democracy: best system ever or an utter failure?

[ذو الفقار]

I oppose it. The fundamental principle of Islam is sovereignty rests with God, including legislative sovereignty. I've never cast a ballot in my life and never will

Now I would like to return to my original point against democracy. The OP dismissed it as being a purely religious argument, but since Religion informs my view on everything, I feel it is my ultimate stance.

The question of ultimate sovereignty is central to the Islamic conception of government. I believe that democracy in principle is Shirk. Yet this idea may sound bizarre to an ordinary Muslim who is brought up to think that Shirk is only in the domain of worship, i.e., worshiping someone or something other than God. However, you should know that Shirk is not only restricted to worship, but can also be expressed in believing there is another Lord besides God (Shirk in Rubbubiya, or Shirk Fil Dhaat) and can also be expressed in giving the unique attributes and prerogatives of God to someone or something other than God (Shirk Fil Siffaat).

In democracy, the ultimate sovereign are the people themselves, based on the Greek etymology. Demos “people” Kratia “rule”, as opposed to Theocracy “God-rule”.

Islamic theology is that God is the ultimate Sovereign or Lord, having created the world and have control over it. Nothing can occur without His willing it. But there is also the belief that God is the ultimate Hakam or Ruler, and everyone must be subject to His authority, under His obedience. To place someone or something else in a position of bearing greater authority than God Himself is nothing short of idolatry or polytheism.

In Islamic terminology it is called Shirk. The English words idolatry and polytheism do not do justice, rather reflect the narrow understanding of what we call Shirk within Christendom.

The authority to legislate rests solely with God. To hold that there is someone or something else which possess a greater authority to legislate than God is nothing but Shirk.

In Islamic terminology, a person who deifies himself or otherwise elevates himself to a position of being the supreme legislative authority and sovereign not subject to God’s authority is referred to as “Taghout”. Historic examples include Pharaoh of Egypt, Nimrod, Nebuchadnezzar, Antiochus and many others. But democracy is different in that, theoretically, ultimate sovereignty is transferred to the people collectively. If the people acknowledge that sovereignty of theirs and exercise it, they are indirectly behaving as an individual Taghout would. This is why I placed critical emphasis on not participating in democracy and not voting in order to be safe from this type of Shirk. Likewise, it has to be admitted that democracy as a system is a Taghout system that has to be rejected unequivocally by the world of Islam.

[ذو الفقار]

This idea of Hakamiya (ultimate sovereignty) I have described in the previous entry was once zealously elucidated by Abul Alaa Mawdudi, founder of the Jama’at-e-Islami. However, there were some crucial areas in which he deviated from the orthodox conception, but I won’t go into them here. Suffice to say, Mawdudi ended up downplaying the significance of ritual worship in order to zealously propagate his idea of worship being nothing more than obedience, thus robbing worship of its function of bringing man nearer to God spiritually, and as creating an intimate relationship between the worshiper and the Worshiped.

Yet, despite Mawdudi’s apparent zeal for Hakamiyya in his writings, he ended up betraying that idea when he oversaw the participation of his Jama’at-e-Islami in Pakistan’s elections and the democratic process. He even endorsed the candidacy of Fatima Jinnah, an unveiled female, for head of state. Mawdudi started the precedent for a supposedly Islamic group committed to Hakamiyya in participating in the manmade system of democracy, albeit with the intention of transforming the system from within. But this realpolitik ended up reducing the dynamism of his Jama’at and the appeal of its radical, revolutionary call. Today the Jama’at is absolutely irrelevant and has lost all of its steam, a lesson for those who think that engaging in the contemporary political systems including democracy is a necessary step toward creating the ideal Islamic state and society.

[ذو الفقار]

@maneatinglizard earlier made the point that “some of the richest nations in history of the world were non-democratic, Muslim nations that ruled by Sharia.” If he is referring to the great Muslim dynasties of the past like the Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, Seljuqs, Mughals and Ottomans, then I take exception with his description of them as being “ruled by Sharia”. They may have formally been ruled by Shari’a (which is debatable), but they were not revolutionary Islamic states that could truly be described as “Islamic”. In fact they were corrupt and in many ways the antithesis of the Islamic ideal of government. The present Saudi state can be added to this list of Muslim dynastic states which formally rule by Shari’a but lack the substance or spirit of Islamic governance. I believe that except for some possible but rare exceptions, we have never had a pure, revolutionary Islamic government since the end of Khilaafat al-Raashida in the 7th century CE. There were certainly abortive and failed attempts to have revolutionary Islamic government, such as the armed uprising of Imam Zayd b. Ali in 740 CE against the Umayyads, and likewise the armed uprising of Imam Nafs-al-Zakiya in 762 CE against the Abbasids.

I believe that the coming Mahdist government will be a true and perfect return to the ideal Islamic state exemplified by the Prophetic state in Medina and the subsequent Khilaafat al-Raashida. It will be a State that is definitely not democratic or socialist.

[ذو الفقار]

In the latter-days, Islamic teachings reveal that the people become corrupt and those who are faithful are in the minority. The principle of democracy is therefore fundamentally incompatible with Islam’s attitude toward the general public. The people are simply too stupid, too unfaithful, and too corrupt to be trusted with possessing political power collectively.

As someone who subscribes to the Panjpiri / “Mamati” maslak that zealously preaches Tawhid, I know for a fact that the vast majority of Muslims in virtually every society or country would be a massive obstacle to implementing the ideals of Islam in an Islamic state. One of our objectives is to bulldoze and obliterate the mausoleums “Mazaaraat”, shrines dedicated to the dead. These structures are idols from our point of view and it is impossible that they remain standing in an Islamic state. In a democracy, the ignorant, corrupt public would never allow what needs to be done vis-à-vis demolishing the “Mazaars”.

Our political theory therefore looks down upon and is distrustful of the masses, therefore we reject democracy out of hand.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Scandinavia is a dystopia from our Islamic perspective. Even Christians know that Jesus said „man shall not live by bread alone“. Besides, the standard of living in Scandinavia is judged as being good by a Eurocentric standard. The disposition or temperament (“Mezaaj”) of the European, especially the Scandinavian, is very different from ours. They seem to live perfectly happy and content lives without an iota of Religion or spirituality (at least judging by the apparent). But we in Asia have a spiritual flavor to us. I think it might have something to do with climate. Those people who live out there in the freezing cold, it seems the cold has frozen their hearts too.

Me personally, I’d rather live in a society where there is social conflict. Makes life more exciting. You must also know that in a lot of Europe people are depressed because of a lack of spiritual communion and even just socialization. They are aged people, often living alone in isolation. Why do you think they are so fond of keeping pet dogs? They could not find meaningful human companionship so they had to resort to animals. Just because they have access to health care and education you think we should emulate them?

They have focused entirely on the material needs when supposedly improving their society while forgetting other essential parts of humanity like psychology, sociology, and spirituality.




You are speaking as someone who recognizes Religion only for its utility but does not genuinely subscribe to the theology. Spiritual benefit is not simply about emotional well being. I talk about the welfare of the soul. That means the soul being saved from burning in Hell. In our theology, there is a world hidden behind the apparent world. This life is about saving the soul first and foremost, fulfilling the human’s material needs is secondary.

I do not deny the importance of social justice and the role of the State in working to improve the material condition of the society, especially if that society is wallowing in poverty. Poverty often leads to despair and distraction from one’s religious duties and nurturing of spirituality, though as you pointed out, that is not always the case. But I say the foremost objective of the Islamic state is to facilitate the salvation of the soul.



You have not understood Religion, particularly Islam. You have to immerse yourself in it to understand its true significance and power.

But we were discussing economics and human needs, Not moral culture. So just because they're a dystopia from the spiritual sense, doesn't mean that they are not key examples of people who understand that the basic most fundamental needs must be a major priority before any other notion of virtues can be implemented. And honestly we know this is the way Islam thinks as well since Khalifa Umar(ra) suspended many Islamic Hudud during famines, which means Islamic Principles (as opposed to Islamic Jurisprudence) supports the idea that a fundamental priority is to support human welfare. I don't deny that Islam at its core is a spiritual movement, but no spiritual movement can prosper on Earth until its adherents recognize that the universe is a manifestation of Spiritual hierarchy (Tanazullah wa Ta'arafah/Qabh wa Bast) and that we can only channel the spiritual through our experience. Even the Mashaikh does murqabah through his body, which houses his mind.

This is why your model Islamic Government doesn't work, it's to rigid, it doesn't know how to address dynamics of human experience. It's run by ideologues and because of that, those who run it don't think logically, they filter out facts and reality itself based on the ideology. It's mainly an emotional movement rather than a practical or reasonable one. It's almost entirely rooted in confirmation bias. This is a very dysfunctional approach to governing society.

[ذو الفقار]

But we were discussing economics and human needs, Not moral culture. So just because they're a dystopia from the spiritual sense, doesn't mean that they are not key examples of people who understand that the basic most fundamental needs must be a major priority before any other notion of virtues can be implemented. And honestly we know this is the way Islam thinks as well since Khalifa Umar(ra) suspended many Islamic Hudud during famines, which means Islamic Principles (as opposed to Islamic Jurisprudence) supports the idea that a fundamental priority is to support human welfare. I don't deny that Islam at its core is a spiritual movement, but no spiritual movement can prosper on Earth until its adherents recognize that the universe is a manifestation of Spiritual hierarchy (Tanazullah wa Ta'arafah/Qabh wa Bast) and that we can only channel the spiritual through our experience. Even the Mashaikh does murqabah through his body, which houses his mind.

This is why your model Islamic Government doesn't work, it's to rigid, it doesn't know how to address dynamics of human experience. It's run by ideologues and because of that, those who run it don't think logically, they filter out facts and reality itself based on the ideology. It's mainly an emotional movement rather than a practical or reasonable one. It's almost entirely rooted in confirmation bias. This is a very dysfunctional approach to governing society.

I disagree with the premise that “basic needs“ have to be prioritized before any notion of virtue can be implemented. The most important need is the salvation of the soul. What use is a full stomach if the soul burns in Hell? Is it not better the stomach is empty but the soul is saved?
Let me be quite honest with you, if you deny this principle you have nothing to do with Islam. Then you have become “Iblis” in reality. Salvation of the soul always takes precedence over any worldly or material need.

You gave the example of sayyidina Umar (R.A) but was his Khilafa a secular democracy like the Scandinavian social welfare state you are promoting?

It’s quite disingenuous to cite examples of an Islamic state suspending some aspects of Islamic law given the external circumstances as justification for supporting a form of government that is fundamentally, in its very foundations, secular and non-religious.

You say my model of Islamic government doesn’t work because it is “ideological”. Is it because in my model of Islamic government certain recreational activities will be banned? Islamic law and jurisprudence is extremely flexible and pragmatic. The institution of Ijtehad, and principles like MaslaHa (public benefit), are part and parcel of Islamic law. Islamic law is very sophisticated and scientific. One only need study the intricacies of Islamic jurisprudence to realize how vast and rich it is and understand that is a very viable alternative to the modern states. I say there is more potential for addressing modern day problems with Islamic jurisprudence than with English Common Law.

But the statutory laws of Islam can never be overlooked. What is clearly Halal and what is clearly Haram are immutable.

I recommend you come out and clearly say that you simply do not subscribe to the theology and fundamental principles of Islam, otherwise it would be futile for me to assume you are a Muslim then cite fundamental principles of Islam which you end up dismissing arbitrarily.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

As long as it isn’t hurting our families and societal structure; let it continue to disintegrate the families and societal structures of our adversaries. I figure the main reason people convert to Islam is because they are totally disillusioned by the breakdown in morality of their own people and the failure of their religious institutions to even have the courage to counter that.
This ‘SJW’ business has captivated the millenials. I simply find it amusing how screwed up and lost they are. Trust me, this will end up working to our advantage. We simply have to be consistent in our own values and practice of Islam. A lot of their enmity to us is rooted in envy, because the religious Muslim has an unbreakable sense of purpose and that gives us serenity and makes us sure of ourselves. For this reason, there is something very compelling about us to them.

We are not the ones validating LGBT. We have to continue to be the most loud voice against their lifestyle, but I must emphasize, never in the political sphere. In the political sphere we absolutely do not oppose the social left/SJW. Politically they can even be our allies. Our opposition to them is from the pulpit of the mosque, largely to keep our own impressionable youth away from that. But in the political stage, we have to operate like a single-issue movement, and our single issue is protecting our religious and communal interests nothing more. We do not engage in the broader national issues. This is how we maintain our political integrity and evolve into a force to be reckoned with. We should not sabotage this goal of ours by being distracted with such issues.

Our adversaries? No human are our adversaries. Our only adversaries are people's attitudes ideas and patterns of behavior. The desire to cause harm to others is not a Spiritual value. Yeah sure, I come here and I post a lot of inflammatory nonsense, but that barely has any actual manifest impact. We shouldn't want to "destroy" them to bring ourselves up.

As for disassociating with their paradigm and advising the youth away from it. That's a sensible goal, but you need to be judicious about how you implement this. We need to emphasize the rational foundations than simply exhort based on our emotional attachment of Islamic identity, those are presently out-moded appeals, not suitable for an age where evidence and sound foundation in the real world have precedence. Abstraction will only hold sway in so much as you can bridge the the relationship between the tangible and the intangible.

I think you missed the point I was making about Gay rights/LGBT and such, I'm emphasizing that democracy is simply a method a tool, not an ideology, we can use this tool among ourselves without abiding by the trappings of the liberalist paradigm.

[Firdousi]

As long as it isn’t hurting our families and societal structure; let it continue to disintegrate the families and societal structures of our adversaries. I figure the main reason people convert to Islam is because they are totally disillusioned by the breakdown in morality of their own people and the failure of their religious institutions to even have the courage to counter that.
This ‘SJW’ business has captivated the millenials. I simply find it amusing how screwed up and lost they are. Trust me, this will end up working to our advantage. We simply have to be consistent in our own values and practice of Islam. A lot of their enmity to us is rooted in envy, because the religious Muslim has an unbreakable sense of purpose and that gives us serenity and makes us sure of ourselves. For this reason, there is something very compelling about us to them.

We are not the ones validating LGBT. We have to continue to be the most loud voice against their lifestyle, but I must emphasize, never in the political sphere. In the political sphere we absolutely do not oppose the social left/SJW. Politically they can even be our allies. Our opposition to them is from the pulpit of the mosque, largely to keep our own impressionable youth away from that. But in the political stage, we have to operate like a single-issue movement, and our single issue is protecting our religious and communal interests nothing more. We do not engage in the broader national issues. This is how we maintain our political integrity and evolve into a force to be reckoned with. We should not sabotage this goal of ours by being distracted with such issues.

The thing is that Western liberalism IS HURTING OUR FAMILIES AND VALUES. We live in a globalized and interconnected world, where West is imposing his rules, values and interests on the rest of us. So all this social and moral degeneracy will eventually affect us, whether we like it or not.

Regarding SJW I don't take them seriously at all. I mean, I don't take seriously Westerners. They are confused, weak and naive. I find their self-loathing, arrogant and childish behavior annoying. In general I feel sad for the West. Not long time ago they were the greatest civilization in human history. Now they have gone 100% self-destructive mode. Its depressing watching such a great civilization fall due to his own stupidity but I guess s hit happens.

[Firdousi]

Our adversaries? No human are our adversaries. Our only adversaries are people's attitudes ideas and patterns of behavior. The desire to cause harm to others is not a Spiritual value. Yeah sure, I come here and I post a lot of inflammatory nonsense, but that barely has any actual manifest impact. We shouldn't want to "destroy" them to bring ourselves up.

As for disassociating with their paradigm and advising the youth away from it. That's a sensible goal, but you need to be judicious about how you implement this. We need to emphasize the rational foundations than simply exhort based on our emotional attachment of Islamic identity, those are presently out-moded appeals, not suitable for an age where evidence and sound foundation in the real world have precedence. Abstraction will only hold sway in so much as you can bridge the the relationship between the tangible and the intangible.

I think you missed the point I was making about Gay rights/LGBT and such, I'm emphasizing that democracy is simply a method a tool, not an ideology, we can use this tool among ourselves without abiding by the trappings of the liberalist paradigm.

Well said, but thats not true. From an idealist point all human beings should get along. But from a biological perspective, you know that human beings are competitive by nature. We compete with other human beings all the time and I believe it was the desire to excel and succeed that has brought mankind to our modern world. War and violence are just the continuation of politics by other means.

There will always be a clash in a multicultural world. Yeah its dangerous but you know hatred, war and competition make the world more dynamic.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

I don't want "justice" from my non-Muslim host society, I only want the protection of my interests, particularly of being free to practice my Religion independent of State interference. My idea of justice is quite different from theirs. If you call this hypocrisy, so be it. The truth is it isn't hypocrisy but being strategic. I subscribe to conflict theory. But unlike Marx's conflict theory, this conflict is not necessarily about competition for resources but competition for acquiring souls and competition for domination of your religion. That is the single objective, but the strategy for that objective is different for us as a minority in a predominantly non-Muslim society.

In fact our religious interest takes precedent over our communal interest. In India, for example, our religious interest is to maintain our network Madaris and expand them, while our communal interest is increasing girl's education and therefore economic productivity, therefore demanding more scholarships for Muslim girls. But I always give precedence to the religious interest over the communal interest. If we are being discriminated or neglected in a communal interest but the side effect of that is benefiting our religious interest than I am all for maintaining that status quo and doing nothing about it.

The Europeans might have left behind clericalism, but a lot of orthodox Jews and Christians secretly want a return to that medieval period where their religious institutions were much more powerful. The most ultra orthodox Jews are actively anti-Zionist because they feel that Zionism and the resultant secular state has taken away from the influence of the rabbi over Jewish society. Likewise many Christians see the reduction in the influence of the Catholic Church over society because of secularism and the modern nation state.

Such people may find it interesting that a return to their pre-modern pre-secular domination by their churches and clerics is only possible under an Islamic state.

That is quite ironic since in Islam we ourselves don't have an official clergy or church.

yeah see, this is problem with ideologues, they're lost in nebulous realm of ideology first. And this means you have no solutions for actual problems. The movement you endorse is incompetent and thus irrelevant and do not have anything that would offer leadership.

God doesn't need us, Islam doesn't need us, Islam in this context is a means for humans. Islam is a tool, a methodology of how people should manage themselves and connect to the transcendental, It's not a sacred relic that exists for its own sake. There are of course levels of Islam, the Islam of the cosmic order is something that governs the very fiber of existence, and exists independent of humans, but that's the foundation for the Islam that we implement.

The reason the ultra Orthodox was pushed to the margins among Christians and Jews is precisely because they live in a world detached from reality. We should see that as a sign. If you can't address real world problems, we don't need you ruling us.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Well said, but thats not true. From an idealist point all human beings should get along. But from a biological perspective, you know that human beings are competitive by nature. We compete with other human beings all the time and I believe it was the desire to excel and succeed that has brought mankind to our modern world. War and violence are just the continuation of politics by other means.

There will always be a clash in a multicultural world. Yeah its dangerous but you know hatred, war and competition make the world more dynamic.

That's not what I mean though, it's not the humans we're up against, our goal isn't to destroy humans, but suspend the harmful impact of other humans and their misguided views. I realize humans are competitive by nature ....but we're also evolving, our aim is to ultimately transcend all this. It's possible to reach dynamo without having ruin other people. We should be better than this and even if we're not we should aspire to be, otherwise we're trapped in a vicious cycle.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

It had nothing to do with serving the oppressor. Our oppressor became the pan-African nationalist that stripped us of our citizenship and seized our property and businesses. How were we oppressing them? Those Africans decimated their own economies by going down the route of nationalization and socialism. Look what Idi Amin did and don’t forget Robert Mugabe. South Africa is still afloat because of the tact of the ANC in understanding that if they force Whites and Indians to flee the country they collapse their own economy.

Because minorities are usually immigrants, it means by nature enterprising. You have to have some spirit of adventure and enterprise to leave your home for an alien land where you start up your own business despite the incredible challenges and end up thriving. No enterprising or business-minded community likes socialism.

You say that, but you should do more analysis. Indians played a class role at the whim of the European colonials. They became a proxy class to administer over the locals as well as gain preference by the Imperial regimes. Don't you find that strange, that Muslims were propped up in such a way in Africa but were deprived in India? That's divide and rule strategy. Indian Muslims should have knowm better instead of jumping after a pat on the back from the Europeans. I blame Indians for what happened in Africa.

[ذو الفقار]

The thing is that Western liberalism IS HURTING OUR FAMILIES AND VALUES. We live in a globalized and interconnected world, where West is imposing his rules, values and interests on the rest of us. So all this social and moral degeneracy will eventually affect us, whether we like it or not.

I don’t deny this. We’ve been having to deal with Western civilization’s woes since the colonial days. But the antidote is to cling to our Religious values. Without them we are destroyed. My point is that while we continue to resist Western moral degeneracy, as you describe it, we are witnessing the destruction of the latest generation of Western people who have finally hit an all time low and it seems there’s no coming back from it for them. This is a matter for us to rejoice over. Why should we bother trying to pull them out of the hole they have dug themselves into. The fact that there is the possibility that we too can fall in the same hole doesn’t necessarily mean we should pull them out of it and fill the hole up. Let them stay in it and we should simply ensure that we don’t fall in the same pit. In other words, we must continue to cling to our traditional and religious values and we’ll be just fine. The period we are living in is a transitory one. We are seeing the fall of one civilization and the very beginning of the dawn of another. I guarantee you, as East Asia rises to take the place of dominance once occupied by the West, the West itself is going to start mass converting to Islam. That means, out of the ashes of Western civilization a new Islamic nation is going to emerge. But the present Western civilization has to completely collapse first for that to happen.

[Firdousi]

That's not what I mean though, it's not the humans we're up against, our goal isn't to destroy humans, but suspend the harmful impact of other humans and their misguided views. I realize humans are competitive by nature ....but we're also evolving, our aim is to ultimately transcend all this. It's possible to reach dynamo without having ruin other people. We should be better than this and even if we're not we should aspire to be, otherwise we're trapped in a vicious cycle.

Yeah I do agree but that doesn't mean you are right. Iblis you are one of the smartest person I have ever come across in the internet. But you are failing to grasp how human emotions work. Those who have been conquered, those who have been submitted, those who have been humiliated, become "bittermen".

The West invaded and conquered 80% non Western nations. Although Western nations have "apologized" for the crimes committed by their civilization and their ancestors, those who have been defeated and colonized will never forgive. Will never forget. in the Islamic world there is a lot of frustration, anger and rage against the West. We blame for everything. Many Muslims want revenge not because the West committed crimes against us, but because they won. Our pride, our honor, our macho bravado,.. all turned out to be pure BS because white men defeated us easily. In China, manyChinese people believe its time for revenge after what they call "a century of humiliation by Western powers". In Russia, Putin is eager to destroy the West after being Russians defeated and humiliated by the West (ironically plenty of Westerners are eager to destroy their own home for the sake of Putin lol). The same hatred fuels Indians against Muslims after being systematically raped for eight centuries. N iggers in the USA can't let all the slave victim card go.

So as you can see, its more emotional and biological than rational. Westerners can afford to be "pacifist" because they won, but the rest of the world wants revenge. When Zulfikar says "our adversaries" he got a point in there basically because the West is the adversary of the Islamic world. I disagree with this behavior because I find it irrational: White people shouldn't be blamed for the crimes committed by their ancestors, but I understand why so many people are angry.

[ذو الفقار]

yeah see, this is problem with ideologues, they're lost in nebulous realm of ideology first. And this means you have no solutions for actual problems. The movement you endorse is incompetent and thus irrelevant and do not have anything that would offer leadership.

God doesn't need us, Islam doesn't need us, Islam in this context is a means for humans. Islam is a tool, a methodology of how people should manage themselves and connect to the transcendental, It's not a sacred relic that exists for its own sake. There are of course levels of Islam, the Islam of the cosmic order is something that governs the very fiber of existence, and exists independent of humans, but that's the foundation for the Islam that we implement.

The reason the ultra Orthodox was pushed to the margins among Christians and Jews is precisely because they live in a world detached from reality. We should see that as a sign. If you can't address real world problems, we don't need you ruling us.

There is a curious tendency these days to conflate religion with civilization. The value of a religion is being judged against the vibrancy of the civilization associated with it. I reject this paradigm. The subject of Religion, particularly Islam, is the cosmic struggle between the forces of Heaven and Hell (Light vs. Darkness, Good vs. Evil, however you want to describe it). You reduce Islam to being a mere facilitator for improving Near Eastern civilization? Your division of Islam into levels is another curious idea. You must tell me where you have derived such an idea from. Being on the margins is the natural state of true Religion.

I know that there can never be a perfect society or civilization. The world was never meant to be perfect, if it was there would be no use for the Afterlife, the "Next World". This ideal Islamic state I'm describing itself is predicted to last only momentarily followed pretty much by the End of the World. It's more of an apocalyptic idea. The truth is our calling in the meanwhile is simply to create a counterculture or at the most a 'state within a state' in order to preserve our practice of the Faith and ensure the Faith for posterity