Muslims might be shell-shocked if they be told that there is no notion of an Islamic state in traditional sources. I don't think I am due for rehabilitation for entertaining this opinion.

This view has nothing to do with being a believer or not, whatever that may mean to a host of Muslims here. The pillars of the faith, which among others, extol the belief in the one God and the prophets, do not include the belief in the establishment of a specific Islamic state.

The temasha (fiasco) of the political parties on the issue of the Islamic state is therefore curious in that the discussion appears so definitive of the notion of the 'Islamic state'.

The rest of us seem to be taking cues from political parties and even taking positions from these assertions.

Muslims believe that Islam is the final message. That is not the same thing as thinking we have all the answers. If we have all the answers, then Muslims would not strive at all.

The Quran in its infinite wisdom constantly enjoins Muslims to read, think and reflect. Muslims are not a 'God-chosen' community. We must strive to become the excellent community.

Any of us, walking among the believers, could pick up a reasonably good book on Islamic political theory and discover that there is nothing definitive in the text of the faith on the Islamic state.

A reasonably good book will inform the reader of the principles of governance such as trust ( amanah ), justice ( adl ), consultation ( shura ), agreement ( sulh ) and the commanding of good over evil ( amr bil maruf wa nahy an al-munkar ).

The political order is the authority of the caliph ( khalifa of the Sunnis) or the authority of the clergy ( imam of the Shiahs). There is nothing in the text of the faith to suggest that these two kinds of political orders become the Muslim standard of political organisation. A political order is not to be confused with the idea of 'state'.

Careless terminology

Sometimes we are careless with terminology. We assume that 'state' is a modern term for political order.

Sometimes it is assumed that Islamic state refers to countries where Muslims constitute a clear majority of the population. Then again references of the Islamic state are made to a majority-Muslim country which has Islamic law as the law of the land or where Islamic law is part of the law of the land.

The city of Medina at the time of Prophet Muhammad (622 AD) and the four 'Rightly-Guided' Caliphs (four decades later) is often cited as an example of the Islamic 'state'.

The political order of the city of Medina was created by alliances with Jews, Christians (through treaties) and the oath of allegiance ( by'a ) of Muslims. The Charter of Medina is sometimes referred to as the first Islamic 'constitution'.

The Prophet Muhammad and his succeeding companions (caliph-rulers), are the religious and political leaders. These leaders exercise all executive, judicial and legislative functions. Their actions are limited by their conscience and piety and not by formal constitutional safeguards (checks and balances, separation of powers and human rights) as we know them today.

The Medina 'state' is a 7th century model and the mention of the 20th century phenomenon of constitutionalism is illustrative of the need to have an understanding of history. The American Revolution is a thousand years away and Europe had not seen its Enlightenment.

The Prophet's companions as caliph-rulers and their provincial governors applied independent reasoning ( ijtihad ) in exercising their legislative function. Islamic law as we know it today (the opinions of the various schools and the Sunni and Shiah views) is only developed in the100 years after the assassination of the last 'Rightly-Guided' Caliph Ali.

Historians and constitutional writers noted that the period of the Umayyad (established 661 AD) and the Abbasid (established 750 AD until the middle of the 13th century) is significant in the development of philosophy and the formulation of law. Historians refer to this period as the golden age of Islam.

Classic treatises

This period for example, saw classic treatises on government like Ibn Hazm's Treatise on Ethics and Conduct ( Kitab al-Akhlaq wa al-Siyar ) , al-Mawardi's Treatises on the Principles of Government ( Kitab al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya ) and Rules for the Vizirate and the Conduct of Authority ( Qawanin al-Wazara wa Siyasat al-Mulk ).

The treatises were offered as counsel. Yet autobiographies of Muslim philosophers and jurists of this golden age also indicated a time of growing decadence and political disintegration.

The intellectual tradition of jurist-philosophers is predominantly inspired by the religious and moral values of Islam and its harmony with the Qur'an and Sunnah (the normative practices of the Prophet Muhammad).

This allowed for a certain scholarship, unfazed by changes in political struggles, but it also means that the intellectual tradition remained detached from issues of politics and government.

Commentators note that scholarly treatises were idealistic in nature and did not develop institutional mechanisms where the leaders oppress and exploit. These opinions did not develop actual political or legal mechanisms for curbing abuses of power.

Social reformer Ibn Khaldun (died 1408 AD) who challenged the self-interest of those in power and denounced bribery and corruption was dismissed from high office (which he held in separate courts of various caliphs in several parts of the disintegrating Muslim empire) four times. Others do not fare as well. Counsel, not to mention conscience and piety, failed.

We are privileged in this global day and age to be better informed of systems and institutional frameworks which might better guide us in governance. The issue in governance is not confined to our commitment to the fundamentals of Islam; the issue is how to implement that commitment in concrete policy and legal terms that would bring about a just order.

Theoretical metamorphosis

The European colonisation of the Muslim empire spanning Andalusia (Spain), Northern Africa to Central Asia also replaces the political order of the Muslim world. Titular heads remain, but the political-legal system changed to protect trade and investment of the colonising powers (pretty much like an IMF-WB-WTO deal post our Asian economic crisis).

The indigenous system left alone, is mostly confined to the personal status (culture, religious beliefs and rituals, family law). Anything else that affects the interests of the colonisers such as commerce and property (land) are changed and varied to suit the imperialist agenda.

Europe in the 20th century has experienced German Nazism, Russian Stalinism, Iberian Fascism and variants of these are very much part of the European system. The legitimacy of law under Nazi Germany was once rigorously defended in European history.

The point to be made is democracy, human rights and pluralism are works in progress in any political-legal system. These imperatives challenge both European and Muslim political thought, culture and institutions. Our system, wherever they originate, must face up to these challenges.

The hijra may not be over for Muslims as the 7th century Muslim political order cannot be merely transferred to the next millennium without some kind of theoretical metamorphosis.