All of us are born in a society filled with discourses adopted by our parents and generations beforehand. As children we donít have a choice in the matter we grow up into it and as adults we submissively accept that this is the way it is.
Some of us might not agree with how society runs and maybe migrate to a different country. People may find comfort in a society where laws are upheld rather than chaotic uproar due to unjust hegemony, it might be better but not necessarily ideal. For example my family migrated from Lebanon. In Australia there is more order, i.e. some children in Lebanon donít even have a birth certificate, laws in Australia are enforced i.e. if people break road rules we get fines, you canít get away with corruption as easily you can in Lebanon i.e. sometimes money can actually talk, in Australia you have to pay interests for a home buying, in Lebanon you can buy a home without interest.
Different societies have different benefits and disadvantages and some of us might think: what if we could change society? Maybe we should establish an ďislamic stateĒ. People think all sorts of things. all for the betterment.. So many theories but whatís ideal?
Ok all of you will say Quranic philosophy is what is ideal. Ok if thatís the case what are your thoughts on Quranic philosophy? What is the Quranic philosophy? Many people say democracy and Quran are congruent with each other. I think in certain ways yes but in certain ways no. for example Australia follows the Westminster democratic system (which I think is the same as UK) it gives people right to vote which is good no doubt but is it totally Quranic? We have to follow a Constitution based on the commonwealth. The parliament passes on laws. The senate and the house of representative pass the bill how many of the senate and the house represent us?
So there is no compulsion in deen, people might start saying anarchism. How would that be practiced. How can we ensure people would be just? Was it ever put into practice?
There are all sorts of theories. Iím totally ignorant about politics so whatever you have to share, let me know
The assumption by almost all political philosophers throughout history is that the state is a necessary prerequisite for society and civilization. The argument runs thus: In order for their to be civil society, and because there will always be a criminal element, law and order is required, therefore a state, as the provider of law and order, is necessary in order for humanity to coexist peacefully.
The fallacy in this line of argumentation is that the statist political philosopher has not proven that the state (a taxing and adjudicating monopoly) is the only form in which law and order can be provided; instead he has simply smuggled in this assumption. Furthermore, the state, as a taxing institution, cannot logically precede civilized society, rather it must assume some level of social wealth creation, in order to have
anything at all to tax!
If we treat law and order as goods that society desires, in the same way people desire food, clothing, and shelter, then we see that just as a coercive state monopoly provider of food, clothing and shelter cannot be in the interest of the consumer, so too a coercive state monopoly on law and order cannot ultimately serve the consumer. The burden of proof is on the political philosopher who insists that law and order are categorically different than other fundamental human needs. It would seem obvious, however, that food, clothing and shelter are even more basic than courts and police.
What would a non statist legal system look like without the state? Well this is akin to living, and having to "buy" groceries, in the old soviet union (or north korea now) and wondering how a non statist food system would look like. Essentially it would be very heterogeneous, with consumers having the freedom to choose under which legal system they would rather live. Similarly, it is not difficult to imagine people voluntarily segregating themselves into communities where they can practice their own deen peacefully, and where "private" courts will uphold the laws of that deen. If a member of the community refuses to submit to the authority of the courts then they are ipso facto ex-communicated from that society. I give this only as an example, there are obviously many details and circumstances that can be considered. However, just as one living in north korea cannot foresee exact details on how a private system of competitive food providers would operate, it is not possible to give exact details for every possible legal scenario, all one can do is speculate. This is not a weakness, however, rather this dynamic flexibility gives the best chance for justice to exist within human societies; in contrast to the institutionalized tyranny of coercive state legal systems. In addition, it is important to note that many of the "problems" people see with a non statist legal system, also exist in a statist legal system. As a side note, since every nation has its own laws and courts, the world is itself in a state of "anarchy". One who advocates statist legal systems, to be consistent, would ultimately have to argue for one global system of laws and courts. Historically see how the nascent community of believers dealt with the sectarian religious communities they governed in Roman and Persian lands, other than having a poll tax, they basically left these communites alone to administer their own courts etc.
Regarding scriptural references, the quran clearly prohibits compulsion in deen (the modern english use of the word religion, is wholly inadequate as a translation) as well as aggression in general. All other social injunctions should be viewed in that light. The verse on "mutual consultation" (42:38) is sometimes used to promote democracy, there are two major problems with this, however. First, this isn't even democracy! Democracy is literally majority rule, a worse form of government could not be conceived. In fact, the virtues that people ascribe to democracy, such as rights and freedoms, are themselves not even democratic! They are established rules of law, not subject to the current whims of any majority. Deriving "democracy" from mutual consulation is not only a non sequitur, but also hugely anachronistic. The other verse that is used to promote statism in general is 4:59, "obey those with authority"; again similar problems as before, since when is authority synonymous with the state? But even if it somehow were, our Lord tells us that the final authority will be Him and His messenger/message. I think the only explicit example of the state that the quran gives is Pharoah. Taken as a whole, scripture consistently rejects those ideas which underlie the state.
An excellent example is 1 Samuel chapter 8, where Isreal is asking for a King so that they can be just like the other nations. here's what our Lord says: "But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king
. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do." Before this Israel was ruled by Judges, essentially a system of common law and private courts. Our Lord goes on to explain what it means to have a king:
"This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."