In the recent past, a lot has been said about the Islamic
political law as enunciated in the Qur’ān and Sunnah. Since our view about some
of its clauses is different from the general one, we present here our
interpretation of the law.
Basic Principle
The basic principle upon which Islam has based its
political law is that in the affairs of state God and his Prophet (sws) is the
final authority. The head of an Islamic State or the members of its parliament
have no right whatsoever to have a ruling in matters decreed by the Book of God
or the Sunnah of the Prophet (sws). Their commandments can only be obeyed after
obeying God and his Prophet (sws), and if they do not overrule or exceed the
limits adjudicated by these authorities. Therefore, in an Islamic State no law
can be enacted contrary to the Qur’ān and Sunnah or one which does not take into
consideration the guidance provided by them. The believers indeed have a right
to disagree with those in authority, but they can have no disagreement with God
and His Prophet (sws). In fact, if such a situation arises even with those in
authority, the decision must be made in the light of the Qur’ān and Sunnah. The
Qur’ān says:
“Obey God and 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 are believers in Allah and the Last Day. This is better
and more seemly as regards the consequences.” (4:59) If at any time the people
charged with authority deny this principle then according to the Qur’ān this is
outright kufr,
which can only be perpetrated by a zālim
or a fāsiqh.
The Qur’ān says:
“And those who do not decide according to the law revealed
by God are Kāfirs.” (5:44)
In this situation, the believers have a right to disobey
their rulers and if possible, to strive for their removal from the position of
authority they hold.
Ubādah-Ibn-Sāmit has reported the following tradition of the Prophet (sws):
“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 : Kitāb-ul-Amāra)
It is, therefore, clear that this is a basic principle and
if a state does not adhere to it, it cannot be called an Islamic State in any
sense of the word. It follows from this that it is necessary for the believers
to establish an institution in their state to which they can turn to ascertain
the injunctions of God and His Prophet (sws) in all the collective affairs of
life and to resolve any disagreement which may arise in this regard.
The Objectives of a State
A state founded on the above principle will, according to
this law, have the objectives of establishing the system of prayers and zakat
and to patronize and further whatever God and His Prophet (sws) regard as
virtuous and to forbid whatever they regard as evil. The Qur’ān says:
“[These believers are those who], if We grant them
authority in this land, will establish regular prayers and pay zakat and enjoin
what is virtuous and forbid what is evil.” (22:41)
The fact that, like any other state, an Islamic State has
the responsibility to strive for the welfare and prosperity of its people, to
maintain peace and defend its frontiers is understood. What is being actually
stressed is that the above verse spells out what may be regarded as the primary
and distinctive objectives for which an Islamic State is created. It should in
no way neglect these foremost obligations and should, in fact, direct all its
efforts to achieve them. This will enable all the believers to hold steadfast to
Islamic teachings and be in a position to duly bear witness to the religion of
truth upon other nations of the world, which according to the Qur’ān is the main
objective behind the creation of the Muslim Ummah:
“You are the best Ummah that has been raised up for
mankind [to bear witness to the religion of truth upon them]. You enjoin what is
virtuous and forbid what is evil and really believe in God.” (3:110)
It is for this objective for which the believers have been
directed to establish their collective system in a manner in which all rights
and duties can be fulfilled in an appropriate way, and all judgements between
people should be passed with justice. According to the Qur’ān:
“God commands you to hand back 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)
The System of Government
The system of government of an Islamic State is based upon
the Qur’ānic verse:
“Their affairs of state are run by their mutual
consultation.” (42:38)
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.
Diversity in the Word Amr
The word ÿamr has many meanings in Arabic. Anyone who has
a linguistic appreciation knows that for all such words the implied meaning is
determined from the context in which they are used. Before we ascertain its
implied meaning in the above verse, we shall examine its various connotations in
Arabic.
In Yazīd Ibn Al-Jaham Al-Halāli’s following couplet it
means `to urge’ or `to advise’:
Laqad ‘amarat bilbukhli ‘ummu mohammadī
Fa qultu laha: huththī `alal bukhli ‘ahmadā
(“Ummi-Mohammad urged me to be stingy, so I said to her:
if you must urge someone to be stingy then let it be your son Ahmad.”)
Amar-Ibn-Dhubai`ah-Al-Raqqāshī uses it in exactly the same
way we use `matters’ for our general affairs of life:
‘alā liyaqul mā shā’a ‘innamā
Yulāmul fata fīmastatā`a minal ‘amrī
(“Let anyone say what he likes, for a young man can only
be reproached in matters which are under his control.”)
In Abu-Sakhar-Al-Huzalī’s following couplet, it denotes
`commandments and authority’:
‘amā wallazī ‘abkā wa adh haka wallazī
‘amāta wa ‘ahyā wallazi amruhul ‘amrū
(“Listen! By Him Who made us weep and laugh, Who gave
death and life and Whose commandments are the real commandments.”)
Safiyya-Binti-Abdul-Muttalib uses it in a way in which
together with `commandments and authority’ it connotes `affairs of state’:
‘alā man mublighun `anna Qurayshan
Fafīmal ‘amru fīnā wal īmārū
(“Hark ! who will deliver our message to the Quraysh that
as they do not accept our social position, so they should tell us that why are
the affairs of state in our hands and why are we considered worthy of
consultation?”)
In the Qur’ān also, it has been used in all these meanings
and in all instances the meaning it actually implies is determined by the
context. It is quite evident that in this verse it has been used in the meaning
of `collective affairs’. The depth in its meaning of `commandment’ has, in fact,
incorporated this meaning in it. When the word commandment becomes related to
people then it prescribes certain limits for itself and establishes certain
rules and regulations. In such cases, it implies both the decrees which pertain
to political authority and the collective affairs of a society. A little
deliberation shows that the English word `system’ conveys the same meaning.
Since the Qur’ān has not specified it by any adjective, so
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 injunctions,
rules of legislation, delegation and revocation of powers, dismissal and
appointment of officials, interpretation of Islam for the collective affairs of
life---all will come 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.
The Principle of Consultation
The word shūrā is a nomen verbum (masdar) of the category
fu`alā and means `to consult’. Due to the fact that it occurs as an inchoative (khabr)
in the given verse and is also qualified by the word bainahum, the meaning of
the verse is not the same as of shāwirhum fil amr. Fa izā `azamta fa
tawakkal`alalāh, which is often quoted as its parallel. To convey the same
meaning as this verse, the words should, perhaps, have been something like this:
wa fil amri hum yushāwarūn ie, `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 be divinely
appointed or nominated by an innocent Imām or be someone who had seized power by
force. Whatever the way he reached the position of head of state, he would have
only been obligated to consult people in matters of national interest before
forming his own opinion. Nonetheless, he would not be bound to accept a
consensus or a majority opinion. Acceptance or rejection of an opinion would
rest on his own discretion. He would have all the right to accept a minority
opinion and reject a majority one.
However, the style and pattern of the verse amruhum shūrā
bainahum 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 done through consultation should only
be undone through consultation; everyone part of the system should have a say in
its affairs, and without a consensus, a majority opinion should decide any
disagreement which many arise.
The difference in the meanings 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 the decision
and the opinion of anyone of them can not prevail over the others. If all of
them do not agree in 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 it only means that someone
else has the final say. It will be his opinion which will finally be executed.
The only thing he must do is to consult the ten brothers before forming his own
opinion. Obviously, he cannot be forced to accept a consensus or a majority
opinion of the brothers.
Since, in our consideration the collective affairs of the
Muslim are based on the Qur’ānic injunction: amruhum shūrā bainahum, 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. However, the Prophet (sws) was an exception to this rule. He
was divinely appointed and there was no possibility of human error in his
judgements which he made directly under the guidance of the Almighty. Therefore,
where he has been directed to consult others in Sūrah Aali ‘Imrān, it has been
clearly stated that whatever opinion he forms after consultation, he should
strictly adhere to it and rely totally on the Almighty:
“Keep consulting in the affairs of state; then when you
take a decision, put thy trust in Allah.” (3:159)
The above directive of the Qur’ān is in accordance with
human nature and in harmony with all norms of common sense. No Muslim can be
free of faults and 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. With these abilities
also, he cannot attain the position of Khilāfat without the general opinion of
the Muslims. Also, his assumption of this position after being elected through a
majority mandate does not necessitate at all 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 had 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 Imām Shafi used to: `We consider our opinion
as correct but concede the possibility of an error, and the consider the opinion
of others as incorrect but concede the possibility of correctness in it’.
Moreover, if the people consulted know that even their
consensus and majority opinion have all the chances 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. While delineating on this
psychological aspect, Qadhi Abu Bakr Jassās writes in his “Ahkām-ul-Qur’ān”:
“It is not proper to consider that this directive of
consultation is merely to please and honour the Companions of the Prophet nor is
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 acceptable nor
[fit enough] to be followed. Therefore, such an interpretation of this directive
of consultation is baseless and cannot be accepted. Furthermore, how can this
aspect of the interpretation that this directive was merely given to teach the
Prophet’s way to the Ummah be regarded as correct when 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.” (Vol 2, Pg
41)
Conditions of Consultation
The addition of bainahum has incorporated a condition in
the sentence: only those people will have the right to give their opinions who
are the antecedents of the pronoun hum (they) in bainahum. The Qur’ān has not
just said `Their affairs of state are based on consultation’. It has added the
condition that the affairs of state shall be based on their mutual consultation.
Therefore, in an Islamic State, it is quite evident that only the believers will
have the right to give an opinion in state affairs. According to the Qur’ān, a
person shall only be considered as a believer if he fulfils the following
conditions:
“Hence, if they repent [from all un-Islamic beliefs] and
establish regular prayers and pay Zakat, they are your brethren in religion.”
(9:11)
In the above verse, three conditions have been clearly
stated:
1) They should refrain from adopting a rebellious attitude
against the Islamic Order, stop indulging in polytheism, profess faith in the
tenets of Islam and accept the supremacy of the Islamic law.
2) They should offer prayers according to the way
prescribed by the Prophet (sws).
3) They should pay Zakat to the public treasury (bait-ul-māl).
According to the Qur’ān, whoever fulfils these three
conditions shall be granted complete citizenship in an Islamic State. He can be
included among the consulters and the consulted. As far as his rights and duties
in a state are concerned, there will be no difference between him and a person
who had accepted faith in the early stages. The Qur’ān has used the word fa
ikhwānukum fid dīn (they are your brothers in religion) to convey this meaning.
From the word Ad-dīn, the Islamic collective system is implied and by the words
fa ikhwānukum, those who have accepted faith in the crucial early stages have
been addressed and told that those who fulfil these conditions are equal to them
and will have the same collective rights.
The Prophet (sws) has explained thus the Qur’ānic
directives in this regard, as reported by Abdullah Ibni ‘Umar:
“I have been ordained to wage war with these people until
they testify to the oneness of Allah and the prophethood of Muhammad, establish
regular prayers and pay zakat. If they accept these conditions their lives and
wealth shall be given protection except if they are deprived from this
protection on the grounds of some offense they may commit. As far as their inner
account is concerned, it rests with Allah.” (Muslim: Kitāb-ul-Imān).
A similar statement is attributed to the Caliph Abu Bakr,
when he was launching an attack against those who were desisting to pay zakat:
“After the death of the Prophet of Allah, Abu Bakr became
Khalīfa and a group among the Arabs rejected faith [and he decided to fight with
them]. Hadhrat ‘Umar objected: How can you fight with these people when the
Prophet of Allah had said: `I have been ordained to wage war
with these people until they testify to the oneness of God and my prophethood,
so whoever will declare this he shall safeguard his life and wealth from me
except for some right of the Almighty. As far as his inner accountability is
concerned it rests with God.’, Abu Bakr replied: By God! I shall definitely wage
war with those who differentiate between prayers and zakat, because zakat is
God’s right in wealth. By God! even if they refuse me a young goat which they
used to give to the Prophet, I shall fight with them on their refusal.” (Bukhārī
, Kitāb-uz-Zakāt)
The following words are also attributed to Hadhrat Abu
Bakr:
1. “The Prophet waged war on three conditions: on testification to Lā ilāha illalāh, on the establishment of regular prayers and
on the payment of zakat and the Almighty has said: `Therefore, if they repent
establish regular prayers and pay zakat, spare their lives’. By God I shall
neither ask for more nor less.” (“Ahkām-ul-Qur’ān”, Jassās, Vol 3, Pg 82).
It is clear from these directives that all those people
will have a right to offer their opinion in the affairs of state who fulfil the
above three conditions. A state’s affairs shall be instituted and run in
accordance with their consultation. The Almighty has granted them this right and
no head of state or political institution can deprive them of it.
Majlis-i-Shūrā
According to the Qur’ānic injunction amruhum shūrā
bainahum, the manner in which the Muslim public shall participate in the state’s
affairs is based on the following two principles, as prescribed by the Prophet (sws):
(1) Muslims shall be consulted in the affairs of state
through their leaders in whom they profess confidence. To quote the “Sahīh” of
Bukhārī :
“When the Muslims at the Prophet’s behest consented to
free the prisoners of Hawāzin, the Prophet said: I could not know which of you
has shown his consent and which of you has not. Therefore, go back, and send
your leaders that they may inform us.” (Kitāb-ul-Ahkām)
During the time of the Prophet (sws), the tribal chiefs
held this position of trust. The people of the tribes of Aus, 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, in
fact, because of their social status, intellect and experience that their people
turned to them 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, someone could say that they had seized power by force and that
he was not in a position to show his mistrust in them, but after accepting faith
everyone from among the Muslim public could express infront of the Prophet (sws)
his lack of confidence in them. If they did so, no one from among the leaders
could remain on their positions.
During the Khilāfat-i-Rāshidah also the position of trust
commanded by the leaders continued.
While narrating the proceedings of a shūrā during the time
of Hadhrat ‘Umar’s rule, Qadhi Abu Yusaf says:
“The people said: you should now seek formal consultation.
At this he consulted the early Muhājirīns and three existed a difference in
their opinions. Abdur Rehman Ibn Auf maintained that the land should be
rightfully distributed among them, while Hadhrat Usman, Ali, Talha and Hadhrat
Ibni ‘Umar, were in agreement with Hadhrat ‘Umar’s view. Then he called ten
people from the Ansār: five from the Aus and five from the Khazraj.” (“Kitāb-ul-Kharāj”,
Fasal fil Fai wal Kharāj)
(2) Among the various groups present in an Islamic State,
only that group shall assume its political authority which enjoys the confidence
of the majority of the Muslims. This principle has been derived from the
Prophet’s decision in which he expressed how the transfer of political power
should take place after him. Mua`wiyyah reports in Bukhārī :
“I heard the Prophet saying: 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 .” (Kitāb-ul-Ahkām)
To quote “Tabrāni”:
“In this matter bring forward the Quraysh and do not try
to supersede them.” (`An Asānīdi Mukhtalifah)
The Prophet (sws) stated thus the reason for the decision
he had declared:
“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, Kitāb-ul-Imārah)
Thus, the Prophet (sws) made it very clear that since the
majority of the Arabian Muslims profess confidence in the Quraysh, therefore, in
the light of the Qur’ānic Directive: amruhum shūrā bainahum, they are solely
entitled to take charge as the rulers of Arabia, and that the Quraysh shall be
passed on the political authority not because of any racial 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 Medina
and many of them had distinguished themselves in the service of Islam. It were
these people who were there called the Muhājirīn and after the general
acceptance of faith by the Arabs had assumed the place of Utbah Ibn Rabī`ah,
Shaibah Ibn Rabī`ah, Abul Bukhtarī Ibn Hishām, Naufal Ibn Khuwailid, Hārith Ibn
Amir Ibn Naufal, Tu`aimah Ibn Adī Ibn Naufal, Nazar Ibn Al-Hārith, Zam`ah Ibn
Al-Aswad, Abu Jahal Ibn Hishām, Umayyah Ibn Khalf, Munabbih Ibn Hajjjāj, Suhail
Ibn Amr and Amr Ibn Abdiwud. Now Abdur Rehman Ibn Auf, Sa`ad Ibn Abi Waqqās, Abu
Ubaidah Ibn Al-Jarrah, Zubair Ibn Al-Awām, Talha Ibn Ubaidullah, Ali, Uthman,
‘Umar and Abu Bakr held the same position of general trust and confidence as the
leaders of the Quraysh did before the advent of Islam.
Due to these reasons, the fact, that the Quraysh enjoyed
the confidence of the general Muslims of Arabia and no other group which could
challenge their position existed in Arabia, was an undisputable reality, which
did not require the confirmation of a general election.
There is no doubt that as far as Medina was concerned, the
Ansār under Sa`ad Ibn Abādh and Sād Ibn Muāz the respective leaders of Aus and
Khazraj, had more influence among the local population. They were no less than
the Muhājirīn as regards the services they had done for the cause of Islam. They
had offered their unconditional support and help to the Muhājirīn when the
latter had migrated to Medina. Together with them, they had fought gallantly in
the battles of Badr, Uhud, Ahzāb and Hunain. The relationship of brotherhood and
fraternity they had established with them was an exceptional one. Particularly,
the way they had offered them monetary assistance---just to please the Almighty
of course---bears no parallel in history. If the Islamic State had been confined
only to Medina, it can be said with certainty that after the Prophet (sws), they
would have assumed political authority. But after the conquest of Mecca, when a
large number of Arabs of other territories accepted Islam, the political scene
change drastically. The extent of confidence commanded by the Muhahirīn of
Quraysh out-proportioned that of the Ansār.
However, there was still a chance that under the perfectly
natural emotions of tribal affiliation and the spirit of outdoing each other in
serving Islam, the Ansār might have come out and challenged the Quraysh.
Particularly, the fact that they commanded more influence locally in Medina
might have caused them to put an undue trust in their strength. If such a
situation, God forbid, arose the Munāfiqīn (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 Sād Ibn Ubādah, the leader of the Ansār. He is said
to have said: `After me the leadership (imāmat) shall be transferred to the
Quraysh.’
In the Saqīfah of Bani Sā`ida, when the leaders of the
Ansār were delivering stirring speeches to prove their entitlement to the
leadership of the Arabs, Hadhrat Abu Bakr reminded them of the Prophet’s above
mentioned decision in the following words:
“O Sād! You know very well that the Prophet (sws) had said
in your presence that the Quraysh shall be given the khilāfat because the noble
among the Arabs follow their nobles and the their unrighteous follow their
unrighteous. Sād replied: What you say is correct, we are your advisers and you
are our rulers.” (“Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hambal”)
After this verification by Sād Ibn Ubādah, it became clear
to those present that they had strayed from the right course in the heat of the
discussion and that the right course was only to elect their ruler from the
group which had the 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 in any
case adopt a different one.
The 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, Hadhrat ‘Umar proclaimed the Khilāfat of Hadhrat Abu Bakr being
sure of the fact that the leaders of the Quraysh shall not differ with him and
would, in fact, endorse his step, considering the delicacy of the situation
which had arisen in the Saqīfah. Later, he himself stated this reason for his
step and warned the people that no one should dare present it as a violation of
the Qur’ānic principle: amrahum shūrā bainahum:
“No one among you should have the misconception that the
oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr took place suddenly. No doubt, the oath was
pledged in the this way, but the Almighty protected the Muslims from its evil
consequences [which may have arisen] and remember! there is none among you like
Abu 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 ,
Kitāb-ul-Hudūd)
At the time of the death of Abu Bakr also, the general
confidence enjoyed by the Muhājirīn of the Quraysh persisted. 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 MuHajjirīn of
the Quraysh nominated Hadhrat ‘Umar as the new Amīr-ul-Mominīn, and both the
Ansār and the Muhājirīn---the two big tribes of the Muslims---accepted the
appointment. Consequently, without any difference of opinion, Hadhrat ‘Umar, in
direct accordance with the Islamic constitution, assumed the position of
Khilāfat. Ibni Sād reports:
“When ill-health overtook Abu Bakr and the time of his
death approached, he summoned Hadhrat Abdur Rehman Ibn Auf and said: `Tell me
about ‘Umar Ibn Khattāb’. Abdur Rehman replied: `You are asking me about
something of which you know better’. Abu Bakr said: `Although [this is correct
yet I want your opinion]’. Abdur Rehman answered: `By God! he is even better
than the opinion you hold about him’. Then he [Abu Bakr] called Uthman Ibn Affān
and asked him: `Tell me about ‘Umar Ibn Khattāb’. Hadhrat Uthman replied: `You
know him better than us’. Abu Bakr said: `Still! O Abu Abdullah! [I want your
opinion]’. [At this] Hadhrat Uthman answered: `Indeed, in my opinion his inner
self is better than his outer and no one among us can parallel him’.” (At-Tabaqāt-ul-Kubrā,
Vol 3, Pg 199)
Ibni Sa’ad mentions that Abu Bakr besides these two
consulted all the big leaders of the Ansār and the Muhājirīn:
“And he, besides these two, consulted Abul Awar Saeed Ibn
Zaid and Asīd Ibn Al-Hudhair as well as other big leaders of the Ansār and the
Muhājirīn, so Asīd said: `Indeed after you O Abu Bakr! I consider him the best.
His inside is better than his outside. No one is more suited to bear the burden
of this Khilāfat’.” (“At-Tabaqāt-ul-Kubrā”, Vol 3, Pg 199)
After this Ibni Sād reports that some people differed from
Abu Bakr’s opinion but he satisfied them. He then called Hadhrat Uthman and
said:
“Write: In the name of Allah the Most Gracious, the Ever
Merciful. This is the will of Abu 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 and obey him.” (“At-Tabaqāt-ul-Kubrā”,
Vol 3, Pg 200)
This letter was sealed. According to Hadhrat Abu Bakr’s
directive, ‘Umar Ibn Khattāb and Asīd Ibn Saeed accompanied Hadhrat Uthman while
he took the letter out to the people and said:
“Will you pledge allegiance to the person in whose favour
a will has been made in this letter. The people said: Yes.” (“At-Tabaqāt-ul-Kubrā”,
Vol 3, Pg 200)
Ibni Sād reports:
“All accepted and agreed to pledge allegiance to Hadhrat
‘Umar. Then Abu Bakr called ‘Umar in solitude and gave him whatever advice he
wanted to.” (“At-Tabaqāt-ul-Kubrā”, Vol 3, Pg 200)
When Hadhrat ‘Umar was severely wounded and his death
looked imminent, the political situation was still unchanged. The Muhājirīn 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
Hadhrat ‘Umar, as reported by Ibni Sād:
“Will you not leave a will for us? Will you not appoint a
Khalīfah for us? (“At-Tabaqāt-ul-Kubrā”, Vol 3, Pg 343)
Hadhrat ‘Umar, however, adopted another way: Instead of
appointing a Khalīfah by consulting the shūrā members, as done by Hadhrat Abu
Bakr, he entrusted the matter to six big leaders:
“I have deliberated on the matter of Imāmat-i-Āmah (Khilāfat)
and have reached the conclusion that there is no difference among the people in
this affair as far 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---Abdur Rehman, Uthman,
Ali, Zubair, Talha and Sād.” (“At-Tabaqāt-ul-Kubrā”, Vol 3, Pg 344)
He further said:
“Rise, and make anyone amongst yourselves as the Amīr.”
(“At-Tabaqāt-ul-Kubrā”, Vol 3, Pg 344)
However, since there was a chance that some miscreants
might create disorder or that these six might prolong matters, Hadhrat ‘Umar
appointed Ansār as the custodians over the six because, being a minority group,
they were not a party to the whole affair.
Ibni Sād narrates through Ans Ibn Malik:
“‘Umar Ibn Khattāb just before his death summoned Abu
Talha Ansāri. When he arrived Hadhrat ‘Umar said: `Abu Talha take fifty men from
your tribe Ansār and go ye 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’.” (“At-Tabaqāt-ul-Kubrā”, Vol 3, Pg 364)
Ibni Sād reports that when all of them had assembled,
Abdul Rehman Ibn Auf opined that three of them should withdraw themselves in
favour of three others. Consequently, Zubair withdrew in favour of Ali, and
Talha and Sa`ad withdrew in favour of Uthman and Abdur Rehman Ibn Auf
respectively. Then he asked Uthman and Ali to give him the right to decide, if
he withdraws: When both agreed, he said to Ali:
“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
Uthman is made the Khalīfah, you shall listen and obey him.” (“At-Tabaqāt-ul-Kubrā”,
Vol 3, Pg 339)
After Hadhrat Ali agreed, he turned to Hadhrat Uthman and
repeated what he had said; When both showed their approval, he said:
“O Uthman! extend your hand! When he did so, Hadhrat Ali
and others pledged their oath of allegiance.” (At-Tabaqāt-ul-Kubrā”, Vol 3, Pg
339)
There can be two opinions about the Khilāfat of Hadhrat
Ali. This difference however, is not about any basic principle, but in the fact
that whether the Muhājirīn of the Quraysh elected their leader with freedom or
were they forced to do so. This discussion is irrelevant 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 Muhājirīn of the Quraysh and that their
prominent leaders elected the Amīr. This also is 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
Hadhrat ‘Umar, Hadhrat Abu Bakr himself enforced this decision and Hadhrat
‘Umar, when he found that their difference was about six big leaders, entrusted
the responsibility of electing one from among the six on the six person
themselves. From this discussion it is evident that:
(1) In an Islamic state the existence of political parties
is perfectly legal and, in fact, they are an important constituent of its
political system.
(2) If today elections are held to ascertain which party
enjoys the general support then it will be totally in accordance with Islam.
(3) The president of an Islamic State should not be
elected directly by the general masses, instead his election should take place
in the parliament through their representatives.
The Qualities of the Ūl-ul-Amr
According to the Qur’ān, the person who is elected as the
head of state from the ūl-ul-amr should have a commanding and an awe-inspiring
personality and should be the most distinguished among them not in wealth and
affluence but in integrity, wisdom and intellect. These qualities have,
therefore, been cited by the Qur’ān as the real reason behind the nomination of
Tālūt (Saul) for the supreme leadership of the Banī Israel:
“Indeed, Allah has chosen him to rule over you and has
gifted him abundantly with knowledge and physique.” (2:247)
It is evident from this that such elements are not
suitable to head an Islamic State who lack intellect, wisdom and masculine
attributes; who instead of being venturesome and enterprising are passive and
receptive by nature, and who instead of influencing others are more liable to be
influenced.
The reason for this is that the ruler of an Islamic State
is not one who only heads them, he also leads the believers in Prayers, Hajj and
Jihād. Moreover, he is like a father to his nation, and a model and a guide for
them. He is the voice of their conscience, a representative of their ideology, a
symbol of their cognizance---someone in whom their sense of honour is
personified. It is vital, therefore, that he be someone who instead of delicacy
has the ability to take the initiative and who instead of resignation and
tenderness possess resolution and tenacity. Whether he be addressing the
parliament, the Juma congregation or his soldiers in a battle, it is his
authoritative yet majestic, dominating yet gracious and awe-inspiring yet
benevolent personality which commands the love and respect of all. It is this
towering stature of a Muslim ruler because of which the feeble feel secure, the
old feel revitalized and the young are inspired to daring deeds.
It should be clear that the word `knowledge’ stated in the
verse not only encompasses a deep understanding of political and administrative
matters but also the ability to deal soundly with them. Furthermore, a natural
outcome of such `knowledge’ is a God-fearing attitude. The Qur’ān says:
“Only those among God’s servants fear Him who have
knowledge.” (35:28)
An aspect of this God-fearing attitude is that a person
should consider a governmental post as a responsibility and should in no way
have any greed for it. The Prophet (sws) has explained this in the following
way:
“By God we shall not grant any person a post in this
system who asks for it and has greed for it.” (Muslim, Kitāb-ul-Imārah)
“In our consideration, the most dishonest among you is the
one who asks for a post.” (Abu Daud, Kitāb-ul-Kharāj-wal-Imārah)
Once, the Prophet (sws) counselled a Companion in the
following words:
“Abdur Rahman! Do not seek a post. If it is granted to you
because of your desire your shall [find yourself] being handed over to it and if
it is granted to you without your desire, the Almighty shall help you.” (Muslim,
Kitāb-ul-Imārah)
It is evident that the other government personnel should
also have these qualities. The Prophet (sws) has said:
“When people having the best character are your rulers and
your rich are generous and your system is based on consultation, the surface of
the earth is better for you than its core and when people having the worst
character are your rulers and your rich are stingy and your affairs are
entrusted to women, the core of the earth is better for you than its surface.”
(Tirmazī, Abwāb-ul-Fitan)
From the above qualities of the ūl-ul-amr, it is clear
that an Islamic Political System by nature is an aristocracy which is based on
the piety, wisdom and political acumen of the people who constitute it.
Therefore, it is necessary that a person who is devoid of these abilities should
not become a part of it.
Norms for Leadership
After assuming an office in the government the Prophet
(sws) has decreed that all the officials of the government must necessarily
follow three principles:
Firstly, the standard of living of the head of an Islamic
State and his administrators shall not exceed that of a common citizen.
Secondly, their doors shall always remain open to hear the
grievances and problems of the general public.
Thirdly, the Friday prayers must be led by the head of
state in the federal capital and by his administrators in other cities.
These principles are based on established historical
facts. During the Prophet’s time and the period of the Rightly Guided Caliphs
these principles were strongly adhered to. Today also, they must necessarily be
followed by our leaders and administrators. Moreover, it should be kept in
consideration that it is because of these norms of leadership that, in the words
of the Prophet (sws) an Islamic State is called `Khilāfat alā Minhājin Nabuwwah’
and in the words of the Prophet Jesus (sws), it is called the `Kingdom of God’
and whenever it is established on earth, people receive the blessings of the
Almighty from the heavens above and the earth below.
Rights and Duties of A Citizen
An important issue pertaining to the relationship between
a state and an individual is the rights and duties of a citizen. People
generally believe that their history began in 1215 with the imposition of the
Magna Carta in England and after progressing through the stages of Thomas
Paine’s “The Rights of Man”, Rosseau’s “The Concept of a Social Contract”, and
“The Manifesto of Human Rights” of the French Revolution reached its pinnacle in
“The Universal Charter of Human Rights” of the United Nations; But, the truth of
the matter is that centuries ago the Qur’ān had enunciated them in just two
sentences in its own miraculous style, making all this human endeavour appear
mediocre if not very ordinary in front of it. Furthermore, human intellect after
discovering its far reaching implications is compelled to acknowledge that it
can neither imagine something better nor add anything to it. The Qur’ān says:
“If they repent [from all un-Islamic beliefs], establish
regular prayers, and pay zakat, leave them alone.” (9:5)
“If they repent [from all un-Islamic beliefs], establish
regular prayers, and pay zakat, they are your brethren in religion.” (9:11)
Both these verses of Sūrah Taubah have the same context.
The Qur’ān says that it should be proclaimed in the congregation of Hajj that
those who fulfil the conditions stated in these verses ie, repentance,
establishing of regular prayers and paying of zakat are the brethren of the
believers and that their lives should be spared.
A little deliberation on these verses reveals their
similarity of words except their respective endings. The first verse which ends
with a negative note directs the believers to spare those who fulfil these three
conditions, while the second one which closes on a positive note directs the
believers to consider them as their brethren in religion. Moreover, two fixed
and positive conditions have been coordinated with a comprehensive term fa in
tābū, which implies the giving up of all prohibited things.
If these aspects of the verse are kept in consideration,
five things become very evident:
Firstly, people who fulfil 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.
Secondly, after fulfilling these conditions the mutual
relationship between the rulers and the ruled is necessarily 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.
Thirdly, due to this relationship of brotherhood, all
responsibilities which reason and intellect endorse are imposed on the rulers
and the ruled.
Fourthly, in these verses the Qur’ān instead of saying:
`if they accept faith’ (fa in āmanū) has said: `if they repent’ (fa in tābū)
which, in fact, means `to refrain from what is prohibited’ and has coordinated
it with two positive requirements of Islam: prayers and zakat; a corollary of
this is that fa in tābū should denote its literal meaning ie, `to refrain from
what is prohibited’ and imply repentance from every faith and deed which is
prohibited in Islam.
Fifthly, 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 fulfil 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 Abu Bakr, when he has launching an attack against those who were
desisting to pay zakat, stated in unequivocal terms:
“The Almighty has said: `Therefore, if they repent
establish regular prayers and pay zaqat, spare their lives’. By God I shall
neither ask for more nor less.” (“Ahkām-ul-Qur’ān”, Jassās, Vol 3, Pg 82).
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 because they have been considered as Muslims only after they
have accepted to refrain from all prohibited things under the words `fa in
tābū’, but, positively, an Islamic State has no authority to require anything of
the Muslims except salāt and zakāt. It certainly has the right to legislate
about the prohibited things in Islam and punish people if they violate them: for
example, laws can be enacted against theft, adultery, murder and things which
come under Shirk and Kufr; similarly, it can forcibly stop everything which
endangers the life, wealth and property of the people, but except for salāt and
zakāt, it cannot positively demand anything from the believers. It cannot force
a Muslim to keep fasts nor can it compel him to perform Hajj 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 salāt and zakāt, it can only urge and exhort, educate and indoctrinate
people to fulfil the other positive requirements of Islam. Its jurisdiction ends
here in this regard.
It is clear from the foregoing discussion that in these
two verses the Almighty has comprehensively stated a manifesto of human rights.
It is impossible to mention all the rights of a Muslim citizen which as a result
of this manifesto he possesses; however, we shall attempt to state some of the
important ones.
Rights of Muslim Citizens
If the citizens of an Islamic State refrain from what is
prohibited, establish regular prayers and pay zakat, then according to the words
`leave them alone’ of verse five of Sūrah Taubah quoted above, it is their right
that:
Their lives should be safeguarded at all costs and they
should not be compelled to put their lives in danger even for a very noble
cause.
Their rightfully owned wealth and property should be
protected.
No tax should be imposed on them.
Their honour and integrity should be given protection.
Even in extraordinary circumstances their personal freedom
should not be curtailed totally or partially, until after an open court hearing,
a court pronounces a verdict after they have been given a chance to plead.
They should not be forced to adopt any particular thought,
opinion, view, occupation, dress or attitude.
No restriction should be imposed on them as regards
forming an opinion is concerned as well as its presentation wherever and
whenever they like.
No responsibility should be imposed on them against their
wishes.
Similarly, according to the words `they are your brethren
in religion’ of verse eleven of Sūrah Taubah quoted above, it is their right
that:
Every citizen rich or poor, high or low, strong or weak,
ruler or ruled should be considered equal in the eyes of the law and no
discrimination in this regard should be tolerated.
The state must grant each citizen the same social status
irrespective of his colour, creed and rank which are given importance only in
`uncivilized’ societies.
The state must provide food, clothing, shelter, education,
health facilities and all such basic necessities to every needy citizen.
The doors of the ūl-ul-amr must always remain open without
any restriction on the general public so that at any time and place they are
able to reach them to present their grievances and petitions, and are also able
to criticize them and to freely call them to account.
They should be provided unbiased justice in all
circumstances.
These are the rights of a citizen. Parallel to these,
according to the same words `they are your brethren in religion’ of verse eleven
of Sūrah Taubah, there are some duties also which are imposed on the Muslim
citizens of an Islamic State.
Duties of Muslim Citizens
Their first duty is obedience to the state. In the Islamic
Political Law, it is termed as sam’u tā’t. After pledging this covenant with the
state, they should remain loyal and sincere to those in authority as long as
they follow Islam, just as a brother is loyal and sincere to a brother. They
should not intentionally do something which is harmful in any way to the state
and should honestly serve the state; if it at anytime they are consulted, they
should say only what they consider as correct.
Their second duty is that they should always keep a
watchful eye on the state and its machinery that they should not deviate from
the path prescribed by Allah and His Prophet (sws). Whenever they see the
ūl-ul-amr doing something ungainly or deviating from the right path, they should
try to stop them so that their brothers are shielded from the wrath of Allah in
this world and in the Hereafter.
Their third duty is that they should co-operate with the
state and its machinery just as a brother co-operates with his brother. The
ultimate form of this co-operation is that they should put their life and wealth
at stake when it appeals for their help in such situations as an enemy invasion
or efforts to achieve the supremacy of Islam.
These are the implications of the above two verses of
Sūrah Taubah. The Prophet (sws) has also explained them on a number of occasions
in the following words:
“I have been ordained to wage war
with these people until they testify to the oneness of Allah and the Prophethood
of Mohammad,
establish regular prayers and pay zakat. If they accept these conditions their
lives shall be given protection except if they are deprived of this protection
on the grounds of some offense they may commit.
As far as their account is concerned, it rests with Allah.” (Muslim,
Kitāb-ul-Imān)
In the sermon of the Last Hajj, the Prophet (sws) has
rephrased this in the following words:
“Indeed, your life, honour and wealth are as sacred and
inviolable as this day
of yours, this city of yours
of yours in this month
of yours.” (Muslim, Kitāb-al-Hajj)
“People! Listen! An Arab has no superiority over a
non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab over an Arab. And a white is not superior to a
black and a black to a white. Only piety should be the basis of superiority for
a person.” (“Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hambal”, Vol 5, Pg 411)
“People before you were destroyed because they punished
the weak and acquitted the strong. By the Lord! in whose hands is my life, even
if Fātimah [my daughter] had committed this crime, I would have cut her hand
off.” (Bukhārī , Kitāb-ul-Hudūd)
“A ruler who closes his doors on the poor and the needy,
[should know that] the Almighty shall close the doors of the heavens on his
needs, indigence and poverty.” (Tirmazī, Kitāb-ul-Ahkām)
“Anyone who left behind responsibilities [not yet
fulfilled], I [as the head of state] shall fulfil them and the heirs of a per
son shall receive the wealth he has left behind. However, I am the heir of the
person who has no heirs. I shall pay Dīyat on his behalf and receive his
inheritance.” (Abu Daud, Kitāb-ul-Farāidh)
“It is your duty to listen and obey your rulers15
whether you are in a difficulty or at ease, whether willingly or unwillingly and
even when you do not receive what is your right.” (Muslim, Kitāb-ul-Imārah).
“The Almighty has approved three things for you and
disapproved three. The three things he has approved are: you should worship Him
without associating others with Him and hold fast to the cable of Allah and show
nus-h and sincerity to your ūl-ul-amr.” (“Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hambal”, Vol 2, Pg
327)
“Not many days will pass when those people will rule over
you in whose hands will be your livlihood. Whenever they will say anything to
you, it will be a lie and whatever they will do, it will be against the right
path. They will not be happy with you until you praise their evil deeds and
affirm their lies. At that time you should say what is right until they tolerate
it, and if they exceed from this, then whoever is executed on this basis, he is
a martyr.” (“Kanz-ul-Ummāl”, Vol 6, Pg 296)
“The greatest Jihād is to say what is just in front of a
cruel ruler.” (Abu Daud, Kitāb-ul-Malāhim)
Rights of Non-Muslims
In the foregoing discussion, we have delineated the rights
and duties of Muslim citizens of an Islamic State. As far as non Muslim citizens
are concerned, they are of only two categories regarding their citizenship in a
state: (i) Mu`āhids ie, those have come under an Islamic State on account of a
treaty with it, (ii) Zimmīs ie, those who have come under an Islamic State on
account of being subdued in a battle.
All dealings with the Mu`āhids should be according to the
terms of the peace treaty concluded with them. Muslims have been binded by Islam
to abide by these terms in all circumstances and to never violate them in the
slightest way. Such violations according to Islam are totally forbidden and, in
fact, amount to a grave transgression. The Qur’ān says:
“Keep [your] covenants; because indeed on the Day of
Judgement you will be held accountable for them.” (17:34)
The Prophet is said to have said:
“Beware! I myself shall invoke the justice of the Almighty
on the Day of Judgement against the person who oppresses and persecutes a
Mu`āhad, or reduces his rights, or burdens him [with responsibilities] he cannot
bear, or takes something from him against his will.” (Abu Daud: Kitāb-ul-Jihād)
As Zimmīs, after accepting the supremacy of an Islamic
State by paying Jizyā, they shall have all the rights which they should have
according to all norms of justice and fairness. In this regard, the Qur’ān has
explicitly stated the principle that Muslims while dealing with their enemies
must not exceed the limits of justice, not to speak of the Zimmīs who have
accepted the authority of an Islamic State:
“And let not the enmity of a people turn you away from
justice. Deal justly; this is nearer to piety.” (5:8)
Therefore, according to this principle, after a treaty is
concluded with the Zimmīs, it is their right that:
Their life, wealth and honour should be protected by the
state such that no one whosoever is able to lay hands on them.
The Jizyā imposed on them should be according to their
financial conditions and it should necessarily be taken into consideration that
the amount imposed should be in their reach.
Jizyā should only be imposed on individuals who can take
part in a war. Children, women, the handicapped, the insane, the darvesh and the
monks among them who have given up the pleasures of the world, the old and the
sick who cannot earn their living should in all circumstances be exempted from
this tax.
The needy and poor among them should be provided the basic
necessities of life.
Their personal matters and religious rituals should be
exempted from the law of the state and no interference should be made in their
faith and religion.
Their places of worship should be left intact.
They should be allowed to present their religion to others
in a polite manner.
In short, except for participating in the state affairs,
they should be given all the rights which are sanctioned by the norms of justice
and fairness for people in a civilized society, and in this regard all dealings
should be done in a befitting manner---because Allah likes people who adopt this
attitude.
|