Shaykh Asrar Rashid explains that the term “Islamic Republic” is inherently contradictory. In his view, “Islamic” implies a system governed by divine law under a caliphate, while “Republic” suggests governance based on a constitution and democratic principles. These two ideas cannot coexist seamlessly.

He elaborates on how a caliphate historically operated. Under a caliphate, non-Muslim minorities, such as Christians and Jews, had significant autonomy. They were allowed to govern themselves according to their own laws, with the Caliphate rarely interfering in their affairs. For example:

▶️ Jews & Christians paid a military exemption tax (jizya), which was sometimes less than the zakat alms paid by Muslims.

▶️ Non-Muslims were free to run their own courts and follow their own educational curricula.

▶️ Muslims were prohibited from preaching to Jewish & Christian children.

This approach ensured religious and cultural independence within a unified Caliphate.

Shaykh Asrar contrasts this with modern Iran, which he describes as a “secular socialist state with Shia Islamic trappings.” He argues that Iran’s governance does not reflect the principles of an Islamic caliphate but rather integrates socialist policies with a veneer of Shia Islam.

He also critiques modern Western systems, where a single, standardized curriculum is imposed on everyone. By contrast, he explains, the Islamic caliphate allowed for diverse curricula tailored to different religious communities.