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.