Islamic state. It has been rightly said that the government cannot force the individual to perform Haj, Umra. In the article mixing of the government and the state has created in some minds a “confusion worst confounded” on subtle issues of Islamic matters and their nuanced connotation of Western orientation.
Modesty of women is one thing that has been sacrificed by the writer at the alter of unbridled liberalism. It is Taqwa that preserves the modesty of women and that is conspicuously missing in the said treatise. Taqwa has been the foundational stone of the caliphate. But denial of the very concept of Khilafat is a rendering of specific Islamic vision tempered with western glamour and is in conflict with Sura Al-Noor directly supportive of the Quranic authority on Khilafat. How can concept of Khilafat been denied. The Al-Noor section 55 is detailed below- “Allah has promised, to those among you who believe and work righteous deeds, that He will of a surety give them in the land, inheritance (of power) as He granted it to those before them..”. Then the role models of Khilafat namely Hazrat Abu Bakr, Hazrat Usman, Omar bin Khittab, Hazrat Ali and Omar bin Abdul Aziz are the perpetual glittering Islamic light to guide the Ummah till eternity. Then man has been the vicegerent of God. The denial of our esteemed scholar the very concept of Khalifat reminds of the Pervazi school of thought who interpreted the word prayer in the light of doctrine of literalness. It must be realized that intellectual logicality extended beyond a certain limit acquires devilish tentacles and hence be discarded. No one should be swept by the liberal culture of the West and no one should see Islam through the spectacles of western society where Prophets are ridiculed and religiosity is desecrated in the manner of Chenghiz Khan and the like. The vision of the Khilafat needs to be corrected. The two things are distinctly missing from the article. One is piety and another is the foundational concept of Khilfat.
The concept of Islamic welfare state has not been touched in terms of political power orientation of the state. The sheer intellectual extension of the Islamic paraphernalia in a time-warp of logical rigmarole can serve Samuel Huntington inimical concept of ‘Civilizational Clash’ but would hardly serve the ends of ‘Islamic Polity’ in strategic political terms, so passionately needed in the tumultuous politics of the day. There are the crucial points the counter-narrative should have dealt at length. But it has not.