Talk:Islamic state

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Islam: Shi'a Islam / Sunni Islam High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Shi'a Islam task force (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the Sunni Islam task force (assessed as High-importance). Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 1 April 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Islamic state (government). The result of the discussion was not moved.

I considered merging Islamic state with Islamic republic. "Islamic state" (as it stands in this article) could be the introdutory section to Islamic Republic - an article which currently has zero explanatory or historical discussion of the origin of the concept. Both these terms in their modern sense originated with the same thinkers (Sayyid Qutb of Egypt, Maududi of India, Khomeini of Iran, etc.).

On the other hand, Saudi Arabia is a "Kingdom", which is arguably a state that is as "Islamic" and shari'a-based as Iran or Pakistan. Also, there may be Islamic revolutionary movements which call for states that are not "republics", but have failed. Let's keep Islamic state separate from Islamic republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runningya (talk • contribs) 18:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Syria marked in orange, meaning "other" in the map? It should be light green. Islam is the official religion. See Article 3 of the Constitution: The religion of the President of the Republic is Islam; Islamic jurisprudence shall be a major source of legislation; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.135.103 (talk) 09:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic fundamentalism is a religious ideology which advocates literalist interpretations of the sacred texts of Islam, Sharia law, and an Islamic State. [1] I http://www.brucegourley.com/fundamentalism/islamicfundamentalismintro2.htm

Journalist's Appeal: Please keep the phrase "Islamic fundamentalism" out of the published version of this page. This is a plea, to maintain NPOV, as per Wikipedia standards. The Associated Press Style Guide advises that the term "fundamentalism" not be applied to groups which do not self-identify as such. WP does not have this guideline (yet) but it seems reasonable to follow AP. Runningya (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One general feature of Islamist revolutionary movements is that they advocate creation of "the Islamic state", though this often means "Islamisation" of the modern nation-state.

One of the main proponents was Maulana Maududi http://www.jamaat.org/overview/writings.html

--The modern political ideal of the Islamic state--

In addition to the legitimacy given by medieval scholarly opinion, nostalgia for the days of successful Islamic empire simmered under later Western colonialism. This nostalgia played a major role in the Islamist political ideal of Islamic state, which primarily means a state which enforces traditional Islamic laws. The Islamist political program is generally to be accomplished by re-shaping the governments of existing Muslim nation-states; but the means of doing this varies greatly across movements and circumstances. Many Islamist movements, such as the Jamaat-e-Islami in Bangladesh, have found that they can use the democratic process to their advantage, and so focus on votes and coalition-building with other political parties. Other more radical movements such as Jamatul Mujahideen Bangladesh embrace militant Islamic ideology, and may even resort to Islamist terrorism.

In the face of the tremendous poverty, corruption and disillusionment with conventional politics, the political ideal of the Islamic state has been criticized by many espousing liberal movements within Islam as being utopian and not offering real solutions, for example by Ziauddin Sardar.

Fundamentalist Islamic ideology is based upon two “pillars”: the conviction that Islamic law (the sharia) is the only valid system for regulating human life (individual, social and political), and the conviction that a true and faithful Muslim society can only be achieved through an Islamic state

faced with Communist encroachments in Pakistan in the late 1960s, the Jama’at-i Islami eventually abandoned cooperative efforts and sought to establish a strict Islamic state identity in opposition to the Bhutto regime. <Xref>Guazzone, Laura, ed., The Islamist Dilemma: The Political Role of Islamist Movements in the Contemporary Arab World (Berkshire, UK: Ithaca Press, 1995), 10.</Xref><Xref>http://www.brucegourley.com/fundamentalism/islamicfundamentalismintro2.htm#_edn5 Introduction To Islamic Fundamentalism] by Bruce Gourley</Xref>

--Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi--

Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi was an important early twentieth-century figure in India, then, after independence from Britain, in Pakistan. Strongly influenced by Deobandi ideology, he advocated the creation of an Islamic state governed by sharia, Islamic law, as interpreted by Shura councils. Maududi founded the Jamaat-e-Islami in 1941 and remained at its head until 1972. His extremely influential book, "Towards Understanding Islam" (Risalat Diniyat in Arabic), placed Islam in modern context and enabled not only conservative ulema but liberal modernizers such as al-Faruqi, whose "Islamization of Knowledge" carried forward some of Maududi's key principles. Chief among these was the basic compatibility of Islam with an ethical scientific view. Quoting from Maududi's own work:

Everything in the universe is 'Muslim' for it obeys God by submission to His laws... For his entire life, from the embryonic stage to the body's dissolution into dust after death, every tissue of his muscles and every limb of his body follows the course prescribed by God's law. His very tongue which, on account of his ignorance advocates the denial of God or professes multiple deities, is in its very nature 'Muslim'... The man who denies God is called Kafir (concealer) because he conceals by his disbelief what is inherent in his nature and embalmed in his own soul. His whole body functions in obedience to that instinct… Reality becomes estranged from him and he gropes in the dark.

dialog on this issue amongst Muslim activists and intellectuals has yielded no clear consensus on what a modern Islamic state should look like. Islamic religious scholars and institutions have struggled to define the applicability of centuries-old doctrines within the context of a modern society, and Islamic scholarship is generally thought to have failed to keep pace with scientific, technological, and social progress. Many questions on the form a modern Islamic caliphate would take, such as whether the concept of the caliphate is compatible with the modern nation-state construct, have received minimal attention in traditional Islamic scholarly circles. Mainstream Islamic institutions in Muslim countries today have generally not made the restoration of the caliphate a top priority and have instead focused on other issues. Most regimes have actually been hostile to such a call.

One transnational group, the Hizb ut-Tahrir, has tried to recruit the world's Muslims to a renewed caliphate. They have published a draft constitution at [1].

--Conflicts with the secular state--

Islamic fundamentalism's push for Sharia and an Islamic State has come into conflict with conceptions of the secular, democratic state, such as the internationally supported Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This conflict centers on following issues:

• rejection of the priority of universal rights and civil law upon religious group rights and religious law, and more specifically
• rejection of the equality of men and women (i.e. they are unequal in specific aspects like how they think and act but are still equal overall)
• rejection of the separation of "church" and state;
• rejection some of religious rights, such as the right of Muslims to leave the religion, while the right to be a non-Muslim in Muslim lands is still allowed.

As a result of this sharp conflict, many doubt whether fundamentalist Islam is compatible with modern liberal democratic states.

--See also--

Modern_Islamic_philosophy
Islamic_fundamentalism
Islam_as_a_political_movement
Rights_of_Non_Muslims_in_Islamic_State_(book)
Islamism
Caliphate
Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam

How can somalia be considered "islamic state religion" if there is no state in the first place?--Ssteiner209 (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somalia is a state, despite the fact that its government exerts next to no control, and it has none of the functioning apparatus of a normal state. A failed state is still a state Grunners (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Islamic state's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "newname":

• From 2014 Northern Iraq offensive: Iraq crisis: Isis declares its territories a new Islamic state with 'restoration of caliphate' in Middle East - Middle East - World - The Independent
• From Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: Withnall, Adam (29 June 2014). "Iraq crisis: Isis changes name and declares its territories a new Islamic state with 'restoration of caliphate' in Middle East". The Independent. Retrieved 29 June 2014. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The Islamic State", I think, used to direct to the page for The Islamic State. Now it goes here, a page which doesn't appear to have any content relevant to it. The page for The Islamic State (renamed to something that is not the group's current name) agrees that the group is called The Islamic State, but other people don't like that name. Since when does liking a group's name have anything to do with whether it is, in fact, the group's name?

In any case, people looking for The Islamic State will be sent here to this page, so it ought to either include The Islamic State as a subsection, or it should direct people to the correct page, using the group's own English name for itself, not a name chosen by others. 24.57.218.21 (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a hatnote at the top of the page to that effect. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The Islamic State" refers to a specific "Islamic State" and should redirect to Islamic state (disambiguation). GregKaye 13:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no The Islamic State (evidently referring to ISIL). Legacypac (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The text in the article: "The term caliphate refers to the first system of government established by Muhammad in 622 CE, under the Constitution of Medina." is inaccurate. The prophet created 'Ad-Dawla An-Nabawwiyah' (الدولة النبوية) in Medina in 1 H (622 C), while the caliphate 'al-khilafah' (الخلافة) or literally 'successorate' (a word needed to be coined to give the closest meaning of the word in Arabic), succeeded it after the prophet's death a decade later in 11 H (632 C). The difference between the two is that in the former. the Nabawate, was pioneering: the prophet defined the principles of shoura & justice in state in Islam as per the God's revelation which was according to His Will & please Him to admit the believers to His Paradise; while the latter, the caliphate, simply followed it with 'ijtihad' (mental self-striving) on basis of Koran, tradition, ijmaa & qiyas in matters which were encountered a new.78.93.211.105 (talk) 08:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the modern Islamic State expression comes from? It is used in the lead of the article.

Then it appears in two sections:

• 1 The historical Islamic state
• 2 The modern Islamic state

And it says: «The very term, 'Islamic State', was never used in the theory or practice of Muslim political science, before the twentieth century," according to Pakistani scholar of Islamic history Qamaruddin Khan. The modern conceptualization of the "Islamic state" is attributed to Abul A'la Maududi (1903–1979)».

This makes

• I do not understand why the first title should be The historical Islamic state rather than historical.
• I do not understand why to choose the unique section title modern Islamic state instead of a several concrete sections title such as executive power / parliamentary role / judicial system.
• I do not understand which period is covered by the modern term?

Additionally I wonder if there is no missing a international involvment section to link to Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.

Comparatively, the democracy article :

• stand that (in its history section) The term "democracy" first appeared in ancient Greek political and philosophical thought in the city-state of Athens during classical antiquity.
• does not contain a modern democracy section, although there is a modern era subsection in its history section. 86.67.202.222 (talk) 09:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can anyone help in the discussion at Talk:Theocracy#ISIL? An editor has removed ISIS from theocracy, claiming it is not a government and thus cannot be a theocracy. I find that a little strange, and so I hope some people here might have more experience and perhaps some helpful references. Thanks, SemanticMantis (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please do something for Muslims Ruhan saruar Ripan (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it should be spoken to motives the terrorists and suspected terrorists. Dan, is threatened with torture and unmänschliche treatments, although moment during a long time in prison, do not represent the final motive. With only one drug (for example, prednisolone) obtain the judicial and investigative authorities almost unlimited possibilities to manipulate the physical and spiritual condition. The fear to inflict pain, etc.. Since force helps in België law. do not prohibit this torture. secretly not to children not to pregnant Frauen.Diese get prednisolone along with others. The state refused hard square the set EU Convention on Human Rights to sign.109.129.80.203 (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.12.99 (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the helpfulness of this edit. It simply copies and pastes material that is already (and more relevantly) covered at Taliban. The information included does not attempt to make any connection to the idea of Islamic state, which makes it somewhat WP:COATRACK-y. Therefore I'm removing it.VR _talk 21:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

my name is m Rizwan 101.53.241.123 (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My name is m Rizwan 101.53.241.123 (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]