[Part 1 of 4]
Islam’s Principle for State Governance
The fundamental principle for Islam’s desired form of governance is laid down as follows:
اَمْرُھُمْ شُوْرٰی بَیْنَھُمْ. (الشوریٰ ۴۲: ۳۸)
( .Amruhum shūrā baynahum.)
Their collective system is based on mutual consultation. (Quran 42:38)
The pronoun 'هُم' (their)1 in this verse refers to true believers, as it portrays one of their prominent qualities. The context is as follows:
فَما أوتيتُم مِن شَيءٍ فَمَتاعُ الحَياةِ الدُّنيا، وَما عِندَ اللَّهِ خَيرٌ وَأَبقىٰ لِلَّذينَ آمَنوا وَعَلىٰ رَبِّهِم يَتَوَكَّلونَ. وَالَّذينَ يَجتَنِبونَ كَبائِرَ الإِثمِ وَالفَواحِشَ وَإِذا ما غَضِبوا هُم يَغفِرونَ. وَالَّذينَ استَجابوا لِرَبِّهِم وَأَقامُوا الصَّلاةَ وَأَمرُهُم شورىٰ بَينَهُم وَمِمّا رَزَقناهُم يُنفِقونَ. (الشوریٰ ۴۲: ٣٦-۳۸)
So, whatever you have [O people] is only the [paltry, fleeting] wherewithal of this worldly life. But far superior and durable is what God has in store for those who believe and put their trust in their Lord; who abstain from grave sins and gross indecencies, and forgive when angered; those who respond to their Lord’s call, uphold the [mandatory] prayer, whose system is based on mutual consultation, and who donate from what We have provided them. (42:36-38)
Regarding the importance of this principle of consultation, Muhammad Asad  in his translation and commentary on the Quran writes:
‘“Whose rule (in all matters of common concern) is consultation among themselves;” this particular qualification of true believers [was] regarded by the Prophet’s Companions as so important that they always referred to this sūrah by the key-word “consultation” (shūrā) […]. [I]t lays down the principle that all their communal business must be transacted in mutual consultation.’2
The three-word sentence amruhum shūrā baynahum (42:38) encompasses an ocean of meaning. It is a typical example of the conciseness found in the Quran, demanding deliberation and elucidation:
The first word is 'أَمر' (amr), which has been used in several meanings in the Quran. Its usage and context evidently suggest that, here, it connotes ‘system’. This connotation results from the extension of its most popular meaning, ‘directive’. When a directive relates to many people, it defines its boundaries and brings about certain rules and regulations. In that case, this word is applicable to directives pertaining to the formation of political authority, the directives emanating from that authority, and to the governance of the entire community through such directives. To encompass all these aspects, we can more explicitly use the term ‘collective system’3. In the same connotation, the Prophet’s aunt Ṣafiyyah bint ‘Abd Al-Muṭṭalib (رضي الله عنها) used this word in one of her couplets as follows:
الا من مبلغ عني قریشًا
ففیم الامر فینا والإمار
‘Hark! Who will deliver my message to the Quraysh that if they do not accept our nobility and eminence, they should tell why is the collective system in our hands? And why are we considered worthy of consultation?’
Since the Quran has not qualified the noun amr by any adjective except annexing it to a third-person pronoun, it shall be understood to incorporate every aspect of the collective system. Thus, municipal problems, national and provincial affairs, political and social directives, legislative rules, delegation and abrogation of power, appointment and dismissal of public representatives (rulers), interpretation of communal rulings of Islam, and all other collective affairs shall be subjected to the principle specified in this verse.
Next comes the word 'شورىٰ' (shūrā). It is a verbal noun of the form 'فُعْلى' (fu‘lā) and means ‘consultation’. Since it has occurred as a predicate in a nominal sentence, the meaning of this verse does not remain the same as of another verse (3:159), often confused with it: 'شَاوِرْهُمْ فِي الْأَمْرِ، فَإِذَا عَزَمْتَ فَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّه' (Keep consulting them in matters of public concern; then once you have made up your mind, put your trust in God). If the same meanings were intended here in 42:38, the phrasing should have been somewhat like this: 'وَفىِ الاَمْرِهُمْ يُشَاوَرُوْن' (And they are consulted in matters of public concern). In that case, it was necessary that the society be already divided into the ruler(s) and the ruled. The ruler or head of state could either have been appointed by God, nominated by an infallible leader (as in Shia Islam), or have seized power by force. In either case, once in power, the ruler could be obligated only insofar as to consult people before deciding a matter, but not to adhere to a majority decision or even unanimous consent of people. Contrary to this, amendment in the style and symmetry of the discourse especially adopted by the Quran to say amruhum shūrā baynahum demands that
- the appointment of the head of state must itself be based on consultation;
- the state system and the government must be formed and run through consultation;
- everyone, without exception, must have an equal right in consultation;
- whatever is done through consultation can also be undone through the same means;
- in case any consultation fails to reach an agreement, the dispute must be settled by a majority vote; and
- the majority opinion must reign supreme in all collective matters, insomuch that even an elected government should not have a right to reject or ignore it.
The following analogies may help illustrate the semantic difference between 42:38 and 3:159, respectively. If it is said that the ownership of a house shall be decided by mutual consultation of five sisters, it means that only these five individuals have the prerogative to decide this matter, and all of them have an equal say. It is ideal if they reach an agreement but in case of a split decision, a majority opinion shall prevail. On the other hand, if it is said that, while deciding the ownership of the house, these five sisters shall be consulted, then the implication is that the ultimate decision-power rests in some other hands. That authority, say their father, must consult his five daughters before deciding the matter, but he will not be bound to accept their majority opinion or even unanimous consent. Owing to such a difference, Mawlānā Maududi  eloquently elucidates the implications of 42:38 as follows:
‘The principle of "أَمرُهُم شورىٰ بَينَهُم"i4 intrinsically demands five things:
First, people, whose rights and welfare collective matters relate to, must have a complete freedom of expression, and they must be kept fully informed regarding how their affairs are being run. If they find any misconduct, deficiency, or negligence in the administration of their affairs, they must have a right to reprove, protest and, if needed, replace the administrators. To conduct people's affairs by stifling their voice, cuffing their hands and feet, and blindfolding them is sheer dishonesty. No sane person can regard such governance to be in line with this principle.
Second, the person who is to be entrusted to run collective affairs must be appointed by people's consent, and this consent must be a free one. The consent obtained by coercion and intimidation, bought by tempting and bribing, or grabbed by deception and guile is no consent. A nation’s true leader is not the one who acquires leadership by hook or by crook, but the one who is made a leader by people, out of their free choice and pleasure.
Third, personnel appointed as advisers to the leader of the nation must be those enjoying the trust and confidence of the nation. Obviously, those can never be acknowledged as true bearers of people’s confidence who acquire representative positions by coercion, bribery, falsehood, artifice, or misleading people.
Fourth, everyone involved in consultation must give their opinion according to the best of their knowledge, faith and conscience, and they must have full freedom of such expression. Where it is not so, and consultees are forced to opine against their knowledge and conscience owing to greed, fear, prejudice, or peer pressure, there will in fact be perfidy and treachery, rather than compliance with this principle.
Fifth, the proposal given by common consent or a majority must be accepted. That is because if an individual or a group, after listening to others, is free to do what it likes, then consultation becomes meaningless. God is not saying that “in their affairs, they are consulted” but that “their affairs are run by mutual consultation”. Just by taking counsel, the requirement of this saying does not fulfil; for that, it is necessary to run affairs according to what has been settled by consensus or a majority opinion.’
This is exactly what is termed ‘democracy’ and ‘democratic values’ in modern times. Islam, therefore, neither supports autocracy nor oligarchy, but democracy.
[To be continued...]
1 Appearing as the suffix ‘hum’ in ‘amruhum’.
2 Brackets mine, but not parentheses.
3 In Urdu, we typically use the word 'نظام' (niẓām) in this sense; the term 'نظم اجتماعی' (naẓm-i ijtamā‘ī) can also be used .
4 Translated by Maududi as ‘[they] run their affairs by mutual consultation’.
 M. Asad, The Message of the Qur’ān. London: The Book Foundation, 2008.
 S. A. A. Maududi, Tafhīm Al-Qur’ān, 6 vols. Lahore: Idārah Tarjumān Al-Qur’ān, 1985.
 M. ibn I. Bukhārī, Al-Jāmi‘ Al-Ṣaḥīh, 2nd ed. Riyadh: Dār Al-Salām, 1999.
 A. A. Islahi, Islamī Riyāsat. Lahore: Dār Al-Tadhkīr, 2006.
 ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abd Al-Raḥmān Al-Dārimī, Sunan Al-Dārimī, 2 vols. Riyadh: Dār Al-Mughnī, 2000.
 A. Y. Y. ibn I. Al-Anṣārī, Kitāb Al-Kharāj. Lahore: Maktaba-e-Rehmania, 2016.
 S. Numani, ʻUmar: An abridged edition of Shibli Numani’s ʻUmar Al-Fārūq. London: I. B. Tauris, 2004.
 A. ibn Ḥanbal, Al-Musnad. Riyadh: Dār Al-Salām, 2012.
 M. ibn Isḥāq, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2012.
 M. ibn Sa‘d, Al-Ṭabaqāt Al-Kubrā, Vol. 3. Beirut: Dār Al-Fikr, 1994.
 I. ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr Al-Qur’ān Al-Aẓīm, 4 vols. Lahore: Amjad Academy, 1982.
 J. A. Ghamidi, “Al-Islam Course (Mīzān Lectures): Qanūn-i Siyāsat.” Al-Mawrid, Pakistan, 2003.
 A. A. Islahi, Tadabbur-i Qur’ān, 9 vols. Lahore: Faran Foundation, 1985.
 J. A. Ghamidi, Al-Bayān, 5 vols. Lahore: Al-Mawrid, 2018.
 J. A. Ghamidi, “Ghamidi kae Sāth: Jamhūriyat, Islam kae Muṭābiq yā Khilāf,” Samaa TV, Dubai, 2012.
 M. ibn A.-Ḥajjāj Nīshapūrī, Al-Jāmi‘ Al-Ṣaḥīh. Riyadh: Dār Al-Salām, 2000.
 J. A. Ghamidi, “Mīzān Lectures: Qanūn-i Siyāsat.” Al-Mawrid, Malaysia, 2018.
 J. A. Ghamidi, Mīzān, 11th ed. Lahore: Al-Mawrid, 2018.
 J. A. Ghamidi, Maqamāt, 4th ed. Lahore: Al-Mawrid, 2017.
 J. A. Ghamidi, Burhān, 10th ed. Lahore: Al-Mawrid, 2018.
 J. A. Ghamidi, “Dars Qur’ān-o-Hadīth: Al-Anʻām.” Al-Mawrid, Malaysia, 2018.
 M. Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam. California: Stanford University Press, 2013.
 Dr. Javed Iqbal, “Ijtihad & Allama Iqbal,” Zain Khan, Pakistan, 2016.