Devising theoretical and practical bases for an Islamic state in the Modern World has been a challenging task in lieu of its vitality for the Muslim faith and its implementation. Modern mindset of the Muslims confronts serious problems when interpreting the mode of traditional Islamic civilization in political terms. Major objection which is often raised is the absolute nature of Muslim rulers in their version of kingship. The environment of democracy left no room for de facto position of kingship in the modern world. Swayed by the political and the cultural hegemony of the West, Muslim mind tried to respond this challenge by discarding kingship as non-Islamic system and seeking analogy of democracy in the Righteous Caliphate of the early Islam. Many revivalist figures of the Muslim World in the twentieth century present different agendas to fix the problem in a democratic setup. Imam Abdessalam Yassine’s approach is one of the interpretations which are not limited to a particular aspect of life. In this paper the determining aspect of a political system will be discussed with all of its facets. It is important because in Vision and Mission of the Yassine School establishing the second Islamic Caliphate is a clear motive of their theory.

Lexically caliphate is vice regency of the Prophet in Islam on the basis of charge taken by Abu Bakr of the then Islamic stronghold comprising of Arabian Peninsula after the Prophet PBUH. This vice regency was actually to bound the state business by the Divine principles, though; the door of revelation had been closed with the Prophet of Islam PBUH. Therefore the state in Islam is to ensure the nourishment of shariah among the believers. Despite having this vital position the appointment of the ruler was not stood as a prescribed procedure but open to the collective conscience of the believers of authentic descent. That was why the apparent procedure for the appointment of the first four Caliphs was not uniform. This attitude eventually created a rift among the Muslims and carved out endless dissentions in the political history of Islam which afterwards involved religion as well.

Imam Yassine has conducted a brief commentary upon this chronology in the perspective of the prediction made by the Prophet PBUH regarding the fate of the caliphate. Though he only considers four rightly guided caliphs as lawful rulers of Islamic Caliphate, he does not totally rule out the government of latter Muslim rulers.

Quran has described the traits of eligibility for the ruler on certain places. When the Prophet Samuel said to the children of Israel that God had appointed Saul (Talut) as a king over them they refused to recognize him as they thought themselves fitter than Saul for the reason that they are wealthier. On this objection the Prophet reported that God has granted him with knowledge and stature.

It is agreed upon matter among Sunni jurists that bearing Quresh descent (clan of the Prophet PBUH) is mandatory for the caliphate. The basis of this condition is a number of hadiths reported from the Prophet PBUH. Whatever happened with the spirit of governance under absolute caliphs of later times, the concept was deep rooted and very difficult to neglect.

The principle of inheritance soon became the appointing criteria for the ruler among the Muslims. It is true that Muslim jurists thought it unlawful to instate one’s son as a caliph, the other point of view found analogy in the case of Umar who was appointed by the sole verdict of Abu Bakr. Secondly, Muslim caliphate has been put analogous to kingship for the reason of inheritance principle, which is also debatable. Inheritance constitutes the selection process and not the central argument, as the rule did not always fall in the same generation and dynasties changed whenever the previous one lost the ability to rule.

Concept of kingship has Semitic origin These kings were also prophets hence their rule was legitimized by the Divine verdict. On this fashion the kings, other than prophets or spiritual figures, based their legitimacy on the continuity of the tradition. This constitutes an analogy between worldly kingship and ‘Kingdom of God’. That was why followers of Semitic religions did not feel estrange in espousing traditional kings’ ways of grabbing power.

Consultation is a basic trait of Islamic state. Quran describes consultation as a characteristic of the believers. However, it is hard to believe that the state affairs of any system could go without consultation. The point of discard is who are the people included in the consultation. Even in modern state system voters do not directly select the head of the state in most of the countries. When this element of consulting body did not remained agreed upon battles became the decisive factor in settling down the selection of a ruler. To avoid battle it was thought desirable to set the principal of inheritance and matter went to the verdict of departing ruler.

The Quran ordered to obey the ruler if his verdict does not contradict shariah. In cases where shariah proposed a clear layout Muslim rulers dared not to stand in the way of jurists for most of the times. In theory the ruler was never thought of above the law.

Muslim theorists took keen interest in describing the details of the caliphate in order to lay down its principles. It should be noted that a theorist can not implement a rule. For example he talked of the deposition of ruler in different situations. Similarly in another case the then chief justice threatened the Abbasid Caliph that his orders would depose the latter from his office.

The adoption of Modern state system by the Muslims raises questions regarding the traditional caliphate in the minds of the Muslims themselves. Like their European counterparts they do not think the traditional system fit for a fare process of government. This create the dissension among the Muslim society every where. Tarditional Ulema detest the modernism but could not persuade the masses to have any belief in the traditional system. Eventually they also came to terms with the modern state in order to make their say in the corridors of power. This creates a paradox in Islamic theory of state where traditional circles eulogize their past while practicing modern state system. This situation occupies a special place in the theory of Imam Yassine who has made valuable opinions in this regard.