Some Basic
Principles of the Islamic State
In recent
years numerous independent Muslim states have emerged in Asia and Africa.
Coincidental with their emergence, national organizations and parties have
come into being, intent upon basing their forms of government on the principles
of the Shari'ah. Various views have been advanced as to the proper form
of Islamic rule and the manner of formulating constitutions compatible
with the requirements of Islam and capable of achieving its purposes.
Because
of their wide geographic distribution, Islamic states comprise different
peoples, cultures, traditions, customs, and forms of government. The needs
of these states vary with different locations and social environments.
Hence no one uniform constitution would be applicable to all, since the
circumstances and interests of each country call for interpretations based
on independent reasoning in order to produce the constitution most compatible
with the purposes sought by the Shari'ah. Indeed, this variety of constitutions
and forms of government may be more effective in realizing the objectives
of Muslim law than a single uniform constitution, provided they comply
with the general principle of the Shari'ah and the moral norms of Islam.
This is because diversity in laws regulating public matters may be in itself
necessary for the realization of the purposes of the Shari'ah, which aims
at the interests of Muslims living under different conditions.
The emergence
and evolution of Islamic jurisprudence, together with the diversity of
views advanced by scholars and jurists who sought to interpret its provisions
and who were definitely affected by their local conditions and circumstances,
may be a good guide to what we think is right in this regard.
Thus, the
Islamic constitution sought by the Indonesians, Pakistanis, Arabs, or other
Islamic peoples may be similar and compatible in essence although different
in their details the laws, decrees, and proceedings rendered necessary
by the needs and the general welfare of the community. What, then, are
the ideal constitution and Islamic form of government capable of unifying
Muslims without hampering legislative and social evolution, as called for
by the requirements of justice and general welfare at a given place or
time?
Upon perusal of the holy Book and Islamic traditions (Sunnah), and upon
examination of Islamic history during the era of the orthodox caliphs,
we find that Islam is definite and conclusive on all general principles
suitable for all times, places, and peoples. When these principles are
implemented, therefore, one can witness the flexibility of the Shari'ah
and its disposition to independent reasoning. The Shari'ah in effect upholds
the guidance given by the Prophet in his utterance,
"You know best your own earthly matters." Thus the way is open for
reason and human judgment to distinguish between right and wrong and to
choose the road to the general welfare.
This is perhaps
the virtue of Islam which renders it an eternal way of life and law for all
mankind and thus up holds the pronouncement of the Almighty,
"Surely We have revealed the Koran, and surely
We are its Guardian."1For
if Islam were otherwise, it would not have been a religion easy to observe.
It would have caused hardship to people at various times and places and would
not have met the challenge of their changing needs.
Thus,
with the clarity of Islam on general principles and morals, the fact that
it relegates many matters to settlement by interpretation and reasoning
is not a source of weakness in its eternal laws but of continued life.
Let us now advance some examples.
Islam does not approve of a state based on the domination and power of one person
or party. Its concept is that a state must be based on the consent and cooperation
of the people. Islam commands consultation in the injunctions,
"We have not sent thee [Muhammad]
as a warder [a tyrant]
over them";2"…
consult them in appropriate matters [amr]"3;
and "Their [the
Muslims'] affairs are [decided]
by consultation among themselves."4
It has made consultation a general principle whose application is mandatory
and whose observance is to be respected by all Islamic states and communities
at all times. Human experience has demonstrated the continuous character of
this principle and its uses. However, Islam avoided defining a single method
for consultation or specifying certain forms from which we were to select whatever
might be suitable at a given time or place, for such particulars would have
caused us hardship; the choice of the rules regulating consultation was left
to us, with trust in our loyalty to our religion and to ourselves. The Prophet
says that deeds are to be
judged by their intent, and that every person will be rewarded by God according
to his intentions. It has been left to us
to decide, within the scope of this principle, the forms of consultation and
the manner in which it should be conducted with a view to meeting our needs
and securing general stability and the consent and satisfaction of the people.
Therefore, we find that the principal Companions of the Prophet (Sahabah), followed
by the heads of state (Imams) and jurists, exercised independent reasoning on
this subject. They put forth varying views regarding the manner in which consultation
was to be conducted, and left to us a valuable legacy of varied precedents:
1. In the early days, matters were referred to the people at the
mosque or to a selected group at a meeting, or a number of the principal
Companions of the Prophet were invited for an exchange of views.
2. At a later date, consultation was held by referring the problem,
on a special occasion, to those among and the dignitaries present.
3.Then we find that in certain cases it was confined to one or more
persons selected by the head of state for their sound judgment and the
public respect which they enjoyed.
The heart
of the matter was the good intentions of the leaders of the people, their
fear of the Almighty, and their compliance with His commands. Within this
context, they made use of consultation in a manner satisfactory to themselves
and in harmony with the circumstances and the needs of the time.
Muslims have long
agreed that the competent consultants should be ahl al-hall wal'aqd, meaning
those who loosen and bind. The criterion of their authority is that if
they agree on a course of action, it will be accepted by the people, and
if they repudiate it, it will be rejected by the community.
Once we determine who are the
competent persons suitable to be considered as natural leaders whom people follow,
we then will have found those who truly enjoy public confidence, and the nation
is ideally represented by them. The problem, however, which has persisted throughout
Islamic history concerns, in the first place, the
question of agreement as to who should be designated as natural leaders, whose
approval, for instance, would suffice to guarantee the people's election of
a caliph, and, second, the manner of selecting these electors.
Opinion has been divided on these questions. Some have stipulated simply
that the leaders should be learned men; others have said they would designate
both scholars and other prominent figures in the community; still others have
favored those scholars who are capable of independent reasoning.5
The truth,
of course, is that the determination of natural leaders is not a simple
matter. City dwellers differ from those in the country, since the social
structure in rural areas is not the same as it is in centers of population
and industry. In one age, they may be composed of prominent scholars, and
in another, they may be the dominant figures in their tribes, regions,
or countries. In our age, they may be the leaders of parties, communities,
or unions. Hence the question raises genuine differences of opinion as
to how to define, recognize, and select natural leaders who will fulfill
their important functions of legalizing the authority of the ruler and
representing the people in all matters. Consideration must be given to
differences among peoples, traditions, and customs as well as among the
various generations and times.
Therefore, a constitution
formulated in a manner enabling these leaders or representatives of the
people to express their opinion and permitting the Imam to consult with
them varies in accordance with the considerations already referred to.
What may occur in this respect in the form or constitution of one Islamic
state may be at variance with the provisions of another, but whatever the
means, they ultimately must be based on the sovereignty of Muslim law-
the Shari'ah-and rest on the free consent of the people. This may serve
to clarify what is subject to reasoning and what to tradition in choosing
a form of government and writing a constitution consistent with Islam and
its purposes.
Another example of the specific application of the Shari'ah is provided
by the question of the imamate, that is, the selection of the head of state:
the qualifications of an imam, his rights, and his duties. In this respect,
we also find that the Shari'ah is clear as to what is established and permanent
in matters relating to the imam himself and the imamate, leaving flexible
and unspecified other matters to be determined by the exercise of reasoning
and considerations of public interest and general welfare.
Ever since the Muslims
met at Saqifat Bani-Sa'idah following the death of the Prophet and declared
their allegiance to Abu-Bakr, the imamate has been the subject of dispute
among Muslims, giving rise to various schools of thought. Even though the
great majority have adopted the views of the orthodox Muslims (ahl al-sunnah),
the subject is not devoid of differences in many details. It may be said
that the Muslims did not unanimously agree except on two points: the imperative
necessity of the imamate itself to prevent chaos, and their desire to observe
the tenets of their religion.
It is not our
intention at this point to deal with the theoretical aspects of this subject
or to question the beliefs and views which are still held by many sects,
including the Sunnites (90
percent of the Muslims), Shi'ites, and Ibadites. This dispute is
merely referred to in order to point up the distinction between what is
mandatory according to the Shari'ah and what may be left to discretion.
The latter is decided in a manner compatible with the public interest,
the requirements of life, and the circumstances of the particular time
and place.
When we consider
these differences, we find that they include many matters relating to the imamate,
even the title itself. Hence the Muslims called the head of state a Khalifah
(successor to the Prophet), an amir al-mu' minin (commander of the faithful),
an imam (leader), and a sultan (ruler or king).6
This difference
of opinion began immediately after the Prophet passed away. When the people
met at Saqifat Bani-Sa'idah, the situation was far from clear to them.
The Ansar, from al-Madinah, said to the Meccan Muhiajirun,
"One amir from us and another from you," while the latter said, "From us
the amirs and from you the ministers." In other words, one faction
upheld the principle of the singularity of the imam, and the other upheld
the principle of plurality. By general consensus, Abu-Bakr was chosen as
the one leader because of his outstanding character. In the words of `Umar,
"Abu-Bakr towered above all others."
We are not concerned here with
discussing the basic need for the imamate or whether this matter should be left
to discretion, religious law, or other considerations, since the question was
resolved by the unanimous decision (ijma') of the Companions of the Prophet
at the proper time.7The
Muslims, having established the imamate, proceeded to lay down the imam's rights
and duties in order to guarantee him the powers necessary for guarding their
earthly and spiritual interests in a totally new society, born as the result
of Muhammad's teaching, guidance, and struggle. This was to be a self-supporting
and mutually reliant society in which all people would enjoy complete equality
as dependents of Allah, the only distinction among them being piety, and in
which no one would exercise authority except by law emanating from the Shari'ah.
It was indeed a revolutionary society founded on completely new principles and
established in a world used to the divine right of kings and the force of arms
of emperors.
It
was in this society that the imamate emerged, the Shari'ah prevailed and
new rules and principles of a highly sacred and progressive character were
established. These rules and principles have developed into a permanent
constitution for Muslims under which no ruler may grant or adopt any privilege
or power except within the framework of Shari'ah. It defines public and
individual rights and duties, and no earthly body, even the nation itself,
can alter or modify these human rights and duties. Under these rules and
principles, for instance, the imamate is a trust, with the imam as a trustee,
acting within the general principles of the constitution and in accordance
with public welfare.
As
a unique and unprecedented Islamic institution, the imamate cannot produce
its finest results except in a devout nation whose affairs are regulated
by a clear constitution based on the Shari'ah and changeable at the will
of the nation within its specific regulations to meet the changing interests
and needs of the community.
Experience
through the ages has indicated that if a Muslim nation becomes corrupt
and tyranny pervades all its ranks, the people will not be bound by the
limits of the Shari'ah and disorder will prevail. Under such conditions,
the rights and duties of both the governor and the governed would be neglected,
strife would be rampant, and the supremacy of the law would be challenged.
These calamities may only be averted by the re-establishment of an Islamic
order and a constitution based on popular support, giving effect to the
divine will. It would clearly embody those fundamental principles which
are eternal as well as those of a subordinate nature which are susceptible
to change in order to meet the interests of the public. For the Shari'ah
has vested in us Muslims the right to exercise discretion and reason to
achieve its purpose of securing stability, satisfaction, and the orderly
Muslim life.
What,
then, are the accepted principles regulating the office of the head of
the Islamic state? After reviewing numerous opinions of Islamic scholars
and jurists belonging to various schools of thought, and upon examination
of Islamic history, I feel that the Shari'ah, out of divine wisdom, laid
down only a few basic principles pertaining to the office of the head of
state.
These
basic principles include the installation of an imam, who should be of
mature age and a man of wisdom, enjoy popular support, and be a person
who draws on the assistance of good citizens and on the counsel of the
natural leaders. In addition, he is expected to be a guardian over the
interests of all his subjects and an upholder of the law. But if he disobeys
the commands of God and disregards the interests of the people, he will
be repudiated. Apart from these few principles, the Shari'ah has left it
to people to endeavor through reasoning to adopt whatever additional conditions
may suit them best, in a manner compatible with the general tenets of Islam
and its universal character.
On the question
of national sovereignty and the principle that the nation is the source
of all power within the accepted meaning of the present age, Islam has
its own and independent course at variance with that of modern concepts
of sovereignty.
Islam is a universal
religion with its proper ideology and principles relating to dogma, law,
morals, ideals, rights, and obligations; it is not bound by locality, race,
nationality, or scolor. Thus, Islam's concept of sovereignty lies in the
Shari'ah. In other words, it lies in those eternal principles of Islam
on which its mission has been predicated. Therefore, it is not the prerogative
of a nation-as a whole or in part, whether in agreement with the head of
state or not, whether represented by a constituent assembly or not-to tamper
with the eternal charter of rights and duties ordained by God for all men,
singly and collectively, in a particular land and through out the human
race at large. These principles are sovereign and eternal, because
it is only by the will of God that their continuity is maintained. This
is a great and a fundamental Islamic concept, of which Islamic scholars
should always be conscious. It should be advocated and made known particularly
in this age, because it raises the common bonds of humanity above race
or nationality and establishes human rights at a higher level than national
sovereignty or national interests.
At the present
time, sovereignty has different meanings to non-Muslims (and their emulators
among Muslims) and to Muslims. In Islam, it comprises several component
forces that combine to establish its authority. These are the Shari'ah,
the nation, and the imam, who is the guardian of the Shari'ah and the chosen
of the people. By virtue of these factors, the Islamic order is superior
to others. It safeguards the general principles of morality and the foundations
of public justice, human equality, and brotherhood. It predicates rights
and duties upon principles of universality and eternity as commanded by
the Almighty, and it thereby blocks the way to personal preferences and
passions, fanaticism, and partisanship. No nation, king, head of state,
or layman can repudiate human rights and duties on the pretext that the
nation is free in the exercise of its full sovereignty.
Hence, the
meaning of sovereignty under the Shari'ah is different from that conceived
of in the constitutions of non-Muslims as well as present Muslim constitutions
that are modeled upon them, because these last rest on national sovereignty.
As we have already indicated, in Islam, sovereignty does not materialize
except through a combination of three elements: the Shari'ah, the nation
represented by its leaders, and the chosen imam, the head of state. In
them jointly lies the power called sovereignty. In early times, it resided
with kings; outside Islam, in recent times, it belongs to the people; in
Islam, it is embodied in this trinity.
This concept of sovereignty
under Islam guards against human passions and indulgence in obtuse opinions.
It is a safeguard for human rights and duties without parallel in the ideologies
of nations either prior or subsequent to the establishment of Islam.
The expression
of this sovereignty may not be exercised by a single will, as, for example,
in the name of the people, represented by a majority party, or in the name
of a king, or in the name of a dictatorship, whether communist or otherwise.
It can only be exercised through the will of God, as expressed in His sacred
Law, and the will of the state, as expressed through the nation and the
government combined. From these joint three wills, human rights and duties
are specified and safeguarded in all lands and at all times.
When, for
instance, the Koran says, "Lo! Allah enjoineth justice
and kindness, and given [to others],"8
and "Let not hatred
of a people incite you not to act equitably; be just; that is nearer to piety
and observance of duty,"9and
"O ye who believe! Be ye staunch in justice, witnesses
for Allah, even though it be against yourselves or [your]
parents or [your]
kindred . ,"10then
not the nation nor the imamate nor both together can go beyond justice and equity
as directed by the Shari'ah, even if it were to be done in the name of national
sovereignty and the right of a country to what is called self-determination.
It follows that the nation
itself should not be the sole source of power, in the sense of being at liberty
to do anything it deems fit with itself or others. Such freedom of action is
restricted by the principles of public morality, of justice, and of human rights
and duties as ordained by God. But the nation is completely free to adopt its
own form of government and constitution and to enact statutes within the limits
of this joint sovereignty. It is sovereign over all matters, but must conduct
itself within the limits of the revealed Law of a higher authority, namely,
that of God, the Source of existence, Who has placed man on earth and entrusted
him with the responsibility of government with a view to safeguarding justice
and equity. Thus says the Koran: "O David! Lo! We have
set thee as a viceroy [made thee a ruler]
in the earth; therefore judge aright between mankind, and follow not desire
lest it beguile thee from the way of Allah. Lo! those who wander from the way
of Allah have an awful doom, for as much as they forgot the Day of Reckoning."11
Yes, the
nation is the source of power. Under the Shari'ah, kings and heads of state
can only rule with the consent of the nation. It is the nation that sets
up and regulates the state, elects its government, and determines what
is in its interest and what is not. In all these matters, the nation is
the source of power, a power which, however, must function within the orbit
of Islamic principles.
Because it relates
to divine directives, the sovereignty of the Shari'ah may not be repudiated
by individual or collective action or by any other force. All views or
actions which form a barrier between the people on the one hand and justice
and right as ordained by Islam on the other have no justification or support
in the Islamic religion, even though they may have the support of the sultan
or the nation. A nation may not trespass on the interests of people of
other lands, or act through its laws and legislation without regarding
the welfare of others. Likewise, the majority may not arbitrarily legislate
against or act unjustly in relation to individual or collective rights
on the assumption that it thereby expresses the general will or majority
of the nation at a given time.
This concept
of sovereignty imprinted on the minds of contemporary Islamic as well as
non-Islamic nations, which inspires complete freedom of action in the national
interest, is wrong from a theoretical Islamic point of view. Islam has
established certain sacred principles of law for all mankind. It is not
bound by what is known as national interest if this interest is incompatible
with the interest of all people. Its pursuit of the general welfare supersedes
what may appear to be the welfare of a special community. On this point,
the right arising from national sovereignty, as conceived by interpreters
of modern democratic constitutions, is qualified by and subject to the
general rights of humanity at large, as determined by Islam.
I have touched
on three subjects in the course of discussing the basic forms of an Islamic
state: consultation, the office of the head of state, and the sovereignty
of the nation. These involve the major principles upon the interpretations
of which constitutions generally are based. They have been provided by
Islam through its historic evolution and by the views of Islamic jurists
and theologians. They are unambiguous and well-defined with regard to established
and eternal principles, and changeable and flexible wherever change and
flexibility are desirable.
The principal
objective of the discussion, now that people in all Islamic lands are examining
the form of Islamic rule and the constitutions proper to themselves, is
to demonstrate in particular to the Muslims by some examples that their
religion is practical, that it does not entail hardships, and that the
forms of Islamic constitutions may vary in order to serve the public interest
and to realize what is good and avoid what is harmful so long as they remain
within the limits of eternal Islamic principles.
Provided that Muslims act in
good faith with due respect for the Shari'ah and set up constitutional regimes
compatible with their conditions, they will be establishing Islamic forms of
government more suitable and beneficial to them than those systems in which
they only imitate what are called communist democracies or capitalist democracies.
In this way, the Muslim people would set an example for others, as they are
called upon to do by the holy Koran when it says, "Thus
we have made you a middle nation"12that
is, opposed to all extremes-and they would succeed in solving problems that
have proved to be insoluble to others. They would also meet the spiritual and
physical needs of man, thereby affording civilization and human life the two
indispensable ingredients for peace, stability, and prosperity. A human being
is no animal whose only concern is fulfillment of natural appetites; neither
is he an angel whose total endeavors are directed toward the spirit. Adopting
moderate courses has been a characteristic of the Islamic Message. It has taken
into consideration the continuous needs of the spirit and the body. To regulate
these needs, it enunciated eternal rules which may not be repudiated, and left
subordinate matters subject to change in a manner consistent with the changing
interest of this world.
The eternal Islamic
Message is concerned with the public interest of humanity at large, which
cannot be superseded by any interest claimed by a particular class or nation
for itself. It has established public authority to define and regulate
the particular rights and duties of citizens, provided that its power is
derived from the three combined elements of sovereignty already defined
and from its consistent loyalty to general human rights, which are also
an integral part of the duties of any Islamic government. It has enjoined
all nations to refrain from acting on the supposition of their supremacy
and assuming that the interests of any one nation take precedence over
those of another. In this regard, the Koran says,
" And be not
like unto her who unraveleth the thread, after she hath made it strong, to thin
filaments, making your oaths a deceit between you because of a nation being
more numerous [stronger]
than another nation."13
"Thus We have
made you a middle nation, that ye may be witness over the people, and that the
Prophet may be a witness over you."14