Dr Khalid Al Haroob
In his new book, The Concept of the Islamic State: Its Foundation Crisis and the Inevitability of Modernity, Muhammad Jabroun, Moroccan researcher and academic, presents the theoretical model for the “Islamic State” as he sees it, built on three notions: allegiance, justice and virtue. The book is about the application of these three concepts and debates views about their development.
According to the author, they form the core of political Islam as they form its base and goals.
I quote: “On a plain reading of the Quranic text, clear political understanding of its verses, and deep appreciation of the historical experience of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the light of modern thought and solid tools of knowledge based on Quran and prophetic traditions (Sunnah), we are guided to a set of comprehensive principles which construct the religiosity of the state throughout its historical Islamic history. These principles are in order: allegiance, justice and virtue.”
Despite the importance the author gives to these three principles, he does not explain in his book the method he followed to select them and on what basis he chose them. However, we can find in his book a clear deal of arbitrary selectivity of these concepts. Why not, for instance, choose consultation (Shura) and the distinction between the message, politics and public and individual responsibility as the foundations on which the political institution of Islam was built on, as mentioned by Muhammad Abed Al Jaberi?
Why not think that liberty — in its broad sense, free from any sort of force — can be a basis and a goal of political Islam?
Also, in the same sense, why not consider equality, instead of justice, as a vital base?
Notwithstanding this debate about definitions and what is more worthy of being a foundation, what is really important is to clarify the logic behind including or excluding any of the above mentioned concepts.
Moving to the key concepts, for the sake of pushing the debate with the author forward, we can claim that the concept of equality — which is a great revolutionary thought achieved by political modernity — is far more important, politically, than the concept of the formation and modernity of the state, in general.
In a state of “Islamic modernity”, equality is far more important than justice, as the prevalence of the latter is a foregone conclusion, keeping in mind the impossibility of ensuring its perfect application in practice. All intellectual and philosophical constructs, with all their political and social representations, pay great attention to the principle of justice and uphold its status.
The real challenge is how to apply equality between people regardless of their race, religion, colour and social status; since this is the practical embodiment of the idea of a modern Islamic state.
The concept of citizenship is at the core of this challenge. Citizenship is what drives people’s loyalty to the state, since they are its citizens.
Here, through research done by Jabroun, we cannot find the correct basis for the principle of equality and its important position when he talks about the creation of the Islamic State. We also cannot find, for instance, any deep debate concerning equality in relation to the status of non-Muslims in the Islamic State, as Jabroun sees it.
The failure to show the importance of equality leads us to another problem with this book, which is the focus on the Moroccan experience, which captivated the author and which is the illustrative model for his proposed theoretical model of the Islamic State.
Initially, the book is limited to addressing the political Arab experience, and not the Islamic experience, in the past and present.
The author justifies his focus on Morocco by saying: “Throughout modern history, Morocco was one of the historical examples that exposed the deficiencies of the Islamic State and the anxious state in the critical historical times”.
Surely, Morocco, throughout its history, has reflected its speciality, which does not represent the rest of the Islamic and Arab world. This refers to another problematic issue with the theoretical model the book follows.
For instance, Morocco has religious harmony with few non-Muslim citizens, and it has been ruled by the same dynasty for a long time. Due to these reasons the ideas proposed in the book (allegiance, justice and virtue) suit the country.
However, if this method is applied in another country, we will find lots of systemic problems. For example, in the east there is religious diversity, with some areas that were part of the Ottoman Empire, whose rule was totally different from the Moroccans’.
In addition, the contemporary application of some elements of this theoretical model can raise lots of methodical questions as well. For example, all Gulf countries rely on the concept of allegiance in the frame of “influential people”. Therefore, how to apply this model today with so many developments taking place? Will its current application by ruling systems be different from its historical experience? And will the concept of allegiance be solid in all countries that follow modern systems of democracy and elections?
All these factors point to the deficiencies of this model in the past and its rejection today.
The author is a columnist and academic
