Question:
(It was stated in the book Political Concepts by Hizb ut-Tahrir) on page 54, under the title "Motives of Conflict Between States": "International conflict since the dawn of history has not strayed from one of two motives: either the love for sovereignty and pride, or the pursuit of material interests. Love for sovereignty is either the love for the sovereignty of the nation and the people, as was the case with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, or it is the love for the sovereignty of the ideology and its propagation, as was the case with the Islamic State for nearly thirteen hundred years, and as was the case with the Communist state during thirty years of its life, before it collapsed in the early nineties of the last century, seventy years after its establishment."
We know that the Islamic State's conflict with other states does not stem from a love for the sovereignty of the ideology, because the love for sovereignty is a manifestation of the survival instinct, and the propagation of the ideology of Islam and our love for it does not stem from the survival instinct; rather, it comes through the commands and prohibitions of Allah, meaning it is related to the sanctity instinct (gharizat al-tadayyun). Why then did we say it is driven by the survival instinct instead of being driven by the sanctity instinct, since international conflict for the Islamic State is to spread Islam? I hope for a clarification of this matter mentioned in Concepts, and may Allah reward you with goodness.
Answer:
It appears that the questioner has confused the manifestation of an instinct, thinking it applies to the state. Therefore, he thought that the phrase "love for the sovereignty of the ideology..." is a phrase indicating a manifestation of the survival instinct.
This confusion will disappear if he realizes that the manifestations of instincts are linked to individuals and not to states. If we say "this individual loves sovereignty," then yes, here sovereignty is a manifestation of the survival instinct, and our saying that the individual struggles against others for the love of sovereignty means that it is to satisfy a manifestation of the survival instinct... Therefore, it is not permissible to say that this individual performs Jihad for the love of sovereignty or that the love for sovereignty is his motive for Jihad; rather, his motive must be obedience to Allah (swt) and in compliance with His command... However, this does not apply to states. It cannot be said that a state has a sanctity instinct, a survival instinct, or a procreation instinct that the state wants to satisfy!
The problem might be solved if the questioner asks himself about the procreation instinct and its manifestations; he will undoubtedly realize that he cannot say the state has a procreation instinct to satisfy! This is the case with every instinct, as they are linked to individuals.
Once this is clear to the questioner, his question carries its own answer, because what is written in the book is:
"International conflict since the dawn of history until the Day of Judgment has not strayed from one of two motives: either the love for sovereignty and pride, or the pursuit of material interests. Love for sovereignty is: either the love for the sovereignty of the nation and the people... or it is the love for the sovereignty of the ideology and its propagation, as was the case with the Islamic State..." End quote.
This means that international conflict for the Islamic State is the love for the sovereignty of the Islamic ideology—meaning, compliance with the shari'i rule regarding the supremacy of the ideology, by having a state that implements and spreads Islam. It is not said here that this is a manifestation of the sanctity instinct of the state, nor a manifestation of the survival instinct of the state. Rather, it is a shari'i rule that the state must implement, because the state does not have instincts; they belong to individuals.