The Political System of Islam in Light of the Sunnah of
the Prophet ﷺ
Sheikh
Dr. Suhaib Hasan
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Preface
Undoubtedly, the mission of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ
was to bring out the people from the darkness of
ignorance to the light of Islam, and from the tyranny of the prevailing ways of
faith and belief to the just way of Islam, and from a narrow concept of living
for this world and its enjoyment to the vast expanses of the hereafter.
But does it mean that he had no role to play in politics
and rule? That is what some thinkers in the past tried to prove.
The reading in the Quran and in the lifetimes of the
Prophet ﷺ proves otherwise.
Unlike Mūsa and īsa ﷺ, the Prophet ﷺ
laid the foundation of an Islamic rule in Madinah, made treaties and pledges
with Jews, Christians and Idolaters of Makkah, fought a number of battles to
defend the tiny state of Madinah and eventually emerged as a sole undisputable
leader of Arabia.
In very clear words he prophesised that a bright future
is destined for Islam and that the Muslim Ummah is to lead the entire
globe to a peaceful life. Let us read his words as narrated by Thaūbān, one of
his Companions:
Thaūbān reported that Allah’s Messenger ﷺ
said:
Allah drew the ends of the world near one another for my
sake. And I have seen its eastern and western ends. And the dominion of my Ummah
would reach those ends which have been drawn near me and I have been granted
the red and the white treasures and I begged my Lord for my Ummah that
it should not be destroyed because of famine, nor be dominated by an enemy who
is not amongst them to take their lives and destroy them root and branch, and
my Lord said: Muhammad, whenever I make a decision, there is none to change it.
Well, I grant you for your Ummah that it would not be destroyed by
famine and it would not be dominated by an enemy who would not be amongst it
and would take their lives and destroy them root and branch even if all the
people from the different parts of the world join hands together (for this
purpose), but it would be from amongst them, viz. your Ummah, that some
people would kill the others or imprison the others.[1]
It shows very clearly that the Ummah would be
involved in the rule which would expand to a great part of the world.
This is what is echoed in this statement of ‘Ali bin
Muhammad Al-Māwardi (d.450AH):
“Imamah (the leadership) is introduced to succeed
the prophethood in order to guard the religion and to deal with (Siyasa)
the worldly matters. It becomes a duty to someone who can do it from among the Ummah
by consensus against the odd opinion held by Al-Asamm.”[2]
Chapter
1
In short, the system that regulated the lives of the
Muslims, both at individual and collective level (known later as ‘Khilafah’)
could be summarised in three words:
“Following the legacy
of the Prophet ﷺ”
Here we note the prominent features of his legacy which
stood as guiding factors for this Successors:
1. The
Prophet ﷺ as a Messenger of Allah guided the Ummah
how to strengthen their ties with Allah the All-Mighty by way of worship and
devotion. He showed them that he is the Sovereign and to him belong the
creation and the command
2. He
was there to establish the Sharia of Allah in the land: Sharia which is
inspired by the Divine revelation: The Book and the Sunnah
3. As
an Amir (the Ruler), he consulted his companions in all matters of major
concern. With his practical example. He showed them how to abide by the
decisions reached at through consultation (Shurā)
4. He
taught them how to exercise Ijtihād (the independent reasoning) wherever
they did not find evidence from the Book and the Sunnah.
He himself exercised Ijtihād
but he could not stay on error because Allah corrected him immediately as he
remains an example for the entire Ummah.
5. The
institution of judiciary remained in his hand in Madinah but he used to appoint
governors and judges for other towns and provinces and he used to choose the
most capable ones for such responsibilities.
6. ‘Absolute
Justice’ even if it is at the expense of his own self, his dear ones, was the
most prominent feature of his rule.
7. To
take care of the poor and needy, he introduced the institution of Bait-Ul-Māl,
which was the source for the distribution of all types of income like Zakat, Jizya
and war-booties.
8. To
create a transparent just system, he held everybody accountable for his duties;
each according to his role in the life. With his own example, he proved that no
one stands above the law: The Sharia.
9. As
an Amir, he was responsible to implement the Sharia: a bond between him
and the Ummah by way of pledge known as Baya’h’.
10. He
himself took the banner of Jihad for protecting the boundaries of the
state, expelling the evil and establishing the Truth. As complimentary to Jihad,
he was the one to hold peace treaties, distribute the war booties and send the
troops to maintain peace throughout the state.
11. He
established the principle of equality among the mankind as for their status,
duties and privileges. However the people with greater services for Islam were
given certain privileges on a token of honour and respect.
12. He
did not name his successor before his death but he left a number of sayings and
signs to suggest that one of his closest companions and a most pious and
capable one i.e. Abū Bakr is worthy to be elected as his Successor (Khalifah)
by the Ummah. So the succession was left for the most pious, trustworthy
and capable person and not on the basis of hereditary rule.
These were the prominent features of his legacy in the
matters of running a state. By accepting Abū Bakr as his successor (Khalifah),
the companions introduced the term of ‘Khalifah’ for the political
system of Islam.
The rule closest to this model was known as ‘Khilafah
Rashida’ (guided succession). Less closer to this model was known as
Kingship during the later period but became of adhering to the most of that
legacy, it was still known as Khilafah like that of Bani Umayya,
Bani ‘Abbas and the Ottomans.
In the following two sayings of the Prophet ﷺ
the fate of the Ummah after him is well prophesised:
Abū Umama Al-Bahili reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ
said:
“The knots of Islam are going to break one after the
other. Whenever one of them breaks, people will stick to the following one. The
first one to break would be the rule and the last one, the prayer.”[3]
The second prophecy speaks about the state of affairs of
the Ummah as a whole.
Al-Nūman bin Bashir reported by saying:
“We were sitting in the mosque of the Prophet ﷺ”
Bashir was known with the Hadith.
“Abū Tha’laba Al-Khushani came and said: “O Bashir bin
Sa’d, do you remember the Hadith of the Prophet ﷺ
about the rulers (Amir)?”
Hudhaifa said “I remember his sermon.”
At that point Abū Tha’labah seated himself
Hudhaifa said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ
has said:
“The Prophethood remains among you as long as Allah
wanted it to remain. Then he would withdraw it when he wanted to withdraw it.
Then there would be Khilafah based on the methodology of the Prophethood
which would remain as long as Allah wanted it to remain.
Then Allah would withdraw it when he wanted to do so.
Then it would be a biting kingship which would remain as long as Allah wanted
it to remain. Then Allah would withdraw it when he wanted to do so. Then it
would be a forced rule which would remain as long as Allah wanted it to remain.
Then he would withdraw it when he wanted to do so. Then there would be a Khilafah
on the methodology of Prophethood.”
Then he kept silent.
Habib (The reporter) said:
“When ‘Umar bin Abdul Aziz became a Khalifah (And
Yazid, the son of Al-Nūman bin Bashir was among his courtiers) I wrote this
Hadith to him as a reminder and I said to him:
“I hope that the
Amir of the Believers i.e. ‘Umar bin Abdul Aziz would be the one coming after
the biting kingship and the forced rule.”
My letter was shown to ‘Umar bin Abdul Aziz and he was
very pleased with it.” [4]
Chapter
2
Among these characteristics of the legacy of the Prophet ﷺ,
some are very obvious and could be traced easily in the Book of Allah and the
Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ.
Here we are concerned with two, very important among
them:
1. The
institution of Shura (Consultation)
2. The
matter of Responsibility and Accountability
Let us elaborate them in detail:
Shura:
It came as a commandment from Allah All-Mighty when He
addressed the Prophet ﷺ by saying:
فَبِمَا رَحۡمَةٍ مِّنَ ٱللَّهِ لِنتَ لَهُمۡۖ وَلَوۡ كُنتَ فَظًّا
غَلِيظَ ٱلۡقَلۡبِ لَٱنفَضُّواْ مِنۡ حَوۡلِكَۖ فَٱعۡفُ عَنۡہُمۡ وَٱسۡتَغۡفِرۡ
لَهُمۡ وَشَاوِرۡهُمۡ فِى ٱلۡأَمۡرِۖ فَإِذَا عَزَمۡتَ فَتَوَكَّلۡ عَلَى ٱللَّهِۚ
إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يُحِبُّ ٱلۡمُتَوَكِّلِينَ
It
was by the mercy of Allah that thou wast lenient with them (O Muhammad), for if
thou had been stern and fierce of heart they would have dispersed from round
about thee. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult with them
upon the conduct of affairs. And when thou art resolved, then put thy trust in
Allah. Lo! Allah loveth those who put their trust (in Him).
(Surah
Āl-Imran 3:159)
وَٱلَّذِينَ
ٱسۡتَجَابُواْ لِرَبِّہِمۡ وَأَقَامُواْ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ وَأَمۡرُهُمۡ شُورَىٰ
بَيۡنَہُمۡ وَمِمَّا رَزَقۡنَـٰهُمۡ يُنفِقُونَ
And
those who answer the call of their Lord and establish worship, and whose
affairs are a matter of counsel, and who spend of what We have bestowed on them
(Surah
Al-Shūra 42:38)
Is it just recommended as it should be binding? The verse of Āl-Imran
leaves no doubt that consultation is required as mandatory and once a matter is
decided, there is no option left for the subjects but to obey that decision as
deduced from this verse of Surah Al-Nisā:
يَـٰٓأَيُّہَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓاْ أَطِيعُواْ ٱللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُواْ
ٱلرَّسُولَ وَأُوْلِى ٱلۡأَمۡرِ مِنكُمۡۖ فَإِن تَنَـٰزَعۡتُمۡ فِى شَىۡءٍ۬
فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ وَٱلرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمۡ تُؤۡمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ
وَٱلۡيَوۡمِ ٱلۡأَخِرِۚ ذَٲلِكَ خَيۡرٌ۬ وَأَحۡسَنُ تَأۡوِيلاً
O
ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and those of you who are in
authority; and if ye have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah
and the messenger if ye are (in truth) believers in Allah and the Last Day.
That is better and more seemly in the end.
(Surah
Al-Nisā 4:59)
There are a number of events where the Prophet ﷺ
was seen consulting his companions and acting according to their majority
opinion. The most glaring example is that of the Battle of Uhud in the
second year of Hijrah.
When the idolaters of Makkah advanced towards Madinah, the Prophet ﷺ
consulted the companions and narrated to them his dream which revealed
disturbing signs as for the consequences of the battle. In view of this vision,
he was of the opinion to stay fortified at Madinah and let the enemy face a
ferocious fighting if the dared to enter into the city.
Let us see the account of his consultation as given by Ibn Kathir:
‘Those who did not attend the battle of Badr said: “We were
waiting for this day, we have prayed to Allah as well. Now He brought us to
this day and made for us a short journey (to meet the enemy).”
A
man from the Ansār said: “O Messenger of Allah! When are we going to
fight them if we do not fight them on our own mount?”
Some
others said: “What are we going to defend if we do not defend the battle by
terrorising (them).”
Some
other people said (similar) things and stood by them in all sincerity. One of
them was his uncle, Hamza bin Abdul Muttalib who said: “By Whom who revealed
the Book to you, we are going to combat them.”
Na’im
bin Malik, from the tribe of Banu Sālim said: “O Prophet of
Allah! Do not deprive us from entering into the Paradise. By Whom in whose hand
is my soul, I would enter it.”
The
Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “With what?”
He
said: “With my love for Allah and his Messenger and I am not going to turn away
from the day of the Raid.”
The
Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “You have said the truth.”
He
was martyred that day.
Most
of them declined except to meet the enemy and did not hearken to the saying of
the Prophet ﷺ and his opinion.
Had they shown their pleasure to his opinion, better it would have been but the
destiny had to prevail eventually.
Most
of those who were of the opinion to go out, were the ones who did not witness the
battle of Badr and they knew how great was the excellence of the
participants of Badr.
According
to Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, the Prophet ﷺ narrated his dream to the companions, then said to
them “How do you see, if you stay at Madinah and let them camp wherever they
want. If they stay, their stay will be vicious and if they try to enter, we are
going to fight them?”
Abdullah
bin Ubayy bin Salūl showed his agreement to the opinion of the Prophet ﷺ.
A
man from among the Muslims (who later was blessed with martyrdom at Uhud) and
some others who missed the day of Badr said “O’ Messenger of Allah! Come
out with us to our enemies. They must not see that we have fallen weak and
coward.”
At
this point, Abdullah bin Ubayy bin Salūl said “O’ Messenger of Allah! Do not go
out towards them. By Allah! Whenever we have left Madinah to an enemy, we had
suffered and whenever they entered upon us, they had suffered.”
This
is how they were with the Prophet ﷺ until he entered his house and then came out
wearing his shield. That was a Friday when he has already finished his prayers
and had prayed the funeral prayer on a man from Bani Najjar who died that day.
Then he came out.
The
people realised that they had forced the Prophet ﷺ to come out. They
showed their regret and said to him “If you like, you can stay.” To which he
replied, “It is not befitting for a Prophet, when he has worn his shield, to
remove it until he has fought.”
He
left Madinah with a thousand warriors to meet an enemy three thousand strong.
On
his way to Uhud, Abdullah bin Ubayy left him along with his three
hundred supporters saying “He obeyed them and went against me. We do not know
why we are apt to kill ourselves here.”’[5]end
quote
This
narrative proves that:
i.
The Prophet ﷺ did consult his companions at this crucial moment
of his life
ii.
Everyone was free to give his opinion without any
coercion or force
iii.
He followed the majority opinion which did not
agree with his own
iv.
Abdullah bin Ubayy, the leader of the hypocrites,
on the contrary, did not abide by the majority decision and this is why he has
been condemned.
In
addition to that, there a number of occasions in which he consulted the
companions.
For
example:
1.
When he left Madinah on his way to Badr
2.
About the camping place near the wells at Badr
3.
About the fate of the captives after the battle of Badr;
an event about which some verses of the Quran were revealed.
4.
On his way to Makkah in year 6th of Hijrah
when he intended to perform ‘Umrah
5.
He consulted even his wife Umm Salama when he saw
that the Companions were reluctant to undo their Ihram at Hudaibiya
after they had been prevented to enter Makkah.
Responsibility
& Accountability
In
Islam, these two characters are required on each and every level of society.
An
individual as for his own actions;
Head
of a house, an institution or an official post along with all those who work
under him;
An
Amir (the authority) whether for a party of travellers, a contingent for
a military expedition or a commander in-charge for the whole fighting force.
The
Head of state (Khalifah) with all his ministers.
Because
a person may avoid to meet this requirement in the worldly affairs through
excuses and fake evidences, he is constantly reminded of his being accountable
to Allah on the day of judgement.
فَوَرَبِّكَ
لَنَسۡـَٔلَنَّهُمۡ أَجۡمَعِينَ عَمَّا كَانُواْ يَعۡمَلُونَ
By
your Lord, We shall question, everyone. Of what they used to do.
(Surah
al-Hijr 15:92-93)
أَفَحَسِبۡتُمۡ أَنَّمَا خَلَقۡنَـٰكُمۡ عَبَثً۬ا وَأَنَّكُمۡ إِلَيۡنَا
لَا تُرۡجَعُونَ
Did
ye think that We had created you in jest, and that ye would not be brought back
to us (for account)
(Surah
Al-Muminūn 23:115-116)
مَّا يَلۡفِظُ مِن قَوۡلٍ إِلَّا لَدَيۡهِ رَقِيبٌ عَتِيدٌ۬
He
uttereth no word but there is with him an observer ready
(Surah
Qāf 50:18)
وَلَا تَقۡفُ مَا لَيۡسَ لَكَ بِهِۦ عِلۡمٌۚ إِنَّ ٱلسَّمۡعَ وَٱلۡبَصَرَ
وَٱلۡفُؤَادَ كُلُّ أُوْلَـٰٓٮِٕكَ كَانَ عَنۡهُ مَسۡـُٔولاً۬
And
pursue not that of which thou hast no knowledge; for every act of hearing, or
of seeing or of (feeling in) will be enquired into (on the Day of
Reckoning).
(Surah
Al-Isra 17:36)
One of very explicit saying of the
Prophet ﷺ in this regard is the one reported by ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar.
He said that I heard the Messenger
of Allah saying:
“Beware, every one of you is a shepherd and
every one is answerable with regard to his flock. The Caliph is a shepherd over
the people and shall be questioned about his subjects (as to how he conducted
their affairs). A man is a guardian over the members of his family and shall be
questioned about them (as to how he looked after their physical and moral
well-being). A woman is a guardian over the household of her husband and his
children and shall be questioned about them (as to how she managed the
household and brought up the children). A slave is a guardian over the property
of his master and shall be questioned about it (as to how he safeguarded his
trust). Beware, every one of you is a guardian and every one of you shall be
questioned with regard to his trust.”[6]
Another very pressing statement, comes from the
Prophet ﷺ
in this Hadith, narrated by Abū Humaid as-Sāidī who said:
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ appointed a
man from the Asad tribe who was called Ibn Lutbīyya in charge of Sadaqa
(i.e. authorised to receive Sadaqa from the people on behalf of the
state). When he returned (with the collections), he said: This is for you and
(this is mine) it was presented to me as a gift. The narrator said: The
Messenger of Allah ﷺ stood
on the pulpit and praised God and extolled Him. Then he said: What about a
State official whom I give an assignment and who (comes and) says: This is for
you and this has been presented to me as a gift? Why didn’t he remain in the
house of his father or the house of his mother so that he could observe whether
gifts were presented to him or not. By the Being in Whose Hand is the life of
Muhammad, any one of you will not take anything from it but will bring it on
the Day of Judgement, carrying on his neck a camel that will be growling, or a
cow that will be bellowing or an ewe that will be bleating. Then he raised his
hands so that we could see the whiteness of his armpits. Then he said twice: O
God, I have conveyed (Thy Commandments).[7]
The
following Hadith as narrated by Abū Dharr establishes a golden rule for
appointing a person on an authoritative post.
It
has been reported on the authority of Abū Dharr that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ
said:
“Abū
Dharr, I find that thou art weak and I like for thee what I like for myself. Do
not rule over (even) two persons and do not manage the property of an orphan.”[8]
A person failing in his duty is reminded how would he be disgraced and
punished on the day of judgement.
‘Amr bin Murrah al-Juhani once said to Mu’āwiya:
I heard the Messenger of Allah saying:
“The Imam who shuts his gate against the people of need, poverty and
humility, Allah is going to shut the Heaven’s gates against his needs, poverty
and humility.”
After listening to this, Mu’āwiya appointed a person to look after the
needs of people.[9]
The concept of accountability led to the institution of Hisbah:
To enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil. Any evil which affect the
society was meant to be checked and the convicts to be punished.
The legacy of the Prophet ﷺ, as projected in the above-mentioned twelve characteristics was later
developed by his successors in all three major components of a political
system: Legislative, Juristic and executive.
No doubt that all present systems of rule, crowned by democracy,
benefitted from the legacy of the Prophet ﷺ and that of his successors.
For example, the modern law makers speak about the necessity of
preserving the religious rights, the human soul, the intellect, the wealth, the
human race and the dignity and honour of an individual. Long before them, Imam
Ghazali mentioned them as five maxims for the protection of Deen
(religion), Nafs (soul), ‘Aql (intellect), Māl (wealth)
and Nasab (the lineage). These five maxims, in addition to the
protection of ‘Ird (honour) found to be regulating the Sharia as a
whole. They stand in face of:
i)
A violation against the religious values and symbols
ii)
Killing and murders
iii)
Whatever spoils the intellectual functions of a person like drinking,
drugs and narcotics.
iv)
Theft and fraudulent activities to deprive someone’s wealth and savings.
v)
Fornication, rape and adultery which deprive a child from a legal valid
lineage and a woman from disgrace
vi)
False allegations against one’s dignity and honour
In our present times, democracy has been taken as the most palatable
political system throughout the world. With a blend of some Islamic features,
it has been accepted by a number of Muslim countries. Hence, a brief discussion
about Democracy, its origin, its history and its prominent features is needed.
Chapter 3: On Democracy
The origins of the word go back to ‘Demo’ in Greek meaning
‘people’ and ‘Kratos’ meaning power i.e. the power of the people.[10]
As for its historical background, it had its root in the sayings of the
early Greek philosophers and its manifestation in the Greek capitals like
Athens and Sparta.
No doubt that Hammurabi (2067-2025 BC) was known to be the oldest
creator of the legal code but democracy itself showed its colours in the Greek
communities in the fifth century BC, during the days of Socrates (469-399 BC),
Plato (428-348 BC), Aristotle (384-322 BC) and the rest.
Most of our deliberation in this chapter is indebted to the writing of
Bertrand Russell in his masterly piece of research ‘History of western
philosophy.’
The story begins with the civil societies of Athens and Sparta, two
rival cities moving from monarchy to aristocracy with elements of democracy in
the fifth century.
Athens, in comparison to Sparta, was found to be more democratic than
its rival apart from their treatment of slaves and women. Wealthy people were
left to enjoy the fruits of their wealth. The judges were taken from the common
folk and for short periods.
They were found in great numbers to facilitate a speedy judgement in all
disputes. The court, allowed the plaintiff and the respondents to appear by
themselves and present their cases without the involvement of any solicitors.
At the most they were allowed to get their speeches written by Sophists
(teachers of great eloquence and skills) to impress the judges.
‘For Athens, though much addicted to persecution, was in one respect
less illiberal than modern America, since those accused of impiety and
corrupting the young were allowed to plead in their own defence’[11]
War between the two rivals (405 BC) led to a victory by Sparta who
introduced their own model of oligarchy (a rule by rich aristocrats) to Athens
by appointing thirty tyrants. Socrates’ trial leading to his death in 399 BC
was led by them.
How Socrates viewed the rule, is well depicted in his statement:
“‘This is what deters me from being a politician.’
He goes on to say that in politics no honest man can live long. He gives
two instances in which he was unavoidably mixed up in public affairs:
In the first, he resisted the democracy; in the second, the thirty
Tyrants, in each case when the authorities were acting illegally.” [12]
Plato (b. 428 BC) believed that the fall of Athens and the execution of
Socrates were due to the case of democracy. He speaks about wisdom and whether
it exists or not. And if there is such a thing, can any constitution be devised
that will give it political power? He is very doubtful whether aristocrats,
kings, pope, could be suitable to run a state wisely. He suggests whether
university graduates or doctors of divinity could be a better option.
In the end he says:
‘It might by suggested that men could be given political wisdom by a
suitable training. But the question could arise: What is a suitable training?
And this would turn out to be a party question.
The problem of finding a collection of ‘wise’ men and leaving the
government to them is thus an insoluble one. That is the ultimate reason for
democracy.’[13]
Aristotle (b. 384 BC) speaks of magnanimous man, a person of distinctive
qualities with powers and pride, the most suitable to be in a place of
authority. Comparing this concept to that of democracy Russell says:
‘’ A modern democracy – unlike that of antiquity – confers great power
upon certain chosen individuals, Presidents or Prime Ministers, and must expect
of them kinds of merits which are not expected of the ordinary citizen.
In a democracy, a President is not expected to be quite like Aristotle’s
magnanimous man but still he is expected to be rather different from the
average citizen, and to have certain merits connected with his station.’’ [14]
According to Aristotle, democracy remains better than oligarchy with
less possibilities of rebellions or revolution. In the latter, there had been
always been more chances of disputes and confrontation. In the latter, there
had been always more chances of disputes and confrontation among the wealthy
ruling elites.
In Rome, Christianity tried its best to combat the aristocratic rule and
after a very hard struggle it was able to liberate itself from the clutches of
the feudal lords and bring an end to the dark ages.
And by the flourishing of trade and emergence of new commercial cities, democracy
penetrated its way through the remaining alliance between the church and the
nobles.
In other words, nationality and science helped establishing the
foundations of the new system.
‘‘The first serious interruption of science was the publication of the
Copernican theory in 1545, but this theory did not become influential until it
was taken up and improved by Kepler and Galileo in the 17th century.’’[15]
Russell shows how wealth had played its role in consolidating the powers
of the ruling elites in different parts of Italy. For example, he speaks of
Medici (1389–1464) and his grandson Lorenzo who succeeded him and ruled till
his death in 1492.
‘‘Both these men owed their position to their wealth, which they had
acquired mainly in commerce, but also in mining and other industries. They
understood how to make Florence rich, as well as themselves, and under them the
city prospered.’’[16]
There is an interesting note about the Emperor Frederick II of the
Kingdom of Naples and Sicily ‘who had introduced an absolute monarchy on the
Mohammedan model, enlightened but despotic, and allowing no power to the feudal
nobility.’[17]
Now we move to the reformation period which not only witnessed a
revolution in Christianity by Martin Luther (1483-1546) and his successors but
in the political philosophy from sixteenth century to the present times. That
is the time during which democracy emerged in its present shape and form. To
make it concise and brief, the main contribution by the prominent thinkers are
given below:
1.
Machiavelli (1467-1527) remarks
that
“All armed prophets have conquered
and unarmed ones failed.’’ He is famous for his theory that to achieve the end,
the means are justified.
2.
Spinoza (1632-1677) follows the
footprint of Hobbes (1588-1679).
“His political theory is, in the
main, derived from Hobbes, in spite of the enormous temperamental difference
between the two men. He holds that in a state of nature there is no right or
wrong, for wrong consists in disobeying the law. He holds that the sovereign
can do no wrong, and agrees with Hobbes that the Church should be entirely
subordinate to the State. He is opposed to all rebellion, even against a bad
government, and instances the troubles in England as a proof of the harm that
comes of forcible resistance to authority. But he disagrees with Hobbes in
thinking democracy the ‘most natural’ form of government. He disagrees also in
holding that subjects should not sacrifice all their rights to the sovereign.
In particular, he holds freedom of opinion important. I do not quite know how
he reconciles this with the opinion that religious questions should be decided
by the State. I think when he says this he means that they should be decided by
the State rather than the Church; in Holland, the State was more tolerant than
the Church.”[18]
3.
John Locke (1632-1704) speaks
about a social construct as a basis for the government. He believes that in a
democracy, the implementation of natural laws holds an esteemed position.
To elaborate this point, let Russell
explain it as follows:
“Legal theory will be based upon
the view that the ‘rights’ of individuals should be protected by the State.
That is to say, when a man suffers the kind of injury which would justify
retaliation according to the principles of natural law, positive law should
enact that the retaliation shall be done by the State. If you see a man making
a murderous assault upon your brother, you have a right to kill him, if you
cannot otherwise save your brother. In a State of nature—so, at least, Locke
holds—if a man has succeeded in killing your brother, you have a right to kill
him. But where law exists, you lose this right, which is taken over by the
State. And if you kill in self-defence or in defence of another, you will have
to prove to a law-court that this was the reason for killing.
We may then identify ‘natural law’ with moral rules in so far as they
are independent of positive legal enactments. There must be such rules if there
is to be any distinction between good and bad laws. For Locke, the matter is
simple, since moral rules have been laid down by God, and are to be found in
the Bible. When this theological basis is removed, the matter becomes more
difficult. But so long as it is held that there is an ethical distinction
between right actions and wrong ones, we can say: Natural law decides what
actions would be ethically right, and what wrong, in a community that had no
government; and positive law ought to be, as far as possible, guided and
inspired by natural law.”[19]
Having said that he comes to conclude that these laws can only take
shape by the will of the majority: a basis for democracy.
He believes in the freedom of press. When a bill for this was presented
to the parliament he came out openly to defend it. He used to say that a man
should have complete freedom to publish whatever he could say verbally.
4.
Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778),
a Geneva born thinker and philosopher, the author of ‘Social contract’ (1762)
opens the first chapter with a very forceful piece of rhetoric:
“Man is born free and everywhere
he is in chains. One man thinks himself the monster of others, but remains more
of a slave than they are. His doctrine of ‘’Free Will’’ dominates his writings
but it is not identical with the will of majority or even with the will of all
the citizens. It seems to be conceived as the will belonging to the body
politics as such.”[20]
To elaborate further, Russell explains is as follows:
“The conception in Rousseau’s mind seems to be this: every man’s
political opinion is governed by self-interest, but self-interest consists of
two parts, one of which is peculiar to the individual, while the other is
common to all the members of the community. If the citizens have no opportunity
of striking logrolling bargains with each other, their individual interests,
being divergent, will cancel out, and there will be left a resultant which will
represent their common interest; this resultant is the general will. Perhaps
Rousseau’s conception might be illustrated by terrestrial gravitation. Every particle
in the earth attracts every other particle in the universe towards itself; the
air above us attracts us upwards while the ground beneath us attracts us
downward. But all these ‘selfish’ attractions cancel each other out in so far
as they are divergent, and what remains is a resultant attraction towards the
centre of the earth. This might be fancifully conceived as the act of the earth
considered as a community, and as the expression of its general will.[21]
5.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), a
German philosopher talks about the treatment of each man as an end himself.
“But what about if the interest of
two persons conflict with each other? There is no solution but to give
preference for the majority, by which the interests of some can, when
necessary, be sacrificed to those of others and that is with the aim of having
justice for the good of community. In essence, it means that each man is not an
absolute end but that all men count equally, in determining actions by which
many are affected. It can be taken as an ethical basis for democracy.”[22]
“To prevent wars, he propounds the idea of a federation of free states.
He condemns wars and opines that only an international government can prevent
it. Though he solicits for democracy but he is suspicious of it as well. In his
words:
“‘The whole people’ so called who
carry their measures are really not at all, but only a majority: so that here,
the universal will is in contradiction with itself and with the principles of
freedom.”[23]
6.
Hegel (1770-1831) another German
philosopher, applies a dialectical method to analyse the phases of world
political history. To him, the word had been a stage for the conflict of ideas:
a positive one which comes to confront it from within, leading to a third idea
to prevail. His pupil Karl Marx (1810-1883) turned his theory into the conflict
of classes in a society which leads to socialism primarily and to communism
eventually. Both these philosophers had a great impact on the political
structure in Europe and America.
7.
Jeremy Bentham (b. 1748), the
proponent of the theory of ‘greatest happiness principle’ contributed in the
field of English law. He advocated abolition of the death penalty for all but
the worst offences and before he died, the criminal law had been mitigated in
this respect.
8.
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), the
great English philosopher is renowned for his advancement of socialism, his
bold stand against forced army recruitment at the time of the first world war
and against nuclear proliferation. His prediction in 1923 about America as to
leading an imperialistic role on an economic level sometime in the future seems
to have come true.
In the end, let us have a look at the salient points of the western
political thoughts.
1.
Greek major towns witnessed the
first democratic experience since the fifth century B.C. but each excluding
women and slaves.
2.
Democracy was seen less subjected
to revolutions than other prevalent types of rule.
3.
Intellect and not revelation had
been the basis of western philosophy
4.
Sovereignty lies with the people,
so a general will should be reflected in the government.
5.
Represented democracy is the best
suitable political system based upon a social contract between the citizens and
the government.
6.
Matters can only be decided by the
majority.
7.
Democracy and nationalism work
together gloves in hands.
8.
Freedom of press and expression of
one’s thoughts provides basis for democracy.
9.
Religion has no rule to play in
the political arena.
10. The
ends justify the means, especially when it comes to protect the state.
11. To
protect individual rights, capitalism is the way forward.
12. Through
political parties, the democratic process could be well organised
Conclusion
1.
The Prophet ﷺ
has accomplished his mission by establishing the Tawhid and
eradicating the basis of Shirk which were prevalent in the
Arabia. As for managing the affairs of the state, he left a legacy of some very
basic principles which led his successors to establish a rule of peace and
justice. ‘Khilafah’ was the name by which this rule was known throughout
the long history of Islam till it was abolished in 1924 as an end for the
Ottoman empire.
2.
The concept of sovereignty is the
most important feature by which Khilafah is distinguished from
democracy. It belongs entirely to Allah Almighty in the former where it is
given to the public in the latter.
3.
Legislation, in the Khilafah
system rests completely on the two fundamental sources: the Quran and the
Sunnah. In all such matters where a clear evidence from these two sources are
not found, legislators are guided by consensus, analogy and other secondary
sources. On the other hand, democracy gives a free hand to the law-givers on
the basis of majority vote. It is said that the British Parliament, the mother
of all parliaments, can whatever it likes apart from transforming a man into a
woman and vice versa.
4.
The supreme body in Khilafah
known as the Majlis Shura (consultative body) was originally recognised
as a group of people who enjoy the authority of binding the Knots or undoing
them i.e. appointing a Khalifah or withdrawing him. For their selection,
a number of qualities, like morality, honesty and piety were primarily
required. In democracy, any person could be elected on the basis of majority
vote. He is liable for impeachment mostly on the basis of financial malpractice.
It is rightly said that through the process of election in a democracy, all the
rubbish could be collected from the four corners of the country and thrown in
the centre.
5.
Among the primary duties of Khilafah
is to establish the prayer and regulate the institution of Zakat,
enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil as given in this verse:
ٱلَّذِينَ إِن مَّكَّنَّـٰهُمۡ فِى ٱلۡأَرۡضِ أَقَامُواْ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ
وَءَاتَوُاْ ٱلزَّڪَوٰةَ وَأَمَرُواْ بِٱلۡمَعۡرُوفِ وَنَهَوۡاْ عَنِ ٱلۡمُنكَرِۗ
وَلِلَّهِ عَـٰقِبَةُ ٱلۡأُمُورِ
“(They
are) those who, if We establish them in the land, establish regular prayer and
give regular charity, enjoin the right and forbid wrong: with Allah rests the
end (and decision) of (all) affairs.”
(Surah
Hajj 22:41)
It means protection of religious values and maintaining the highest
standard of moralities.
In democracy, both these are left as a private matter for the
individual. Thus drinking alcohol for example, which is a punishable crime in
the former, is treated as a norm in the latter.
6.
During the days of the Prophet ﷺ,
legislation, governance and judiciary were all embodied in his person as he had
to set an example in all three of them for the generations to come. His
successors, in view of the expansion of the State and a vast majority of
duties, appointed Qazis (judges) to act independently. This had been the
practices throughout the Muslim caliphate for the last thirteen centuries. On
the other hand, all three institutions work independently in a democratic
system. It seems to be brilliant but it leaves the government hand-folded when,
in major crises, legislation is left and delayed to the mercy of the
parliament. In a number of so-called democracies, parliament is no more than a rubber-stamping
institution.
7.
Sharia, the law upheld in the Khilafah,
maintains to preserve the five maxims: Preservation of religious values, the
human soul, the intellect, the wealth and the purity of the progeny. In a
democracy, the religion remains a private act for the individuals. Politicians
are seen speaking about the basic ethical values to be maintained and honoured
but they hardly admit that the religions had been the source of all such
values.
8.
The concept of a ruling party
which is constantly challenged by an opposition party Is the main feature of a
democracy. Superficially it seems to be a laudable conventional way of
governance but it sows the seeds of confrontation among the groups to the
extent of developing prejudice for one’s group whether it is right or wrong. In
Khilafah, the consultative council works as a collective body which may
have different groups but they all had to work for the benefit of the people
and the protection of the State as a whole. They are guided by the reasoning
based upon the evidence and not by the prejudices for one’s group against the
other.
9.
In view of the development in the
political systems throughout the ages, the presidential system as practiced the
U.S.A seems to be more in line with the election of a Khalifah Islamically.
The hereditary appointment of a Khalifah, though it had been tolerated
by the Muslims throughout the ages, due to the need of a tribal backing, as
explained by Ibn Khaldūn, falls short of the criteria set by the rightly guided
four successors of the Prophet ﷺ.
The duality of the British parliamentary system, i.e. elected government
working with monarchy had been the product of Britain’s political history for
the last one thousand years. The monarch has been replaced by a powerless
president elsewhere. Democracy has failed to redress this situation.
10. Are
there some common grounds between these two systems? Yes, they share the
following:
(i)
Consultation on a wider scale.
(ii)
Government being a social contract
between the subject and the rulers
(iii)
Preservation of the rights of the
subjects on the basis of equality.
(iv)
Above all to maintain justice and
equity.
11. As
for the electorates, a certain age is required for the voters in a democracy. A
similar trend is found amongst the Muslim jurists to ask for certain basic
ethical requirements for a person to be eligible to vote. Presently, the right
of vote for prisoners is being looked at by the British law-makers.
I conclude by saying that democracy is in need of a lot of reforms to
make it a fully representative body reflecting the aspirations of all the
citizens. As for Khilafah, the soul and substance is there but a
structure according to modern requirement is badly needed.
To sum up, I quote the saying of an Islamic party’s founder:
“Islam is not democracy, but democracy is found in Islam.”
وصلى الله وسلم على نبينا
محمد وعلى آله وصحبه أجمعين
And
peace and blessings upon our prophet Muhammad, upon all his family and
companions.
Bibliography
The author preferred to mention here all such books from which he has
benefitted during the writing of this paper whether or not they have been
quoted.
A.
Arabic:
1.
Muhammad bin Isma’īl Al-Bukhari:
Al-Jami’ Al-Sahih, Riyadh, 1999.
2.
Muslim bin Al-Hajjaj Al-Qushairi
(with English translation by Abdul Hameed Siddiqi), Lahore, 1975.
3.
Muhammad bin ‘Įsa al-Tirmidhi:
Al-Sunan, Beirut
4.
Ahmed bin Hanbal: Musnad, Riyadh
5.
Al-Mawardi: Al-Ahkām
al-Sultania.
6.
Isma’īl bin ‘Umar bin Kathir: Al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya, Cairo.
7.
Mausa’ā Nadratul – Na’im, Jeddah.
8.
Al-Majalla al-‘Ilmiya (European Council for Fatwa & Research), Issue
10-11, Dublin.
B.
Urdu
9.
Hanif Nadwi: Afkar Ibn Khaldūn,
Lahore.
10. ‘Abdul
Raūf Malik: Maghrib Ke Azim Falsafi, Lahore.
11. Muhammad
Asshad: Islami Riyasat Ki Tashkil Jadid, Lahore.
12. Abul
Kashif Qadri: 100 Azim Shakhsiyat, Lahore
C.
English
13. Bertrand
Russell: History of Western Philosophy, London & New York.
14. Richard
Swift: Democracy, Oxford.
15. E.W.F.
Tomlin: Philosophers of East and West, London.
16. Terri
Hardin: A Portrait of Greece, Printed in Indonesia.
No comments:
Post a Comment