During the past two centuries, a lot has been written and
said about the political philosophy of Islam. In particular, subsequent to the
dismemberment of the institution of Khilāfat in the first quarter of the last
century, which signaled the end of the great Ottoman Empire in Turkey, Muslim
scholarship endeavored to frame and formulate the political set-up envisaged by
Islam. Without taking anything away from this enterprise, this effort would have
been more fruitful and productive had it not been for one misconception: Islam
provides a complete political system requiring only implementation in favorable
circumstances. In spite of the tremendous amount of work being produced in this
regard, Muslim scholarship today appears defeated in part because of this
misconception. This misconception, can, seemingly, only be removed if the whole
issue is approached and reviewed with primary attention on the Qur’ān and Sunnah.
We must
appreciate that man has been blessed with the faculty of intellect and reason,
as well as with innate guidance regarding good and evil. In the affairs of life,
his intellect and innate guidance are generally enough to guide and show him the
righteous way. It is only at certain crossroads that he needs divine guidance to
assist in choosing the right course. In addition, at these crossroads, a
detailed system of directives has not been divinely revealed to guide mankind:
only a broad outline has been given comprised of a set of rules and regulations
which must be adhered to. With this in mind, intellect and reason must evolve a
system suited to the requirements and needs of a society. Since these
requirements vary with time and place, the resulting systems will also vary
accordingly. However, these systems shall be based on the same set of rules and
regulations. In other words, the law, which is a set of rules and regulations is
divine and, therefore, eternal, but the system administering this law is a human
inference and, therefore, flexible. This flexibility, obviously, has been left
to accommodate changing circumstances and evolutionary developments in human
societies.
Therefore, instead of extracting a political system from
the Qur’ān and Sunnah which, of course, does not exist, dedicated efforts should
be made by Muslim scholars to understand the political law of Islam. The task of
formulating a system on its basis should be left to political scientists and to
those who understand the intricacies of this field.
____________
Working on the pattern outlined above, Javed Ahmad Ghamidi
(b:1951), has attempted to derive the political law of Islam from the Qur’ān and
Sunnah. Some of the important issues he has discussed and the conclusions he has
drawn are summarized below:
First, the form of government envisaged by Islam is neither
a theocracy nor a monarchy. It is more akin to democracy as a Muslim government
comes into existence on the basis of a public mandate and continues to exist as
long as it commands the support of the majority.
The second issue which is somewhat linked to the first
pertains to the interpretation of the Hadīth ‘اَلاَِْئمَّةُ
مِنْ قُرَيْش’ ([After me], the rulers shall be from the Quraysh).
Regarding this Hadīth, most Muslim authorities are of the opinion that the ruler
of an Islamic State must belong to the tribe of Quraysh. Ghamidi argues that
this Hadīth must be understood on the basis of the Qur’ānic verse: ‘أَمْرُهُمْ
شُورَى بَيْنَهُمْ’ (Their system is based on their consultation). An
obvious corollary of this verse is that in case of a difference of opinion in
any matter, the opinion of the majority shall prevail. Therefore, in the
election of a Muslim ruler, the person who commands the support of the majority
shall stand elected. Consequently, in his opinion, the Prophet (sws) has only
applied this principle in the circumstances which prevailed in Arabia in his
times and has stated the result in the above mentioned Hadīth. It is evident
that after the conquest of Makkah, the Quraysh held the support of the majority;
consequently, they were considered eligible for this position of authority.
Similarly, in the election of the four Rightly Guided Caliphs this principle was
also adhered to. Today, only that person shall be elected to rule who enjoys the
support of the majority. In other words, the Hadīth stated above is only an
application of the Qur’ānic principle of ‘أَمْرُهُمْ شُورَى
بَيْنَهُمْ’ (Their system is based on their consultation) in the period
of the Prophet (sws) and as such is not a universal directive.
The third issue concerns the conditions of citizenship,
which, when fulfilled, permit a Muslim’s participation in the affairs of state
through stating his opinion whenever it is required. The Qur’ān explicitly
states that once a person establishes the prayer and pays Zakāh, he shall
legally be regarded as a Muslim and be entitled to all the rights a Muslim has
in an Islamic State. As far as non-Muslims are concerned, the Sharī‘ah has not
legislated anything regarding the nature of their citizenship. It has left their
matter to specific circumstances and to international agreements and accords
that may exist.
The fourth issue relates to the extent of legislation which
can be done by the parliament of an Islamic State. According to the Qur’ān,
besides two positive demands – the prayer and Zakāh – there is only one basis of
legislation: only those laws can be enacted that enforce what has been
prohibited in Islam. For example, laws can be enacted against theft, adultery,
murder and things which endanger the life, wealth and property of the people,
but except for the prayer and Zakāh, an Islamic State cannot forcefully demand
anything from the believers. It cannot, for example, compel a Muslim to fast nor
can it compel him to perform Hajj even if he has the financial position to do
so.
For the benefit of the English reader, I have attempted to
render Ghamidi’s article in English from Urdu
so that readers may critically analyze and judge the arguments which have led
him to the above mentioned conclusions.
___________________
|