February 23, 2007
The basic problem with limiting the application of belief in Oneness of God (Tawhid) to the realm of personal faith and its rituals is the practical impossibility of practicing Islam in its complete form. Because of the lack of the full realization of political implications of Tawhid in contemporary governing Muslim states, there has emerged an unending conflict between the individual and the state at the deepest level of their existence. An individual whose life is based on the belief that there is no god but God owes the highest loyalty to Allah alone, while a state in which this principle is not the foundational principle attempts to create a secular society in which religion can still exist, but only at the personal level. This conflict in foundational principles manifests itself in numerous ways and gives birth to violence and instability. Everything is out of joint in such a state.
Most of the national tensions in countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, and Jordan are due to this basic tension between the state and the individual. An overwhelming majority of people living in the contemporary Muslim states believe in Tawhid; for a small minority, this belief is either dormant, inoperative or its political and social implications are irrelevant. Except for a few countries, the entire Muslim world is now being ruled by this minority which considers Tawhid to have little or no relevance to the structure of the state.
This tension has never been so pronounced in Muslim history, though it has had its share of secular rulers. A Harun al-Rashid or an al-Ma’mun could do what they willed in their fabled palaces without creating such dramatic tensions in the general populace. This is so because prior to the rise of modern times, the state did not have the kind of intrusive power it has today. In fact, even until the middle of the twentieth century, a very large majority of citizens could live their entire lives without ever coming into direct contact with the state in any substantial way.
This was certainly true for the Muslim world, where even records of birth and death are a relatively recent development. Imagine a person whose birth is not recorded in any state office! Such a person could live out his or her entire life without any direct intervention by the state. This does not hold anymore, for the nature of the state has changed so drastically that hardly any such place remains. We now live in states which create the material and immaterial environment for us: from schooling to jobs and from what we eat to what we read and watch on television, all have direct state participation.
It is this radical change in the nature of the state that has made a re-examination of political implications of Tawhid one of the most important tasks for contemporary Muslim scholars and intellectuals. If Muslims wish to live in states in which their lives are not being torn apart, they need to recast the entire structure of the state on the basis of Tawhid. This means, first of all, the development of a new political theory in which the state-individual relationship is defined keeping in view the radical change in the nature of the contemporary state—for the state today is not merely a governing structure but an agency that defines, controls, and enforces the social, economic, political—even moral and ethical—spaces in which individuals live.
To take a concrete example one, can consider a state that allows drinking and gambling because it considers it a lawful activity, a right of its citizens based on the principle of freedom of choice. Such a state will directly contravene a Qur’anic injunction and, therefore, oppose the Will of the Creator. This will violate one of the essential requirements of observance of Tawhid as an operative principle. In such a state, individuals who wish to observe Tawhid in its fullness will have no choice but either to live in an environment not conducive to the practice of Islam, or oppose the creation of such an environment; in both cases tension will result between the individuals and the state. Now, if a majority of citizens wish to live in a state in which the social environment is conducive to the observance of Tawhid, that state has to observe Tawhid as its basic and foundational principle. This does not mean that in such a state individuals will not drink or gamble, but simply that in such a state, this activity will not be a lawful act condoned and supported by the state. This is only one example, but the contemporary nature of the state is such that all spheres of individual life are directly influenced by its structures and laws.
The question of minorities is also relevant to this discussion. What would be the relationship between the state and individuals who do not wish to conform to the social and political dimensions of Tawhid? The answer is simple: a state in which Tawhid is the basic operating principle does not force its citizens to conform to that principle because such enforcement is contrary to the spirit of Islam. “There is no coercion in religion,” the Qur’an states. Such individuals have always existed in Islamic polity and they will continue to exist in states which fully recognize political aspects of Tawhid. What will change in the contemporary Muslim world, however, is that such individuals will not be able to dictate the parameters of existence for the majority.
(Concluded)
Back to the 2007 Contents Back to the Main Page