According to Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim, the idea of Islamic state is not sufficient to be applied in every country. It noticed by the fact there was discrimination between Moslem and non-Moslem in Sudan, in which Islamic jurisprudence has been applied. Beside that, discrimination between women and men was also happened there.[1]
Kautsar Ashari Noor mentioned another example of unpleasant effects of Islamic State. Kautsar said that Taliban regime in Afghanistan has seized freedom in the name of religion, shari’a, and god. In September 27, 1996 through Shari’a Radio Station, Taliban regime announced a decree that the contents was asking Afghanistan peoples to follow law of Shari’a. The decree contains some unequal rules to gender, life’s expression, and human relationship. Women were not allowed to go to work outside their house. When women have activities outside their home, they must used burqa (duster which cover all of women’s body). Women were also prohibited of using lipstick and cosmetics, and didn’t permit to have a conversation with men whom not her family. Men didn’t allow using shirt and tie; they have to use Afghanistan traditional dress. Taliban regime also separated public transportation between men and women. Even, the regime also would punish people who didn’t do shalat (praying). In September 28, 1996, Taliban regime announced more restriction. People didn’t permit on selling underwear, taking human and animals photograph, recording wedding ceremony or other events, listening music, and giving non-Islamic name to babies. The decree also oppressed non-Moslem. For example, Jews and Hindu have to use yellow dresses in daily life; they didn’t permit to use other color. Even, they also have to put out a yellow flag in front of their houses. Some examples above prove that Islamic state is really unfair to be applied in this world, and in this modern time.[2]
Islamic states have practiced unequal treatment to their citizens. In my opinion, ruler in Islamic state did not really concern whether their policy is just or not. They only think about is their policy appropriate to religious law or not. They claimed that everything mentioned in holy books must be right and just even though people think it different and oppose it. Thus, ruler interpret the sacred text and fixed their interpretation as a positive law. This kind of claim is really subjective, because the rule was only product of ruler’s interpretation. Unfortunately, they also laid the responsibility of their law to god, because they claimed that their rule is the law of god. Related to this issue, An-Naim also said that the view of an Islamic state to enforce Shari’a is based on false claim, because any shari’a principle that is enforced by the state only represents the view of the ruling elite and becomes the political will of the state rather than religious law of Moslem.[3]
[1] Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim, “Political Islam in National Politics and International Relation” Peter L. Berger, The Desecularization of the World; Resurgent Religion and World Politics (Michigan: Grand Rapids, 1999), p. 108.
[2] Kautsar Azhari Noer, Merengkuh Kebebasan di Tengah Ancaman Fanatisme (paper of seminar “Jaringan Islam Kampus Yogyakarta”, presented in Kaliurang June 10, 2007), p. 1. Kautsar Azhari Noor is a professor of State Islamic University “Syarif Hidayatullah” Jakarta and lecturer of Paramadina University Jakarta.
[3] Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim, Islam and the Secular State; Negotiating the Future of Shari’a (Harvard University Press, 2008), p. 261
