Islam is a complete way of life. It is vital for Muslims to deal with all that takes place around them as is written in the Quran; enjoin good and forbid evil. Islam is not merely a passive religion that we keep in our personal lives. It is not “I”, it is “we”. We recite Surah Al-Fatiha at least 17 times a day, repeating again and again iyya qn’a budu (you we worship), wa iyya qn’asteen (you we ask for help). Ih dinus (guide us). That is a minimum of 3*17=51 collectives and not a single singular “I” in the entire Surah. That is, only if we read our fard and not our sunnah, or other optional prayers. And what duwah do we pray after the shahada in ikama? Allahuma…
And yet the Muslim today has predominantly become the singular – offering his prayers, saying “we”, “we” and “us” but walking away alone, thinking he has done his “duty”. How strange, how utterly ridiculous the situation stands.
Not only is there a very strong social and community focus but for every Muslim, there is a political component and, where appropriate, even a military component in the way of Islam. This is particularly true when we see oppression against Muslims. In such circumstances, a true Muslim, far from being a passive preacher, must have a more holistic approach to life. And this is reflected in the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his companions, all of whose lives are exemplified by social and political struggle as much as a spiritual struggle illustrated in prayer and fasting. Yet, Muslims today have lost track of the need to strive socially and politically.
Where we stand today, Islam is being attacked, Muslims are being persecuted, and Muslim states are being dissected and neutered. This is a process that did not start now, but one that has steadily flowed throughout history, whenever our enemies found the opportunity, take for example, Spain in the 15th century, The Maghrib under France, British India, Uthman Europe after World War I, Occupied Palestine, just to name a few. More recently in Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, amongst others. Islam today, without doubt, is threatened.
From Morocco to Philippines, from Chechnya to Somalia, we are facing internal divisions and external threats that seem beyond the ability of the Ummah to cope. How things stand today is visible to everyone. The vivid images of mass murder and imprisonment in Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, Philippines, Iraq, Afghanistan and more brings tears to the collective Muslim eyes. Yet, somehow the need is to hold our emotions and think clearly to fight back and regain our faith, strength and unity. The perennial question remains: what can a Muslim do? Is it that Muslims must live under oppression and endure and hope that Allah (swt) will save us? Or is it that this is perhaps Allah's Will? Yet, Islam does not appear to be a passive religion:
And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. But if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.
(Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #193)
A doctrine of passivity and fatalism does not seem to hold. If one takes this principle of fighting oppression, and sees oppressors in powerful countries such as the United States and Israel, which as individuals we Muslims cannot fight, a Muslim is faced with a moral quandary. Clearly, in the singular, Muslims today are quite helpless. As individuals, Muslims can be locked up, tortured or simply eliminated. But as a people, united in faith to the idea of Islam, we can fight them, insh’Allah. To do so, we need our collective strength. We need to be organized, creating a movement to establish a Muslim state that can project our collective will.
Looking at a world map, we see a host of Muslim states. One may wonder, why establish an Islamic state when there are so many that profess to be Muslim states? The problem is that there is no Islamic state today because we do not see any country today that reflects a state in the spirit of Medina, even remotely so. We cannot consider Saudi Arabia or Iran as Islamic states. To analyze the problem, let us look at defining an Islamic state today: This is a state that practices Islamic Law; whose government is not oppressive; that does not provide lip service to Islam but also practices it in letter and spirit and a state that is not a client state of non-Muslim powers, in particular those openly fighting against Islam and Muslims.
An Islamic state is one where the state is based on the principles of the Quran and Sunnah and reflects the spirit of the state of Medina. This is a state where justice prevails and where tyranny is banished. In an Islamic state, disagreements in government are not resolved through bloodshed but through enlightenment and wisdom built on the Quran and Sunnah. It is also a state where corruption is an outcast and not considered a daily fact of life. Some of the central principles that we believe are important for an Islamic state today are given near the end of the book under the chapter titled “Central Principles”. Much of this book attempts to find one possible solution to some of the major issues including political model, economic model, education and various social issues.
The long and short of it is that today there is no state that comes remotely close to the ideal of a Muslim state as was established in Medina-tun-Nabyi. In some ways, perhaps Sweden is closer to a Muslim state than most professed Muslim states. It is plain to everyone with how much dignity Sweden treats its citizens, how it conducts itself in international affairs, and how it combines welfare and free markets, production and environmental consciousness, justice and freedom of speech.
To recap, there is no place on earth today where an Islamic state exists as in the spirit of the state of Medina during the Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) time. We would need to do the hard work, with our sweat and blood to create this Islamic state.
However, unlike the Hizb-ut-Tahrir, we cannot see the Islamic state as an end in itself; the Islamic state can only be a means to an end, a tool if you will, and one that can only be utilized effectively if we first change ourselves. For the Quran reads Because Allah will never change the Grace which He hath bestowed on a people until they change what is in their (own) souls: and verily Allah is He Who heareth and knoweth (all things).(8:53)
To change ourselves we would need to diagnose what is wrong with us, both at the individual and collective levels, and look beyond the symptoms and at the actual causes. The Islamic state would then be a tool, yet not an exclusive tool, nor the most important one, for us to utilize in correcting those illnesses we suffer.
We must remember however that such a state would need to be established while being under military threat by our enemies; countries that today attempt to control the world and would do everything in their power to stop us. Even if we, insh’Allah build a state, it is more likely than not that the United States or whoever else, would find some pretext to label us terrorists, twisting the truth and fabricating evidence. We have seen this course of events time and again most recently in Somalia. If Muslims attempted to, with the Grace of Allah, create an Islamic state, they would face the greatest military, political and economic might collected by the enemies of Islam today, applied to stop us.
Now, like ants we would labor away, toiling away at a colony, only to see it destroyed. Even if such a state can attain massive economies of scale and scope, creating such a state seems impossible and hopeless, because of the likely reaction we will face against us.
Thus, our choice of location would have to be careful; to fight oppression and defend herself, this Islamic State would need to have the capacity to do so, that is, the ability to project conventional military might. There are few countries worldwide that have this and even fewer Muslim countries that can compete.
Today, we are at a crossroad, with three choices before us. One road will take us to assimilating into the Western civilization and relegating Islam to the role that Christianity today plays in the West or that the religion of the Romans played in their age. The second road leads us to reviving Islam in its true spirit and meaning. The third choice is to decay and die where we stand.
What is certain is that if we are to take the second road, to revive Islam in its true spirit and meaning, it is clear that the way forward is together, as the entire Muslim Ummah rather than in separate nationalisms. Divided into different nationalisms and cut across our petty differences, racial, cultural and otherwise, we are bound to fail as we did in Spain. It is most striking to compare the similarities of Muslim Spain to the politics of Muslims today. Each little principality nearsightedly fixated on their proud "Me First" slogan. Some of these myopic states even joined Western powers to fight their brothers. Each of these states were taken down one at a time. Once Spain was conquered, Islam was razed out of every nook and corner of her. If we look at contemporary history, from Ataturk's "Turkey First", we now have "Pakistan First", "Bangladesh First", "Iraq First", "Egypt First" and more; we see the same pattern. Look, we can’t all be first; we may all just end up last.
Spanish Muslims allied themselves with Christians to fight fellow Muslims to guard their narrow and myopic interests. How different from this folly is what we are doing today? See the Pakistan Army fight the Mujahideen and aid Western Allies in Afghanistan. Remember that without Pakistan's strategic, political and logistic support, NATO and the US would be hard-pressed to maintain the presence there.
The Quran reminds us that our Creator will not change our condition unless we change ourselves, as was mentioned earlier but let us recap this critical factor one more time:
Because Allah will never change the Grace which He hath bestowed on a people until they change what is in their (own) souls: and verily Allah is He Who heareth and knoweth (all things). (8:53)
This does not, however, mean that we must wait to first create perfect Muslims to build an Islamic state. Indeed, such a course is self-contradictory because a perfect Muslim does not ignore the social and political sphere but acts to change the world around him or her. The Prophet (peace be upon him) did not wait to create perfect Muslims to start the state of Medina. Medina in fact, included many individuals who had nominal faith, others who had little knowledge, yet others who were downright hypocrites and last but not the least, non-Muslims such as the large, powerful and influential community of Jews who opposed at every turn Islam and the state of Medina. The state was a work-in-progress application, not a final, tested and tuned production unit. Is there a better methodology than that methodology of the Prophet (peace be upon him)?
The solutions presented in this book are held together within the framework of an Islamic state, duly noting that the Islamic state is not an end in itself but a means to an end, a veritable tool and framework for the real solutions.
One of the great stumbling blocks to creating an Islamic state is that there is a shortage of intellectual work done to clearly define how exactly such a state should operate; and there is a lack of consensus in the little work there is. The chasms of disagreement are so wide that excommunication is preferred over reaching out to the other side, a chronic problem given that we have forgotten the etiquettes and methods of civilized argumentation; it is either stony silence, precipitous personal attack or even violence. This is the sad state of affairs. The attempt in this chapter and in the following chapters will be to develop one possible framework within which insh’Allah a new consensus can be reached. The purpose here is to find a practical and efficient solution to how we can have a viable Islamic state today.
While doing so, we also seek to simultaneously diagnose specific ailments of the Ummah. After all, a diagnosis is useless without medication and vice versa. As we have noted earlier, the Secularists/Modernists want to relegate Islam to the masjid and transplant themselves to the western Weltgeist. Conversely, on the other side of the spectrum, we have people who want to reject the present world and recreate the period when Islam was ascendant.
While these two groups of people have hijacked the debate and become two colossi fighting a battle to the death against each other, the common man on the street does not necessarily agree with either side. The common man seems to know instinctively that the answer lies in between the ideologies of the two groups, yet have not articulated and rationalized a path between the two. After all, an ideological compromise built only around the premise of moderation and taking the middle path is at best weak and would not have the energy or detailed follow through to solve our problems.
What is in fact needed is a synthesis of ideas rather than a compromise and such a model is of essence to the present political situation within the Muslim World. We note that this model cannot be a closed system, in that we cannot hope to create the "perfect solution". There is no permanent cure for poverty, inequality, or a whole host of other evils in these pages. To attempt to create such a system is clearly beyond what has so far been achievable. If one attempts such a system and fails, it often results in a far worse result as amply exemplified in the former Soviet Union. This author will venture to say that there may be no perfect solution. One must aim to design a system that takes this into consideration, a system that can adapt and has adequate "safety valves" and a mechanism to bring in emerging factors as they develop. This can thus be considered as a contingency approach.
While this synthesis is a wider work and will involve considerable thought and time, this book will attempt to first build a skeletal structure. The areas to be addressed will include the political system, the economic system, the legal system, the military and other such important topics. We cannot be encyclopedic but will aim to cover the most important.
It must be stressed that all elements of the Islamic state given here are interlinked and cannot work independently, nor stand effectively on their own; they act together in unison and balance. Lastly, within each sub-system, adequate checks and balances are of vital import.
Let us start by building the foundations of a new political paradigm. Noting that while the dominant view of Islamic scholars is that we are not to discuss the differences of the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him), we set this ruling aside to fully understand and develop a political model of an Islamic state.
When Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) passed away, he did not leave us with a written roadmap for the future of the state of Medina. Thereafter, a split evolved as to whom and by what mechanism a successor was to be chosen. Rifts and disagreements developed even among the close companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him). These rifts continued to widen thereafter. Many questions remained unanswered. Should the Islamic state have remained in the hands of his closest relatives? If in fact, a new leader was to be elected, by what method was this to be achieved? How long should the Khalifah’s (leader's) term be? If Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) didn't give out clear guidelines, then is Islam really complete?
These are important questions, and the last one is blasphemous. And Allah knows best. To be brief, what the Prophet (peace be upon him) meant when he said that our religion was complete and that Islam was a complete way of life, is perhaps not that all possible actions and issues have been cataloged like an encyclopedia or a computer program. Rather, that all the principles needed to address every action has been given. Applications of those principles are also given in the example of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Just as a student when he is working on his arithmetic looks at the relevant formula, and then if he has further trouble, looks at an example on how the formula is used, Islam gives us the principles and then an example on how it is to be applied. Our answer will not be the same every time we have a new problem. Rather, we will look at the "formula" (Islamic principles) and fashion our answer on the same pattern as the "example" (the life of the Prophet, peace be upon him).
This represents a break from the present hard line approach as well as the secular approach. The hard line approach takes the position where every problem has to come up with the same solution as the example and the ulema determine an encyclopedic list of “correct” actions. The secular approach rejects the formula itself and takes one out of the western textbook. The contingency approach on the other hand that this book adopts is one of the central cornerstones of our model.
To be fair, there is some flexibility in the hard line approach through limited ijtihad, ijma and qayyas. But these have been highly limited particularly since Al Juwaini, the teacher of Al Ghazali and by some account, Al Ghazali himself and several others who came after him all supported the idea of the termination of ijtihad. Taha Jabir Al-Alwani notes that by the sixth century Hijri, Muslims had been conditioned not only to accept the freezing of ijtihad but the banning of it altogether and its replacement with taqlid (blind imitation). This is in gross violation of the verse:
They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One Allah. There is no Allah save Him. Be He Glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)! (9:31, Al-Quran)
And the explanation of the verse by the Prophet (peace be upon him) “They didn't worship them but (the worship was in the sense) whatever they made halal for them, they considered it halal, whatever they made haram for them, they considered it haraam.”
(Tirmidhi Book of Tafseer-Surah Taubah, declared Hasan by Imam Tirmidhi, Tauheed ul Muslimeen pg. 272)
Similarly, to be fair to the Secularists / Progressives / Modernists, many of them attempt to stay within the Islamic framework by taking the most ambiguous rulings or the most lenient interpretations possible to fit their agenda. However, the point remains that both sides can broadly be categorized within the classifications prescribed.
The Quran and Sunnah give us the principles that can guide every facet of life. What Islam does not provide is a fixed economic, social and political system. This world is a test for Man, and while Islam guides us, it is not meant to reduce life to an endless list of rules and regulations set by x, y and z. Otherwise Islam would not be “an open way for every one of you”. Islam is a framework for dealing with life, not taking the essence of life out of life itself. Allah knows best, but perhaps this political challenge is a form of intellectual quest for Muslims to collectively navigate. And perhaps Muslims of each age would find different solutions to these as the circumstances around them change.
Taking a step back, in the classical view of the world that we “inherited” from the Greeks, perfect and encyclopedic solutions of the world can exist but the modern world’s theory (and the original Islamic point of view) was not of a static, unchanging world, but an expanding and changing universe. Allama Iqbal notes and explains this in great detail in Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam while responding to the allegations of Spengler. I reproduce a section from the same to illustrate and effectively explain this point:
“It now remains to eradicate a grave misunderstanding created by Spengler’s widely read book, The Decline of the West. His two chapters devoted to the problem of Arabian culture constitute a most important contribution to the cultural history of Asia. They are, however, based on a complete misconception of the nature of Islam as a religious movement, and of the cultural activity which it initiated. Spengler’s main thesis is that each culture is a specific organism, having no point of contact with cultures that historically precede or follow it. Indeed, according to him, each culture has its own peculiar way of looking at things which is entirely inaccessible to men belonging to a different culture. In his anxiety to prove this thesis he marshals an overwhelming array of facts and interpretations to show that the spirit of European culture is through and through anti-classical. And this anti-classical spirit of European culture is entirely due to the specific genius of Europe, and not to any inspiration she may have received from the culture of Islam which, according to Spengler, is thoroughly “Magian” in spirit and character.
“Spengler’s view of the spirit of modern culture is, in my opinion, perfectly correct. I have, however, tried to show in these lectures that the anti-classical spirit of the modern world has really arisen out of the revolt of Islam against Greek thought. It is obvious that such a view cannot be acceptable to Spengler; for, if it is possible to show that the anti-classical spirit of modern culture is due to the inspiration which it received from the culture immediately preceding it, the whole argument of Spengler regarding the complete mutual independence of cultural growths would collapse. I am afraid Spengler’s anxiety to establish this thesis has completely perverted his vision of Islam as a cultural movement.
“By the expression “Magian culture” Spengler means the common culture associated with what he calls “Magian group of religions”, i.e. Judaism, ancient Chaldean religion, early Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and Islam. That a Magian crust has grown over Islam, I do not deny. Indeed my main purpose in these lectures has been to secure a vision of the spirit of Islam as emancipated from its Magian overlayings which, in my opinion, have misled Spengler. His ignorance of Muslim thought on the problem of time, as well as of the way in which the “I”, as a free center of experience, has found expression in the religious experience of Islam, is simply appalling. Instead of seeking light from the history of Muslim thought and experience, he prefers to base his judgment on vulgar beliefs as to the beginning and end of time. Just imagine a man of overwhelming learning finding support for the supposed fatalism of Islam in such Eastern expressions and proverbs as the “vault of time”, and “everything has a time!” However, on the origin and growth of the concept of time in Islam, and on the human ego as a free power, I have said enough in these lectures. It is obvious that a full examination of Spengler’s view of Islam, and of the culture that grew out of it, will require a whole volume. In addition to what I have said before, I shall offer here one more observation of a general nature. Spengler says:
“The kernel of the prophetic teaching is already Magian. There is one God– be He called Yahweh, Ahuramazda, or Marduk-Baal– who is the principle of good, and all other deities are either impotent or evil. To this doctrine there attached itself the hope of a Messiah, very clear in Isaiah, but also bursting out everywhere during the next centuries, under pressure of an inner necessity. It is the basic idea of Magian religion, for it contains implicitly the conception of the world-historical struggle between Good and Evil, with the power of Evil prevailing in the middle period, and the Good finally triumphant on the Day of Judgment.”
"If this view of the prophetic teaching is meant to apply to Islam it is obviously a misrepresentation. The point to note is that the Magians admitted the existence of false gods; only they did not turn to worship them. Islam denies the very existence of false gods. In this connection Spengler fails to appreciate the cultural value of the idea of the finality of prophethood in Islam. No doubt, one important feature of Magian culture is a perpetual attitude of expectation, a constant looking forward to the coming of Zoroaster’s unborn sons, the Messiah, or the Paraclete of the fourth gospel. I have already indicated the direction in which the student of Islam should seek the cultural meaning of the doctrine of finality in Islam. It may further be regarded as a psychological cure for the Magian attitude of constant expectation which tends to give a false view of history. Ibn Khaldūn, seeing the spirit of his own view of history, has fully criticized and, I believe, finally demolished the alleged revelational basis in Islam of an idea similar, at least in its psychological effects, to the original Magian idea which had reappeared in Islam under the pressure of Magian thought.”
This critical mistake is where this author believes Al Ghazali let us down in his implicit acceptance of the former worldview, despite his otherwise brilliant attack on the philosophers. The philosophers, learning from the Greeks, had precisely the same static worldview. But if their greatest critique could not see this blatant error, who would?
In this changing world, Muslims of every age need to find solutions to the problem-world around them, rather than copy-pasting the answers from the past. Muslims of our Age and time must rise up to the challenge, while understanding that these solutions can only be imperfect. They can also be of great value nonetheless, for these solutions would be built on those eternal truths and guidelines that Allah, in His Infinite Grace, has provided us, and that represents a miracle in itself as only the Creator could provide eternal principles in an expanding and evolving universe.
Meritocracy as an idea implies that the basis of government is based on the merit of the candidate. The concept of meritocracy is not new, but was talked about as far back as Plato, whose work Republic illustrated his ideas of what meritocracy meant to him. While we earlier rejected the classical static worldview, which was a key feature of Plato’s world, we share the idea of meritocracy with him.
The Islamic state of Medina was also run on the basis of merit under the Khalifa-e-Rashidun and it was a state where consultation took place between the learned, pious, wise and capable rather than on a one-man-one-vote basis. Leadership as a concept in Islam resides in the merit of the candidate4. An Islamic state is meant to be run on the principles of merit; the most able candidate should rule the country.
4. See Zafar Bangash, “The Concepts of Leader and Leadership in Islam,” 2000, for a further discussion on why Islam and democracy are not compatible.
Democracy makes the assumption that all men are equal in their capacity to judge the most able candidate. However, while all men are equal, they are not equal in their knowledge and wisdom, either in Islam or in common experience, and therefore, Islam and democracy are fundamentally different from each other5. While there may be many possible solutions to build a political model based on merit, we look to create a balance between the quantity factor of universal participation and quality valuation of participants.
All men have some right to a say in government, yet our principles suggest this has to be weighed according to the wisdom and knowledge distributed in the populace. One of the earliest Western thinkers, Socrates, openly considered democracy as a flawed concept; that it required the wisdom of its leaders to be based on the opinions of all citizens held in equal weight6. Today however, democracy has become a sacred cow that the world must worship. We as Muslims need do no such thing; we do not need to hold on to foreign concepts to gain legitimacy. Our discussions need not be burdened by this modern, near-pantheistic religion.
6. See for instance, Isidor Stone, “The Trial of Socrates,” 1998.
Taking a fresh look at the present political landscape, in the following pages some of the possibilities of a new system are fleshed out. Today, the overarching dominance of democracy makes political systems one dimensional. Instead, we look to break open the paradigm and look at the mechanism inside. We propose a multi-dimensional approach to the political mechanism. Once we open the straightjacket of democracy, we find that many of the mechanisms that are given as fixed can be made variable. Some of these mechanisms include:
1. One vote per voter
2. Batch process elections
3. Rule by majority within a first past the post voting mechanism
4. Checks and Balances
Let us look at each of these factors in turn.
Multiple Votes per Voter
Given that in our system, all men are not considered equal in their knowledge and wisdom and thus are not entitled to equality of vote; one vote per voter can be considered a redundant concept. Changing this variable, we find a range of new possibilities of weighted voting. Virtually any value we consider of worth can be worked into the system to be a merit. For instance, education level, age, marital status and religious knowledge can be made factors of merit.
Continuous Flow Process
In Operations Research terminology, voting systems today are essentially batch processes. A batch of votes is selected and counted, gaining the elected representatives a term until the next batch comes about. Today, this system presents many problems including the fact that while voters can influence their representatives once every election cycle, interest groups can influence them 365 days a year. This, in reality, can often lead to de facto disenfranchisement. Thus, the American Congress can give multiple standing ovations to Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu and send Israel billions of dollars in aid, while American soldiers die fighting enraged Muslims and millions of Americans remain homeless, some living in tent cities not dissimilar to the lower end of the Third World.
Instead, one alternative may be to look at elections as a continuous flow process. Here, instead of working in a batch, the process works continuously, with voting taking place piece by piece, with a few districts at a time, to cover a country, if necessary, over the same period as a batch process would.
The electorate would be able to influence and indicate approval continuously while greatly simplifying the logistics process. This also means that vote administration can be handled by a much smaller organization, a considerably important consideration in the Third World where elections represent a major economic cost and logistics challenge. Since our Islamic state will be located in the Third World, this issue is particularly relevant to our discussion.
Governments would also not constantly be changing as marginally, one (or a few) voting districts would not be enough to topple a government typically unless the majority was marginal. The system could also be fine-tuned by increasing or decreasing the number of elections in a given period of time.
Preferential voting systems are increasingly popular and are most well-known in Australia7. A preferential voting system over a first-past-the-post system can ensure that politics does not become polarized in a two-party duopoly, as most democratic countries today are. It would also allow the voting system is more efficient in indicating voter approval and produces a more accurate allocation of candidates. There are a variety of methods to express a preferential voting system. The choice of such a system is only limited by mathematics and the capability-limit of computing systems.
7. See Benjamin Reilly, “The Global Spread of Preferential Voting:Australian Institutional Imperialism?” 2004, Australian Journal of Political Science , 39 (2), 253-266
One example is of a preferential list of candidates ranked by each voter. For instance, if the candidate who was a voter’s first choice is not among the two most popular candidates calculated by the voting system, his choice is automatically moved to the next candidate on the voter’s list until he is voting for a relevant candidate and his vote is not wasted.
Thus, we may have a voting system where a citizen has one vote by default but progressively has more votes depending on a merit system. Voting takes place in a continuous flow electoral process with preferential voting for candidates.
Expanded Separation of Power
The best example and arguably the most successful check and balance mechanism among political systems have thus far been the United States’ constitution. The US constitution works on the principles of division of power with a separate Judiciary, Executive and Legislature. If we seek to build a better system we can increase the separation of power to include incrementally more divisions. For instance, we may include a constitutionally separate central bank, central statistics and central audit, along with the judiciary, legislature and executive. Utilizing such an approach, we arrive at a six pillar division of power in comparison to the three pillars in the US Constitution. The figures indicate the difference graphically.
A separate government audit arm can ensure that government does not overstep its boundaries; that checks and balances are not ignored, that government corruption is effectively punished and that the government budget execution tallies. The discussion shall return later to the importance of some of these added arms of the government in more detail.
The Masjid as Central
The masjid must be returned to its role as the central and basic administrative and political unit. The representative of the people leads the prayers and is available directly to them for interaction. This will bring real accountability and government to the community and will allow everyone the chance to participate in the decision making process. Thus, our system in a sense is a hybrid indirect-direct participatory form of government.
Further, this may also dissuade un-Islamic characters from seeking office as the task of leading the prayers may prove enough as an overbearing task and as an exposé of their claim to act as a barrier to their office.
Returning to the original system were women pray at the back row, children in the middle and men in the front will allow women to be enfranchised into the political and social system within our model, insh'Allah (more on gender related issues later).
Return to Book Home
Return to Book Home