Commentary on the Idea of Islamic Governance

By Taimur Khan

The dream of the Islamic model has not ceased to manifest in peoples lives, although it

has lost its ruling power. Historians do not disagree that the social conscience of Muslims has
always been affected by the values of Islam, regardless of how Islamic their practices are/were. It
is evident today that Muslim peoples across the globe want Islam to play some role in the politics
of their countries, despite all the attempts to suffocate and marginalize the aspirations of the
masses. From Malaysia and Indonesia to Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Egypt and the Maghreb,
one finds a popular desire in countries with Muslim majority people to have a voice for Islam in
public life in different forms and degrees, which raises the problem of what Islamic
governance means. Muslim peoples have different views of Islamic governance: from a
historical heritage to take pride in, to a hope for a future that merges between Islamic elements
and what they regard as positive in the contemporary Western model. The details of such a
mixture differ among people. Some want to Islamicize modernism, while others hold Islamic
foundations and link them to different applications borrowed from the modernist model.

Islamist currents developed different ideologies about governance. Some of the Islamic

movements inflated the political dimension in Islam and almost made it a synonym to the nationstate concept. More sophisticated views sought to discover a unique political vision of Islam.
However, for the common people who are excited in the prospects of an Islamic way of life, one
largely finds vague and dreamy slogans that, practically, represent a barrier to forming a political
future of which the majority will approve. The purpose of this essay is to put forward a simple
and clear definition to what the phrase Islamic governance can appropriately mean.

First, I did not use the phrase Islamic law in the title of this essay because of vagueness and
possible misunderstandings. Some people relate the concept of Islamic law with persecution of
people, forcing them to perform their religious duties, and preventing them from doing actions
those in power believe are religiously unlawful, corrupting, or simply frowned upon. The reasons
for such misunderstandings are numerous. Many would recall the image of Taliban rule and their
ignorance. Some point to the media as the main source of confusion. Nevertheless, we cannot
excuse some preachers and those who pose as speakers on behalf of Islam for their problematic
and uneducated utterances.

Secondly, I did not use the phrase Islamic rule in the title of this essay because of the

misunderstanding that such a term connotes. It could be understood as a reference to a political

vision inspired by the values of Islam, or to theocratic rule. I will mention two sources of the
second problematic meaning of Islamic governance. One, the Iranian experience that ended up
with an internally conflicting political arrangement between a legal, constitutional authority and
the authority of the mullahs. Second, the popular use of the phrase the separation of religion and
state in the media and the press, and juxtaposing it on the Muslim experience. The complexity
of the issue cannot be fully addressed here; however, it is sufficient to point out the contradiction
in the phrase separation of church and state. How can one separate two things if one of them
did not exist, as was the case in Islam? A quick look at Muslim history will show that the
religious scholars and clerics were not political rulers; rather they played specialized roles in
various aspects of life (legal scholars, judges, consolers, preachers, etc.). Furthermore, if religion
is understood as a worldview or a constellation of values, then the separation of religion from
politics is not conceivable in the first place. Politics in necessarily adopt one set of values, either

from modern secular precepts, or those of the three God-centered religions, or of other major
religions of the world, such as Buddhism and Hinduism, or a mixture of this and that.

Describing Islamically-guided governance as Islamic is not precise, and it raises further

conceptual problems using the internal logic of Islam itself. Any form of Islamic rule will be an
attempt to approach an ideal that it can never reach. Therefore, calling one form of rule Islamic
is necessarily self-righteous. Simply put, it is a Muslim government, not an Islamic one. It
would be interesting to note here that Omar, the second Caliph of Islam, disliked naming anyone
Muhammad or after any of the prophets, fearing the possibility that one of them would grow up
to be of a flawed character.

References for this commentary:

- Iqbal, Zafar, and Mervyn Lewis. An Islamic perspective on governance. Edward Elgar
Publishing, 2009.

!
- Tomita, Kenji. "Islamic Governance and Democracy."

!

- Oliver-Dee, Sean. The Caliphate Question: The British Government and Islamic Governance.

Lexington Books, 2009.

the jurist. Alhoda UK, 2002.

and Migration Studies 33.6 (2007): 871-886.

- Khomeini, Imm, Ruhollah Khomeini, and Hamid Algar. Islamic government: governance of
- Bader, Veit. "The governance of Islam in Europe: The perils of modelling." Journal of Ethnic
- Baumgartner, Jody C., Peter L. Francia, and Jonathan S. Morris. "A clash of civilizations? The

influence of religion on public opinion of US foreign policy in the Middle East." Political
Research Quarterly (2008).

- Cordesman, Anthony H. Saudi Arabia enters the twenty-first century: the political, foreign
policy, economic, and energy dimensions. Vol. 2. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003.