The Westphalian nation-state in the European tradition, which is currently the basis for all nation-states worldwide, is based partly on the tradition of the medieval Church, in which the Church took over many functions of the family.

Initially, the Church cared for people who did not have adequate family support; such as orphans and the destitute. But the importance of this role eventually came to represent political power, so providing education and social services, beyond being a way to serve God, became a way to expand influence.

In a way, the separation of Church and state was not so much a separation as a transformation. To some extent, the state took over functions of the church, but it’s also fair to say that the Church became the state. There is a clear continuity visible in the institutions of church, in areas like education, health care, and social services, and those now provided by the state.

This model of the state was developed mainly in northern Europe, where the institutional structures of the clergy broke away from the main body of the Church and participated in the process of state building. Later on, this model influenced the development of Southern European states, and eventually the rest of the world. These institutions, which emerged from the church, gain influence and power by engendering dependence and expanding surveillance. The provision of social services is a means to this end.

When it comes to the development of this surveillance, there’s a clear paper trail. The first systematic documenting of individuals in Europe are certificates of baptism and communion; this later gave way to birth certificates and public school graduation certificates. Social connection between individuals has value, and the total amount of social connection one person can have is finite. The more of this value that is invested in the extended family, the less will be invested in the state.

This is a zero sum game.

Nation-states need to absorb individuals in order to survive and thrive. In order to absorb individuals, it is necessary for the state to break the connections that people form with their extended families. This is another part of the rationale for delaying marriage.

There are at least two reasons the European model of the state wants to delay marriage.

  1. For an individual to be an effective cell in the body of the state requires extensive training and preparation, because rather than relying on in-born, biological or genetic wisdom like motherhood, it relies on indoctrination and identification with the state.
  2. If people marry at a younger age, they will have larger families. Larger families, as units, will generally have stronger mutual support networks, decreasing reliance on the state. Thus, the strongest states tend to be in countries with lower birth rates and smaller families.

Since the nation-state is built upon a foundation of shirk, its expression is a war against nature, and nature can also be understood as the will of Allah. The worldview of secularism rooted in Christendom has failed to maintain the boundary between Allah and His creation, and seeks to confirm its worldview, which sets up rivals with Allah, by becoming as powerful as, or more powerful than, Allah. This echoes Satan’s deception of our ancestors, Adam and Hawa.

فَوَسۡوَسَ لَهُمَا ٱلشَّیۡطَـٰنُ لِیُبۡدِیَ لَهُمَا مَا وُۥرِیَ عَنۡهُمَا مِن سَوۡءَ ٰتِهِمَا وَقَالَ مَا نَهَىٰكُمَا رَبُّكُمَا عَنۡ هَـٰذِهِ ٱلشَّجَرَةِ إِلَّاۤ أَن تَكُونَا مَلَكَیۡنِ أَوۡ تَكُونَا مِنَ ٱلۡخَـٰلِدِینَ

He said, “Your Lord did not forbid you this tree except that you become angels or become of the immortal.

7:20

So the nation-state promises protection from disease, death, and poverty, and promises longer life to those who accept to substitute what Allah has created (the extended family) for what human beings have shaped with their own hands (the nation-state).

Encouraging women to participate in the formal labor force exemplifies this war against nature. For a woman to become an ideal cell in the body of the state, she needs a lengthy education. She will probably work in an office with men and women who are not her close relatives, giving much of her time and capacity for social bonding to her colleagues. She will need to be able to navigate this social environment, so in addition to this lengthy education, she will also need a lengthy period of socialization to become fully integrated into this lifestyle.

It is not from women’s nature to be comfortable with the continuous stares of men, to mixing and chatting with them. Growing accustomed to this requires extensive training, where she mixes with men from outside her family and comes to view it as normal. She will need to develop deeply ingrained habits that go against her nature, including tolerating continuous sexual awkwardness with large numbers of men.

She will also suffer as a result of this way of living, and she will need to develop effective coping mechanisms to deal with the emotional and spiritual pain of this way of life. Reaching a high status in this hierarchy will take a long time, and she will have to fight against her biology every step of the way. One of the most common ways to fight against her own body is birth control.

By contrast, as a young mother she will have the power of her instinct and her genes supporting her at all times. She will be in precisely the role for which she was created, and rather than fighting against her fitra, she will be supported by it. She will be allowed to be soft and weak, and may even be honored for it. If she is emotional rather than rational this will be accepted from her, and she will not need to compete with men for recognition or respect.

A natural woman like this is the bane of the state. She does not generate income which can be measured. She does not pay taxes. She doesn’t fill out forms which provide surveillance data. She doesn’t allow her mind to be shaped by the curriculum of state schools, because she is busy learning and growing in the context of the family. And perhaps most threatening of all for the state, she depends on her husband for security, rather than depending on the power of the state. Rather than raising a small, weak family, she is more likely to raise a large, healthy family whose members depend on each other, rather than the state.

When you talk to someone who avows hatred for “child marriage,” you will find that deep down, they don’t even know why they feel so strongly about the issue. They may have a few ideas about why it’s bad, but when you point out the flimsiness of these justifications they won’t let go of their emotional aversion to child marriage. That’s because their feeling was never based on logic; rather, the logic is justification for the emotion. The real source of the emotion is their attachment to the state, which is developed through indoctrination and dependence. They view the state as their lord and protector, and they have been trained to hate what threatens what they believe to be the source of their sustenance and security.