Man, by his
nature, is a social being: a social set-up is an indispensable need for him.
However, since misuse of his God-given free-will often leads to a state of
anarchy and disorder, man is forced to protect the created social set-up by
organizing it as a collective system. In the history of mankind, politics and
governments have originated as a result of this desire of man for a social
set-up and this need of his to safeguard it from disorder. As long as man
remains true to his nature, he cannot get rid off either this desire or this
need. Therefore, prudence demands that instead of dreaming of a stateless
society in this world he should strive to bring about a social contract that
purifies the state system from evils and develops it in the right direction
thereby creating a fair and upright government.
A study of
history reveals that, for the most part, man’s own nature instructed him to
create such a social contract. However, the results of his labors in this regard
attest to the fact that, as in other affairs of human life, human intellect is
unable to find the right path without divine guidance. It is to fulfill this
need that the Gracious Almighty has given man a detailed political law through
His Book and through His last Prophet (sws).
The contents of this law can be summarized as below:
1. The Basic Principle
2. The Real Responsibility
3. Religious Obligations
4. Citizenship and the Rights of Citizens
5. The State System
In the following pages, I shall attempt to explain this law
in the light of the Qur’ān:
1. The Basic Principle
يَاأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا
أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُوْلِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ فَإِنْ
تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِنْ كُنتُمْ
تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ذَلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا
(٥٩:٤)
O people who believe! Obey God and obey the Prophet and
those of you who are in authority, and if you disagree among yourselves in any
matter, refer it to God and the Prophet if you believe in Allah and the Last
Day. This is better and more seemly as regards the consequences. (4:59)
This directive was given to the Muslims when the Qur’ān was
being revealed and the Prophet (sws) was present among them. Consequently, they
had the opportunity to refer back all their disagreements to him. Obviously,
since the authority of Allah and His Prophet (sws) is eternal, therefore in all
affairs in which an eternal directive has been given by them, it is now
incumbent upon those in authority whether they are the rulers or members of the
parliament to submit to them forever. The orders and directives of these rulers
can only be carried out subsequent to obeying Allah and His Prophet (sws), and
only if they do not overrule or exceed the limits adjudicated by Allah and His
Prophet (sws). Therefore, in an Islamic State no law can be enacted contrary to
the Qur’ān and Sunnah or without taking into consideration the guidance these
sources provide. The believers indeed have a right to disagree with those in
authority, but they cannot disagree with Allah and His Prophet (sws). In fact,
in any disagreement between believers, the decision must be made in accordance
with the Qur’ān and Sunnah.
However, there are certain stipulations regarding obeying
those in authority which the Prophet (sws) has explained:
First, Muslims must cling to state authority in all
circumstances. The Prophet (sws) has termed state authority as ‘اَلْجَمَاعَةَ’
(al-Jamā‘ah) and ‘اَلسُّلْطَانِ’ (al-Sultān) and
directed every Muslim to in no way disassociate himself from it. And if anyone
does so, it is as if he has left Islam, and a Muslim who dies in this state is
as if he died the death of Jāhiliyyah (the days of the age of ignorance that
prevailed in Arabia at the advent of Islam). The Prophet (sws) is reported to
have said:
مَنْ رَأَى مِنْ أَمِيرِهِ شَيْئًا
يَكْرَهُهُ فَلْيَصْبِرْ عَلَيْهِ فَإِنَّهُ مَنْ فَارَقَ الْجَمَاعَةَ شِبْرًا
فَمَاتَ إِلَّا مَاتَ مِيتَةً جَاهِلِيَّةً (بخاري: رقم
٧٠٥٤)
He who sees something despicable in his ruler should
bear it, for he who even slightly disassociates himself from the state authority
and dies in this condition shall die the death of ignorance. (Bukhārī: No. 7054)
Another text of this Hadīth reads:
مَنْ كَرِهَ مِنْ أَمِيرِهِ شَيْئًا
فَلْيَصْبِرْ فَإِنَّهُ مَنْ خَرَجَ مِنْ السُّلْطَانِ شِبْرًا مَاتَ مِيتَةً
جَاهِلِيَّةً (بخاري: رقم
٧٠٥٣)
He who sees something despicable in his ruler should
bear it, for he who even slightly disassociates himself from the obedience of
the sovereign crown and dies in this condition shall die the death of ignorance.
(Bukhārī: No. 7053)
In times of political anarchy and chaos, the Prophet (sws)
has directed Muslims not only to refrain from participating in any activity
against the state, but also to obey state authority with complete faithfulness
and sincerity. On one occasion, regarding this issue, the Prophet (sws), on
these very grounds, is reported to have told Hudhayfah (rta): ‘تَلْزِمُ
جمَاعَةَ اْلمُسْلِمِينَ وَ اِمَامَهُم’ ([In such a state of chaos], you
should remain attached to the state authority and to the ruler of the Muslims.)
Secondly, Muslims should be law abiding citizens of their
country. Whatever laws are enacted should be obeyed in letter and spirit by them
and in no way should they evade the law. Any disagreement, personal dislike,
communal support or religious reservation should never lead them to breech the
law, except if some law is enacted in open disobedience to the Almighty. The
Prophet (sws) is reported to have said:
عَلَيْكَ السَّمْعَ وَالطَّاعَةَ فِي عُسْرِكَ وَيُسْرِكَ
وَمَنْشَطِكَ وَمَكْرَهِكَ وَأَثَرَةٍ عَلَيْكَ (مسلم: رقم
١٨٣٦)
It is your duty to listen and to obey [your rulers]
whether you are in difficulty or at ease, whether willingly or unwillingly and
even when you do not receive what is your right. (Muslim: No. 1836)
عَلَى الْمَرْءِ الْمُسْلِمِ السَّمْعُ
وَالطَّاعَةُ فِيمَا أَحَبَّ وَكَرِهَ إِلَّا أَنْ يُؤْمَرَ بِمَعْصِيَةٍ فَإِنْ
أُمِرَ بِمَعْصِيَةٍ فَلَا سَمْعَ وَلَا طَاعَةَ (مسلم: رقم
١٨٣٩)
Whether they like it or not, it is obligatory on the
faithful to listen and to obey their rulers except when they be ordered to
commit a sin. If they are ordered so, they should neither listen nor obey.
(Muslim: No. 1839)
اسْمَعُوا وَأَطِيعُوا وَإِنْ
اسْتُعْمِلَ عَلَيْكُمْ عَبْدٌ حَبَشِيٌّ كَأَنَّ رَأْسَهُ زَبِيبَةٌ (بخاري: رقم
٧١٤٢)
Listen and obey even if an Abyssinian slave whose head
is like a raisin is made your ruler. (Bukhārī: No. 7142)
This directive of obeying those in authority obviously
relates to Muslim rulers only. This is indicated by the word ‘مِنْكُمْ’
(among you) which qualifies the word ‘اُوْلُو الْأَمْرِ’
(those in authority) in 4:59, the verse under discussion. The Prophet (sws)
while explaining this has stated that once a ruler fails to fulfill the
conditions stated in the Qur’ā, that make him a Muslim, it is not necessary to
obey him. ‘Ubādah Ibn Sāmit reports:
دَعَانَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى
اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَبَايَعْنَاهُ فَكَانَ فِيمَا أَخَذَ عَلَيْنَا أَنْ
بَايَعَنَا عَلَى السَّمْعِ وَالطَّاعَةِ فِي مَنْشَطِنَا وَمَكْرَهِنَا
وَعُسْرِنَا وَيُسْرِنَا وَأَثَرَةٍ عَلَيْنَا وَأَنْ لَا نُنَازِعَ الْأَمْرَ
أَهْلَهُ قَالَ إِلَّا أَنْ تَرَوْا كُفْرًا بَوَاحًا عِنْدَكُمْ مِنْ اللَّهِ
فِيهِ بُرْهَانٌ (مسلم: رقم
١٧٠٩)
The Prophet called us to pledge allegiance to him which
we did. We had been asked to pledge to the following: ‘We shall listen and obey
whether willingly or unwillingly whether we are in difficulty or at ease, and
even when we do not receive what is our right and that we shall not contest the
authority of our rulers’. The Prophet of God said: ‘You can only refuse their
submission if you witness outright Kufr in any matter from them, in which you
have a clear evidence from God’. (Muslim: No. 1709)
Similarly, some Ahādīth say:
سَتَكُونُ أُمَرَاءُ فَتَعْرِفُونَ
وَتُنْكِرُونَ فَمَنْ عَرَفَ بَرِئَ وَمَنْ أَنْكَرَ سَلِمَ وَلَكِنْ مَنْ رَضِيَ
وَتَابَعَ قَالُوا أَفَلَا نُقَاتِلُهُمْ قَالَ لَا مَا صَلَّوْا (مسلم: رقم
١٨٥٤)
Soon you will find people ruling you, some whose habits
you would like and others you would dislike. He who disliked their bad habits
has no blame on him and he who refuted them also remained safe. However, he who
was pleased with them and followed them would be called to account. The
Companions asked: ‘Should not then we wage war against them’. The Prophet (sws)
replied: ‘No as long as they keep offering the prayer’. (Muslim: No. 1854)
شَرَارُ أَئِمَّتِكُمْ الَّذِينَ
تُبْغِضُونَهُمْ وَيُبْغِضُونَكُمْ وَتَلْعَنُونَهُمْ وَيَلْعَنُونَكُمْ قِيلَ يَا
رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَفَلَا نُنَابِذُهُمْ بِالسَّيْفِ فَقَالَ لَا مَا أَقَامُوا
فِيكُمْ الصَّلَاةَ (مسلم: رقم
١٨٥٥)
The worst of your rulers are those whom you hate and who
hate you; you curse them and they curse you. It was asked: ‘O Prophet of Allah,
should we not lift arms against them’. The Prophet (sws) replied: ‘No, as long
as they establish the prayer among you’. (Muslim: No. 1855)
However, even in these circumstances, no Muslim citizen has
been given the permission to revolt against the government unless he has the
backing of a clear majority behind him. The reason for this is that if the
majority does not support him, then such a revolt would not be against the
government; on the contrary, it would be against other Muslim citizens, which
according to the Sharī‘ah is ‘فََسَاد
ِفى الْاَرْض’ (spreading lawlessness and anarchy in the society) – an
offence punishable by death.
The Prophet (sws) is reported to have said:
مَنْ أَتَاكُمْ وَأَمْرُكُمْ جَمِيعٌ
عَلَى رَجُلٍ وَاحِدٍ يُرِيدُ أَنْ يَشُقَّ عَصَاكُمْ أَوْ يُفَرِّقَ جَمَاعَتَكُمْ
فَاقْتُلُوهُ (مسلم: رقم
١٨٥٢)
When you are organized under the rule of a person and
someone tries to break your collectivity apart or disrupt your government, kill
him.
(Muslim: No. 1852)
Moreover, it should also remain clear that if this revolt
takes the shape of an armed uprising, then it should be subject to all the
conditions of Jihād imposed by the Sharī‘ah. Consequently, no one is allowed to
take up arms in rebellion against the government unless he fulfills these
conditions.
2. The Real Responsibility
إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَأْمُرُكُمْ أَنْ
تُؤَدُّوا الْأَمَانَاتِ إِلَى أَهْلِهَا وَإِذَا حَكَمْتُمْ بَيْنَ النَّاسِ أَنْ
تَحْكُمُوا بِالْعَدْلِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ نِعِمَّا يَعِظُكُمْ بِهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ
كَانَ سَمِيعًا بَصِيرًا (٥٨:٤)
God commands you to hand over the trusts to their
rightful owners and to always pass judgement upon men with fairness. Verily this
is from God an excellent admonition. For God is He who hears and sees all
things. (4:58)
A look at the context of the above mentioned verse shows
that it occurs right before the verse that has been discussed earlier under ‘The
Basic Principle’. Consequently, it shows that the real responsibility of a state
which is based on this principle of obedience to Allah and His Prophet (sws) is
to strive to establish justice in its ultimate form at every level. Imām Amīn
Ahsan Islāhī comments on this verse in the following words:
This is a delineation of the most important aspect of
the trust referred to as well as an explanation of the responsibility attached
to political authority. The foremost responsibility of those who are blessed
with political authority by the Almighty is that they should decide all disputes
that arise among their people with justice and fairness. There should be no
discrimination in the eyes of the law between the various classes of society
like rich and poor or upper and lower class. Justice should not be a commodity
that can be bought or sold. Partiality and bias should not creep into it nor
should indifference and apathy arise in dispensing it. No power or influence,
greed or fear of any kind should affect justice in any manner.
Whoever are blessed with political authority by the
Almighty in this world, have been blessed as such so that they may discharge
justice. Therefore, this is their primary responsibility. A just ruler will
receive great reward from the Almighty, and an unjust will be punished
grievously [on the Day of Judgement]. Consequently, the verse says that this is
an excellent admonition from the Almighty to the believers, who, therefore, must
not show slackness in following it. The attributes of the Almighty mentioned at
the end of the verse caution us that even the most concealed injustice is in His
knowledge.
It is to this responsibility that the Companions (rta) of
the Prophet (sws) referred to when they launched offensives against the Roman
and the Persian empires. They proclaimed to the world that any person wishing to
leave the servitude of man could do so by entering into the servitude of Allah,
and any that wished to, he could leave the narrowness of this world and enter
into its vastness. Finally, they stated that whoever wanted to leave the
oppression of various religions and enter into the just folds of Islam could do
so.
The Prophet (sws), on this very basis, insisted that a
person who selfishly desires public office should never be considered eligible
for it, since justice cannot be expected from such a person. He is reported to
have said:
إِنَّا وَاللَّهِ لَا نُوَلِّي عَلَى
هَذَا الْعَمَلِ أَحَدًا سَأَلَهُ وَلَا أَحَدًا حَرَصَ عَلَيْهِ (مسلم: رقم
١٧٣٣)
By God! We shall not grant any person a post in this
system if they ask for it and covet it. (Muslim: No. 1733)
The Prophet (sws) also warned his Companions (rta) to fear
Allah in such matters and never ask for a public office:
لَا تَسْأَلْ الْإِمَارَةَ إِنْ
أُعْطِيتَهَا عَنْ مَسْأَلَةٍ وُكِلْتَ إِلَيْهَا وَإِنْ أُعْطِيتَهَا عَنْ غَيْرِ
مَسْأَلَةٍ أُعِنْتَ عَلَيْهَا (مسلم: رقم١٦٥٢)
Do not seek a post. If it is granted to you because of
your desire you shall [find yourself] being handed over to it, and if it is
granted to you without your desire, the Almighty shall help you. (Muslim: No.
1652)
Consequently, history bears witness that in order to
establish justice, the Rightly Guided Caliphs always kept their doors open for
criticism and for petitions and appeals from the public, adopted the lifestyle
of the destitute to the extent that they even wore patched-up clothes and
administered their realms with utmost simplicity and austerity. In short, the
heavens and the earth bore witness that they lived among the masses like the
masses and for the masses: they were like kings even in indigence and princes
even in poverty.
3. Religious Obligations
الَّذِينَ إِنْ مَكَّنَّاهُمْ فِي
الْأَرْضِ أَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتُوْا الزَّكَاةَ وَأَمَرُوا بِالْمَعْرُوفِ
وَنَهَوْا عَنْ الْمُنْكَرِ (٤١:٢٢)
[These believers are those who], if We grant them
authority in this land, will establish the prayer and pay Zakāh and enjoin what
is virtuous and forbid what is evil. (22:41)
This verse of Sūrah Hajj states that the religious
obligations imposed on an Islamic state are establishing the system of Salāh,
disbursing Zakāh, enjoining Ma‘rūf and forbidding Munkar.
An explanation of these obligations follows:
In accordance with the Sunnah of the Prophet (sws) that
relates to the establishing of Salāh (the prayer) at the state level:
1. The Muslim citizens shall be bound to say their prayers
as an affirmation to their belief in Islam.
2. Mosques shall remain under the supervision of the
government; this includes the appointment of imams.
3. The address of the Friday prayer shall be delivered by
the head of state and he shall lead this prayer in the central congregational (Jāmi‘)
mosque of the capital. The provincial governors shall be entrusted with this job
in the provinces, while government representatives shall discharge this duty in
the various administrative units.
Similarly, in accordance with the Sunnah of the Prophet (sws)
regarding Zakāh:
1. A Muslim citizen who is liable to Zakāh shall pay the
stipulated amount from his wealth, produce and livestock to the government.
2. The government in return, besides other expenditure,
shall strive to fulfill the needs of its deprived citizens through this money,
reaching out to them before they reach a state where they must come to the
government to satisfy their basic needs.
For the enjoining of Ma‘rūf (the good) and the forbidding
of Munkar (evil), the Qur’ānic directive is that the state should constitute a
group of people who should be entrusted with the responsibility of calling
people towards good and forbidding them from evil. In modern terms, this means
that a proper department, with legal authority, should be set up by the state
for this purpose. This department should function efficiently and diligently to
discharge the responsibility entrusted to it. In the words of the Qur’ān:
وَلْتَكُنْ مِنْكُمْ أُمَّةٌ يَدْعُونَ
إِلَى الْخَيْرِ وَيَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنْ الْمُنْكَرِ
وَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمْ الْمُفْلِحُونَ (١٠٤:٣)
From within you should a group be constituted such that
it should call towards what is virtuous, enjoin good and forbid evil. And only
those who make arrangements for this will attain salvation.
(3:104)
These are the religious obligations of an Islamic state. No
doubt, every state has the responsibility to strive for the welfare and
prosperity of its people and to maintain peace and defend its frontiers.
However, if a state is to become an Islamic state, then the Qur’ān demands that
it should not be indifferent to the responsibilities of establishing regular
prayers, setting up a system of Zakāh, and enjoining what is good while
forbidding what is evil.
4. Citizenship and the Rights of a Citizen
فَإِنْ تَابُوا وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ
وَآتُوْا الزَّكَاةَ فَإِخْوَانُكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ (١١:٩)
If they repent, establish the prayer and pay Zakāh, they
are your brethren in religion. (9:11)
فَإِنْ تَابُوا وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ
وَآتُوْا الزَّكَاةَ فَخَلُّوا سَبِيلَهُمْ (٥:٩)
If they repent, establish the prayer and pay Zakāh,
leave them alone. (9:5)
Both these verses of Sūrah Tawbah have the same context.
The Qur’ān says that it should be proclaimed in the congregation of the Hajj
offered in the 9th year of Hijrah that those who fulfill the conditions stated
in these verses are the brethren of the believers and that their lives should be
spared. These conditions are that people should:
1. Repent from polytheism and disbelief.
2. Establish the prayer as evidence of their faith and
belief.
3. Pay Zakāh to the state to run its affairs.
While explaining this directive of Islam, the Prophet (sws)
is reported to have said:
أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ
حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ
اللَّهِ وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُوا الزَّكَاةَ فَإِذَا فَعَلُوا ذَلِكَ
عَصَمُوا مِنِّي دِمَاءَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُمْ إِلَّا بِحَقِّ الْإِسْلَامِ
وَحِسَابُهُمْ عَلَى اللَّهِ (مسلم: رقم
٢٢)
‘I have been directed to wage war
against these people until they testify to the oneness of God and to the
prophethood of Muhammad, establish the prayer and pay Zakāh. If they accept
these terms, their lives will be spared except if they commit some other
violation that entails their execution by Islamic law and [in the Hereafter]
their account rests with God’. (Muslim: No. 22)
A reflection on these verses (9:5 and 9:11) leads to the
following conclusions:
First, people who fulfill these conditions, irrespective of
their status in the Hereafter, shall be considered as Muslims in the eyes of the
law and the state, and they shall be entitled to all the rights which, as
Muslims, they should have in an Islamic State.
Second, after fulfilling these conditions the mutual
relationship between the rulers and the ruled should be that of brotherhood.
They are like brothers and, therefore, possess the same legal rights. There is
no question of any discrimination between them in Islam. The Qur’ān has used the
words ‘فِي الدِّين فَإِخْوَانُكُمْ’ (then [they are]
your brethren in religion). The word ‘الدِّينِ’ (the
religion) obviously means Islam and the words ‘فِي الدِّين
فَإِخْوَانُكُمْ’ (then [they are] your brethren) are directed at the
Companions (rta) of the Prophet (sws), who are told that if these people fulfill
these three conditions, they will be equal in citizenship status to the
Companions. No distinction will exist between the two in the eyes of the law.
Third, due to this fraternal relationship, all
responsibilities which reason and intellect endorse shall be imposed on the
rulers and the ruled.
Fourth, irrespective of the duties and obligations imposed
on a person as far as the accountability in the Hereafter is concerned, an
Islamic State can only legally ask its citizens and force them to fulfill the
three requirements mentioned in these verses. Nothing can be added or taken away
from this list. The Almighty Himself has fixed them once and for all; therefore,
no rule or regulation, and no state or parliament can tamper with the life,
wealth, honour, and freedom of expression of the Muslims. Consequently, the
Caliph Abū Bakr (rta), when he launched an attack against those who had desisted
to pay Zakāh in his times, stated in unequivocal terms:
قال الله تعالى : فان تابوا وأقاموا
الصلوة وأتوا الزكوة فخلوا سبيلهم _ والله لا اسئل فوقهن ولا اقصر دونـهن
The Almighty has said: ‘Therefore, if they repent
establish the prayer and pay Zakāh, spare their lives’. By God I shall neither
ask for more nor less.
If these aspects of the verse are kept in consideration, it
is clear that indeed an Islamic State has the authority to force its Muslim
citizens to refrain from everything which is prohibited and to punish them if
they do not comply, but, positively, an Islamic State has no authority to
require anything of the Muslims except the prayer and Zakāh. For example, it
cannot force a Muslim to keep fasts nor can it compel him to perform Hajj even
if he has the financial position to do so; nor can it pass a law for compulsory
military recruitment for the purpose of Jihād. In short, as far as legislation
against prohibited things is concerned, it has all the authority to do so, but
except for the prayer and Zakāh, it can only urge and exhort, educate and
indoctrinate people to fulfill the other positive requirements of Islam. Its
jurisdiction ends here in this regard.
In the sermon of the last Hajj, the Prophet (sws) is
reported to have said:
إِنَّ أَمْوَالَكُمْ وَدِمَاءَكُمْ
وَأَعْرَاضَكُمْ عَلَيْكُمْ حَرَامٌ كَحُرْمَةِ يَوْمِكُمْ هَذَا فِي بَلَدِكُمْ
هَذَا فِي شَهْرِكُمْ هَذَا (مسندأحمد: رقم
٢٠٣٧)
Indeed, your wealth, your lives and your honour are as
sacred and inviolable as this day
of yours in this city
of yours in this month
of yours. (Musnad Ahmad: No. 2037)
These are the rights of the Muslim citizens of an Islamic
state. As far as the rights of non-Muslims are concerned, any agreement can be
made with them regarding their rights, keeping in view the circumstances and the
various international accords one is bound with. In this regard, perhaps the
best example before Muslims is the pact made by the Prophet (sws) before
Itmāmu’l-Hujjah
with the Jews of Madīnah. It is known as the Mīthāq al-Madīnah. Similar pacts
were made by Muslims later on with other nations. As stated before, they can be
made on any mutually agreed terms and conditions. Consequently, if the Mīthāq
al-Madīnah is studied, one can see that one of its statutes clearly says that
after accepting the political sovereignty of Muhammad (sws), the Jews and the
Muslims are equal citizens of the state and therefore, the Jews will have the
same rights as the Muslims have:
وان يهود امة مع المؤمنين لليهود دينهم
وللمسلمين دينهم مواليهم وانفسم
According to this pact, the Jews are acknowledged with
the Muslims as one nation. As far as religion is concerned, the Jews shall
remain on theirs and the Muslims and their allies on theirs.
Here, people have often presented Qur’an 9:29, whose text
is reproduced below, to refute what has been said above. However, it is evident
from the words and the context of this verse that it is related to those People
of the Book who were subjected to Itmāmu’l-Hujjah by the Prophet (sws), and who
as a consequence of their blatant denial of the truth were punished in this
world according to the established law of the Almighty. If they wanted to escape
the punishment of death in order to live in an Islamic state, they were first
required to pay Jizyah to the state and second to live in subservience to the
Islamic state:
قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ
بِاللَّهِ وَلَا بِالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَلَا يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ
وَرَسُولُهُ وَلَا يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنْ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ
حَتَّى يُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَةَ عَنْ يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ (٩:٢٩)
Fight those who believe not in Allah or the Last Day,
nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor
acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they
pay the Jizyah after being subdued and live a life of submission. (9:29)
This directive is a corollary of the law of Itmāmu’l-Hujjah
and specific to the Companions (rta) of the Prophet (sws) only. After them, it
has no bearing on other non-Muslims of the world.
5. The State System
وَأَمْرُهُمْ شُورَى بَيْنَهُمْ (٣٨:٤٢)
And their system is based on their consultation. (42:38)
The system of government of an Islamic State is based upon
the above quoted verse. The extensive meaning this short verse encompasses and
the guidance obtained from it about the political set-up envisaged by Islam need
a detailed discussion, which follows.
The first word that occurs in the verse is ‘أَمْر’
(amr). It has many meanings in Arabic. However, it is quite evident from the
context and placement of this verse that here it means ‘system’. This meaning
has been incorporated in it from the depth found in its general meaning of
‘directive’. When the word ‘directive’ becomes related to people, it prescribes
certain limits for itself and establishes certain rules and regulations. In such
cases, it implies both the directives which emanate from political authority and
the collective affairs. A little deliberation shows that the English word
‘system’ is used to convey the same meaning.
Since the Qur’ān has not specified it by any other
adjective except by appending it to a pronoun, all sub-systems which are part of
the political system must be considered included in its connotation. In fact,
all affairs of state like the municipal affairs, national and provincial
affairs, political and social directives, rules of legislation, delegation and
revocation of powers, dismissal and appointment of officials, interpretation of
Islam for the collective affairs of life – all of them fall under the principle
laid down in this verse. In other words, no area or department under an Islamic
Government can be beyond the jurisdiction of this principle.
Next comes the word ‘شُورَى’ (shūrā).
It is a verbal noun (masdar) of the category ‘فعلى’ (fu‘lā)
and means ‘to consult’. Owing to the fact that it occurs as an inchoative (Khabr)
in the given verse, the meaning of the verse is not the same as of the verse: ‘ٍفى
الاَمْر فَاذَا عَزَمْتَ فَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى الله شَاوِرْهُم’ (Consult them
in the affairs of the state and when you reach a decision, put your trust in
Allah (3:159)), which is often quoted as its parallel. To convey the same
meaning as this verse, the words should, perhaps, have been something like ‘وَ
فىِ الاَمْرِ هُمْ يُشَاوَرُوْن’ (And in the affairs [of state] they are
consulted). In this case, it would have been necessary that in the whole society
the rulers and the ruled be distinct. The ruler in such a case would have to be
divinely appointed or nominated by an innocent Imām or be someone who had seized
power by force. Through whatever means he reached the position of head of state,
he would have only been bound to consult people in matters of national interest
before forming his own opinion. He would not have been bound to accept a
consensus or a majority opinion. Acceptance or rejection of an opinion would
have rested on his discretion. He would have all the right to accept a minority
opinion and reject a majority one.
However, the style and pattern of the words ‘أَمْرُهُمْ
شُورَى بَيْنَهُمْ’ (Their system is based on their consultation) demands
that even the head of an Islamic State be appointed through consultation; the
system itself be based on consultation; everyone should have an equal right in
consultation; whatever is done through consultation should only be undone
through consultation; everyone that is part of the system should have a say in
its affairs, and in the absence of a consensus, the majority opinion should
decide the matter.
The difference in meaning of the two verses can be
appreciated if the following example is kept in mind. If it is said: ‘The
ownership of this house shall be decided after consulting these ten brothers’,
then it means that only the ten brothers have the authority to make decisions
and the opinion of any one of them cannot prevail over the others. If all of
them do not agree on the matter, a majority opinion would be decisive. But, if
the above sentence is changed a little to: ‘In deciding the ownership of this
house, these ten brothers shall be consulted’, then this sentence only means
that someone else has the final say. It will be his opinion which will be
carried out in the end. The only thing he must do is to consult the ten brothers
before forming his own opinion. Obviously, he cannot be forced to accept the
consensus or majority opinion of the brothers.
Since, in the opinion of this writer, the collective system
of the Muslims is based on ‘أَمْرُهُمْ شُورَى بَيْنَهُمْ’
(Their system is based on their consultation), the election of their ruler as
well as their representatives must take place through consultation. Also, after
assuming a position of authority, they will have no right to overrule a
consensus or a majority opinion of the Muslims in all the collective affairs.
Mawlānā Abu’l-A‘lā Mawdūdī comments on this verse in the
following words:
The words ‘أَمْرُهُمْ شُورَى
بَيْنَهُمْ’ (Their system is based on their consultation), by their
nature and scope entail five things:
First, people whose interests and rights relate to the
collective affairs should be given the freedom to express their opinion, and
they should be kept totally aware of the actual way in which their affairs are
being run; they should also have the right to object and to criticize if they
see anything wrong in the way their affairs are being conducted and the right to
change those in authority if the faults are not rectified. It is outright
dishonesty to forcibly silence people or to run affairs without taking them into
confidence. No one can regard this attitude to be in accordance with this verse.
Second, the person who is entrusted to run the
collective affairs of the people should be chosen through their absolute free
consent. Consent obtained through force and intimidation, greed and
gratification, deception and fraud is no consent at all. The ruler of a country
is not one who obtains this position by hook or by crook; the real ruler is the
person whom people choose freely without any compulsion.
Third, people chosen for consultation should enjoy the
confidence of the majority. Consequently, those who are worthy of consultation
can in no way be thought to enjoy the confidence of the people in the truest
sense if they acquire this position through force, extortion, fraud or by
leading people astray.
Fourth, people who are consulted must express their
opinions in accordance with their knowledge, faith and conscience and should
have the complete freedom for such expression. If, because of fear, greed or
some prejudice people are led to give opinions which are against their belief
and conscience, then this is disloyalty and infidelity, and is a negation of the
principle of consultation.
Fifth, a decision which is made through the consensus or
majority opinion of the members of the Shūrā or which has the mandate of the
people behind it must always be accepted. Because if one person or group insists
on an opinion, then consultation becomes useless. The Almighty has not said:
‘They are consulted in their affairs’; on the contrary, He has said: ‘Their
system is based on their consultation’. Merely consulting people does not
fulfill this directive; it is necessary that a consensus or majority opinion be
considered as decisive in running the affairs.
This principle of consultation as laid down by the Qur’ān
is also in accordance with the established norms of sense and reason. No Muslim
can be free of faults or shortcomings. He can be the most distinguished as far
as piety and knowledge are concerned; he can be the most suitable for the
position of authority he holds and can even consider himself so. But even with
these abilities, he cannot attain the position of head of state without the
general opinion of the Muslims. Also, earning this position after being elected
through a majority mandate does not suggest that he cannot err or has the
prerogative to overrule a consensus or a majority opinion of the authorized
people. The Prophet (sws) had this prerogative because he, being divinely
guided, could not err. Even so, not one example can be cited from history in
which he ignored a majority opinion in favour of his own.
A Muslim ruler is indeed only one individual and everyone
will acknowledge that the opinion of a group of people has more chances of being
correct than that of a single person. A God-fearing Muslim ruler should regard
his own opinion in the way a great jurist has expressed: ‘We consider our
opinion as correct but concede the possibility of an error, and consider the
opinion of others as incorrect but concede the possibility of its correctness’.
Moreover, if the people consulted know that even their
consensus and majority opinion have the possibility of being rejected, they
would not agree to offer their opinion in the first place. Even if forced to do
so, they would never take serious interest in it. They would never deeply
reflect on the issue under discussion. They would reluctantly come to sessions
conducted for consultation only to leave disappointed. They would never have
mental and emotional involvement with the political system or the various
institutions of the state. While delineating on this psychological aspect, Abū
Bakr Jassās writes:
وغير جائز أن يكون الأمر بالمشاورة على
جهة تطييب نفوسهم و رفع أقدارهم ولتقتدي الأمة به في مثله لانه لو كان معلوما عندهم
في استنباط ما شووروا فيه و صواب الرأي فيما سئلوا عنه ثم لم يكن في ذلك معمولا
عليه ولا متلقي منه بالقبول بوجه لم يكن في ذلك تطييب نفوسهم ولا رفع لأقدارهم بل
فيه ايحاشهم وأعلامهم بان أراء هم غير مقبولة ولا معمول عليها فهذا تأويل ساقط لا
معنى له فكيف يسوغ تأويل من تأوله لتقتدي به الأمة مع علم الأمة عند هذا القائل بان
هذه المشورة لم تفد شيئا ولم يعمل فيها بشيء أشاروا به
It is not proper to consider that this directive of
consultation is merely to please and honour the Companions of the Prophet nor is
it proper to think that it has been given so that the Ummah should follow the
Prophet in this regard in such matters. On the other hand, if the Companions
knew that their opinion would neither be followed nor held in any regard after
they had used all their intellectual abilities to form it, this would not have
pleased or honoured them; instead they would have been totally discouraged,
considering that their opinions are neither good enough to be accepted nor fit
enough to be followed. Therefore, such an interpretation of this directive of
consultation is baseless and cannot be accepted. Furthermore, how can we regard
as correct the interpretation that this directive was merely given to teach the
Prophet’s way to the Ummah, when actually the person who says this himself knows
that the Ummah is aware of the fact that giving such an opinion was neither of
any use nor was it followed in a particular matter?
Here, there is the possibility that someone might quote the
offensive launched by the Caliph Abū Bakr (rta) against those who in his times
had desisted from paying Zakāh and his attitude about the departure of the army
led by Usāmah Ibn Zayd as testimony against what has been said above.
Consequently, it is necessary that the true nature of these two incidents be
explained. Imām Amīn Ahsan Islāhī comments on these in the following words:
Deliberation on the action taken against those who were
evading Zakāh reveals a few facts:
First, this matter had nothing to do with the Caliph or
the members of the Shūrā. Abū Bakr (rta) had never presented this issue in the
Shūrā. Matters in which there is no direct guidance provided by the Qur’ān and
Sunnah or those which relate to the general well-being of the public are
generally presented in the Shūrā. The matter of Zakāh evasion has been
explicitly dealt with in the Qur’ān. In an Islamic state, people lose their
rights of Muslim citizenship if they refuse to pay Zakāh to the public treasury.
This is categorically laid down in the Islamic Sharī‘ah. Therefore, Abū Bakr (rta)
was not required to present this matter before the Shūrā. On the contrary, it
was his responsibility as a Caliph to implement a directive of the Qur’ān.
Consequently, this is precisely what he did. An example to illustrate this even
further is that if a group of people creates a law and order situation in an
Islamic state by going on a rampage of killing people, then the Caliph is not
required to ask the permission of the Shūrā to deal with this nuisance; it is
indeed his duty to freely use his authority to implement the punishment
prescribed by the Qur’ān for such criminals.
Second, those who had expressed their reservations on
this action of the Caliph Abū Bakr (rta) did so because they had misunderstood a
Hadīth of the Prophet (sws). Abū Bakr (rta) himself explained this Hadīth in
conjunction with another detailed Hadīth, which he himself had heard from the
Prophet (sws). This satisfied the people [And they never insisted on calling a
meeting of the shūrā]. It is obvious that a Hadīth which is narrated by Abū Bakr
(rta) himself is extremely reliable and therefore has great importance.
Third, the declaration of the Caliph Abū Bakr (rta) that
he would fight alone with these evaders of Zakāh if he finds no one to fight
with them is not an expression of veto from him; it is on the contrary an
expression of the responsibility imposed on a Caliph by Islam in implementing a
definite and explicit directive. In Islam, the real responsibility of a Caliph
in implementing the directives of Allah and His Prophet (sws) is that he should
try his utmost in their implementation even if no one supports him. He is not
required to be bound by the opinion of the people in categorical matters of the
Sharī‘ah. Only matters in which there is no direct guidance provided by the
Qur’ān and Sunnah or those which relate to the general well being of the public
need the approval of the people eligible for consultation.
Similar is the case of dispatching the army led by
Usāmah (rta). All arrangements for this had already been completed in the life
of the Prophet (sws) himself. It is he who had selected the people who would
constitute this army. The Prophet (sws) himself had hoisted the flag of the
army. If the Prophet (sws) had not fallen severely sick, the army would have
been on its way. The Prophet (sws) could not recover from his sickness and died.
Abū Bakr (rta) then assumed charge as Caliph. He quite naturally thought that
his greatest responsibility as a Caliph was to send the army which had been
prepared by the Prophet (sws) and about whose early departure the Prophet (sws)
was very anxious. As the Caliph, it was his great honour as well as his primary
responsibility to execute a prior directive of the Prophet (sws). He was not
required to consult his people for this because all matters concerning the army
had already been settled by the Prophet (sws). As the successor to the Prophet (sws),
it was his duty to enforce these directives instead of amending them. So, when
some people, because of the peculiar circumstances which had arisen, regarded
this campaign to be against the call of the day, Abū Bakr (rta) asserted
unequivocally that he would not furl the flag which had been unfurled by the
Prophet (sws).
Consequently, these two incidents can in no way be
presented as evidence of the fact that a ruler can veto the decision of his
Shūrā members. The only thing to which they bear testimony is that in the
enforcement of explicit directives of Allah and His Prophet (sws), no ruler is
required to consult his Shūrā members. In fact, his real duty is to implement
them.
According to the Qur’ānic directive of ‘أَمْرُهُمْ
شُورَى بَيْنَهُمْ’ (Their system is based on their consultation), the
details of the methodology adopted by the Prophet (sws) and his Companions (rta)
for the participation of the Muslims in the affairs of the state in their own
times, keeping in view their social conditions, are based on the following two
points:
I. Muslims shall be consulted in the affairs of state
through their leaders in whom they profess confidence. According to Sahīh
Bukhārī:
أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ
عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ حِينَ أَذِنَ لَهُمْ الْمُسْلِمُونَ فِي عِتْقِ سَبْيِ
هَوَازِنَ إِنِّي لَا أَدْرِي مَنْ أَذِنَ مِنْكُمْ مِمَّنْ لَمْ يَأْذَنْ
فَارْجِعُوا حَتَّى يَرْفَعَ إِلَيْنَا عُرَفَاؤُكُمْ أَمْرَكُمْ (بخاري: رقم
٧١٧٦)
When Muslims at the Prophet’s behest consented to free
the prisoners of Hawāzin, the Prophet said: ‘I could not know who among you has
shown his consent and who among you has not. Therefore, go back, and send your
leaders that they may inform us’. (Bukhārī: No. 7176)
It is narrated about Abū Bakr (rta):
فَإِنْ أَعْيَاهُ أَنْ يَجِدَ فِيهِ
سُنَّةً مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ جَمَعَ رُؤسَ
النَّاسِ وَخِيَارَهُمْ فَاسْتَشَارَهُمْ فَإِذا أَجتْمَعَ رَأْيُهُمْ عَلَى أَمْرٍ
قَضَى بِهِ (دارمي: رقم
١٦١)
Then if he could not find a practice of the Prophet in
this matter, he would gather the influential among his people and consult them,
and when they would reach a conclusion, he would decide according to it. (Dārimī:
p. 161)
During the time of the Prophet (sws), the tribal chiefs
held this position of trust. The people of the tribes of Aws, Khazraj and
Quraysh professed confidence in every sense of the word in their respective
leaders. Indeed, these leaders were not elected to this position nor was an
election needed in the social conditions which existed at that time. It was,
because of their social status, intellect and experience that their people
turned to these chiefs in all the political and collective affairs. Before the
advent of Islam, it was their tribes’ complete faith in them which conferred
this position on them and this state continued even after they accepted Islam.
However, before accepting Islam, a person could say that his tribal chief had
seized power by force and that he was not in a position to show his mistrust in
him, but after accepting faith every person from among the Muslim public could
express in front of the Prophet (sws) his lack of confidence in his chief. If
the majority in a tribe had expressed their lack of confidence in their leader,
he could certainly not have retained his position.
The Prophet (sws) in his own times made all the important
decisions after consulting these tribal chiefs and during the time of the
Rightly Guided Caliphate also, the position of trust commanded by them
continued.
While narrating the proceedings of a Shūrā called to
session in the time of the Caliph Umar’s (rta) rule to decide the fate of the
conquered lands of Syria and Iraq, Qādī Abū Yūsuf says:
قالوا :
فاستشر قال: فاستشار المهاجرين الأولين فاختلفوا فأما عبد الرحمن بن عوف رضي الله
عنه فكان رأيه إن تقسم لهم حقوقهم و رأي عثمان و على و طلحة و ابن عمر رضي الله
عنهم رأي عمر فارسل إلى عشرة من الأنصار: خمسة من الاوس و خمسة من الخزرج ’ من
كبرائهم و أشرافهم
The people said: you should now seek formal
consultation. At this, he consulted the early Muhājirūn and there existed a
difference in their opinions. ‘Abdu’l Rahmān Ibn ‘Awf maintained that the land
should be rightfully distributed among them, while ‘Uthmān, ‘Alī, Talhah and Ibn
‘Umar were in agreement with ‘Umar’s view. Then he called ten people from the
Ansār: five from the leading people of the Aws and five from those of the
Khazraj.
‘Umar (rta) while explaining his own position in relation
to the members of the Shūrā said:
أنى لم أزعجكم ألا لان تشتركوا في
أمانتي فيما حملت من أموركم فأنى واحد كأحدكم … ولست اريد ان تتبعوا هذا الذي هواي
I have bothered you with the burden of coming here so
that you can help me in my responsibilities owing to this position you have
entrusted me with. I am a human being just like you … and do not want that you
follow my desires in these affairs.
The manner in which such sessions would be held was that
first a person would loudly announce: ‘اَلْصَلاَةُ جَامِعَة’
(Al-Salāh Jāmi‘ah); which meant that people should gather for prayer. When
people would gather, ‘Umar (rta) would pray two Rak‘ats. He would then deliver a
brief speech and would table the agenda on which he wanted to consult the
people. The issues of the conquered lands of Syria and Iraq and the
participation of the Caliph himself in the battle of Nihāwand were discussed and
settled in these meetings. Similarly, the issues of the salary of soldiers, the
appointment of representatives, the organization of offices, the freedom of
trade for other nations and their taxes were all decided in these meetings.
Bilādhurī writes that there was another group of the leaders of the Muhājirūn
(the ruling party) who would see to the day to day affairs of the country and
would regularly assemble at the Masjid-i-Nabawī for this purpose:
كان للمهاجرين مجلس في المسجد فكان عمر
يجلس معهم فيه و يحدثهم عما ينتهي إليه من امور الأفاق
In the Masjid-i-Nabawī, sessions of the Muhājirūn would
be convened in which ‘Umar would sit and present to them all the happenings and
events reported to him from the various parts of his empire.
II. The tradition was established that among the various groups present in an
Islamic State, only that group assumed its political authority which enjoyed the
confidence of the majority of Muslims.
Before his death, the Prophet (sws) clarified that the Quraysh would be his
successors and not the Ansār:
إِنَّ هَذَا الْأَمْرَ فِي قُرَيْشٍ لَا يُعَادِيهِمْ أَحَدٌ
إِلَّا كَـبَّهُ اللَّهُ فِي النَّارِ عَلَى وَجْهِهِ مَا أَقَامُوا الدِّينَ.
(بخاري: رقم
٧١٣٩)
Our political authority shall remain with the Quraysh. In this matter,
whoever opposes them as long as they follow Islam, Allah shall cast him face
down in Hell. (Bukhārī: No. 7139)
Consequently, he told the Ansār
:‘قَدِّمُوْا قُرَيْشًا وَلاَ تُقَدِّمُوهَا’ (In this
matter, bring forward the Quraysh and do not try to supersede them). The Prophet
(sws) stated thus the reason for the decision he had declared:
النَّاسُ تَبَعٌ لِقُرَيْشٍ فِي هَذَا الشَّأْنِ
مُسْلِمُهُمْ لِمُسْلِمِهِمْ وَكَافِرُهُمْ لِكَافِرِهِمْ (مسلم: رقم
١٨١٨)
People in this matter follow the Quraysh. The believers of Arabia are the
followers of their believers and the disbelievers of Arabia are the followers of
their disbelievers. (Muslim: No. 1818)
Thus, the Prophet (sws) made it very clear that since the majority of the
Arabian Muslims professed confidence in the Quraysh, they were solely entitled
to take charge as the rulers of Arabia in the light of the Qur’ānic directive ‘أَمْرُهُمْ
شُورَى بَيْنَهُمْ’ (Their system is based on their consultation), and
that they would be passed on the political authority not because of any racial
precedence or superiority, but only by virtue of this position.
Those who have studied the history of the Arabs know that before the advent
of the Prophet (sws), the Quraysh were at the helm of the state’s affairs and
their leaders were considered as the leaders of the Arabs. After the battles of
Badr and Uhud, though several of their leaders had been killed, yet in the
capacity of a party they enjoyed the confidence of all the Arabs. All their
prominent people who had accepted faith were present in Madīnah and many of them
had distinguished themselves in the service of Islam. It was these people who
were called the Muhājirūn and after the general acceptance of faith by the Arabs
their leaders enjoyed the same confidence as the influential Arabs in the
pre-Islamic era. Hence, elections were not needed to confirm this reality. There
was no room for a difference of opinion in the fact that the Quraysh had the
popular support of the masses behind them and that no tribe could challenge this
position of theirs.
There is no doubt that as far as Madīnah was concerned, the Ansār under Sa‘ad
Ibn ‘Ubādah (rta) and Sa‘ad Ibn Mu‘ādh (rta), the respective leaders of Aws and
Khazraj, had more influence among the local population. They were no less than
the Muhājirūn as regards the services they had rendered for the cause of Islam.
They had offered their unconditional support and help to the Muhājirūn when the
latter had migrated to Madīnah. Together with them, they had fought gallantly in
the battles of Badr, Uhud, Ahzāb and Hunayn. The relationship of brotherhood and
fraternity they had established with them was an exceptional one. Particularly,
the way they had offered them monetary assistance – to please the Almighty –
bears no parallel in history. Had the Islamic State been confined only to
Madīnah, it can be said with certainty that after the Prophet (sws), they would
have assumed political authority. But after the conquest of Makkah, when a large
number of Arabs of other territories accepted Islam, the political scene changed
drastically. The extent of confidence commanded by the Muhājirūn of the Quraysh
out-proportioned that of the Ansār.
However, there was still a chance that owing to the perfectly natural
emotions of tribal affiliation and owing to the spirit of outdoing each other in
serving Islam, the Ansār might have come forward and challenged the Quraysh.
Particularly, the fact that they commanded more influence locally in Madīnah
could have caused them to put an undue trust in their strength. If such a
situation, God forbid, had arisen the Munāfiqūn (Hypocrites) would have
certainly tried to benefit from it, and keeping in view the social conditions
which prevailed at that time, only a war could have settled their dissension.
Therefore, the Prophet (sws) sensing that this untoward situation might
arise, decided once and for all the fate of this matter in his own life in the
presence of Sa‘ad Ibn ‘Ubādah (rta), the supreme leader of the Ansār. He is
reported to have said:
‘اَلاَِْئمَّةُ مِنْ قُرَيْش’ ([After me], the
political leaders should be from the Quraysh). Consequently, in the Thaqīfah of
Banū Sā‘idah, when the leaders of the Ansār were delivering stirring speeches to
prove their entitlement to the leadership of the Arabs, Abū Bakr (rta) reminded
them of the Prophet’s above mentioned decision in the following words:
وَلَقَدْ عَلِمْتَ يَا سَعْدُ أَنَّ
رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ وَأَنْتَ قَاعِدٌ
قُرَيْشٌ وُلَاةُ هَذَا الْأَمْرِ فَبَرُّ النَّاسِ تَبَعٌ لِبَرِّهِمْ
وَفَاجِرُهُمْ تَبَعٌ لِفَاجِرِهِمْ قَالَ فَقَالَ لَهُ سَعْدٌ صَدَقْتَ نَحْنُ
الْوُزَرَاءُ وَأَنْتُمْ الْأُمَرَاءُ (مسندأحمد: رقم
١٩)
O Sa‘ad! You know very well that the Prophet (sws) had said in your presence
that the Quraysh shall be given the Khilāfat because the nobles among the Arabs
follow their nobles and their commoners follow their commoners. Sa‘ad replied:
‘What you say is correct, we are your advisers and you are our rulers’. (Musnad
Ahmad: No. 19)
In another report, the words are:
لَمْ تَعْرِفْ الْعَرَبُ هَذَا الْأَمْرَ إِلَّا لِهَذَا
الْحَيِّ مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ (مسندأحمد: رقم٣٩٣)
The people of Arabia do not acknowledge anyone’s political leadership except
that of the Quraysh. (Musnad Ahmad: No. 393)
After this verification by Sa‘ad Ibn ‘Ubādah (rta), the chief of the Ansār,
it became clear to those present that they had strayed from the right course in
the heat of discussion and that the right course was to elect their ruler from
the group which held majority in the public; that whoever would be elected would
be the Khalīfah of the Muslims and it would be obligatory to obey him; that this
course had been outlined by the Prophet (sws) himself and they should not case
adopt a different one.
The Rightly Guided Caliphate (Khilāfat-i-Rāshidah) was also founded on the
basis of this decision declared by the Prophet (sws). When the leaders of the
Ansār submitted to it, ‘Umar (rta), considering the delicacy of the situation
which had arisen in the Thaqīfah, proclaimed the rule of Abū Bakr (rta) being
sure of the fact that the leaders of the Quraysh would not differ with him and
would, in fact, endorse his step. Later, he himself stated this reason for his
step and warned that no one should dare present it as a violation of the
Qur’ānic principle ‘أَمْرُهُمْ شُورَى بَيْنَهُمْ’
(Their system is based on their consultation):
فَلَا يَغْتَرَّنَّ امْرُؤٌ أَنْ
يَقُولَ إِنَّمَا كَانَتْ بَيْعَةُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ فَلْتَةً وَتَمَّتْ أَلَا
وَإِنَّهَا قَدْ كَانَتْ كَذَلِكَ وَلَكِنَّ اللَّهَ وَقَى شَرَّهَا وَلَيْسَ
مِنْكُمْ مَنْ تُقْطَعُ الْأَعْنَاقُ إِلَيْهِ مِثْلُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ مَنْ بَايَعَ
رَجُلًا عَنْ غَيْرِ مَشُورَةٍ مِنْ الْمُسْلِمِينَ فَلَا يُبَايَعُ هُوَ وَلَا
الَّذِي بَايَعَهُ تَغِرَّةً أَنْ يُقْتَلَا (بخاري:٦٨٣٠(
No one among you should have the misconception that the oath of allegiance to
Abū Bakr took place suddenly. No doubt, the oath was pledged in this way, but
the Almighty protected the Muslims from its evil consequences [which might have
arisen] and remember! there is none among you like Abū Bakr, whose greatness
cannot be surpassed. Now if a person pledges an oath of allegiance to someone,
without the opinion of the believers, no one should pledge allegiance to him as
well as to whom he [himself] pledged allegiance because by this both of them
shall present themselves for execution. (Bukhārī: No. 6830)
At the time of the death of Abū Bakr (rta) also, the Muhājirūn of the Quraysh
enjoyed the people’s confidence. Since no other tribe of the Arabs including the
Ansār had challenged this position, they continued to hold their position of
authority, and there was no need to turn to the general public in this regard.
Therefore, the leaders of the Muhājirūn of the Quraysh nominated ‘Umar (rta) as
the new ruler and both the Ansār and the Muhājirūn – the two big tribes of the
Muslims – accepted the appointment. Consequently, without any difference of
opinion, ‘Umar (rta), in direct accordance with the Islamic constitution,
assumed the position of Khilāfat. Ibn Sa‘ad reports:
أن ابابكر الصديق لما استعزبه دعا عبد الرحمن ابن عوف فقال :
أخبرني عن عمر الخطاب فقال عبد الرحمن ما تسألني عن أمر ألا وأنت اعلم به منى فقال
ابوبكر : وان فقال عبد الرحمن : هو والله افضل من رأيك فيه ثم دعا عثمان بن
عفان فقال : اخبرني عن عمر فقال : أنت اخبرنا به فقال عثمان : اللهم علمي به أن
سريرته خير من علانيته وانه ليس فينا مثله
When ill-health overtook Abū Bakr and the time of his death approached, he
summoned ‘Abdu’l-Rahmān Ibn ‘Awf and said: ‘Tell me about ‘Umar Ibn Khattāb’.
‘Abdu’l-Rahmān replied: ‘You are asking me about something of which you know
better’. Abū Bakr said: ‘Although [this is correct yet I want your opinion]’.
‘Abdu’l-Rahmān answered: ‘By God! he is even better than the opinion you hold
about him’. Then he [Abū Bakr] called ‘Uthmān Ibn ‘Affān and asked him: ‘Tell me
about ‘Umar Ibn Khattāb’. ‘Uthmān replied: ‘You know him better than us’. Abū
Bakr said: ‘Still! O Abū ‘Abdullāh! [I want your opinion]’. [At this], ‘Uthmān
answered: ‘Indeed, in my opinion, his inner-self is better than his outer-self
and no one among us can parallel him’.
Ibn Sa‘ad mentions that Abū Bakr (rta), besides these two, consulted all the
prominent leaders of the Ansār and the Muhājirūn:
و شاور معهما سعيد بن زيد أبا الأعور و اسيد بن الحضير و غير
هما من المهاجرين و الأنصار فقال اسيد : اللهم اعلمه الخيرة بعدك يرضى للرضى و
يسخط للسخط الذي يسر خير من الذي يعلن و لم يل هذا الأمر أحد أقوى عليه منه
And he, besides these two, consulted Abu’l-A‘war Sa‘īd Ibn Zayd and Usayd Ibn
Al-Hudayr as well as other prominent leaders of the Ansār and the Muhājirūn, so
Usayd said: ‘Indeed after you O Abū Bakr! I consider him the best. He is happy
on happy occasions and sad on sad occasions. His inner-self is better than his
outer-self. No one is more suited to bear the burden of this Khilāfat’.
After this, Ibn Sa‘ad reports that some people differed from Abū Bakr’s (rta)
opinion but he satisfied them. He then called ‘Uthmān (rta) and said:
اكتب : بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم هذا ما عهد ابوبكر بن أبي
قحافة في أخر عهده بالدنيا خارجاً منها وعند أول عهده بالأخرة داخلا فيها حيث يؤمن
الكافر و يوقن الفاجر و يصدق الكاذب انى استخلفت عليكم بعدي عمر بن الخطاب فاسمعوا
له و أطيعوا
Write: In the name of Allah the Most Gracious, the Ever Merciful. This is the
will of Abū Bakr Ibn Abī Quhāfah which he made at the end of his worldly life,
when he is about to leave it and at the beginning of his next life when he is
about to enter it, at a time when disbelievers accept faith, the defiant express
belief and liars speak the truth. I make ‘Umar Ibn Khattāb your Khalīfah.
Therefore, listen to him and obey him.
This letter was sealed. According to Abū Bakr’s (rta) directive, ‘Umar Ibn
Khattāb (rta) and Usayd Ibn Sa‘īd (rta) accompanied ‘Uthmān (rta), who took the
letter out to the people and said:
أتبايعون لـمن في هذا الكتاب؟ فقالوا نعم
Will you pledge allegiance to the person in whose favor a will has been made
in this letter. The people said: ‘Yes’.
Ibn Sa‘ad reports:
فاقروا بذلك جميعاً و رضوا به و بايعوا ثم دعا ابوبكر عمر
خالياً فأوصاه بما أوصاه به
All accepted and agreed to pledge allegiance to ‘Umar. Then Abū Bakr called
‘Umar in solitude and gave him whatever advice he wanted to.
When ‘Umar Ibn Khattāb (rta) was severely wounded and his death looked
imminent, the political situation was still unchanged. The Muhājirūn of the
Quraysh still enjoyed the majority mandate of the Muslims. Therefore, according
to the Islamic constitution, only an election of a leader by the majority group
was required. The people who held responsible positions asked ‘Umar Ibn Khattāb
(rta), as reported by Ibn Sa‘ad:
‘اَلاَ تَعَهْدُ اِلَيْنَا اَلاَ تُوَمِّرُ عَلَيْنَا’
(Will you not leave a will for us? Will you not appoint a ruler for us?). ‘Umar
Ibn Khattāb (rta), however, adopted another way: Instead of appointing a
Khalīfah by consulting the Shūrā members, as had been done by Abū Bakr (rta), he
entrusted the matter to six prominent leaders:
أني قد نظرت لكم في أمر الناس فلم أجد
عند الناس شقاقاً ألا إن يكون فيكم فان كان شقاق فهو فيكم وانما الامرالى ستة : ألي
عبد الرحمن و عثمان و على و الزبير و طلحة و سعد
I have deliberated on the matter of Khilāfat and have reached the conclusion
that there is no difference among the people in this affair as long as it is one
of you. If there is any difference, it is within you. Therefore, this matter is
entrusted to the six of you: ‘Abdu’l-Rahmān, ‘Uthmān, ‘Alī, Zubayr, Talhah and
Sa‘ad.
What he meant was that since the people only looked upon them for Khilāfat
and if they agreed to accept anyone among them as Khalīfah, the people would not
differ with their decision.
He further said
:‘قُوْمُوْا فَتَشَاوِرُوْا فَاَمِّرُوْا اَحَدَكُمْ عَلَيْكُم’
(Rise, consult and make anyone amongst yourselves as the ruler.) However, since
there was a chance that some miscreants might create disorder or that these six
might prolong matters, ‘Umar Ibn Khattāb (rta) appointed the Ansār as the
custodians over the six because, being a minority group, they were not a party
to the whole affair. Ibn Sa‘ad narrates through Anas Ibn Mālik:
أرسل عمر بن الخطاب إلى أبي طلحة الأنصاري قبل أن يموت بساعة
فقال : يا أبا طلحة كن في خمسين من قومك من الالنصار مع هولاء النفر : أصحاب الشورى
فانهم فيما احسب سيجتمعون في بيت أحدهم فقم على ذلك الباب بأصحابك فلا تترك أحدا
يدخل عليهم ولا تتركهم يمضي اليوم الثالث حتى يومروا أحدهم
‘Umar Ibn Khattāb just before his death summoned ‘Abū Talhah Ansārī. When he
arrived, ‘Umar said: ‘Abū Talhah take fifty men from your tribe Ansār and go to
these people of the Shūrā. I reckon they will be present at the house of someone
amongst themselves. Stand at their door with your comrades and let no one go
inside and do not give them more than three days for electing a leader’.
‘Umar Ibn Khattāb (rta) instructed them in the following words about the
leaders of the Ansār:
احضروا معكم من شيوخ الأنصار وليس لهم من أمركم من شيء
Call the leaders of the Ansār to you, but they have no share in political
authority.
Ibn Sa‘ad reports that when all of them had assembled, ‘Abdu’l-Rahmān Ibn
‘Awf (rta) opined that three of them should withdraw themselves in favour of
three others. Consequently, Zubayr (rta) withdrew in favour of ‘Alī (rta), and
Talhah (rta) and Sa‘ad (rta) withdrew in favour of ‘Uthmān (rta) and
‘Abdu’l-Rahmān Ibn ‘Awf (rta) respectively. Then he asked ‘Uthmān (rta) and ‘Alī
(rta) to give him the right to decide, if he withdraws: When both agreed, he
said to ‘Alī (rta):
أن لك من القرابة من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم والقدم
والله عليك لئن استخلفت لتعدلن ولئن استخلف عثمان لتسمعن ولتطيعن.
You have the honour of being among the earliest who accepted Islam as well as
being a relation of the Prophet of Allah. By God! If you are entrusted with Khilāfat, promise that you will rule with justice and if ‘Uthmān (rta) is made
the Khalīfah, you shall listen to him and obey him.
After ‘Alī (rta) agreed, he turned to ‘Uthmān (rta) and repeated what he had
said; when both showed their approval, he said: ‘O ‘Uthmān! Extend your hand!
When he did so, ‘Alī and others pledged their oath of allegiance to him’.
There can be two opinions about the Khilāfat of ‘Alī (rta). This difference
however, is not about any basic principle, but about whether the Muhājirūn of
the Quraysh elected their leader with freedom or under coercion. This discussion
is not relevant to our topic. Therefore, even if it is left out, the fact
remains that throughout the period of the Rightly Guided Caliphate, power
remained with those who commanded the majority support of the Muslims ie, the
Muhājirūn of the Quraysh and that their prominent leaders elected the ruler.
This is also a reality that all the four Caliphs were elected basically by the
same principle. They were elected from the leaders of the majority group and all
the leaders of the other groups were also consulted in this election. The only
difference is that when they agreed on ‘Umar (rta), Abū Bakr (rta) himself
enforced this decision, and ‘Umar (rta), when he found that their difference was
about six eminent leaders, entrusted the responsibility of electing one from
among the six on the six persons themselves.
________________
|