unlike the time of the Caliphate, Muslim women now KNOW that they can equal or even exceed men in any field that they choose. Will you accept an 'All-Woman' Majlis Shura, to rule on all matters within an Islamic State? If your answer is 'NO', then it isn't Islam you want. Rather you would have erred towards some, misogynistic, fatwa-driven facism. I agree the Caliphate would need to be established first in a Muslim country or neighbouring countries before moving to incorporate other regions.This would not, be a re-instatement of a medieval state, but rather a state focussed on technological advancement, scientific and educational development, all aspects that are in fact an obligation on the Islamic state to implement.Remember, that when Islam was comprehensively applied across all areas of life, Muslims excelled in these areas and became the leaders in many fields of scientific, technological and cultural progress. The Caliph would indeed be elected (by men and women), but elections do not necessarily translate into 'democracy', or more accurately secular liberal democracy, since the latter places sovereignity in the hands of the people rather than Allah(swt).Hence the Caliph is obliged to rule according to Islamic law (Shariah), and where required utilize the tools of Ijtihad to apply the law to changing circumstances.So you cannot have a socialist or secularist ruler of the state as this would transgress the boundary of 'ruling according to Islam'. The Majlis Shura would not be a 'rubber stamp', and men, women ,muslims and non-muslims would be able to participate, (and indeed would be elected as members) since everyone has the right to hold an opinion on the matters of the state,.Some of its decisions would be executive and others not, especially in areas requiring specialist expertise.Furthermore, the Courts of Judicial redress would provide further checks and balances. Also, Islam does not look at the world through a struggle between male versus female, as is the case with secular feminists, rather they complement each other. Indeed,as mentioned before women can participate in the Majlis Shura and indeed Civil adminstration and Judiciary, and as technical/scientific experts, within the bounds of Islamic adab etc. However Islam also recognises differences in roles, not least the culturing and nuturing aspects of the wife and mother which are critical to the individual and society cohesion.The only restriction therefore for women is the actual executive positions of ruling e.g. the Caliph and his assistants/governors, this is not 'misogynistic' or 'facism' but rather how Islam outlines the primary roles and responsibilities within society.
(10)
2008-02-29 11:26:57
Abdul Malik:
Quote
There should be no doubt that establishing the Khilafah is an obligation on all Muslims.
Imam Taftazani (died 809H) states in the book Sharh al-Aqa`id al-Nasafiyah: "There is Ijma`(consensus) that appointing an Imam (i.e. caliph) is wajib(obligatory)"
(11)
2008-02-29 18:33:40
Adil:
Quote
These spineless individuals can muse and patheticaly assay as much as they like, the Islamic movements with all there flaws and weaknesses are still the most credible, populist, trustworthy, moderate yet principled organisations who grasp a holistic vision of Islam and call to the nothing less than the path of Allah. Mr Asim Siddiqui the friend of Ed Hussain (I saw them cuddling up after the City Circle talk by the new charlaton Majid Nawaz) has some gall, his autocratic father single handely destroyed the Muslim Parliment of UK, established by the illuminary Kalim Siddiqui (ra) no relation between them. He dismantled the democratic protocols of this great organisation and has clung as its 'leader' ever since. It is bemusing and laughable that him and his son now challenge the idea and authority of the pluralistic, equitable and just form of Islamic governance. These power hungry neo-secularists parading as Muslim reformers were exposed long ago, not long after the Undercover Mosque programme whose investigation Mr Siddiqui supported, and which was later deemed flawed. Allhamdu'lilah we must not be distracted by these nobodies, our work will continue, through the national organisations, the mosques, the publications, the internet sites and our spokesman.
(12)
2008-03-01 02:27:05
Imran Khan:
Quote
The general idea that Islam should not be imposed before its time; but, rather emphasis should be given to inculcating the correct understanding of Islam through Tarbiyyah (correct Islamic education) an Tasfiyyah (purifying the Muslims from all alien and heretical concepts) has been the primary call of the Salafis from the very beginning.
Alas, political groups run for power and leadership and believe that this will bring the solution to the idleness and lethargy of the Muslims. It will not. Only by going back to how Islam was first established will we be able to return to honour as Allah has promised.
(13)
2008-03-03 22:26:27
Shuaib:
Quote
Does he not remind you of Mustafa kemal (the Attaturk?) These modern day reformer are no different from the one of old age. May Allah Guide us all. He will protect His Deen.
(14)
2008-03-04 11:56:18
          |
A new edition of 