There have been lots of arguments regarding the formation of "secular" democratic & an "Islamic" democratic state. The truth is that if both parties aren't aware of the reasons behind the Islamic stance against secularism, all discussions regarding this topic will enter an infinite loop. So I think I should shed some light upon how things work in an Islamic & secular state.
I brought up the term "sovereignty" before, it basically refers to the supreme authority an individual or government may have over a geographical area. Thus, from the Islamic perspective; "sovereignty" belongs to God. The reason being that the entire universe functions with will & scientific designs of God, & since He is the creator, He alone has supreme authority over His creation. According to the Quran; God created Adam so that Adam may worship Him & consequently be tested as His vicegerent or representative on Earth. After Adam's demise, this authority was transferred to his descendants, & they were instructed to implement God's law over their respective nations. The message being given to us here is that revoking God's authority in a Muslim majority state is equivalent to the violation of His sovereignty. Fast forward to the era of the final Prophet. Muhammad (may peace be upon him) received revelations in the first Arab Islamic state of Madinah, some of these revelations consisted of punishments & rulings pertaining to a variety of situations ranging from inheritance to the punishment of murder. The Prophet was the teacher, the judge, the lawgiver, the commander, & the king simultaneously. Keep in mind that the Prophet also asked & held discussions with his companions over administrative & other
worldly issues. Religious rulings however were always instructed by him based upon the commandments of God.
After the Prophet's demise, the borders of the Caliphate began to expand beyond Arabia. It's clear that new laws were required to rule over the vast territories of the empire. For example; previously the state of Madinah did not have a paid organized army, instead it relied upon volunteers to defend the land. Now however, the Muslims needed a paid & organized army to defend the caliphate's territory & the technique adopted to keep a record of the soldiers & their payments originated from the Byzantine empire. Furthermore all matters & laws relating to worldly affairs were decided upon by consultation using the Quran & sunnah as basis to avoid deviation from religion. Do you realize what this means? This means that in an Islamic democracy Muslims lack the authority to modify certain divine rulings. For example, the punishment for an adulterer is stoning to death, & this punishment may not be modified just because the Islamic society no longer agrees with this punishment, but as always there are exceptions. The laws pertaining to polygamy, the age restrictions of marriage, or even chopping the hand of a thief may be modified according to the needs of the society. For instance a needy & starving individual's hand may not be chopped off, whereas an individual making a legal living would get his or her hand chopped if he or she were to steal for greater illegal gains.
Let me provide you with an example of how new laws may possibly be derived from the sharia. Slander is a crime in which an individual makes malicious or defamatory remarks against the victim for the purpose of tarnishing the individual's good name. In modern times the crime of defamation can be committed through a variety of tools such as the Internet. Thus, the Islamic state can punish a person for the crime of defamation based upon on lets say a comment on a social network. In this scenario however, the state must take in to consideration the possibility of identity theft & legislate laws & procedures to prove that the slanderer is identified with the appropriate online identity. Another interesting contention is that the Islamic law is only applicable upon those that claim to be Muslims & upon those who accept to have their cases judged on the basis of sharia. Under certain circumstances punishments ascribed in the sharia may be applicable upon non-Muslims too. The proof of this comes from the various courts within the caliphate itself. Jews, Christians, & Zoroastrians had their own courts & judges to deal with all religious matters pertaining to them. Sometimes, acts forbidden for Muslims were legalized for minorities. For example; some Zoroastrians had incestuous marriages within the family, & while that is haram according to the sharia law, it was legal under the caliphate for Zoroastrians. This is proof that the Islamic state
theoretically guarantees the protection of the rights of the minorities. This also implies that a modern Islamic state has the authority to allow the sale & production alcohol for non-Muslims provided that it is non-Muslims that produce & sell it.
Besides all this, an Islamic state is supposed to guarantee the freedom of religion & the protection of the holy sites of non-Muslims. An Islamic state must guarantee & protect the freedom of speech, thought, & expression at all costs for both Muslims & non-Muslims. Why then are people against the formation of an Islamic state? The reason is that the theoretical Islamic state isn't always pragmatic. The modern Islamic states closely resemble Medieval Europe & they symbolize oppression, suppression of intellectual activities, corruption, & decadence. Minorities are oppressed, their sacred sites aren't protected. The freedom of speech, expression, & thought is restricted via un-Islamic laws such as the blasphemy law, & progression is discouraged under the guise of preserving Islamic traditions. Civil liberties are limited in practice. If these issues were to be resolved, I am certain that more people would be willing to live in an Islamic state.
I am a bit tired of typing a response to this topic at the moment, & I will discuss some aspects of a secular state later in part 2 of my post. I hope you enjoyed reading my post & opinions, thanks.
