| 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   | The 
concept of Islamic State   BY SHAHNAZ BASHIR
 
   Islamic State believes in 
setting up of a truly just state, writes 
SHAHNAZ BASHIRThe gradual imperial invasions of Ottoman Empire at the hands of Portuguese 
capitalists in 17th century opened it to the European Colonial careerists. The 
Empire, for seven centuries (from 1300 AD to 20th century), had had a 
remarkable, unrivalled expansion in most of the Middle-East and Europe. It 
marked the glorious times of the spread of Islam to the forbidden corners of 
world. After being pitted against the Ottomans, the Arabs had successfully 
yielded to the motives of British occupants for the false promise of 
independence. But when their designs triumphantly disintegrated the Empire and 
made Arabs enemies of their brothers in Turkey, British forgot the promise that 
perhaps they had never intended to keep. Consequently, the most powerful Muslim 
Empire was rendered dysfunctional within and explicitly began to be rechristened 
into a National State. Salim III laid the groundwork for new westernizing 
reforms and established Ottoman embassies in European Capitals. In 1860's the 
economy slumped and finally the Islamic Empire became bankrupt. The political 
and economic position of the Empire was in stalemate in 1890's when it 
conspicuously began to present a vulnerable overture for foreign conquests. 
Palestine was one of the pivotal parts of Ottoman Empire. In 1897 Zionists held 
their first conference in Basel to discuss their ultimate aim to create the 
Israeli state in the Ottoman province of Palestine. Same year marked the death 
of Sayyid Jammal-ud-din Afghani, a Muslim reformer, who had strived for a 
consensus amongst the Islamic states to gather and collectively confront the 
Western colonialism and hegemony. Finally, the publication of the Sykes Picot 
agreement in 1920 in the wake of Ottoman defeat in First World War, the Empire's 
provinces were divided between British and French, who established mandates and 
protectorates to further split the Muslim community of world.
 The imperial takeover of the Ottoman Empire gave rise to the concepts of secular 
and national states. Britain, the proponent of these concepts in the former 
Islamic States had never itself observed secularism in its own place. The 
problem of Ireland had broken out of a rigid, aggressive intersectarian dispute 
of Catholics and Protestants. British largely as protestant never budged an inch 
on their radical sectarian stand which further troubled Anglo-Irish relations 
and developed political rivalry between the Northern and Southern Ireland.
 With the adoption of radical secular and nationalistic policies in Turkey, power 
hungry politicians across the Muslim world began to imitate it and play with the 
essence of Islamic principles which formerly were the sole basis of conducting 
the affairs of the states. The decade of 1920's gave birth to, not only the 
nationalistic and secular conceptions of the states but, misconceptions: 
emanating from the misunderstanding contrived and fostered by the mischievous 
polity. It spread wrong notions about Islamic governance and Islamic political 
systems. The concept of Islamic State apparently became ahistoric and 
intolerant, which unfortunately continues to appear like that.
 In 1921, Reza Khan led a brutal secularizing policy in Iran by executing the 
pioneers of Islamic movements. Jamal Abd-al-Nasser, Egyptian President, 
belonging to a tyrannical secular party, Free Officials, suppressed the Muslim 
Brotherhood (Ikhwan Al Muslimeen) and imprisoned thousands of its members in 
concentration camps in 1952. In 1961, Muhammad Reza Pahalvi, Shah of Iran, 
announced White Revolution which further marginalized religion and widened the 
splits in Iranian society. Saddam Hussein in 1990 under the banner of secularism 
invaded Kuwait and inspired “Operation Desert Storm” for the Muslims of Iraq. 
All of them setting a perfect example that Iqbal epitomizes in form of this 
verse: Judda Ho Din Siyasat Se Tou Reh Jati Hai Chengezi
 But all of these secularists' policies called for Islamic resistance movements. 
Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic revolution was Iran's first step to overthrow the 
Phalvi dynasty's secular strategies. The Israeli victory and Arab defeat in 1967 
led to a religious revivalist movement throughout the Middle-East, as the old 
secularist policies seemed discredited. In answer to the win of Israel, Sheikh 
Ahmad Yasin founded Mujamah (Congress), a welfare organization to campaign 
against the secular nationalism of PLO. Hamas an offshoot of Mujamah 
successfully launched a protest movement called Intifaada against the Israeli 
occupation of Gaza and West Bank. The secular inclinations of the successor of 
Jamal-abd-al-Nasser, Anwar Saadat, got him assassinated soon after his entrance 
into an agreement with Israel in 1981. Similarly, the leftist and secularist 
government led by Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and his policies inspired 
the installation of the Islamic government of Zia-ul-Haque. The rise of Islamic 
movements became a phenomenal reality whenever the states, with majority of 
their populations as Muslims, were forced to accept secularist governments. In 
modern interpretation and deconstruction the term secularism means and is 
nothing but political debauchery.
 In Kashmir, Jama'at-e-Islami was the first Islamic organization that challenged 
the political monopoly of the hooliginistic National Conference in 1953. The 
ideals of Jama'at did not bother NC on social counts uniquely, as much as the 
political principles embodied in those ideals. The ideals which were a 
primordial threat of first of its nature to the local political traditionalism 
of the nationalists. Stories abound, about how, in return to this challenge, the 
Jama'atis were persecuted. The conversion of Muslim Conference into National 
Conference in 1938 was the biggest ever blow to the political movement of 
Kashmir. The conversion changed the future course of the struggle for freedom 
and threw Kashmiris into another trouble. The secular agenda of National 
Conference interposed its identity with the colonial future of Indian Congress 
in Kashmir.
 The Pandit, Sikh and Christian leaders had peacefully, though individually, 
worked with Kashmiri Muslims against the Dogra autocracy until the conversion. 
They could have continued to do so, systematically, under the umbrella of Muslim 
Conference and their strategies. But the change of name, policies and thus 
ousting of some members by its pseudo-secular promise made the party and its 
policies a sham. There are examples otherwise to prove how non-Muslims happily 
worked under Islamic principles.
 In July 2006, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus (Kashmiri Pandits) in Tral, southeastern 
area of Kashmir “raised a joint forum, to which they unanimously called Islami 
Forum, to fight social evils and solve the problems of the society”. The 
creation of the Forum expelled all the doubts and apprehensions that non-Muslims 
do not accept to work or live under Islamic system and principles. “Hindu, 
Muslim Sikh Itihaad! News agency KNS reported that the residents called a 
congregation at Khankah-e-Molla, Tral. Besides Muslims, it was attended by a 
large number of people from Sikh and local Pandit community who had come from 
126 villages of the area. The people unanimously raised an organization named 
Islami Forum with noted cleric Moulana Noor Ahmad Trali elected as its head, the 
KNS said (Greater Kashmir 10-07-06)”.
 One more wrong notion that needs to be dispelled is that Jama'at-e-Islami is not 
the only organization aspiring for an Islamic state. On August 16, 2006 Mirwaiz 
Umar Farooq in a function at S P college, Srinagar wished for creation of the 
same in Kashmir after it regains its independence from India. It has become a 
trend to label all those, who aspire for an Islamic state in Kashmir, as 
Jama'atis which is grossly wrong. Although the majority of Muslims in Kashmir 
wish for the same and are non-Jama'atis. Another false attribution is calling 
Jama'at-e-Islami a confined or an organization of limited membership of 
Islamists. Hundreds of Christians are members of Jama'at-e-Islami in Pakistan. 
Mariya, an orthodox Christian in Pakistan represents Jama'at-e-Islami of 
Pakistan in the Pakistani Legislative Assembly. In an interview to BBC Radio 
Urdu Service, when asked why she feels that Jama'at is a special organization to 
be represented by an orthodox Christian like her, she said that she didn't come 
across any other ideology in the world, except J-e-I’s, which she felt could 
have best represented a country on religious, political, social, economic and 
moral grounds. (Ref. BBC Urdu Service Archives, June 2005)
 Actually the spirit of an Islamic state already lives subtly in majority Muslim 
states occupied by unwanted forces of power. And even in that state the subjects 
have set an example of their tolerance towards their co-existent minorities 
within the state. "Muslim bothers helped us when no body came", quoted the 
headline on the front page of Greater Kashmir, May 2, 2006 after many Hindus 
were massacred by unidentified gunmen in Doda, J&K this year in the last night 
of April.
 Islamists also 
believe that if Punjab were a Khalistan and Muslims were to live there with the 
Sikh brothers they would be represented and regarded equally as would be Sikhs 
in an Islamic State. In Maharaja Ranjeet Singh's empire which extended from 
Lahore, Pakistan to the north including Punjab in 19th century, 90% of his 
subjects in J&K were Muslims which remained untouched and unharmed because of 
his tolerant policies.  Though the concept 
of Islamic state in a state where majority of the natives are Muslims takes 
eventually a definite shape as soon as it achieves the political freedom. It is 
not a Utopia or a dreamt-of condition but evidently, as seen elsewhere in the 
world, an idealistic reality that shows itself up, the time it is born free and 
consolidates itself. As Gandhi realized this in the case of Kashmir and wrote in 
the letter to Pandit P N Bazaz on May 5, 1934, “Knowing that Kashmir is 
predominantly Musalmaan it is one day bound to become a Musalmaan State”. It is 
a different question that he later blessed Indian army to occupy the state. But 
a reality will still remain a reality.  The bottomline now, 
is to bust all the myths that mystify and malign the essence of an Islamic 
state.  Islamic state 
discourages communal fanaticism and bigotry and encourages strong communal 
harmony and tolerance. It by its nature rejects Westernization and colonialism 
but insists modernization of great arts, sciences, technology, life style and 
general development and progress in accordance with Islamic principles. Islamic 
liberalism is far more beautiful and secure than Western pseudo-liberalism. 
Islamic state also rejects discrimination on the basis of race, class, creed, 
caste and language yet regards him or her in high esteem whosoever practises 
piety.  The minorities in an 
Islamic state are called Zimmis (responsibility). Jews, Christians, 
Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs, Taoists, Shintoists— are all Zimmis 
in an Islamic Empire. They are allowed full religious liberty, are allowed to 
organize their community according to their own customal law, but are required 
to recognize Islamic sovereignty. Besides Zimmis, Jews and Christians are 
regarded as Ahl-e-Kitab (people of the scripture) who by that identity enjoy 
wishful marriage propositions and brings them closer to Islam (Ref. Islam: A 
Short History by Karen Armstrong). Zimmis are also called “Protected subjects” 
in the premise of an Islamic state. An Islamic state is dutybound to provide 
protection and safeguard to the lives, property and honour of Zimmis. Islamic 
state does not believe in Nationalism in political terms but impresses upon the 
delimitation of State's extension on Islamic Principles. Similarly, Islamic 
state is not a national state but it gives its non-Muslim natives the right to 
legislation. Noted scholar and academic of Kashmir University, Dr. Sheikh 
Showkat Hussain writes in his book, Minorities: Islam and the Nation State, 
pp60, “Islam does not prohibit the participation of Non-Muslims in such 
legislation (which conforms to Islam). Umar Ibn Al Khatab (the second Caliph) 
sought the advice of Non-Muslim experts while devising procedures for the 
collection of revenue and settlement of lands in Iraq and Egypt. Binomin was 
known as one of the great leaders of the Copts in Egypt. Umar asked Amar Ibn Al 
As, the governor of Egypt, to consult Binomin regarding various affairs of 
administration, (cited in ibid, pp81, Islam and Jihad by A G Noorani). 
 Declaration of Umar 
Ibn-al Khatab (RA) at Jerusalem best exemplifies the concept of an ideal Islamic 
State. He said, “This is the protection which the servant of God, Umar the 
commander of the Believers, has granted to the people of Ayliya. The protection 
is for their lives and properties, their chapels and crosses, their sick and 
healthy, and for all their co-religionists. Their Churches shall not be used for 
habitation, nor shall they be demolished, nor shall any injury be done to them 
or to their compounds, or to their crosses, nor shall their properties be harmed 
in any way. There shall be no compulsion on them in the matter of religion, nor 
shall any of them suffer any injury on account of religion. The life and 
property of the Roman who leaves the city shall be safe until he reaches a place 
of safety…Whatever is written herein is under the covenant of God and the 
responsibility of His Messenger, of Caliphs and of Believers…Witness to this 
deed are Khalid Bin Walid and Amar Bin Al Aas and Abd Al Rahman Bin Awf and 
Mu’waya Bin Abi Sufiyan.” Written in 15 AH (Tabari, 3:609, trans. 12:191-2) Ref. 
Makers of Islamic Civilization! Umar by Shibli Numani (Oxford) 2004 ed. 
 Language is not a 
concern for an Islamic state as long as minorities are concerned. Language, 
after all, is a medium of communication and nobody should politicize it. 
Language settles after its evolution over thousands of years. There is nothing 
moral and immoral in any language. It depends upon the speaker to make it the 
either of the two. One can abuse in Arabic and praise in the same language. A 
language (particular) becomes the part of religious identity when it becomes the 
medium of divine communication to a respective community. Good Jews (not 
Zionists) and Copts besides Muslims in the Arab world speak, write, read and 
love Arabic. Not because Arabic is the religious language of Muslims but because 
it was there in the Arab world before the revelation of Holy Qur'an to Prophet 
Muhammad (SAW). Arabic was spoken in the times of Jahiliya also; from the times 
immemorial in the Arabian civilization. Muslims of Bangladesh speak and love 
their Bangla, the script of which comes from basic graphic Sanskrit alphabets. 
Though Urdu is a medium through which all the theological interpretation of 
Islam and its literature has come from and continues to come to South Asia. Urdu 
is a language in which our monumental literature, our revenue records, our 
identity, our civilizational history is preserved. It has been developed over 
hundreds of years. If shunning it means to get logically rid of an “alien 
language”, that some people feel has been thrust on us, than what is English. 
Then in the first place English deserves (logically) the first priority to be 
shunned off as a colonial language. Illogical campaigns to promote one language 
and destroying the other won't do. Urdu in Jammu & Kashmir is the unique bridge 
of communication amongst the people who live across the state. It is ironical 
that those who have made their professional carriers over the years only because 
of Urdu language have nose-dived in the campaign to erase the beautiful language 
along with their children. The children who have been spending an imperial life 
in West and don't have a sophisticated knowledge of hard facts and crude 
realities. One should not spit in the plate one gets fed from.  Muslim Ummah must unite for 
achieving back the glory it has lost. The triumph lies in unification, 
intellectual renaissance, prudence and in giving up the foolhardy trifles. For 
where has Prophet PBUH encouraged angry retaliations? Nowhere. But strategic 
retreats, love, unity and then with the discipline and patience would come the 
success.   
http://etalaat.net/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3644&Itemid=52 |