The contradiction Between the Islamic State and the Religious State

آحمد صبحي منصور في الجمعة ١٨ - يناير - ٢٠٠٨ ١٢:٠٠ صباحاً

h; the state that rules with inclinations and Desires- and he (Ibn Khaldoun) thought that it was immoral and unjust. And the second one is "the political rule"- the state that rules with logic to obtain benefits and to eliminate harms. – And he thinks it is dispraised because it judges without the God's light. And finally he thinks that the caliphate system is the best, because it includes forcing the people to judge their worldly and otherworldly matters with God's low. "It is a succession to God to protect his religion and to rule the world with it," he added. 
 
Shortly Ibn –Khaldoun thinks that the base of the Religious State is to force people enter paradise and committing them to God's low. But the aim of the Non-Religious States – if it is reasonable- is to obtain benefits and to eliminate harms of its people. And considering the fact the Ibn-Khaldoun was a religious judge, so it is expected that he will be prejudiced for the country that he lives under its wing. 
 
And I disagree with him along with others. 
 
 
Because entering people the Paradise and making them believe in God, are not the basis of an Islamic State, because belief is a personal responsibility for every human. The holly Koran says (whomever he believes, it is for his own benefit, and whomever disbelieves, it is his own harm. No blame for anyone for other's mistake :Al-Esra 15) even making people believe is not the mission of the prophet when he was a ruler, the holly God ordered him ( it is not your mission to make them believe :Al-Bakara 272) and ( you don't make those you love believe, but God make them believe if they wanted to :Al-Kasas 56) and he ordered him ( there is no Force in religion : Al-Bakara 256) and ( you shouldn't force people to believe : Younis 99). 
 
 
But the Base of establishing an Islamic State is the administration of justice among people, or with Jurists words " the consideration of people's rights, or Human rights with our words. 
 
The enlightened jurists confirmed that the God's rights ( Belief and worship) is a personal responsibility dues to God's judgment, but the people's rights is the nation's responsibility in this world. The holly God says "I have sent prophets with lots of evidences along with the Book and the balance to make people administrate justice: Al-Hadid 25", so the main target from sending prophets and holly Books is to make people administrate justice among them. 
 
 
The justice has two kinds, the first is "being just to God" by worshiping him and him alone, the holly God said (polytheism is a great sin : Lokman 13), and this subject can only judged by God at the day of Resurrection. The holly God said (say: the God is the Creator of Heavens and Earth, the fully known of the seen and unseen things, you judge between your people in their differences: Al-Zomor 46). And the second kind is "being just to people" which requires a ruling system, and the more successful this system to administrate justice the more Islamic it can be. And that is the meaning of the Verse "to make people administrate justice". So the punishments legislation in the holly Koran is aiming to reserve people rights including right of living, money and honor. And administrating justice only can achieve the missing system that can reserve the individuals and the society's rights and achieve the balance between justice and freedom. 
 
But it is different in the Religious State. 
 
Because every Religious state adopts its own religious ideology and forces the people to accept it and it uses it to strengthen its sultan. And then the ruler monopolizes power, wealth and religion, and appoints himself as an intermediary between people and God, if any one criticizes him he would be a disbeliever (of course he will have support from a certain jurists and army leaders). And while the regular political despotic ruler is contented with killing his opposed people, the religious political despotic ruler confiscates the worldly and otherworldly rights of his opposed people under the name of preserving religion. And this is a great injustice to God and his religion. And this is the abstract of the real history of religious States in the east and the west in all ages. Which mainly contradicts with administrating justice, the target of establishing an Islamic state. 
 
 
The contradiction in Human rights between the States : 
 
 
1) the Islamic State: 
 
 
Administrating justice among people in the Islamic State achieves the balance between the individuals and the society's rights, And the balance between freedom and justice. But in the religious States we won't need this overlap, were one man enjoys every rights for himself. We will offer some details: 
 
In the Islamic State, The individual have the absolute right in two things: Justice and freedom of belief and thinking. And the society has the absolute right in three things: power, Wealth and Security. And the individuals have a quotient right in these three things. 
 
 
(A) The absolute right of justice to individuals: 
 
We won't stop with the great number of the Koranic verses that obligates Muslims to administrate justice with enemies or friends (the God commands you to be just and charitable : Al-Nahl 90) ( if you are going to judge among people, you should be just :Al-Nesaa 58) ( if you are going to judge, be just even if they were relative :Al-Ana'am 195) ( Oh you who believe be just and witness to God. Even if it will hurt you or your relatives, if they were poor or rich the God is worthier to them, and don't follow your desires: Al-Nesaa 135). 
 
We will only here to affirm one Koranic fact, which is that the real meaning of the word "hakam" is the judge among people and administrating justice, not ruling. Then it means. 
 
 
(B) The absolute right of thinking and belief freedom to individuals: 
 
Mohammed al-Ghazaly the famous Islamic scholar said once he counted two hundred Koranic verse affirming the thinking and belief freedom. But I can claim that they are more than five hundred Koranic verse affirming the freedom of religion and thinking, and the freedom of express practice belief and disbelief. And the affirmation that the judgment of the belief matters -including the prophet himself- dues to God only at the day of resurrection. 
 
We will be contented with the following verses (if you disbelief, the God can dispense without you and he denies disbelief for his people. But if you believe he will approve it to you and don't blame a person for other's mistakes, you will return to God , them he will tell you what have you been doing, he is the Omniscient of your chests : Al-Zomor 7). So it is an absolute freedom in belief and disbelief. 
 
Even the holly God affirms the atheistic action in his Book, and he postpones the penalty of that to the day of resurrection, he said (those who atheists in our Book aren't invisible to me, are those who will be thrown to hill better than those who will come in peace at the resurrection day?. Do whatever you want, he is fully aware of what you do: Fossilat 40) 
 
At the resurrection day the people will be classified according to their imagination to God into two main fighting trends, one of them goes to hill, and the other goes to paradise. The holly God said "those trends who are fighting about their God, the disbelivers of them shall have a great pain…. : Al-Hag 19) the catching thing here is that the holly Koran equalizes between the two trends in the litigation, and it didn't gave anyone of them the privilege to be a litigant and a judge in the same time, even if one litigant of them is the believers. Even the prophet himself is going to be a litigant against Abo-Gahl and Abi-Lahab and the rest of the famous disbeliveers. The holly God said to his prophet (you are dead, so they are, then you will come at the resurrection day as litigants: Al-Zomor 30-31). 
 
So the individuals have the absolute right in justice and religion and belief religion in the Islamic State as long as it doesn't contradicts with the other's personal rights, or it will be under the legislation of defamation. 
 
 
(C) The absolute right of political authority to the society:(the consultation) 
 
 
The holly God is the only one who is unquestionable, but anyone else is questionable (Al-Anbeya 23), so the despotic person when he rises himself above the people's right to question him is actually reclaiming Godhood. And It is the immortal story of the Egyptian Pharaoh who reaches Godhood through despotism. And this is the place of the Consultation "Al-Shora" in the Islamic religion. 
 
The prophet Mohamed himself was ordered to apply consultation in the verse ( consult them in any matter : Al-Omran 159), so it is logical that anyone who disdains to consult his people , rises himself above the prophet , so he will fall in the Godhood-Reclaiming swamp. 
 
The holly verse "Consult them in any matter" founded the society's absolute right is authority, with our words "The Nation is the source of all authorities". The holly God said to his prophet (because of the mercy that god supplies you, you became soft with them, and if you were harsh and rough they would leave you alone. So forgive them and ask God's forgiveness for them and consult them" and the quotation here is "and if you was harsh and rough they would leave you alone". The holly God says that he supplies his prophet with mercy and he didn't make him harsh or rough, because if he was so , they would leave him alone. And if that happened he will lose his sultan and his state. So what gives him the sultan and the state is their gathering and union around him, and before when he was in Mecca he was persecuted, and if they leave him he would be persecuted again. Then their gathering and union around him is the source of his sultan, and not from a divine authorization. And the wholly God made him soft with them to make them gather and union around him. And he worn him of being rough or they would leave him. So he ordered him to forgive them and ask God's forgiveness for them and consult them, because they are his partners in ruling , and they are the source of his sultan and state. And the wholly God reminds his prophet this favor in other verse saying he is the reason of making him soft with them, and that is why they gathered and union around him, and that is something he couldn't buy with all the Earth's fortune. Al-Anfal 62-63. 
 
And the Islamic State agrees with the secular state that "the nation is the source of all authorities" and they both disagree with the Religious State about this principle. Meantime the Islamic State disagrees with the secular state in the application of this principle. The secular State uses the social contract theory in the its application to this principle. This means that the nation gives some of its sovereignty to a ruler of a group of people to rule on behalf of the rest of the people, and by elections the nation can select a group of people to form an assembly council who can rule or make lows. And this is a point of disagreement between the Islamic State and the secular state. 
 
The political and legislative speech in the holly Koran doesn't addressed for the Muslim ruler, but for the whole nation who rules itself according to the legislation of direct democracy (Consultation) were the ruler is a regular employee for his people for a certain period. And when his contract ends he becomes an ordinary man "eats and walks in the markets". 
 
And to make the nation practice its absolute right in power, the holly Koran turned this right into an obligatory imposition and it joined it with other obligatory impositions like alms and prayers. And that was mentioned in the "shora" sura before the Muslims establish their Islamic state in Medina, the verse says (those who respond to their God and perform their prayers, consult with each other, and they pay the alms: Al-Shora 38). So the Consultation (the direct Democracy) came between prayers and alms, that means it is an obligatory imposition and it also means that the performance of consultation happens in Mosque like prayers and as the representative actions doesn't count in prayers so consolation must be personally performed. And this way only the Koranic speech to the nation can be affirmed. We can also notice that the Koranic speech in Moses's pharaoh was addressed for the despotic pharaoh as the ruler of the people and the state. But in the Islamic legislation for the Islamic State the speech always addressed for the whole society. Like (and you should prepare what you can from the power means: AL-Anfal 60) (O you who believe the retaliation was written on you: Al-Bakara 178) (if you afraid of disunity between them, you send a referee from his people and a referee from her people: Al-Nesa 35) ( don't give spendthrifts your money: Al-Nesa 5-6). 
 
When Muslims moved to Medina and they establish their first Civilian State, the consultation's councils were held at the Mosque when someone calls "it is time to gather for prayers". And when some people of Al-Ansar were sluggish to attend some of these councils, even if some of them apologize for the prophet and others even sneak out of it. The God ordered all Muslims to attend these councils so as not to make some people who attend this councils monopolize the power into their hand. And they would waste the society's rights by turning themselves into a silent majority. Then the last three verses of Al-Nour Sura said revealed to confirm the necessity of attending these councils by all Muslim individuals. So the Muslims were committed to attend all the consultations councils afterwards (Al-Mogadalah :7-13). 
 
Most of the Muslim great men were graduated in these councils, then they astonished the whole world and change the History. So the prdidn't appoint another ruler after him, because he left the nation with a full ability to rule itself. When Ali Abdel-Razek (the Muslim scholar) talked about this matter, he misunderstood this action as a separation between the Islamic religion and the State by leaning on the fact that the Koranic speech were addressed for the whole society, not for a ruler. And we agree with him that the Islam doesn't admit the presidential or the theocratic State. But it calls for a state that can be ruled by people using the direct democracy (consultation) like some European countries (Switzerland). It is a State were its strength counted with the strength of every individual by practicing direct democracy to obtain power. 
 
(4) The absolute right of Wealth to the Society: 
 
 
Basically God owns wealth, and he made it an absolute right to the society and a quotient right for individuals according to their work, Good utilization and investment. And it a right for the inheritors not just for being realtives but also includes good utilization, as if the inheritors kept squandering the wealth, the society has the right to restrain them, and meantime they should be well-treated (don't give squanderers your money which the God gave you to observe. And you should spend on them from the money and treat them well, as for orphans you should test them when they become adults and if you felt they are wise enough you should pay them their money: Al-Nesa 6). 
 
Then the Money is an absolute right for the society, so the Islamic speech was addressed for the society to supervise on wealth "don't give squanderers your money" and the whole society is responsible of developing the wealth "which the God gave you to observe". And if the individual utilizes the money well enough, , so he is worthy of it"then pay them their money" and we can notice the difference between "their money" and "his money" in the Koranic verse. 
 
And those who can't earn their living, they should have a certain right in the nation's wealth. The holly Koran confirms the right of mendicant, indigent, poor, and wayfarer people in the individual and official charities, like (those who count the mendicants and indigents right in their money: Al-Maareg 24-25) (give your relative, the poor, and the wayfarer their right :Al-Esraa 26). 
 
 
(5) The absolute right of the Society in Security: 
 
 
The main missions of the Islamic State towards its people is administrating justice and providing the inner and the outer Security. And the inner security for society means that the society should have a powerful army that can deter its enemies and prevent them from trespasses (you should prepare every mean of power to deter your enemies and your God's enemies: Al-Anfal 60). And this preparation makes the enemy reconsiders ever making an aggression. And that leads to the prevention of bloodshed. 
 
And this legislation goes along with justice and the fighting legislation in the holly Koran, which commands to fight only in self-defense situations and making the reply for aggression equals to the aggression. (Fight in God's way those who fight with you, and don't trespass, the God don't like aggressor…. Those who trespass on you, you should equally trespass on them: Al-Bakara 190-194). Then the final aim of fighting should be "stopping persecution in religion" the holly Koran said "fight them to prevent persecution, and to make the whole religion for God: Al-Bakarah 193) (fight them to prevent persecution, and to make the whole religion for God: Al-Anfal 39). And the meaning of "make the whole religion for God" is preventing the priesthood, and making people free to choose whatever they wish, so they can't advance any pleas to God at the resurrection day. 
 
So, justice and freedom are the basis of relationship to the outer enemies by establishing a powerful state by the strengths of its people and its army to provide the absolute right of Security for the society. And it is the right of individuals to live in security on the basis of equality in rights and duties, not by giving one man the biggest amounts of protections on the account of other people. The history tells us how was the second Islamic caliphate Omar sleeps under the tree, and how the prophet didn't have any guards to protect him to make a real proof of the equality in security rights for all Muslims. 
 
 
{2} The Religious State: 
 
 
All the previous principles were politically lost in the Ommoyan caliphate, and the Abbasyan caliphate legitimate this violation over God's legislation by: 
 
1- Creating fake narrates of the prophet contradicts with the holly Koran. 
 
2- Cancellation some Islamic legislation when it doesn't go with their allegations under the name of "abrogation"-Naskh-, even though the word "Nasakh" in the holly Koran means "wrote and firmed" not "abrogate or cancel" 
 
3- The most important thing is that the Abbasyan State ignored the recording of the real Sunna of the Prophet in preparing his nation and education of its people although the holly Koran mentioned some of these deeds: purifying and educating his people. And these deeds were applied by two ways, the first one was during the Gommaa prayer every week (he made more than 500 unrecorded speech during these prayers), and the other way was during the consultation councils( Al-Nour and Al-Mugadalah sura showed us some aspects of these councils). 
 
Actually the Amowyan caliphate wasn't established on a religious propaganda. It only used the low of Force. So it didn't have to religiously justify its crimes against the prophet's family and Medina and Meka. But the Abbasyan caliphate was established on a religious propaganda (getting contentment from Mohammed's family by appointing one of his grandsons as a caliphate for the Islamic State). 
 
 
Once, AbdelMalik Ibn Marawan's made a speech at 75 a.h. In Medina, he said "then, I am not the weekend caliphate (means Othman) and I am not the flatterer caliphate (means Moawya) .. So if anyone told me to fear God, I will break his neck". 
 
But the Abbasyan caliphate was established on a religious propaganda (getting contentment from Mohammed's family by appointing one of his grandsons as a caliphate for the Islamic State) but after they established their state they persecuted all others including Ali's son, the Grandchildren of the prophet, with a slight difference. The caliphate had to get a religious justification from his jurists. So it is a low nation. But the low always comes from the caliphate's jurists. Once, the caliphate Abo-Gafar almansor made a speech at Arafa day. He said "O, you people I am the God's sultan in his land. I rule you with his guidance and he made me the keeper of his money, I give or prevent according to his will" so this Abbasyan caliphate ruled with the logic of the Middle Ages where the principle of "the divine right of Kings" were a common fact. And it is the same logic of "Al-Raee wal Raeya" (the shepherd and his sheep) which means that the ruler is a shepherd who owns and leads his sheep, and he is only responsible to God about them. So it is vainly to ask about justice and freedom of belief in this religious States. 
 
 
The contradiction between citizenship rights in the two states: 
 
 
If the previous situation is being applied for Muslims in the religious state, so what is the situation of the Non-Muslims? 
 
 
{1} In the Islamic State: 
 
 
We will refer first to the concept of (belief) "Eman" in Arabic. The word (belief) in Arabic has two meanings if it came concerning the relation between humans it means "security and peace". So, those who live peacefully and secure are actually "believers" according to the Islamic religion, no matter was their religion as long as they don't rise weapons on each other. And then everybody will come to God at the day of resurrection to judge their differences. And till that day comes, everybody must live in justice, peace and equality, share the same duties and enjoy the same rights. The holly Koran talk in Al-Hag sura about fighting legislation, it mentioned the motives of giving the permission of approving fighting, then it concluded with the legitimate purpose of fighting, which is protecting the worshiphouses of all religions were the name of God is mentioned. (Al-Hag 40) 
 
Then the holly Koran defined the citizenship's concept (Pharaoh has was arrogant in earth, and he divided its people into sects and he persecuted one of them: Al-Kasas 4) the persecuted sect were Israel's sons. And the holly Koran considered them Egyptians even with their different religion and race. So, the Koranic legitimate makes the homeland for all individuals, Meantime the religion is to God only. So the famous saying "Religion for God, and home for all" is an Koranic legislation. 
 
But this Islamic legislation was profaned by the Omoyan state when it prejudged against Non-Arabs (Al-Mawaly) and Gypts , then the Abasyan state prejudged against No-Muslims (Jews and Christians) and prejudged against Non-Sunni Muslims (Shea' and Sofi),they considered the Non Muslins to be a second-class citizens under the name of "Ahl-Alzemma" and they justify this wrong situation. 
 
 
Finally: 
 
 
We can shorten this few facts: 
 
 
1- the Islamic State is not a fancy utopia. It established as state out of nothing during the prophet's era, and its collapse happened after a long struggle and wars till it was able to defeat the Omoyan State in its youth. But the Abasian state came afterwards deceiving Muslims with the slogan of "obtaining satisfaction from Mohammed's people" and re-establishing the Islamic state. But it did not take long before they established their religious state based on distorted religious facts. 
 
2- Although that this distorted fact ruled over most of the Islamic history, but the real Islamic fact still keeps the basis of the Islamic state, and contradicting with the known religious state in West and East. 
 
3- The modern secular states are more close to the Islamic state, but the closest system to the Islamic system is the direct democracy systems in the Switzerland union. 
 
4- The Punishment system in Islam needs a private research in the framework of the Koranic legislation and its differences with the legislation and heritage of the religious states.

اجمالي القراءات 22827