Of the debate on ‘Who needs an Islamic State?’
I have just finished watching a critical debate on the title ‘Who needs an Islamic State?’ (YouTube of course!). This debate was organised by IslamChannel, presenting 2 prominent figures of different ideological approach towards the Islamic State issue. The debate can be viewed here.
Ahmad Abdel-Wahab, author of the controversial ‘Who needs an Islamic State’ book made a critical note that the Muslims nowadays are trying to find a model of an Islamic State out there which does not exist even during the time of the Prophet. On the other hand, Taji Mustafa, an Executive Member of Hizbut Tahrir UK argued that the establishment of the Islamic State in the modern world has to come from the principles in Islam’s main texts, the Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet. Therefore, historical occurences throughout the time of the Khulafa’ ar-Rasyidin (the 4 Caliphs) until the 1924 tragedy have to be judged on case-by-case basis. He also laid down a hadith narrated by Imam Ahmad that explained 2 basic principles in choosing a leader of the state, of which Abdel-Wahab claimed that it is a false hadith.
As a person who subscribe to the idea of an Islamic State, I found the arguments made by Taji to be very refreshing. Accusations made by the ignorants on the issue of a Caliph may be a tyrant and and a dictator is easily objected. An Islamic State is the idea of installing the principles of Islam into the governance and administration of a state. By coupling the idea of ‘Sunnatullah’ and ‘Syariatullah’ popularized by Ustaz Hasrizal and Taji’s arguments, constructing a model of an Islamic State in the modern world is possible. Upholding the Islamic principles mentioned in the texts fulfills the aspects of ‘Syariatullah’, and devising the appropriate mechanism for state governance is part of ‘Sunnatullah’. Hence therefore we get an Islamic State!
I am a believer that the label ‘Islamic State’ is important. However, the label has to come together with the implementation of the idea. Label without substance is worthless. A simple analogy would be the Ferrari car analogy. The shape, built and mechanics of the vehicle defines that the object is a car. The made and quality that the car brings which differentiate it from the other car brands qualified it to be a Ferrari. The word Ferrari gives an identity of the car. Now, if we have no problem giving an identity to a Ferrari car, or to anything around us, why is it such a problem to put a label to a country which runs itself according to the principles of Islam as an Islamic State?
My model of an Islamic State may be different than that of Taji’s. I, however, believe that democracy is part of my Islamic State model. It is not surprising to have more than 1 model of any ideology. A model has to suit its local surroundings, practices and behaviour. Thus I believe that there has to be a model of an Islamic State which suits Malaysia.
At the end of the day, any system we’re implementing has to make us closer to God! Coz from Him we come, and to Him we shall return.
Comments and critiques are most welcome.
5 comments so far
Leave a reply
good thought…
is malaysia an Islamic state? i mean islamic country. if the answer is YES, what about some of the laws and legislation implemented in Malaysia? Hudud, politics and ISlam hadhari? are they suits the label of being an islamic country?
if the answer is NO, how is malaysia going for the title or simpler…to practice islamic values within the management? banned westernization? banned exploitation on women? women to wear hijjab? what about women who dont wear it? punishment? discrimination?
i am a lil bit confused really..
hmm.. i watched the clip halfway, since my brain is no longer capable of receiving 40+mins of info at once.
i think what the other guy was saying is dat what we need is to keep the ‘islamic values’ practiced by the western countries as it is, and then bannish some other bad practices. which sounds easier to implement and easier to be accepted by the non-muslims as they already understand how things work.
and when we r talking about the ‘islamic state’ in the past, we can see a lot of unislamic practices within the islamic state itself. but to have an islamic state will guarantee ppl’s respect and fear towards islam, which will make them think twice before doing things on us. which is good.
exploitation of women happen everywhere nowadays, in every community in the world. unless u r living in a cave with no internet, u’ll not see such thing/clip/pic etc.
anyway, good stuff, i’ll continue watching the clip after i finish doing my other responsiblity, which is studying for the coming exam.
uhhh…
salam
“kalau negara tu diperintah pemimpin ISlam…nnt kena bom dgn amerika….”
ternganga…
tapi masih ada yang berfikir sedemikian rupa
boleh jawab…”takpe..amerika bom…mati syahid semuanya…insyaAllah”
jawapan CUN untuk pernyataan `CUN`
agak lari isi dari isi kandungan, tapi ada kaitan dgn tajuk
my 2 p
Bismillahirrahmanirrahim,
“but to have an islamic state will guarantee ppl’s respect and fear towards islam, which will make them think twice before doing things on us.”
If the establishment and subsequent implementation of an Islamic state grows out not only based on the respect, but also the *fear* towards Islam, then how are we any different from a certain arrogant country in the West which threatens to bomb/invade/attack countries that disagree with it?
“takpe..amerika bom…mati syahid semuanya…insyaAllah”
Does the establishment of an Islamic state imply an absolutely sinless nation, populated by saints and angels instead of human beings? Does the entry to heaven as easy as being killed/bombed/murdered by an infidel?
Wallahu’alam.
“8:60 Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.”
(ayat dlm buku teks pendidikan islam form 5 rsnye)
how r we any different to them? i think u r brilliant enuff to think abt it urself