Q: Recently, an Islamic website posted an article on the civil state. It tried to answer critical questions. The most important questions were: What is the civil state? What are the intellectual contexts that led the Europeans to formulate theories about such a state? What are the strategic dimensions for promoting it in the countries of the contemporary Islamic world? Are there any real differences between the civil state that prevailed in the western political experience and the aspired example of the Islamic state?
The study also tackled the intellectual and strategic dimensions of the civil state. It clarified the main reasons behind promoting the example of the civil state in our contemporary reality.
In a related context, on the form of the Islamic state, His Eminence, the late Religious Authority, Sayyed Muhammad Hussein Fadlullah (ra) says:
A: “We ought to study at first the form of the state that could preserve the general order. Since there is no specific formula, we can choose the form we find best. Thus, it can take the form of the democratic system within the framework of the general Islamic lines that determine what is allowed (Halal) and what is forbidden (Haram).
In the light of this, we can talk about the legitimacy of the rotation of power. Preserving order could be based on electing a ruler for a certain period of time. He would be succeeded by another ruler for a certain period of time. In this way, the Islamic parties can assume power in succession. The rule would be founded on their ruling-derivation (Ijtihad); according to the Ijtihadi line they find the best…
It must be noted that we are referring here to the Muslims who form the majority in a certain country. They are represented by a system that is based on an Islamic constitution headed by a Muslim ruler. This ruler must be capable of exercising power and ensuring the application of the laws according to the Shariah. The same applies to the secular system. Its constitution is based on secularism and it is headed by a ruler who believes in secularism. He seeks to preserve it by exercising his powers, as well as applying, protecting, and preserving the constitution…”
He continues to say:
“We differ with democracy about a central philosophical point. Democracy considers that it is the majority that possesses the legitimacy. This contradicts with the view of Islam… We have always said that we adopt democracy or the rule of the majority as a mechanism, yet without adopting its philosophy… For democracy, as a concept, has many intellectual implications which we do not approve of. Thus, this drives us to express our conservations with regard to the usage of the prevalent terms in the political arena. These terms entail implications and concepts that contradict with our belief…”
[Extracted from the book “Ijtihad between the Seizure of the Past and the Horizons of the Future", p: 362]
Q: Recently, an Islamic website posted an article on the civil state. It tried to answer critical questions. The most important questions were: What is the civil state? What are the intellectual contexts that led the Europeans to formulate theories about such a state? What are the strategic dimensions for promoting it in the countries of the contemporary Islamic world? Are there any real differences between the civil state that prevailed in the western political experience and the aspired example of the Islamic state?
The study also tackled the intellectual and strategic dimensions of the civil state. It clarified the main reasons behind promoting the example of the civil state in our contemporary reality.
In a related context, on the form of the Islamic state, His Eminence, the late Religious Authority, Sayyed Muhammad Hussein Fadlullah (ra) says:
A: “We ought to study at first the form of the state that could preserve the general order. Since there is no specific formula, we can choose the form we find best. Thus, it can take the form of the democratic system within the framework of the general Islamic lines that determine what is allowed (Halal) and what is forbidden (Haram).
In the light of this, we can talk about the legitimacy of the rotation of power. Preserving order could be based on electing a ruler for a certain period of time. He would be succeeded by another ruler for a certain period of time. In this way, the Islamic parties can assume power in succession. The rule would be founded on their ruling-derivation (Ijtihad); according to the Ijtihadi line they find the best…
It must be noted that we are referring here to the Muslims who form the majority in a certain country. They are represented by a system that is based on an Islamic constitution headed by a Muslim ruler. This ruler must be capable of exercising power and ensuring the application of the laws according to the Shariah. The same applies to the secular system. Its constitution is based on secularism and it is headed by a ruler who believes in secularism. He seeks to preserve it by exercising his powers, as well as applying, protecting, and preserving the constitution…”
He continues to say:
“We differ with democracy about a central philosophical point. Democracy considers that it is the majority that possesses the legitimacy. This contradicts with the view of Islam… We have always said that we adopt democracy or the rule of the majority as a mechanism, yet without adopting its philosophy… For democracy, as a concept, has many intellectual implications which we do not approve of. Thus, this drives us to express our conservations with regard to the usage of the prevalent terms in the political arena. These terms entail implications and concepts that contradict with our belief…”
[Extracted from the book “Ijtihad between the Seizure of the Past and the Horizons of the Future", p: 362]