Page 2 of 5

350

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 11, November-2020

with a modern bureaucratic framework. However, it did not succeed to portray a fine image of how

a State governed on Islamic principles would be, hence the term Islamic State is a misnomer. It is

argued in this paper that no modern state can be called an Islamic State. As modern states have a

postcolonial temporal characteristics as well as a modern Weberian bureaucratic framework. An

Islamic State to actualize, it shall be based upon the foundations, principles & values that the State

of Medina was fashioned upon, however as an antithesis to the modern framework of “nation-state”

that became the norm post the Treaty of Westphalia. To give an example Islamic State of Iraq &

Levant, it is imperative to account for postcolonial histories and to analyse the rise & failure of the

Islamic State. Thereafter, an analysis of “the Islamic State” shall be made in this paper to present

the original argument about the sustenance and feasibility of such a state.

As the Treaty of Westphalia had its religious connotations derived from the Treaty of Augsburg, it

was repelled by the church at that point of time. The “decision making” through papacy was subdued

and infused in a secular state. Thus, it also brought about the principle of Sovereignty of a nation- state. The peace of Westphalia as it is called, created peace between the warring European sides by

inculcating defined boundaries in their understanding of nationhood. The Peace of Westphalia is

seen by many scholars in both history and in the field of international relations to be the basis for

much of modem international law and professional diplomacy (S Patton . 2019), Consecutively, the

European domination of the world began post Renaissance, and the similar form of sovereign

nation-states were evolved from the colonies of the colonizing European countries like The Great

Britain, Portugal and the Dutch Empire et cetera. For instance, India and Pakistan evolved out of

colonial India that was a British dominion. Such states also endowed the Weberian type of

bureaucracy.

Now comparing this with the Majlis-e-Shoora or the Shoora council of the Medinian State, such a

framework of a nation-state is incompatible with the state based on the benchmark hitherto Islamic

state of Medina. Also, the Majlis-e-Shoora is more inclined towards ‘Indirect Democracy’. Therefore,

the modern framework of statehood originating from the Westphalian framework is directly

incompatible with any form of “Islamic statist entity”. Hence, any State’s claim to be called as an

Islamic State is frivolous. However, good governance based on Islamic principles is feasible and a

practicality in many countries.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

A brief account of Peace of Westphalia along with the era of colonization shall be enquired. Then,

the analysis shall be made of the Weberian bureaucratic model and its compatibility with the

bureaucratic model of the State of Medina. Thereafter, the State of Medina’s compatibility or

incompatibility with the Islamic State’s idea shall be enquired as the Statement of Problem in this

research. The research methodology implemented in this research is based on qualitative research

using deductive reasoning. Therefore, the research approach uses a discourse analysis from general

to specific findings.

PEACE OF WESTPHALIA & THE ERA OF COLONIZATION

It was with the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) that the statehood of nations came into being,

subsequently called the Nation-States. The war or series of connected wars began in 1618, when

the Austrian Habsburgs tried to impose Roman Catholicism on their Protestant subjects in Bohemia.

It pitted Protestant against Catholic, the Holy Roman Empire against France, the German princes

Page 3 of 5

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.711.9356 351

Qureshi, F. A. (2020). Islam and Statism: At the intersection of the State of Medina, Modern Statism and the Islamic State. Advances in Social Sciences

Research Journal, 7(11) 349-353.

and prince lings against the emperor and each other, and France against the Habsburgs of Spain.

The Swedes, the Danes, the Poles, the Russians, the Dutch and the Swiss were all dragged in or dived

in. Commercial interests and rivalries played a part, as did religion and power politics (Cavendish

Richard . 1998). However, the peace of Westphalia also had its dark side; it unleashed the forces of

colonization. That led to the major European powers competing with each other for dominions

overseas (Raats Milette & Eckstein Reinhold . 2018). After World War II, the new states emerged

with boundaries drawn by their colonial masters. Specifically looking into the modern history of

Syria and Iraq, their statehood and demarcation of boundaries was managed by the hitherto

colonizing powers. Whereby modern Iraq’s were laid by the British mandate and Syria was ruled

by both France and Britain post Ottoman decline until its founding as a modern nation state after

world war II. Moreover, the post world war II era saw the decline of colonization and emergence of

new modern states based on the normative Westphalian nation-state system.

Colonial delineation of boundaries & its purview over an “Islamic statist entity”

The modern delineation of boundaries has a post-colonial temporal & spatial variable. The modern

boundaries of countries like Syria and Iraq were delineated following the collapse of the Ottoman

Empire. However, in an Islamic Caliphate, boundaries are fluid geopolitically. The Islamic State of

Iraq & Syria was also taking the same form before it was limited by the popular alliance. The main

point is that for an “Islamic statist entity” to usher, the old boundary ideational structure has to fall

apart. For that matter, there has to be a normative shift in the geopolitical and geo-economic aspects

of the respected modern states. As, the Islamic State became a modern phenomenon, the various

Islamist groups pledged allegiance to the ISIL as part of a larger Islamic State. The free flow

boundary less Islamic State seemed a probable reality. However, the concept of Islamic State is a

misnomer as no modern state with a weberian bureaucracy can be truly Islamic or be like the short

lived State of Medina. It also infringes upon the covenant based bilateral or multilateral relations

such as the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah (629 CE).

WEBERIAN BUREAUCRACY’S FUNCTION VS. THE STATE OF MEDINA

There is an intrinsic relationship between Weber's theory of modern State and Weberian

bureaucratic model (K Dusza . 1989). Weberian bureaucracy serves the bureaucratic institution per

se or the organization it represents i.e. the States they form collectively. Hence, such a model cannot

endorse and inspire Islamic values literally. A Weberian modern nation-state and its bureaucracy is

sustained by the taxes ‘imposed’ upon the incomes of its citizens. Hence, it is an authoritative

bureaucracy that ‘imposes’ obligation upon the governed subjects.

On the other hand, the State of Medina is a contract based State that is resourced by “Maal E

Ghanimat”. Also, it is not obligatory upon the ‘governed subjects’ to pay taxes rather it is a charity

based system. That charity based collection of resources (monetary) for the successful functioning

of the State is in correlation with “Maal E Ghanimat” as a fee for a service provided. However, this

form of tax collection might have been voluntary but specific services were also taxed like providing

security to a ‘trade vessel’ or a caravan. Whereas, “Maal E Ghanimat” was collected as War booty or

as sanctions or in treaties imposed upon the losing party.

A major dichotomy between a ‘modern nation state’ and the ‘State of Medina’ has its basis in the

variables of Interest rates and the trickle-down effect. Hardly, any modern nation state can escape

the ‘Interest’ based global financial system. So, to say that a replication of the State of Medina is