Mar 2004 - Issue 3

Read rest of the article » 1 2 3 4

Islamic Political Thought: Parallels or Anti-parallels?

Unleashing the myths and mysteries of western thought of Islam as merely a doctrine of religious beliefs, Faisal Idrees argues what he calls "Autonomous Sovereignty" within the limits of Quran and Sunnah.

Faisal Idrees

Faisal Idrees ...

Islamic History and Muslim Scholars

We have come out of an academic discussion. Now we shall be analyzing historical events and political realities. As we enter into a new phase of discussion. It will be very useful that we revise and redefine the question we are confronted with. So when we ask this that “are people sovereign in Islam?” What do we actually mean to imply? What are the other questions, which confront us when we say, “yes people are sovereign”?

Having proved that sole source of power and strength is the Allah Almighty; do we mean to say, that Allah and His angels are physically involved in the governance of a state? Of course not, is the obvious answer. It is the men themselves who shall be arranging for any type of government. After placing theoretically all powers in Allah, when sovereignty is given to citizens it means following things.

Any government that is formed will be only due to the consensus of the majority of people.
Whenever there is some decision to be made, again it will be referred to people.
Whatever a government or the rulers do is accountable to public.
As the government or state has functional powers, thus checks and balances on it to safeguard people against any sort of tyranny or exploitation.

Now we shall examine different types of governments in Islamic history on the basis of these above points. To begin with, we first analyze first four guided caliphs. Abu Bakr (R.A) was made caliphs and presented him in front of public. His first address is very suitable example. It encompasses almost all the above four points. He said:

“O people! I have been made caliph against my will. I relieve you of your obligations to follow me. You can make anybody, you wish, your caliph.”

All the people present there said that they accept him as their caliph. He then said:

“Follow me if I go by Quran and Sunnah. You have no obligation to follow me if I go astray. Your weak will be powerful for me until I get him his right. And your powerful will be weak for me until I take from him the share of rightful.”

Subsequent events in his caliphate proved his words true. He lived up to his words and set a precedent for his successors and for the rest of Muslims.
Then comes the Umar (R.A), although he was not elected but he was the first one to establish proper institutions in the government. We know from historical accounts that how strict he was in implementing the rule of law and accountability. There are many instances when an ordinary citizen complained against a high official and was responded properly. Simple citizens in front of the whole gathering held even once Umar (R.A) accountable in the mosque. And once Amr bin Alaas, the governor of Egypt was brought to Umar (R.A) by ordinary Egyptian to reciprocate for the slap Amr had given him.

He was of the view that caliph was accountable only to God and not the people.
Bait-ul-mal (Treasury) was not a public possession but that of Allah.
He appointed most of the officials and governors from his own clan.
Usman (R.A) beat Ammar (R.A), a companion of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H), when he openly criticized his policies.

These were clear violations of the principles set by his predecessors. This was an encroachment on the sovereignty of society. This was bitterly opposed by almost all the companions Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) present at that time and even the wives of the Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H), especially Ayesha (R.A) openly criticized his policies. The caliph won’t mend his ways and refused to leave the office even on public demand. This contributed to further escalate the situation and wrongdoers from Egypt took the advantage of the situation and murdered the caliph. From this incident one can judge that how strong was the idea of people’s sovereignty in the early society of Islam. Even very close companion and son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) i.e. Usman (R.A) was not spared from bitter opposition when he tried to violate this principle. This event set a new dimension to the political history of Islam. After this a brief period of Ali (R.A) caliphate is the time when the Islamic state respected the people’s right to sovereignty. Then came the kings who were as much monarchs as other kings were, in other parts of the world. All the Islamic history is the history of monarchs, even to this day, who branded themselves as caliphs. In the early and later part of the nineteen century most of the Islamic world experienced and new phenomenon that was subjugation or colonialism. The nations of the west, captured many Islamic countries. Through this contact came the western ideas of self-rule, independence, self-determination, freedom of speech and democracy. These actually were the same principles, which Islam had given to humanity 1400 years ago. But the, Europeans had evolved them in their own environment and
circumstances. Muslims being the subjects naturally got influenced. They got their independences using the same tools. Mid 20th century witnessed the emergence of many Muslim nation states on the map of the world.
Almost all of these newly born countries adopted the same systems with little differences they also tried to keep the banner of Islam up by including certain Islamic provisions into their constitutions. Except few monarchies, all the other countries based their systems on the basic principle of free will of people that were asserted through assemblies etc.

1. Qazi Abu Yusuf

In the kitaab-ul-kharaj, Qazi Abu-Yusuf the leading hanafi jurist at the court of the Abbasid caliph Haroon-ur-Rasheed, while elaborating the revenue code, which he had formulated on the request of the court, emphasized on the need of virtuous conduct from the caliph. Harron-ur-Rasheed was reminded that he was in charge of a sacred trust, which required him to establish a just society, based on the principles of God consciousness.
This clearly shows that the leading hanafi jurist and only second to Imam Abu-Hanifa had reconciled with the stark reality of the monarchy. He finds the king or so called caliph tolerable as long as he up holds the laws of shariah. He even goes to the length of appointing to him the sacred trust, for which the caliph is not qualified in the light of shariah itself. This can not be understood but a compromise of the leading scholar.