Throughout Islamic history, the concept of the ‘state’ has been mired in significant theological (kalam) and jurisprudential debates, revealing a profound crisis in distinguishing between the religious and the secular.
This crisis stems from the dominance of the ‘caliphate’ concept over the perception of an Islamic state among the elites who have discussed statehood, both in ancient times and in the modern era—specifically during the period of interaction with Europe and following the collapse of the last regime that identified itself as an Islamic caliphate.
One issue that merits attention is jurists' preoccupation with topics rooted in ancient times rather than striving to apply jurisprudence (Fiqh) to the realities of contemporary life.
For example, the issue of zakat on camels and crops now pertains only to specific groups within limited societies and is no longer a general norm among all Muslims. Similarly, the concept of the ‘Islamic state’ no longer reflects the reality experienced by most Muslim-majority countries.
Sovereignty and governance
A pertinent illustration is the concept of sovereignty, as understood by political science scholars. This concept defines the state's authority within a geographical area inhabited by a group of people (i.e. citizens).
Because sovereignty is absent in Islamic literature, governance (hakimiyyah) exists solely as a term denoting the right to rule and enact laws. Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, the 12th-century scholar, defined hakimiyyah as “obedience to God and to those whom God has commanded to be obeyed”.
In doing so, he drew on the Qur’anic verse: “O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. Should you disagree on anything, then refer it to Allah and His Messenger if you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day. This is the best and fairest resolution.” (Quran 4:59).
According to this interpretation, God is the ultimate source of hakimiyyah, derived solely from Him, then from His Messenger, and subsequently from those who hold ‘command’ after the Messenger, as their authority also demands obedience.
Based on religious heritage, the term ‘guardian’ was established to describe someone who holds command on behalf of sacred authority (God and the Messenger), thereby possessing absolute authority in Islamic society, particularly in relation to the interaction between state and religion.
The concept of hakimiyyah has been utilised by a group of Islamic reformers as a foundation for advocating the establishment of constitutions that aim to merge the state with the jurisprudential conception of governance.
As with the concept of sovereignty, ‘authority’ in its modern political sense is also absent from religious discourse.
This absence can be easily explained: the concept of the geographical homeland overlaps with that of the nation in such a way that it links the issue of governance and political systems to the national state or the Islamic nation.
While the broad concept of the nation is straightforward, indicating a country where Muslims are in the majority, the concept of the guardian is more complex from a jurisprudential perspective.
It carries ideological and historical connotations, leading each group or sect to define it in a manner consistent with its own literature, which has been developed over centuries.
Claiming the caliphate
Political discussions among Muslims often focus on the issue of the caliphate and who has the right to claim it. Although the era of the caliphate in its international sense has ended, it remains a fundamental element in the worldview of Islamists.
The issue extends beyond the Saqifat Bani Sa’ida as a historical event, which saw the Shura of Ahlu al-Hall wal-‘Aqd (decision-makers) legitimised in exchange for divine appointment.
Debating the legitimacy of Abu Bakr’s caliphate versus Ali’s imamate serves as more than just a historical starting point. It forms the basis for a body of knowledge that has evolved into a rich doctrinal and jurisprudential discourse, which is relied upon in formulating scholarly theses.
Today, the battles are not fought to prove the legitimacy of Abu Bakr’s caliphate or Ali’s imamate. Rather, they mobilise the public for what is intended to result from these historical narratives of ideal ruling models.
The legitimacy of the caliph (whether chosen through the consultation process of the Ahlu al-Hall wal-‘Aqd, as in the Rightly Guided Caliphs, or by the power of the sword as in the Umayyad, Abbasid, and Ottoman Caliphates) hinges on the concept of a strong ruler’s authority.
This authority does not depend on the ruler’s level of piety but on his absolute power over the nation, requiring allegiance from all, including Sharia law specialists.
On the other hand, within Shiite belief, the imam is the legitimate ruler, whether he possesses actual power or not. Even if deprived of the right to rule, he retains ultimate authority over the nation’s affairs.
Thus, even if power resides with someone other than the imam, it inherently belongs to the infallible imam or his representative, the jurist who meets specific criteria (jurisprudential diligence, justice, masculinity, etc.).