Could an Islamic state actually work?

Some would argue that the Taliban are fighting to overthrow the Pakistani government in order to establish a medieval barbarian theocracy. Others would pit them as noble freedom fighters that are resisting foreign invaders and seeking to bring justice to the neglected people of this region. In the meantime we have unpopular and counter-productive drone attacks and endless conspiracy theories about who is arming and funding who.

But somewhere in the midst of this mess is the quest for an ‘Islamic state’ and the introduction of Shariah law. These are often presented as clear and concrete objectives which some insist on resisting at all costs whilst others are told they are duty bound to embrace as Muslims. Such discussions are, however, far too simplistic and gloss over the confusions and differences that exist in this area.

Muslims do not and have never agreed upon one version of ‘Sharia’ law, they also do not have a commonly accepted definition of an ‘Islamic State’. The current Pakistani constitution states that no legislation may contradict the Quran or Sunnah (Primary sources of Islam) and therefore, according to some, it is an Islamic state.

The Taliban would argue that the existing political apparatus in Pakistan does not match that of 7th century Arabia and that it does not implement their interpretation of Shariah, which is informed by the Pashtun tribal code. Saudi Arabia claims to implement Shariah law yet luckily their version of it does differ from that of the Taliban’s and again is informed by Bedouin Arab customs. Many Arab Islamists groups, being influenced by Arab nationalism, insist on the future leader of an Islamic state being Arab or even belonging to a particular tribe. Iran also claims to be an ‘Islamic state’ yet their interpretation of that term differs yet again due to their Shia heritage.

So where does all this confusion lead us? The answer is nowhere. Problems arise because puritanical and literalist interpretations of Islam refuse to accept scriptural diversity and appreciate difference of opinion. They also fail to take into account the fact that certain rulings were specific to one time period and one culture, i.e. they are not normative.

Take Music for instance, within mainstream Islamic schools of thought one will find a whole range of positions on Music. Some would seek to forbid it outright, others would allow certain forms of Music and forbid others, some argue that the content of the lyrics holds the key whilst others would take a relaxed position to most if not all forms of music. So which is the true Islamic position? They all are and it is up to the individual to decide which view he/she decides to follow. Moderate Muslims would accept this diversity of views on music and other issues but puritans and those under their influence would champion one view and attack all the others.

Similarly puritans would argue that a state which only implements one particular interpretation of shariah is a true Islamic state, the true interpretation often being decided by the ethnicity and personal ambitions of the ones making the judgement. More hardcore factions would insist that only an expansionist state which adopts an interpretation of shariah that they approve, seeks to unite the entire Muslim world under one ruler can be called an Islamic state. These differences explain why extremist groups often turn on each other when they get the opportunity and end up never achieving their utopia.

Moderates would argue that a state which refers to shariah principles when drafting legislation is an Islamic state. Such a state, they would argue, can still be democratic, inclusive and content within its own borders. They also insist that expansionist empires were simply political constructs of the past and not an intrinsic part of Islamic doctrine. Much more interestingly another set of moderates insist that actually there is no such thing as an ‘Islamic state’ at all, the very concept is a post-colonial reactionary concoction that owes more to communism and fascism then Islam.

Such Muslims would argue that Islam did not pre-define a political structure and Shariah was never meant to be adopted wholesale as state law. Rather Islam is a complete way of life that seeks to guide our conduct in some spheres and dictate it in others, i.e. Shariah would dictate how a Muslim prays but guide how a Muslim runs a surgery for example. Similarly, Islam could guide our political conduct without dictating it. They would insist that this has always been the relationship between the Islam and political authorities. Concepts such as ‘Islamic states’ ruling by shariah are modern constructs which certain reformists proposed as a response to European imperialism.

Again it would be difficult to argue that one view is more Islamic than any other and there is yet a clear consensus to emerge. Recent election results in places like Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan do suggest that we are slowly moving into a post-Islamism world where Muslims are beginning to reject Islamist parties in favour of more inclusive ones. The lack of any central authorities in Islam and the poor state of Muslim scholarship will ensure that the confusion will continue.

It’s important that individuals are exposed to the plethora of views on this topic by reading books such as ‘The Great Theft’ by Khaled M Abou El Fadl and ‘Islam and the secular state’ by Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na`im. But in the absence of open-mindedness, geo-political power struggles, short sighted governments and personal greed will continue to push power-mad fanatics to favour the more bigoted understandings that are more in tune with their personal desires.

Taken from: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4512