Islamic Society vs. Government

The relationship between Islamic society and Islamic government, and the degree to which they intersect, has sparked ongoing debate among scholars since the religion's inception. In Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini champions the need for a strong leader to guide an Islamic government, arguing that such leadership is essential to prevent anarchy. He envisions a leader who is both knowledgeable and devout, possessing a reputation for sound moral and Islamic judgment. Conversely, Turabi contends that natural mechanisms evolve toward Sharia, emphasizing that the foundation of an Islamic government lies within the Umma and the gradual Islamization of existing governmental structures. Khomeini remains a nearly mythical figure due to his pivotal role in the Islamic revolution. However, his speech in 1970 reveals several ambiguities that would only be clarified when he was tasked with their implementation a decade later. He asserts that the sovereignty of the Islamic state belongs solely to God, whose laws have already been revealed in the Quran and Sunna. In this view, the leader of the state is portrayed as a humble individual, merely tasked with enforcing divine directives. Few issues are as clearly defined, along with their associated punishments, as the major examples he provided—adultery and theft. Almost every other matter requires a level of ijtihad and nuanced deliberation to understand the conflict and resolve it in a way that best serves the community. In his speech, Khomeini makes a concerted effort to distinguish the Islamic government from Western systems, even addressing seemingly trivial details like the bureaucratic paperwork involved in each. However, by consistently comparing his ideal government to the West and incorporating elements of Iranian nationalism, he reveals an awareness that the mechanisms necessary for implementing Islamic law share, and may even directly mirror, key characteristics of Western governments. Governing any nation presents its challenges, yet the ambition to control all aspects of life from the top down often leads to autocracy and dictatorial decisions—an aspect that would become evident when Khomeini assumed control of Iran after the revolution. In contrast, Turabi approaches the development of Islamic law from an entirely different perspective. In his view, the Umma serves as the catalyst for change. Although there may be periods of chaos and a moral drift from Islamic principles, he believes the community ultimately returns to its roots, rebuilding society in an Islamic manner. While Khomeini warned of the dangers of anarchy as a pathway to religious doubt and heresy, Turabi perceives anarchy as a jolt that can realign the community. He argues that since Islam is deeply intertwined with society, there is no need to dismantle existing institutions in favor of Islamic ones; instead, the community should chart its own course. Turabi often employs Western governmental terminology—having been educated in the West—and is open to utilizing any idea or institution that effectively advances the Muslim cause. Regarding the implementation of Islamic law, he views it as a societal matter, with the government limited to intervening only in clearly defined cases outlined in the Quran. Thus, both scholars present markedly different perspectives on how to establish and sustain an Islamic state. Both authors share a common goal: to implement Sharia law and establish a morally righteous nation grounded in Islamic principles. However, their actual experiences in power often diverged significantly from the idealism expressed in their speeches, highlighting the challenges of translating theory into practice.