View Point                                                                         Abid Ullah Jan

Muslim Self-Rule is the Answer

Believing that the huge investment of human life and tax money worth trillions of dollars in the Muslim world would bring peace and prosperity to the West is no less than living in fool's paradise. The reason being that this investment is going into installing and sustaining puppet regimes for maintaining the status quo of the not too hidden forces behind the scene in the US.

In the absence of self-rule for Muslims, it is just a matter of time for the existing investment to backfire in the worst manner we can imagine. It is in the interest of the peace loving people in the West and the world at large to understand the real cause of denial of self-rule to Muslims in light of the philosophy of Islamic State.Many opinion makers, who promote a war within Islam, such as Thomas Friedman and Daniel Pipes, define Islamic State as a breeding ground for the terrorists, following a totalitarian ideology of defeating the West and destroying Israel.

The reality, however, is in total contrast to the description the Western public is fed with by the media on daily basis. Of course, there are some basic differences between the objectives of a state in the Western thought and Islam. Once the concept of the basics is clear, it is not difficult to do a proper risk assessment and understand requirements and outcomes of the two different governing mechanisms. The first important fact for the Westerners to understand from the history is that Muslim masses are not independent as yet of the colonial powers. They were freed from direct colonialism only to be indirectly ruled through puppets until this day.

The second factor is the concept of Islamic state, which has been purposely twisted and presented in a way to avoid the emergence of an Islamic State. The fear is that such form of governance mechanism will make remote control colonialism impossible on the one hand and become a challenge to the ever-growing tyrannical form of government, say in the US, on the other.

Non-Muslims need to understand that the objective of State in Islam is not to annihilate the non-Muslim world or march on country after country to impose Islamic way of life like the U.S is doing to the Muslims.

Muslims yearn for self-rule because Islam has its own value-system applicable to both the rulers and the ruled and the private and the public life. Therefore, Unitarianism is the fundamental principle that explains almost every aspect of doctrinal and practical Islam.

Human nature, though tends to cross moral limits. There is always a human tendency to bifurcate and restrain religion and pick that suits the whim and caprice and reject that restricts animal instincts.

The Western form of government is a product of an attitude of human mind, whereby people become oblivious to the spiritual dimension of existence and concentrate on the material world. On the contrary, the philosophy of life in Islam does not allow different pursuits to become autonomous, independent, and severed from the Divine end.

The battle cry for the Western position vis-à-vis state is "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's." Islam responds with the slogan: Din wa Dawlah (Islam is religion and State). Even if this formula is not found in the Qur'an in the exact words, the entire Qur'an revelation is integrative in that it sees Muslims as moral beings who should think and act in a theo-centric manner at all times, i.e., in their capacity as State citizens, too. Indeed, it is a much-researched question whether there exists at all a definitive Islamic theory of State. German orientalists such as Gustav von Grunebaum and Tilman Nagel tend to affirm. In fact, the Qur'an does not refer to a State in the contemporary sense at all. Rather it assumes a moral community, the Islamic Ummah, which guarantees the right physical and spiritual environment for the successful implementation of its principles and norms. The reason that the focus of the Qur'an is more on individual and family life - the basic units of a society - than governance mechanism is simply to hold human beings from ignoring the Divine purpose of their creation. Under the Western set up of governance, power becomes the end and people are dedicated to political power rather than using power in the service of their spiritual well-being as well.

Islam provides man with theoretical and practical guidance covering all aspects of life, of which the political aspect is but one. The world, in its view, is a place for the preparation of the soul for the hereafter and that this preparation fulfils the purpose of creation of man. One cannot therefore consider parts of worldly life as having no meaning with regards to that final purpose.

To rule is a sacred trust not a right in Islam. As such those who do not rule according to the principles of Islam are oppressors and transgressors. Such rulers are authoritarian and autocrat according to Islam despite all the badges of democracy and banners of human rights. The matter gets worse when people know that all the autocracy and violations of Islamic principles is to please those behind the scene for worldly gains.
The rules of Islam require the existence of an authority, a State, with the authority to organize the myriad of relationships that characterize the society and the resources for producing a favourable environment for the people to fulfil the overall objective of human creation.

Islam does not limit Aqeedah (belief) to a set of philosophical ideas, or a few rituals of utmost priority at the expense of the rest of the principles and values enunciated by the Qur'an and Sunnah. Aqeedah is, in fact, the basis, the engine that runs the Islamic State. Therefore, all injunctions of the Qur'an along with Sunnah need simultaneous implementation without any discrimination.

Al-Mawardi maintains that the establishment of Islamic State is a religious obligation, because its main object is the defence of the Faith and the preservation of order through the implementation of Revealed Law. He is of the view that a secular state is based on the principles derived through human reasoning, and therefore it promotes only the material advancement of its citizens. But Islamic State promotes the material as well as the spiritual advancement of the people.

As for the responsibility of establishing the Deen, "Islamic State seeks to mould every aspect of life and activity in consonance with its moral norms and program of social reform. In such a state no one can regard any field of his affairs as personal and private."

It is important to note that this concept does not make Islamic State an authoritarian or fascist regime, because "despite its all-inclusiveness, it [Islamic State] is something vastly and basically different from the modern totalitarian and authoritarian states." The misconception of unaccountability of the ruler under an Islamic system is a reality in the US today. It is known as the separation of powers that refers to the fact that the Framers scattered each type of national power (legislative, judicial, and executive) among the various branches of the US government. For example, the US President has the legislative power of the veto (Article I, Section 7), the Senate has the executive power of confirming certain appointments made by the President (Article II, Section 2), and the Congress and President are checked by judicial review (Article III, Section 2).
Apparently, the separation of powers under the US concept of state accomplishes several things. First, we see that it is a continuation of checks. Some of the checks are upon the other branches as well. Nevertheless, one reason for this is that the Framers, as elites within the private economy, sought mainly to protect their individual freedom as property owners from state intrusion. Therefore, they checked the legislative branch as well as the other branches through the separation of powers to ensure protection from a "misguided" executive (which very well could be an executive responding to the demands of the people).

The point is that as the national government was purposely made inefficient, it would leave private power or the power of business or corporate elites untouched. As Charles Beard points out, "None of the powers conferred by the Constitution on Congress permits a direct attack on property." Thus Madison argued in Federalist No. 51, "The constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other - that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights." According to Jerry Fresia: "The check upon the executive branch by the legislative branch is not like the check by the other branches upon the legislative. It is not distrust or an indictment of the virtue and wisdom of a class of poor people. It is a simple distrust of the government or public power and a belief that private or what we today would call corporate power or business is virtuous. Clearly, fear of the ability of common people to work their way through the legislature was far greater than the potential tyranny of the President."

To the contrary, under an Islamic form of governance it is the right of the common people to censure the head of the State and all other officials. It is an important function of the Shura to ensure that the ruler conforms to the Qur'an and Sunnah. The nation must remain conscious that it has to obey its creator, not the whims and fancies of men in top positions. The essential dictum being that there is "no loyalty unto the created which involves disloyalty unto the Creator". (Bukhari)

It is natural to think that divine sovereignty and the necessity of obedience to the Prophet leaves no room for freedom and human legislation in an Islamic State. In fact, Islam "does not totally exclude human legislation. It only limits its scope and guides it on right lines."

In an Islamic State, a priestly class exercising unchecked domination and enforcing laws of its own making in the name of God is satanic rather than Divine. The government built up by Islam "is not ruled by any particular religious class but by the whole community of Muslims including the rank and file. The entire Muslim population runs the state in accordance with the Book of God and the practice of His Prophet."

The New York Times (Nov 14, 2003) was happy to see that there is no reference to Shari'ah in the new Afghan constitution. We must remember that Muslim governments were de-Islamised in the past, when Muslims were deprived of the Shari'ah under colonial rule. As a result, Muslims were exposed to absolutism for the first time because the Shari'ah provided limitation on government. That is why in Islamic history, despite deviations from the basic principles and transformation into monarchies, one does not find as much oppressive governments as we witness today under the "democracy" of Musharraf and Mubarak. The reason was that the governments were restricted by shariah then and the judiciary was powerful enough to evoke the Shari'ah directly when needed.

The post-independence governments became too absolute. Even the so-called democracies have actually become democracy of the elite or the junta in service of the powers that keep them alive. Just like the democracy of the French Revolution, these are democracies of certain class, who discuss and make decisions themselves. Although there are formal elections, the people are not represented nor do they ruler in any sense. Survival of regimes is linked to the services they provide to their masters in Washington and London.

A state based on the principles of Islam can never be a threat to non-Muslims or interests of non-Islamic states. Islam persistently demands its followers to observe the principles of morality at all cost in all walks of life and the administration at the top is not exempt. Hence, it lays down an unalterable policy for the State to base its politics on justice, truth, and honesty. It is not prepared, under any circumstances whatsoever, to tolerate fraud, falsehood and injustice for the sake of any political, administrative or national expediency as we witness in the words and deeds of the most "established" democracies of the world. Instead of wasting innocent lives on both sides of the divide and instead of wasting trillions of dollars of the tax-payers money, this is the time to let Muslims to self-rule. This is the only answer to avoiding further bloodshed and continued chaos and destruction. In a situation in which victims neither have power nor a clear idea, the next big question is from where to begin. The first step in this regards is ceasing external support to illegitimate rulers and other opportunists - both at Mulla and moderate extreme - who fool the West in the first place.

This also is not possible untill the seemingly empowered Western public gets aware and use their real empowerment to help the rest of the humanity begin a genuine process towards their self rule - rather than inciting a war within and imposing wars from outside to no avail in the final analysis.