certifired_img

Books and Documents

Books and Documents (20 Oct 2015 NewAgeIslam.Com)



Islam Has No Role to Play in Politics: A Review of Ali ‘Abd Al-Raziq's Revolutionary Essay on Islam and the Foundations of Political Power

 

 

 By Douglas Garrison

Religion, and Islam in particular, appear to be mainstays in discussions about politics in the Middle East. But while readers may be quite familiar with contemporary debates about the role of religion in Mideast politics, this phenomenon is far from a recent one. One of the seminal texts on the topic—one that generated a firestorm of criticism and debate—was published in 1925 by an Egyptian Islamic scholar and Al-Azhar faculty member, Ali ‘Abd al-Raziq.

The argument of ‘Abd al-Raziq’s 120-page essay was incendiary for its time: Islam has no formal role to play in political life, and to the extent it indirectly affects politics, it should remain within the confines of individual morality. Given today’s headlines cataloguing the doings and sayings of Islamic extremists, Islamist political parties, and Muslim religious authorities throughout the region, this line of argument may come as a surprise, particularly from an Islamic scholar educated at Al-Azhar and writing in 1925. But there it is.

The importance of ‘Abd al-Raziq’s work cannot be understated, for it set the tone of religio-political debate in the Sunni world for generations. Islamic scholars still grapple with it today. And considering the climate of discussion hovering over Islam and politics today, his work is more important than ever. Here, then, is my review of the new edition of ‘Abd al-Raziq’s essay, originally printed in the Digest of Middle East Studies in the fall of 2014.

Note: for purposes of continuity with the book, I used the editor’s spelling of the author’s name (“Ali Abdel Razek”) throughout the review.

Islam and the Foundations of Political Power

By Ali Abdel Razek

Edited by Abdou Filali-Ansary

Translated by Maryam Loutfi

Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press, 2013 [1925].

One of the most contentious debates within the Islamic world over the last century centers on the degree to which religion should shape and influence politics and governance. This debate helped spur and sustain many of the great political reform movements—progressive, conservative, and radical—of the 20th and 21st centuries. From the struggle to open Turkey’s political system to the Islamic Revolution in Iran, and from the rise of transnational jihadi networks to the constitutional debates of budding post-“Arab Spring” democracies, the question of Islam’s role in politics shaped and continues to shape public discourse on legitimate political power throughout the Islamic world.

Given the resonance of this issue throughout the Islamic world today it is refreshing, if unsurprising, that a newly translated edition of Ali Abdel Razek’s seminal work, Islam and the Foundations of Political Power, should appear. Part of Edinburgh University’s Modern Muslim Thinkers in Translation series and edited by Abdou Filali-Ansary, founding director of the Aga Khan University Institute for the Study of Muslim Civilization in London (2002-2009) and of the King Abdul-Aziz Foundation for Islamic Studies and Human Sciences in Casablanca (1984-2001), this new edition highlights the lasting impact and contribution Abdel Razek made to debate on Islam and politics, despite having been originally published in 1925.

Ali Abdel Razek’s essay was published in a mature political and intellectual milieu already steeped in the religion-state debate. He was born (1888) just as leading Islamic thinkers in Egypt like Muhammad ‘Abduh and Jamal al-Din al-Afghani began publishing their ideas on Islamic revivalism, modernization, and anti-colonialism. Journals like ‘Abduh’s al-‘Urwa al-Wuthqa (The Indissoluble Bond) and that of his disciple Muhammad Rashid Rida, Al-Manar (The Beacon), were widely circulated and generated considerable debate as political activism against British occupation intensified during the first decades of the 20th century. Following the 1919 uprising against the British and the subsequent political battles between the nationalist Wafd party and the British-backed monarchy, politics and the question of legitimate political authority took center stage in the Egyptian public sphere. It was against this backdrop—and that of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate in 1924—that Abdel-Razek’s controversial work appeared.

As Filali-Ansary notes in his introduction, Islam and the Foundations of Political Power caused an uproar in Egypt among members of the Sunni religious establishment and intellectuals alike. Abdel Razek’s essay, only 118 pages in its current edition, challenged not only the foundational political assumptions of the conservative religious and monarchist classes, but also those of the ‘modernizing’ constitutionalists in the Wafd movement. On one hand, Abdel Razek refuted traditional/monarchist authority claims by disentangling, deconstructing, and systematically challenging the core tenets of the millennia-old scholarly political consensus developed after the time of the Prophet Muhammad. On the other, he upset the secular-nationalist Wafdists by legitimizing the use of scientific rationality and historical criticism in “religio-political matters,” tools they had sought to use as a means of public differentiation from the ‘backwards’ ulama and monarchy. (5)

The backlash against the essay was immediate and overwhelming. Abdel Razek was put on trial by the faculty disciplinary committee of al-Azhar, stripped of his title as an ‘alim, and banned from teaching. But what made his essay so inflammatory? The obvious answer is the essay’s subject and the manner in which it is addressed; however, perhaps more pointedly, Abdel Razek’s position as an ‘alim and faculty member at al-Azhar—the bastion of Sunni Islamic orthodoxy—made his essay all the more shocking and discomforting for the ulama.

Ali Abdel Razek begins his investigation with a simple premise: “None of the scholars who attested that the appointment of an imam [caliph] was a religious duty could substantiate this thesis with a verse from the Qur’an.” (36) From here, he proceeds to steadily unravel the traditionalist argument by poring over the chief sources materials of Islamic scholarship, the Qur’an and Sunna of the Prophet. Abdel Razek supports his arguments by elaborating on Muhammad’s prophetic mission and distinguishing it from its oft attributed political dimensions. After close examination of some 53 Qur’anic verses, he concludes, “Muhammad was strictly a Messenger, entrusted with a purely religious mission, uncompromised by any desire for kingship or temporal power…According to this view, Muhammad was no more and no less than an envoy sent by God, in no way different from his brethren-prophets who preceded him. He was not a king, nor the founder of an empire, nor someone preaching in favour of a kingdom.” (81)

Thus, Abdel Razek stipulates that justifications for the caliphate cannot be based on the “traditional” claim that Muhammad’s mission combined elements of political stewardship with religious prophecy. While he concedes that the Prophet’s status as the Messenger of God, the noblest of all humankind, and the leader of the Muslim community conferred “a certain degree of authority or power of his people,” this power must be differentiated from that of a typical temporal ruler. (82) Indeed, he argues that “The Qur’an explicitly forbids a view of the Prophet as a custodian of men, in charge of their affairs, possessing dominion over them, or for that matter a tyrant given to coercion.” (88-89) For Abdel Razek, the core Islamic principal of Muhammad’s uniqueness supports this differentiation. Moreover, the Prophet’s unique role can neither be bequeathed nor reproduced: “With the demise of the Prophet, the type of authority that he had hereto exercised came to an end. Therefore, as there was no one who could succeed him in that position, no one was entitled to inherit his prophetic function.” (107)

From a historical perspective Abdel Razek goes much further in his refutation of Islamic political authority, arguing not only that Islam provides no basis for sovereignty, but that the historical sovereignty imposed upon Muslims in the form of the caliphate has been overwhelming un-Islamic: “History does not offer us a single example of a caliph whose image is not associated with the fear inspired by the brutal force surrounding him, with the armed force surrounding him, and the unsheathed sword that lent him protection.” (47) And, additionally, “The caliphate has always been, and still remains, a disaster for Islam and for Muslims. It has been a constant source of evil and corruption.” (54) With arguments such as these, it is little wonder Abdel Razek won few friends among Egypt’s aristocracy and ulama.

At the end of his essay Abdel Razek concludes, “One looks in vain to either the Qur’an or the hadith for a simple allusion, whether explicit or implicit, which might give succor to the proponents of a political interpretation of the Islamic faith.” (92) Political organization and governance are therefore matters “religion has left to humankind, for people to organise in accordance with the principles of reason, the experience of nations and the rules of politics.” (117)

Abdel Razek’s brief but powerful and thoroughly reasoned essay shocked, offended, and inspired. Filaly-Ansari even goes so far as to suggest that scholarly backlash against the book from figures such as Muhammad Rashid Rida spurred the development of modern Islamism and Islamic political thought. Although perhaps a stretch, there is no doubt that Abdel Razek provoked the Sunni establishment into defending positions on Islam and political sovereignty it had long thought canonized. By invoking Ibn Khaldun’s admonishment for critical historiography and Muhammad Abduh’s call for a return to the fundament of the Qur’an in legal exegesis, Abdel Razek also reopened the debate among Muslim scholars on the role ‘reason’ could and should play in the interpretation and application of scripture and tradition. These issues remain hotly contested to this day.

In light of the reinvigorated global debates among Muslim scholars, intellectuals, and publics on the role of Islam in politics, Ali Abdel Razek’s essay is perhaps more relevant than ever. His provocative insight and methodically reasoned arguments provide readers—scholars and laypeople, Muslims and non-Muslims alike—an excellent springboard from which to begin their investigations of a deeply divisive but nevertheless intriguing subject. Filali-Ansary has rendered the public a great service in editing and publishing a new version of Islam and the Foundations of Political Power. As a foundational text in the scholarly study of Islamic political thought and a fascinating treatise on the relationships between religion and sovereignty more broadly, this new edition of Abdel-Razek’s timeless essay is a must-read.

Source: goo.gl/UjWp9i

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/books-and-documents/douglas-garrison/islam-has-no-role-to-play-in-politics--a-review-of-ali-%E2%80%98abd-al-raziq-s-revolutionary-essay-on-islam-and-the-foundations-of-political-power/d/104979





TOTAL COMMENTS:-   19


  • Dear Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi Sahab,

    I speak up with the sword of the terrorist hanging upon my head and the angels scrutinizing each word I write but how many fellow Muslims read??? 

    By muhammad yunus - 11/3/2015 6:27:50 AM



  • This goes beyond saying that the Muslim society can only reform internally. Any critique of other forces or elements will only promote defensive regression rather than openness to new ideas. We do have a fair number of secular and liberal Muslims, but they hardly speak up.
    Even if they muster courage of conviction, they are bombarded with dagerous accusations and fatwas.

    By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 11/3/2015 4:48:22 AM



  • I must add that at the turn of the twentieth century, Muslims were chiefly concerned with the problem of civilisational stagnation. The main problem was formulated in terms of a renaissance project for Muslim societies. The articulation of this problem was shaped by the encounter with the West in the modern period. Various intellectual positions were formed during this period of encounter, ranging from Islamic modernism to secularism.



    By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 11/2/2015 2:30:38 AM



  • The book review by Douglas Garrison is a succinct exposition laced with perspicuous evaluation. Any one concerned about political thoughts of Islamism will find this an essential reference tool. However, I would also love to quote one more authority on this subject Salwa Ismail:


    "Two interrelated issues are central to Islamic political thought in the twentieth century: the relationship between religion and politics and the role of the Islamic heritage in modern society. The treatment of these issues began in the nineteenth century, in the context of Muslim societies’ encounter with the West. Commencing with the Napoleonic invasion of Egypt (1789–1803), and extending through a period of Western Christian missionary activities in Muslim countries, Muslim educational missions to Western countries and, finally, to colonial rule, Muslim societies came into contact with modern Western ideas and ways of life. Through this encounter, the view of Western material progress was impressed on these societies. It was expressed in orientalist constructions of the East and in the apologetic and defensive discourses of the indigenous intellectuals. In Arab and Islamic thought, the problem of nahda (renaissance) crystallised. In Istanbul, the seat of Ottoman power, ideas of reform were developed and debated. Muslim reformist views also took shape in India. In Iran, the era in which modernising ideas and concepts were introduced became known as the asre bidari (period of awakening) (Mirsepassi 2000, p. 56; Gheissari 1998, pp. 14–15)." 


    By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 11/2/2015 2:29:18 AM



  • Dear Mohammad Yunus,
    Your quotation,"  However, its emphasis on justice, equality, tolerance, social welfare, and its priority on peace and security for all people provided the ground rules for the establishment of some of the most harmonious and egalitarian multi-cultural and multi-religious societies in world history (notably in Spain and India). With time these values have permeated the global society and have crystallized into the notion of welfare state." should also state that the west has imbibed these Quranic teachings while we Muslims have forgotten them. That is what I consider present day description of Islam. It is politics of one upmanship of who is a Muslim and who is not. It is not politics of assimilation of different groups and different human beings in one society which is comfortable and acceptable to all.


    By mohammad imran - 10/23/2015 4:48:05 PM



  • Dear Mohammad Imran,

    I want to reassure you that Ali Abd al Raziq's views are not gone with the wind or lost in labyrinthine theological narratives that are sprouting like grass with passage of time. The following excerpt from my jt publication [1] echoes his views in slightly different words: 

    "The Qur’an has been unequivocal about the Prophet’s role as God’s Messenger. Therefore, to describe him as a head of state or commander in chief will be tantamount to putting additional words into the Qur’an. Moreover, the Qur’an remains silent about the political, civil, financial, or military administration that goes with a state. As in case of all other fields of knowledge and sciences, it understandably left these to evolve with the progress of civilization. However, its emphasis on justice, equality, tolerance, social welfare, and its priority on peace and security for all people provided the ground rules for the establishment of some of the most harmonious and egalitarian multi-cultural and multi-religious societies in world history (notably in Spain and India). With time these values have permeated the global society and have crystallized into the notion of welfare state. At the same time, there is no definable model of an Islamic state: countries with highly diverse political agendas, ideologies and administrative portfolios have claimed this generic title, and are doing so to this day, as we can see around the Muslim world." (Ch. 42.4)  

    1. Essential Message of Islam.

    By muhammad yunus - 10/21/2015 9:58:34 PM



  • The below is quoted from the article above.

    The importance of ‘Abd al-Raziq’s work cannot be understated.

    One of the most contentious debates

     a newly translated edition of Ali Abdel Razek’s seminal work, Islam and the Foundations of Political Power, should appear.

    I could go on and on. Really.  The discussion of that word Religion is disgusting at best.  It goes on in the US, where I am from and don't worry. They have no problem attacking you.  

    It is called the ALEC agenda.  U tube, Bill Moyer and Alec, and then start looking in the cities near you, this is worldwide.

    We have covered up the name of God in the name of pastor's, preachers, elders, caliphates, imams and trust me, many of the messages are worlds apart.

    So this is what we have deconstructed God to. The names of man.  So ever wonder what is going on.  

    In the US, I hear the craziest things about Muslims, Indians, whomever, the church is teaching them to hate next.  Along with women, the gays, the transgender people...who by the way are revered in some cultures, unless we have already annihilated them.

    This is what that R word, religion has become.  No one can hear God, Love, Positive Energy.  Amos 8:11 is on per that Christian Bible.  If they could, do you not think that this Spiritual War...between Love and Evol would be going on.

    I hear people say all kinds of things about the Muslims.  You hate dogs, you want to kill everyone. Well the passages in the Qur'an speak of war, but so do the passages in the Bible.  God says to go out and destroy.  

    Why do you think Isis is functioning as it is.  A more literal sense, but that is the problem and their are people out there that take the Bible, don't care which one, all have been rewritten many times, literally.  

    The Bible, whichever one, was written in Oral translation, metaphor and simile.  God has a sense of humor, much of what I have read, like Shakespeare.  Comes alive in the words of Dante..that all goes on.

    Just get ready.  America has a battle to win, even though that word Christianity is so divided, but not unlike that word Muslim.

    Look at Saudi Arabia. Caustic, however, America is a huge friend.  Tons of Visa's go through from Saudi to America at break neck speed.  We call ourselves the Christian nation, yet Saudi Arabia is crucifying journalists, for speaking the truth.  I personally have a huge problem with that.  No one is talking about that.

    So, maybe, the question to ask is who is God. Everyone, of different sects, or groups, have a different meaning of who God is, and what is going on right now on this earth.

    If you believe in the coming of Christ as a King of this earth...I say...IT AIN'T HAPPENING.  The jews were waiting for Jesus to come back as a king of the earth, way back when and we have been through many civilizations that are at the bottom of the ocean.

    So, this is just more of that rhetoric.  Just understand that.

    The issue I am having, if we are already in the next world and you would have to read The Book of Thomas: 51 to see where I am coming from because I do believe that the Bibles have been rewritten so many times for power and control, that if I could get my hands on an original meaning I would feel Blessed.  Probably won't happen.

    However, mankind has rewritten My Father enough that the Kiss Principal of which he is about is not visible.  See it in Letter to the Editor.

    We have confined that name in so many ways to do our bidding as men and women.  Politics in the name of Power and Control.  In the name of Bullying really.  The name of my Father/Mother has been altered so much that that word has now become a bully pulpit word.  Not words of Jesus, or God, Positive Energy, Love or anything else.

    Should we all not bow down and be ashamed of what we have done with God's name.  Perhaps, if we did...we might really experience, that incredible Source of Light. 

    Where did we all start from.  I do not know.  However, if we are all related, supposedly came from the Mesopotamian Valley, The Fertile Valley, then we are all related in kind.  

    I do not care who wants to speak otherwise. Evolution is definitely involved, that is why I was driven to read the Qur'an.

    However, this is what man has created God to be.  An Argument.  Who is right who is wrong.  

    Hello....if it all goes into the can, and looking at the world, that might very well happen, because man is stupid enough not to learn from past mistakes.  

    What ever is left, will have to get off the net and start to create something.  Like banks, mortgages, food supplies and these are not going to be reliant on the conglomerates.  So, think small and build.  We are definitely at an end time, or a turning point for mankind.  

    I know we can pick this up.  We just don't function in the world.  We function among ourselves. All Nations, all brother's and sister's who can really hear what is going on.  

    This Too Shall Pass, is a phrase my mother always told me which brings new meaning of the world we live in today.  

    For some of us, we can't live in this world anymore.  So if Thomas 51 is true, then I would try to engage you all to see.....  Where can we go to create a world of God, Positive Energy, Love.  It will not be created by talking about it.  Only by action.

    So, as a woman who has walked away from that religion word and trusts only on her ABBA, or ABBETTE.  Who is God really.  I am really into Mythology because what you all preach doesn't register with me.  Look where you are.

    Was raised in the Christian gig, but very much more Buddhistic.  

    So, if you have time...Look at the Enneads.  Considered Heresy...however, there is a beautiful word there. Plotinus..The Ascent To The Union With The One.

    We are not men or women.  We are souls in God's eye.  However, the world wants to take us down into sects, religions, sexual identities, religions, names for leaders, politics, religious rules....should we go on. I am a woman, and I don't care what religion you are from.  I DO NOT LIKE WHAT YOU ARE DOING TO MY SOUL.  YOUR RULES ARE ABOUT YOU, NOT ME. 

    THIS IS NOT ABOUT GOD.  

    So, in a short film...these words are just another example of what you have done, or they have done, don't care...it is wrong, in the name of that word you all love so much. 

    RELIGION.  MAN CREATED, ESPECIALLY EMPHASIS ON THE MALE GENDER...AND DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THE GOD I KNOW...

    AND TRUST ME.  IAM A BIT OF A BOHAWK, AT LEAST TO YOU ALL.  

    HOWEVER, I LOVE MY ABBA OR ABBETTE...WITH ALL MY HEART, SOUL AND MIND.

    Just a word.  Didn't proof..sorry...too angry.

    Selah.

    By Amy - 10/21/2015 6:11:31 PM



  • Islam was a religion when it came. Over the next two hundred years ulema changed it into politics whereas the kings from Muawiyah onward had already made it into a religious kingdom. Islam as presently understood is politics not religion. All discussions about and on Islam are political designed to solidify political power not improve religious understanding. My views about Islam and Muslims are based on history not on interpretations which are always personal and subjective. I agree with the following:

    Ali Abdel Razek begins his investigation with a simple premise: “None of the scholars who attested that the appointment of an imam [caliph] was a religious duty could substantiate this thesis with a verse from the Qur’an.” (36) From here, he proceeds to steadily unravel the traditionalist argument by poring over the chief sources materials of Islamic scholarship, the Qur’an and Sunna of the Prophet. Abdel Razek supports his arguments by elaborating on Muhammad’s prophetic mission and distinguishing it from its oft attributed political dimensions. After close examination of some 53 Qur’anic verses, he concludes, “Muhammad was strictly a Messenger, entrusted with a purely religious mission, uncompromised by any desire for kingship or temporal power…According to this view, Muhammad was no more and no less than an envoy sent by God, in no way different from his brethren-prophets who preceded him. He was not a king, nor the founder of an empire, nor someone preaching in favour of a kingdom.” (81)

    By Mohammad Imran - 10/21/2015 11:00:56 AM



  • Dear rs:   You make a fine point by distinguishing Islam from the rubric of a  'religion' as in common language, religion conflates with huquq al Lah but Islam is an aggregate of huquq al Lah and huquq al ibad. 
    May I request you to read my following article that highlights the huquq al ibad aspect of Islam so often ignored by the Ulama:
    Blue Print for restoring the Pristine Theology of Islam expounding the huquq al ibad – man’s duty to man and his right to use his intellectual faculties as enshrined in the Qur’an.

    By muhammad yunus - 10/21/2015 6:50:12 AM



  • Dear Yunus Saheb,

    If I may refer to your quote-“The Islamic caliphate under the Prophet’s companions cannot be regarded as a model as it was governed in purely religious lines” I would agree whole heartedly with most of it with the only the tiny but important exception being “religious lines”.

    As I maintain that Islam is not a religion in the common language that it is understood, that is rigid and churchy, but a code of life with flexibility in it to adopt and adapt it to the times, without losing the essence of the code. And that is why I say that it is a living code.

    Whether you take common language meaning of religion or not is what makes me wonder.


    By rs - 10/21/2015 5:42:04 AM



  • Sultan Shahin sahib, what we consider to be divinely ordained are only basic rudiments on which successive generations should build edifices using new concepts and learning from experience. The concept of caliphate can then be seen as simply "good governance". There is nothing in the Quran which prevents us from dividing the functions of the caliphate into temporal and spiritual jurisdictions, keeping each jurisdiction separate from and independent of each other. There is nothing in the Quran that prevents us from having democratic elections or continuously reviewing and improving our personal and family laws.  We are God's vicegerents on earth but we have been very derelict in discharging that responsibility.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 10/21/2015 2:12:10 AM



  • Dear rs!
    you raise a million dollar question in your following remark:

    "If on the other hand ad Deen ul Islam is considered as a natural code of behaviour—of righteous deeds, not religious rituals-- for the benefit of human kind than there is sufficient guide there to accept it as irrevocable system of law for the advancement of mankind."

    It is interesting that my jt publication, Essential message of Islam says the following on the theme that purports to answer your question: 


    "din al-Islam may be connoted with a faith system that calls for orienting oneself (asslama) to God for the doing of good deeds, or serving humanity." [chapter 7.1]

    On Collective governance it says:


    "Therefore, in true sense, there is no political model of an Islamic state. The Islamic caliphate under the Prophet’s companions cannot be regarded as a model as it was governed in purely religious lines. It is impossible to recreate this model, as much as it is impossible to have the Prophet’s companions and witnesses of the revelation come alive to lead a religio-political state. Even otherwise, in today’s multi-religious world a religio-political state is antithetic to historical need rather than a historical necessity. Thus the present religious title of many of the countries with predominantly Muslim population, and the religio-political division between the Muslim and the non-Muslim world is purely a construct of history, nostalgic, anachronistic, and not rooted in the Qur’anic message.  [Ch. 42.5 Conc. para] 


    By muhammad yunus - 10/21/2015 1:10:53 AM



  • Yunus Sb and Shahin Sb have both quoted Moin Qazi Sb to support opposing view points!

    Indeed Moin Sb has stoutly defended traditional scholarship in his recent comments. I agree with him. I  never ignore traditional scholarship and go by the traditional view unless there is a good reason to believe that the traditional view has erred.

    The traditional view is however based on a few grave errors:

    1. The meaning of Kafir
    2. The meaning of qital fi sabi lillah or fighting in the cause of Allah
    3. The meaning of Jihad and Shuhuda

    These errors are however easy to identify and prove as errors based as they are on a  lack of adherence to the rules of logical inference. All distortions are by a "leap of logic" or "interpretative leaps"

    The only hurdle is that for the Scholars, including those with a western education, logic has no role to play in religion. All arguments based on logic and reason, therefore fall on deaf ears.

    The common Muslim who has no poistion to defend, is however more amenable to accept even what at first sight appears as extremely radical vis-a-vis the prevailing view. They are our hope if we can find a way to reach out large numbers bypassing all those who stand in the way.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/21/2015 1:01:01 AM



  • Dear Sultan Shahin Sahib,

    This is in response to your question re divine ordaining of Islamic Caliphate:  "How do we counter this consensus is the question."

    Here is one response extracted from my essay referenced below:

    The Qur’an’s espousal of a universal brotherhood of humanity (TOR-4) and Islam’s expansive spiritual umbrella as a universal din (belief system) for all monotheists (TOR-5) negates the notion of a global Islamic state or Khilafah uniting only the Muslims of the World as one political body. A religio-political state had grown in the immediate aftermath of the Prophet’s death but it lasted only for forty years (TOR-3) and Islamic history changed its political character to dynastic rule. Besides, the Qur’an’s complete silence about the political, civil, financial, or military administration that goes with a state indicates that it left statecraft to evolve with the progress of civilization (TOR-3). Hence, in the context of present day globalized society, the notion of Khilafah or a Pan-Islamic state is antithetic to the Qur’anic message.

    In historical perspective, even at the time of Caliph Umar the Muslim Umma was spread over a number of counties, notably, Arabia, Iraq, Syria and Egypt, and each had retained its national identity. Today, almost 14 centuries after his era and the spread of Muslims across the entire globe with dominant Muslim population in some 57 countries and minority in the others, thinking of one consolidated country without any national boundary can only be a dream or the imagination of a child. History testifies that all great empires like the Roman Empire, Soviet Russia, British Empire and Islamic Caliphate have all broken down into their component countries simply because it becomes impossible for any ruler to govern a large empire. Even Pakistan, the birthplace of the Taliban got divided into two countries at the expense of colossal loss of life and destruction, and further dismemberment cannot be ruled out. Hence, any suggestion for the reunification of all Muslim countries into one combined political body is outrageously absurd

    Re:

    ‘Azan: A Call to Jihad - On the Road to Khilafah’: A Comprehensive and Conclusive Refutation by an Authoritative Quran Exegete

    http://www.newageislam.com/radical-islamism-and-jihad/‘azan--a-call-to-jihad---on-the-road-to-khilafah’--a-comprehensive-and-conclusive-refutation-by-an-authoritative-quran-exegete/d/11812


    By muhammad yunus - 10/21/2015 12:32:50 AM



  • Shahin Sb, I have covered this under:
    By Naseer Ahmed - 10/20/2015 11:13:06 PM



Compose Your Comments here:
Name
Email (Not to be published)
Comments
Fill the text
 
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.

Content