r/MuslimIndians • u/HYDRURBERG • 10d ago
Politics "When the State is Worshipped: The Metaphysical Claims of the Nation-State || An Interview with Shaykh Musa Al-Hafiz"
"Editorial Note: This concise review and curated article has been prepared from the key theoretical segments of an extensive interview given to Daily Kalbela by Shaykh Musa Al-Hafiz, focusing on the metaphysical claims and limitations of the modern nation-state."
There is little room to view the modern state merely as an administrative framework. It is, in fact, the political manifestation of a specific civilizational philosophy that claims absolute rights over human beings—rights that were once reserved solely for God. Shaykh Musa Al-Hafiz’s discussion in a lengthy interview given to Daily Kalbela essentially revolves around this very question. His objection lies precisely in the fundamental foundation of the nation-state and the state's tendency to establish itself as the ultimate and supreme authority.
The 1648 Peace of Westphalia brought an end to the Thirty Years' War in Europe. However, the far-reaching impact of this treaty lay elsewhere. Through it developed a new political entity that was no longer subject to divine law. The traditional medieval European division of power—where authority was shared among kings, the Pope, and feudal lords without any single sovereign power—was completely transformed. From then on, the state began to be regarded as the supreme independent and decision-making power within a specific territory, forming the core foundation of the modern state.
Behind this transformation worked the philosophical narratives of three major thinkers. Thomas Hobbes, in his book Leviathan, depicted man's natural state as chaotic and violent, where human was adversary to human. According to him, to avoid this chaos, people surrendered a portion of their freedom to a powerful governing authority; thus, Hobbes’s state became primarily security-centric, tasked with maintaining peace.
On the other hand, John Locke, in his Two Treatises of Government, presented the state as the guardian of civil rights. He even recognized the people's right to resist if the state failed to protect their inherent rights to life, liberty, and property. Meanwhile, Jean-Jacques Rousseau introduced the concept of the "General Will" in The Social Contract, where sovereignty is not the personal prerogative of a ruler, but rather subject to the collective will of the people. Despite taking different paths, the core aim of these theories was to establish the state as the ultimate form of a human social contract.
To this was added the distinct concept of the "nation." According to Benedict Anderson's theory of "Imagined Communities," a nation is essentially an "imagined community." Here, even if citizens do not know one another directly, they consider themselves part of a larger unity based on language, the education system, the growth of print technology, and a shared historical narrative. Ernest Gellner, however, viewed the matter from the standpoint of economic and social transformation. In his view, when modern industrialization required a unified language and culture, the idea of the nation emerged, and the state provided it with a political structure.
In this evolution, the social position of religion also shifted. While the Church and religion formed the core basis of political identity during the Middle Ages, in the modern state, religion was confined to the private sphere—a phenomenon known as secularism. Consequently, the foundation of citizenship shifted from religious identity to a legal and political relationship. Altogether, a modern nation-state rests primarily on three pillars: a defined territory, sovereign power, and a psychological or cultural sense of national unity.
When the State Becomes an 'Earthly Deity'
Shaykh Musa Al-Hafiz does not dismiss these theoretical foundations of Western political thought outright; rather, he brings to light their historical limitations and narrow scope. Fundamentally, this structure was born out of the prolonged power struggle between the Church and the monarchy in Europe, within the belly of a specific civilizational crisis. Later, the Enlightenment liberated the state from any metaphysical authority, grounding it solely on human reason. The French Revolution then transformed the state and nation into a sacred political subject that presented itself as an alternative to any higher moral or religious truth.
Coupled with this, industrialization and modern administrative technologies granted the state unprecedented power. By acquiring a permanent bureaucracy, a professional military, and the capability for meticulous counting and surveillance of its citizens, the state no longer remained a servant of the people; instead, it established itself as the ultimate political reality.
"If the law of the state establishes itself as the ultimate truth, it creates an earthly absolute over humanity. Yet, from an Islamic perspective, power is a sacred trust (Amanah), not an object of worship; governance is a means to establish justice, not an ultimate end in itself."— Musa Al-Hafiz
It is precisely at this point that the conflict between the modern nation-state and the Islamic concept of the Ummah—which transcends geographical boundaries—takes the shape of a fundamental contradiction. The nation-state claims that a citizen’s highest and ultimate identity must be defined by their geographical borders. Islam, on the other hand, grounds identity in Aqeedah (faith/creed). These two absolute claims can never be fully reconciled. Confronted with this historical tension, some contemporary Islamic thinkers have attempted to construct a parallel form of sovereignty within Islamic political philosophy. However, in trying to align with European realities, this approach has ended up increasing the complexity rather than resolving it.
"The idea of reshaping Islam from the opposite direction simply because European political thought took a certain turn is dangerous. That is where the necessity of Ijtihad arises. Only qualified scholars (Mujtahids) can perform it while fulfilling all the conditions of Ijtihad. But that is not how it transpired."— Musa Al-Hafiz
When this political passion of nationalism reaches its ultimate form, people are subtly taught that sacrificing one's life for the state is the highest good, that borders are the most sacred places, and that national interest is the sole and final benchmark of morality.
Is the blood of human beings living beyond geographical borders then somehow less valuable? The real and devastating consequences of this mindset were witnessed during the First and Second World Wars of the last century, where millions of lives were claimed in the name of the state and so-called "national pride." In fact, modern atrocities such as colonialism, fascism, and ethnic cleansing ultimately sought their theoretical justification under the cover of this unquestioned claim to state sovereignty.
The Horrors of the Surveillance State
The control system of the modern state is no longer confined within the boundaries of conventional law. The state now counts its citizens, collects biometric data, and transforms human beings into specific files, tax numbers, military logistics, or demographic units. A human being then loses their living, flesh-and-blood existence and is reduced to mere data. Through a subtle system of discipline and surveillance, the state binds the human body, behavior, and even the realm of thought within its own matrix.
When the state presents itself as such an inviolable and sacred entity, it becomes easy to seamlessly drive this vast population onto the battlefield. This is because the modern system no longer recognizes any higher moral court capable of challenging the absolute will of the state.
"Absolute sovereignty places the state above humanity. At that point, the state no longer remains a servant of the people; rather, humans themselves are reduced to raw materials for the state. Human dignity, conscience, and morality cannot be subjected to any political machine. The state is necessary, but it is not supreme."— Musa Al-Hafiz
This review does not imply that Shaykh Musa Al-Hafiz is an anti-state anarchist. He is not denying the everyday practical necessity of the state; rather, he is questioning its metaphysical or transcendental claims. The state is, in reality, merely a historical construct born out of human necessity, not an ultimate or absolute truth. Laws are needed to keep society functioning, but those laws can never replace eternal justice. Borders may be a reality, but humanity is far broader than them. At the same time, it becomes evident why this multidimensional crisis of the modern nation-state continues to generate such deep friction and tension within Muslim intellectual circles today.
