I must say I rather enjoyed Salbiah Ahmad's piece entitled "What Islamic State" (Aug 9 and 10). However, I would say that I have to disagree with some of the writer's assertion that there is no such thing as an Islamic state.

For one, there is no such thing as a 'state' in Islam, in the way we know a 'state' today. So how can there be an Islamic state? One the other hand, some may say that we are merely playing with words.

Early Islamic scholars have used the term Darul-Islam, which would mean 'the land or realm of submission'. Perhaps this, in extension refers to, the Islamic state, per se.

Darul Islam is a realm where the laws of Allah reign supreme and all human endeavors in the land are inherently amalgamated with the divine nature of God.

The divine nature of God being that He is One. Since God is one, fundamentally, it follows that there is a oneness in purpose in all of creation including that of human endeavors. Thus, traditional Islamic societies have always developed this sense of oneness in all their activities and following on from that, maintained a vital link between man and God. The earth is viewed as means to reach God because to Him is the final return.

Thus, a land that does not have such a relationship with it's creator is called Darul-Harb, or 'the land of insecurity', because it would have divorced itself from the divine nature of which it was created.

The name Darul-Harb is given because the rules of this land puts humanity at the center of legitimacy, and thus follow no fixed laws, which are inherently unstable, as humans are vulnerable to change. Having human as the center of all legislative authority has in recent years caused many problems such as environmental degradation and extinction of other species off the face of the planet, "ethnic cleansing", etc. This is because in a land such as this, everything has to be justified in terms of human benefit alone.

So what then, is an Islamic state? If by it, we mean that it's a geographical boundary in which, God, the Almighty and His laws, are at it score of foundation and legitimacy, then an Islamic state has been established the minute man walked on this earth, i.e. in the time of Adam, peace be upon him. This would also apply to the kingdom of Saul (and later King David and Solomon) of the Jews.

In an Islamic state, all other laws and other matters such as human rights, the economic system etc. would be derived from their creator. Legitimacy of all sorts, from that of the ruler to those of the ruled is obtained from these divine sources.

Therefore, in Darul Islam, the rights of the divine are carefully safeguarded. To deride the divine message would be to deride the whole of existence and by extension is an act of treason.

For an example, if a person were to curse Jesus in the West, most people would not care or even take notice, but if one were to curse another citizen, then he/she would be slapped with a million dollar defamation suit. This emphasis on the individual in Darul Harb is central, where the right of the individual is jealously safeguarded because it is from the individual, all legitimacy for the state is derived. This would be a strictly individualistic society.

However, Darul Islam or the Islamic state, whatever you want to call it, has been a subject of debate among Muslim scholars for many centuries now, including in recent times.

As the writer points out there is also another term used in traditional Islamic political theory for the 'state' which is the 'Khilafa'. This view of the Islamic state is similar in all aspects to Darul Islam, but puts an emphasis on the Caliph, who holds the authority of the state, hence the term 'Khilafa'.

However, the Caliph is seen to be the enforcer of the laws; and not the legislator in the 'state' which is left to the scholars. This is where there is a check and balance of power, a separation of powers, if you want to call it.

The writers assertions that the caliph-rulers are religious and political leaders who exercise all executive, judicial and legislative functions are simply not true. This can most clearly be seen during the time of the second Caliph Umar's reign, when the judiciary was independent, as it was in the form of Ali who exercised the powers of the judiciary independently.

Human rights were also present in that period and could not be abused by the khalifa as the writer may seem to suggest. References can be looked up in Shibli Numani's Life of Umar and Maududi's Human Rights in Islam .

Also the Qadi (judges) did speak out against the khalifa in many instances in Islamic history, for example that of Qadi Abu Yusuf against Harun al Rashid and the ulama (religious scholars) in the Ottoman state whom spoke out against the khalifa when he wanted to enforce Islamic laws on non-Muslim subjects.

However, this is interesting that the term 'khilafah' also draws legitimacy in the Quranic injunction that all of mankind are 'khalifah', or vice-regents on Earth, and thus are responsible for it. It follows on that we are all responsible for our own flock, the father for his family, the mother for her children, and so on.

Thus, in the past, the scholars and the citizens form what is known as the Shura council, which is the advisory body, advising the Caliph in matters of enforcement of the law and the day to day running of the state.

But if we look carefully, there are two components to any system of law, the constant (which may be the constitution) and the variable, which are the routine issues of legislation and of running and implementation.

There are also these two components in Islamic law, the invariable, which is the Quran and the Sunnah, and the variables, which are a matter of 'ishtihad', or interpretation, of these unchanged sources. According to the Prophetic saying "The (sincere) scholars are the 'prophets' of my nation", which infers that these sources are to be interpreted by men and women of knowledge according to the their understanding, which may change in time and space/location.

Thus, there are no one absolute model of an Islamic state or on what constitutes an Islamic state, rather a plurality of the ideas for the"Islamic State" or Darul Islam. These we can see in history when the Ottoman and the Mughal Empires co-existed in mutual harmony, both were Darul Islam, but vastly different in their outlook and appearance, yet both were based on the same main sources, the Quran and Sunnah.

And the notion of the codification of particular interpretations which may deny rights and freedom to others Muslim is another ambiguity. This is because Islamic law was never codified until the early 20th century when the scholars of the Ottoman empire produced the 'Magella' document, in response to the modernist movement sweeping the Turkish empire at the time.

Finally, many of the ideas of consultation, justice, pluralism, respect for the environment, Human rights and rights of the underprivileged etc. are actually present during the era of the Islamic Empires. We need to be able to recognise these ideas which were not spelled out in today's language, but just implemented as part of the natural Muslim way.

However we can and should learn from modern states, to discard them totally would not be beneficial. On the other hand, in today's world, all these ideas of democracy is mere 'lip service', ask any student of law or international relations.

The issue of the Islamic state as to be seen in Malaysia should be an internal debate within Muslims and an issue of dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims. It is unfortunate that this is not the case in the current discussions. It is not an easy issue to discuss, but one has to start somewhere.

And God knows best.