Introduction to Chapter 7

This chapter deals with the most controversial issue of the day, which is whether allow Muslims to form Islamic states on the basic principles of their religion or the Western form of governance should be imposed on Muslims country after country.

New York Times in its November 14 editorial clearly appealed to the UN, international community and the US government to hold Afghans from incorporating any reference to the Qur'an in their constitution. Similar attempts are underway in occupied Iraq.

This chapter discusses the basic differences between the objectives of a state in the Western thought and the purpose of an Islamic state. Once the concept about the basics is clear, it is not difficult to understand the requirements and outcomes of the two different governing mechanisms.

Actually the philosophy behind the principles of Islam has been ignored or totally sidelined. As a result they seem to make no sense at all with the present day reality. Clarification of Islamic principle from this point of view makes this an interesting chapter of the book.

The author very diligently presents the link between modern realities and the problems we face -- particularly the problems that have undermined democracy and other forms of governance mechanisms -- and shows how solution to all these problems lies in the seemingly outdated, "medieval" texts.

Besides explaining the principles of Islam, the author clarifies the widespread misconceptions with regard to an Islamic rule. For example:

Contrary to the prevailing misconception that the ruler and the government are unaccountable in an Islamic State, what we have in the recorded history is the fact that an Islamic government is limited not only in function but in power too. There can never be an absolute government, because the Shari’ah is always there on top.

The misconception of unaccountability under an Islamic system is a reality in the most established democracy 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 government. For example, the 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).14

The separation of powers under a democratic set up accomplishes several things. First, we see that it is a continuation of checks. Some of the checks are upon the other branches as well. 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."15

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