[jurhoonee]

Definition of State
State (polity), an organized political community, living under a government
Sovereign state, a sovereign political entity in public international law
"State", in some contexts virtually synonymous with "government", e.g., to distinguish state (government) from private schools
Nation state, a state which coincides with a nation (language group).


An oxymoron (plural oxymorons or oxymora) is a figure of speech that combines contradictory terms.

Most of us who have grown up after Word War Two, use the phrase Islamic State uncritically to refer to a Islamic government. This comes from the Quranic word Dawla being mistranslated by early modernist Muslims into State (capital S). Together with this mistranslation we import all of the un-Islamic concepts of the modern State into Islam. The first Muslims in Madina Munawwara did not have a State, they had a government. The Ottomons did not have a State they had a government...it is said that a small village governed a large empire, in contrast to today where thousands upon thousands of people govern a small city. In order to understand the State we would have to study it and see what Western scholars have to say about it, it is their word so they know what it means.

I recommend that all Muslims interested in these subjects should read the following books, they are basic and simple:

Our Enemy, the State by Albert Jay Nock (free PDFs are available on the internet).


And these books by Richard J. Maybury are designed for high school students and are a great resource for Home schooling your children, but adults can learn from them too. These too can be downloaded as free torrents from the internet.

Whatever Happened to Penny Candy? 6th edition

Whatever Happened to Justice?, rev. edition

Are You Liberal? Conservative or Confused? 2nd edition

Ancient Rome: How It Affects You Today? 2nd edition

Evaluating Books: What Would Thomas Jefferson Think About This?, 2nd edition

The Money Mystery, 3rd edition

The Clipper Ship Strategy, revised edition

The Thousand Year War in the Mideast: How It Affects You Today

World War I: The Rest of the Story Story and How It Affects You Today, revised edition

World War II: The Rest of the Story and How It Affects You Today, revised edition

Also included is The Two Laws book


Umar Vadillio a Muslim Maliki scholar defines the State as a government which also carries out Central Banking functions. This is a good definition. Islam therefore is completely opposed to the State.

If Muslims want to implement Shariah in a particular area where people are not previously very religious, how do they do it? Do they force people with the threat of violence to grow beards, to stop drinking wine, to stop listening to music? If so people will not be sincere and we end up with two classes of people The Police and The Policed...it will not be a healthy Muslim community.

Muslims would have to dismantle the pre-existing structures of the State, not just replace them with 'Muslim' versions. Islam is largely about individual self governance, the Individual is sovereign of their own life, the Muslim government plays a very minimal role. The Muslim government cannot force anyone to give their money or property in sadaqa or welfare to others. It leaves people to make their own choices, there is no role for 'good people' in government forcing people to do things against their will. Even in a Jihad the sahaba were never forced to participate...they volunteered to go. The modern State confiscates your property from you by force...because they claim the people in government know better than you how best to spend it. This causes massive corruption and the State was never given this power by Allah , it has taken power and forced everyone to pay Interest (riba) on the so called National Debt. The Nation-State are slave holdings paying debts to Bankers....who distract us with Sport, Porn, etc. while they rule over us with an iron fist hidden inside a velvet glove.

[xsexymasterix]

Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah brother

I quite agree with most of what you are saying, but what I'm wondering is, what is it like to organize a country with tens of millions of people and massive cities without a complex state with a beaurocracy?

can a country ruled from a small village survive in this modern technological age without the apparatus of a state (such as a foreign office, health and social services, ministries related to education, agriculture and industry etc, a secret service, a standing army and a method of policing etc)?

wouldn't such a country just get wiped away by the enemies of Islam like the Taliban was?

would you say the situation of Islamic governance under Caliph Umar (for example) was a state or something else?

when the rightly guided Caliphs took over Egypt and Persia, they didn't completely eradicate existing state structures in those countries, rather they Islamicized them (got rid of the Haram and promoted the Halal) and we must remember that they were rightly guided Caliphs.

the Ottomans too had a complex state with a complex beaurocracy, was this un-Islamic?

also if people use the term state to describe the society at Madinah (as many do) are they wrong to do so?

or do they just use the term in a different way from some of your definitions?

maybe state is just a term people use, but society is a better term.

[esconsise]

So your bottom point is that Islamic society is formed bottom up, rather than top down and each layer maintains its social independece but cooperates into a brotherhood empire. Right?

[Britfunclubs]

Walaykum Salaam

I will answer some of your questions later insha-Allah, when I have more time. If you read some of the books cited by Richard Maybury he gives the example of Switzerland. It is one of the richest countries in the world. It was neutral in WW2 and all its citizens are trained in warfare...they have weapons hidden in the mountains should they ever be invaded the people would fight, so the view that lack of state bureaucracy and standing armies makes one vulnerable is wrong. The taliban failed because they were beating people and trying to impliment shariah top down...had they simply established peace and security in the land and sent our good humble preachers and sufis to the people they would have changed.

The Ottomons did not have a state it functioned for 800 years. The kuffar had to destroy it for them to be able to create their riba based global system. We should refrain from calling it a state because it is not a state...anarchists use the phrase government without state...and this is what we want. Umar ( RA) did kind of increase the power of the government, but it was still very minimal when compared to the modern State. We never had central banks in out history. If you are interested try to do some research on central banks what they do and how they rule us, I am sure you will find it very enlightening. It will not take you long, go to the dailybell.com website to see how even non Muslims who are not 'intoxicated' by the idea of the state know how evil and destructive it is.

Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah brother

I quite agree with most of what you are saying, but what I'm wondering is, what is it like to organize a country with tens of millions of people and massive cities without a complex state with a beaurocracy?

can a country ruled from a small village survive in this modern technological age without the apparatus of a state (such as a foreign office, health and social services, ministries related to education, agriculture and industry etc, a secret service, a standing army and a method of policing etc)?

wouldn't such a country just get wiped away by the enemies of Islam like the Taliban was?

would you say the situation of Islamic governance under Caliph Umar (for example) was a state or something else?

when the rightly guided Caliphs took over Egypt and Persia, they didn't completely eradicate existing state structures in those countries, rather they Islamicized them (got rid of the Haram and promoted the Halal) and we must remember that they were rightly guided Caliphs.

the Ottomans too had a complex state with a complex beaurocracy, was this un-Islamic?

also if people use the term state to describe the society at Madinah (as many do) are they wrong to do so?

or do they just use the term in a different way from some of your definitions?

maybe state is just a term people use, but society is a better term.

[Dr. Shon Thomson]

Walaykum Salaam

I will answer some of your questions later insha-Allah, when I have more time. If you read some of the books cited by Richard Maybury he gives the example of Switzerland. It is one of the richest countries in the world. It was neutral in WW2 and all its citizens are trained in warfare...they have weapons hidden in the mountains should they ever be invaded the people would fight, so the view that lack of state bureaucracy and standing armies makes one vulnerable is wrong. The taliban failed because they were beating people and trying to impliment shariah top down...had they simply established peace and security in the land and sent our good humble preachers and sufis to the people they would have changed.

The Ottomons did not have a state it functioned for 800 years. The kuffar had to destroy it for them to be able to create their riba based global system. We should refrain from calling it a state because it is not a state...anarchists use the phrase government without state...and this is what we want. Umar ( RA) did kind of increase the power of the government, but it was still very minimal when compared to the modern State. We never had central banks in out history. If you are interested try to do some research on central banks what they do and how they rule us, I am sure you will find it very enlightening. It will not take you long, go to the dailybell.com website to see how even non Muslims who are not 'intoxicated' by the idea of the state know how evil and destructive it is.

Brother as I said before I largely agree with what you are saying and I think I already hold most of the views that you are promoting, but I think we have to be careful in what we are promoting, because there are some useful things that exist within the structures complex modern societies that benefit people - and some that the existence of modern technology necessitates.

For example the Republic of Somaliland is officially a Democracy, but it is not recognized by the world and in fact it exists without a real state (i.e. the state is very minimal and politics are basically tribal) and people there moderate their behaviour according to Islam but within the limits of Somali traditional values they are relatively free. In many ways (apart from drought) it is a thriving place, but the country is moving towards ecological problems, because with a rising population the trees from around the capital city Hargeisa have already gone, water sources are under strain and there are some other problems like this that a more interventionist government would pro-actively deal with.

If these things happened in a complex modern state the department of the environment may do things to preserve the trees that prevent land erosion and flooding and help increase rainfall (like what has been done in parts of the UAE, not to prevent erosion, but to make the place more pleasant to live, with palm planting which old people say has changed the air temperature) and new large reservoirs would be dug etc. In Somaliland there is no such grand organization and as a result people are coming under increasing strain during hot summers.

Of course the Sahaba would have planted and protected trees and made reservoirs at the Prophet's (saws) bidding because of their love for him, but would modern Muslims do these things for an Amir with less charisma than the Prophet (saws) in a situation where he could not command the resources to pay people and control society?

also most historians use the term state for the Ottoman governmental system, it was certainly a complex society in which the government in fact owned most of the land and appointed beaurocrats to oversee it and agricultural production (for more info see http://www.allaboutturkey.com/ottoman2.htm and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_o...Ottoman_Empire), forgive me if I am missing something that you have said, but what term would you use for their governmental system other than a state?

[kertUtire]

[QUOTE]

also most historians use the term state for the Ottoman governmental system, it was certainly a complex society in which the government in fact owned most of the land and appointed beaurocrats to oversee it and agricultural production (for more info see http://www.allaboutturkey.com/ottoman2.htm and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_o...Ottoman_Empire), forgive me if I am missing something that you have said, but what term would you use for their governmental system other than a state?

The ottomon empire functioned with minimal bureaucracy. Historians motivated by ideological bias may distort the facts. The facts are that their government personnel numbered in the hundreds whilst governing a vast land mass, when Aturturk started ruling already the people directly or indirectly linked to government jobs ballooned into thousands and the buildings housing these employees also became complex...it is the beginning of a massive modern impersonal State.

I do not know why you think environmental problems can only be solved by governments. But modern states often accelerate problems and they fail to protect the environment and the people. Remember the recent flooding of New Orleans in America? The American government failed to protect and provide comfort to the people despite its massive power and resources.

People might be able to discover and use small scale solar powered technologies to generate electricity for them, they need leaders who will be able to work out solutions without State. It is a deep rooted fallacy that the State is there to protect you and serve you. It is there to control you and to serve the ruling elites, all their laws even the ones supposedly put in place to prevent some harm are there to serve and protect some elites. Studies have been done in the west to show this. Search for the terms Regulatory Capture and Barriers to Entry.


see Why Self-Organized Networks Will Destroy Hierarchies

http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/why-se...ies/2011/10/27

People in authority make stupid decisions because the people who know more than they do are their subordinates, and the only people who can hold them accountable know even less than they do.

The only way the people doing the work can get anything done is to treat irrational authority as an obstacle to be routed around, the same way the Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it. http://www.ecocitybuilders.org/

Examples of people sorting out their own problems without government interference. Yes the Ottomons helped preserve the ecology of their lands, helping to create special lands where building was prohibited but there were Waqfs and other aspects of Islamic social work which helped people to help themselves.

[konanoileaski]

It is not oxymoron. This is an argument thrown by the modernist. for them there is no islamic entity!! Most of their argument is based on half baked truth and reasoning and often taken from the orientalist. Throughout the history, there has been islamic/ muslim ruler ruled by shariah and as such opted for code of system. Every region were different and didn't have a monolitich system hence in reality semi independent.
Allahualam

I think you have mis-understood the Opening Post. It is saying the Islamic State is an oxymoron but a Islamic Government is not and there are bad things associated with the State so we should not use it with Islam, we should say Islamic government if we want Islamic rule.

[lookanddiscover]

Shariah Law is like British Common Law...the key concept is that laws are discovered, they are not made as they are in Democracies.

There are no Victimless Crimes, under British Common Law and Shariah...this is not the case with Democratic Laws.

In modern Democracies you need highly specialized lawyers who use all kinds of funny language and weasel words in Contracts, because no one trusts each other, everyone wants to cheat everyone else. Most contracts are one sided and force the other party to sign it even though the powerful party may bring new conditions upon you later. See:

One Sided Contracts
http://c4ss.org/content/10713

In legal terminology, a contract of adhesion is any contract drafted entirely by one party in an unequal power relationship, which the other party is “free” to take or leave — but in practice really can’t afford to leave. Pretty much any “standard contract” or boilerplate used by an entire industry is a contract of adhesion.

Our relations with the powerful institutions that control our lives are largely governed by contracts of adhesion. Instead of individually negotiated contracts, whose terms we play a role in defining, we’re faced — in Searles’s words — with “contracts we never made,” that “one side built and the other side was required to accept.”
Shariah Law and British Common Law are superior to Democratic State Law making which is designed to control, while Shariah law is designed to facilitate freedom and ease, while minimizing any harm caused to others or oneself. It is human, Democratic Laws are inhuman.

[Zdmlscid]

[QUOTE=Abu Zakir;782526]
The ottomon empire functioned with minimal bureaucracy. Historians motivated by ideological bias may distort the facts. The facts are that their government personnel numbered in the hundreds whilst governing a vast land mass, when Aturturk started ruling already the people directly or indirectly linked to government jobs ballooned into thousands and the buildings housing these employees also became complex...it is the beginning of a massive modern impersonal State.

I do not know why you think environmental problems can only be solved by governments. But modern states often accelerate problems and they fail to protect the environment and the people. Remember the recent flooding of New Orleans in America? The American government failed to protect and provide comfort to the people despite its massive power and resources.

People might be able to discover and use small scale solar powered technologies to generate electricity for them, they need leaders who will be able to work out solutions without State. It is a deep rooted fallacy that the State is there to protect you and serve you. It is there to control you and to serve the ruling elites, all their laws even the ones supposedly put in place to prevent some harm are there to serve and protect some elites. Studies have been done in the west to show this. Search for the terms Regulatory Capture and Barriers to Entry.


see Why Self-Organized Networks Will Destroy Hierarchies

http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/why-se...ies/2011/10/27



http://www.ecocitybuilders.org/

Examples of people sorting out their own problems without government interference. Yes the Ottomons helped preserve the ecology of their lands, helping to create special lands where building was prohibited but there were Waqfs and other aspects of Islamic social work which helped people to help themselves. You know I have read a lot about the Ottomans through various sources, but the idea that they only had a small bureaucracy is a new one to me, its not the impression that I have got, but that said I don't doubt its likelihood as they functioned in a way very different to modern states.

Your talk about beaurocracy multiplying under Ataturk reminds me of the reality of the development of the modern post-'Enlightenment' states and how historically people worldwide tended to be under a 'king' of one sort or another and often a relatively small aristocracy, therefore there were a few above, but the development of modern states lead to the growth of large greedy middle classes, protected professions (law etc) and a large governing and business elite class.

After these developments the common people were told 'now we have got rid of monarchy, we have equality and no kings', however the common people now have to bear many more people on their shoulders than they ever did under monarchy.

You are right that people can sort out problems on their own, but this can be painful (as it is in the example of Somaliland now with its water problems) but a strong leadership is very beneficial, as you say however, such a leadership does not require a large bureaucracy.

I still don't know if I would agree with all of your definitions of what is a state, but certainly you have a very strong point in terms of the necessity of rebuilding from the ground up rather than simply putting Islamic labels on things, that may actually be contrary to Islam.

I quite like your analysis of things, brother may I ask you are these views the education you have got through a particular group (like al-Murabitun) or are they the result of your own independent reading and thinking?

[PIORARMADDERI]

The taliban failed because they were beating people and trying to impliment shariah top down...had they simply established peace and security in the land and sent our good humble preachers and sufis to the people they would have changed.

that is incorrect for the taliban regime was prematurely ended by the US. if you read 'my life with the taliban' you would see the government infrastructure, the condition of the people and the security situation they inherited when they came to power. they tried frantically to tackle various issues in parallel. i believe w/o US interference by this time they would have established a very stable and peaceful government. though peaceful is a subjective term. to the west we can never be peaceful as they reject Allah's Law. by the present time i am positive relations between them and pakistan would have bettered which would have been essential for their success.

more later.

[goatteatromiag]

I recommend that you read Dr. Ali as-Sallabi's wonderful biographies of Umar , Uthman , and Ali for yourself to ascertain what the governments of the Khulafa Rashidun were like. His book on Abu Bakr is also excellent but much of it is focused on ghazawat and not as much on state organization.

[fedordzen]

[
I quite like your analysis of things, brother may I ask you are these views the education you have got through a particular group (like al-Murabitun) or are they the result of your own independent reading and thinking?

I have got alot of ideas from the Murabitun though I am not one of them. I have also read about anarchism, libertarianism, marxism etc. Libertarians tend to promote the idea of free markets as a way of organizing society, I have afew issues with this that I do not agree with but generally because they are anti State and anti-Democracy I prefer their ideas to the ideas of Socialists, Democrats and Fascists (collectivly knows as collectivists).

[Stacypettlerr]

[QUOTE]

that is incorrect for the taliban regime was prematurely ended by the US. QUOTE]

I only saw the propaganda on British TV regarding the Taliban, so my views might well be wrong. But my impression was that they were trying to impliment the Shariah in all matters, stopping men from shaving or trimming their beards, punishing people for listening to music in the areas that they controlled. Yes they were still fighting a war and trying to establsih peace in many areas of Afghanistan, however had they not tried to force people to grow beards etc. they may have won peoples hearts and minds, and they may have got widespread support from the common people. The US may have found it very difficult, even more that they are now to get Afghan people to support them against the Taliban. I know I am making judgements on people I have no right to judge from the comfort of my nice secure home...and it was a very difficult situation and I might be wrong.

[UvjqTVVC]

Yes the Islamic "government" is a reward for individuals practicing, forming communities which are practicing.

The governments were there to allow freedom of religion and protect the community. It was not historically involved in the implimentation of sharia, so this conflaguration between a State and Shariah is a modern doctrine.

This modern interpretations brings the muslim world into the modern "State" definition, using "khilafah" groups to futher the cause.

Like you said this leads to unhealthy communities.

The muslims have no experience of anything other than state beuracracies disguised as democracies, or secular/theocratic dictatorships.

[Effopsytupt]

Is it fair to say the idea of "Islamic state" with monolithic centralized super power over its people originated from the likes of Abu Ala al Mawdudi?

Also could you mention in point by point format the principles you consider a Islamic government must be or preferably be, or if you like in a negative way, what Islamic government must not be or is undesirable to be ? Textual or rational proofs are both welcome.

I have no much reading on the subject and your input is favour for areas of further reading.

[Dyerryjex]

Is it fair to say the idea of "Islamic state" with monolithic centralized super power over its people originated from the likes of Abu Ala al Mawdudi?

I dont think thats fair. Revivers of the deen come every century according to the cirumstances of the century.

If it wasnt for this man, Pakistan may have been like Turkey today in its secularism ? Men would not be wearing beards, and women would not be allowed hijab in public office. There is much more freedom to congregate and disseminate Islamic views in Pakistan, than just about any muslim country in the world today. A lot is down to this man. The fact the people of Pakistan is not a willing ally againt the war in afghanistan is a lot down to this man. The borders remain pourous a lot due to this man imho.

The Muslim Influence in the army is from JI.

He wrote for his time, and specifically for his area, about to be split into two (three, four and five) giant nation states..He was writing within this context of having muslim influence in the new "Muslim state of pakistan". The state itself was inevitable, and not within his control, so his influence was to include as many islamic elements into the infrastructure as possible within the extreme conditions. imho

Allah knows best

[Soadiassy]

If it wasnt for this man, Pakistan may have been like Turkey today in its secularism ? Men would not be wearing beards, and women would not be allowed hijab in public office. There is much more freedom to congregate and disseminate Islamic views in Pakistan, than just about any muslim country in the world today. A lot is down to this man. The fact the people of Pakistan is not a willing ally againt the war in afghanistan is a lot down to this man. The borders remain pourous a lot due to this man imho.

The Muslim Influence in the army is from JI.

i think a large portion of this achievement goes to the TJ (no i am not a jamati) and also zia's regime.
however there is another thread (which i opened) that fully discusses JI's good and bad influences. maybe we can carry any discussions there (please someone resume posting in that thread : ( )

[lrUyiva1]

wrong thread

[BopeDolaNeone]

I only saw the propaganda on British TV regarding the Taliban, so my views might well be wrong. But my impression was that they were trying to impliment the Shariah in all matters, stopping men from shaving or trimming their beards, punishing people for listening to music in the areas that they controlled. Yes they were still fighting a war and trying to establsih peace in many areas of Afghanistan, however had they not tried to force people to grow beards etc. they may have won peoples hearts and minds, and they may have got widespread support from the common people. The US may have found it very difficult, even more that they are now to get Afghan people to support them against the Taliban. I know I am making judgements on people I have no right to judge from the comfort of my nice secure home...and it was a very difficult situation and I might be wrong.

i'll answer both this point and your OP (which i had promised) simultaneously.

i agree with the notion that the population has to be taught about Islam first so that the general society becomes receptive to islamic laws when they are implemented.
but my question is how long should this preaching last so that we can get on with the ban on shaving beards, implementation of hadd of zina, theft, apostasy etc which are vital for ending of corruption, fahashi, anti-islamic sentiments and conductive to growth of islam, peace, harmony among different sects, religions etc.
or should the preaching and implementation of said laws be done in parallel?

the taliban imho and reading from various sources and mullah zaeef's book tried the second approach. yet they did not fail because of it. you see when the US attacked it was immaterial whether some people supported them or not. they bombed the country extensively.
what i have seen is that there is little or no widespread dissatisfaction for the taliban from the religious circles in afghanistan. the secular/liberals obviously hate them. they would support anyone who leaves them alone to live the lives they wish for and to earn haram and spend their lives in living against islam and preaching that to others. so they have no case. and they are a small vocal minority that sits on the web. we only have web sas our source so it seems to us that they represent majority of afghans (or a significant block) but thats not the case.
in afghanistan what matters is whether the tribes are with you. the northern alliance was always a thorn in their side. the mujahideen during the afghan jihad of 80s were divided into many factions. the factions that were islamic lay their allegiance to the taliban. but then what about the older factions?i do not think that those who didnt support them then or after 2001 were doing it because of religious differences. Allahualam.

i think their social hudood laws were condemned by liberals/seculars in afghanistan and other muslim countries and obviously by the kuffar-owned international media. it has little impact on their support inside pakistan or afghanistan. you will be surprised mullah zaeef ran a very extensive public relations campaign in pakistan. i didnt know about it till i read his book.

so it is incorrect as far as i can tell to blame the taliban's parallel approach. i personally think the first idea is good. but how long should one preach to the masses? and how can one tell whether masses are receptive or not?.

[N95FzmMw]

[quote][quote]

so it is incorrect as far as i can tell to blame the taliban's parallel approach. I personally think the first idea is good. But how long should one preach to the masses? And how can one tell whether masses are receptive or not?. .

its up to the people involved in any situation to decide for themselves knowing the context as much as possible. We cannot have one rule for all places. However i heard a bayan where the shaykh was saying that the rasul In the early days was not angry with a bedoin who urinated in the masjid...years later he was very angry at a man who spat on the outside of the masjid wall. This means in the early days the rasul Knew that the people were close to jihala and could be excused.