Re: Distinctive feature of the Islamic state

Salaam!

DKleinecke wrote at soc.religion.islam:

It seems to me that it would be fair to translate the
concept of "state" into Islamic terms as "Ummah".

No, the modern concept of "a state," to the extent that is it
compatible with human nature, is contained in the Arabic word "millat"
(or "millah," plural "milal"). The modern concept of "a
confederation," again to the extent that is it compatible with human
nature, is contained in the word "ummah." In both cases the
contemporary understanding of the term has been modified to apply to
(i.e., within) geographic, rather than demographic, borders; to
include internal and external coercive imperialism; to exclude,
redefine, or impart ethnic homogeneity; and to posit political
organization as the basis of society rather than vice versa, and
ethnicity as unrelated rather than the basis of society.

One "sociology" definition: "the state is society, politically
organized." Note that the American "state" (both federal and State)
ruled over, but did not include, "indians not taxed" or slaves,
whether white or black. It existed within (fluid) geographic borders,
but was the "society" rather than the territories that society occupied.

Modern use of the term rigidly excludes the concept of "ethnic
society, politically organized" unless that "ethnic society" controls
a geographic territory, such as in the case of Israel since 1948.
Before 1948, although it was an "ethnic society politically
organized," Israel was not considered a "state" (by others) although
it most certainly has been not one but many "states" all the way
through history, seldom controlling a geographic territory but always
governing finite and demarcated communities ~ Jewish societies ~ among
the children of Israel.

When Islamic history first comes into clear focus, in the
times of Abd al-Malik and his son Walid, there seems to be
a fairly clear notion that all of Islam was a single polity
- a community, an ummah, in short, a state.

At that time that notion was a fiction deployed to justify the
assumption of coercive jurisdiction over muslims wherever situated,
including the majority that had rejected the pretensions to the
caliphate of the Umayyad (and later the Abbasid) hereditary dynastic
empires.

The history in terms of political organization is in clear focus
long before that. It is just not immediately recognizable today as "a
confederation of many states" in the modern usages of the terms,
although it was "an ummah of many milal" or, in the words of 'Isa
'alaihi as-salaam, "a house of many mansions" (not "a castle of many
mansions" or "a mansion of many houses"), which places the
contemporary usages of "state" and "federation" in stark relief
against the original concepts of "millat" and "ummah."

For a more refined definition of the original concept today
connoted by "state," note that Israel ~ the people ~ are a "millat"
that has always been comprised of discrete, politically organized,
locally autonomous communities, each possessed of the attributes of
what we today call a "state." The smallest such "state" comes into
existence as a "minyan" comprised of at least a certain number of
Jewish men, although I don't recall whether that number is eleven or
fewer. All such "states" were characterized by the same ethnic
character, binding all of them, irrespective of geographic situation
(e.g., as a minority among another millat), and including the
disaffected and the isolate, into a single millat. The term is used
to denote all of them together, as well as each of them wherever and
however situated, since each of them is a holographic representation
of the whole.

Sequentially, a common ethos formed the society, imparting to it
its ethnic character; this defined the primary allegiance of its
people; and its constitutional political organization (derived from
Scripture) made it a replicable state. This is the prototypical
origin of the modern "state."

Then note that the original Ummah established from Madinah
comprised several "milal" of analogous definition. The federation of
more milal is what displaced the Roman and Persian colonial
occupations of the Promised Land, while immediately thereafter that
ummah collapsed into an imperial state more akin to the modern
definitions of those terms ~ recognizable as such "in the times of Abd
al-Malik and his son Walid."

I suppose Spain was so far away that it was not considered
significant ...

The Umayyad forces in Spain could not return to Syria due to the
anti-Umayyad muslim forces across north Africa controlling all the
possible routes between Spain and Syria. This left the Umayyad
capital inadequately defended. Spain was significant.

It seems to me that, for many centuries the rule was a personal
matter of control by whoever the current leader might be. The
concept of a "state" as something other than a ruler seems to have
been slow to develop.

See my post in this Thread of 8/18/07 0306 (-0700), Message-ID:
<46C6C4AD.9000505@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ...

"The only form of political organization that Islam sets forth is a
federalism of autonomous, self-governing, libertarian societies, each
politically organized according to the voluntary choices of its
citizens and exercising those powers over its population that are
legitimately, freely, and conditionally delegated to its political
organs (whatever shape they may take) with full sovereign powers,
including police and judiciary powers, bilateral relations with other
such federated societies, and defense against external aggression ~
which in history has usually, but not always, been delegated to the
muslims, who are explicitly charged with defending each and all of them.

"The internal political organization of the muslim community itself
is implicit, assumed, required, intrinsic, and undefined in the Qur'an
beyond the fixation of responsibility on single individuals to whom
the Qur'an speaks regarding the administration of the common or
collective affairs of a local community. There is no explicit
provision in the Qur'an for any larger "central authority" with any
powers over all ~ or any other ~ local muslim communities. The Qur'an
addresses individual readers and those individuals to whom they may
pledge their allegiance and entrust matters of social import
including, but not limited to, disputes, criminality, or collective
endeavors. Each local autonomous community is responsible for the
entirety of its administration of its own political collectivity,
including ad hoc decisions to refer specific matters to other muslim
administrators from other communities for counsel, decision, or
binding arbitration. In each local community, a single individual is
invested with collective authority for administration, exercised
through mandatory consultation, and is solely responsible for
appointing individuals to administrative offices of his own adoption
or design and constitution."

So yes, "control by whoever the current leader might be" was, and
still is, the characteristic of the military organ of the muslim
ummah, which comprised the entirety of what you would call the "state"
at that point in time ~ the armies of the caliph and their supports,
the collection of zakat and jizyah, administration, logistics, etc.
Each caliph established ~ or adopted ~ an administration that existed
primarily as a military function.

Most likely it grew, in Islam, as a way to diminish the power of
the monarch.

The institutions that you would call "the state" grew as the needs
of imperial expansion grew.

Observe there is no such thing as a Christian state - not even a
meaningful program for one.

One Christian state has its capital at Vatican City, and is made
up of a central administration and a multiplicity of "Religious
Orders" including several Orders comprising the priesthood, several
Orders of nuns and monks, and auxiliary Orders such as Opus Dei.
Another Christian state is headed by the monarch of Great Britain and
is administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury. There are many
others, they are comprised of people, not geographic territories
(except the Vatican).

In so far as they are nations full of Christians they are secular
states. I believe Islam will rather quickly develop the same nature
(with much less difference because of the underlying religion than
you might expect).

The Christians "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's," which
during most of the last two millennia has included coercive
government. Like the Shi'ah parties, whenever a church became "the
government," it bungled it ~ the original American colonies may be
exceptional in this regard, although they, too, eventually lost
control of their respective State governments. The churches, like the
Israelis and the Hashashim, have always been much more adept at
gaining influence over the secular rulers, protecting their own
interests and their sovereignty over their own people, and
occasionally controlling the secular governments in other ways, such
as foreign policy or domestic legislation.

Islam gives the muslims no commission to influence the
self-government of non-muslim communities, excepting only those
non-muslim communities ruled in the name of God (e.g., by the "divine
right of kings") by falsifying God's Laws in support of tyrannical
dictatorships that deprive their subjects of their liberties and/or
despoil them of the fruits of their endeavors. For reference, the
Abbasid Dynasty was the first such "millat" to arise after the
establishment of the muslim ummah, and its falsification of Islam
continues to support tyrannical regimes in the terminally-collapsed
millennial muslim world today, just as much as America's aid to those
same regimes.

was-salaam,
abujamal
--
astaghfirullahal-ladhee laa ilaha illa
howal-hayyul-qayyoom wa 'atoobu 'ilaihi

Rejoice, muslims, in martyrdom without fighting,
a Mercy for us. Be like the better son of Adam.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Women are the cause of all ruins...
    ... 120 years ago we had two churches and a Methodist ... religiosity as time passes? ... But with the Muslim communitities ... seems to still be failry central to the communities (even though it comes ...
    (talk.religion.buddhism)
  • Re: OT - Reasonable Doubt
    ... Or virtually any Far East Asian society, ... One said that the US was better at integrating minorities than the ... but that isn't a matter of racism or the lack of it. ... basis of religion in almost every Muslim country. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: OT - Reasonable Doubt
    ... information that contradicts their beliefs. ... Or virtually any Far East Asian society, ... basis of religion in almost every Muslim country. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • SALUTE SINGAPORES POLICIES
    ... harmony Laws well in advance put in place,deters many Idiots. ... Many a times some smart aleck in our society feel that we have some phobia ... Government took to ban it,and even France accept our ideas,and used it.It ... Human Rights groups and Red Cross and Muslim world condemning US and Nato ...
    (soc.culture.singapore)
  • Re: SALUTE SINGAPORE
    ... harmony Laws well in advance put in place,deters many Idiots. ... Many a times some smart aleck in our society feel that we have some phobia ... Government took to ban it,and even France accept our ideas,and used it.It ... Human Rights groups and Red Cross and Muslim world condemning US and Nato ...
    (soc.culture.malaysia)
Loading