EDITORIAL

Abstract

This issue, like all the previous ones, opens with ‘AbdulHamid AbQSulaymsn’s
“Guiding Light.” But this time we have given it a subtitle and
would like to invite our readers’ attention to the important issue addressed
here. AbiiSulaymSin quotes the Qur’an and the hadith to show that the constitutional
process of political authority and government in Islam is
shiirii -decision making through consultation. The individual is required to
participate seriously in the shuratic process and enjoin what is good and
oppose what is evil through peaceful means. The Qur’an, AbQSulaymh asserts,
requires patience and peaceful struggle in the face of internal oppression and
dissension, but authorizes the oppressed to fight and use force against outside
aggression and occupation. Internally, force and violence have no place
in solving political issues within the ummah. We hope that the author’s conclusion
will initiate a discussion, and we encourage our readers to respond.
This is followed by Louay M. Safi‘s article on the purpose of an Islamic
state, its source of political legitimacy, and the scope of state power. He argues
that a clear distinction should be made between the role and purpose of the
state and those of the ummah. Only through such a separation of objectives,
writes Safi, we can properly observe the injunctions of the Shari‘ah and the
principles of revelation.
An Islamic state, according to Safi, should be identified with the system
of rules determining the quality of life in the political organs necessary for
the realization of Islamic ideals. Such an entity naturally presupposes a society
committed to Islamic principles and norms.
Eric A. Winkel deals with the paradigm shifts in political science in
the postmodern debate. Beginning with Kuhn’s belief that paradigm shifts
are mainly passive and the natural result of people realizing that the present
prevalent paradigm contains some anomalies, a belief which he does not share,
Winkel goes on to show how that paradigm supports the ruling elite. This
line is continued in his analysis of the views of Ashley and Gilpin, who are
representatives of opposing viewpoints. Taking the modern Western paradigm,
which is built on a scientific worldview and self-interest, he shows how this
construct has been used to propagate the idea that the West has reached the
pinnacle of civilization due to its scientific superiority vis-‘a-vis the rest of
the world. He then looks at what the West has done with its advancement:
genetic engineering (in effect changing reality to suit its desires), relegating ...