“Ehtiyotkorona islomiy ramziylikni e’tirof etish musulmon shohlari va diktatorlarining sinab ko‘rilgan va ishonchli yo‘lidir, va ularning buni vaqt o‘tishi bilan saqlab qola olmasligini aniq aytish sodda bo‘lar edi”. — Noah Feldman Iroq konstitutsiyasi bo‘yicha hozirgi muhokamalar mamlakat kelajagida Islom masalasini yana bir bor ko‘tardi. Ba’zilar Islomni qonunchilikning asosiy manbai qilish kerak, deb hisoblaydi. Boshqalar esa, xususan kurdlar, Islomga diniy marosim va udumlar maqomini berishni va uning jamoat hayotidagi rolini rad etishni afzal ko‘radi.

“Cautious recognition of Islamic symbolism is the tried and true path of Muslim kings and dictators, and it would be naive to say definitely that they will not be able to sustain it over time.” -- Noah Feldman The current deliberations over the Iraqi constitution have once again raised the spectre of Islam in the country's future. Some argue that Islam should be made the primary source of legislation. Others most notably the Kurds prefer Islam to be given the status of rites and ritual and oppose Islam’ s role in public life.

Avval, Muvaqqat ma'muriy qonun (TAL) doirasida ikki tomon o'rtasida murosaga erishilgan edi. Unga ko'ra, Islom davlat dini va "qonunchilik manbai" hisoblanadi, lekin shu bilan birga hukumat "konsensus mavzusi bo'lgan Islomning qat'iy tamoyillariga zid" qonun qabul qilishi mumkin emas, deyilgan. Shuningdek, Iroqning nomlanishi bo'yicha ham kelishmovchiliklar mavjud.

Previously, under the mandate of Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) a compromise between the two sides was reached. It states Islam is the official religion and "a source of legislation," but also says the government may not enact a law "that contradicts those fixed principles of Islam that are the subject of consensus." There are also disagreements over the naming of Iraq.

Ba'zi rahbarlar mamlakatning rasmiy nomini "Iroq Islom Respublikasi" deb o'zgartirishni taklif qilmoqda, bu harakatga Iroqning dunyoviy kuchlari qarshi chiqmoqda. Islom Iroq uchun qonun chiqarishning yagona manbai bo'ladimi yoki mamlakat "Iroq Islom Respublikasi" deb nomlanadimi, asosiy savol baribir qoladi: Islom davlati nimadan iborat? Musulmon va musulmon bo'lmagan fikrlarda bu mavzu bo'yicha ikkita asosiy qarash hukmronlik qiladi.

Some leaders have proposed changing the country's official name to the "Islamic Republic of Iraq," a move opposed by Iraq's secularists. Whether Islam becomes the sole source of legislation for Iraq or the country is renamed Islamic Republic of Iraq the basic question still remains-what constitutes an Islamic state? Two dominant views pervade Muslim and non-Muslim thinking on the subject.

Birinchi qarash shuni ma'qullaydi: agar biror mamlakat aholisining aksariyati musulmon bo'lsa, u mamlakat Islomiy davlat deb tasniflanadi. Bu haqiqatni jiddiy ravishda noto'g'ri talqin qilishdir. AQShda aholining aniq ko'pchiligi nasroniylikka ishonadi, ammo hech kim Amerikani Injil bilan boshqariladigan va shuning uchun nasroniy davlat deb hisoblamaydi.

The first view endorses the perception that if the majority of the inhabitants of a particular country are Muslims than the country is classified as an Islamic state. This is a gross misrepresentation of reality. A clear majority in the US believes in Christianity but no one holds the view that America is governed by the bible and is therefore a Christian state.

Bundan ham keng tarqalgan, ammo teng darajada buzuq bo'lgan ikkinchi qarash ham mavjud. Bu qarash agar konstitutsiyada Islomga ayrim ishoralar bo'lsa, unda mamlakatni islomiy davlat deb atash mumkin, deb da'vo qiladi. Bu fikrning tarafdorlari o'z dalillariga ishonchlilik berish uchun ko'pincha musulmon davlatlari konstitutsiyalaridan misollar keltiradi. Masalan, 1980 yilgi Misr konstitutsiyasining II-moddasida Islom davlat dini ekanligi va "islom huquqshunosligi qonunchilikning asosiy manbai" ekanligi aytilgan. Saudiya Arabistonining 1992 yilgi Asosiy qonuni esa mamlakat konstitutsiyasi Qur'on va Sunnatdan (Payg'ambar ﷺ ning so'zlari va amallaridan) iborat ekanligini belgilaydi.

More common but equally perverse is the second view. This view asserts that if some references are made to Islam in the constitution then the country can be called an Islamic state. Proponents of this opinion often cite examples from the constitutions of Muslim countries to lend credence to their arguments. For instance, Article II of the 1980 Egyptian constitution states that Islam is the religion of the state and "Islamic jurisprudence is the principal source of legislation." The 1992 Basic Law of Saudi Arabia states that the nation's constitution consists of the Quran and the Sunnah (the actions and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW)).

Konstitutsiyaning IV-moddasida Eron qonunlari shunday deyiladi: "barcha fuqarolik, jinoiy, moliyaviy, iqtisodiy, ma'muriy, madaniy, harbiy, siyosiy va boshqa qonun hamda nizomlar islomiy mezonlarga asoslanishi shart." Pokiston konstitutsiyasining 227(1)-moddasida esa shunday o'qiladi: "Mavjud barcha qonunlar Muqaddas Qur'on va Sunnatda bayon etilgan Islom hukmlariga muvofiq keltirilishi kerak... va bu hukmlarga zid bo'lgan hech qanday qonun qabul qilinmasligi kerak." Har qanday kuzatuvchi, diniy qarashidan qat'i nazar, ushbu davlatlarning asosiy qonunlarini ko'zdan kechirsa, tezda shunga amin bo'ladiki, bunday konstitutsiyalar Islom bilan hech qanday aloqaga ega emas. Masalan, Saudiya Arabistoni, Eron yoki Pokistonning rahbari bo'lish uchun inson o'sha davlatning fuqarosi, ya'ni saudiyalik, eronlik yoki pokistonlik bo'lishi kerak. Bu esa Islom ta'limotiga zid keladi, chunki Islom millatchilikni yomon ko'radi va rahbarlik uchun talabgorlar uni munosib deb topilishidan oldin musulmon bo'lishlari lozim, deb ta'kidlaydi.

Article IV of the Iranian constitution states that "all civil, penal, financial, economic, administrative, cultural, military, political, and other laws and regulations must be based on Islamic criteria." And Article 227(1) of the Pakistani constitution reads, "All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah ... and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such injunctions." If any casual observer, irrespective of their religious orientation was to scrutinise the basic law of these countries they would very quickly realise that Islam has no relationship whatsoever with such constitutions. For instance to become a leader of Saudi Arabia, Iran or Pakistan one has to be a Saudi, Iranian or Pakistani. This contravenes Islamic teaching, as Islam abhors nationalism and insists that those contesting for leadership have to be Muslim before they can be considered suitable.

Islomda ikki asosiy tamoyil bor, ular Islom davlatini eng avvalo belgilaydi: hokimiyat Allohga tegishli, vakolat esa xalqqa tegishli. Hokimiyatning Allohga tegishli ekani shuni anglatadiki, Alloh yagona qonun chiqaruvchidir va Islom Islom davlatida yashovchi musulmonlar va g‘ayrimusulmonlarning dunyoviy hayotini boshqarishi kerak. Musulmonlar haqida gap ketganda, ularning shaxsiy hayoti Islom bilan boshqarilishi lozim, davlatning esa fuqarolarining shaxsiy ishlariga aralashish huquqi yo‘q. Islom huquqining to‘rtta asosiy manbai bor: Qur’on, Sunnat, Ijmo’i Sahoba (Payg‘ambar sahobalarining ittifoqi) va Qiyos (ilohiy sabablarga asoslangan o‘xshatish). Davlatning asosiy qonunlari faqat ana shu manbalardan olinadi. Odat, an’ana, muhit, tarix yoki inson o‘zi kabi boshqa har qanday manba esa yaroqsiz deb hisoblanadi. Iqtisodiy masalalar, ijtimoiy munosabatlar, ta’lim ishlari, tashqi siyosat va boshqa shunga o‘xshash barcha qonunlar yuqorida zikr etilgan manbalardan kelib chiqadi.

In Islam, there are two basic tenets, which defines the Islamic state above all else namely sovereignty belongs to God and authority is with the people. Sovereignty to God means that God is the sole lawgiver and Islam must govern the temporal lives of Muslims and non-Muslims residing in the Islamic State. In the case of Muslims, their personal lives are to be governed by Islam and the state has no jurisdiction over the private affairs of its citizens. There are four main sources of Islamic law. Quran, Sunnah, Ijma Sahaba (Consensus of the Prophet's companions) and Qiyas (Analogy based on divine reasons). The basic law of the state is derived from these sources only. Any other source be it customs, traditions, environment, history or man himself is considered invalid. All laws related to economic matters, social relationships, educational affairs, foreign policy and the like are derived from the aforementioned sources.

Xuddi shunday, Islom davlatida hokimiyat davlat fuqarolariga tegishli. Islom aniq belgilab qo'yganki, agar hukmdor ochiqdan-ochiq islomiy bo'lmagan qonunlarni joriy etsa, xalqning hukmdorni saylash, uning hisobini so'rash va lavozimidan chetlatish huquqi bor. Bu huquqlar hukmdorga bay'at (xalifaga beriladigan sadoqat va'dasi) orqali topshiriladi, bu esa, mohiyatan, hukmdor bilan uning fuqarolari o'rtasidagi majburiy shartnomadir.

Likewise authority in Islam lies with the citizens of the Islamic state. Islam has clearly mandated that the people have the exclusive right to elect, account and dismiss the ruler if he openly implements non-Islamic laws. These rights are delegated to the ruler via the bayah (pledge of allegiance given to the Caliph), which, in essence is a binding contract between the ruler and his subjects.

Hokimning hokimiyatni zo‘ravonlik bilan egallashi yoki bu huquqlarni berishdan bosh tortishi Islomning ochiq buzilishi hisoblanadi. O‘tmishda hokim bayahni zo‘rlik bilan o‘ziga olgan va ummat jim qolgan holatlar bo‘lgan. Bayahning suiiste’mol qilinishi Islom davlatini ba’zi tarixchilar aytganidek diktaturaga yoki teokratiyaga aylantirmagan. Bu 2000-yildagi AQShning prezidentlik saylovidagi ovozlarni noto‘g‘ri taqsimlash holatiga o‘xshaydi.

The usurping of authority by the ruler or his refusal to grant these rights is considered a flagrant violation of Islam. In the past there have been some occasions where the ruler has assumed the bayah by force and the Ummah has remained silent. The misuse of the bayah did not transform the Islamic state into a dictatorship or a theocracy as suggested by some historians. This is similar to misappropriation of votes in the 2000 US presidential race.

Odamlarning natijaga e'tiroz bildirmagani Amerikadagi boshqaruv tizimi demokratik bo'lib qolayotganini anglatardi. Shuning uchun Islom davlati dunyodagi boshqa hech qanday davlatga o'xshamaydigan, o'ziga xos davlatdir.

The fact that the people did not challenge the outcome meant that the system of ruling in America continues to be democratic. Therefore the Islamic state is a unique state, unlike any other state in the world today.

Bu davlat musulmonlar orasida odatda Xilofat deb ataladi, g‘ayrimusulmonlar esa uni ko‘pincha Xalifalik deb atashadi. Xalifalik teokratiya emas, ya’ni Xudoning tanlangan vakili Xudoning qonunini fuqarolarga tatbiq etadigan davlat emas. U diktatura yoki monarxiya ham emas, bunda hokimiyat va qonun chiqarish huquqi faqat diktator yoki monarxda mujassam bo‘ladi. U demokratiyaga ma’lum darajada o‘xshaydi, chunki hokimiyatni xalq o‘z hukmdorini saylash va uning hisobini so‘rash uchun amalga oshiradi. Biroq u demokratik davlatdan keskin farq qiladi, chunki demokratik davlatda qonun chiqarish huquqi Xudoga emas, parlamentga yoki kongressga beriladi. Shunday aniq farqlarga qaramay, G‘arb hamon Xalifalikni diktatura, teokratiya va monarxiya sifatida ta’riflashda davom etmoqda.

This state is commonly known amongst the Muslims as the Khilafah and is often referred by non-Muslims as the Caliphate. The Caliphate is not a theocracy where God's chosen representative implements God's law upon the subjects. Nor is it a dictatorship or a monarchy where authority and law-making reside exclusively with the dictator or monarch. It shares some resemblance with democracy in that authority is exercised by the people to elect and account the ruler. But differs greatly from the democratic state, which bestows the power of law-making to parliament or congress as opposed to God. Despite these glaring differences, the West still continues to describe the Caliphate as a dictatorship, theocracy and a monarchy.

Ba'zi G'arbiy rahbarlar Xalifalikni totalitar davlat sifatida tasvirlash uchun hatto katta harakat qilganlar. Bu da'vo samimiylikdan uzoq, eng kamida shunday deyish mumkin. Aslida totalitarizm yorlig'i G'arb davlatlariga ko'proq mos keladi.

Some Western leaders have even gone at great lengths to portray the Caliphate as a totalitarian state. This claim borders on insincerity to say the least. In actual fact the label of totalitarianism is more applicable to Western states.

Agar AQSh da PATRIOT ACT ning qabul qilinishi va Britaniyada terrorizmga qarshi qonunchilikning ma'qullanishi totalitar davlatlarning belgisi bo'lmasa, unda nima ularning belgisi?

If the passing of the PATRIOT ACT in the US and the endorsement of anti-terrorism legislation in Britain is not a hallmark of totalitarian states then what is?

Aksincha, Islom o'z fuqarolarini josuslik qilishni taqiqlaydi, va jinoyatda aybdor topilgan har bir kishi jazolanishdan oldin sud oldida javob berishi shart. G'arb Afg'oniston va Iroqdagidek davlat qurilishining markaziga o'zini qo'yishda davom etar ekan, soxta islom davlatlari paydo bo'laveradi va ular soxta islom davlatlarining uzun ro'yxatiga qo'shiladi. Bunday davlatlar Ummatning islomiy tuyg'ularini yumshatishga deyarli xizmat qilmaydi. Aksincha, ular Ummatning azob-uqubatlarini uzaytiradi va uni chet el aralashuvi hamda ekspluatatsiyasining cheksiz yurishlariga giriftor qiladi.

In contrast, Islam forbids spying on its citizens and all those found guilty of a crime have to be tried before a court of law before they can be punished. As long as the West continues to place itself at the centre of nation building like in Afghanistan and Iraq, fake Islamic states will be born to join a long list of pseudo Islamic states. Such states do little to mollify the Islamic sentiments of the Ummah. Instead they prolong the misery of the Ummah and subject her to endless campaigns of foreign interference and exploitation.

Bunday azob-uqubatlarning oldini olish uchun Ummat o'z barcha resurslarini birlashtirishi va yagona loyiha ustida ishlashi kerak, bu esa Xalifalikni qayta tiklashdir. Baghdad 1258-yilda mo'g'ullar tomonidan talon-taroj qilinganida, Xalifalik Iroqliklarning azob-uqubatlariga chek qo'ymaganmidi?

To avoid such pain and suffering the Ummah must pull all of her resources together and work towards a single project, which is the re-establishment of the Caliphate. Did not the Caliphate end the suffering of the Iraqis when Baghdad was ransacked by the Mongols in 1258?

2005-yil 20-avgust

August 20, 2005