Politics and religion in Islam – one world or two?
Over the years, the slogan "Islam is both religion and state" has triggered many controversies and debates. In this essay, I would like to examine whether it is a modern concept. There are two fundamental views on this: the first sees this idea – in terms of both its wording and its contents – as something new.
This view holds that the idea of Islam encompassing both religion and state is the product of a modernisation process and the attempt to integrate Islam into the modern world. According to this standpoint, the concept is, therefore, the expression of a new vision of Islam that is closely linked to the ideology of Islamism and the history of its development.
The second view, generally fostered in Islamist circles, holds that this concept already existed in the early years of Islam and that the only thing about it that is new is the way it is formulated.
According to this standpoint, as far as the content of the faith is concerned, Islam has always been both religion and state. I would like to understand the origin of the dispute between these two viewpoints. Is it a question of two different perceptions of Islam? Or is it a question of what the words mean?
To put it another way, do we disagree about the very essence of Islam or does our understanding of the terms "state" and "religion" differ?
Those who hold the view that the phrase "Islam is both religion and state" is a modern concept can be divided into two camps: the first holds that Islam is just a religion and has no political content whatsoever. According to this standpoint, everything that is political would be a purely societal exercise without any kind of religious dimension.
The Egyptian scholar of Islam Ali Abdel Razek, who wrote "Islam and the foundations of political power" in 1925, is considered an early advocate of this view. Personally, however, I feel that it is one that is very hard to defend.
On the one hand, it does not fit with everything we know about the history of Islam; on the other, it contributes nothing to the debate about the modernity of the slogan "Islam is both religion and state". Instead it just ignores every political dimension of Islam. It sees Islam as a religion that reduces belief to cultic activities. According to this view of Islam, relationships between people are completely dissociated from religion.
The modern state: unbending, repressive and omnipresent
As already mentioned, there is a second camp that considers the phrase "Islam is both religion and state" to be a theory of the modern age. This camp does not set out to ignore the political dimension of Islam – as a religion practiced in historical contexts – but nevertheless considers the idea of "Islam as both religion and state" to be a modern innovation.
Which brings us neatly to the debate about what "state" means in the first place. The state is an institution that holds the monopoly on the legitimate use of force on its territory. This also includes the monopoly on power, which is the first prerequisite for the legality of the monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
You may also like: Debating secularism and religion in the Islamic world – No threat to faith
Our concept of the state is closely linked to a territory (the nation state), which is the term used to describe the area where a state's constituent people lives. By virtue of its laws, the state holds the monopoly on the legitimate use of force and, consequently, the right to rule. This also includes a monopoly on the administration of justice and legislation as well as on the definition of the public good and public law. Such a concept of state is, however, a modern concept and has its roots in the era of absolute monarchy in Europe.
In almost all of these areas, the modern state differs from its precursors throughout history. Historically, the concepts of territory or nation were alien to the state. The state governed individual areas of land that submitted themselves to its rule.
However, state entities did not demand any legislative or judicial competence, but as a rule let local societies continue as usual. Even in those cases where a legal order was adopted – as in the case of the Islamic Sharia – its implementation was a matter for the societies in question. After all, in former times, states preserved the natural order of things. By comparison, the modern state seems unbending, omnipresent and repressive.