Why the row over the Anti-Hadith but silence over Quran illiteracy?

"Excerpts from "Open Letter To The Nation’s Leaders And Intellectuals" written by Dr. Kassim Ahmad from Malaysia."

• The time may have come for us to do a final reckoning with ourselves, our people, and the international community. Never in the history of mankind have we faced such total collapse as we do today.... Where has morality gone? Where on the face of this earth is a group or groups of moral human beings?... There is a limit to human endurance of suffering without protest; that limit has been passed!
• When a group of our people in Malaysia wants to bring back the Quran to the hearts of the populace today, this is the significance and the implication. For a thousand years, Muslims have strayed so far away from God’s teachings and lived in such ignorance that they are powerless to destroy the evil perpetrated before their eyes. Western civilization too has strayed far away from the teachings of the prophets, including Moses and Jesus.... Both East and West must return to God’s teachings, particularly the Quran, His final, complete, perfect, and detailed scripture.
• Alas, when Jema'ah Al-Quran Malaysia (Quranic Society of Malaysia or JAM) was formed precisely for this mission, a number of our leaders and intellectuals leapt up and protested. "Anti-Hadith group! Anti-Hadith group!" they screamed in accusation. What? Bringing the Quran to the people so that they would understand, this is anti-hadith? So, letting the people remain Quran illiterate, as in the past five hundred years in Malaysia, is acceptable?
• I write this open letter to the nation’s leaders and intellectuals in all communities in the hope that we can study this matter calmly and rationally, without hurling accusations and threats and creating an atmosphere of animosity and tension. It is with a sense of responsibility and humility that I ask this, for it is not a matter involving religious ritual, but one of life and death for our people.
• In 1986, this writer published a book, Hadis - Satu Penilaian Semula (its English translation, Prophetic Traditions, A Re-evaluation will also be published, God willing) with the intention stated above. Many of the hadith compiled by Bukhari, Muslim and others that we use today, according to this writer’s study, are in conflict with the teachings of the Quran. I give instances in three areas:
• One, adulation of or unquestioning acceptance of the teachings of a leader. Since this principle was instilled, Muslims have feared others besides God; they have been afraid to question leaders. Hence they became slaves of the leaders, whereas the Quran exhorts us to free ourselves of all forms of subservience, except to the One God....
• Two, prohibiting the use of the rational mind. Generally, Muslims are taught not to use their minds in religious matters. This teaching is spread through some false hadith. Purportedly, the use of the mind in religious matters would lead us astray. If the mind may not be used in religious matters, why may it be used in other matters? Are religious and secular matters to be kept separate? Indeed, this is what has paralyzed the intellects of Muslims in comparison with others. The minds of Muslims have been dead for a thousand years, killed by these false hadith. On the contrary, the teaching of the Quran give the mind a noble place. God deems human beings who do not use their minds worse than animals! (7:179) God bars those who do not use their minds from the fold of the faithful. (10:100)
• Three, suppression of creativity. It is evident that for a long time, Muslims have not been creative. Since the thirteenth century when Islamic civilization began to decline, modern scientific discoveries and technological inventions have been made by others, particularly those who hold that human beings may know and may create progress. In the early days, Muslims were highly creative because they adhered to the Quran’s dynamic teachings, which urge Muslims to work and strive for success in this world and the next. But since they turned to the teachings of the hadith, their creativity declined, for these false hadith teach resignation to taqdir (divine pre-destination) or fatalism. Purportedly, good and evil are from God. The Malay proverb, "If you are fated to gain a cupak (a small measure of rice) you will not gain a gantang (a big measure of rice)," reflects this world-view.
• All three teachings from certain false hadith are clearly in conflict with teachings in the Quran. The Islamic education system from the village pondok (rural religious seminary) right up to the Azhar university, based on rote learning and unquestioning acceptance, teaches that hadith cannot possibly be in conflict with the Quran. This would be true of hadith that are really from the Prophet. But history tells us that the hadith compilations by Bukhari and others were made between 200 and 250 years after the Prophet’s death. These compilations are the responsibility of Bukhari and others, not of the Prophet. The Prophet’s responsibility as God’s messenger was to convey the Quran....
• Some religious leaders label as apostates those who adhere to the Quran, accusing them of being anti-hadith. According to certain hadith, apostates are punished by being put to death. Are they not aware that leaders of Christian Church during the Middle Ages in Europe also put to death apostates from Christianity? Thus, this is not punishment under God’s law, but one from the age of ignorance which entered the hadith through the Torah (Old Testament), which had been tampered with. (Refer to Deut. 13:5-10) Do our people know that according to the teachings of the Quran, one is given full freedom to choose one's religion? Thus, killing someone for religion is totally forbidden by God and is a great sin.
• The study of the hadith has been developed into a complex one in Islam from the 9th to the 15th century. The early hadith scholars established a method of sifting out the weak hadith and retaining only the genuine ones. However, we must realize that knowledge develops, and one of the conditions for development is freedom to criticize. No philosopher, scientist or scholar is free of weaknesses, and one of the ways of overcoming weaknesses is through scientific criticism. We have seen the weaknesses of the method used by the early hadith scholars in the existence of many hadith which are in conflict with the Quran in Sahih Bukhari (Bukhari’s compilation of hadith that are regarded as genuine) and others.
• Now we need to review the definition of sahih or authentic hadith. Does it mean confirmed as genuine only on the basis of isnad (chain of narrators) or also on the basis of matan (meaning of text)? Between isnad and matan, which is the more important? As we are talking about the sayings and doings of the Prophet, the term sahih must be based on matan which is in line with the Quran, for the sayings and doings of the Prophet Muhammad could not possibly be in conflict with the teaching of the Quran.
• It is clear why we need to do a re-evaluation. Every Muslim believes in the Quran and puts it above all other teachings. Our problem is the Quran-illiteracy of Muslims whose language is not Arabic, and of Arab Muslims whose language is Arabic. They do not know which of the hadith taught to them are in conflict with the teachings of the Quran and which are not. Many false teachings have been slipped into the hadith by foes of Islam in those days (the Jews, the Christians, the Persians) to undermine Islam from within. If Muslims wish to be great again, and surely they do wish it, re-evaluating the hadith on the basis of the Quran and understanding and practicing the teachings of the Quran are unavoidable conditions.
• Certainly, when this re-evaluation is carried out, certain changes and adjustments will need to be made in our beliefs and practices. As these changes are made to correct and improve, we need not fear making them. In fact, we should welcome them. What we should fear is going on practicing wrong traditions after knowing them to be so.
• But these few changes and adjustments involve major matters:
• One, we must reject adulation of leaders. We must bow only to God. All human beings are equal--none higher or lower than the other. This will rekindle the spirit of jihad (struggling in God’s cause) among Muslims....
• Two, we must reject taqlid (un-questioning acceptance of human authority). We must use our minds to gain knowledge. We read all books, but critically. We learn from all teachers, but without forgetting our critical faculty. In this way, we shall inherit only the good from our ancestors; the bad we shall cast aside. Thus will the Islamic intellect blossom again.
• Three, we must reject fatalism. Our fates as individuals and as a nation is shaped by ourselves, not by taqdir (divine predestination). The law is: those who strive will attain; those who do not strive will not. Man cannot know his capacity until he tries. The Omniscient God knows everything from beginning to end, but man does not know what God knows. This change will revive the creativity of Muslims; and science, philosophy, art and technology will bloom again in the Islamic world.
• These are the three major changes we must make as individuals and as a people when we re-evaluate the hadith on the basis of the Quran and when we return to the Quran. Is this impossible? I think not. The best ways of making these changes can be discussed and decided by our leaders and intellectuals.
• As we have seen, the anti-hadith allegations hurled at us are the result of ignorance or misunderstanding on the part of the people and a handful of leaders who fear for their position and authority. These can be overcome through sincere and fair discussion. We all declare ourselves to be Muslims. What, then, prevents us from holding talks to find an amicable solution based on truth? If both sides are sincere, adhere to the spirit of brotherhood among the faithful, and base the talks on the Quran, as God commands, there is no reason why we cannot solve this problem.
• We have no intention of toppling the ulama (religious scholars or leaders) or wresting away their positions. We only want the Muslims, including the leaders and the intellectuals, in our country to adhere truly to the Quran.
• Some claim that this problem need not be re-opened as it was solved long ago. These people are like ostriches, burying their heads in the sand and saying there is nothing to worry about since they can see nothing! Islamic communities all over the world as well as in our country are bogged down with problems they cannot overcome. Why? Because we live in darkness. How could we see in the dark? We need to get out of the darkness by using a bright torch. That torch is the Quran.
• As I stated in the beginning of this letter, the time has come for Muslims and mankind in general to return to God’s teachings. Our society, both national and international, is hit by crisis after crisis; the only way we can overcome these is by returning to the teachings of the Omniscient God, i.e., the Quran. Such is the importance of the Quran to us and to the world.

The Standard of Hadith Criticisms

Edited by Zahid Ghadialy from the Book, The life of Muhammad - Haykal 

Despite the great care and precision of the hadith scholars, much of what they regarded as true was later proved to be spurious.. In his commentary on the collection of Muslim, al Nawawi wrote: “A number of scholars discovered many hadiths in the collections of Muslim and Bukhari which do not fulfill the conditions of verification assumed by these men.” The collectors attach a greater weight to the trustworthiness of the narrators (a subjective criteria). Their criterion was certainly valuable, but it was not sufficient. In our opinion the criterion for hadith criticisms as well as standard for materials concerning the prophet life, is the one which prophet himself gave. He said: “After I am gone differences will arise among you. Compare whatever is reported to be mine with the book of God; that which agrees therewith you may accept as having come from me; that which disagrees you will reject as fabrication.” The great men of Islam right from the very beginning observe this valid standard. It continues to be the standard of thinkers today. Ibn Khaldun wrote: “I do not believe any hadith or report of a companion of the prophet to be true which differs from the common sense meaning of the Quran, no matter how trustworthy the narrators may have been. It is not impossible that a narrator appears to be trustworthy though he may be moved by ulterior motive. If hadiths were criticized for their textual contents as they were for the narrators who transmitted them, a great number would have been rejected. It is a recognized principle that a hadith could be declared spurious if it departs from the common sense meaning of the Quran from the recognized principles of Shariah, the rules of Logic, the evidence of sense, or any other self-evident truth.” This criterion given by prophet as well as ibn Khaldun, perfectly accords with modern scientific criticsm.

True, after Muhammad’s death the Muslims differed, and they fabricated thousands of hadiths and reports to support their various causes. From the day Abu Luluah, the servant of Mughirah, killed Umar ibn al Khattab and Uthman ibn Affan assumed caliphate, the old pre-Islamic enmity of Banu-Hashim and Banu-Ummayah reappeared. When, upon the murder of Uthman, civil war broke out between the Muslims, Aishah fought against Ali and Ali’s supporters consolidated themselves into a party, the fabrication of Hadiths spread to a point where “Ali ibn Abu Talib himself had to reject the practice and warn against it. He reportedly said: “We have no book and no writing to read except the Quran and this sheet which I have received from the Prophet of God in which he specified the duties prescribed by charity.” Apparently, this exhortation did not stop the hadith narrators from fabricating their stories either in support of a cause they advocated, or of a virtue or practice to which they exhorted the Muslims and which they thought would have more appeal if vested with prophetic authority. When Banu Ummayah firmly established themselves in power, their protagonists among their hadith narrators deprecated the prophetic traditions reported by the party of Ali ibn Abu talib and the later defended these traditions and propagated them with all the means at their disposal. Undoubtedly thy also deprecated the traditions reported by Aishah, “Mother of the Faithful.”

A humorous piece of reportage was given to us by ibn Asakir who wrote: “Abu Sa?d Ismail ibn al Muthanna al Istrabadhi was giving a sermon one day in Damascus when a man stood up and asked him what he thought about the hadith of the prophet: “I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate.” Abu Sas pondered the question for a while and then replied: “Indeed! No one knows of this hadith except those who lived in the first century of Islam. What the Prophet had said was rather, I am the city of knowledge; Abu Bakr its foundation; Umar its walls; Uthman its ceiling; and Ali its Gate.” The audience was quite pleased with his reply and asked him to furnish them with the chain of narrators. Abu Sad could not furnish them with the chain of narrators and was embarrassed.” Thus hadiths were fabricated for political and other purposes. This wanton multiplication alarmed the Muslims because many ran counter to the book of God. The attempts to stop this wave of fabrication under the Umawis did not succeed. When the Abbasids took over, and al Mamun assumed the caliphate almost two centuries after the death of the Prophet, the fabricated hadiths numbered in thousands and Hundred of thousands and contained an unimaginable account of contradiction and variety. It was then that the collectors applied themselves to the task of putting the hadiths together and biographers of the prophet wrote his Biography. Al Waqidi, ibn Hisham and Al madaini lived and wrote their books in the days of al Mamun. They could not afford to contradict the caliphate and hence could not apply with the precesion due to Prophet’s criterion that his traditions ought to be checked against the Quran and accepted only if they accorded therewith.

Had this criterion, which does not differ from the modern and scientific criticism, been applied with precision, the ancient masters would have altered much of their writing. Circumstances of history imposed upon them the application of it to some of their writings and not to others. The later generation inherited their method of treating the biography of the prophet without questioning it. Had they been true to history they would have applied this criterion in general as well as in detail. No reported events disagreeing with the Quran would have been spared, and none would have been confirmed but those that agreed with the book of the God as well as the laws of nature. Even so, these hadiths would have subject to strict analysis and established with valid proofs and incontestable evidence. This stand was taken by the great Muslim scholars of the Past as well as of the present. The grand shaykh of Al Azhar, Muhammad Mustafa al Maraghi, wrote in his foreword to the book, The life of Muhammad by Haykal: “Muhammad- may God’s peace and blessing be on him had only one irresistible miracle: the Quran. But it is not irrational. How eloquent is the verse of al Busayri: God did not try us with anything irrational. Thus, we fell under neither doubt nor illusion.?”

In his book, Al Islam wa al Nasraniyah, Muhammad Abduh, the great scholar and leader wrote: “Islam, therefore, and its demand for faith in God and his unity, depend only on the rational proof and common sense human thinking. Islam does not overwhelm the mind with the supernatural, confuse the understanding with the extraordinary, impose acquiescent silence by resorting to heavenly intervention, nor does it impede the movement of thought by any sudden cry of divinity. All the Muslims are agreed, except those hose opinions are insignificant, that faith in God is prior to faith in prophethood and that it is not possible to believe in the prophet except after one has come to believe in God. It is unreasonable to demand faith in God on the ground that the prophets or the revealed books has said so, for it is unreasonable to believe that any book has been revealed by God unless one already believed that God exists and that it is possible for him to reveal a Book and send a messenger.”

I am inclined to think that those who wrote Biographies of the Prophet agreed with this view. The earlier generation of them could not apply to it because of the historical circumstances in which they lived. The later generation of them suspended the principle deliberately on account of their belief that the more miraculous their portrayal of Prophet, the more faith this would engender among their audience. They assumed, quite naively, that the inclusion of these extraneous matters into his biography achieved a good purpose. Had they lived our day and seen how enemies of Islam had taken their arguments against Islam and its people, they would have followed the Quran more closely and agreed with al Ghazzali, Muhammad Abduh al Maraghi, and all other objective scholars. And had they livd our day and age, and witnessed how their stories have alienated many Muslim minds and hearts instead of confirming their faith, they would have satisfied with the indubitable profs and arguments of the Book of God.

Verse 4/34 and Domestic Violence

March 17, 2009 by Leyla Jagiella

Men are supporters of wives because God has given some of them an advantage over others and because they spend of their wealth. So the ones who are in accord with morality are the ones who are morally obligated, the ones who guard the unseen of what God has kept safe. But those whose rebellion (nushûz) you fear, admonish them and abandon them in their sleeping place then hit/punish (daraba) them; and when they are obedient, sure look not for any against them; truly God is Lofty, Great. (Quran 4/34)

A controversial verse. Too often it has been used to legitimize domestic violence against women in Islam, too often it has been used to claim that Islam as such legitimizes such violence.

Others, like Laleh Bakhtiar or Edip Yüksel, try to posit a new translation of this verse. One that does not translate the verb daraba as “to hit, to punish” but simply as “to separate, to go away etc.”.

I would be more than happy to agree with the translations that Bakhtiar, Yüksel and some others give.
But, honestly, I can´t.
The problem is that to me it seems pretty forced and looks like a try of, as others have termed it, “whitewashing” the Quran.

It is true that in some instances in the Quran daraba does not mean “to punish” but e.g. “to separate”.
Unfortunately, in all occasions in which it does the verb comes with very specific post- or prepositions which are definitely lacking in 4/34.
Without these post- or prepositions the apparent Quranic use of the verb always implies an act of force, though not necessarily in the direct physical sense!

Other translators and commentators have however made the useful observation that the verb daraba always implies a singular and unrepeated onetime act of force, physical or other.
In contrast to this, to imply subsequent physical beatings the form darraba would correctly be used.
And while we have unsettling interpretations of men like Al-Ghazali or At-Tabari who indeed understood the verb as legitimizing physical violence against women, their understanding of the word had always been open to dispute, even in the classical times.
Alternative understandings have always been available.

Aside from that I would like to point out that to me the decisive word for the right understanding of this verse is not daraba but nushûz.

The word is often translated as “rebellion” etc. and when 4/34 is taken out of context it may thus indeed give the impression that according to the Quran women are commanded to obey their husbands in any case and when they do not it is legitimate to use violence against them.

But within the context of chapter 4 of the Quran such an understanding is total nonsense!

Nushûz is indeed an act of rebellion. But not in the sense of not agreeing with someone but in the sense of unrightfully setting oneself above others and their rights.
That is actually the direct meaning of the word.

The main topic of the chapter 4 of the Quran is marital and social harmony and the ethical duties, rules and laws that should be obeyed to keep this harmony intact.
This topic is also the context in which verse 34 appears.

In that context 4/34 does tell a wife to not unrightfully set herself above her husband and disobey the rules of harmony, otherwise her husband has the right to take consequences from that.

However, only some very few verses later, in 4/128, we are told that nushûz, abusing his wife and ignoring her rights, is also forbidden to the husband!
Nushûz is not a specific female crime, like some kind of anti-patriarchal disobedience.
Men can be as guilty of it and consequently women also have the right to take action against it.

4/128 also tells us that instead of falling into nushûz and to counter it both husband and wife should try to restore the sulh (harmony, just peace, balance) in their relationship.

4/34 does specify the cconsequences that the husband may take from his wife´snushûz.
Admonition, denying cozy company and force are the three steps that he can take, one after the other.
The Quran does not directly limit the cause that the wife may take or may not take in the case of her husband´s nushûz.

General limitations on both husbands and wives are given due to the general ethical standards of the Quran (which always imply to respect the other human being and to not abuse him/her).

In 4/35 it is additionally stated that in the general case of discord both husband and wife should not try to take action on their own but only with the judgement of members of each ones party, always trying to seek peaceful restoration and good action.

Here we can clearly see that chapter 4 is not at all meant to legitimize marital abuse but it is meant to do the direct opposit.

Nushûz, setting yourself above your spouse and his/her rights, is forbidden to both the husband and the wife in a relationship!

Both are allowed to take consequences – only within the general ethical framework of the quranic teachings – should their spouse nevertheless abuse them and ignore their rights and both are commanded to do so while refering to the judgment of other members of each ones party and while explicitely seeking sulh (harmony, just peace, balance).

Chapter 4 also clearly tells us, in 4/75-77, that believers are commanded to fight for the rights of all opressed men AND women and children and to “restrain their own hands”.

And it is clear that chapter 4 can not be understood without the general Quranic vision of an ideal relationship between spouses, as described in 30/21.

And from His signs is that He created for you mates from yourselves that you may reside with them, and He placed between you affection and mercy. In that are signs for a people who reflect. (Quran 30/21)

-

Original post: https://leylajagiella.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/verse-434-and-domestic-violence/

No Death Penalty For Blasphemy in Islam

Quoting from "Why The Death Penalty is un-Islamic?" by Kashif Shahzada

[2.0] Blasphemy

Blasphemy is the use of offensive, and derogatory language and visual representations against personalities revered and held in high esteem in a religion.

The Qur’an narrates that Prophets and believers were mocked, derided and subjected to abuse and persecution, but in face of all this, they were commanded to show restraint and be patient. There is no command to inflict the death penalty on those who hurl abuses. Indeed their act is heinous and sinful, and for which Allah will punish them in this world as well as the hereafter, but the believers are not called to exact revenge from them. Believers are enjoined not to utter words of contempt for anyone, even for the objects of worship of other religions

[2.1] It is Allah and not the believers who will punish those who hurt the Prophet (p) in this world as well as the next.

“Those who hurt God and His Messenger — them God has cursed in the present world and the world to come, and has prepared for them a humbling chastisement.” 33:57

As those who hurt the Prophet (p) will be punished by Allah in their own lifetime unless they repent, therefore believers exacting revenge and vengeance from them or invoking the death penalty for their offence does not arise. The matter is in Allah’s hands.

[2.2] The Qur’an has cited many instances where the unbelievers mocked, scoffed and used hurtful and annoying words towards the Prophet (p) (p.b.u.h). But the Prophet (p) (saw) did not penalise such offenders but exercised restraint as Allah commanded him to do so:

“And have patience over what they say, and leave them with noble (dignity).” (73:10)

The Prophet (p) acted on Allah’s command “..have patience over what they say..” and practised restraint on the hurtful words of unbelievers. In his life, the Prophet (p) was subjected to verbal and physical humiliation. There were attempts made on his life (8:30), he was accused of forgery (21:5), he was stigmatised as a man ‘possessed’ (23:70) and a ‘madman’ (68:2). But his personal reaction was adherence to the Quranic teachings of patience and restraint. As the Prophet (p) did not invoke the capital punishment for such offenders but used patience and restraint against the invectives and persecution, therefore this is proof that blasphemy although a grave sin, and which qualifies one for a divine curse, and punishment from Allah, is not a capital offence.

[2.3] Muslims are ordered to react with restraint when their faith is being abused and ridiculed and not exact revenge from the culprits.

“You shall surely be tried in your possessions and your selves, and you shall hear from those who were given the Book before you, and from those who are idolaters, much hurt; but if you are patient and godfearing — surely that is true constancy.” (3:186)

We are told that Muslims “..shall hear … much hurt..” but in face of this, they are not to exact vengeance or retribution but are ordered to have sabr(patience) and taqwa (righteousness). Similarly, in 4:140 Muslims are told that when their beliefs are ridiculed how they are to react:

“When ye hear the signs of Allah held in defiance and ridicule, ye are not to sit with them unless they turn to a different theme.” (4:140)

As the Qur’an prescribes to Muslims restraint, and distancing from the blasphemous persons, and has not advocated exacting vengeance, punishment or revenge, therefore this shows that blasphemy, although a grave sin, is not a capital offence mandating the death penalty.

[2.4] Those who commit blasphemy and even plot sedition are given an opportunity by Allah to repent. If capital punishment were invoked and they were to face the death penalty then they would not be able to avail the opportunity for repentance that Allah mentions in 9:74.

“They swear by God that they said nothing (evil), but indeed they uttered blasphemy, and they did it after accepting Islam; and they meditated a plot which they were unable to carry out: this revenge of theirs was (their) only return for the bounty with which God and His Apostle had enriched them! If they repent, it will be best for them; but if they turn back (to their evil ways), God will punish them with a grievous penalty in this life and in the Hereafter: They shall have none on earth to protect or help them.” (9:74)

The expression in above verse: “..If they repent, it will be best for them…” is clear evidence in demonstrating that those guilty of blasphemy, apostasy and sedition are not to face the death penalty as Allah has given them a chance for repentance and amendment of their conduct.

Prophet Muhammad did not create a State or Violent Monopoly in Madina

Quoting from an article titled Why Muslim Fundamentalists Should Embrace Voluntaryist Anarchy by Davi Barker:

"I want to be clear from the outset what I mean by “fundamentalists.” I’m not talking about muslims engaged in suicide bombing, plane hijacking, church burning, cartoonist murdering or teddy bear rioting. Those people have departed from any semblance of what I can call islam. So, for the sake of distinction making let’s call them “extremists.” I’m talking about a rigorously literal and conservative interpretation of islam which includes movements to establish a new Caliphate and an emphasis on end times prophecies. These are the type of fundamentalists that join islamic political parties, or separatist movements. And despite what the fear mongers pretend, very few of these fundamentalists have any interest in imposing islamic law on America. They’re far more concerned with countries like Saudi Arabia, which they don’t view as legitimate in any sense. At most they’d like America to stop thwarting their efforts in their own lands.

Putting all that aside, to explain why muslim fundamentalists should embrace voluntaryist anarchy we’ve got to start with some basic review of these two areas of islamic scholarship, the Caliphate and end times prophecies. This argument is primarily written for the fundamentalists themselves, but I’ll try to explain it in terms accessible to a general audience.

Islam attributes sovereignty to God and God alone, and places mankind as vicegerents of God’s sovereignty on Earth. The secular State attributes sovereignty to itself, and makes all other law subservient to its law. Islamic fundamentalists compare this to the idolatry of Pharaoh in the time of Moses, and they argue that so long as they must acquiesce to the sovereignty of the State they cannot be free to worship God as the lone sovereign. In order to be a proper servant of God they must be free from all political slavery. And so, they argue, they must establish an Islamic State built on three basic foundations: The ruler is a vicegerent of God, a Khalifahin Arabic; the law of the land is divine law, Shariah in Arabic and; sovereignty belongs to God alone, and not to the State.

While I am in agreement with the position that the sovereignty of the State is a kind of idolatry and political slavery, I do not believe that draping islamic paraphernalia over the existing model of political slavery magically solves the problem of political slavery. Most Islamic movements aim to achieve this ideal Caliphate by forming political parties and working within the existing political systems in their countries. But this strategy requires acquiescing to the sovereignty of the existing State, which they regard as idolatry. They also presume that because prophet Muhammad and the Caliphs of the past occupied positions of leadership that they constituted an “Islamic State” while I would argue that the foundations on which Muhammad built the social order in Medina did not constitute a “State” by modern definitions, and misunderstanding this distinction is a huge contributing factor to the failure of these movements.

Western civilization saw the need for pluralism after suffering the predation of a medieval Church with a monopoly on law. So, taking the monopoly away from the Church and giving it to the State was fair seeming. Nationalism replaced faith as the unifying principle of secular society, but now we see Western civilization suffering the predation of secular States with regional monopolies on law.

The problem is monopoly. Anywhere you find a monopoly you find power used to oppress the powerless. You cannot protect pluralism by creating a State, because the very definition of a “State” is a regional monopoly on coercive violence.

In Medina under the leadership of the prophet Muhammad pluralism was accomplished differently. The social order accommodated a wide diversity of tribes, many of which were non muslims, that were afforded complete self determination. So, the muslims were under the leadership of prophet Muhammad, but the Jewish and pagan tribes of Medina were respected as independent units of society. They were free to choose their own leaders, to practice their own religion, to form their own judiciaries, and to live by their own law, not islamic law. In this way no institution claimed sovereignty over others, and no theological monopoly existed either.

During his life all Muhammad’s followers consented to his leadership voluntarily and individually, face to face. He never claimed the authority to legislate over people who did not consent. Most muslims will say that Muhammad’s authority as a leader came from God, which is a fine answer for a muslim, but not for the Jews and Pagans of Medina. In Medina’s social order authority was derived from an oath, Bayah in Arabic. This oath was an explicit voluntary arrangement, not a coercive one. It was an agreement between individuals outlining mutual rights and responsibilities, not arbitrary authority to enforce sociopolitical preferences through violence.

This is why I say no State existed in Medina. The independent tribes negotiated a covenant, Mithaq in Arabic, which was the first written constitution in history. Prophet Muhammad never claimed that the Quran was their constitution, as modern islamic States do. The Mithaq outlined a mutual protection pact to defend one another from outside attacks, a non aggression pact to prohibit attacks from within, and a system of arbitration, to impartially settle disputes between tribes. In this way every community was free to regard God as sovereign without any intermediary, and free to live according to their conception of Law without imposing it on others. But none of these provisions constituted a violent monopoly, and therefore the Mithaq did not constitute a State."